Slashdot Mirror

Um... Climate Change?

Here is what the sitting Dem President has to say: “I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing.” - President Barack Obama, June 25, 2013" https://www.whitehouse.gov/ene...

Here is what the Dem candidate for President in 2016 says: "Clinton began her remarks at the National Clean Energy Summit by laying out the problems climate change is already causing today, including extreme weather and droughts. “[These are] the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face,” she said. “No matter what deniers say.”" http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hil...

Here is what the last Rep President had to say: " In 2001, President Bush decided to pull out of the negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol, a worldwide agreement to try to keep greenhouse gases down. Environmentalists were aghast. The president said he had his reasons. "That I felt the Kyoto Treaty was unrealistic. It was not based upon science. The stated that mandates in the Kyoto Treaty would affect our economy in a negative way."" http://www.npr.org/templates/s...

And here is what a Rep candidate for 2016 has to say about it: " Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, questions whether global warming is real, arguing that the "data are not supporting what the advocates are arguing." "The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that – that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn't happened," said Cruz." http://politicalticker.blogs.c...

So, yeah there are real differences between US political parties, particularly on the subject of this article, Climate Change

I Think that just goes to show that they target different members of the population, not that they have real meaningfully different agendas. They almost always vote the same on things like domestic spying, invading foreign countries, etc. The only thing they really fight over is how to slice the pie.

Um... Climate Change?

Here is what the sitting Dem President has to say:
“I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing.” - President Barack Obama, June 25, 2013"
https://www.whitehouse.gov/ene...

Here is what the Dem candidate for President in 2016 says:
"Clinton began her remarks at the National Clean Energy Summit by laying out the problems climate change is already causing today, including extreme weather and droughts. “[These are] the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face,” she said. “No matter what deniers say.”"
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hil...

Here is what the last Rep President had to say:
" In 2001, President Bush decided to pull out of the negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol, a worldwide agreement to try to keep greenhouse gases down. Environmentalists were aghast. The president said he had his reasons. "That I felt the Kyoto Treaty was unrealistic. It was not based upon science. The stated that mandates in the Kyoto Treaty would affect our economy in a negative way.""
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...

And here is what a Rep candidate for 2016 has to say about it:
" Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, questions whether global warming is real, arguing that the "data are not supporting what the advocates are arguing." "The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that – that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn't happened," said Cruz."
http://politicalticker.blogs.c...

So, yeah there are real differences between US political parties, particularly on the subject of this article, Climate Change

Stop Issuing Visas To Most Racist People On Earth https://petitions.whitehouse.g...

Impose tax on corporate revenues, not profits;
https://petitions.whitehouse.g...

https://petitions.whitehouse.g...

That's an interesting read. While nothing in the order says criminal penalties it mentions the laws which apparently let one person rule by diktat so I expect that they specify the penalties.

Isn't that the entire point of emergency powers? The order specifically says "national emergency."

Anyways, let's look at the laws that are cited:
Termination of existing declared emergencies: 50 U.S.C. 1601
Unusual and extraordinary threat; declaration of national emergency; exercise of Presidential authorities: 50 U.S.C. 1701
General authorization to delegate functions: Section 301 of Title 3
Inadmissible aliens: 8 U.S.C. 1182(f)

Presidential authorities: 50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)
Banning entry to aliens covered by the order: section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 [really long name] (PDF)
Critical infrastructure definitions: Presidential Policy Directive 21
Reporting requirements to Congress on spending for emergency orders: 50 U.S.C. 1641(c)
Reporting requirements to Congress in general for emergency orders: 50 U.S.C. 1703(c)

The only ones that I think worth quoting are:

50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)
  (b) Exceptions to grant of authority
The authority granted to the President by this section does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly--

• (1) [not what is cited]
• (2) donations, by persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of articles, such as food, clothing, and medicine, intended to be used to relieve human suffering, except to the extent that the President determines that such donations

• (A) would seriously impair his ability to deal with any national emergency declared under section 1701 of this title,
  (B) are in response to coercion against the proposed recipient or donor, or
  (C) would endanger Armed Forces of the United States which are engaged in hostilities or are in a situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances; or [2]

8 U.S.C. 1182(f)
  (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

If the war on terror never ends, neither will these emergency powers.

Actual Executive Order

Nothing there says criminal penalties.

there wont be any criminal penalty, just itty bitty cia handled rendition or a drone strike

https://medium.com/@PresidentO...

The text, because this "news" article couldn't seem to post a link: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the...

There's people even on the reddit thread pointing out that the person mentioning Snowden has no basis for the assumption. As with all things, follow the money; in a couple days if that link to "Snowden" donations turns out to be some fat fuck padding his own bank account by preying off mental midgets, i will not be surprised in the least.

From what the EO actually looks like, i'd suggest the only ones who are going to be hating it are the hackers and thieves stealing personal data.... oh, and the numbnuts who have such a kneejerk reaction of hating anything Obama does so much that if he came out in favor of breathing, they'd all hold their breaths till dead.

Remember what they say about assuming. The title of the article should be something along the lines of: "Potential con-man fleecing more anti-Obama idiots by scaring them again."

Actual Executive Order

Nothing there says criminal penalties.

Also, it says that the actors must be outside of the United States. Remind me again, but Snowden did all of his stuff inside of the United States, right?

As usual, non-lawyers read something think it means something that makes them upset, and it spreads and no one actually sits down to read the actual law.

The problem is that the program has increased by a third in membership the span of six years (almost 48 million in 2009 to 65 million last year) while the economic base that pays for Medicaid still grows slower than the rate of growth in the program (and of health care cost as a whole).

That 1/3 increase in enrollment is not a problem so much as it's how the law was designed. More support for lower income people by expanding Medicaid and Medicaid receipts to support them. That initial growth is accounted for in the law's budgeting. As for the rate of growth, I'm wondering what data you have on that. In aggregate, the growth rate in per-capita healcare spending has declined over the past few years, averaging about 1.3% in real terms per year. Not great, but also not something that looks to be outstripping our ability to pay for it. That includes Medicare spending, so it's possible that the Medicaid data is drastically different and being averaged out, but I don't have a clean dataset in easy reach. Based on private market trends, I'd be surprised if Medicaid turned out to be growing at a uniquely high per-capita rate.

Only if you count Medicaid as part of that.

This one gets me every time. Of course you count Medicaid as part of that! A huge part of the law was getting more lower income people healthcare by providing it through Medicaid.

If they had implemented a 100% coverage single payer system, I bet there would be people who say that it didn't expand access to healthcare "unless you count that government plan." It's one thing if we accidentally made everybody too poor to afford anything but public assistance, but the Medicaid expansion was completely intentional. It was the answer to the question, "How you going to get health insurance to lower income people?"

While I don't have a lot of experience with the program, it does appear to be going downhill to me, especially with below market rates for most medical care.

I don't really know how to respond to feelings of vague unease with the quality of the program. Are you really asserting, as you imply below, that Medicaid is no better than just showing up at an emergency room? I don't think there's a lot of data to support that. The mainstream consensus is quite the opposite.

What amazes me is that the program is working more or less as designed, costs are running lower than expected, the economy has failed to collapse as predicted, and people are still saying everything was perfectly fine when stumbling into an emergency room to be stabilized and sent home was "healthcare." The idea that there have been no objectively measurable improvements to the situation baffles me.

The summary states:
"...This document, which is almost five years old, is the most recent one released. So where are the documents supporting the 'reinvigorated' VEP 2.0 described by the White House in 2014?""

The phrase "reinvigorated" appears in the link cited in this sentence:
This spring, we re-invigorated our efforts to implement existing policy with respect to disclosing vulnerabilities

(emphasis mine)

So, the summary is misleading: the White House did not announce a new policy; the link clearly and unambiguously states that they are continuing "existing policy." There are no documents supporting the 'reinvigorated' VEP 2.0 because there is no "VEP 2.0"-- the blog cited states that they are continuing existing policy. In short: "ain't nothing changed."

Read your own links, summarizers.

Here's a video showing the layers. I assumed the guy was a nut case, but they're really there. At the very least an explanation is in order.

FWIW, just because the NSA does something doesn't mean every other government employee or agency approves or is culturally aligned with that attitude. This effort represents a genuine push by a self-selected group that is privacy-conscious, interested in doing the technically right thing, and for the first time in a position within the government to actually start making the Right Thing reality. Interested in joining us?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/usd...
https://18f.gsa.gov/

If there are specific concerns you have with the memo as it applies to the federal agencies it's talking about, we'd love to get your feedback on how we can achieve these goals while minimizing the issues you allude to.

https://github.com/WhiteHouse/...

This isn't about mandating HTTPS everywhere outside of government, and those agency sites that might perform worse due to losing intermediate caches can always implement the policy using existing CDNs to try and get the content as close to the user as possible.

Is there something about what the memo proposes that looks to be obsolete soon? We're trying to get ahead of the curve here, because it does take time to change things in the government. We'd love to better understand your "when the government gets involved" concerns.

Do you think you might be interested in participating in things like this on a more ongoing basis?

https://18f.gsa.gov/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/usd...

Yes.

Join us:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/usd...
https://18f.gsa.gov/

Well yeah, look at all the pretty graphs and visual aids. That's all the over-sharing you need. It's interpreted for you.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment
Transparency and Open Government
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.

Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government.

Government should be collaborative. Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their Government. Executive departments and agencies should use innovative tools, methods, and systems to cooperateamong themselves, across all levels of Government, and with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector. Executive departments and agencies should solicit public feedback to assess and improve their level of collaboration and to identify new opportunities for cooperation.

I direct the Chief Technology Officer, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Administrator of General Services, to coordinate the development by appropriate executive departments and agencies, within 120 days, of recommendations for an Open Government Directive, to be issued by the Director of OMB, that instructs executive departments and agencies to take specific actions implementing the principles set forth in this memorandum. The independent agencies should comply with the Open Government Directive.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

You also realize this was the major factor in law being passed to prevent that. Documentation for the National Archives is law concerning state document retention. While I agree at the time she used the system it may not have been illegal, but a memo released and signed by Obama https://www.whitehouse.gov/the... suggest otherwise, http://www.whitehouse.gov/site...

However we are reminded time and time again no law was broken, what was broken was procedure, if one can not follow a simple procedure set out by their employer their actions are questionable and their motive becomes dubious.

You also realize this was the major factor in law being passed to prevent that. Documentation for the National Archives is law concerning state document retention. While I agree at the time she used the system it may not have been illegal, but a memo released and signed by Obama https://www.whitehouse.gov/the... suggest otherwise, http://www.whitehouse.gov/site...

However we are reminded time and time again no law was broken, what was broken was procedure, if one can not follow a simple procedure set out by their employer their actions are questionable and their motive becomes dubious.

Psychopaths do not fear prosecution/punishment;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...
Caste system created millions of psychopaths in India;
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/engl...
What else do you expect when Upper caste Brahmin Jyoti singh PANDEY abused/exploited Lower caste Mukesh singh YADAV for over 2000 years?
https://petitions.whitehouse.g...

Uber is already in the wrong by waiting five months to notify anyone. Even if they withheld notification for law enforcement purposes, they waited entirely too long.

The President’s 2014 Budget proposes over $ 21.4 billion for climate change activities

Investors propose ~$8000 billion 2013 budget for industry activities.

Anyone who thinks that the US has spent less than 7 trillion dollars on war, total, and adjusted for inflation, is cherry-picking from a very conservative data set.

Yes, yes, anyone who disagrees with you is a moron, right.

One would have thought, Hans Christian Andersen took care of this kind of argument, but an opinion of a long-dead White dude does not matter to you, does it?

No wonder the linked article doesn't give a citation for that figure.

Well, this one does — and though it disputes a number of claims (referred to as "zombie lies" with the site's usual politeness), it disputes neither the $22 trillion figure nor the "triple the cost of real wars" part.

If you want to quibble, offer your own citations. You can start right here.

The President’s 2014 Budget proposes over $ 21.4 billion for climate change activities

We Have Petitioned President Obama To Impose Tax On IBM Revenues, Not Profits;
https://petitions.whitehouse.g...

We Have Petitioned President Obama To Impose Tax On Corporate Revenues, Not Profits;
https://petitions.whitehouse.g...

> A recent GAO report said that $106 BILLION was spent by the US government through 2010 on global warming research

Im staring at the Forbes report at http://www.whitehouse.gov/site.... Note that a lot of that money is involved in "clean" energy projects which have dual or triple use: reducing pollution, improving arable land, water management, emergency planning for coastal areas, and switching from unsustainable fuel resources to sustainable, less greenhouse gas producing fuels.

I'm also afraid you're comparing apples to oranges. Most of the federal budget is not "advertising" to compare to oil companies, it's a great deal of real work with multiple scientific. urban development, and economic uses. If you compare it to the amount of money oil companies spent on drilling for new oil or on research to expand their markets, you'd have a better scale.

https://petitions.whitehouse.g...

https://petitions.whitehouse.g...

Impose Tax On Corporate Revenues, Not Profits And See The Result;
https://petitions.whitehouse.g...

Impose Tax On Corporate Revenues, Not Profits And See The Result;
https://petitions.whitehouse.g...

https://petitions.whitehouse.g...

obama can now sign the Belgian condolence book to show he cares.
Earlier obama showed he cared by signing the condolence book at the French Embassy
http://www.whitehouse.gov/phot...

https://petitions.whitehouse.g...

Only a small percentage are aware that the Pentagon sucks up over half of Federal spending

Probably because it's flat out bullshit you just made up?.

Nice try.
But when taken in context of the entire speech, its not what you try to twist it into.
The speech was condemning all of the hatred and bigotry.

The relevent section of the speech:

It is time to leave the call of violence and the politics of division behind. On so many issues, we face a choice between the promise of the future, or the prisons of the past. And we cannot afford to get it wrong. We must seize this moment. And America stands ready to work with all who are willing to embrace a better future.

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt — it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, "Muslims, Christians, we are one." The future must not belong to those who bully women — it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.

The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country's resources — it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.

Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shiite pilgrims. It's time to heed the words of Gandhi: "Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit." Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, that's the vision we will support.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-...

Yes, I can document NASA's task change.

Under the auspices of the White House OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy), the NTSC (National Science and Technology Council) created CENRS (Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability) as a response to a presidential mandate in 1989 (in case you were wondering, this was under president George H.W. Bush).

The CENRS created as part of itself the SGCR (Subcommittee on Global Change Research), which is the steering committee for the USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program), which consists of 13 organizations:

- Department of Health and Human Services
- U.S. Agency for International Development
- Department of the Interior
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Defense (Acting)
- Smithsonian Institution
- Department of Agriculture
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration http://www.globalchange.gov/ab...
From their web site.

As part of this, as a result of a presidential budgetary mandate by President Obama that an additional $1.8B (for a total of $2.4B) be earmarked for the Earth Observation Satellites (effectively canceling the asteroid capture mission - this i a redirection of existing budget, not an increase of funds):

http://www.nasa.gov/about/obam...
Obama's April 15th 2010 speech at Kennedy:

"We will increase Earth-based observation to improve our understanding of our climate and our world -- science that will garner tangible benefits, helping us to protect our environment for future generations."

http://inhabitat.com/obama-giv...

"NASA’s about to lend a heavier hand in the fight against climate change. The news that President Obama would be rearranging NASA’s budget to focus more on what can be done to stop global warming was met with some opposition, but we’re elated that he’s bringing some of that cash down to Earth."

See also:

http://inhabitat.com/obama-giv...
http://spectator.org/blog/5978...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-...
http://inhabitat.com/new-nasa-...

Meanwhile, actual NASA budgets have remained flat, so these monies have come from actual space and aeronautics programs, rather than new budget:

http://www.behindmyback.org/20...
"NASA’s investment in the 13-AGENCY CCSP is 58% of the total amount of the President’s 2009 Budget Request for CCSP."
= most of the money is coming from NASA.

See also this report, which indicates that 37% of the 2014 NASA budget went to the Earth science program, supporting climate change research - and NOT space or aeronautics research:
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/m...

But you know... feel free to argue with the congressional record, newspapers, NASA itself, and President Obama's speech at Kennedy.

Women tend to be paid the same amount as men with similar experience. The issue is women leave the work force to have kids and when they return they have five or six fewer years of experience then their peers. Numerous sources for this, you should really stop trotting out that falsified canard.

Absolutely NOT true. Linky

Despite passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which requires that men and women in the same work place be given equal pay for equal work, the "gender gap" in pay persists. Full-time women workers’ earnings are only about 77 percent of their male counterparts’ earnings. The pay gap is even greater for African-American and Latina women, with African-American women earning 64 cents and Latina women earning 56 cents for every dollar earned by a Caucasian man. Decades of research shows that no matter how you evaluate the data, there remains a pay gap — even after factoring in the kind of work people do, or qualifications such as education and experience — and there is good evidence that discrimination contributes to the persistent pay disparity between men and women. In other words, pay discrimination is a real and persistent problem that continues to shortchange American women and their families.

In other words, 51 years after the feds made it illegal to pay people with the same qualifications and experience less, it's still happening. When comparing people with the same qualifications and experience, women get paid less. You saying otherwise won't make it true, especially when a quick search shows otherwise.

Well, technically he still hasn't suspended deportations (or otherwise changed immigration policy) through an executive order.

He used a Presidential Memorandum which is effectively indistinguishable from an executive order as defined in Armstrong v. United States (1871). Nice try, though. Yes, the next president can undo it. That doesn't make it right.

Well, technically he still hasn't suspended deportations (or otherwise changed immigration policy) through an executive order.

He used a Presidential Memorandum which is effectively indistinguishable from an executive order as defined in Armstrong v. United States (1871). Nice try, though. Yes, the next president can undo it. That doesn't make it right.

Well, technically he still hasn't suspended deportations (or otherwise changed immigration policy) through an executive order. His "My fellow americans..." speech last Thursday was explaining a policy that the Department of Justice had told the Department of Homeland Security it could follow. He's taking credit for it for the purpose of arguing with Congress, and he would certainly veto anything that actively undoes it ("let's deport people by a random lottery", "let's deport everyone who has an anchor baby and is not yet a citizen", "let's deport everyone, Citizen or not, with a Muslim-sounding first name or an Irish-sounding last name"), but he hasn't done anything that the next President couldn't undo.

(i.e. glorified intern)

Yeah, where is Obama's birth certificate?

Yeah, check it out:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/site...

We have here everything

- multiple layers on a supposed "scan"
- strange shadows
- strange mixing of color and b/w parts

Good enough for the American public, so it seems.

It seems that NOAA's administration has become dysfunctional. They should have notified Commerce Department Inspector General immediately but they did not. I wonder why they felt they had to shut down a variety of data feeds. Minimal impact they claim but there was definitely an impact. Money has been tight for them but Congress gave them $25 million for a new supercomputer. That was 18 months ago and it looks like nothing has been done on that front. They will lose the money in September 2015 if they don't do something. You can sign a petition asking the Whitehouse to get them to spend the money for that needed supercomputer.

Here is the .gov site which also has the video commentary.

Great numbers. Not a single source on any of them. If your source is your ass then please state so.

Unemployment rates:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries...

Deficit numbers:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/... (First Spreadsheet)

95% of recovery goes to top 1%:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/mon...

Death toll in Afghanistan:
http://www.justforeignpolicy.o...

Who knew my ass was sited all over the Internet!

I'm against it. That's why I made a petition to end it. If you want more daylight in the evening, you don't need to change everyone's clocks! Just get up earlier, and come home from work or whatever earlier.

https://petitions.whitehouse.g...

Nope, it had been approved, went through peer review (and was accepted) without a single mention of that. I was going through some system to check to see if my paper was formatted correctly when I gave up. I was told that wasn't even the system to submit the paper to.

And I've never published in EE before ... the workshop was 'Solar Astronomy Big Data', and I've only dealt with journals from solar physics, science informatics / data science, and library & information science. There's always been an exemption for work that was done on government funded time.

Their form allowed you *some* rights as it was government funded (eg, to publish it to any required repositories) but they still wanted the copyright. Even my boss (one of the workshop organizers) thought it was over-reaching.

AGU had some assinine rules that kept me from publishing in their journals (they counted posters and talks posted online as 'published', so wouldn't accept any papers from me.) ... but I also cut my ties to them this year (after having been very active with the Earth and Space Science Informatics focus group; was nominated to be secretary last year) when I realized that in their response to an RFI on public access to federally funded research, they called themselves a 'publisher' and never a 'scientific society' ... that was the last straw, as I already knew that I disagreed with just about everything in their statement.

look at insurance companies. Huge luxury office buildings, executives who make millions- it's a lot like Vegas. Where does the money come from? Losers like you and me who have to pay ridiculous premiums for minimal coverage. Yeah, Insurance baby!

That's how it has worked in the past, yes, but the affordable care act actually did something about that. Insurance companies' profits and overhead margins are now capped at either 20% or 15%, depending on the size of the company. If they don't pay out the rest in claims, they have to refund it.

It's not perfect and insurance companies will still make a lot of money, but it is a start.

... the most transparent administration in history.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_...