'Silicon Valley Is Missing Unicorns Because It Doesn't Understand Poor People' (cnbc.com)

Renewal App by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-09 09:26 · Score: 4, Funny

How about an app that signals when it's time for your renewal and gives you bus directions to the closest carousel?

Re: Renewal App by bn-7bc · 2017-05-09 09:52 · Score: 1

Wow I don't ovten see refferences to Logans run,rhank you
Re:Renewal App by loslosbaby · 2017-05-09 19:40 · Score: 1

RENEW!

After the Biotech scare... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-09 09:26 · Score: 1

...good luck targeting poor people with VC money.

Re:After the Biotech scare... by Austerity+Empowers · 2017-05-09 09:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

You don't target poor people, you target the providers who are getting that $500B and want to profit more from it. If there's one thing we can rely on in the health care industry (and the US in general) it is greed.
Re:After the Biotech scare... by Lab+Rat+Jason · 2017-05-09 10:08 · Score: 1

The problem is that unicorns live in the shade of VC money trees, not under the umbrella of government regulation. Nobody wants to eat that rotten lettuce.

--
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
Re:After the Biotech scare... by Darinbob · 2017-05-09 17:36 · Score: 1

Silicon Valley is not equipped to handle medicine. It can barely manage engineering. Instead it's all web apps and phone apps and cloud now.
Re:After the Biotech scare... by Dog-Cow · 2017-05-09 23:30 · Score: 1

If there's one thing we can rely on in the health care industry (and the US in general) it is greed.
You added a lot of extra words: If there's one thing we can rely on, it is greed.
Re:After the Biotech scare... by LordWabbit2 · 2017-05-10 03:02 · Score: 1

Of course you can target poor people, you just need something they would want more than anything else.
There's plenty of stuff like that, but I would bet the following couple would be the best
Porn
Alcohol
Betting
Gambling
Drugs

I worked for a sports betting company for a couple years, they target the "great unwashed" (and trust me, if you walked into a busy branch on a Saturday you realized that statement is VERY true) they didn't put down big bets, but there were so many of them it didn't matter. When the Lehman Brothers collapsed and everyone started closing their wallets their business actually increased.
Desperate times and desperate people, and most of them bet on LONG odds.
I suppose it didn't help that whenever someone actually won a 256/1 bet they would put posters of it up everywhere.

--
There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
Re:After the Biotech scare... by Austerity+Empowers · 2017-05-10 07:03 · Score: 1

Of course you can target poor people, you just need something they would want more than anything else.
There's plenty of stuff like that, but I would bet the following couple would be the best
Porn
Alcohol
Betting
Gambling
Drugs
Those things are popular with everyone who isn't suffering from some form of religious constipation. The correlation between poor and uneducated however does mean lower math skill and inability to understand what long odds really mean. A few people I grew up with who spent all their dollars at the OTB club thought long odds meant "winning multiplier", as if their chance of winning was guaranteed, they just wanted to get the most out of it.

not touching it with a 10ft pole by ooloorie · 2017-05-09 09:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

"My gut is that it's a big opportunity with $500 billion in federal spend every year in a system that hasn't evolved technologically much since 1965,"

If you get in there as an entrepreneur, you'll be suffocating under a mounting of paperwork before being demonized by Democrats for trying to make a profit. And before you can build a real business, you can bet that Congress is going to pull out the rug from under your business model anyway by reforming government health care yet again. Sorry, but "here's a bucket of government money, go build something" is just not an attractive proposition even under the best of conditions, let alone when it involves poor people and a politically controversial area of public policy..

The best you can hope for at this point is that, as physicians exit the market, the big corporations that take over their functions will be able to invest some money in technology and innovation.

Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by Just+Some+Guy · 2017-05-09 10:17 · Score: 4, Informative

My company got a lot of help from Medicare when we wanted to analyze their data. There was about as much paperwork as you'd expect from a giant government entity, but everyone was nice and helpful. We were always made to feel welcome and Medicare publicly said they were glad to have us.
Your portrayal of government healthcare, at least under a Democrat president, is far from the reality I actually witnessed.
Oh, and I'm not a Democrat.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by ooloorie · 2017-05-09 11:11 · Score: 1

My company got a lot of help from Medicare when we wanted to analyze their data. There was about as much paperwork as you'd expect from a giant government entity, but everyone was nice and helpful.
Why wouldn't they be "nice and helpful"?

Your portrayal of government healthcare, at least under a Democrat president, is far from the reality I actually witnessed.
I didn't "portray government healthcare", I outlined the risks that a business faces when dealing with the government. The very fact that you qualify this with "under a Democrat president" means that you recognize that there are huge political risks involved. After all, who is going to invest large amounts of money in a market that can be destroyed by a change in administrations?
The question is: did you actually bet your company on a business model that relied on the federal government and Medicaid? If not, you're pretty much supporting my point.
Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by ooloorie · 2017-05-09 11:12 · Score: 1

Considering that the current healthcare bill in Congress is nothing more than a tax break repeal to pave the way for more tax breaks for the wealthy, the Democrats will quite certainly fix that once they get back in power.
And that kind of uncertainty is precisely why businesses would be foolish to invest for the long term in business models that rely on the continued largesse of specific political parties or administrations. Thanks for supporting my point.
Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by Just+Some+Guy · 2017-05-09 11:48 · Score: 1

Why wouldn't they be "nice and helpful"?
You said they'd demonize us.

The very fact that you qualify this with "under a Democrat president" means that you recognize that there are huge political risks involved.
I was replying to your incorrect message that Democrats would be upset with someone trying to make a profit. You're moving the goalposts here.

The question is: did you actually bet your company on a business model that relied on the federal government and Medicaid?
It's my employer, not my personal company. You'd have to ask them about their financing discussions. But yes, it's a major part of our strategy.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by dbIII · 2017-05-09 14:09 · Score: 1

If you get in there as an entrepreneur, you'll be suffocating under a mounting of paperwork before being demonized by Democrats for trying to make a profit
Sorry to break it to you now that you are back from years in the wilderness with no news of the outside world, but there has been an election and Democrats are now irrelevant so you'll have to find someone else to blame.
Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by ooloorie · 2017-05-09 14:34 · Score: 1

Sorry to break it to you now that you are back from years in the wilderness with no news of the outside world, but there has been an election and Democrats are now irrelevant so you'll have to find someone else to blame.
I'm glad you noticed that Democrats have lost both the presidency and both houses. However, Democrats haven't disappeared from the US political scene, and any business has to take into account the risk that, sooner or later, Democrats will come into office again. Furthermore, any business also has to face the risk that Republicans might actually succeed in cutting the Medicare/Medicaid gravy train. So, between those two risks, those $500 billion in Medicaid spending are a highly unpredictable, and hence risky, source of revenue for any startup.
Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by ooloorie · 2017-05-09 15:26 · Score: 1

You said they'd demonize us. I was replying to your incorrect message that Democrats would be upset with someone trying to make a profit.
I said Democratic politicians demonize people who make profits in healthcare, not that government bureaucrats are rude to you.

It's my employer, not my personal company. You'd have to ask them about their financing discussions. But yes, it's a major part of our strategy.
Your strategy isn't specific to Medicaid, so it's not relevant to this discussion. That is, your service would presumably be useful even if Medicaid were abolished entirely.
Finally...

My company got a lot of help from Medicare when we wanted to analyze their data.
I find it disturbing that privacy in our healthcare system has been eroded to the point that your company can get medical records on "220 million people and 9 billion health insurance claims", and have much of that data handed to them with a smile by government officials.
Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by dbIII · 2017-05-09 16:08 · Score: 1

From your posting history it appears incredibly unlikely that if you are in a position where you have to deal with such matters or are aware of them first hand.
Aren't you the guy that hates all governments and sees all taxes as armed robbery?
Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by Just+Some+Guy · 2017-05-09 16:20 · Score: 1

On that last: it's de-identified before it ever hits our system. We see that a person was treated, but it's literally impossible for me to see what services you had (or conversely, to see a record and figure out that it was yours).

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by goose-incarnated · 2017-05-09 18:58 · Score: 1

Considering that the current healthcare bill in Congress is nothing more than a tax break repeal to pave the way for more tax breaks for the wealthy, the Democrats will quite certainly fix that once they get back in power.
You forgot to mention one of the following in your post, which you bring up in every slashdot story you comment on:
You worked as a videogame tester (same/diff/bought out company).
You got laid off
You were bankrupt
You manage {multiple thousands} of desktops
You're a programmer
You're teaching yourself to program
You're a govt. contractor
Therefore, I must conclude that you're not the real creimer. The real one mentions one of the above points in every single story.

--
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by Maritz · 2017-05-09 21:02 · Score: 1

I hope he's appropriately flattered by this post.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by Dog-Cow · 2017-05-09 23:44 · Score: 1

Literally impossible? You're not all that good at data mining, then, are you?
Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by ooloorie · 2017-05-10 01:13 · Score: 1

On that last: it's de-identified before it ever hits our system.
De-identification doesn't work in general. You could probably recover the personal identities of most of the people in your database by combining it with other data sources.
Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by ooloorie · 2017-05-10 01:14 · Score: 1

Aren't you the guy that hates all governments and sees all taxes as armed robbery?
No, you must have me confused with someone else.
Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-10 12:42 · Score: 1

The real one mentions one of the above points in every single story.
That's because the topic being discussed isn't IT-related.
Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-10 12:43 · Score: 1

I hope he's appropriately flattered by this post.
I'm not. I tend stay on topic when it's not about politics or IT.
Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by goose-incarnated · 2017-05-10 21:56 · Score: 1

The real one mentions one of the above points in every single story.
That's because the topic being discussed isn't IT-related.
I'm curious about why you always mention those things. You have no other IT-related items of information to add to an IT discussion?

--
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by goose-incarnated · 2017-05-10 22:00 · Score: 1

The real one mentions one of the above points in every single story.
That's because the topic being discussed isn't IT-related.
Dammit man - I was wrong - you did mention one of those things: in a comment to this story. Maybe next story comes up you can avoid repeating yourself? Make it a personal goal :-)

--
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-11 02:12 · Score: 1

You have no other IT-related items of information to add to an IT discussion?
That depends on what is being discussed. How many times have the editors posted the same story on the same day or next day?
Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-11 02:14 · Score: 1

Dammit man - I was wrong - you did mention one of those things: in a comment to this story.
Everything in that comment was relevant to the discussion at hand.
Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by pnutjam · 2017-05-11 03:35 · Score: 1

and again, the goalposts move...

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by ooloorie · 2017-05-11 04:02 · Score: 1

and again, the goalposts move...
No, this thread has simply changed topics.
This topic is tangentially relevant because the massive centralized collection of medical records has been made possible under Obama, and it is a serous threat to our privacy. It's another reason not to have a single payer system. The federal government should not have health care records on most Americans.
Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by goose-incarnated · 2017-05-11 06:02 · Score: 1

Dammit man - I was wrong - you did mention one of those things: in a comment to this story.
Everything in that comment was relevant to the discussion at hand.
I didn't accuse you of being irrelevant or off-topic, I accused you of repeating yourself (considerably - there are some weeks I swear all you ever do is repeat yourself).

--
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-11 06:09 · Score: 1

[...] there are some weeks I swear all you ever do is repeat yourself).
That's the Slashdot effect. Noticed how some stories are posted repeatedly the same or next day?
Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by goose-incarnated · 2017-05-11 06:52 · Score: 1

[...] there are some weeks I swear all you ever do is repeat yourself).
That's the Slashdot effect.
That's not what the slashdot effect is. Read this wikipedia entry about the slashdot effect. No need to spend time on it, there will not be a test later :-)

Noticed how some stories are posted repeatedly the same or next day?
Yeah, that's the editors and they've been duping since as long as I've been reading this site. Why do you dupe your comments. Other than the obvious trolls (GNAA posts, Grub pretending to be Dr Bob, The apps luddite guy, the cow poster, etc), no one else gives a summary of their employment (mis)fortunes on a daily basis.
The reason I'm asking is because I'm starting to suspect that you're a highly advanced chatbot. Your response doesn't allay my suspicions either: you picked a seemingly random on-topic phrase (slashdot effect) that you appear to know nothing about, other than the fact that it is not out of context in this discussion.
A chatbot "talks" much the same way you are doing so - move the conversation over to a known database of stock responses ("bankrupt", "govt. contractor", etc) and when challenged toss in a random not-out-of-context-nor-in-context response ("slashdot effect").
Thing is, I know what the slashdot effect is, having been a participant from at least 1999. A chatbot doesn't care what the phrase means as long as it fits the context.
Regardless of whether you're a chatbot or a human, I'm willing to bet you're not self-aware enough to realise that you're stuck in a conversation loop, endless repeating yourself with no awareness of the fact that your audience has already heard you give the same speech multiple times.
Self-awareness, whether in a human mind or a silicon one, is the single most important indicator of real sentience. I'm curious to see if you can meet that hurdle; are you self-aware enough to not repeat your employment history in part or in full for the next 6 months?

--
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Re:not touching it with a 10ft pole by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-11 07:48 · Score: 1

No need to spend time on it, there will not be a test later :-)
When was the last time a website got slashdotted in the last 10 years? My websites could handle being slashdotted — and my webhost provider will send me a bill for the bandwidth.

The reason I'm asking is because I'm starting to suspect that you're a highly advanced chatbot.

That's on my to do list as a programming project.

[...] a known database of stock responses ("bankrupt", "govt. contractor", etc) [...]
One of the reason my comment history scraper script saves to a CSV file is that I can load it up in Excel and search by keywords. All my comments have a keyword or two.

[...] I'm willing to bet you're not self-aware enough to realise that you're stuck in a conversation loop, endless repeating yourself with no awareness of the fact that your audience has already heard you give the same speech multiple times.
Go listen to Guy Kawaski on YouTube. His core speech is why a dog food delivery app doesn't work. The beginnings and endings are slightly different, but it's always the same speech that he gives 50 times each year.

I'm curious to see if you can meet that hurdle; are you self-aware enough to not repeat your employment history in part or in full for the next 6 months?
Uh, no. I'm having too much fun. :P

Too late, bitches... by Penguinisto · 2017-05-09 09:31 · Score: 4, Informative

Oracle has already been practicing, and is perfectly poised to swallow gigatons of money while providing crap software to the medical insurance industry.

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?

Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-09 09:38 · Score: 1

Silicon Valley understands poor people well enough, and doesn't want anything to do with them. It's that simple.

Re:Wrong by Lab+Rat+Jason · 2017-05-09 10:11 · Score: 1

I wish I had mod points for this.

--
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
Re:Wrong by drinkypoo · 2017-05-09 10:39 · Score: 1

Silicon Valley understands poor people well enough, and doesn't want anything to do with them. It's that simple.
Yep, in the Sili Valley you're in between Santa Cruz and San Francisco and you get to see two different visions of what the American homeless problem means. Nobody wants a piece of that.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Low income people who qualify for medicaid by rsilvergun · 2017-05-09 09:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

won't for much longer. There's $880 billion in cuts coming to offset the tax cuts being proposed. I'm in Arizona and we have a law on the books that automatically rejects anyone for our low income health care program (AHCSS) if they're single. The law was preempted when Obama threatened to withhold Medicare funds from the old folks unless we also covered the poor. The stupid thing being that the money coming from the Feds to pay for low income people's health care brought more dollars to the state than we were spending. But around here we don't like paying for poor people to have, well, anything really.

Anyway, when those tax cuts hit and the funds stop the law kicks back in and anyone single gets kicked off their health care. Period. I got a buddy with type-I diabetes who didn't have his insulin until Obama made Arizona pay for it. We're gonna go back to struggling to get his insulin now.

In most of America the only money to be made in poor people is exploiting them because that's all we're allowed to do.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:Low income people who qualify for medicaid by ShanghaiBill · 2017-05-09 09:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

Arizona laws are based on the presumption that if you make the poor miserable enough, they will move somewhere else.
Re:Low income people who qualify for medicaid by drinkypoo · 2017-05-09 10:06 · Score: 1

Arizona laws are based on the presumption that if you make the poor miserable enough, they will move somewhere else.
s/somewhere else/west/

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Low income people who qualify for medicaid by Gavagai80 · 2017-05-09 10:27 · Score: 2

Unfortunately they've overlooked the fact that the poor (except maybe the homeless) can't afford to move, it's the wealthy who are mobile.
Perhaps it's just that the summer weather makes Arizonans so miserable that they want to hurt people.

--
This space intentionally left blank
Re:Low income people who qualify for medicaid by liquid_schwartz · 2017-05-09 10:46 · Score: 1

Unfortunately they've overlooked the fact that the poor (except maybe the homeless) can't afford to move, it's the wealthy who are mobile.
This is a true point. It would actually make sense to fund bus tickets out of the area in a cynical way. Essentially saying we won't pay for the poor to stay but we will help them leave.
Re:Low income people who qualify for medicaid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-09 11:30 · Score: 2, Funny

Unfortunately they've overlooked the fact that the poor (except maybe the homeless) can't afford to move, it's the wealthy who are mobile.
This is a true point. It would actually make sense to fund bus tickets out of the area in a cynical way. Essentially saying we won't pay for the poor to stay but we will help them leave.
This sounds like a good idea, trains may be cheaper though. I think if we can identify all the poor, maybe with a little badge or something, then we can round them up once there's enough to fill the first train.
Re:Low income people who qualify for medicaid by taustin · 2017-05-09 11:59 · Score: 1

This is a true point. It would actually make sense to fund bus tickets out of the area in a cynical way.

Florida did that for a while, with bus tickets to California.
The lawyers (on both sides of the lawsuits) thought it was a wonderful idea.
Re:Low income people who qualify for medicaid by tlambert · 2017-05-09 15:16 · Score: 2

The stupid thing being that the money coming from the Feds to pay for low income people's health care brought more dollars to the state than we were spending. But around here we don't like paying for poor people to have, well, anything really.
What was being rejected was not the subsidy.
What was being rejected was the 4 year sunset on the subsidy, where the state had to take over the burden, at 25% a year, until it was shouldering 100% of it, and the fed was no longer giving the state any money whatsoever.
One year down the road, and it would have been about break-even, but two years down the road, it would have been a sucking chest wound in Arizona's economy, and in four years, it would have transitioned into a giant cancer.
The problem is that there are more poor people available to spend money, than there is persistent federal money. If the federal money had been permanent, the story would have been different.
We are currently seeing the sunset in the skyrocketing insurance premiums in California -- California drank the Kool Aid, and are now getting indigestion from it.
Arizona was a bit cheesed off, at the same time, because the fed would not enforce against illegal immigration across Arizona borders, yet at the same time, wouldn't let Arizona step up and do the enforcement that the federal government wouldn't.
This added (and continues to add) burdening of health care in Arizona, which was one of the major reasons Arizona was not really interested in participating.
Re:Low income people who qualify for medicaid by bongey · 2017-05-09 18:31 · Score: 1

Obamacare made situation much worse in the long term. Obamacare provided a blank check to hospitals/drug makers to charge whatever they wanted and the insurance(private) or tax payers(medicare) will end up footing the bill.Example insulin prices more than doubled since Obamacare was introduced. Anyone paying attention to the AMA comments about latest healthcare reform, should just ignore their comments. The AMA and the doctors/hospitals they represent have vested interest in making sure the insurance pays for everything no matter the cost. http://static4.businessinsider...
Considering the cost was less than 100 per dose in 2010, typically need 1-3 for type I. I am calling bullshit on your story that your friend couldn't afford insulin at 200-300 a month out of pocket. My monthly out of pocket cost right now are more than double that for medication and I find a way.
Re:Low income people who qualify for medicaid by tommeke100 · 2017-05-10 01:05 · Score: 1

They do this for illegals in Belgium and probably other Western European countries. You get a one-way ticket to your home country plus a bonus.
Re:Low income people who qualify for medicaid by pnutjam · 2017-05-11 03:38 · Score: 1

Well, to be fair, they are exploited as slowly as possible, because their time is worthless and it's the one thing they can invest.

--
Cheap storage VM.

Not far from the truth by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-09 09:43 · Score: 1

A friend of mine put together a plan to provide eye exams to seniors in nursing homes. He got to the point where he had employees lined up, made agreements with optometrists to make prescription glasses, and even got the agreements with the nursing homes. Then the coverage rules changed and the business model was no longer viable.

Unbelievable! by Gravis+Zero · 2017-05-09 09:43 · Score: 1

Silicon Valley might be hunting unicorns in the wrong places.

Endangered species weren't a good enough kill for them so they are going after our cryptozoological entities? THOSE BASTARDS!

This is why Bigfoot refuses to work in IT. ;)

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.

Re:Unbelievable! by Carewolf · 2017-05-09 09:47 · Score: 1

Silicon Valley might be hunting unicorns in the wrong places.
Endangered species weren't a good enough kill for them so they are going after our cryptozoological entities? THOSE BASTARDS!
This is why Bigfoot refuses to work in IT. ;)
Considering what Silicon Valley is doing instead, is hunting "whales", I am not sure that is much better.
Re:Unbelievable! by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-09 09:58 · Score: 1

Considering what Silicon Valley is doing instead, is hunting "whales", I am not sure that is much better.
I didn't think Twitter was still relevant.
Re:Unbelievable! by drinkypoo · 2017-05-09 10:19 · Score: 1

This is why Bigfoot refuses to work in IT. ;)
No, I had to stop because of air quality issues.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Unicorns decimated by blenders by WillAffleckUW · 2017-05-09 09:44 · Score: 1

I blame Starbucks, quite frankly.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Re:Let's not forget.... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-09 09:45 · Score: 1

Then get off your 400 pound ass, get rid of the attitude, and do it.

I'm 350 pounds. I take public transit to work everyday from San Jose to Palo Alto. I rubbed shoulders with the homeless, the minimum wage workers who clean toilets, and the Indian workers who complain about heating their condos with 20-foot-tall ceilings. Last night I took the train home because the express bus was full and the driver wouldn't let ride standing up. There were more homeless tents along the river than there was along the freeway.

Re:Unicorns by GrumpySteen · 2017-05-09 09:51 · Score: 2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn_(finance)

Re:Let's not forget.... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-09 09:53 · Score: 1

But no you're not one of those poor people.

According to Slashdot, anyone making $100K+ per year or less in Silicon Valley is poor. Otherwise, no one would give me grief for making $50K+ per year.

You're always promising you'll be a centokilonaire real soon now as soon as you figure out to run nmap.

Citation please?

Re:Unicorns by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-09 10:03 · Score: 1

Startups that Wall Street will value at $1B+.

Re:Let's not forget.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-09 10:04 · Score: 1

You're always promising you'll be a centokilonaire real soon now as soon as you figure out to run nmap.

Citation please?

(#54385055)

I'm studying for my InfoSec certifications and my next job will be in the $100K+ range.

Re:Let's not forget.... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-09 10:09 · Score: 1

(#54385055) [slashdot.org]

I'm studying for my InfoSec certifications and my next job will be in the $100K+ range.

What does that have to do with being a "centokilonaire"?

What hasn't changed since 1965? by RightwingNutjob · 2017-05-09 10:32 · Score: 1

Healthcare has made leaps and bounds, and it has trickled out to every segment of society. Even the poorest of the poor receive medical care in hospitals with advanced monitoring equipment and by doctors trained in modern techniques. This story reeks of bullshit. The bureaucracy may still be stuck in the past, but that's government. Very few innovations have come out of government business practices. Or ever will. For very fundamental reasons having to do with difficulties in managing large organizations with multiple conflicting objectives.

Re: What hasn't changed since 1965? by RightwingNutjob · 2017-05-09 15:39 · Score: 1

You mean like how Thomas Edison was a Fed, Samuel Morse was a USPS letter carrier working in his spare time, and the Wright Brothers were on a far-sighted NASA contract? Learn some history.

Re:Let's not forget.... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-09 10:42 · Score: 1

Next you'll ask, "WTF is nmap?"

I'm wondering why you're using nonexistent word instead of writing in clear English. Millennial?

Either that or they'll pull themselves up by rsilvergun · 2017-05-09 11:46 · Score: 1

by their bootstraps. Though it's telling that the phrase most often used to describe getting ahead in life through nothing more than simple hard work is also physically impossible...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

I don't think we care either way by rsilvergun · 2017-05-09 11:48 · Score: 1

we do still want poor. If you come here you'll see McMansions right next to scary looking trailer homes. The rich don't like to pay for their services. How do you think they get and stay rich? So they need to keep the poor close by. We use our drug policy to control them. Chances are if you're poor somebody you're nearby has drugs on them and the way the laws work it's basically guilt by association. So if the poors get too uppity we send the cops through to bust everybody and it's 5 year minimum mandatory sentences for all (in a private prison no less).

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:I don't think we care either way by stdarg · 2017-05-10 00:25 · Score: 1

You're describing a pretty good, workable system for maintaining social order, but that's not really how it is. The people in those McMansions don't want to live next to poor people. And violent criminals who come mostly from the ranks of the poor are completely out of control. And mainstream politicians are propping up thug groups like black lives matter to put pressure on cops NOT to bust everybody.
Re:I don't think we care either way by pnutjam · 2017-05-11 03:44 · Score: 1

Do you hate poor people, or just black people? Poor people are victimized a much higher rates then wealthy. They should love cops, I wonder why they don't?

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:I don't think we care either way by stdarg · 2017-05-14 07:22 · Score: 1

I hate people who ruin classrooms for good kids. I hate people who run down a nice neighborhood by being trashy. I hate people who are casually aggressive with others, perhaps because they want to feel powerful about at least something in their lives. I hate criminals who violate others' sense of security.

The Dems just want single payer by rsilvergun · 2017-05-09 11:52 · Score: 1

at least the honest ones do. The Trial Lawyers who hang onto our party because the other side wants tort reform (which, BTW, you do not want if you like having any recourse whatsoever when a mega-corp does something awful)... them not so much.

We're not going to demonize you if you don't act like a demon. If you come up with a clever scheme to siphon billions into your pocket away from actual health care then yeah, we'll demonize you. You're a demon. Stop it.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:The Dems just want single payer by ooloorie · 2017-05-09 14:16 · Score: 1

The Dems just want single payer at least the honest ones do.
Well, the vast majority of the Dems seems to want to shovel trillions into the hands of big drug companies, the AMA, and hospitals.

We're not going to demonize you if you don't act like a demon. If you come up with a clever scheme to siphon billions into your pocket away from actual health care then yeah, we'll demonize you. You're a demon. Stop it.
Funny, that's pretty much exactly what I would say about the crony capitalist ACA scheme.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by Cro+Magnon · 2017-05-10 01:44 · Score: 1

at least the honest ones do.
Both of them?

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by pnutjam · 2017-05-11 03:36 · Score: 1

The ACA scheme was a poor compromise mostly lifted from conservatives. It's not what "the Dems" want, it's what they had the political capital to pass.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by ooloorie · 2017-05-11 03:59 · Score: 1

The ACA scheme was a poor compromise mostly lifted from conservatives.
Not a single Republican voted for the ACA, so it wasn't a "compromise".
The fact that some time somewhere some conservative penned something that was similar to the ACA in some respect doesn't mean all Republicans are bound to think it's a good idea in perpetuity.

It's not what "the Dems" want, it's what they had the political capital to pass.
Of course, it's not what they want. What they thought they could do is pass a flawed piece of legislation that would take us inevitably down the path of what they really want, which is some scheme that looks like single payer to Americans, but has lacks major cost controls and limits that make other single payer systems work. In different words, what the Democrats wanted was massive crony capitalist handouts to their donors while at the same time giving people the impression they were getting something for free. And by the time the thing collapses, the Democrats that created this shitty system would be long out of office.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by pnutjam · 2017-05-11 23:52 · Score: 1

I was not happy with the ACA, but lack of Republican votes speaks more to the dysfunctional Republicans and their Obama hatred (for whatever reason).
The ACA was the best thing to happen for one and only one reason. It made something happen in healthcare. It made changes that could be evaluated and fixed. The very fact that it hasn't been fixed shows how necessary that was and is. Things can't get better without change and every administration before Obama's basically gave up on healthcare as anything but a talking point.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by ooloorie · 2017-05-12 02:46 · Score: 1

I was not happy with the ACA, but lack of Republican votes speaks more to the dysfunctional Republicans and their Obama hatred (for whatever reason).
You can believe that if it makes you happy. But you can't claim that the ACA's problems are due to a "compromise" with the Republicans when no Republican actually voted for it.

The ACA was the best thing to happen for one and only one reason. It made something happen in healthcare. It made changes that could be evaluated and fixed.
What the ACA did was to harm an already ailing private insurance market further, with the pretty transparent aim of leaving single-payer as the only option. It's easy to destroy private markets with government regulation, and it takes a long time to build them up. It's easy to nationalize industries, it's very hard to privatize them again and usually takes decades. So, what you're really saying is that they wanted single payer, and they were going to sabotage the private insurance market more and more to make that happen, with predictable outcomes.
The actual problems with the US healthcare system are actually quite simple: the government-run healthcare system that we have is spending more per American than the public systems in the UK or France, yet covering less than 40% of Americans, and that's because American politicians are spineless wimps that cave in to corporate lobbying and campaign contributions. And that kind of corporate and lobbying power is only going to increase if you feed even more trillions into the public system through Medicare expansion or universal single payer. And our private system is hamstrung by the fact that tax breaks are tied to employers and insurance isn't portable; this is at the root of the problem of preexisting conditions.
We don't need to "evaluate" what the ACA does. The issue isn't whether ACA caused health care cost growth to go down from 6% to 3%, the issue is that pre-ACA and post-ACA, healthcare in the US costs twice as much as it should, because corporations can basically charge whatever they want to, unconstrained by both government and markets.
These problems are fairly easy to fix, but that would entail going up against very powerful and rich lobbies, so neither party is willing to do it. But the Democrats weren't content with the crony capitalist status quo, they actually want us to move to a completely monopolistic system of healthcare, in which consumers are forced, under penalty of law, to buy whatever overpriced crap big corporations and special interests lobby the government to pay for at whatever massively inflated price they want. That is, Democrats moved us into the direction of making our health care system even more corrupt and dysfunctional than it already was. And that is what you call "the best thing to happen to health care".
Re:The Dems just want single payer by pnutjam · 2017-05-13 07:03 · Score: 1

You know you have that backwards, the government run parts of the system are the only ones that work. The private insurance industry and hospital system milk each end and we're stuck in the middle.
I definitely think tying insurance to employment is a major problem, and some sort of public option is the only long term solution.
Why does this work for every other industrialized nation, but it won't work in the US? Are we too stupid, is that what you really think?

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by ooloorie · 2017-05-13 08:14 · Score: 1

You know you have that backwards, the government run parts of the system are the only ones that work.
In what way "does it work"? The US government-run system spends nearly three times as much per patient as European systems. Medicaid expansion was not beneficial to patient health compared to remaining uninsured. And the publicly run VA system is a disaster.

The private insurance industry and hospital system milk each end and we're stuck in the middle.
I have been insured through several employers and US private insurance companies, and they were uniformly better than any insurance I have had in Europe: they covered more, offered more options, appointments were quicker, facilities were a lot nicer.

I definitely think tying insurance to employment is a major problem, and some sort of public option is the only long term solution.
Whether insurance is public or private, and whether it's tied to employment are two entirely unrelated issues. What the US needs is portable private insurance.

Why does this work for every other industrialized nation, but it won't work in the US? Are we too stupid, is that what you really think?
European systems are almost all two-tiered systems in which most people get limited, low-cost services, and high income earners either get some form of private insurance or pay out of pocket in the private market. The "public" systems are strictly cost-controlled, limiting what kinds of drugs and treatments you can get, paying staff poorly, keeping facilities plain, and often having long waiting times for anything other than emergency procedures.
Why doesn't that work in the US? Because any politician that attempts to cut back per-patient spending to European levels ($3000-4000/patient/year) in the US public system would get lynched by the medical lobby, the pharmaceutical lobby, and the powerful voting bloc of older voters.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by pnutjam · 2017-05-13 23:22 · Score: 1

Sebastion,
The US System is not government run, it's government regulated, for now. Both links you included, don't show what you are claiming.
The medicaid expansion you reference did not statistically improve the health of relatively healthy people, big surprise. It did give them better financial and mental health outcomes. I wouldn't call that a failure.
The VA link, talks about the recent problems, but it also included information about the lack of VA funding. The VA's patient load increased way faster then funding. Poor outcomes are not surprising. Veteran's love the VA, they just want it funded properly so it provides the services they were promised. It's certainly the least expensive way to provide those services.
Here's a link for you.
You can see that American's have less doctor visits, they spend more without getting better treatment. What is to like about the pre-ACA system? How did the ACA do anything to make this worse? It's clearly an attempt at improving multiple things and in a perfect world it would have been fixed over the next few years instead of being symbolically repealed about 176 times to pander to a misinformed base.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by ooloorie · 2017-05-14 03:34 · Score: 1

The US System is not government run, it's government regulated, for now. Both links you included, don't show what you are claiming.
The US has two systems: public and private. Medicare/Medicaid are fully government run health insurance systems: the government collects the money, negotiates services, and pays out claims. It's places like Germany and Switzerland that have all-private systems with regulation, so the US actually already has a "more socialist" and more government run system than those countries. The difference is that countries like Germany and Switzerland do a better job at regulating their private systems than the US does at running its public systems.

The medicaid expansion you reference did not statistically improve the health of relatively healthy people, big surprise. It did give them better financial and mental health outcomes. I wouldn't call that a failure.
First of all, given that they are using statistical confidence, just by chance, you expect one in 20 variables to improve accidentally. Second, if you transfer large amounts of money from a population you don't measure to a population you do measure, of course, the financial well being of the population you measure is going to improve. So, that reasoning is b.s. And, regardless, it is trying to distract from the fundamental fact that the Oregon experiment failed to deliver the outcomes that expansion of public coverage was first and foremost supposed to deliver: better physical health outcomes.

The VA's patient load increased way faster then funding. [...] they just want it funded properly so it provides the services they were promised. It's certainly the least expensive way to provide those services.
Absolutely false. Veterans cared for through the VA cost even more per year on average than people covered in other ways. (The reason this gets obscured and people cite absurdly low per person figures for VA patients is because the VA only pays for about 1/3 of the medical costs of veterans; the rest is reimbursed by other carriers.)

You can see that American's have less doctor visits, they spend more without getting better treatment.
Correct. And single payer proposals do nothing to address this. Instead, what they propose is to simply extract even more money from American taxpayers and put it into the same broken system.
Now, from your your links:

In contrast, the U.S. devotes a relatively small share of its economy to social services, such as housing assistance, employment programs, disability benefits, and food security.
Actually, the US devotes a fairly average share of its economy to social services.
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/20...
But that is the wrong measure anyway; social services shouldn't be measured relative to the economy. The correct measure is the absolute amount per capita the US spends on social services, and that is near the top.
https://mises.org/blog/social-...

Finally, despite its heavy investment in health care, the U.S. sees poorer results on several key health outcome measures such as life expectancy and the prevalence of chronic conditions.
Correct. And that tells you that increased health care spending and coverage does not improve life expectancy or an increase in health. Much of US health care spending is the consequence of obesity, substance abuse, single parenthood, homelessness, and promiscuity, and increased healthcare is not effective in addressing any of those problems. In fact, we have natural experiments in the US: Asian Americans and Latinos have the highest life expectancies in th
Re:The Dems just want single payer by pnutjam · 2017-05-14 15:58 · Score: 1

In particular, it means cutting spending on Medicare/Medicaid from over $10000/person to below $4000/person before then expanding those systems to the entire country
You realize that Medicare only covers old people and severely disabled, that accounts for the high costs. Like I've explained before, we are paying for everything in the most inefficient manner. A single payer pool would include healthy people who would drive those numbers down. Medicaid only covers the poor and again, sick people, disabled people, pregnant people, and elderly people. It spends an average of $6k per person, which again, is high due to the people being covered.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by ooloorie · 2017-05-14 16:42 · Score: 1

You realize that Medicare only covers old people and severely disabled, that accounts for the high costs.
While it's true that healthcare costs go up somewhat with age, they go up excessively in the US:
https://blogs-images.forbes.co...
That is, the data shows that the problems with costs in the US healthcare system are in large part due to excessive spending on the elderly. And that's because there is currently no political will to limit this spending: doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies make a financial killing from this population for no substantive gains in life expectancy or quality of life.

A single payer pool would include healthy people who would drive those numbers down.
Forcing young people to pay for the healthcare of old people doesn't "drive down" any costs and doesn't make healthcare "more efficient", it simply subsidizes the excessive consumption of health care by older people through imposing regressive taxes on poorer young people. It's morally wrong. In fact, I'd call it obscene. And it's politically unworkable in the long run.
I stand by my statement: any healthcare reform needs to start by sharply cutting Medicare/Medicaid costs down to European levels (contrary to what you believe, it makes little difference whether we talk about European averages or just elderly populations). Only then does it make sense to talk about extending Medicare to everybody.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by pnutjam · 2017-05-15 03:54 · Score: 1

So, if this is the case there is no hope until our electoral system is fixed. Mandatory voting is the only way forward.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by ooloorie · 2017-05-15 12:06 · Score: 1

So, if this is the case there is no hope until our electoral system is fixed. Mandatory voting is the only way forward.
Actually, I think there is plenty of hope: more and more people are figuring out that government is not the solution to their problems, and instead is a big con. That's not expressed in low voter participation rates (those haven't changed much for the past 100 years), it's expressed in people rejecting establishment candidates and media.
Dysfunctional programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and ACA are actually easy to get rid of: just produce enough political chaos and gridlock so that Congress doesn't get around to propping them up anymore; they'll collapse under their own weight.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by pnutjam · 2017-05-16 01:43 · Score: 1

There you go spouting crazy again. There's no way SS and Medicare will collapse. Medicaid might, in states with too much cronyism, it would be due to sabotage, like the ACA.
These programs will only expand. The GOP will do their best to insure they expand and are managed in the worst possible way, maybe a third party or GOP splinter will team up with the Dems to fix things. It works in the rest of the world, it will work here.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by ooloorie · 2017-05-16 02:02 · Score: 1

There you go spouting crazy again. There's no way SS and Medicare will collapse.
You need to face reality: these programs are a financially unsustainable wealth transfer from young people to old people. About half of Americans believe that Social Security won't be able to pay them any benefits when they retire.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/184...

Medicaid might, in states with too much cronyism, it would be due to sabotage, like the ACA.
ACA was broken from the start. You yourself said it "the ACA was a poor compromise". Even its architects admitted that it needed repeated passage of new legislation to work, legislation that would have never gotten passed initially. For Republicans to refuse to participate in that tinkering is not "sabotaging".

It works in the rest of the world, it will work here.
Obviously, you are resistant to facts and just love to repeat this Democratic lie. Learn something about how "the rest of the world" actually works, instead of behaving like a typical self-righteous, greedy, entitled American middle-class prick.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by pnutjam · 2017-05-16 03:26 · Score: 1

SS and Medicare could continue forever with minor tweaks. Although your right about the wealth transfer, why do only old people in the US get single payer? Now we're back to expanding the system, which is what needs to happen. You still haven't told me why the US can't do what everyone else can. You've got tons of figures that compare apples to dog turds, but nothing real.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by ooloorie · 2017-05-16 04:18 · Score: 1

You still haven't told me why the US can't do what everyone else can.
You mean switch to a two-tiered privately run insurance system with strict government-imposed cost controls and limited benefits, like Germany or Switzerland? We can't do that because people like you are shills or dopes for big corporations and special interests and keep opposing it.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by pnutjam · 2017-05-16 06:35 · Score: 1

What am I opposing. I want a basic single payer system, there is plenty of room for add on private insurance, but let me pay taxes for a public option and get rid of the mess of comparing insurance that is designed to be impossible to understand. At least the ACA created some standards in the insurance market.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by ooloorie · 2017-05-16 12:17 · Score: 1

What am I opposing
Cost controls like those found in Europe. Those are necessary in order to have a European-style single payer system.

At least the ACA created some standards in the insurance market.
What the ACA did was to expand insurance coverage to ridiculous level while raising taxes.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by pnutjam · 2017-05-16 14:54 · Score: 1

When did I say I opposed cost controls? I said that it will get cast as "death panels" and the GOP will hate it.

The ACA only required people to pay for the care the get. It eliminated unfunded mandates so deadbeats aren't showing up at the ER and skipping on the bill. Yeah, that 6 figure earning guy who couldn't or wouldn't get a policy because he could pay out of pocket, but can't work now or needs multi-million dollar care. He's a deadbeat.

We all have a responsibility to help each other, and sometimes that means planning for our future, with medical insurance, not socking money away for some sweet retirement so we can rub it in everyone's face when we retire at 50.

or, support single payer...

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by ooloorie · 2017-05-16 16:16 · Score: 1

When did I say I opposed cost controls?
You support the ACA and believe Medicare is sustainable with minor changes.

The ACA only required people to pay for the care the get.
That's patently false. You yourself made the argument that the ACA and single payer relies on "insurance pools" for solvency, pools that force healthy young people to pay more than they ought to.

Yeah, that 6 figure earning guy who couldn't or wouldn't get a policy because he could pay out of pocket, but can't work now or needs multi-million dollar care. He's a deadbeat.
That's a ridiculous strawman. First, multi-million dollar care is a symptom of our crony capitalist medical system, which is what you support. Second, that six figure guy may simply not have gotten insured because he doesn't want expensive medical procedures. Third, it's easy to deal with such cases: you require people to liquidate all their assets until they are indigent, and then you cover them with basic medical services like anybody else who is indigent. And "basic medical services" may simply mean: no expensive surgery and only cheap generic drugs, etc. You know, kind of like the Cuban medical system that you're so fond of.

We all have a responsibility to help each other, and sometimes that means planning for our future, with medical insurance, not socking money away for some sweet retirement so we can rub it in everyone's face when we retire at 50.
You don't help people "plan for the future" by stealing money from the young and spending it on keep decrepit old people alive a few more weeks and pay doctors multi-million dollar salaries.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by pnutjam · 2017-05-17 01:41 · Score: 1

People should die more gracefully, with less end of life costs. A basic level of medical insurance is something that we should all pay into with our tax dollars. It doesn't matter whether someone "doesn't want expensive medical procedures". Nobody "wants" expensive medical procedures. They are necessary because you or someone whose path your crossed did something stupid and caused a major injury, or because you drew the shit straw on cancer or any other number of diseases, or your just in th wrong place at the wrong time.

Do you know that if your diagnosed with kidney failure you automatically qualify for medicare? Why not other diseases? Our system is broken and taking it down to a basic single payer system would do wonders for our economy and our citizens.
Unfortunately, the losers in this scenario have alot of money to throw at politician.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by ooloorie · 2017-05-17 02:33 · Score: 1

People should die more gracefully, with less end of life costs.
And Medicare is responsible for not letting people die gracefully and for creating massive and unnecessary end-of-life expenses.

It doesn't matter whether someone "doesn't want expensive medical procedures". Nobody "wants" expensive medical procedures. They are necessary
It isn't "necessary" to get treated for every form of cancer, heart disease, stroke, disability, etc., it is a choice. You apparently want to choose "multi-million dollar treatments". Other people prefer to die with grace and dignity.

Our system is broken and taking it down to a basic single payer system would do wonders for our economy and our citizens. A basic level of medical insurance is something that we should all pay into with our tax dollars.
And here you go again, making utterly unsubstantiated claims.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by pnutjam · 2017-05-17 03:35 · Score: 1

Some people choose to have expensive and useless multi-million dollar treatments, some treatments work very well and cost millions, hell, even a couple hundred thousand is out of reach for most people.
It's folly for society to toss someone out because they're unlucky enough to need something like that and only a fool would decline it. Maybe you're such a fool.
Your also discounting the fact that many people don't make their own decisions. If I'm in a car accident and need major surgery to survive, it's probably my parents or spouse making the decision.
End of life care on the USA is not more expensive then elsewhere. So there goes one of your talking points.

If you want to save some time, just post "no, your dumb." and I'll post, "nuh uh, your dumb" afew times. I think that's the extent of this argument. (Of course, I'm right and your wrong)

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by ooloorie · 2017-05-17 04:11 · Score: 1

It's folly for society to toss someone out because they're unlucky enough to need something like that and only a fool would decline it.
Really? Why is it "folly" for society to refuse to pay millions of dollars in medical procedures for people who are never going to contribute millions of dollars of value to society?

Your also discounting the fact that many people don't make their own decisions.
Well, yes, and that's a problem. Individuals should make those decisions for themselves, and the way you make those decisions is by purchasing medical insurance that meets your needs and objectives.

End of life care on the USA is not more expensive then elsewhere. [pennmedicine.org] So there goes one of your talking points.
That's not what the study says. It's also not true: https://blogs-images.forbes.co...

I think that's the extent of this argument. (Of course, I'm right and your wrong)
Well, the difference is that I actually have first hand experience with several of these systems, whereas you (like most Americans asking for single-payer) just speak from ignorance. And while you are a fool who is never going to change his mind, fools vote, so it's important to figure out what your misconceptions actually are.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by pnutjam · 2017-05-17 09:09 · Score: 1

That's a nice chart, with no context or any data about how it was collected it means nothing.

How many systems have you experience and why should I find your anecdotal data more compelling then the mountains of evidence that is out there.
The procedures that people can't afford without insurance don't have to be multi-million. They can be as little as $2k, most people can't come up with $2k on short notice. Even wealthy people live paycheck to paycheck and would have trouble meeting bills as low as $5 or $10 thousand.
It's also not a dollars and cents equation. While it make little sense to throw $250k at a 75 year old, it makes perfect sense to spend $100k on a five year old with poor parents.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by ooloorie · 2017-05-17 13:38 · Score: 1

How many systems have you experience and why should I find your anecdotal data more compelling then the mountains of evidence that is out there.
You haven't produced any evidence at all. In fact, what you keep saying is this:

Our system is broken and taking it down to a basic single payer system would do wonders for our economy and our citizens. A basic level of medical insurance is something that we should all pay into with our tax dollars. [...] It works in the rest of the world, it will work here.
That is, you obviously live under the delusion that all other nations with working healthcare systems have tax-funded single payer systems. That is utter and complete nonsense, which you can easily check for yourself; you don't have to take my word for it. Other healthcare systems are all over the map, from regulated private systems with no tax funding at all to public systems in which all doctors are government employees.
The only thing all those systems have in common is the thing we lack: strict cost controls. A heart transplant in, say, Germany, costs less than 1/5 of what it costs in the US. Again, you don't have to take my word for it, you can simply look these things up.
That is, it is neither necessary nor sufficient to move to tax-payer funded single payer healthcare. If you want a healthcare system like Europe, all you need to do is implement cost controls.

Even wealthy people live paycheck to paycheck and would have trouble meeting bills as low as $5 or $10 thousand.
Well, and if they make such poor financial decisions, they have to live with the consequences, like, for example, only receiving limited, cheap medical care. What's so difficult about that?

While it make little sense to throw $250k at a 75 year old, it makes perfect sense to spend $100k on a five year old with poor parents.
So you are taking money from hardworking middle class families who are financially responsible and only have kids once they can afford them and transfer it to poor parents who have kids even though they can neither provide adequate medical care or education. That is not a viable long-term policy for society. It leads to just the situation we have right now: massively higher birth rates among poor women, with the long term consequences of increased inequalitiy, increased social problems, increased welfare dependency, and decreased social mobility.
We obviously can't withhold medical care from poor sick five year olds, but we can certainly treat such choices the same way we treat child support and hold parents financially responsible once their kids have become adults.
But you just want to keep forcing people who make prudent and careful decisions in their lives to pay for the consequences of bad choices that people make. That's a recipe for disaster.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by pnutjam · 2017-05-17 13:59 · Score: 1

The disaster is how we treat hard working poor people.
We give plenty of tax money to the wealthy and corporate interests. The real fear is that a single payer system will remove one of the hooks those "job creators" use to keep people kowtowing to them.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by ooloorie · 2017-05-17 17:26 · Score: 1

The disaster is how we treat hard working poor people. We give plenty of tax money to the wealthy and corporate interests.
Aren't "the working poor" so lucky that privileged guys like you speak up for them! It takes your level of courage, commitment, and superior intellect to make the daring statement that someone else ought to pay more to help them! You represent everything we have come to expect from the social engagement, activism, and charity of progressives and "liberals"! I just couldn't stand seeing the contrast between myself and people like you, which is why I left the Democratic party and the progressive movement! Keep up the "good work"!
Re:The Dems just want single payer by pnutjam · 2017-05-18 03:45 · Score: 1

Nice to see your true colors Sebastion. I know, you got yours so the rest can burn.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by ooloorie · 2017-05-18 14:45 · Score: 1

I know, you got yours so the rest can burn.
I didn't "get" mine, I worked hard for what I have, probably a lot harder than you. And I share, probably a lot more than you.
You, on the other hand, seem to pretend that your deep-seated anger and envy amount to generosity and charity.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by pnutjam · 2017-05-19 02:32 · Score: 1

Where's my anger? You don't think I work hard? I just understand that community has just us much to do with success as hard work, luck too. I want to make the world a little bit better before I check out.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by ooloorie · 2017-05-19 02:47 · Score: 1

I just understand that community has just us much to do with success as hard work, luck too.
So, to you, "community" is about success? Your think community is about having big cars, big houses, a big bank account, and luck? Bizarre.

I want to make the world a little bit better before I check out.
You make the world better by rolling up your sleeves and doing something useful for your fellow human beings and connecting with them. You don't need money, status, or luck for that.
You don't make the world a better place by telling people they should vote for politicians to redistribute money to the biggest and most powerful voting blocs.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by pnutjam · 2017-05-19 07:28 · Score: 1

My point is that success is impossible without the community, which provides the legal framework and customer base for any success. You can't achieve the same sort of success in places without roads or people or any number of other things that are part of our community framework.

I think you make the world better by helping the people you can reach, but you also need to do your part to provide a level playing field and help those who shut out of opportunity for any number of reasons or just plain bad luck.
I'm not going to sprint down the field tripping people and stepping on the heads of anyone who falls down, this seems to be your M.O.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by ooloorie · 2017-05-19 15:23 · Score: 1

I'm not going to sprint down the field tripping people and stepping on the heads of anyone who falls down, this seems to be your M.O.
My M.O. is to actually personally help people. Your M.O., on the other hand, is evidently merely to talk about how government should force other people to help yet other people; your M.O. is lazy, selfish, and ineffective.

My point is that success is impossible without the community, which provides the legal framework and customer base for any success.
Oh, I certainly believe that all of us need other people to succeed, that is, all of us need a community to live in. The essence of liberty is that people are both free to, and have a responsibility for, creating and maintaining these communities for themselves.
You, however, are saying something very different: you believe that there is a single community ("the community") that people are born into and bound to when they are born into the political unit of a nation state, and that that community can impose its will on its members for the supposed benefit of all. Your ideology is illiberal, harmful, and utterly deplorable.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by pnutjam · 2017-05-20 04:27 · Score: 1

I believe that freedom is a responsibility which comes with an obligation to extend this to others. You believe it is a privilege to be hoarded and doled out as a favor to others.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by ooloorie · 2017-05-20 10:51 · Score: 1

I believe that freedom is a responsibility which comes with an obligation to extend this to others
Don't kid yourself: that's not what you believe. All this grandiose talk about how government should do this and that is simply a mask to cover your own greed, selfishness, and self-righteousness.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by pnutjam · 2017-05-20 15:13 · Score: 1

Greed is about keeping and hoarding. I give and give some more. Time, money, energy. Heck, I even give a future to everyone by raising wonderful children.

Aren't you guys the ones who think that greed makes the world better, people who want more will get it and trickle it down like a piss rain on the poor.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by ooloorie · 2017-05-20 16:12 · Score: 1

I give and give some more. Time, money, energy.
I see. So you're claiming that you personally give "time, money, energy" voluntarily, but when it comes to other people, you want government to take money from them so that government can then hire public servants to deliver services in their place. Apparently, you think that you're a saint while most other people are greedy jerks. Nice opinion you have of your fellow Americans.
My view is that I give "time, money, energy" voluntarily, and I trust my fellow human beings to do the same thing, to the best of their ability.

Aren't you guys the ones who think that greed makes the world better
No, I'm one of those guys who thinks that charity, voluntary interactions, and community make the world better, and I'm one of those guys who trusts most of his fellow human beings to do the right thing voluntarily. I'm also someone who personally experienced how miserable and ineffective "help" delivered by the government actually is.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by pnutjam · 2017-05-21 15:08 · Score: 1

It's a simple fact that private charity can never replace the government safety net. It's way more efficient for me to give a little to taxes vs picking and choosing who to help and who to ignore. In almost every other area we, as a society, specialize. We have experts to grow food, experts to design roads, experts to manage business. However, when it comes to helping the poor you think every schmoe who pretends to have love in their heart should decide how to dole out assistance.
I would rather have a clearly defined system that I pay into, and unfortunately for you, so would everyone else. That's Democracy, sorry to break it to you.
Your little fiefdom where you get to feel better then people and make them grovel for your help, only to withhold it because you spent too much on caviar one week, is not the America we live in.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by ooloorie · 2017-05-21 16:08 · Score: 1

We have experts to grow food, experts to design roads, experts to manage business.
True. And those experts are predominantly employed by private organizations that people voluntarily give money to in exchange for their services, not by government. Hence, since you argue that experts helping the poor ought to be like experts doing anything else, experts helping the poor should be employed by private organizations that people voluntarily give money to in exchange for their services. Thanks for making that point so clearly for me.

I would rather have a clearly defined system that I pay into, and unfortunately for you, so would everyone else. That's Democracy, sorry to break it to you.
"Democracy" just means that government originates with the people somehow; there are many ways in which that can happen, some good, many bad. The will of the majority has resulted in killing the Jews, sterilizing the mentally ill, ethnically cleansing Native Americans, and segregating blacks. So, something being the will of the people doesn't make morally it right. That's why the US isn't supposed to be a majoritarian democracy but a constitutional republic; under that form of government, the will of the people is supposed to be limited by constitutional guarantees. And whenever we ignore such limits on government and democracy, minorities suffer greatly.

Your little fiefdom where you get to feel better then people and make them grovel for your help, only to withhold it because you spent too much on caviar one week, is not the America we live in.
I think we come back to the observation that (1) you clearly are not a charitable person, (2) you take the positions you take because of your own venal interests, and (3) your vision of "democracy" is of the socialist/progressive/fascist kind, in which a majority can deprive minorities of any rights they choose provided experts think it's "good for society as a whole". Again, thanks for making this so crystal clear.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by pnutjam · 2017-05-22 02:13 · Score: 1

I'm deeply offended by your claims and views. Your comparison of paying taxes to The Holocaust or Segregation is disgusting. I know how to debate, and you are not debating. You are punching low and standing in a deep valley that you pretend is the high ground.

Very few of the experts are named, are privately employed. I used to sit next to the guys that did this work for one city. USDA policies are the ones that have made food cheaply available to all Americans.
I'm sorry your such a despicable person.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by ooloorie · 2017-05-22 04:11 · Score: 1

I'm deeply offended by your claims and views.
Well, I have been deeply offended by your "claims and views" this entire thread.

Your comparison of paying taxes to The Holocaust or Segregation is disgusting.
I have no problem with paying taxes. I have a problem with your justification for taxes and your view of democracy.

USDA policies are the ones that have made food cheaply available to all Americans.
Wow, you are really utterly delusional.

I know how to debate, and you are not debating.
Of course I'm not debating with you; I have been pretty clear about that. What would be the point in debating with a greedy, selfish, ignorant little brownshirt like you? I have nothing but contempt for you, hence the little bubble next to your name. I just like to keep track of what the delusions-du-jour of people like you are; call it a survival instinct.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by pnutjam · 2017-05-23 01:23 · Score: 1

Wow, standard Fascist tactics, call the other side Fascist, because you know it throws them off. You've already accepted what a shit stain you are, sounds like you've embraced it.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:The Dems just want single payer by pnutjam · 2017-05-23 01:26 · Score: 1

If anyone else sees this, I think ooloorie really is Sebastian Gorka. The backstory he claims seems similar and his fake debating style is very reminicent of interviews I've heard with that Shit Stain (capitalized, because he's a proper Shit Stain).
I can hear his smarmy pseudo intellectual fake British accent now.

--
Cheap storage VM.

Where's my Autodoc? by LesserWeevil · 2017-05-09 11:53 · Score: 1

The confluence of robotics and medicine will eventually result in some sort of Autodoc appliance that will diagnose and repair most common issues. Now *that* is a trillion dollar market.

Not gonna happen in this environment by quax · 2017-05-09 12:06 · Score: 1

The VCs I talked to, who were interested in this sector, all started sitting on their funds ever since Trump came into power. It's just not clear how these programs will be affected.

It doesn't understand outsiders... by MindPrison · 2017-05-09 12:40 · Score: 1

Today it's all about who you ARE and WHO YOU KNOW.

This is a very unfortunate trend, today you're basically invisible to the entire industry unless you got 20+ years experience + are the same age as your experience, plus have amazing references and are willing to work overtime without extra compensation.

Doesn't matter if you can code their socks off, doesn't matter if you even won prizes and awards for your skills, the only thing that matters if you have some papers from your accredited school, and some networked friends that can vouch for you.

And god forbid if you're over 40, you're doomed buddy.

--
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.

Not just health care but Local Government by kalieaire · 2017-05-09 12:50 · Score: 1

It's not just health care that could use reform, but local government as well. We're stuck using antiquated software systems which use old databases. Software used to manage Autopsy Records, Park Picnic Registration, Incident Response Systems, Office of Emergency Services, Voter registration, DMV Database, Even simple HR applications like PeopleSoft. Walk into any Local, County, or State Gov't's IT shop and point a finger, you'll find something that needs replacement ASAP.

Re: Let's not forget.... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-09 12:53 · Score: 1

A 100K salary in Silicon Valley doesn't go very far, so the net worth wouldn't be particularly high.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Everyone thought Ronald Read was a poor man because he lived frugally and worked all his life as gas station attendant and later as a janitor. When he died at the age of 92, he left $8M to the local hospital and library.

http://www.joshuakennon.com/janitor-ronald-read-leaves-behind-8000000-secret-fortune/

Alternate theory by fahrbot-bot · 2017-05-09 13:07 · Score: 1

Maybe they ate all the unicorns

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .

Re:Let's not forget.... by Z00L00K · 2017-05-09 16:50 · Score: 1

Can you live in Silicon Valley with a salary of $100k or less?

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.

Re:Let's not forget.... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-09 16:54 · Score: 1

Can you live in Silicon Valley with a salary of $100k or less?

Yes, if you live a modest lifestyle. If you want the American Dream of having it all (big house, big cars, big wife and big kides), it gets expensive in a hurry.

well, gee by Goldsmith · 2017-05-09 19:03 · Score: 1

If you read the details on the money he's offering (called the "90/10 Rule"), it's 50% to 90% of the cost to build new software and 50% to 75% of the cost to maintain it, with theoretically the rest to be provided by your state...?

I appreciate that they're trying to get something going, and they're working within some insane limits put on them by contradictory mandates, but this is not a proposal to get quality work done. Implying this is a good deal does not help his credibility. This is a proposal for charity work (which is fine... just don't pretend this is a deal VCs are going to jump on).

It's a hard world, but real quality work requires a financial return of a multiple of the cost to make something, not a fraction of the cost to make something.

Re:Let's not forget.... by loslosbaby · 2017-05-09 19:43 · Score: 1

HUD says if you make less than 103K$ you are "poor"... http://www.mercurynews.com/201... I'm glad my buddy DJ in Southeast Oklahoma busts his ass to cut firewood and feed people's cows, fix fences, do brush and tractor work so he can ship money off to "poor" people in the SF BA via his tax return. I'll make sure to call him on his feature phone in the land of zero data bars to tell him this. Maybe y'all will be able to hear his head explode from the coasts. I'll call at noon Central time tomorrow, let's see if the call gets through.

cart before horse by slew · 2017-05-09 20:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

The whole idea that Silicon Valley VCs are somehow *looking* for unicorn companies or unicorn ideas is totally ass-backward.

Silicon Valley VCs believe they can *create* unicorns by throwing money at them. They aren't looking for them per-se. They are looking for the "right team", the "right investment", etc... The actual idea? Maybe a company can pivot to an idea before the iron grows cold and they are off to the next team. Or not.

A billion dollar valuation (aka unicorn) simply means VCs have managed to get some 3rd or 4th round chumps to dump a bunch of money into a company for a microscopic share of equity. The smart investors either came in early, or have financing structures with warrants that are dilutive (meaning they didn't actually invest at unicorn levels) unlike the employees that usually promised fully diluted shares some day. The whole fiction of unicorns is simply a media creation and has nothing to do with the market potential of a company. Like Enron or Adelphia accounting, it's a fiction that only has to do with the esoteric machinations of valuation and financing a startup.

I suspect the main reason nobody is pivoting towards medicaid recipients is that silicon valley companies probably don't think they can compete with the fraud levels that are out there. If some SV company thought they figured out a way to skim medicaid dollars, they probably can't hold a candle to what people are already doing to the system. It's hard to beat scammers at their own game (esp if you are trying to play fair). On the other hand, maybe a Uber-like company might want to tackle this, but I don't know if that would be a good thing.

Re:Let's not forget.... by Maritz · 2017-05-09 20:56 · Score: 1

cento = 100 kilo = K

Next you'll ask, "WTF is nmap?"

lol are you fucking serious? Any other words you made up that you expect everybody else to know?

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.

Re:Let's not forget.... by Maritz · 2017-05-09 20:57 · Score: 1

He outed you as a dickhead. Suck it up.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.

Profit by bickerdyke · 2017-05-09 22:49 · Score: 1

Yes, there is profit to be made with modernizing medicaid

But no, that profit won't be earned by the poor people on medicaid. It's not the dependants of a system that can profit from rebuilding it. They can't even shape it.

If you want to give those people a say, go ahead, but that won't bring VC money to medicaid.

--
bickerdyke

Re:WTF? Unicorns? Poor People? by sabbede · 2017-05-09 23:59 · Score: 1

Something that doesn't exist? Like poor people in Silicon Valley?

Seriously though, I think it's an investment opportunity with revolutionary potential. But I'm kinda guessing, so maybe you shouldn't put too much weight on my answer. Even if it's exactly what I think it is, I still have no idea why they'd call it a unicorn.

I can say that there are probably poor people everywhere because the poverty threshold is defined regionally according to the cost of food - 3x what it costs to buy just enough food to survive.

Re:Let's not forget.... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-10 02:13 · Score: 1

"Big" wife and "big" kids? Well I guess when you weigh 350 lbs you don't have many options.

When I mean "big," I'm mean bigger than me. I used to be the proverbial fat kid in school. But now there are fat people everywhere who are much bigger than me.

Also you wouldn't need such a big car if you could fit into a regular-sized one.

My last two cars was a 1999 Pontiac Grand Prix and 1999 Ford Taurus. I had no problems sitting behind the steering wheel.

Re:Let's not forget.... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-10 02:21 · Score: 1

Maybe you should try walking you fat tub of shit.

https://twitter.com/cdreimer/status/858405712317210624

It's deeper than that by RogueWarrior65 · 2017-05-10 02:32 · Score: 1

Silicon Valley doesn't understand life outside of Silicon Valley. There are a whole lot of places in the country that don't have wireless internet service yet they build products that expect it.

Re:Let's not forget.... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-10 03:22 · Score: 1

I just did a literal spit take.

Get used to it.

Somebody says, "Try walking, you fat tub of shit," and you show evidence that once, a few weeks ago, you walked on a treadmill so slowly that you could never walk to anyplace in a practical manner?

I originally posted that picture in response to another asshat on Slashdot who wrote that I needed a bowl of candy to keep me motivated on the treadmill. Walking 3MPH with a 3% incline on a treadmill puts my heart in cardio zone. The treadmill is but one part of my exercise routine.

Unicorn = venture capital win by Wargames · 2017-05-10 03:51 · Score: 1

unicorns --private, venture-backed companies valued at a billion dollars or more

source:
How Unicorns Grow - Harvard Business Review
https://hbr.org/2016/01/how-un...

--
-- Each tock of the Planck clock is a new world and here we are still life. --

Re:Let's not forget.... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-10 04:17 · Score: 1

Right, in addition to walking slowly, there's also:
- 2.5 ounce candy-bar curls
- 10 second wind sprint to the vending machine
- holding your breath for 20 seconds while you down an entire liter of soda
- deadlifting crates of garbage energy bars

https://twitter.com/cdreimer/status/861287512802705408/

Re:Let's not forget.... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-10 04:24 · Score: 1

So you have a fat fetish or something?

Only women with hips. The kind of hips that will carry a baby or two.

I had a Taurus in the 90's, that thing was a g'damn boat.

A coworker at Cisco had an original Hummer and security was also tagging him because he took up two parking spots with the wheels in the center of each parking spot.

Re:Let's not forget.... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-10 05:04 · Score: 1

Why are you proud of how you look?

Because being ashamed of being fat doesn't win gold medals.

[...] Coronary heart disease [...]

I have had high blood pressure in 30 years.

[...] Cancer, Stroke [...]

I don't smoke.

[...] Dementia [...]

I read three or four books per month.

[...] Diabetes, Depression [...]

A low-carb diet for the last seven years have reduced my chances for diabetes and depression.

[...] Arthritis [...]

I don't run.

[...] Obesity [...]

Even if my body fat went to zero, I will still be fat.

[...] Sexual dysfunction [...]

The boys downstairs are perky as ever.

[...] Sleep disorders [...]

I get up at 4:30AM and start work at 7:00AM. I sleep in late on the weekends, waking up at 6:30AM. I'm in bed by 8:30PM each night.

Take and follow some of the excellent nutrition and weight loss advice [...]

The Super-size Me diet? The Snickers diet? Two-dozen eggs per week diet? No thanks.

Re:Let's not forget.... by AutodidactLabrat · 2017-05-10 06:51 · Score: 1

With 2br rents being $3500 month, no, you cannot "live" on the penninsula for less than 100K
Bad news. Most of those who do work for a living, as opposed to slinging sh!t on Slashdot, are making far less than $100K

Re:Let's not forget.... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-10 06:56 · Score: 1

With 2br rents being $3500 month, no, you cannot "live" on the penninsula for less than 100K

I pay $1466 per month for my 475-sqft studio apartment in San Jose. I still save 20% of my income.

Re:Let's not forget.... by AutodidactLabrat · 2017-05-10 08:25 · Score: 1

And just how many 2br 475ft^2 apartments are there?
That's like a 6x6 bedroom for each assuming a kitchen and tiny "living room".
So, any kids?
No, you do not "Live" on 50K/yr on the Penninsula

Re:Let's not forget.... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-10 08:41 · Score: 1

That puts your expenses at 2514 per month, leaving you with $652 [...]

I pull down $4166 per month before taxes and my budget is $2828 per month with extra cash not allocated to anything in particular.

God forbid you have a significant financial emergency.

You mean like not working for two years (2009-2010), underemployed for six months (working 20 hours per month), and having $25 in checking after filing for Chapter Seven bankruptcy in 2011? Been there, done that.

You are working poor in the Valley.

You didn't include my brokerage, retirement and savings accounts (~$10,000). Not too many working poor have access to banking services.

You are barely even covering your expenses.

I'm covering all of my expenses every month.

Re:Let's not forget.... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-10 08:53 · Score: 1

That's like a 6x6 bedroom for each assuming a kitchen and tiny "living room".

I've seen places like that in downtown San Jose. Old Victorians converted into boarding homes.

No, you do not "Live" on 50K/yr on the Penninsula

I live in San Jose and work in Palo Alto. The only people who care about the Peninsula are the people too poor to live in San Francisco.

Re:Let's not forget.... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-10 09:45 · Score: 1

NOT being ashamed of being fat justifies staying fat, ruining your health, eating like shit, and never trying to improve yourself.

I diet, I work out and improve myself all the time. You reject that because it doesn't fit you perception of a fat person.. Being ashamed of myself, wallowing in piety and feeling sorry for myself will not make me skinnier.

Re:Let's not forget.... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-10 12:49 · Score: 1

HUD says if you make less than 103K$ you are "poor"...

With a five year waiting list for new openings.

Fine by rsilvergun · 2017-05-10 17:08 · Score: 2

then take it away from the old people. They use _way_ more health care and didn't pay nearly enough in Medicare taxes to cover what they use. Screw everybody or screw nobody. Arizona's flush will billionaires who retired here (you'd be surprised how many). We wanted our cake and to eat it too. We wanted free money for the old people that vote and to abandon the working poor who can't make it to the polls.

You're problem isn't you drank the Kool-Aid, you're problem is you don't have the political will or guts to take care of your poor. Neither do we. You do a much better job.

And the Feds enforced like mother fucking crazy. We don't want them to enforce. We hire those people to be maids, cooks, and farm hands. We bitch and moan about it all day long but in the end we turn a blind eye. Obama deported them like crazy. It's one of the things the left hit him on (that and the drone strikes).

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:Fine by tlambert · 2017-05-11 01:05 · Score: 1

And the Feds enforced like mother fucking crazy. We don't want them to enforce. We hire those people to be maids, cooks, and farm hands.
Do you personally have maids, cooks, and farm hands?
Most of the people concerned about illegal immigrants accessing ACA health care for free are not rich people in border states with dozens of maids, cooks, and farm hands, doing nothing more than sitting around swimming pools sipping margaritas, and bitching about the tax rate. They are instead poor people in the U.S. who are concerned about foreign labor undercutting their ability to get manufacturing and other low skill blue collar labor jobs.
One of the reasons that Hillary didn't win is that she completely ignore these people, in favor of catering to the political wishes of employed urban yuppies in coastal cities, who didn't have the issues the rest of the U.S. faces.

Re:Let's not forget.... by pnutjam · 2017-05-11 03:10 · Score: 1

All those midwest hundredairs are jealous you can make it work, keep up the good fight.

--
Cheap storage VM.

Re:Let's not forget.... by pnutjam · 2017-05-11 03:33 · Score: 1

For a family of 4.

It's nice to hear someone still stuck in the righteous anger of why don't I have what you have or why do you deserve that instead of solving problems like where are families with kids going to live.
Just reminds me why I'm trying to get out of the red state I live in.

--
Cheap storage VM.

Re:Let's not forget.... by AutodidactLabrat · 2017-05-12 08:10 · Score: 1

Which proves my point

Slashdot Mirror

'Silicon Valley Is Missing Unicorns Because It Doesn't Understand Poor People' (cnbc.com)

154 of 202 comments (clear)