Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Opposes Net Neutrality (arstechnica.com)

Beardydog writes: An article currently on Ars Technica examines comments about net neutrality issues by recent Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh not only rejects the FCC's reclassification of ISPs under Title II, but seems to also support a broad First Amendment right to "editorial control," allowing ISPs to selectively block, filter, or modify transmitted data.

Kavanaugh compares ISPs to cable TV operators, rather than phone companies. "Deciding whether and how to transmit ESPN and deciding whether and how to transmit ESPN.com are not meaningfully different for First Amendment purposes." Here's what Ars Technica had to say about Kavanaugh's argument, which did not address the business differences between cable TV and internet service: "Cable TV providers generally have to pay programmers for the right to carry their channels, and cable TV providers have to fit all the channels they carry into a limited amount of bandwidth. At least for now, major internet providers don't offer a set package of websites -- they just route users to whichever sites the users are requesting. ISPs also don't have to pay those websites for the right to 'transmit' them, but ISPs have argued that they should be able to demand fees from websites."

The report also mentions Kavanaugh's support of NSA surveillance: "In November 2015, Kavanaugh was part of a unanimous decision when the DC Circuit denied a petition to rehear a challenge to the NSA's bulk collection of telephone metadata. Kavanaugh was the only judge to issue a written statement, which said that '[t]he Government's collection of telephony metadata from a third party such as a telecommunications service provider is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment.' Even if this form of surveillance constituted a search, it wouldn't be an 'unreasonable' search and therefore it would be legal, Kavanaugh also wrote."

Comments

Judges, not legislators

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure why this is so hard for people to understand - judges don't (and shouldn't) make the laws. They only attempt to interpret them as cases are brought before them where a violation is claimed.

Want different laws? Elect different legislators.

Re:Judges, not legislators

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 naive

Re: Judges, not legislators

[saloomy]

How is dragnet record requests from ISPs and telecom carriers not unreasonable?? Sorry, but I disagree with you. Stupid interpretation can be bad for the freedoms and laws we have enshrined. Because of our stupid two party system, we may not always have the right political climate to fix what was once done. The 4th would never fly if it were being proposed today. Too many blue lives / law and order types who don't see the value of privacy, and can't imagine their freedoms being taken away because "governments never persecute good Christians".

Re: Judges, not legislators

[Bert64]

Because you as the user have chosen to give away that data to the carrier...
They are not searching data you hold, they are searching data the carrier holds which you have given to them.
So it's not placing an unreasonable burden on you, as the end user.

Wether it's unreasonable for the carrier is another matter.

Re:Judges, not legislators

[prisoner-of-enigma]

We tend to think of the Internet as a thing in and of itself, where this judge appears to think of it as a pool of possible things that an ISP can cherry-pick content from to serve up for you.

Please find the exact clause and wording in the Constitution where it grants the government the right to tell a private company what it can and cannot distribute to customers voluntarily consuming its services. You can't, because it doesn't exist.

You see, this is one of the problems of wanting an "activist judiciary." Just because you want your ISP to work a certain way doesn't give you the right to force them to do so. The proper course of action is to vote with your wallet and take your business elsewhere. Don't act like you can't; it's a rare case these days where you have no choice of ISP's. You'd be outraged if the government ordered an ISP to not carry some specific content. The reciprocal of that is the government has no right to stop them from not carrying it. You cannot have one without the other. The alternative is government control of content, something any liberal or conservative should rightly oppose.

This is what freedom looks like. It is not perfect, never will be, and any attempt to make it so will eventually backfire when you hand the government too much control. The best control will always be in the hands of the people making economic choices of their own free will. No company can long withstand a situation where customers are dissatisfied with their product or service. Either their competition will drive them to bend or new competitors will spring up to serve market demand.

Re: Judges, not legislators

[whoever57]

They are not searching data you hold, they are searching data the carrier holds which you have given to them. So it's not placing an unreasonable burden on you, as the end user.

"unreasonable burden" isn't the issue here. The question is whether you have an expectation of privacy, having given that data to a company. Personally, I expect my phone company to keep my phone records private.

Since phones are effectively required for life in the USA, you don't have a choice about giving that data, only a choice of which company you give the data to.

Re:Judges, not legislators

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Want different laws? Elect different legislators.

Nah, that makes far too much sense to try. Much better to have judges "make" law even though they have no Constitutional prerogative to do so. That pesky Constitution is GREAT except for all the places WE don't like, so it should be selectively enforced or ignored on a whim. That'll work out GREAT! What could possibly go wrong? It's not like giving government arbitrarily vast powers has EVER been bad people, right?

Re:Judges, not legislators

[lhunath]

Certainly the constitution doesn't care about granting the government the right of telling a company what to do, that would be serious overreach. It's really just an interpretation of what it means that the constitution *doesn't* tell us how to think of the Internet.

Does that mean that the Internet is something that only exists as whatever comes out of your end of the cable when you buy a service with a local Internet provider? If so, it makes sense to think of the Internet as a product that is generated by your local ISP, and therefore, they have the full right to decide what it looks like.

But this is not how people today think of the Internet. If you ask people today what the Internet is, they imagine it as a unitary thing that is available to people world-wide, and it looks the same to all people everywhere. The Internet is a space of freedom of access, freedom of information and freedom of expression. It's extremely important to understand that this Internet of freedoms is completely incompatible with the Internet as a service idea. You cannot have a free Internet and at the same time an Internet that is a commercially-selected subset of Internet that works best in the business context of your local cable company.

An Internet-as-a-service is an Internet where the ISP is the socialist government, dictating for you, what the cyber world gets to look like. This is the consequential Kavanaugh Internet: you may think of it as an Internet born from constitutional freedoms, but an Internet born from freedoms is decidedly un-free.

Once we realize that, it's up to us to decide what we want to do. Do we want to throw our hands in the air and see what kind of Internet market forces will create for us (note: it will be different depending on what state you live in)? Or do we want an Internet that mirrors our current perception of an Internet of freedoms? If we want the latter, the only way to get an Internet of freedoms is by writing it into law. Regulation that states exactly what those freedoms are, and tells the gatekeepers that they need to provide us with at-minimum a version of Internet where those freedoms are respected.

A lot of people think it makes no sense that regulation creates freedom, and a lack of regulation creates oppression. But this is precisely how things work in the real world. You cannot be free without legislation that tells you what your freedoms are. What do you think the constitution is? It is the supreme regulation of your personal freedoms. What you need is a constitution of the Internet. This is net neutrality.

Net neutrality is the constitution of the free Internet. And it doesn't exist (and neither do your freedoms) unless we create it.

Re:Judges, not legislators

[Noamin]

The proper course of action is to vote with your wallet and take your business elsewhere. Don't act like you can't; it's a rare case these days where you have no choice of ISP's.

While most of your post is just deranged gibbering, this is actually an outright lie. The vast majority of US homes do not have a choice of ISPs. Of course, it's no surprise that someone whose sig contains whining about "offended feelings" has no interest in facts or reality.

Re:Judges, not legislators

[Anonymous Coward]

We tend to think of the Internet as a thing in and of itself, where this judge appears to think of it as a pool of possible things that an ISP can cherry-pick content from to serve up for you.

Please find the exact clause and wording in the Constitution where it grants the government the right to tell a private company what it can and cannot distribute to customers voluntarily consuming its services.

If ISPs are common carriers then Title II applies and network neutrality is valid based on existing law. The internet, at its heart is take a packet from arbitrary source to arbitrary definition. That sounds like a common carrier to me. Title II has been around since 1964.

Ultimately it would be nice if the congress people would do their fucking jobs and officially classify it as title II so there is no room for interpretation, but they have not, since they foolishly believe that trusting corporations to do the right thing if we just give them unfettered power works. It doesn't.

Also ISPs have a ton of benefit from public easements and infrastructure to build their crap. That changes the game considerably. You can't blatantly use a public resource purely for enrichment with no consideration for the public good. This also isn't a chance where free market fairy dust fixes everything. A lot of places only have one hard line isp, and many still have none. Here is a link showing it. link.

An estimated 34.4 million people don't have access to broadband in America.

The interesting thing is conservatives tend to have flexible ethics. He says he is a strict follower of the law, but it takes a tortured interpretation to have our packet delivery network to not be a common carrier.

Now you could argue that if they ban net neutrality and such and ISPs run amuck making the internet their private toll roads, well maybe it will no longer be a common carrier, but that would be no different than saying only Walmart can use semi trucks on the highway. The original intent of the internet was as a common carrier. Interpretation of statutes should be based on that original intent, and not the intent of people wanting to make even more money by setting up more toll booths.

Re:Judges, not legislators

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

I really dislike that whole argument of "find that in the Constitution", as if a document written over 200 years ago has every future technology, invention, social change, etc written in it. I've heard the same argument about the EPA, Department of Education, the IRS, etc. By that logic, we should disband the Air Force and the Marines, since the Constitution only mentions the Army and Navy. It doesn't mention electricity at all, or have any comprehension of ideas like nuclear weapons, so therefor the government shouldn't regulate those either, right? We should just return to an 18th century agrarian society, abandon any law having anything to do with anything not specifically listed in the Constitution. If one State doesn't like another State dumping toxic waste into a river right on their border, I suppose they should just call up their State militia and fight it out. States should be able to enact tariffs and embargoes between each other, succeed from the Union without federal interference, determine their own voting laws for any political positions inside their own State, etc. If it's not specifically in the Constitution, it's good to go!

Re: Judges, not legislators

[Pinky's Brain]

Granted.

Any records of your visits to the deposit/PO boxes however are almost certainly not covered, aka metadata, given United States v Miller 1976.

Re: Judges, not legislators

[Anonymous Coward]

Disputes between states are settled in Federal courts; that's actually in the Constitution. The Constitution also states that the federal government is responsible for Common Defense. From the hyperbole you justed spewed, it's clear that not only have you never actually read the Constitution, but your entire scope of knowledge regarding the documents is flat-out wrong.

Re:Judges, not legislators

[Powercntrl]

Here is a study (skip to page 11) that estimates that over 50% of US households have 2 or more choices for 25mbps+ landline service.

Typical Republican mindset: "I've got mine, too damn bad if you didn't get yours."

Selfish people with no empathy are ruining this country. Nobody should have to move just to have a choice of broadband provider. Certainly not half of the country.

Re:Judges, not legislators

[fafalone]

I wasn't aware the US Code was part of the US Constitution.

Re:Judges, not legislators

[Wrath0fb0b]

Please find the exact clause and wording in the Constitution where it grants the government the right to tell a private company what it can and cannot distribute to customers voluntarily consuming its services. You can't, because it doesn't exist.

This is quite silly. The Constitution undoubtedly gives Congress the right to regulate ISPs that are engaging in interstate commerce. Congress could pass a law mandating Net Neutrality and directing an appropriate agency (likely the FCC) to draft rules to enforce it. Congress could also pass a law specifically saying that no agency has the authority to create such a rule.

Guess what. Congress did fucking neither. That's all we needed, a simple up or down from the one body that has final goddamned authority. Instead, they remained silent and so we have to parse the content of laws from previous decades instead of having a clear and concise national policy from a legislative body that's suppose to make policy.

The anger at judges and lawyers and agencies is valid but misplaced. The one body that could resolve the issue has gone out to lunch.

Re: Judges, not legislators

[fortfive]

Except this guy is claiming isp's have a constitutional right to limit traffic, thus making any law that might get enacted to be void on constitutional grounds.

Re: Judges, not legislators

[tbannist]

Worse than that, he's claimed that ISPs have a constitutional right to limit and censor their customer's access to the Internet because he thinks the Internet is exactly the same thing as TV.

Re: Judges, not legislators

[e3m4n]

How is this any different than Facebook deciding what sort of comments they are going to allow? They claim the right to decide that 90% of religious groups are 'hate speech' and ban them constantly while managing to do very little about FBLive live streams of gang rapes and beheadings. Or Youtube's decision to de-monitize every single gun-related channel, even if that content is merely about target shooting, safety, or even proper care and cleaning; despite it being completely legal and constitutionally protected. If Facebook is legally allowed to decide, for themselves, what sort of 'dialog' they want to allow in their GroupThink project, or Youtube decides who they want to punish for not fitting into their views; What right do you have telling another company (ie ATT) what they can or cannot restrict? Maybe we need to expand the 14th amendment, that guarantees equal treatment, to more than just race and gender.

This is the paramount problem with 'Net Neutrality'. They used the word Neutrality but its total bullshit. The net result is they forced carriers to absorb the cost of companies like Netflix. It is literally another example of government setting up a billion dollar empire. They use far-fetched examples of ATT blocking access to Netflix because it competes with HBO. But all they did was allow Netflix to exploit this and reduce their operating costs and saddle that burden on the carriers. There is nothing Neutral about it. If you want real neutrality then everyone gets a bandwidth meter and they pay by the byte, just like electricity. Nobody said it had to be prohibitively expensive, just uniformly metered to every occupant. Any world where ATT is told they cannot restrict the flow of data, or block the flow of data, should apply EQUALLY to content providers of Social Media. Instead of congress telling FB they need to do a better job policing they users, maybe FB needs to say 'you tell ME which users to sanction based on a system of Due Process' to congress and claim Neutrality otherwise. After all, should it not be the courts the decide when and if someone's 1st amendment rights can and should be censored? You can't have a bias'd and untrained bunch of tech flunkies like FB deciding for themselves, without true system of legal court system appeals, who is and who is not entitled to their constitutionally protected rights. Not so long as you believe your right to bandwidth and accessing the internet is beyond the rights of those paying to maintain and provide it to you.

If you want Neutrality then you best be ready to fuck over the content providers equally as much as you fuck over those just delivering said content.

Re:Judges, not legislators

[lhunath]

Hey you, you seem frustrated. You also seem to be railing against something you clearly take issue with but wasn't in the comment you replied to.

I think you're frustrated with people hijacking the term "net neutrality" as whatever regulation is necessary to protect their own world-view. Did I get that right?

Net neutrality is not about leftist or rightist values. It is not about feminism, porn, fake news, or hate speech.

Net neutrality is nothing more than "my internet is the same internet as your internet".
The idea that the Internet is a domain of its own, and any gatekeeper that provides access to the Internet should treat it as-it-is, and not try to change what the Internet looks like to fit their personal beliefs or commercial interests. Whether that Internet has things on it that I like or dislike does not matter. What matters is that it's the same and stays the same. The ISP should be neutral, not biased. The ISP should show the picture as-is, not color it blue or red, censor it or favor it.

And here's the crux: for an ISP to treat the internet as neutral, you need regulation. If there is no regulation, every ISP will treat the Internet as biassed. Leftist ISPs will treat it leftist, rightist ISPs will treat it rightist and all ISPs will treat it in whatever way makes them more money. If you want your Internet to be the same as my Internet, your Internet speech to be unadulterated and free, you need to tell ISPs everywhere that they are not allowed to censor your speech, they are not allowed to change your Internet to look or act different.

Re: Judges, not legislators

[Rob Y.]

Facebook is not an ISP. Sure, they can control what's on Facebook. But Verizon should not be allowed to control whether you can access Facebook. Is it really so hard to understand that distinction?

Re: Judges, not legislators

[e3m4n]

blocking content is blocking content. the word Net Neutrality, and its support by the populace is that no provider (not limited to just isp) should have the right to censor or restrict access to what you want to access.

How is saying we are going to censor content on our hard drives any different than saying we are going to censor content on our switches? If Verizon decided to restrict all content related to gay rights, its a violation. But Facebook wouldn't be in violation if they did the exact same thing? The word is NET NEUTRALITY, not ISP Neutrality. Facebook is on the fucking internet isnt it? They provide content don't they? This is why the policy was thrown out in the first place. It was never applied equally and uniformly.

Such policies are always troublesome and eventually always fail. Come up with a policy that applies to every single person and corporation across the board. The same fucking law that some states passed that says a cake baker cannot refuse to make a cake for a gay couple should apply the same way to Facebook, regardless if Facebook is censoring content based on LGBT or gun rights, it shouldn't fucking matter. I have yet to see any state take FB to court for refusing to let people talk about gun rights btw, despite the exact wording of the laws requiring store owners to sell cakes to gay couples being worded in such a way that actual puts FB in violation of the same law. No pun intended but these half-baked laws are bullshit. The reason there is so much polarization in this country right now is exactly for reasons JUST LIKE THIS. We pass laws to punish those we disagree with and do nothing about those we do agree with violating the same spirit of the law. Make laws that will apply to everyone in such a way that NOBODY gets a free pass. 2 things will happen. We will make less damn laws, and people will make sure the laws they DO pass are not unjust as they will have to live by them too.

Re: Judges, not legislators

[Sloppy]

How is this any different than Facebook deciding what sort of comments they are going to allow?

People think of websites as expressive media; you don't visit a website just to talk with the other users, but to communicate with the website itself (which happens to include some inputs from some other people). And Facebook does express itself. You'll see their logo, their ads, etc all over that shit. It's formatted however they want it formatted, not however your Usenet newsreader happens to format it.

People think of ISPs and phones as networks where the service is nearly invisible and non-expressive. From this point of view, only the users express themselves; the network is not expressing anything and therefore doesn't have the kinds of rights the 1st Amendment tries to protect. (Additionally, the phone network was uneconomical to build without government help, and has always been connected to government and regulated.)

People might be wrong, about one or both of these things. Or more likely "wrong," in that this is more something the decide/define, rather than discover. It's an ok thing to disagree about and debate, but I hope we all get back onto the same page before too much damage is done. (And everyone used to be on the same page, so this shouldn't be too hard.)

Some of it is historical. Websites, even "web 2.0" with its comments, are seen as their own expressive entities because they always acted like that. Similarly, phones and IP networks are seen as non-expressive carriers because people always experienced them that way. Not only do you expect your phone call to not be edited, but your great grandfather did too, and so did everyone in between! For whatever reason, putting ads in the middle of your phone call wasn't something people thought of in the 1920s. If someone had, we might have a different view of communications networks these days.

But it didn't happen, so it's very rare to hear the opinion that networks could have the right to free expression -- that network traffic is somehow speech for the person delivering it. It hasn't ever been true, has it? A message in a bottle is something the ocean is saying? The US Post is saying the things in your letters or has the right to edit them? Nobody has that interpretation of free speech. Indeed, the public even knows the words "common carrier" without having to understand everything that means. The idea is that mainstream.

Re: Judges, not legislators

[Rob Y.]

Censorship and 'transmission neutrality' are still different things. Yes, theoretically, without net neutrality, your ISP could censor content (assuming the connection was not encrypted so the ISP could actually see it). But that's not what net neutrality is about. Net neutrality requires that you are free to access whatever content you want and that is available on the web. That doesn't mean you're free to post whatever you want wherever you want - or that websites are required to post any particular information. And it also means that Facebook is free to determine whether they think an article is true before allowing you to link to it on their platform. There's good and bad to that - but just because you don't like some aspect of it doesn't mean that it falls under the category of net neutrality.

Actually, I kind of hope Kavinaugh is stupid or ignorant enough not to get that distinction. Then maybe he's willing to be educated about what net neutrality actually means before he ultimately rules on it. Doubtful, of course, since he's obviously of the phony 'originalist' bent - which essentially means "decide which side of an issue business is on and tie yourself in knots to justify voting that way". The only thing 'originalist' about that is that it's a handy justification that covers a lot of cases without too much knot-tying.

He likes the color blue, too

[Jhon]

I hate the color blue! If he can't prefer the color green over blue he shouldn't be be a justice!

Because it really doesn't MATTER on topics which don't really APPLY the the supreme court. Get your congress-critters two write law well and it'll survive any decision from SCOTUS.

Re:He likes the color blue, too

[Known Nutter]

Because it really doesn't MATTER on topics which don't really APPLY the the supreme court. Get your congress-critters two write law well and it'll survive any decision from SCOTUS.

Well, it sort of does matter. Here you have a SCOTUS Justice nominee who arguably has an established agenda. He believes that POTUS (any) should be immune from criminal investigation, yet he was on the team investigating Clinton during the Lewinsky affair. He spent five years working for the directly for the Bush administration And now, with RvW back, you have now a justice who, along with the rest of the Court, will effectively make the law of the land by overturning a previous SCOTUS ruling.

Which isn't surprising. That's how our government works these days. Flip flop, back and forth, party to party. Wait 2 - 4 years and do something else. And if you can't do that, just be a party of oppositionists and obstructionists until the other side is beaten into submission. Rinse, repeat. This is both sides of the aisle.

No matter your political slant, this guy doesn't represent well the impartiality one would hope for from a sitting judge.

They're not retarded or clueless

[rsilvergun]

saying so let's them off the hook. They know exactly what they're doing. I just wish the voters would stop calling them names and start calling them out on their pro-corporate, anti-consumer and anti-worker agenda. There just comes a time to call a spade a spade...

Re:the real problem

[sit1963nz]

Well in New Zealand I have access to 26 different ISPs, Fibre goes in next week and I can have 900/400 unlimited, no traffic shaping, no port blocking, ie true net neutrality for US$68 / month.

This is what happens when you keep big business out of government and you have a government by the people for the people.

You guys should try democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:the real problem

[WindowsStar]

In states like Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, out side a big city there are typically only one ISP that is it. They charge whatever they want and block everything they feel people should not see. These places have the worst internet and the highest prices. One place I went (to be unnamed) the person was paying $300 a month for 2Mb and sites like Starbucks, Amazon and Walmart were blocked because the ISP board has a issues with these sites so the end-user suffers. Completely out of control. We need to force the ISPs to NOT block anything and provide pricing that is an average nation-wide for same speeds and medium.

Headline could read...

[prisoner-of-enigma]

The headline could instead read "Supreme Court nominee supports broad interpretation of First Amendment rights, non-interference in the private sector" and nobody would be upset about it and it would be an equally true headline. It's all in the phrasing. So a conservative-leaning judge supports free markets and broad application of the First Amendment. This surprises people...why, exactly?

Re: Ok, Brett Kavanaugh What if Your Sites Are Blo

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything you said is illegal. The left proposes nothing but illegal activity. It must come down to tit for tat right? It must come down wrong for wrong and violence for violence right?

Re:Simple trade offs

[Waffle Iron]

+ firm supporter of the 2nd amendment, without which all other amendments become moot

-1: Naive idiot.

Information is power.

Small arms are *not* power.

Does the 1st amendment cut both ways?

[whoever57]

If the reason for saying net neutrality is unconstitutional is the ISPs' first amendment right to make editorial decisions on what they carry, does that mean that they can also be sued or prosecuted over illegal content that they carry?

Re:So, is anyone going to change how they vote?

[markdavis]

>"But if any are out there willing to raise their voices I want to ask: what, if anything, will make you stop supporting him?"

I think you are asking the wrong question. A better question might be "At what point will the nation seriously consider a new voting system, like ranked choice, that will make it possible for better candidates to gain traction and other parties to actually compete fairly?" Otherwise, we will continue to pretend that the current D and the current R are the only valid and rational choices. Most voting now is near meaningless because of where one geographically lives, and/or single-issue polarization, and/or voting for the "least worst", and/or horrible candidates on the only two tickets than can win because of the "first past the post" system we still use. The political spectrum is not, and should not, be a two point location on a single line that attempts to describe everything.

Since voting methods are controlled by the States (and hasn't yet been unconstitutionally taken over by the Fed, like so much already), meaningful voting method change actually COULD happen (which is the major reason for the 10th Amendment). It is making inroads in local governments all over the country and starting to pick up interest at State levels. It would have a huge positive impact in party primaries, too (regardless of which party). It doesn't matter what party you support or what your political positions are, IRV/AV/RC is good for EVERYONE.

http://fairvote.org/

Re:So, is anyone going to change how they vote?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess what I'm saying is, I get it, he's not Hilary. But Hilary's gone, and Trump's poll numbers don't budge. I know Trump supporters are out there on this forum. I also know they mostly keep to themselves on political issue. But if any are out there willing to raise their voices I want to ask: what, if anything, will make you stop supporting him?

You want an honest answer? The Democrat party has become so toxic that I will never support them. They could be running against Usama Bin Laden's zombie corpse and I would still vote against them.

If you want people to stop supporting Trump, you need viable third parties. As long as the only choice is between Trump and a party that has lost its mind and has gone so far off the deep end, the choice is pretty simple: Trump all the way. It's not like there's another option.

I should add

[rsilvergun]

I'm freaking out over Trump because he's attacking Obamacare. I have a type-I diabetic friend (born with it, symptom's started in his pre-teens) who is alive today because the Medicare expansion covered his insulin. Until then he was fighting with our local state government to get enough meds to live. The affect of the disease means he can't work, he spends 2-3 months out of the year just down and out. He's smart enough (smarter than me) but nobody's going to hire you if you randomly disappear 3 months out of the year and good luck starting your on business. He almost died of a heart attack once... in his 30s.

I've got other family members with medical conditions that will be screwed in the pre-existing coverage protections go away. Trump's allowing a lawsuit against those protections to go unchallenged. And I'm 40, so I've got my own problems too....

I'm not anti-Trump because he says mean things. We could do with less civility in this country. I'm so fucking tired of people stabbing me in the gut, twisting the knife and people telling me it's OK because the guy with the knife is _smilling_ while he kills me and mine...

Re:I should add

[meglon]

You are truly a fucking idiot.

Prices go up, and always have, on insurance... BUT, they went up slower with the ACA than before. https://www.factcheck.org/2015...

The average employer-sponsored family premium has gone up by $4,154 under Obama, from 2008, before he took office, to 2014, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s annual employer survey conducted with the Health Research & Educational Trust. The catch? That’s relatively slow growth for premiums. The RNC may cast it as bad news, but it’s an improvement compared with the growth in premiums before Obama took office.

The ACA also required some basic diagnostics to be done without cost to the consumer. That would be an expansion of service, not a shrinking.

Hospitals weren;t forced to close under the ACA, nor did it cause them to close. What did cause some to close was Republican lead states refusing to adopt the ACA, thereby shorting hospitals (and doctors) in the state those funds.... causing them to have to close. https://health.usnews.com/heal...

Hospitals in the 32 states that expanded Medicaid were about 84 percent less likely to close than hospitals in states that did not expand the government-funded insurance program for the poor or disabled, the study found.

Repealing the ACA will toss 20+ million people off of insurance, and put us right back to where we were with medical/insurance costs ACTUALLY growing fast like they did pre-ACA. I swear, it takes a complete fucking idiot to be as fucking wrong about things as dipshits like you. Tell me, did your mother have any children that weren't born braindead?

Re:I should add

[AmiMoJo]

Countries that consider healthcare to be a human right pay for it from taxation. It's exactly the same with other human rights like food and shelter.

The moment that you start demanding people pay for their healthcare it ceases to be a human right, because even if they can afford it there is a disincentive, often a strong disincentive, to exercise that right. The humane thing to do is treat them, and if they recover they can pay their taxes like everyone else.

We pounded Afghanistan & Iraq into submission

[rsilvergun]

the only reason we lost 'Nam was the press was paying attention and they wouldn't let us kill civilians indiscriminately. Take a look at the civilian casualties we admitted to for Iraq. It's over 200k. That's just what we admit to. By the time Iraq/Afghanistan came along the military industrial complex and mega corps had control of the media. Problem solved.

See, all it takes is a willingness to use brutality. If you're at the point where you're taking up arms against your own country then I guarantee you that your country is ready, willing and able to use that same brutality against you. Remember, we managed to make torture^XEnhanced Interrogation OK again. If we can do that we can do anything to you and your ragtag band of rebels. This isn't Star Wars, this is reality. And reality is not nice.

Re:Fake Post

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

He also specifically said the proper road was impeachment, removal from office, and then criminal investigations. There is no "must be a criminal" requirement for impeachment.

Re:the real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, area does not grow exponentially (hint: square meter). Secondly, even in high density population area, the US providers are not delivering fast and cheap services.

Thirdly, Australia have got not a so high percentage of rural population. Population is concentrated on the coasts.

If you are not able to see there is a problem, you won't solve it.

Re:Fake Post

[GrimSavant]

Please don't be obtuse. Nixon resigned because he was about to be impeached and convicted, and he knew it. The articles of impeachment passed out of the judiciary committee with clear majorities, in a couple of weeks he was gone.

If Nixon was protected from criminal investigation, and if United States v. Nixon wasn't a unanimous ruling against Nixon's demands for unrestricted Presidential immunity from the judicial process but instead went the other way as Kavanaugh would prefer, then Nixon would have been in a far safer position to defend against his removal.

If a president is immune from investigation and scrutiny, then it is far more difficult for anyone to contain a criminal president, impeachment is an impotent check if must be carried out in the dark. And well, if what you really want is an unconstrained criminal president (such as Nixon was at his very worst), then I have no patience for you.