Your country has large numbers of people who cannot quit jobs they hate because they need health insurance from a large employer. They cannot consider working for a small business.
The same can be said in reverse. Some leave their jobs to go to a job that has better health care. At least we have a choice. Tell me what your plans are when you find that your health care is poor? And BTW when was the last time you visited a dentist? I pay $150.00/yr for dental insurance through Delta Dental, I pay $20 for a visit, $10 per filling $80 for a crown. I have a cavity so I made an appointment two days ago for today, I could have gone yesterday. I'm just wondering, how long does it take for you to get an appointment with a dentist? The insurer with most denied claims in the U.S. is Medicare, not a private insurer. I already know who is the largest denier of claims in the U.K. and it dwarfs the number in Medicare. I guess there's something to this whole "pay for goods and services" thing. It sort of gives people an incentive to do things. Meanwhile in the socialist countries you rely upon what? The goodness of the doctor? What exactly makes people want to become doctors in the UK? The 8 years of school? The cost of the schooling? It's certainly not the big payout when they get a job like here in the U.S.. But I guess that's why the U.K. has severe shortages of doctors.
Large numbers of your population have no insurance at all.
Anyone who wants health care in this country gets it. Period. Everyone in the U.S. pays into medicare and medicaid. These are for retired/injured and poor respectively. The percentage of people with healthcare in this country is around 97%. That's if you don't count 1) people who have never applied to medicaid/medicare 2) people between providers 3) illegal aliens. These three groups account for about 15% of the uninsured. Another 3% truly cannot obtain insurance for some reason or another. A lot of the time however that reason is often the government preventing them from obtaining insurance, for instance by preventing the sale of insurance across state lines.
Your country won't have decent public transport because it's for teh commies. You would rather fund the arabs more than use more efficient transport.
Let me guess - these are not "real problems" ?
There's more socialist logic. Presenting a false choice. So if the government runs things they don't "fund the arabs"? In fact, government tampering with the right to drill for oil domestically is what makes us resort to "the arabs" as you call them in the first place. The enviro-socialist logic being: even with looser environmental controls, that's the "arab's" earth, not ours so our earth isn't harmed.
We are free do do what we want, some people want public transportation and some people want to drive a car. It's called freedom. And how little you know about where I come from. I live in California, the state with the least public transportation among the 50 states. It is said we enjoy driving, and indeed I do. I have a very fast sports car that gets really bad gas mileage, but it makes me happy to drive it, and I happily pay more for that right. But in spite of this and the fact that California has half the population of the UK, we have massive public transportation systems that dwarf the UKs. These systems not only can take you from anywhere to anywhere in this state but from anywhere in this state to anywhere in the union. Here in Long Beach, CA we have the Long Beach Transit, we have the Orange Country Transit and about three or four other independent transit companies operating public bus lines. And that's not counting private companies like grayhound or yellow cabs. We have so many damn bus lines in Long Beach someone thought it clever to even have a UK style double bus line, just for fun. There's also th
You present a false choice though. You imply that if NSH wasn't there that doctors would not exist for some reason. I contend that doctors practice in spite of NHS.
99% all solutions for pollution in existence today have come from the labor of private individuals, without being forced to do so by the government. How can you government is superior? Are you suggesting that the government has a "magic" power plant does not pollute that private industry is incapable of using? A car that runs on air? What is this thing that the government has that you think private industry is incapable of possessing?
The strictest socialist government in the world is also the world's worst polluter, while most free market companies promote their 'green initiatives' without force from the government. Why? Because they think it will help promote their public image which will result in more profit. Because their customers demand it. The solution to smog did not jettison as a projectile from a government gun, but though talented engineers in private companies. Do private companies pollute? Yes. Does the government pollute? Yes. Is the pollution of one somehow inherently less toxic than the other? At least with private industry polluting there is recourse if their actions have harmed you. Can you say the same about the government?
Rather than experiment with individuals, why not let the natural course of things take place? You seem to agree that the government can only bungle things, so wouldn't it be better if they were to just step back? Government interference in any industry turns that industry from natural order to chaos by substituting the laws of nature with their own versions, causing uncertainty and inefficiency.
I fail to see the value added by having the government do things that the private individual is perfectly capable of doing himself and better. Is everyone so stupid that they cannot do anything without the forceful hand of government and the infinitely intelligent legislators? And if the people are so inept, how can they be trusted to elect intelligent legislators? That's vicious circular logic of socialism.
I also cannot think of a single example, national defense and courts not withstanding, where the government can do a better job than private industry. In fact, I challenge you to find me a single example..
Name a single example where private individuals failed to step up to the plate and deal with a real problem?
Today, if I change doctors, and I have numerous times, they request information from my last doctor, this system, that has been around for as long as doctors have been around, has yet to fail me. As far as allergies are concerned, people with unusual or extreme allergies carry around a medical bracelet or necklace that describes the allergies. Furthermore, if you cannot be identified because you are without ID and unconscious, the bracelet would be far more valuable than a unfetchable medical record.
The Electronic health record has been around for a long time, with numerous private sponsors and a half dozen viable standards for use. And now the government wants to "revolutionize medicine" by giving us "electronic health records" as if the private industry hasn't been doing this for decades. Oh and by the way, we're paying for the government to invent "electronic health records" as if it didn't exist. Do you really think that govenrment buricrats are going to contrubute to this system? I think they will decimate it as they do with everything else they touch.
But if you still think the "government way" is better, check out the number of private companies offering:
The private industry is bad to the extent that the government has fettered the free market. For instance in the U.S., the government prevents the sale of health insurance across state lines. It causes much less competition and drives up prices.
In the healthcare industry the government regulates everything making it difficult to business at all, because of all the bureaucratic red tape a roll of micro-porous tape that you can get at CVS for $1.50 ends up costing $25.00, and who pays for that? Certainly not the government.
Now lets add the lack of tort reform, allowing for fraudulent lawsuits and ambulance chasing lawyers (the democrat party base) to sue doctors for things like "My child had autism and I blame the doctor for not performing a cesarean section" further driving up costs of private health care.
Next lets add the way the government 'fixes' the medicare price of procedures and does not allow the doctor to charge what he thinks is a reasonable rate for the procedure. Of course 99% of the time the government's rate is much lower than you would charge a private individual, and that's mostly because the loss on government medicare patients is recouped in the cost on privately insured individuals. The end result of this is doctors charging more, and providing less because they are being paid less by the government.
The government takes money from everyone to provide health care for a minority of the people (medicare, medicate, medical) who cannot afford this care- that money, for the most part, would be better off in private individual's pockets some of which would go to pay for better healthcare. I know way too many medicare recipients with $4000 computers.
I could go on and on about how the government fetters the free market system and drives costs up, but I think you get the point. For a 'free market' there is quite a lot of government in there!
Your need is the driver. Believe it or not, your doctor is trying to serve please you. Adding value added services like portable records do this. And draw your business away from doctors who don't implement this technology. If a doctor not implementing the technology loses too many patients they either a) implement the technology or b) go out of business. Both courses are totally natural and not compelled through the use of force.
How many countless times have you heard private industry boasting technological improvements to ease your life? Do you deny this constant drone of technological improvements being advertised by service providers vying for your business?
Your need is the driver. That same thing that causes all private industry to improve! Read the (very short) essay I, Pencil: My Family Tree I posted earlier, it explains these interactions in detail.
What sort of strange world do you live in where you trust your life with someone who you don't trust with the money you pay them?
You're missing the point. When it becomes necessary to have your records moved around like that, and the need outweighs the cost, it will happen naturally by private hands. It is the path of least resistance. Anything else is going to be fulfilling needs that are not needed (unnatural), like the government providing an education to people who are starving to death.
Nobody is going to know the needs of a system like this better than the people who are running and implementing the system not some government bureaucrat with ulterior motives (nepotism, fraud, corruption) which so often occurs in government. Also, this costly venture by the government has taken away from the people (private industry) who had the best chance to make a usable portable format.
This reminds me of what Frederick Bastiat (1801-1850) said of the subject Socialism. Below is a link to his complete book "The Law" (in HTML format) and the specific part it this article reminded me of. The UK government in this situation is (attempting) to fulfill a need of society by commissioning the construction of a piece of 'public infrastructure' that the government deemed the society needed. A rather costly venture to be sure. But from whom did the government take this money? It takes it from the people who would have otherwise been implementing what was really needed, and who eventually did with what little the government left them.
The natural course of things, what Leonard E. Read called "the invisible hand", would have created the fully digital medical system that the government legislators commanded through the threat of violence (pay your taxes or else!) that an unnatural (Sc. useless, uncalled for) system be created. The end result, as so many other government ventures end, was a mess so epic that only the forceful hand of government could compel otherwise intelligent individuals to such total folly.
We shall never escape from this circle: the idea of passive mankind, and the power of the law being used by a great man to propel the people.
Once on this incline, will society enjoy some liberty? (Certainly.) And what is liberty, Mr. Louis Blanc?
Once and for all, liberty is not only a mere granted right; it is also the power granted to a person to use and to develop his faculties under a reign of justice and under the protection of the law.
And this is no pointless distinction; its meaning is deep and its consequences are difficult to estimate. For once it is agreed that a person, to be truly free, must have the power to use and develop his faculties, then it follows that every person has a claim on society for such education as will permit him to develop himself. It also follows that every person has a claim on society for tools of production, without which human activity cannot be fully effective. Now by what action can society give to every person the necessary education and the necessary tools of production, if not by the action of the state?
Thus, again, liberty is power. Of what does this power consist? (Of being educated and of being given the tools of production.) Who is to give the education and the tools of production? (Society, which owes them to everyone.) By what action is society to give tools of production to those who do not own them? (Why, by the action of the state.) And from whom will the state take them?
Let the reader answer that question. Let him also notice the direction in which this is taking us.
Once again, this proves anything that needs to get done, gets done, privately (doctors implementing their own electronic database) without the need of government. The government's version is more costly, inadequate, corrupt, full of nepotism and fraud. The private system does what needs to be done without the heavy hand of government, better, cheaper, faster. And all without the threat of force.
This reminds me a lot of the essay I, Pencil: My Family Tree. Anything that needs to be done can be done better in the hands of private free individuals.
Your analogy is invalid. There is no down side to standardizing car parts, everyone benefits. There are metric shit tons of downside to removing anonymity from the internet. I need not go into the litany of charges, all you have to do is read some of the posts here to see what I'm talking about. However, this argument struck me as particularly concise.
We are told that people "behave better" when there is a risk of consequences, but also that there are no harmful consequences. These cannot both be true. -seebs (user 15766)
We are told that people "behave better" when there is a risk of consequences, but also that there are no harmful consequences. These cannot both be true.
That's a great argument. Mod parent up! Oh you've already got 5. Well good fucking job!
Absurd indeed, but unfortunately Zuckerberg has had numerous secret meetings with Obama and are working together as a team for his reelection. And who knows what sort of social-engineering these two tyrants have in mind. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but this relationship sure does stink to high heaven. And how can you call it a conspiracy when this is their publicly spoken intention? I just hope all the people who voted for Obama don't cheer him on as he stamps out internet anonymity. I know it hasn't even been proposed... yet.. just wait till his second term when he really has nothing to loose. I'm sure his hit list looks something like this:
The whole point of facebook, from the point of view of the operators and stockholders, is to place personalized ads to you. I don't buy for a second that this is about "making discourse on the internet more civil" It's about making money for facebook period. I'm actually offended that she used such a weak argument.
And it should frighten people more than just a little that Z has secret meetings with O at the white house on numerous occasions. Never before has the 'media' been so head over heels in love with the WH. The media is now so willing to look the other way while the oh-so-transparent CNC conducts secret meeting with people like Z and J.Immelt.
It's an assumption to be sure, but a damn good one. And her ignorant statements on anonymity support this assumption. I think all that's missing is a "valley girl lisp". "Oh my god Becky, look at the size of her ass."
So you consider Dr Jerkwad of the University of Alabama in Huntsville to be a modern day Newton?
I never even implied it.
Is it your position that you don't agree with the non-cumulative nature of science? If that's so maybe you can explain to me how Newton contributed to the work of Einstein's theory of relativity that replaced his theory of gravity?
I have no opinion in regard to Dr. Jerkwad of the University of Alabama or his theories. I only ask that the rules of science be applied in a uniform manner. Using ad hominem attacks and referring to the fictitious 'consensus of science' to defined the crises in their paradigms should be called out when it's seen.
How climate change works is not well understood, that is the heretical message of the "deniers". Crying "the sky is falling" using largely unproven science should be viewed skeptically and in proportion to the action proposed.
I'm not a lawyer, so maybe someone can explain this to me. On behalf of whom is the BSA bringing this complaint? For instance, I know that the U.S. government, in a move I disagree with, has given some environmentalist groups like the Sierra Club permission to file suits against individuals on behalf of "The people" giving them legal standing to bring a claim against any defendant in the U.S. without having to prove the defendant harmed the Sierra Club.
The reason this is important, and I'm not a lawyer so I probably need clarification, is that you cannot sue someone for a grievance that has not harmed you. You have to show that you are either "the people", an injured party, or represent somehow an injured party. Since the BSA doesn't sell software and cannot possibly be harmed by the illegal sale of something it does not sell how does the BSA even have legal standing? (if that's even the correct phrase)
You should be ashamed of yourself. If everyone knew the "truth" about you as you wanted the BSA to know the "truth" about your employer you would never have another job.
What don't you like about the tea party? Give me some specifics, not some rhetorical talking point about "racist xenophobes". What specifically makes you want to call another group of people "those idiots". I'm not a tea party member by any measure, but I'm really curious what would elicit such a vitriolic response. The only thing I've ever heard about the tea part is that they 1. want a smaller government, and 2. want lower taxes. Both of these ideas: smaller government, less taxation, is what this country is founded upon and can hardly be called "idiotic". So what is it then that evokes such hatred? This is a serious question, not an attack.
Slashdot Mirror
The same can be said in reverse. Some leave their jobs to go to a job that has better health care. At least we have a choice. Tell me what your plans are when you find that your health care is poor? And BTW when was the last time you visited a dentist? I pay $150.00/yr for dental insurance through Delta Dental, I pay $20 for a visit, $10 per filling $80 for a crown. I have a cavity so I made an appointment two days ago for today, I could have gone yesterday. I'm just wondering, how long does it take for you to get an appointment with a dentist? The insurer with most denied claims in the U.S. is Medicare, not a private insurer. I already know who is the largest denier of claims in the U.K. and it dwarfs the number in Medicare. I guess there's something to this whole "pay for goods and services" thing. It sort of gives people an incentive to do things. Meanwhile in the socialist countries you rely upon what? The goodness of the doctor? What exactly makes people want to become doctors in the UK? The 8 years of school? The cost of the schooling? It's certainly not the big payout when they get a job like here in the U.S.. But I guess that's why the U.K. has severe shortages of doctors.
Anyone who wants health care in this country gets it. Period. Everyone in the U.S. pays into medicare and medicaid. These are for retired/injured and poor respectively. The percentage of people with healthcare in this country is around 97%. That's if you don't count 1) people who have never applied to medicaid/medicare 2) people between providers 3) illegal aliens. These three groups account for about 15% of the uninsured. Another 3% truly cannot obtain insurance for some reason or another. A lot of the time however that reason is often the government preventing them from obtaining insurance, for instance by preventing the sale of insurance across state lines.
There's more socialist logic. Presenting a false choice. So if the government runs things they don't "fund the arabs"? In fact, government tampering with the right to drill for oil domestically is what makes us resort to "the arabs" as you call them in the first place. The enviro-socialist logic being: even with looser environmental controls, that's the "arab's" earth, not ours so our earth isn't harmed.
We are free do do what we want, some people want public transportation and some people want to drive a car. It's called freedom. And how little you know about where I come from. I live in California, the state with the least public transportation among the 50 states. It is said we enjoy driving, and indeed I do. I have a very fast sports car that gets really bad gas mileage, but it makes me happy to drive it, and I happily pay more for that right. But in spite of this and the fact that California has half the population of the UK, we have massive public transportation systems that dwarf the UKs. These systems not only can take you from anywhere to anywhere in this state but from anywhere in this state to anywhere in the union. Here in Long Beach, CA we have the Long Beach Transit, we have the Orange Country Transit and about three or four other independent transit companies operating public bus lines. And that's not counting private companies like grayhound or yellow cabs. We have so many damn bus lines in Long Beach someone thought it clever to even have a UK style double bus line, just for fun. There's also th
You present a false choice though. You imply that if NSH wasn't there that doctors would not exist for some reason. I contend that doctors practice in spite of NHS.
99% all solutions for pollution in existence today have come from the labor of private individuals, without being forced to do so by the government. How can you government is superior? Are you suggesting that the government has a "magic" power plant does not pollute that private industry is incapable of using? A car that runs on air? What is this thing that the government has that you think private industry is incapable of possessing?
The strictest socialist government in the world is also the world's worst polluter, while most free market companies promote their 'green initiatives' without force from the government. Why? Because they think it will help promote their public image which will result in more profit. Because their customers demand it. The solution to smog did not jettison as a projectile from a government gun, but though talented engineers in private companies. Do private companies pollute? Yes. Does the government pollute? Yes. Is the pollution of one somehow inherently less toxic than the other? At least with private industry polluting there is recourse if their actions have harmed you. Can you say the same about the government?
Done!
Electronic health record
Rather than experiment with individuals, why not let the natural course of things take place? You seem to agree that the government can only bungle things, so wouldn't it be better if they were to just step back? Government interference in any industry turns that industry from natural order to chaos by substituting the laws of nature with their own versions, causing uncertainty and inefficiency.
I fail to see the value added by having the government do things that the private individual is perfectly capable of doing himself and better. Is everyone so stupid that they cannot do anything without the forceful hand of government and the infinitely intelligent legislators? And if the people are so inept, how can they be trusted to elect intelligent legislators? That's vicious circular logic of socialism.
I also cannot think of a single example, national defense and courts not withstanding, where the government can do a better job than private industry. In fact, I challenge you to find me a single example..
I patiently await your reply.
Name a single example where private individuals failed to step up to the plate and deal with a real problem?
Today, if I change doctors, and I have numerous times, they request information from my last doctor, this system, that has been around for as long as doctors have been around, has yet to fail me. As far as allergies are concerned, people with unusual or extreme allergies carry around a medical bracelet or necklace that describes the allergies. Furthermore, if you cannot be identified because you are without ID and unconscious, the bracelet would be far more valuable than a unfetchable medical record.
The Electronic health record has been around for a long time, with numerous private sponsors and a half dozen viable standards for use. And now the government wants to "revolutionize medicine" by giving us "electronic health records" as if the private industry hasn't been doing this for decades. Oh and by the way, we're paying for the government to invent "electronic health records" as if it didn't exist. Do you really think that govenrment buricrats are going to contrubute to this system? I think they will decimate it as they do with everything else they touch.
But if you still think the "government way" is better, check out the number of private companies offering:
Now, compare this to the number of government's anywhere offering any of this. Draw your own conclusions.
The private industry is bad to the extent that the government has fettered the free market. For instance in the U.S., the government prevents the sale of health insurance across state lines. It causes much less competition and drives up prices.
In the healthcare industry the government regulates everything making it difficult to business at all, because of all the bureaucratic red tape a roll of micro-porous tape that you can get at CVS for $1.50 ends up costing $25.00, and who pays for that? Certainly not the government.
Now lets add the lack of tort reform, allowing for fraudulent lawsuits and ambulance chasing lawyers (the democrat party base) to sue doctors for things like "My child had autism and I blame the doctor for not performing a cesarean section" further driving up costs of private health care.
Next lets add the way the government 'fixes' the medicare price of procedures and does not allow the doctor to charge what he thinks is a reasonable rate for the procedure. Of course 99% of the time the government's rate is much lower than you would charge a private individual, and that's mostly because the loss on government medicare patients is recouped in the cost on privately insured individuals. The end result of this is doctors charging more, and providing less because they are being paid less by the government.
The government takes money from everyone to provide health care for a minority of the people (medicare, medicate, medical) who cannot afford this care- that money, for the most part, would be better off in private individual's pockets some of which would go to pay for better healthcare. I know way too many medicare recipients with $4000 computers.
I could go on and on about how the government fetters the free market system and drives costs up, but I think you get the point. For a 'free market' there is quite a lot of government in there!
I'm glad you asked!
Your need is the driver . Believe it or not, your doctor is trying to serve please you. Adding value added services like portable records do this. And draw your business away from doctors who don't implement this technology. If a doctor not implementing the technology loses too many patients they either a) implement the technology or b) go out of business. Both courses are totally natural and not compelled through the use of force.
How many countless times have you heard private industry boasting technological improvements to ease your life? Do you deny this constant drone of technological improvements being advertised by service providers vying for your business?
Your need is the driver . That same thing that causes all private industry to improve! Read the (very short) essay I, Pencil: My Family Tree I posted earlier, it explains these interactions in detail.
What sort of strange world do you live in where you trust your life with someone who you don't trust with the money you pay them?
You're missing the point. When it becomes necessary to have your records moved around like that, and the need outweighs the cost, it will happen naturally by private hands. It is the path of least resistance. Anything else is going to be fulfilling needs that are not needed (unnatural), like the government providing an education to people who are starving to death.
Nobody is going to know the needs of a system like this better than the people who are running and implementing the system not some government bureaucrat with ulterior motives (nepotism, fraud, corruption) which so often occurs in government. Also, this costly venture by the government has taken away from the people (private industry) who had the best chance to make a usable portable format.
This reminds me of what Frederick Bastiat (1801-1850) said of the subject Socialism. Below is a link to his complete book "The Law" (in HTML format) and the specific part it this article reminded me of. The UK government in this situation is (attempting) to fulfill a need of society by commissioning the construction of a piece of 'public infrastructure' that the government deemed the society needed. A rather costly venture to be sure. But from whom did the government take this money? It takes it from the people who would have otherwise been implementing what was really needed, and who eventually did with what little the government left them.
The natural course of things, what Leonard E. Read called "the invisible hand", would have created the fully digital medical system that the government legislators commanded through the threat of violence (pay your taxes or else!) that an unnatural (Sc. useless, uncalled for) system be created. The end result, as so many other government ventures end, was a mess so epic that only the forceful hand of government could compel otherwise intelligent individuals to such total folly.
From The Law by Frederick Bastiat.
Once again, this proves anything that needs to get done, gets done, privately (doctors implementing their own electronic database) without the need of government. The government's version is more costly, inadequate, corrupt, full of nepotism and fraud. The private system does what needs to be done without the heavy hand of government, better, cheaper, faster. And all without the threat of force.
This reminds me a lot of the essay I, Pencil: My Family Tree. Anything that needs to be done can be done better in the hands of private free individuals.
Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is great, but what they conceal is essential.
That's a great argument. Mod parent up! Oh you've already got 5. Well good fucking job!
Absurd indeed, but unfortunately Zuckerberg has had numerous secret meetings with Obama and are working together as a team for his reelection. And who knows what sort of social-engineering these two tyrants have in mind. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but this relationship sure does stink to high heaven. And how can you call it a conspiracy when this is their publicly spoken intention? I just hope all the people who voted for Obama don't cheer him on as he stamps out internet anonymity. I know it hasn't even been proposed... yet.. just wait till his second term when he really has nothing to loose. I'm sure his hit list looks something like this:
The whole point of facebook, from the point of view of the operators and stockholders, is to place personalized ads to you. I don't buy for a second that this is about "making discourse on the internet more civil" It's about making money for facebook period. I'm actually offended that she used such a weak argument.
Let's just hope it passes faster than that "communism" fad.
And it should frighten people more than just a little that Z has secret meetings with O at the white house on numerous occasions. Never before has the 'media' been so head over heels in love with the WH. The media is now so willing to look the other way while the oh-so-transparent CNC conducts secret meeting with people like Z and J.Immelt.
Enemies of freedom unite!
Mod parent up you bastards!
It's an assumption to be sure, but a damn good one. And her ignorant statements on anonymity support this assumption. I think all that's missing is a "valley girl lisp". "Oh my god Becky, look at the size of her ass."
I never even implied it.
Is it your position that you don't agree with the non-cumulative nature of science? If that's so maybe you can explain to me how Newton contributed to the work of Einstein's theory of relativity that replaced his theory of gravity?
I have no opinion in regard to Dr. Jerkwad of the University of Alabama or his theories. I only ask that the rules of science be applied in a uniform manner. Using ad hominem attacks and referring to the fictitious 'consensus of science' to defined the crises in their paradigms should be called out when it's seen.
How climate change works is not well understood, that is the heretical message of the "deniers". Crying "the sky is falling" using largely unproven science should be viewed skeptically and in proportion to the action proposed.
I'm not a lawyer, so maybe someone can explain this to me. On behalf of whom is the BSA bringing this complaint? For instance, I know that the U.S. government, in a move I disagree with, has given some environmentalist groups like the Sierra Club permission to file suits against individuals on behalf of "The people" giving them legal standing to bring a claim against any defendant in the U.S. without having to prove the defendant harmed the Sierra Club.
The reason this is important, and I'm not a lawyer so I probably need clarification, is that you cannot sue someone for a grievance that has not harmed you. You have to show that you are either "the people", an injured party, or represent somehow an injured party. Since the BSA doesn't sell software and cannot possibly be harmed by the illegal sale of something it does not sell how does the BSA even have legal standing? (if that's even the correct phrase)
You should be ashamed of yourself. If everyone knew the "truth" about you as you wanted the BSA to know the "truth" about your employer you would never have another job.
What don't you like about the tea party? Give me some specifics, not some rhetorical talking point about "racist xenophobes". What specifically makes you want to call another group of people "those idiots". I'm not a tea party member by any measure, but I'm really curious what would elicit such a vitriolic response. The only thing I've ever heard about the tea part is that they 1. want a smaller government, and 2. want lower taxes. Both of these ideas: smaller government, less taxation, is what this country is founded upon and can hardly be called "idiotic". So what is it then that evokes such hatred? This is a serious question, not an attack.
Maybe you need to watch the news. There is no such thing as the "Obama plan" and he therefore cannot have presented it to anyone.