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?
3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Actually, before it happened here, on this planet, the odds were 100%. How do i know this? Because we are here now. That's the backwards part people don't get... you can claim any vastly small odds you'd like, and those may be true for some other planet... but for Earth, we are here now... so the odds were/are 100%.
This isn't an uncommon argument, especially among the creationist groups. They cite some outlandishly large chance that abiogenisis couldn't happen, or that an eye could eventually evolve, as a proof that it can't.... yet, it did. That's the part they just don't understand... it did. So whatever odds they cite are simply wrong. It happened, so obviously the odds were 100% that it could happen.
Trump is a fascist neo-nazi sympathizer. Anyone with their eyes open and functioning brain cells can see that. The GOP has been headed that direction for a long time, and the fact that the US could elect a black president set those worthless fucking nazi enemies of this country into a tizzy..... Trump is the results.
You're getting it backwards. It DID happen on this planet, which is the only reason you're around to wonder "why this planet." Our planet isn't special or unique, it just happens to be where we are.... and as we've never been somewhere else, it's the only frame of reference we have.
Bill hit 50% or greater in virtually every election he was in. The only times he didn't, there were strong third party offers that soaked up votes. He did loose two elections, but then out of over 20 years of politicking, i'd have to say that's pretty good.
As for Hillary, you may not like her because you've been conditioned to by the fascists at Fox News, but here's two things to remember.... Even if that was the only reason she was in politics, she still had a far better and more effective career that Trump the dickless draft dodger. The second thing to remember is... she won the popular vote over Trump.
So you have Trump in office, with the help of Russia, years of republicans in congress abusing their offices to denigrate Hillary, and all the neo-nazi pieces of shit are happy. Back when i was young, we knew the Nazis were the fucking enemy of this country, and Russia was our enemies decades. And lets be clear, if you agree with a neo-nazi's positions and support one... you ARE a fucking neo-nazi; you may be too fucking stupid to understand that, but it doesn't change the fact that's what you are.
It should be: they "fly and eat us. Help! There, i fixed that for you. I hope it makes you feel better. Well.. ok, i may have failed at that goal.... LOOK OUT, ABOVE YOU!!!!
Speaking of fantasy....all the years of investigating Hillary = 0 indictments; one year of investigating Trump's fascists bitches = Over 100 criminal charges, and 5 guilty pleas so far.
I can only imagine quite a few people agree with you in your wish that you hadn't commented. You're under the impression "your research" means jack shit compared to actual scientists... it doesn't. All it does is make the people around you more stupid for having to listen to you.
I'm going to suggest that the "most likely" reason is something we haven't even thought of yet.
Your giving us far too much credit. We don't know how to search for technological life, the ideas for that are in the nascent stages at the moment; and the idea we can't "technically" do it yet is a massive understatement.... we've barely considered how to be able to do the easiest few ways we've thought about.
First off, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life; that's abiogenesis (something religious people get confused from the get go).
There are reasons that certain elements go together, and certain molecules; it's not some random shooting gallery filled with billions of molecules.... it's directed by positive and negative charges, bonding strengths and angular tensions... among other things (and no, no "intelligence" needed for chemistry to happen). My suggestion to take a year of majors ochem is, simply put, the BASIC knowledge you'd have to acquire to start to understand organic chemistry.... something abiogenesis requires.
It's not snark, it's me pointing out that you're trying to make very broad generalizations about something you don't seem to know enough about. It's like people taking pseudo-science bullshit and putting "theory" behind it. That word has a specific meaning, and simply because they use it incredibly wrong doesn't elevate the bullshits it's being used with to actually being a theory.
No. Words have meaning. There's very little random about chemical reactions, especially complex organics. When someone suggests this as an argument, it is nothing more than a statement from them that they have no understanding of chemistry at all. Ignorant people should be learning about things, not trying to converse about things.
We can certainly discuss how stupid their paper is, but OP's point is right on the mark... our data set is basically non-existent, so their paper is pure bullshit and guesswork.
No. This is one of the fallacies put forth by religious people that random atoms bumping together made life. That's not how chemistry works in general, and is an outright complete misrepresentation of organic chemistry in specific. Go take a year of chem majors O-chem, then you'll understand.
Fermi's paradox is telling us something, just not a lot. There is probably no other expansive, technological civilization in the Local Group. That has always looked most likely and it probably always will.
No, it hasn't always looked most likely, and quite frankly it never will.... at least not in the next 1000 years or so. Our data points for life in the observable universe, the local group, or even our galaxy is so infinitesimally small that one would have to be a complete idiot to suggest it says anything other than "we don't have a fucking clue."
I actually rarely use Amazon, so my knowledge of what they do is pretty much nill. I'd imagine any place as big as them would have some fake shit, but it's how they deal with it that makes a difference... again, something i have no idea about on Amazon. So don't take my focus on ebay as a suggest amazon is better, i simply don't know about them.
Slashdot Mirror
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?
Section 8
3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Actually, before it happened here, on this planet, the odds were 100%. How do i know this? Because we are here now. That's the backwards part people don't get... you can claim any vastly small odds you'd like, and those may be true for some other planet... but for Earth, we are here now... so the odds were/are 100%.
This isn't an uncommon argument, especially among the creationist groups. They cite some outlandishly large chance that abiogenisis couldn't happen, or that an eye could eventually evolve, as a proof that it can't.... yet, it did. That's the part they just don't understand... it did. So whatever odds they cite are simply wrong. It happened, so obviously the odds were 100% that it could happen.
Trump is a fascist neo-nazi sympathizer. Anyone with their eyes open and functioning brain cells can see that. The GOP has been headed that direction for a long time, and the fact that the US could elect a black president set those worthless fucking nazi enemies of this country into a tizzy..... Trump is the results.
And yet all the neo-nazi's voted for Trump instead of their own Nazi party candidate. And lets not forget:
https://www.aol.com/article/20...
https://www.motherjones.com/po...
https://www.vice.com/en_us/art...
https://thinkprogress.org/gop-...
So, this begs the question about your statement: Are you a fucking idiot, a fucking liar, or both?
You're getting it backwards. It DID happen on this planet, which is the only reason you're around to wonder "why this planet." Our planet isn't special or unique, it just happens to be where we are.... and as we've never been somewhere else, it's the only frame of reference we have.
Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the votes.
How legitimate is that, really?â(TM)
I would think, given that, that most anyone could understand the context in which it was written.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Bill hit 50% or greater in virtually every election he was in. The only times he didn't, there were strong third party offers that soaked up votes. He did loose two elections, but then out of over 20 years of politicking, i'd have to say that's pretty good.
As for Hillary, you may not like her because you've been conditioned to by the fascists at Fox News, but here's two things to remember.... Even if that was the only reason she was in politics, she still had a far better and more effective career that Trump the dickless draft dodger. The second thing to remember is... she won the popular vote over Trump.
So you have Trump in office, with the help of Russia, years of republicans in congress abusing their offices to denigrate Hillary, and all the neo-nazi pieces of shit are happy. Back when i was young, we knew the Nazis were the fucking enemy of this country, and Russia was our enemies decades. And lets be clear, if you agree with a neo-nazi's positions and support one... you ARE a fucking neo-nazi; you may be too fucking stupid to understand that, but it doesn't change the fact that's what you are.
"eat flies and help us"
It should be: they "fly and eat us. Help! There, i fixed that for you. I hope it makes you feel better. Well.. ok, i may have failed at that goal.... LOOK OUT, ABOVE YOU!!!!
You're right, Mueller Ain't Going Away.
Speaking of fantasy....all the years of investigating Hillary = 0 indictments; one year of investigating Trump's fascists bitches = Over 100 criminal charges, and 5 guilty pleas so far.
http://www.newsweek.com/muelle... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I can only imagine quite a few people agree with you in your wish that you hadn't commented. You're under the impression "your research" means jack shit compared to actual scientists... it doesn't. All it does is make the people around you more stupid for having to listen to you.
I'm pretty sure we established in the 40's and 50's an ice pick in that region would do the same thing.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/u...
... we could live on statistics, and not need things like... stem cells.
Well he is an Oxford professor.
That actually got me thinking...
https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/
Academics at FHI bring the tools of mathematics, philosophy and social sciences to bear on big-picture questions about humanity and its prospects.
So... not actual scientists... even the mathematicians are most likely probability and statistic guru's, which means again, not scientists.
I'm going to suggest that the "most likely" reason is something we haven't even thought of yet.
Your giving us far too much credit. We don't know how to search for technological life, the ideas for that are in the nascent stages at the moment; and the idea we can't "technically" do it yet is a massive understatement.... we've barely considered how to be able to do the easiest few ways we've thought about.
See, i still don't get how a bird and a bee's genetic code can do what they're claiming.... those have to be pretty disparate.
No.
First off, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life; that's abiogenesis (something religious people get confused from the get go).
There are reasons that certain elements go together, and certain molecules; it's not some random shooting gallery filled with billions of molecules.... it's directed by positive and negative charges, bonding strengths and angular tensions... among other things (and no, no "intelligence" needed for chemistry to happen). My suggestion to take a year of majors ochem is, simply put, the BASIC knowledge you'd have to acquire to start to understand organic chemistry.... something abiogenesis requires.
It's not snark, it's me pointing out that you're trying to make very broad generalizations about something you don't seem to know enough about. It's like people taking pseudo-science bullshit and putting "theory" behind it. That word has a specific meaning, and simply because they use it incredibly wrong doesn't elevate the bullshits it's being used with to actually being a theory.
No. Words have meaning. There's very little random about chemical reactions, especially complex organics. When someone suggests this as an argument, it is nothing more than a statement from them that they have no understanding of chemistry at all. Ignorant people should be learning about things, not trying to converse about things.
We don't have to worry about LGM's (little green men), but we do have to watch out for the LGM's (large green motherfuckers).
We can certainly discuss how stupid their paper is, but OP's point is right on the mark... our data set is basically non-existent, so their paper is pure bullshit and guesswork.
No. This is one of the fallacies put forth by religious people that random atoms bumping together made life. That's not how chemistry works in general, and is an outright complete misrepresentation of organic chemistry in specific. Go take a year of chem majors O-chem, then you'll understand.
Fermi's paradox is telling us something, just not a lot. There is probably no other expansive, technological civilization in the Local Group. That has always looked most likely and it probably always will.
No, it hasn't always looked most likely, and quite frankly it never will.... at least not in the next 1000 years or so. Our data points for life in the observable universe, the local group, or even our galaxy is so infinitesimally small that one would have to be a complete idiot to suggest it says anything other than "we don't have a fucking clue."
Google Earth's New Tool Lets You Measure Distance Between Anything On Earth
How about.... my hand from my cup of coffee? How about now? And now? Now?
I actually rarely use Amazon, so my knowledge of what they do is pretty much nill. I'd imagine any place as big as them would have some fake shit, but it's how they deal with it that makes a difference... again, something i have no idea about on Amazon. So don't take my focus on ebay as a suggest amazon is better, i simply don't know about them.