Maybe 20 years ago... New toll systems have few manned toll booths and don't require traffic to slow or stop. And it most certainly does discriminate based on size class of the vehicle.
Maybe that is backward in some locations. In Atlanta the poor live close and the rich commute AGES to get to work. My question on a per mileage charge is how is the tracking done. Reading the odometer is easy and doesn't have privacy concerns, but doesn't reflect if it was driven on private roads or out of state.
Saved money is just under a mattress somewhere and might as well be burned because you are taking it out of the economy! Spending money is the only way to advance society. Buying reusable plates is folly. It hurts the plate manufacturing industry!
Wait, did you just create an analogy between water and money and then claim that sticking water (money) behind a dam does nothing? Why do we build dams if they do nothing? Wait, don't dams usually have power plants with them? So you are saying that putting money behind a dam generates more potential for future money and allows one to store up a reserve for times when things are dry? Sounds like a pretty smart move to me to stick money behind a dam.
People who think consumption drives the economy don't understand the purpose of saving. It's not equivalent to burning money. And it doesn't just sit under a mattress in a bank account...
+5 informative for a post complaining about inflation adjusted dollars when the $135 billion was already inflation adjusted... Wow. Good job reading mods.
Except efficiency has also increased since 1940. How much of the increase in government spending is due to programs that don't need to be managed by the government at all and unnecessary levels of bureaucrats at desks?
If you raise the minimum wage by 33% what are the chances you are going to lose 1/3 of minimum wage employees? Ok, it's probably not a 1-1 ratio of increased pay to less jobs, but it's not a non-zero number of reduced jobs. Computers are starting to replace employees already. This will only serve to speed things along at the bottom of the market. Once an employer has to replace one employee with a computer at $15/hr, why not get rid of all the $15/hr employees?
Setting a minimum bar doesn't increase the pay of those at the bottom, it prices the bottom out of the market.
Yes, we have to take the clean water from the waste treatment plant, dechlorinate it, return it to nature, then retrieve most of it from nature, clean it again to get all the nature out, and then chlorinate it again to kill off any nature we missed.
"use" is also a relative term and dependent on time. Sure styrofoam in a landfill doesn't have a use now, but maybe in a few thousand years it will be a resource to be mined or a food source for bacteria to generate methane gas. One man's trash is another bacterium's food.
I have this problem all the time. Companies create bullshit language in their policies, terms, contracts, and agreements. And then refuse to budge because they think the law will follow whatever bullshit they have. No, I don't care what your policy says if your policy in unenforceable. Saying something is "non-refundable" might sound like a good policy, but unless a judge agrees the policy is pretty useless.
The only risk greater than man made global warming is the risk that man will try to stop global warming. Sure we are influencing the climate and we should try to reduce that influence. On the other hand, I don't see any good from experimenting with intentional manipulation of the climate OR from crippling the poor's access to energy and standard of living in order to reduce that influence outweighing the possible negatives of a warmer climate.
Ok, so there is a 1600s era verb form of "sheer" referring to navigating a ship that was probably an incorrectly used "shear" anyway. Still not relevant to an action one can do to a sheep.
No you can't. "Sheer" isn't a verb. It can be an adj, an adv, or a noun. Unless you mean splitting the sheep in half in which case you are just as at fault as the GP as that would still be "shear."
One small clarification, you don't actually have a right to a phone call. Though, you will probably get one, and maybe more depending on your situation. http://www.todayifoundout.com/...
Right, the biggest risk to you to keep filming is that you spend a few nights in jail, hurt your career, hire a lawyer, spend a few days over the next who knows how many months or years in court, etc.
Their biggest risk if they deny you your rights is some paid administrative leave while the department investigates.
You are lucky he would even tell you. Most places won't give you an answer on how much treatment will cost. You're lucky if you can force out of them some sort of paper before you leave that describes what treatment was given on what date. They don't want you to have any information because that will bite them a month later when they send you a bill for Sasquatch infection testing and you contest it. I hate going to the doctor's office because I rarely get diagnosis that I couldn't come up with myself, it's usually to get a prescription. Oh you're vomitting? Hmm, let me poke you in the stomach a few times... Yeah, not sure why, take some of these pills to make you stop vomiting. Have a nice day! Nothing to pay today, we'll send you a bill.
Next day, go to the pharmacy to pick up prescription for $70 pills to make you stop vomiting even though you feel better today. Might as well save them for later.
Next month, receive bill for $297.35 with a single line item that says "Doctor services"
No thanks, for $370 bucks, I'll keep vomiting until I get better or die thank you.
This is the number one issue with healthcare. The health insurance company doesn't give two shits about you. You are not their customer. If you are lucky they comply with the law. If you are not, they skirt the law and hope you'll give up after 3 or 4 rounds of appeals. Complaining to HR about insurance is a nice way to get your name on a list. Companies provide the shittiest health insurance they can still hire employees with. I had to drop my wife from my company health insurance plan and pay extra for private insurance because the company insurance covered NOTHING. And I mean nothing to the point where every time I go to the pharmacy they question it because NO ONE pays full retail price for this shit.
This is one of the biggest bullshit issues with the system. Why is a simple prescription $550 "retail" but the negotiated insurance rate is 1/5 of that? It's like they are trying to screw over people who have to pay out of pocket.
When you go to the urgent care they ask questions that shouldn't be relevant like "how close are you to your deductible?" That just tells them how much shit to tack on the bill to try to get away with before insurance decides they are only paying 40% of the bill anyway. Somewhere in there doctors' offices are claiming fraudulent "losses" and insurance companies are inflating their "value." At the end, it's the consumer getting a walletbotomy.
This saving being bad for the economy thing is based on the premise that spending is what drives the economy and not investing. This is the same idea that drives massive spending, debt bubbles, and artificially low interest rates. How's that been working out for us?
The fair tax will increase incomes, not decrease it. And for the poor that means more money to take home and all the essentials are tax free due to the prebate. The rest is choosing whether to save the money and improve their future prospects or pay the same tax that they would have paid on their income but at the purchasing end instead.
You mean Gary Johnson? I guess he's more libertarian than they would allow in the debates last go round. Or maybe Ron already fulfilled their 1 libertarian in the debates allotment.
The Fair Tax might be a difficult transition, but it is better for the economy in the long run. It reduces consumption instead of an income tax that reduces income. It would encourage people to invest and save their increased income instead of spending it on consumable goods.
The other half of the equation is reducing government spending to offset the lower taxes called for by the Fair Tax as proposed by Johnson.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe 20 years ago... New toll systems have few manned toll booths and don't require traffic to slow or stop. And it most certainly does discriminate based on size class of the vehicle.
Maybe that is backward in some locations. In Atlanta the poor live close and the rich commute AGES to get to work. My question on a per mileage charge is how is the tracking done. Reading the odometer is easy and doesn't have privacy concerns, but doesn't reflect if it was driven on private roads or out of state.
LALALALALA
Saved money is just under a mattress somewhere and might as well be burned because you are taking it out of the economy! Spending money is the only way to advance society. Buying reusable plates is folly. It hurts the plate manufacturing industry!
Wait, did you just create an analogy between water and money and then claim that sticking water (money) behind a dam does nothing? Why do we build dams if they do nothing? Wait, don't dams usually have power plants with them? So you are saying that putting money behind a dam generates more potential for future money and allows one to store up a reserve for times when things are dry? Sounds like a pretty smart move to me to stick money behind a dam.
People who think consumption drives the economy don't understand the purpose of saving. It's not equivalent to burning money. And it doesn't just sit under a mattress in a bank account...
Maybe it's because the minimum wage here is so high that the products cost so much...
+5 informative for a post complaining about inflation adjusted dollars when the $135 billion was already inflation adjusted... Wow. Good job reading mods.
Except efficiency has also increased since 1940. How much of the increase in government spending is due to programs that don't need to be managed by the government at all and unnecessary levels of bureaucrats at desks?
What about 3) Minimum wage employees?
If you raise the minimum wage by 33% what are the chances you are going to lose 1/3 of minimum wage employees? Ok, it's probably not a 1-1 ratio of increased pay to less jobs, but it's not a non-zero number of reduced jobs. Computers are starting to replace employees already. This will only serve to speed things along at the bottom of the market. Once an employer has to replace one employee with a computer at $15/hr, why not get rid of all the $15/hr employees?
Setting a minimum bar doesn't increase the pay of those at the bottom, it prices the bottom out of the market.
It's easier to dodge an accident than stop in front of one. That's what I learned from racing. Always leave yourself an out.
Yes, we have to take the clean water from the waste treatment plant, dechlorinate it, return it to nature, then retrieve most of it from nature, clean it again to get all the nature out, and then chlorinate it again to kill off any nature we missed.
"use" is also a relative term and dependent on time. Sure styrofoam in a landfill doesn't have a use now, but maybe in a few thousand years it will be a resource to be mined or a food source for bacteria to generate methane gas. One man's trash is another bacterium's food.
I have this problem all the time. Companies create bullshit language in their policies, terms, contracts, and agreements. And then refuse to budge because they think the law will follow whatever bullshit they have. No, I don't care what your policy says if your policy in unenforceable. Saying something is "non-refundable" might sound like a good policy, but unless a judge agrees the policy is pretty useless.
100% recycling is a relative term... Technically, anything that doesn't leave the gravity well of earth will get recycled in one way or another.
The only risk greater than man made global warming is the risk that man will try to stop global warming. Sure we are influencing the climate and we should try to reduce that influence. On the other hand, I don't see any good from experimenting with intentional manipulation of the climate OR from crippling the poor's access to energy and standard of living in order to reduce that influence outweighing the possible negatives of a warmer climate.
You shear it.
Ok, so there is a 1600s era verb form of "sheer" referring to navigating a ship that was probably an incorrectly used "shear" anyway. Still not relevant to an action one can do to a sheep.
No you can't. "Sheer" isn't a verb. It can be an adj, an adv, or a noun. Unless you mean splitting the sheep in half in which case you are just as at fault as the GP as that would still be "shear."
One small clarification, you don't actually have a right to a phone call. Though, you will probably get one, and maybe more depending on your situation.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/...
Right, the biggest risk to you to keep filming is that you spend a few nights in jail, hurt your career, hire a lawyer, spend a few days over the next who knows how many months or years in court, etc.
Their biggest risk if they deny you your rights is some paid administrative leave while the department investigates.
You are lucky he would even tell you. Most places won't give you an answer on how much treatment will cost. You're lucky if you can force out of them some sort of paper before you leave that describes what treatment was given on what date. They don't want you to have any information because that will bite them a month later when they send you a bill for Sasquatch infection testing and you contest it. I hate going to the doctor's office because I rarely get diagnosis that I couldn't come up with myself, it's usually to get a prescription. Oh you're vomitting? Hmm, let me poke you in the stomach a few times... Yeah, not sure why, take some of these pills to make you stop vomiting. Have a nice day! Nothing to pay today, we'll send you a bill.
Next day, go to the pharmacy to pick up prescription for $70 pills to make you stop vomiting even though you feel better today. Might as well save them for later.
Next month, receive bill for $297.35 with a single line item that says "Doctor services"
No thanks, for $370 bucks, I'll keep vomiting until I get better or die thank you.
This is the number one issue with healthcare. The health insurance company doesn't give two shits about you. You are not their customer. If you are lucky they comply with the law. If you are not, they skirt the law and hope you'll give up after 3 or 4 rounds of appeals. Complaining to HR about insurance is a nice way to get your name on a list. Companies provide the shittiest health insurance they can still hire employees with. I had to drop my wife from my company health insurance plan and pay extra for private insurance because the company insurance covered NOTHING. And I mean nothing to the point where every time I go to the pharmacy they question it because NO ONE pays full retail price for this shit.
This is one of the biggest bullshit issues with the system. Why is a simple prescription $550 "retail" but the negotiated insurance rate is 1/5 of that? It's like they are trying to screw over people who have to pay out of pocket.
When you go to the urgent care they ask questions that shouldn't be relevant like "how close are you to your deductible?" That just tells them how much shit to tack on the bill to try to get away with before insurance decides they are only paying 40% of the bill anyway. Somewhere in there doctors' offices are claiming fraudulent "losses" and insurance companies are inflating their "value." At the end, it's the consumer getting a walletbotomy.
This saving being bad for the economy thing is based on the premise that spending is what drives the economy and not investing. This is the same idea that drives massive spending, debt bubbles, and artificially low interest rates. How's that been working out for us?
The fair tax will increase incomes, not decrease it. And for the poor that means more money to take home and all the essentials are tax free due to the prebate. The rest is choosing whether to save the money and improve their future prospects or pay the same tax that they would have paid on their income but at the purchasing end instead.
You mean Gary Johnson? I guess he's more libertarian than they would allow in the debates last go round. Or maybe Ron already fulfilled their 1 libertarian in the debates allotment.
The Fair Tax might be a difficult transition, but it is better for the economy in the long run. It reduces consumption instead of an income tax that reduces income. It would encourage people to invest and save their increased income instead of spending it on consumable goods.
The other half of the equation is reducing government spending to offset the lower taxes called for by the Fair Tax as proposed by Johnson.