Some provisions don't come into effect for around 4 to 9 years e.g. employers can still deny coverage until 2014, or provide higher premiums on women and the elderly. So that means that if the Republicans come into power at a later date, these could be stalled indefinitely (or, come to think of it, the Democrats could attempt to change things at a later date).
In essence, the bill is a subsidy to the insurance industry to the tunes of billions of dollars. Obama appears to have reached a deal with the insurance industry to drop the public option.
Congress now appears to have the power to impose mandates on individuals. For example, they could tell people of a certain BMI index to buy gym memberships. It would appear that the "individual mandate" is therefore unconstitutional.
Another anti-constitutional measure appears to be the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which - under certain conditions - can make recommendations that 'would go into effect automatically unless both houses of Congress passed, and the President signed, legislation to modify or overturn them. If the board recommended changes that the President supported, the President could veto any congressional attempt to block them, and a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate would be required to override the veto'.
There is also the worry that private insurance costs will soar, but tax credits are not likely to increase at the same rate, so somewhere in the region of 16 million people are thinking that they'll get more than they really are.
The best bits are that about 16 million other people are likely to gain better health care.
Exactly. The issue here is one of no consequences. A drone several thousand kilometres away in a foreign country kills a wedding party. Big deal. It happened in a virtual world with no smell or sound, probably hardly any visual impact either, just ants on a screen, everything controlled by joystick. The perpetrators weren't there, they didn't see it happen. The outcome was just to have the military go into damage control, claim terrorists were hiding among them, or they're terribly sorry. Zero consequences. It was just a video game. How else can it be tolerated that an estimated one in three people killed by drones in Pakistan are civilians? Fighting terror with terror, battling monsters and becoming a monster. Pointless bullshit.
In other news, a preserved skeleton of a a giant prehistoric rabbit-like creature was found in the Diepkloof Rock Shelter in the Western Cape, South Africa.
Which brings me to this question: Secretary of State William Cohen once claimed in a briefing that "[Some countries] are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves." Anyone around here know if this is this even remotely possible?
And polls mean what, exactly, when the vast majority of news sources that educate the public on the subject are inherently conservative corporations that have a vested interest in ensuring that marijuana remains illegal? The Drug War is a useful tool of social control, and also happens to be good for big business, along with prisons and prison labour. I would wager that poll statistic would change rather quickly if the basic facts on marijuana and crime/incarceration became better known.
The malware got the Chuck Norris moniker from a programmer's Italian comment in its source code: 'in nome di Chuck Norris,' which means 'in the name of Chuck Norris.'
In other news, an Italian programmer was found dead after taking Chuck Norris's name in vain.
Todays youth have a much more balanced and informed opinion than any other time in history
I think the opposite is true: people who are using the internet as their main source of information are entrenching their views, not challenging them, and personalization is certainly playing a large role in that. I remember a graph I saw a while ago (would need to try find it again) which showed the political leanings of blogs in the US, and their breakdown according to left, right, or balanced (in the middle). The vast majority were at the two extremes, hardly anyone in the middle, and I would also suspect that an analysis of the links between them would show interlinking between left and right is nowhere near as strong as those linking amongst themselves.
The irony for me is that we have at our fingertips such an incredible range of information, but at the same time, we restrict ourselves to the information we're most comfortable with.
Well, you're kind of right, but it's not really about selling newspapers. The newspaper business has never really been about just selling newspapers. They're in the business of selling readers to advertisers. So the real problem is that newspapers don't want to publish things that risks them losing an advertiser, be that because they're losing readership (and therefore they have less product to sell to advertisers), or because the advertiser really didn't like the story and will threaten to pull out.
At this point I'm picturing Nelson Muntz popping up in the courtroom, shouting HAH-Ha! at the judge, and then running off. (And just to be clear, it's not a naked Nelson Muntz).
Compared to, say, the Guardian, Times Online, or the BBC.
Basically if you can see it you can click on it - and if you were wondering whether something was a link or not, mousing-over reveals it. Were you actually confused by this site, or is the complain just a relic of outdated Nielsen usability logic?
Actually, I'm following Krug's advice of "Don't Make Me Think". If you have to use a mouse-over to figure out whether or not something is clickable, you've failed in your design.
Slashdot Mirror
I say you are Lord, and I should know. I've followed a few.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/12/04/1828211/Organovo-Has-Its-First-Commercial-3D-Bio-Printer
Modded to 0 troll after having 5 insightful? What the hell? Nice to see modding being used to stifle debate.
There is also the worry that private insurance costs will soar, but tax credits are not likely to increase at the same rate, so somewhere in the region of 16 million people are thinking that they'll get more than they really are.
The best bits are that about 16 million other people are likely to gain better health care.
Nothing to see here, move along ...
I shall only agree to this when I get proof of the Second Viacomming.
You, sir/madam, deserve +5 insightful for that.
I commented on the post in the Firehose after I submitted it, but the summary should've said "... is scheduled to begin in July ..." instead of June.
Thanks for the info. I went and had a look around to read some more, and found this: http://www.military.com/news/article/predator-pilots-suffering-war-stress.html?col=1186032310810&wh=news Still not sure that indicates that there are a lot more cases of PTSD, but still, thanks for the heads up.
Exactly. The issue here is one of no consequences. A drone several thousand kilometres away in a foreign country kills a wedding party. Big deal. It happened in a virtual world with no smell or sound, probably hardly any visual impact either, just ants on a screen, everything controlled by joystick. The perpetrators weren't there, they didn't see it happen. The outcome was just to have the military go into damage control, claim terrorists were hiding among them, or they're terribly sorry. Zero consequences. It was just a video game. How else can it be tolerated that an estimated one in three people killed by drones in Pakistan are civilians? Fighting terror with terror, battling monsters and becoming a monster. Pointless bullshit.
At last!
... that this hadn't been done sooner. Murdoch no doubt wants some return on his investment, especially since traffic seems to be dropping.
In other news, a preserved skeleton of a a giant prehistoric rabbit-like creature was found in the Diepkloof Rock Shelter in the Western Cape, South Africa.
I wouldn't be surprised if they were warning each other of Chuck Norris 60,000 years ago.
The US has a lot of things to fix, but I doubt freedom of speech is one of them.
They like broke the terms of service of the site in question, which is probably where the illegality lies.
Which brings me to this question: Secretary of State William Cohen once claimed in a briefing that "[Some countries] are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves." Anyone around here know if this is this even remotely possible?
Would that be The People's Front of Judea?
And polls mean what, exactly, when the vast majority of news sources that educate the public on the subject are inherently conservative corporations that have a vested interest in ensuring that marijuana remains illegal? The Drug War is a useful tool of social control, and also happens to be good for big business, along with prisons and prison labour. I would wager that poll statistic would change rather quickly if the basic facts on marijuana and crime/incarceration became better known.
The only impression Chuck Norris leaves is the quite accurate impression that you're dead.
In other news, an Italian programmer was found dead after taking Chuck Norris's name in vain.
I think the opposite is true: people who are using the internet as their main source of information are entrenching their views, not challenging them, and personalization is certainly playing a large role in that. I remember a graph I saw a while ago (would need to try find it again) which showed the political leanings of blogs in the US, and their breakdown according to left, right, or balanced (in the middle). The vast majority were at the two extremes, hardly anyone in the middle, and I would also suspect that an analysis of the links between them would show interlinking between left and right is nowhere near as strong as those linking amongst themselves.
The irony for me is that we have at our fingertips such an incredible range of information, but at the same time, we restrict ourselves to the information we're most comfortable with.
Well, you're kind of right, but it's not really about selling newspapers. The newspaper business has never really been about just selling newspapers. They're in the business of selling readers to advertisers. So the real problem is that newspapers don't want to publish things that risks them losing an advertiser, be that because they're losing readership (and therefore they have less product to sell to advertisers), or because the advertiser really didn't like the story and will threaten to pull out.
At this point I'm picturing Nelson Muntz popping up in the courtroom, shouting HAH-Ha! at the judge, and then running off. (And just to be clear, it's not a naked Nelson Muntz).
Compared to, say, the Guardian, Times Online, or the BBC.
Actually, I'm following Krug's advice of "Don't Make Me Think". If you have to use a mouse-over to figure out whether or not something is clickable, you've failed in your design.