Well, it was a really fucking stupid idea (tm) to privatise the Royal Mail. Even the Republicans haven't been big enough dumbasses to privatise the USPS.
To be fair, the USPS is specified in the constitution as a government-run institution, so it would take some very creative legislation.
And in some ways I wish they had made it a private company. Right now, due to the republicans, the USPS receives no federal money, but must pre-pay pension funds for decades in advance.
But yeah, I want a government-run postal service. I want a service that will be there for everyone, not just people in big cities, or rich people, or whatever subset "makes shareholders more money".
VA hospitals are much, much cheaper than "normal hospitals" (and for most physical injuries, have similar results). Are you willing to accept a massive tax hike to allow vets to get treatment in a normal hospital? Even if you are, most of your neighbors are not.
And TFA is about how the EMR in "normal hospitals", all bought from free-market companies, is horrible and can cause secondary health problems. The VA's EMR is actually very good, works well and has fewer problems than the commercial ones, cost a LOT less to develop and deploy, and scales much further.
So no, your fix for the VA is likely to make the problems worse, not better.
The VA has many problems, but is also wonderful in some areas.
Their care for physical injuries and their EMR are both good. Their EMR, in particular, is fantastic, especially compared to much of the expensive commercial crap that most hospitals use.
Their care for mental injuries and their scheduling and administration are pitiful. Some of that is because the government refuses to fund them enough, but there are plenty of other issues there.
But none of the issues are exclusive to government-run health care. Any place where you have more people who need care than resources to care for them, whether the resources come from the government, industry, or charities. Blaming it entirely on the government just encourages solutions worse than the initial problems.
The high rates in the US were after the wars (50s-70s). Cold war, perhaps.
And sure, mobility and communication was far more difficult then. Many things have changed besides just the taxes. I'm just saying that if someone says "X causes Y" and the quick evidence says "the relationship, without adjustments, looks kinda like the opposite" then you need something stronger than faith and religious fervor to make your case. Thus, "citation needed".
So say what you mean. When someone says one thing but then says "no, actually I mean this rather different thing" we accuse them of "spin" if they are a politician and "lying" if they are anyone else.
Also, how would the new IRS differ? What policies of the current IRS do you think should be changed? Because it seems to me that as long as someone has to enforce tax collection, they have to look much like the current IRS.
Citation needed. I hear this a lot but never seem to hear any evidence of it.
The US used to have a maximum tax rate of over 90%, but fewer millionaires left the country than now when the tax rates are historically very low.
I'm rather happy that those who make more (including me, though I'm nowhere near rich) pay a higher percentage than those who make less. Another percent tax on me will not change much, though I may go out to eat less or have fewer options on my new motorcycle. Another percent on people living near me will mean that they will have trouble eating or paying for healthcare or heating.
Not to worry. I don't own anything; my house and cars are owned by KqsCo and leased to me for a nominal fee. And since they are business expenses for the company...
If you assume that there is any plan which cannot be gamed, you don't have enough imagination.
I'm fine with a combination of income, sales, business and property taxes. You may be able to avoid one of them, but avoiding all of them at the same time may be more expensive than paying the damn taxes.
As far as I know, you can put whatever sign you want in your window, but you generally cannot refuse service if the only reason is that someone is in a protected class. So you can refuse service to anyone if they are drunk, barefoot, tall, or wearing white after labor day, etc, but not because they are muslim, african-american, or female. LGTB folks are not a protected class in Indiana, so this bill gives you a defense if you discriminate against them for any reason whatsoever.
that's all just a legally palatable cover for their real motivation: Feeling normal.
Well, that, and they'd kinda like to not be fired from their job because they are gay, beaten (sometimes to death) because they are gay, not be able to adopt because they are gay, be able to inherit from their life partner and be able to make and-of-life decisions for their life partner, etc, etc, etc. But sure. feeling normal is way more important than all that.
I'd prefer if a requirement for using this law as a defense were putting a sign on your store and your website and advertising materials saying "No Gays Allowed", just so that I'd know what bigoted businesses to avoid at all costs.
In history, the Spartans were the despotic enemies of democracy who constantly tried to defeat Athens. They could have stopped the Persians at the sea crossing, but delayed because they had a religious festival and finally sent a tiny troop to Thermopylae (too little too late). Those troops did acquit themselves well, but Greece would have been overrun if the Athenians hadn't brought up their army and crushed the Persians.
So yeah, an appropriate name for Microsoft (and for people who know movies but not history).
This depends on the doctor. My doctor is very good at explaining things and going through the details and side effects of treatments, which greatly improves my mental status. I know some doctors don't do that though, which is a problem. And some people need more help from their provider than others.
Also, many people have mental issues which are not tied with their physical symptoms, and those people are poorly treated both by the US health care system (which treats mental issues as second class) and by the US culture (which treats mental issues as "your fault").
Note that the ACA is a major step forward here; now, all health plans have to cover mental illnesses and rehabilitative services.
Left-leaning new sites absolutely refuse to take a stance against Islamic terrorism because it doesn't fit in their worldview
I disagree. As far as I can tell, left-leaning people hate terrorism. The difference is that some people believe that "most current terrorists are Muslim" means the same thing as "most current Muslims are terrorists", and some see that those statements are different.
I hate terrorism. I'm not fond of Islam, but then I'm not fond of Christianity either. Both want to control how I live and who I can marry. But I don't blame Islam for terrorism; I blame terrorists for terrorism. Which do you blame?
Note that I blame Christian bigots for the (now being dismantled) anti-gay movement, but I don't blame Christianity or all Christians for it; I blame bigots. And if people thought that they could still get away with KKK-style lynchings in the US, I suspect that we would see more Christian terrorism. Fortunately, the governments which turned a blind eye to that practice in the 1900s have gotten better. I hope that the governments in the middle east will also improve over time.
You sure about that? A few minutes with Google implies that Texas has more gun deaths per capita than New York, which seems to completely contradict your point. Actually, I see more pro-gun states in the top 10 than anti-gun states.
Actually, the strongest indicator (in my completely unscientific glance) is poverty, not gun laws. But hey, you can keep on blaming minorities, cities, and gun-control. And I suspect you will.
"Someone else taking care of bandwidth?" Yeah, *I* am. I pay Verizon for bandwidth, about 25mbs up and down.
Netflix already pays for bandwidth (and also CDNs) to send their content to Verizon, Comcast, and other ISPs. The problem is that Verizon and the others want to be double-paid for their internal network, both by me and again by netflix (who will pay for it by charging me more). You may think that that is a good idea, but I don't.
They actually tried fairly effectively with DSL. That worked well enough that all of the telcos have been pushing fiber partially so that they don't have to allow competitors access. Europe has higher-speed DSL, but it's not deployed in the US since it would cause competition.
Is it safe to assume you prefer the party that told you 'we have to pass the bill, to see what's in it',
Hmmm. Either you have no idea what the context of that quote is, meaning that you are a gullible idiot who refuses to fact-check things they hear, or you know the context but are intentionally misrepresenting it, meaning that you are a liar trying to misrepresent facts.
Either way, you have proven that you have nothing worth listening to and that the rest of your comment is probably similarly misleading.
Since I assume that you are just sincere and gullible, when you do realize that that quote doesn't mean what you claim, you should consider that whoever told you it meant something bad (probably Glen Beck and Fox) was lying to you and you should never trust them again. You will, but that falls under the "gullible idiot" part.
Really, not even better overall for the rich and corporations, though many people never seem to think it through. I encourage libertarians to move to Somalia to see the total-libertarian dream in action. No effective government! No regulations! No enforcement of taxes! A dream come true!
Yet somehow anti-tax libertarians are not flocking to this paradise.
What I'd expect is that the boxes where the ads were will be empty, but the layout of the website (tailored originally around those boxes) will be identical.
Competent CSS will result in the boxes being gone and the page re-flowing.
So you're saying that this will not work well with most sites?
Slashdot Mirror
So so complaining and buy a chromebook already.
Well, it was a really fucking stupid idea (tm) to privatise the Royal Mail. Even the Republicans haven't been big enough dumbasses to privatise the USPS.
To be fair, the USPS is specified in the constitution as a government-run institution, so it would take some very creative legislation.
And in some ways I wish they had made it a private company. Right now, due to the republicans, the USPS receives no federal money, but must pre-pay pension funds for decades in advance.
But yeah, I want a government-run postal service. I want a service that will be there for everyone, not just people in big cities, or rich people, or whatever subset "makes shareholders more money".
VA hospitals are much, much cheaper than "normal hospitals" (and for most physical injuries, have similar results). Are you willing to accept a massive tax hike to allow vets to get treatment in a normal hospital? Even if you are, most of your neighbors are not.
And TFA is about how the EMR in "normal hospitals", all bought from free-market companies, is horrible and can cause secondary health problems. The VA's EMR is actually very good, works well and has fewer problems than the commercial ones, cost a LOT less to develop and deploy, and scales much further.
So no, your fix for the VA is likely to make the problems worse, not better.
The VA has many problems, but is also wonderful in some areas.
Their care for physical injuries and their EMR are both good. Their EMR, in particular, is fantastic, especially compared to much of the expensive commercial crap that most hospitals use.
Their care for mental injuries and their scheduling and administration are pitiful. Some of that is because the government refuses to fund them enough, but there are plenty of other issues there.
But none of the issues are exclusive to government-run health care. Any place where you have more people who need care than resources to care for them, whether the resources come from the government, industry, or charities. Blaming it entirely on the government just encourages solutions worse than the initial problems.
The high rates in the US were after the wars (50s-70s). Cold war, perhaps.
And sure, mobility and communication was far more difficult then. Many things have changed besides just the taxes. I'm just saying that if someone says "X causes Y" and the quick evidence says "the relationship, without adjustments, looks kinda like the opposite" then you need something stronger than faith and religious fervor to make your case. Thus, "citation needed".
So say what you mean. When someone says one thing but then says "no, actually I mean this rather different thing" we accuse them of "spin" if they are a politician and "lying" if they are anyone else.
Also, how would the new IRS differ? What policies of the current IRS do you think should be changed? Because it seems to me that as long as someone has to enforce tax collection, they have to look much like the current IRS.
Citation needed. I hear this a lot but never seem to hear any evidence of it.
The US used to have a maximum tax rate of over 90%, but fewer millionaires left the country than now when the tax rates are historically very low.
I'm rather happy that those who make more (including me, though I'm nowhere near rich) pay a higher percentage than those who make less. Another percent tax on me will not change much, though I may go out to eat less or have fewer options on my new motorcycle. Another percent on people living near me will mean that they will have trouble eating or paying for healthcare or heating.
Not to worry. I don't own anything; my house and cars are owned by KqsCo and leased to me for a nominal fee. And since they are business expenses for the company...
If you assume that there is any plan which cannot be gamed, you don't have enough imagination.
I'm fine with a combination of income, sales, business and property taxes. You may be able to avoid one of them, but avoiding all of them at the same time may be more expensive than paying the damn taxes.
My religion says that anyone who enters my business is subject to sharia law. I should move to Indiana now!
As far as I know, you can put whatever sign you want in your window, but you generally cannot refuse service if the only reason is that someone is in a protected class. So you can refuse service to anyone if they are drunk, barefoot, tall, or wearing white after labor day, etc, but not because they are muslim, african-american, or female. LGTB folks are not a protected class in Indiana, so this bill gives you a defense if you discriminate against them for any reason whatsoever.
that's all just a legally palatable cover for their real motivation: Feeling normal.
Well, that, and they'd kinda like to not be fired from their job because they are gay, beaten (sometimes to death) because they are gay, not be able to adopt because they are gay, be able to inherit from their life partner and be able to make and-of-life decisions for their life partner, etc, etc, etc. But sure. feeling normal is way more important than all that.
I'd prefer if a requirement for using this law as a defense were putting a sign on your store and your website and advertising materials saying "No Gays Allowed", just so that I'd know what bigoted businesses to avoid at all costs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... , though in that case the email was hosted by the Republican National Committee.
I'm generally a Clinton supporter, and I'm really unhappy with the email thing. But it is the same as has been done before and will be done again.
Not to worry though, I'm sure that we'll have EVEN MORE investigations into this than we had into Benghazi, with the exact same results.
In history, the Spartans were the despotic enemies of democracy who constantly tried to defeat Athens. They could have stopped the Persians at the sea crossing, but delayed because they had a religious festival and finally sent a tiny troop to Thermopylae (too little too late). Those troops did acquit themselves well, but Greece would have been overrun if the Athenians hadn't brought up their army and crushed the Persians.
So yeah, an appropriate name for Microsoft (and for people who know movies but not history).
Well, the 90% figure is based on 90% more facts than homeopathy. Or astrology, for that matter.
This depends on the doctor. My doctor is very good at explaining things and going through the details and side effects of treatments, which greatly improves my mental status. I know some doctors don't do that though, which is a problem. And some people need more help from their provider than others.
Also, many people have mental issues which are not tied with their physical symptoms, and those people are poorly treated both by the US health care system (which treats mental issues as second class) and by the US culture (which treats mental issues as "your fault").
Note that the ACA is a major step forward here; now, all health plans have to cover mental illnesses and rehabilitative services.
Huh. In the US, the conservative party IS the silly party.
Can you name a single primarily psychopathic society to provide even anecdotal experimental evidence for your claim?
The Republican primaries?
Left-leaning new sites absolutely refuse to take a stance against Islamic terrorism because it doesn't fit in their worldview
I disagree. As far as I can tell, left-leaning people hate terrorism. The difference is that some people believe that "most current terrorists are Muslim" means the same thing as "most current Muslims are terrorists", and some see that those statements are different.
I hate terrorism. I'm not fond of Islam, but then I'm not fond of Christianity either. Both want to control how I live and who I can marry. But I don't blame Islam for terrorism; I blame terrorists for terrorism. Which do you blame?
Note that I blame Christian bigots for the (now being dismantled) anti-gay movement, but I don't blame Christianity or all Christians for it; I blame bigots. And if people thought that they could still get away with KKK-style lynchings in the US, I suspect that we would see more Christian terrorism. Fortunately, the governments which turned a blind eye to that practice in the 1900s have gotten better. I hope that the governments in the middle east will also improve over time.
You sure about that? A few minutes with Google implies that Texas has more gun deaths per capita than New York, which seems to completely contradict your point. Actually, I see more pro-gun states in the top 10 than anti-gun states.
Actually, the strongest indicator (in my completely unscientific glance) is poverty, not gun laws. But hey, you can keep on blaming minorities, cities, and gun-control. And I suspect you will.
Kevin
"Someone else taking care of bandwidth?" Yeah, *I* am. I pay Verizon for bandwidth, about 25mbs up and down.
Netflix already pays for bandwidth (and also CDNs) to send their content to Verizon, Comcast, and other ISPs. The problem is that Verizon and the others want to be double-paid for their internal network, both by me and again by netflix (who will pay for it by charging me more). You may think that that is a good idea, but I don't.
They actually tried fairly effectively with DSL. That worked well enough that all of the telcos have been pushing fiber partially so that they don't have to allow competitors access. Europe has higher-speed DSL, but it's not deployed in the US since it would cause competition.
Is it safe to assume you prefer the party that told you 'we have to pass the bill, to see what's in it',
Hmmm. Either you have no idea what the context of that quote is, meaning that you are a gullible idiot who refuses to fact-check things they hear, or you know the context but are intentionally misrepresenting it, meaning that you are a liar trying to misrepresent facts.
Either way, you have proven that you have nothing worth listening to and that the rest of your comment is probably similarly misleading.
Since I assume that you are just sincere and gullible, when you do realize that that quote doesn't mean what you claim, you should consider that whoever told you it meant something bad (probably Glen Beck and Fox) was lying to you and you should never trust them again. You will, but that falls under the "gullible idiot" part.
Really, not even better overall for the rich and corporations, though many people never seem to think it through. I encourage libertarians to move to Somalia to see the total-libertarian dream in action. No effective government! No regulations! No enforcement of taxes! A dream come true!
Yet somehow anti-tax libertarians are not flocking to this paradise.
What I'd expect is that the boxes where the ads were will be empty, but the layout of the website (tailored originally around those boxes) will be identical.
Competent CSS will result in the boxes being gone and the page re-flowing.
So you're saying that this will not work well with most sites?