Actually. Most conservatives understood intuitively that you could not add tons of poor to insurance roles and cover all pre existing conditions without raising prices heavily on the healthy.
We never did understand how people thought this would work. Gruber may be an asshat. But for the most part he is correct. A large part of the electorate is stupid. It is how a congressman can have an approval rating in the teens and get re elected. They will not get smarter until the money runs out for their free stuff. Then they will get angry, hungry and violent.
Of course some of us have food storage, emergency supplies and guns.
Social Security will die very soon. Ponzi schemes always fail.
As far as the Solyndra thing goes, it is like this. The federal government has no place picking winners and losers. Every time they give money to a company that could not get it through private means they hurt that companies competitors.
Clean air act started out great. So did the EPA. When I was a kid in LA we had "Smog Days" where we could not go out an play because pollution was so bad. It got fixed. My kids have not had one single smog day. But they do not give up. Now the air you breath out is a pollutant.
Medicare is great for the people on it. It really hurts the medical professionals. The costs are passed on to other patients.
DARPA and the like. This is good stuff. Government should spend on pie in the sky stuff like DARPA does. Places where no sane private company can see a profit in. Sometimes great things can come of it. NASA going to the moon is another thing that government should do because they are the only ones that really can.
Government has a place. The problem is that when you use a government agency to "fix" a problem that problem can never be fixed or the jobs go away. Therefore they always expand their reach. They do not ever go away.
I am pointing out that "The Internet" has gone through massive evolutions. Even though a provider may have no way to innovate beyond new billing strategies.
Well. To be honest though if the government owned your last mile....
It would be badly maintained at a high cost. Every issue would have to be bounced between your service provider and the government to see who was at fault.
Of course there will also be a ton of regulations put in place by the politicians and major telcom / cable lobbyists about who can and who can not provide service over that last mile.
I am sure this will end up really well for the customer.
Most companies want to control what you see. They want to insert their own ads in your streams and re direct your DNS queries.
When there is no competition they can and do do this. With competition you can have companies that maybe charge a bit more and promise FAT pipe and no messing around.
Of course you can enjoy your choice between Satellite(Slow and massive latency), Cable (What ever one company is allowed in your area), and Phone company (Decent if you happen to be near a CO) if you like, but I want real competition.
They should have to obtain right of way of course.
What should not happen is that the local government should not sign away the peoples right to have competitors. This is happening in almost every municipality. It results in high prices and bad service.
While there is very little federal regulation there to limit innovation the issue there is the contracts signed by the local municipalities giving defacto monopolies in the area. If those were gone you would see much better competition.
I think you are only looking at small parts of what has been going on in the Utilities area for the last bunch of decades.
Widen your scope a little and you will see some glaring issues with over regulation and under regulation. For the most part under regulation of utilities causes one set of problems while over regulation stifles any real innovation.
While I kind of agree with the title 2 thing, I have to say. While the utilities have been regulated they have had almost zero innovation. The internet being unregulated for the most part has had major innovation. Would love to see net neutrality able to be done with a very soft regulatory hand.
Won't happen. Because he is falling straight toward the planet he will not bounce. Pick up enough speed and the g-force of the deceleration will kill him if the fireball of friction does not.
I doubt that you are correct here. At an the apogee of 205 miles I figure that from just the gravitational acceleration he is going to hit close to 5000 mph before friction starts slowing him at all.
Rough figures.
Not everyone has the ability to learn after they think they already know something. I am sure you can still be useful as a burger flipper or a university professor.
Actually there were many founding fathers who thought slavery was a bad thing. It was at the time a difficult thing to fight. Slavery had been being done everywhere in the world since the dawn of man. The Jews were slaves to the Egyptians. The Romans built an empire from the efforts of millions of slaves. Even the tribes in Africa enslaved members of other tribes.
But I am sure that when you speak of slavery you only think of the harm done to blacks in the US. Other kinds of slavery were different, Right? Try to remember for a second that those founding fathers created something that was much better than anything that came before it.
They were well off. They had money and power. They risked it all. No one knew if the revolution could be won. The British were all powerful at the time. They risked their wealth, their power, their lives and the lives or their families by becoming Traitors. Had the revolution failed they would have been hung as traitors. Their families would have been lucky to get off with only having all of their lands and possessions taken.
They were brave and they risked much more than you or I can imagine doing. You go ahead though and sit there with your awesome knowledge of all things and point out what pieces of crap they are and how you would have done it soo much better.
You are so good at this debating thing. There is no possible way to lose using logic like yours.
So the argument goes like this... "You would be willing to pay a fucktard $15/hr to flip burgers too if the government was holding a gun to your head!"
Slashdot Mirror
We never did understand how people thought this would work. Gruber may be an asshat. But for the most part he is correct. A large part of the electorate is stupid. It is how a congressman can have an approval rating in the teens and get re elected. They will not get smarter until the money runs out for their free stuff. Then they will get angry, hungry and violent.
Of course some of us have food storage, emergency supplies and guns.
I will not tolerate your intolerance!
As far as the Solyndra thing goes, it is like this. The federal government has no place picking winners and losers. Every time they give money to a company that could not get it through private means they hurt that companies competitors.
Clean air act started out great. So did the EPA. When I was a kid in LA we had "Smog Days" where we could not go out an play because pollution was so bad. It got fixed. My kids have not had one single smog day. But they do not give up. Now the air you breath out is a pollutant.
Medicare is great for the people on it. It really hurts the medical professionals. The costs are passed on to other patients.
DARPA and the like. This is good stuff. Government should spend on pie in the sky stuff like DARPA does. Places where no sane private company can see a profit in. Sometimes great things can come of it. NASA going to the moon is another thing that government should do because they are the only ones that really can.
Government has a place. The problem is that when you use a government agency to "fix" a problem that problem can never be fixed or the jobs go away. Therefore they always expand their reach. They do not ever go away.
Seems legit.
I am pointing out that "The Internet" has gone through massive evolutions. Even though a provider may have no way to innovate beyond new billing strategies.
Try giving 5 on the Federal level.
Surprise! Scumbag country has scumbag people doing scumbag things and it is rampant. News at 11!
We all know that it will almost assuredly be fucked up.
It would be badly maintained at a high cost. Every issue would have to be bounced between your service provider and the government to see who was at fault.
Of course there will also be a ton of regulations put in place by the politicians and major telcom / cable lobbyists about who can and who can not provide service over that last mile.
I am sure this will end up really well for the customer.
When there is no competition they can and do do this. With competition you can have companies that maybe charge a bit more and promise FAT pipe and no messing around.
Of course you can enjoy your choice between Satellite(Slow and massive latency), Cable (What ever one company is allowed in your area), and Phone company (Decent if you happen to be near a CO) if you like, but I want real competition.
Some people might tell you that Comcast is not the internet.
I just want to know how I can upload all of my medical data to them.
Google seems to do ok with their experiment
What should not happen is that the local government should not sign away the peoples right to have competitors. This is happening in almost every municipality. It results in high prices and bad service.
The details can and should be left up to the market. The local government are the reason there is no competition in your community.
While there is very little federal regulation there to limit innovation the issue there is the contracts signed by the local municipalities giving defacto monopolies in the area. If those were gone you would see much better competition.
Widen your scope a little and you will see some glaring issues with over regulation and under regulation. For the most part under regulation of utilities causes one set of problems while over regulation stifles any real innovation.
As in many things balance is required.
While I kind of agree with the title 2 thing, I have to say. While the utilities have been regulated they have had almost zero innovation. The internet being unregulated for the most part has had major innovation. Would love to see net neutrality able to be done with a very soft regulatory hand.
You just need to decide to not be a Verizon customer.
Won't happen. Because he is falling straight toward the planet he will not bounce. Pick up enough speed and the g-force of the deceleration will kill him if the fireball of friction does not.
I doubt that you are correct here. At an the apogee of 205 miles I figure that from just the gravitational acceleration he is going to hit close to 5000 mph before friction starts slowing him at all. Rough figures.
Not everyone has the ability to learn after they think they already know something. I am sure you can still be useful as a burger flipper or a university professor.
But I am sure that when you speak of slavery you only think of the harm done to blacks in the US. Other kinds of slavery were different, Right? Try to remember for a second that those founding fathers created something that was much better than anything that came before it.
They were well off. They had money and power. They risked it all. No one knew if the revolution could be won. The British were all powerful at the time. They risked their wealth, their power, their lives and the lives or their families by becoming Traitors. Had the revolution failed they would have been hung as traitors. Their families would have been lucky to get off with only having all of their lands and possessions taken.
They were brave and they risked much more than you or I can imagine doing. You go ahead though and sit there with your awesome knowledge of all things and point out what pieces of crap they are and how you would have done it soo much better.
So the argument goes like this ... "You would be willing to pay a fucktard $15/hr to flip burgers too if the government was holding a gun to your head!"
Did I do that right?
Thanks