The government can always up the fines if they think it's not enough. But the government is lowering the cost of health care by giving tax breaks to small businesses to provide health care to their employees, and creating state-run exchanges where insurance companies bid on providing standardized-packages that are cheap. The poor will get subsidies. Don't forget that high-deductible, disaster-only plans are still very cheap for young folk. At some point, you're better off paying the extra few hundred dollars to get health insurance rather than paying the fine to get nothing but emergency care.
The really sad thing is that basically any country Rush Limbaugh will consider defecting to will have "socialized health care." It's pretty bizarre. Don't forget that Sarah Palin, who is against the health care reform bill, went to Canada as a child to take advantage of their health care system whenever she got sick.
Also, small business owners will be given tax breaks to create incentives to provide health care for their employees. Big companies will be required to provide health insurance. Thus, less people will be forced to pay a penalty. The state-run exchanges will have insurance companies bidding over affordable health insurance packages with features selected by the state. This will lower prices as standardized packages become popular, so the uninsured can buy cheaper packages that cover checkups and emergency room visits.
Republicans had control of the Presidency and the Congress and did nothing with regard to health care reform other than Medicare Part D, which will cost $725 billion over the next nine years. The Republicans refused to do anything when they had the chance, and now are complaining that they're being left out of a chance to do something. I'm sorry guys, but you squandered the chance to do things your way.
The Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 cost over a trillion dollars--in other words, much bigger than this bill--were both passed by reconciliation. And the 2003 was not a reconciliation. It passed the Senate 51-50 with Cheney breaking the tie. So again, Republicans are full of shit, hypocritical, and never miss a chance to play loose with the facts and politics with your lives.
Your opposition to the bill, which contains Republican suggestions, is nonsensical. Republicans keep trashing the bill but they can't provide specifics aside from "it's socialist." Let me address your concerns with facts:
(1) Allow interstate sales of insurance. Sounds great, but this will lead to a race to the bottom. Credit card companies are formed in the state with the laxest regulation so they can sell all over without being regulated. States will compete for these companies, which will pay a lot in taxes and hire a lot of people. If you allowed insurance companies to do the same thing, it will prevent each state from regulating insurance as they see fit--instead, the loosest state will control. In fact, each state will chase after the dollars by passing the laxest laws. That's why insurance companies are so in love in the notion of allowing interstate sale of insurance.
(2) Removal of preexisting conditions. In the bill already.
(3) Tort reform laws. Medical malpractice payouts account for less than one-half of one percent of health care expenditures. Let's set aside the fact that malpractice lawsuits are part of the free market system for sending signals to health care providers to prevent or minimize malpractice. Thirty percent of medical expenditures are wasted. It's clear this isn't done to stop 0.5% of malpractice payouts; it's done so hospitals and doctors can make money. We compensate them with fees for services. Like rational actors, they maximize services to get more fees. Again, insurance companies want tort reform laws so they can pay out less.
I find it hard to believe that your wife works for a hospital and her job doesn't provide you with health insurance. But riddle me this: if the diabetes unexpectedly causes a complication such as a heart attack (god forbid), do you have the $200,000 for the surgery and recovery? If that happens, you will probably not be paying the bills, and you'll join the ranks of the medically-bankrupt (who are half the pool of bankrupted in the US.) But hey, who needs insurance as long as bad things don't happen?
The state-exchanges have the prospect of being awesome. I was fired last year, and once my COBRA supplement expired, I had to find new insurance. As a healthy twenty-something I had to pay an exorbitant amount for health insurance. However, I ended up buying insurance from Oxford via the Healthy NY program, which has insurance companies provide a basic package of health care services for $260 a month. I can see the doctor for checkups for a $20 copay. I twisted my shoulder but I can get the checked out if it doesn't get better after a week. It's great. It's provided by private companies, but is affordable.
Tort reform is a meme pushed by Republicans/conservatives at the behest of insurance companies and hospitals. It's in vogue to blame everything on lawyers, but don't forget that insurance companies don't want to pay out no matter how clear cut the negligence. Not many understand that malpractice lawsuits are part of the free market. If a doctor keeps committing malpractice, he'll keep having to pay, and someone will teach him to stop doing that. If there were no malpractice lawsuits, the quality of medical care will definitely be worse because there will be no accountability. (Unless you trust doctors to self-regulate, but they aren't doing that now. What makes you think they'll start when you stop suing them?)
That is the problem that was solved. The crazy thing is that it was proven for all dimensions other than ours in 1982. It took that long to prove the conjecture for the three-dimensional world that we live in. That's wild, no?
The Wall Street bailout (the TARP program) was passed by the Bush Administration. I don't understand why people who do not know the facts and who do not understand the issues continues to run their mouths off as though they know what they're talking about. I know that's mean, but the quality of the debate is in the shitter because of people yelling out "death panels" without any basis in fact for doing so.
The current health care system will bankruptcy us. That is a fact. Escalating costs will eat our economy alive in a few decades unless steps are taken to drive down costs. You seem to think that's okay but responsible grownups want to prevent our economy from failure in the future. Don't get in their way with incorrect drivel.
You mean Medicare Part D, a prescription drug program that will cost the government $727.3 billion from 2009-2018 in payments to the big pharmaceutical companies that pushed the bill through? The bill is that high because the law prevents the federal government from bargaining with the drug companies over the price. That's why Medicare pays $1,485 for Zocor, while the VA pays $127. Oh, and the program hasn't been shown to increase the lifespan of patients.
I am not aware of any health care tort reform under the Bush Administration.
The entitlement generation? How about all the old people on Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid who get pissed when we try to lower their benefits or when they don't get a cost of living adjustment? We spend a huge portion of our budget on these programs. Many of the current recipients are receiving more money than they put into the system, and that burden is being carried by the young of our generation.
One could argue that Medicare and Medicaid benefits are too generous and cost too much, and that Obama should be acknowledged for being strong enough to reduce those benefits to a saner level despite the political fallout. Also, the individual mandate that requires people to buy health insurance will prevent freeloaders caused by the elimination of the preexisting conditions exclusion. Tort reform only accounts for a small percentage of medical costs. Doctors and hospitals prefer procedures because they are paid fees for services, not for prevention. Doctors make money when they do stuff; they do them, pocket the money, then blame the trial lawyers for forcing them to order unnecessary procedures. Proof: the biggest factor on determining whether or not a doctor admits a patient (other things being the same) is how many beds the hospital has available. Overbuilt hospitals with many free beds will try to admit as many patients as possible to fill those spaces.
No one is saying that parents are always going to make better choices, but grownups do make better decisions in general than teenagers or children. Otherwise, we'd hire teenagers to be police officers or teachers. Parents should not be scared to tell their 16-year old not to have sex, or not to have sex without condoms, or to wait until marriage to have sex, as you seem to be arguing.
Shit happens in war. During wartime, enemy populations risk attack; the Geneva Conventions does not make all civilian casualties a war crime. A guy carrying ammunition can be shot with nary a warning. Certainly, there is no requirement for the arrest and trial for military commanders, who live at risk of sudden and violent death.
Churches can run for-profit ventures and not pay taxes. For instance, all of the daycare centers in my neighborhood are structured as churches. They get leeway on zoning so they can build bigger structures. The income they make on the daycares are not taxable.
Brute force methods use dictionary words. Therefore, "ihaterubbishmicrosoftsoftware," which has five dictionary words without any capitalization or numbers or symbols, is the equivalent of a five-character password. The much stronger approach is to use phrases to generate hard passwords. For instance, you can make "ihaterubbishmicrosoftsoftware" to "!h8rM$SW". That's an eight-character that has capitalization and characters and numbers, and therefore harder to attack.
Everyone goes to heaven, but there's no reason it has to be sooner rather than later. God can wait the extra few decades before re-making your acquaintance.
The controversy over vaccination programs exist only because vaccines are very effective at preventing disease. Anyone who remembered life without vaccines would smack anyone who thought vaccines were useless. Polio used to kill and cripple thousands of Americans a year. The public was afraid to go to pools for fear of getting polio. Think about it--a summertime swim may land you in an iron lung for the rest of your life. There were also all the childhood diseases we now have safe and effective vaccines against--whooping cough, measles, mumps, hepatitis B, etc.--these bugs used to kill thousands and terrorize our nation.
Drop the antivax crowd into a third-world country where there hasn't been sustained vaccination programs, let them see all the kids dying from polio whooping cough, then ask them if vaccination is a bad idea.
The sensor on a Stinger may not be sensitive enough to track a UAV. Remember, the Stinger is heat-seeking. A battery-powered UAV will not emit as much heat as a jet-powered or gas-fueled vehicle.
It's not unheard of for parties to act without the knowledge of the other party (ex parte) to prevent them from frustrating relief. For instance, sometimes you can get a seizure order of copyrighted goods without the other side's knowledge if you can prove that they'll just move the goods away if you sue them normally with notice. The moving party has to show that they have a good case, and that there's a good reason notice cannot be given. Federal courts are pretty uptight about granting ex parte orders. In this case, MS probably had very good evidence that these domains were responsible, and that giving these guys notice would have been doubly pointless. First, they won't show up to defend themselves. Second, they'll probably just redirect the bots and frustrate relief.
The article doesn't say if the eight bolts were reinstalled or if the bolts are necessary. I doubt that there would just be a bunch of unnecessary bolts on the International Space Station, and yet...
Well, Obama didn't stop funding for the ARES project; he only terminated federal funding for it. I don't get your point. My point was that Republicans are anti-science, unless it benefits their political benefactors.
You are full of shit. You're a racist, plain and simple. Instead of admitting that ARES was a shitty project that would have been a boondoggle had it continued, you want to pin this all on racial politics. You never address the substantive nature of the argue. You just blame the Democrats and the blacks. You wouldn't have made this charge against Bill Clinton the White President; you would only make this against Barack Hussein Obama the Muslim Black President. Republicans like you love to use race to scare others into submission. It's all racial politics, etc. etc.--you're right. You use race to your advantage, then blame it on the Democrats.
Republicans are the anti-science party. I guess you must have forgotten that President Bush stopped research on stem cells. Or that your white Republicans were changing textbooks to remove references to evolution. Or that you guys wanted to redefine pi as 3. The only reason you are willing to lower your environmental standards isn't to accommodate scientific progress but rather the big corporations behind them. This is more akin to letting huge mining companies dump more arsenic into our water than letting science continue.
You say that the Democrats are in charge of the dumb. Well, your party is full of Teabaggers and Sarah Palin, so go fuck yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
The government can always up the fines if they think it's not enough. But the government is lowering the cost of health care by giving tax breaks to small businesses to provide health care to their employees, and creating state-run exchanges where insurance companies bid on providing standardized-packages that are cheap. The poor will get subsidies. Don't forget that high-deductible, disaster-only plans are still very cheap for young folk. At some point, you're better off paying the extra few hundred dollars to get health insurance rather than paying the fine to get nothing but emergency care.
The really sad thing is that basically any country Rush Limbaugh will consider defecting to will have "socialized health care." It's pretty bizarre. Don't forget that Sarah Palin, who is against the health care reform bill, went to Canada as a child to take advantage of their health care system whenever she got sick.
Also, small business owners will be given tax breaks to create incentives to provide health care for their employees. Big companies will be required to provide health insurance. Thus, less people will be forced to pay a penalty. The state-run exchanges will have insurance companies bidding over affordable health insurance packages with features selected by the state. This will lower prices as standardized packages become popular, so the uninsured can buy cheaper packages that cover checkups and emergency room visits.
Republicans had control of the Presidency and the Congress and did nothing with regard to health care reform other than Medicare Part D, which will cost $725 billion over the next nine years. The Republicans refused to do anything when they had the chance, and now are complaining that they're being left out of a chance to do something. I'm sorry guys, but you squandered the chance to do things your way.
The Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 cost over a trillion dollars--in other words, much bigger than this bill--were both passed by reconciliation. And the 2003 was not a reconciliation. It passed the Senate 51-50 with Cheney breaking the tie. So again, Republicans are full of shit, hypocritical, and never miss a chance to play loose with the facts and politics with your lives.
Your opposition to the bill, which contains Republican suggestions, is nonsensical. Republicans keep trashing the bill but they can't provide specifics aside from "it's socialist." Let me address your concerns with facts:
(1) Allow interstate sales of insurance. Sounds great, but this will lead to a race to the bottom. Credit card companies are formed in the state with the laxest regulation so they can sell all over without being regulated. States will compete for these companies, which will pay a lot in taxes and hire a lot of people. If you allowed insurance companies to do the same thing, it will prevent each state from regulating insurance as they see fit--instead, the loosest state will control. In fact, each state will chase after the dollars by passing the laxest laws. That's why insurance companies are so in love in the notion of allowing interstate sale of insurance.
(2) Removal of preexisting conditions. In the bill already.
(3) Tort reform laws. Medical malpractice payouts account for less than one-half of one percent of health care expenditures. Let's set aside the fact that malpractice lawsuits are part of the free market system for sending signals to health care providers to prevent or minimize malpractice. Thirty percent of medical expenditures are wasted. It's clear this isn't done to stop 0.5% of malpractice payouts; it's done so hospitals and doctors can make money. We compensate them with fees for services. Like rational actors, they maximize services to get more fees. Again, insurance companies want tort reform laws so they can pay out less.
I find it hard to believe that your wife works for a hospital and her job doesn't provide you with health insurance. But riddle me this: if the diabetes unexpectedly causes a complication such as a heart attack (god forbid), do you have the $200,000 for the surgery and recovery? If that happens, you will probably not be paying the bills, and you'll join the ranks of the medically-bankrupt (who are half the pool of bankrupted in the US.) But hey, who needs insurance as long as bad things don't happen?
The state-exchanges have the prospect of being awesome. I was fired last year, and once my COBRA supplement expired, I had to find new insurance. As a healthy twenty-something I had to pay an exorbitant amount for health insurance. However, I ended up buying insurance from Oxford via the Healthy NY program, which has insurance companies provide a basic package of health care services for $260 a month. I can see the doctor for checkups for a $20 copay. I twisted my shoulder but I can get the checked out if it doesn't get better after a week. It's great. It's provided by private companies, but is affordable.
Tort reform is a meme pushed by Republicans/conservatives at the behest of insurance companies and hospitals. It's in vogue to blame everything on lawyers, but don't forget that insurance companies don't want to pay out no matter how clear cut the negligence. Not many understand that malpractice lawsuits are part of the free market. If a doctor keeps committing malpractice, he'll keep having to pay, and someone will teach him to stop doing that. If there were no malpractice lawsuits, the quality of medical care will definitely be worse because there will be no accountability. (Unless you trust doctors to self-regulate, but they aren't doing that now. What makes you think they'll start when you stop suing them?)
That is the problem that was solved. The crazy thing is that it was proven for all dimensions other than ours in 1982. It took that long to prove the conjecture for the three-dimensional world that we live in. That's wild, no?
The Wall Street bailout (the TARP program) was passed by the Bush Administration. I don't understand why people who do not know the facts and who do not understand the issues continues to run their mouths off as though they know what they're talking about. I know that's mean, but the quality of the debate is in the shitter because of people yelling out "death panels" without any basis in fact for doing so.
The current health care system will bankruptcy us. That is a fact. Escalating costs will eat our economy alive in a few decades unless steps are taken to drive down costs. You seem to think that's okay but responsible grownups want to prevent our economy from failure in the future. Don't get in their way with incorrect drivel.
You mean Medicare Part D, a prescription drug program that will cost the government $727.3 billion from 2009-2018 in payments to the big pharmaceutical companies that pushed the bill through? The bill is that high because the law prevents the federal government from bargaining with the drug companies over the price. That's why Medicare pays $1,485 for Zocor, while the VA pays $127. Oh, and the program hasn't been shown to increase the lifespan of patients.
I am not aware of any health care tort reform under the Bush Administration.
The entitlement generation? How about all the old people on Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid who get pissed when we try to lower their benefits or when they don't get a cost of living adjustment? We spend a huge portion of our budget on these programs. Many of the current recipients are receiving more money than they put into the system, and that burden is being carried by the young of our generation.
One could argue that Medicare and Medicaid benefits are too generous and cost too much, and that Obama should be acknowledged for being strong enough to reduce those benefits to a saner level despite the political fallout. Also, the individual mandate that requires people to buy health insurance will prevent freeloaders caused by the elimination of the preexisting conditions exclusion. Tort reform only accounts for a small percentage of medical costs. Doctors and hospitals prefer procedures because they are paid fees for services, not for prevention. Doctors make money when they do stuff; they do them, pocket the money, then blame the trial lawyers for forcing them to order unnecessary procedures. Proof: the biggest factor on determining whether or not a doctor admits a patient (other things being the same) is how many beds the hospital has available. Overbuilt hospitals with many free beds will try to admit as many patients as possible to fill those spaces.
No one is saying that parents are always going to make better choices, but grownups do make better decisions in general than teenagers or children. Otherwise, we'd hire teenagers to be police officers or teachers. Parents should not be scared to tell their 16-year old not to have sex, or not to have sex without condoms, or to wait until marriage to have sex, as you seem to be arguing.
Shit happens in war. During wartime, enemy populations risk attack; the Geneva Conventions does not make all civilian casualties a war crime. A guy carrying ammunition can be shot with nary a warning. Certainly, there is no requirement for the arrest and trial for military commanders, who live at risk of sudden and violent death.
Churches can run for-profit ventures and not pay taxes. For instance, all of the daycare centers in my neighborhood are structured as churches. They get leeway on zoning so they can build bigger structures. The income they make on the daycares are not taxable.
Brute force methods use dictionary words. Therefore, "ihaterubbishmicrosoftsoftware," which has five dictionary words without any capitalization or numbers or symbols, is the equivalent of a five-character password. The much stronger approach is to use phrases to generate hard passwords. For instance, you can make "ihaterubbishmicrosoftsoftware" to "!h8rM$SW". That's an eight-character that has capitalization and characters and numbers, and therefore harder to attack.
Everyone goes to heaven, but there's no reason it has to be sooner rather than later. God can wait the extra few decades before re-making your acquaintance.
The controversy over vaccination programs exist only because vaccines are very effective at preventing disease. Anyone who remembered life without vaccines would smack anyone who thought vaccines were useless. Polio used to kill and cripple thousands of Americans a year. The public was afraid to go to pools for fear of getting polio. Think about it--a summertime swim may land you in an iron lung for the rest of your life. There were also all the childhood diseases we now have safe and effective vaccines against--whooping cough, measles, mumps, hepatitis B, etc.--these bugs used to kill thousands and terrorize our nation.
Drop the antivax crowd into a third-world country where there hasn't been sustained vaccination programs, let them see all the kids dying from polio whooping cough, then ask them if vaccination is a bad idea.
The sensor on a Stinger may not be sensitive enough to track a UAV. Remember, the Stinger is heat-seeking. A battery-powered UAV will not emit as much heat as a jet-powered or gas-fueled vehicle.
It's not unheard of for parties to act without the knowledge of the other party (ex parte) to prevent them from frustrating relief. For instance, sometimes you can get a seizure order of copyrighted goods without the other side's knowledge if you can prove that they'll just move the goods away if you sue them normally with notice. The moving party has to show that they have a good case, and that there's a good reason notice cannot be given. Federal courts are pretty uptight about granting ex parte orders. In this case, MS probably had very good evidence that these domains were responsible, and that giving these guys notice would have been doubly pointless. First, they won't show up to defend themselves. Second, they'll probably just redirect the bots and frustrate relief.
The people who get waivers probably don't pay a lot in taxes, either, so yeah, for *them* it's free.
That seems like what you're doing. The problem is that others are willing to trade off some privacy to get some convenience. Look at Facebook.
The article doesn't say if the eight bolts were reinstalled or if the bolts are necessary. I doubt that there would just be a bunch of unnecessary bolts on the International Space Station, and yet...
Well, Obama didn't stop funding for the ARES project; he only terminated federal funding for it. I don't get your point. My point was that Republicans are anti-science, unless it benefits their political benefactors.
You are full of shit. You're a racist, plain and simple. Instead of admitting that ARES was a shitty project that would have been a boondoggle had it continued, you want to pin this all on racial politics. You never address the substantive nature of the argue. You just blame the Democrats and the blacks. You wouldn't have made this charge against Bill Clinton the White President; you would only make this against Barack Hussein Obama the Muslim Black President. Republicans like you love to use race to scare others into submission. It's all racial politics, etc. etc.--you're right. You use race to your advantage, then blame it on the Democrats.
Republicans are the anti-science party. I guess you must have forgotten that President Bush stopped research on stem cells. Or that your white Republicans were changing textbooks to remove references to evolution. Or that you guys wanted to redefine pi as 3. The only reason you are willing to lower your environmental standards isn't to accommodate scientific progress but rather the big corporations behind them. This is more akin to letting huge mining companies dump more arsenic into our water than letting science continue.
You say that the Democrats are in charge of the dumb. Well, your party is full of Teabaggers and Sarah Palin, so go fuck yourself.