Actually months ago, Chavez was at the UN and praised Obama and his policies and made a comment to the effect of praying that the bullets aimed at Obama would miss (I don't remember his exact words). Not only that, but the policies (not 100% identical, but scarily similar) of the Obama administration match those of Chavez over the last year. There's a reason why the communist dictators all praise Obama....
Most of the people I know voted for Obama - and all but a handful of hardcore openly pro-communist ones are very regretful that they did now that they've seen the policies he wants. It's not "right wing nutjobs" who are against Obama, it's anyone who still wants to make their own decisions and reap the reward of their hard work.
"Of course we could make things more challenging, Lisa, but then the stupider children would be in here complaining, furrowing their brows in a vain attempt to understand the situation." - Principal Skinner
Which is why if you actually want children to achieve the most they can, you separate them into classes based on ability (we already do this some in high schools with Honors and AP classes). That way the lower achieving students can have classes tailored to their leaning speed and no longer feel that it's pointless to try hard because they'll never do as well as the smart kids AND the smart kids can have classes where they learn more and are pushed to work harder instead of some of them just breezing through with all A's without ever being challenged.
I realize that this will be decried for being "elitist", except that all students, both gifted, average, and those who are just plain dumb benefit from being in classes on their own level.
So what happened to the older treatments that should presumably cost less? Health care in the US is like going to a car lot and the entire car lot is filled with Rolls Royce limos. The motto appears to be "Why shouldn't you pay half a million dollars, why would you even want anything less than a Rolls?"
Ask around, I dare you. Go interview people who are sick / injured and need a treatment and tell them "We want to do procedure X, but it's expensive - however, we could do procedure Y which costs less, but it's less likely to be effective, has more negative side effects, and your chances of survival are lower". Almost every time they'll pick the newer, more expensive one because it works better. Like I said before, when it comes to you health / life, people are willing to pay more for the best treatment.
Do you mean to tell me that if it was your spouse or child needing treatment that you'd risk them dying / not having as good a quality of life post-treatment just to save some money? I doubt you would. Why should you expect others to?
The majority of people don't support the bill. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/24/bloomberg-poll-shows-majority-opposition-to-obamacare/ - the key sentences in there are "and like almost every poll taken in the last several months, a majority of respondents opposed it. Moreover, a majority also consider it a government takeover of the American health-care system". Also, if people support the bill, then how come the approval ratings for Democrats are in the dumps? Pelosi has an approval rating of 11% and Reid has an approval rating of 8%. Yup, that shows that the people really support them!
Here's the original Bloomberg article http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a2R1ChNYjoag and it says that only about 40% of people support it. Now I don't have a PhD in Statistics, but I'm pretty sure that 40% isn't the same as "the majority of people support it".
Being against Obamacare has nothing to do with being "right-wing" or "left-wing", it has to do with personal responsibility, following the Constitution, and not wanting to fuck the economy.
As for you comment of "The majority of the people do support what's in the bill and they support they bill when they understand its provisions", that's quite amusing since I was just reading an article on CNN about people who did support Obamacare who are now furious over some of it's provisions, such as a 10% tax on going to a tanning salon, which is estimated to cause about 9,000 jobs to be lost due to cut labor or tanning shops closing due to their customers not being willing to pay the extra money.
The majority of the citizens were against the bill (especially easy to see when enough people in 38 states are pissed off about it that the states are planning on suing the federal government). Even large numbers of people who voted for the Democrats who forced this bill on the American people didn't support it. So I ask, what was democratic about this bill? The will of the people was not represented. The will of a group of politicians was supported.
Our medical treatments cost more for two reasons - 1) our country is lawsuit happy and to compensate, malpractice insurance costs (not even counting other costs for hospitals who put aside money to pay for lawyers) are much higher, plus doctors do many unnecessary tests to help protect themselves from lawsuits (which racks up costs) and 2) we develop a great deal of the new treatments, which means that they cost more than the older treatments.
As for life expectancy? That has nothing to do with our medical system and everything to do with our lifestyles. Americans love high calorie, high fat foods and they despise physical activity - that's why 30.6% of the US is obese, as compared to 24.2% for the second most obese country in the world (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity). Americans could change this very quickly, if they wanted to. They don't. They want a magical law or a magical pill that will allow them to eat as much junk food as they want and be a lazy as they want but still be health and in good shape.
I spent years providing sources and having the people I was "debating" with use ridiculous crap like "well the person who wrote that has a nephew who once voted Republican, so you can't use that source because it's biased". I got so sick of actually taking the time to track down articles I'd previously read and having no one care because they didn't say what they wanted them to say, that I gave up. Yes, I do generalize now and consider anyone who asks for a source instead of checking for themselves to be yet another person who's only interested in hearing what they want to hear.
Can I? Yes. Will I? Nope. I stopped providing sources on Slashdot a few years ago because no one cares. If a source doesn't fit your preconceived notion that everything being run by the government is better and freedom is an outdated concept, then you refuse to listen to it. As such, I refuse to take the time tracking down articles I read weeks / months before just so that someone will ignore them. If you actually cared (you don't), you'd look it up yourself (but you won't).
If their system is superior, then how come so many of the government run health care systems are going broke? They already tax their citizens to death, yet it's still not enough to pay for it.
On the subject of price, while it's not always true, in some cases, you do get what you paid for. Call me stupid, but I'd rather pay more money and get top notch medical treatment.
I think HDD will continue to stay enough ahead of SSD in raw capacity that it will stay relevant for a long time. When SSD is affordable at 200 GB then HDD will already be affordable at 2 TB, etc.
Then you install your OS and programs on the SSD and keep your files (music, videos, documents) on the HDD - not too different from what I do now where I have my OS and programs on my HDD and my files on an external HDD (I know it's not faster, but I have multiple computers and limited hard drive space on some, so it's easier to just move the external drive, plus that way if I need to reformat it goes a lot faster).
Your first pro, "No more yanking health insurance when you get sic", is something that rarely happened. Yes, that should be mandated though, I'm not disagreeing with that, merely pointing out that using that to justify the horrible things in Obamacare is a bit misleading. As for pro number two, "No more denying health insurance because you were sick once upon a time", again, that happens rarely. What you're probably thinking of is that they won't pay for treatment on a condition you acquired while you were uninsured.
There was no reason to force people to buy insurance. They could eliminate denial of pre-existing conditions, but say that companies can charge no more than 10% of a persons income for a pre-existing condition. That way people who cost more pay more (as they should), but it will never be high enough to make someone go broke.
t would have been better to get rid of the health insurance companies altogether (look at the countries that did that, no loss of quality, but it's cheaper), but the Republicans were not that interested in cutting costs (nor were many of the conservative Democrats).
There are endless sources proving that there is a loss of quality and it definitely does NOT cost less - they pay significantly higher income taxes plus VAT taxes on every purchase they make to pay for it. Also, further increasing the cost, most countries with government run health care have a large number of citizens who buy supplementary private insurance to make up for all the things the government health care won't cover.
I've yet to read a report where it said anything more than politicians claimed that people said those things. We all know politicians (regardless of party) are normally the least honest people alive. Given all the lies out there slandering anyone who opposes Obamacare, I'll remain skeptical until they pull out video proof of it.
No, we're saying eliminate the lawsuits where they're suing because they didn't like the outcome, even though the doctor did everything right. There are plenty of cases where the doctors inform people of negative side effects of a treatment, then if one of those things happens (even though the doctor did nothing wrong) the patient sues - that is a completely bogus lawsuit. They were well aware of the potential negative effects and the doctor did nothing wrong.
I know, it's easy to vilify doctors because they earn more money than you do, but it's ridiculous all the bogus lawsuits they let through in our "justice" system.
First, this bill does NOT improve healthcare in the US. Yes, there are a few small things in it that are good, but the vast majority of it is bad.
It's not a "myth" that raping the wealthy and businesses with taxes hurts the economy - who do you think creates jobs for people? Businesses! Who do you think own most businesses? Wealthy people! If you drag them out and rape them, then they can't hire as many people or keep as many people employed - that means higher unemployment, less tax revenues coming in due to fewer people working, and a worse economy overall. It's completely idiotic and masochistic to harm the people who create jobs (unions do this crap too, treating the person who writes their paychecks and pays their retirement as the enemy). I get it, you're jealous that someone else has more money than you - it's human nature to think like that. However, harming them harms yourself as well.
Businesses have already been iffy about hiring new people, now that they have to face massive taxes on all their employees, you better believe there won't be as many job openings.
Oh, and then there's the pesky fact that the bill is unconstitutional too......but hey, who cares about that, right? Hopefully this will be reversed come fall, because the Democratic party just signed their death sentence with this bill. You don't get 38 of the 50 states with proposals to sue the federal government over it without having the majority of citizens against it - elections are only 8 months away, people won't forget that quickly.
No one is saying to eliminate malpractice suits - however, when people are allowed to sue regardless of wrongdoing (and typically win), there's a problem. That is what people are arguing for, is ending the frivolous lawsuits that have no justification going to court and not only cost taxpayers money for wasting the courts time, but cause the malpractice insurance rates for medical professionals to be way higher than they should be, thus meaning that they have to charge / be paid more to compensate for the lost income.
I have mod points and I should have modded you a troll for blatantly ignoring what he said and trying to claim he said we should eliminate malpractice suits all together.
As the GP said, it's more like auto liability insurance, where you pay for it one way or another (which is why most states have mandated auto insurance for drivers).?quote>
Yes, but people choose to get a car and drivers license - unless you're advocating suicide for anyone who values their rights, you don't get a choice in whether or not you live.
Then there's the fact that the bill requires insurance companies to pay 85 cents for every dollar they bring in (not after operating expenses, every dollar total) on patient treatment. There's only two outcomes - either the companies go under because they can't afford to pay their employees or the companies raise rates incredibly high so that they can still stay in business.
Actually it's quite easy for an individual to get an insurance plan for as little as $40 a month, or $480 a year. Is it the most fantastic insurance in the world? No, but it takes care of the vast majority of the costs and unless you're expecting to get insanely sick, it's a good trade-off to pay very little for several years and then more on the times you get sick as opposed to paying a fortune all the time with no spike when you get sick.
Again you insist on interpreting it as a sob story when I ask whether you really intended your harsh and rude statement to be so universally applicable.
It's a sob story because you're trying to use emotion as a justification for doing something instead of using facts or logic. Your argument is no different than the "think of the children!" arguments - it's an attempt to get someone to forget reason and make a decision because they feel bad about something. Also, saying that people should be held responsible for themselves is not "harsh" or "rude".
Ok, so government run health care would require an amendment to the constitution. Is that what you're saying? And if so, what is your point?
First off, they are trying to pass a law (that they know is unconstitutional) - they are NOT trying to pass an amendment and THEN pass a law. It requires 2/3's of the states (66%) to make an amendment to the constitution. Currently there are 38 states (76%) that either have already passed or are in the process of passing laws to sue the federal government over the unconstitutionality of this law. They know that they do not have the support to pass an amendment and if there is an amendment made, it will be one specifically banning the federal government from running health care. Despite the BS you hear on tv, you don't get the majority of the popultion in 76% of the states to vehemently oppose a bill and have the support of the people.
it's much harder to move from one country to another, especially since, despite all the freedoms we've lost in the last 20 years, every other country is a worse place to live.
It's not fun to argue with you if your trolling is that obvious.
Once again, you don't like facts. The rest of the developed world has higher taxes, lower incomes (before taxes!), lower quality health care, fewer freedoms, and every year citizens of those countries leave to come to the US to have a better life. That's not trolling, that's stating facts.
So all I need to do is to rephrase things and say that you cannot vote against other peoples' right to health care and you'll want universal coverage as much as you (presumably) want people to have the right to an attorney. That costs money too, you know. Or do I manage to get you to argue what rights Americans should have?
There IS no right to health care. Health care is a service, and like all services, is a priviledge that you must pay to recieve. Nothing is stopping you from getting a job and paying for it, that's what the majority of the country does. Also, if you still want to claim you have a "right" to healthcare, try reading the Bill of Rights again. Obama himself is often quoted for stating that he wishes that the Constitution said that you have a right to health care and other government run programs.
Now, you probably concede that in practice the police force doesn't work that way but you're avoiding the question: If you're the victim of a crime, why should other peoples' tax dollars pay for the investigation?
And you didn't read what I wrote at all. Everyone benefits equally from there being fewer criminals on the street and, again, everyone benefits equally from the fact that the presence of police (them driving / walking around and being seen) is a deterrent to crime.
Secondly, police are paid for with local taxes, meaning that areas that need more police pay more.
True but why is that relevant?
It's relevent because areas that need more police, and thus cost more, pay the extra amount. That way you don't have people living in Smallville, Kansas which requires very little police (and thus doesn't cost much) isn't paying large taxes to support the large police force required for an extremely high crime place such as New York.
Quote: There are still people.. lots of them.. who will print out emails to read them. No technology will fix this.
Agreed. My place of work takes orders from the website, prints them and plops them into their ERP system. I have been brought in to fix this but there are active parties fighting me tooth and claw.
For too many reasons to list. Needing a "Human Glue" means job security.
- Dan.
If all else fails, start removing parts from the printer, then when asked to fix it, quietly replace the pissing part, then say "Works for me" and leave them stuck.
but for general day to day stuff like taking notes at a meeting or scribbling out something to argue a point.. nah
Well I hear talk of these mythical devices called "tablets" and you can write upon such a thing and never run out of space to write on! Ludicrous legends, I say!
So you spent $1,200 - that's still almost 3 times what the typical laptop costs, or 4 times what a netbook costs. While $1,200 isn't obscene, it's still way too expensive for people to pick up something like that.
Yes, you're right about size and weight - but if you look at the new tablets coming out (like HP's Slate), they're around the size of an iPad, so your argument that the iPad will win on size doesn't apply, since all the new tablets (whether the iPad, running Linux, Android, or Windows 7) are about the same size.
I think you'll find many more people (especially nerds, businessmen, and the early adopter crowd) who will prefer the ones running a full OS when it's similar price and size as the iPad.
On all other computers, you're expected to repurchase your apps when you have multiple devices.
People actually follow that policy? I never have and never will - if I buy the software, I'll use it on any of my computers because I own them all.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a2R1ChNYjoag
How does it feel to be proven wrong?
Actually months ago, Chavez was at the UN and praised Obama and his policies and made a comment to the effect of praying that the bullets aimed at Obama would miss (I don't remember his exact words). Not only that, but the policies (not 100% identical, but scarily similar) of the Obama administration match those of Chavez over the last year. There's a reason why the communist dictators all praise Obama....
Most of the people I know voted for Obama - and all but a handful of hardcore openly pro-communist ones are very regretful that they did now that they've seen the policies he wants. It's not "right wing nutjobs" who are against Obama, it's anyone who still wants to make their own decisions and reap the reward of their hard work.
For once, think of the bright children!
"Of course we could make things more challenging, Lisa, but then the stupider children would be in here complaining, furrowing their brows in a vain attempt to understand the situation." - Principal Skinner
Which is why if you actually want children to achieve the most they can, you separate them into classes based on ability (we already do this some in high schools with Honors and AP classes). That way the lower achieving students can have classes tailored to their leaning speed and no longer feel that it's pointless to try hard because they'll never do as well as the smart kids AND the smart kids can have classes where they learn more and are pushed to work harder instead of some of them just breezing through with all A's without ever being challenged.
I realize that this will be decried for being "elitist", except that all students, both gifted, average, and those who are just plain dumb benefit from being in classes on their own level.
So what happened to the older treatments that should presumably cost less? Health care in the US is like going to a car lot and the entire car lot is filled with Rolls Royce limos. The motto appears to be "Why shouldn't you pay half a million dollars, why would you even want anything less than a Rolls?"
Ask around, I dare you. Go interview people who are sick / injured and need a treatment and tell them "We want to do procedure X, but it's expensive - however, we could do procedure Y which costs less, but it's less likely to be effective, has more negative side effects, and your chances of survival are lower". Almost every time they'll pick the newer, more expensive one because it works better. Like I said before, when it comes to you health / life, people are willing to pay more for the best treatment.
Do you mean to tell me that if it was your spouse or child needing treatment that you'd risk them dying / not having as good a quality of life post-treatment just to save some money? I doubt you would. Why should you expect others to?
Latest Bloomberg survey about Obamacare support lists only 40% as supporting it. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a2R1ChNYjoag
38 states have pass / are in the process of passing / are talking about enacting laws to sue over the unconstitutionality of the law. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul_states
I'm sorry, did it hurt when I bitchslapped you right there?
I recommend you keep up with polling, Bloomberg did a poll yesterday (the day you posted) and found that only 40% of people support it. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a2R1ChNYjoag
The majority of people don't support the bill. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/24/bloomberg-poll-shows-majority-opposition-to-obamacare/ - the key sentences in there are "and like almost every poll taken in the last several months, a majority of respondents opposed it. Moreover, a majority also consider it a government takeover of the American health-care system". Also, if people support the bill, then how come the approval ratings for Democrats are in the dumps? Pelosi has an approval rating of 11% and Reid has an approval rating of 8%. Yup, that shows that the people really support them!
Here's the original Bloomberg article http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a2R1ChNYjoag and it says that only about 40% of people support it. Now I don't have a PhD in Statistics, but I'm pretty sure that 40% isn't the same as "the majority of people support it".
Being against Obamacare has nothing to do with being "right-wing" or "left-wing", it has to do with personal responsibility, following the Constitution, and not wanting to fuck the economy .
As for you comment of "The majority of the people do support what's in the bill and they support they bill when they understand its provisions", that's quite amusing since I was just reading an article on CNN about people who did support Obamacare who are now furious over some of it's provisions, such as a 10% tax on going to a tanning salon, which is estimated to cause about 9,000 jobs to be lost due to cut labor or tanning shops closing due to their customers not being willing to pay the extra money.
I said 38 were planning about suing, not that they had officially made a decision yet. Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul_states
The majority of the citizens were against the bill (especially easy to see when enough people in 38 states are pissed off about it that the states are planning on suing the federal government). Even large numbers of people who voted for the Democrats who forced this bill on the American people didn't support it. So I ask, what was democratic about this bill? The will of the people was not represented. The will of a group of politicians was supported.
Our medical treatments cost more for two reasons - 1) our country is lawsuit happy and to compensate, malpractice insurance costs (not even counting other costs for hospitals who put aside money to pay for lawyers) are much higher, plus doctors do many unnecessary tests to help protect themselves from lawsuits (which racks up costs) and 2) we develop a great deal of the new treatments, which means that they cost more than the older treatments.
As for life expectancy? That has nothing to do with our medical system and everything to do with our lifestyles. Americans love high calorie, high fat foods and they despise physical activity - that's why 30.6% of the US is obese, as compared to 24.2% for the second most obese country in the world (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity). Americans could change this very quickly, if they wanted to. They don't. They want a magical law or a magical pill that will allow them to eat as much junk food as they want and be a lazy as they want but still be health and in good shape.
I spent years providing sources and having the people I was "debating" with use ridiculous crap like "well the person who wrote that has a nephew who once voted Republican, so you can't use that source because it's biased". I got so sick of actually taking the time to track down articles I'd previously read and having no one care because they didn't say what they wanted them to say, that I gave up. Yes, I do generalize now and consider anyone who asks for a source instead of checking for themselves to be yet another person who's only interested in hearing what they want to hear.
Can I? Yes. Will I? Nope. I stopped providing sources on Slashdot a few years ago because no one cares. If a source doesn't fit your preconceived notion that everything being run by the government is better and freedom is an outdated concept, then you refuse to listen to it. As such, I refuse to take the time tracking down articles I read weeks / months before just so that someone will ignore them. If you actually cared (you don't), you'd look it up yourself (but you won't).
If their system is superior, then how come so many of the government run health care systems are going broke? They already tax their citizens to death, yet it's still not enough to pay for it.
On the subject of price, while it's not always true, in some cases, you do get what you paid for. Call me stupid, but I'd rather pay more money and get top notch medical treatment.
I think HDD will continue to stay enough ahead of SSD in raw capacity that it will stay relevant for a long time. When SSD is affordable at 200 GB then HDD will already be affordable at 2 TB, etc.
Then you install your OS and programs on the SSD and keep your files (music, videos, documents) on the HDD - not too different from what I do now where I have my OS and programs on my HDD and my files on an external HDD (I know it's not faster, but I have multiple computers and limited hard drive space on some, so it's easier to just move the external drive, plus that way if I need to reformat it goes a lot faster).
Your first pro, "No more yanking health insurance when you get sic", is something that rarely happened. Yes, that should be mandated though, I'm not disagreeing with that, merely pointing out that using that to justify the horrible things in Obamacare is a bit misleading. As for pro number two, "No more denying health insurance because you were sick once upon a time", again, that happens rarely. What you're probably thinking of is that they won't pay for treatment on a condition you acquired while you were uninsured.
There was no reason to force people to buy insurance. They could eliminate denial of pre-existing conditions, but say that companies can charge no more than 10% of a persons income for a pre-existing condition. That way people who cost more pay more (as they should), but it will never be high enough to make someone go broke.
t would have been better to get rid of the health insurance companies altogether (look at the countries that did that, no loss of quality, but it's cheaper), but the Republicans were not that interested in cutting costs (nor were many of the conservative Democrats).
There are endless sources proving that there is a loss of quality and it definitely does NOT cost less - they pay significantly higher income taxes plus VAT taxes on every purchase they make to pay for it. Also, further increasing the cost, most countries with government run health care have a large number of citizens who buy supplementary private insurance to make up for all the things the government health care won't cover.
I've yet to read a report where it said anything more than politicians claimed that people said those things. We all know politicians (regardless of party) are normally the least honest people alive. Given all the lies out there slandering anyone who opposes Obamacare, I'll remain skeptical until they pull out video proof of it.
No, we're saying eliminate the lawsuits where they're suing because they didn't like the outcome, even though the doctor did everything right. There are plenty of cases where the doctors inform people of negative side effects of a treatment, then if one of those things happens (even though the doctor did nothing wrong) the patient sues - that is a completely bogus lawsuit. They were well aware of the potential negative effects and the doctor did nothing wrong.
I know, it's easy to vilify doctors because they earn more money than you do, but it's ridiculous all the bogus lawsuits they let through in our "justice" system.
First, this bill does NOT improve healthcare in the US. Yes, there are a few small things in it that are good, but the vast majority of it is bad.
It's not a "myth" that raping the wealthy and businesses with taxes hurts the economy - who do you think creates jobs for people? Businesses! Who do you think own most businesses? Wealthy people! If you drag them out and rape them, then they can't hire as many people or keep as many people employed - that means higher unemployment, less tax revenues coming in due to fewer people working, and a worse economy overall. It's completely idiotic and masochistic to harm the people who create jobs (unions do this crap too, treating the person who writes their paychecks and pays their retirement as the enemy). I get it, you're jealous that someone else has more money than you - it's human nature to think like that. However, harming them harms yourself as well.
Businesses have already been iffy about hiring new people, now that they have to face massive taxes on all their employees, you better believe there won't be as many job openings.
Oh, and then there's the pesky fact that the bill is unconstitutional too......but hey, who cares about that, right? Hopefully this will be reversed come fall, because the Democratic party just signed their death sentence with this bill. You don't get 38 of the 50 states with proposals to sue the federal government over it without having the majority of citizens against it - elections are only 8 months away, people won't forget that quickly.
No one is saying to eliminate malpractice suits - however, when people are allowed to sue regardless of wrongdoing (and typically win), there's a problem. That is what people are arguing for, is ending the frivolous lawsuits that have no justification going to court and not only cost taxpayers money for wasting the courts time, but cause the malpractice insurance rates for medical professionals to be way higher than they should be, thus meaning that they have to charge / be paid more to compensate for the lost income.
I have mod points and I should have modded you a troll for blatantly ignoring what he said and trying to claim he said we should eliminate malpractice suits all together.
As the GP said, it's more like auto liability insurance, where you pay for it one way or another (which is why most states have mandated auto insurance for drivers).?quote> Yes, but people choose to get a car and drivers license - unless you're advocating suicide for anyone who values their rights, you don't get a choice in whether or not you live.
Then there's the fact that the bill requires insurance companies to pay 85 cents for every dollar they bring in (not after operating expenses, every dollar total) on patient treatment. There's only two outcomes - either the companies go under because they can't afford to pay their employees or the companies raise rates incredibly high so that they can still stay in business.
Actually it's quite easy for an individual to get an insurance plan for as little as $40 a month, or $480 a year. Is it the most fantastic insurance in the world? No, but it takes care of the vast majority of the costs and unless you're expecting to get insanely sick, it's a good trade-off to pay very little for several years and then more on the times you get sick as opposed to paying a fortune all the time with no spike when you get sick.
Again you insist on interpreting it as a sob story when I ask whether you really intended your harsh and rude statement to be so universally applicable.
It's a sob story because you're trying to use emotion as a justification for doing something instead of using facts or logic. Your argument is no different than the "think of the children!" arguments - it's an attempt to get someone to forget reason and make a decision because they feel bad about something. Also, saying that people should be held responsible for themselves is not "harsh" or "rude".
Ok, so government run health care would require an amendment to the constitution. Is that what you're saying? And if so, what is your point?
First off, they are trying to pass a law (that they know is unconstitutional) - they are NOT trying to pass an amendment and THEN pass a law. It requires 2/3's of the states (66%) to make an amendment to the constitution. Currently there are 38 states (76%) that either have already passed or are in the process of passing laws to sue the federal government over the unconstitutionality of this law. They know that they do not have the support to pass an amendment and if there is an amendment made, it will be one specifically banning the federal government from running health care. Despite the BS you hear on tv, you don't get the majority of the popultion in 76% of the states to vehemently oppose a bill and have the support of the people.
it's much harder to move from one country to another, especially since, despite all the freedoms we've lost in the last 20 years, every other country is a worse place to live. It's not fun to argue with you if your trolling is that obvious.
Once again, you don't like facts. The rest of the developed world has higher taxes, lower incomes (before taxes!), lower quality health care, fewer freedoms, and every year citizens of those countries leave to come to the US to have a better life. That's not trolling, that's stating facts.
So all I need to do is to rephrase things and say that you cannot vote against other peoples' right to health care and you'll want universal coverage as much as you (presumably) want people to have the right to an attorney. That costs money too, you know. Or do I manage to get you to argue what rights Americans should have?
There IS no right to health care. Health care is a service, and like all services, is a priviledge that you must pay to recieve. Nothing is stopping you from getting a job and paying for it, that's what the majority of the country does. Also, if you still want to claim you have a "right" to healthcare, try reading the Bill of Rights again. Obama himself is often quoted for stating that he wishes that the Constitution said that you have a right to health care and other government run programs.
Now, you probably concede that in practice the police force doesn't work that way but you're avoiding the question: If you're the victim of a crime, why should other peoples' tax dollars pay for the investigation?
And you didn't read what I wrote at all. Everyone benefits equally from there being fewer criminals on the street and, again, everyone benefits equally from the fact that the presence of police (them driving / walking around and being seen) is a deterrent to crime.
Secondly, police are paid for with local taxes, meaning that areas that need more police pay more. True but why is that relevant?
It's relevent because areas that need more police, and thus cost more, pay the extra amount. That way you don't have people living in Smallville, Kansas which requires very little police (and thus doesn't cost much) isn't paying large taxes to support the large police force required for an extremely high crime place such as New York.
Then there's also the fact that there'
Quote: There are still people.. lots of them.. who will print out emails to read them. No technology will fix this. Agreed. My place of work takes orders from the website, prints them and plops them into their ERP system. I have been brought in to fix this but there are active parties fighting me tooth and claw. For too many reasons to list. Needing a "Human Glue" means job security. - Dan.
If all else fails, start removing parts from the printer, then when asked to fix it, quietly replace the pissing part, then say "Works for me" and leave them stuck.
but for general day to day stuff like taking notes at a meeting or scribbling out something to argue a point.. nah
Well I hear talk of these mythical devices called "tablets" and you can write upon such a thing and never run out of space to write on! Ludicrous legends, I say!
So you spent $1,200 - that's still almost 3 times what the typical laptop costs, or 4 times what a netbook costs. While $1,200 isn't obscene, it's still way too expensive for people to pick up something like that.
Yes, you're right about size and weight - but if you look at the new tablets coming out (like HP's Slate), they're around the size of an iPad, so your argument that the iPad will win on size doesn't apply, since all the new tablets (whether the iPad, running Linux, Android, or Windows 7) are about the same size.
I think you'll find many more people (especially nerds, businessmen, and the early adopter crowd) who will prefer the ones running a full OS when it's similar price and size as the iPad.
On all other computers, you're expected to repurchase your apps when you have multiple devices.
People actually follow that policy? I never have and never will - if I buy the software, I'll use it on any of my computers because I own them all.
I was talking about tablet computers (running a full OS), not the iPad, because I agree, the iPad is too limited in its functionality.