He didn't take a serious look either, he is just gutting programs he doesn't agree with too.
I think the only way to get the budget under control is to quit playing favorites. Cutting the budget always polls more favorably than cutting any specific program. The powerful and well-connected will always make cuts impossible.
Instead, cut every budget line-item by an equal percentage, and let each individual program/department/whatever figure out how to deal with it. Put whatever rules in place that enables this to happen (allow the federal government to conduct layoffs, etc.) That way, nobody can whine, lobby, bribe, blackmail, or whatever other technique they find effective. You want your least-favorite program to get cut? You'll have to accept that your most-favorite program will get the same cut.
Thing is, that would require this whole discussion to actually be about fixing the deficit, which while it has been used as the main talking point, all actual evidence and actions suggests it is hardly the real motivation.
There was a period in my life when I went just over a decade without once visiting a dentist. How close to death was I?
Pretty close to a falacious argument, but as far as death if you didn't actually have any issues? Probably about the same as crossing a normally deserted street without looking to see if it is actually deserted.
An untreated cavity (like a vast array of other common minor situations) can easily kill you within a few years, and the process isn't likely to be pleasant.
I know nothing about dentistry, but nonetheless, I do not believe that you are telling me the whole story. That, or we have very different definitions of the word "easily".
I have had 2 cavities in my lifetime, the first of which was in my teens. Are you seriously going to have me believe that I'd "easily" be dead right now if I hadn't had them filled? I mean, I have pretty decent dental hygiene. How did anybody live beyond age 20 before the days of modern dental care and dentistry?
They didn't.
But keep in mind it's not an either or, there have been degrees of improvements for thousands of years which drive up life expectancy before "modern" medicine, but yes, the real explosion in life expectancy has been in the last 200 years or so. Heck my Grandmother was one of 6 surviving children out of 13.
There is a beautiful graph of wealth to life expectancy over just the last several hundred years for many of the world's countries that shows this far better than I could ever hope to, I really wish I could remember how to find it.
You may not realize this, but oral infection from cavity was a very common way to die before the age of medicine. We only lived to about 20-30 for a reason, things that you don't even think about now are still very fatal, but only if ignored.
I don't know how to say this any clearer, a cavity is a *bacterial infection* that can fairly easily (yes, i said fairly easily, that is exactly what I mean) if left untreated for a length of time cross the barrier into the blood stream and become systemic, and one of the most likely places for it to hit is heart valves.
I understand you don't know this, or want to believe it, but that doesn't make it less true. Ask any doctor, not necessarily even a dentist.
You can easily (yes, there is that word again) be killed within days from a simple cut on the skin, the reason this doesn't often happen is due to your immune system, modern medicine, and the odds of something opportunistic and nasty infiltrating and surviving are fairly small. Your infected tooth is a much different scenario, in which an infection is persisting for a sustained length of time which acts as a probabilistic source for constant attack, and eventually, it is going to win.
Business as usual from both parties for the last 15-30 years?
Note: Since when is a majority vote "a parlimentary trick"? Do you feel the same way against those republicans which tried to force the issue in Wisconsin using far more underhanded tactics?
If untreated, the chances are much much higher than 1 in 500. This is the problem in a nutshell with non informed people directing policy on risk management.
An untreated cavity (like a vast array of other common minor situations) can easily kill you within a few years, and the process isn't likely to be pleasant. Yes it seems very minor, but so do a lot of things *with proper care*.
Remember we used to do amputations to deal with infections before the days of antibiotics, there was a reason for that, we didn't just like to cripple people.
I agree with you almost completely, the only real disagreement is when you state the HC law deals with none of the issues of HC.
One of the major drivers of cost actually is the fact that people were using med care without insurance and not paying for various reasons, that was addressed, somewhat in the requirement for HC coverage.
Another goal was increasing the # of people with HC. HC Reform does not just include lowering costs to everyone, but also expanding access to it to those that cannot currently afford it, or have lost coverage through a variety of ways, which that bill also dealt with somewhat.
Could it have been done much better? Absolutely. At least it is a small step.
As it stands, the mantra you hear from the opponents is "Repeal and replace". Notice that they are two distinct steps, instead of a single action to replace. It makes it much easier to avoid exposing the complete lack of any plan to actually replace, and avoid having to have the two compared on merits, or even the requirement to follow up at all with said "replacement".
The party that insists on shutting down the government over spending components they do not agree with ideologically (not deficits - if it were truly about deficits, or even just spending, then you'd see tax increases on the table, or at least reduction in spending on policies they actually agree with, as it stands, it is simply about an oppertunity to remove things from the budget they disagree with) which consists of less than 3% of last years budget, while also attaching riders which include several ideological components among them seeking to take away medical choice from women and restricting regulatory bodies from creating policy based in science.
But you're concerned about having the "right" to choose to go to an emergency room if you get sick so the rest of us can pay for it. Fuck you.
No, fuck you. I have the right of free association and you can't fucking compel me to associate with private enterprise no matter how hard you try to twist the commerce clause.
Your logic about the rest of us paying for it is bullshit. The "rest of us" pay for stupidity all the time. My credit card rates go up because other jackasses spend more than they can afford. I was denied a mortgage that I applied for because of a bunch of jackasses I've never met decided it would be a good idea to get mortgages they couldn't afford while a bunch of other jackasses decided to bundle all those doomed mortgages into securities and resell them. I don't see anybody suggesting indentured servitude and/or a repeal of the bankruptcy code to help defray the costs imposed on society by jackasses that borrow more money than they can afford to repay.
You can't use the stupidity of others as an excuse to take away my rights. Sorry but it doesn't work that way.
As long as you accept that we also have to restore the rights of emergency rooms to verify you can pay before giving you life saving medical treatment, that is an ok position to hold.
Anything short of the above (which is a horrible horrible idea, that will kill many many people, particularly those who *are* well insured but simply do not have ID / their insurance cards on their person at the time) is not sustainable, and actually causes what you so rail against.
No that isn't just entrapment. Entrapment is meant to protect from police soliciting people into illegal things that they did not initiate, and conceivably would not have without the cop inviting them.
Take the following example. A really hot female undercover police officer walking down the street on the Vegas strip, stops random guys that look drunk and offers them sexual favors if they cover her bar tab.
You are intuitively doing what I do, and using the cached Google copy probably for the search highlighting. That is why you can see it, and people who just click the link cannot.
They do that so that Google can index the responses so they show up higher in search, it's their Achilles heel.
It's an easy out to ignore the other side when you're totally wrong. It's no coincidence the huge correlation between strongly religious people, replublican votes, and a lack of critical thinking. Why bother to listen/think when you can find someone else to agree with your preexisting confirmation bias.
Trickle down economics is probably the biggest lie ever successfully pulled off by the republicans.
This is not flame bait. Just because the poster is an uninformed idiot is *not* cause to mod them down improperly. There is no -1 Idiot, Wrong, or Liar for a *reason*
You know what? Visit Shanghai, then visit LA, and let me know which you think is cleaner air wise.
The US may have issues too, but that doesn't justify cherry picking data. Using per capita to compare US and China on something like pollution is almost to the level of Fox News statistics reporting. It's like trying to compare Arizona or Nevada to Japan, disingenuous at best.
I'm sorry, but your uninformed armchair interpretation is completely wrong on many levels. You can clearly see how by looking at the dozens of court cases, 25 years of law/case law, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Generally, if Steve Gibson endorses something, its a good indication it's *not* worth it, and you should stay the hell away.
He didn't take a serious look either, he is just gutting programs he doesn't agree with too.
I think the only way to get the budget under control is to quit playing favorites. Cutting the budget always polls more favorably than cutting any specific program. The powerful and well-connected will always make cuts impossible.
Instead, cut every budget line-item by an equal percentage, and let each individual program/department/whatever figure out how to deal with it. Put whatever rules in place that enables this to happen (allow the federal government to conduct layoffs, etc.) That way, nobody can whine, lobby, bribe, blackmail, or whatever other technique they find effective. You want your least-favorite program to get cut? You'll have to accept that your most-favorite program will get the same cut.
Thing is, that would require this whole discussion to actually be about fixing the deficit, which while it has been used as the main talking point, all actual evidence and actions suggests it is hardly the real motivation.
He didn't take a serious look either, he is just gutting programs he doesn't agree with too.
There's still even more tax cuts for "rich" even in it!
No that is not true, the mandate applies to all designated emergency care facilities, regardless of funding source.
There was a period in my life when I went just over a decade without once visiting a dentist. How close to death was I?
Pretty close to a falacious argument, but as far as death if you didn't actually have any issues? Probably about the same as crossing a normally deserted street without looking to see if it is actually deserted.
An untreated cavity (like a vast array of other common minor situations) can easily kill you within a few years, and the process isn't likely to be pleasant.
I know nothing about dentistry, but nonetheless, I do not believe that you are telling me the whole story. That, or we have very different definitions of the word "easily".
I have had 2 cavities in my lifetime, the first of which was in my teens. Are you seriously going to have me believe that I'd "easily" be dead right now if I hadn't had them filled? I mean, I have pretty decent dental hygiene. How did anybody live beyond age 20 before the days of modern dental care and dentistry?
They didn't.
But keep in mind it's not an either or, there have been degrees of improvements for thousands of years which drive up life expectancy before "modern" medicine, but yes, the real explosion in life expectancy has been in the last 200 years or so. Heck my Grandmother was one of 6 surviving children out of 13.
There is a beautiful graph of wealth to life expectancy over just the last several hundred years for many of the world's countries that shows this far better than I could ever hope to, I really wish I could remember how to find it.
You may not realize this, but oral infection from cavity was a very common way to die before the age of medicine. We only lived to about 20-30 for a reason, things that you don't even think about now are still very fatal, but only if ignored.
I don't know how to say this any clearer, a cavity is a *bacterial infection* that can fairly easily (yes, i said fairly easily, that is exactly what I mean) if left untreated for a length of time cross the barrier into the blood stream and become systemic, and one of the most likely places for it to hit is heart valves.
I understand you don't know this, or want to believe it, but that doesn't make it less true. Ask any doctor, not necessarily even a dentist.
You can easily (yes, there is that word again) be killed within days from a simple cut on the skin, the reason this doesn't often happen is due to your immune system, modern medicine, and the odds of something opportunistic and nasty infiltrating and surviving are fairly small. Your infected tooth is a much different scenario, in which an infection is persisting for a sustained length of time which acts as a probabilistic source for constant attack, and eventually, it is going to win.
Business as usual from both parties for the last 15-30 years?
Note: Since when is a majority vote "a parlimentary trick"? Do you feel the same way against those republicans which tried to force the issue in Wisconsin using far more underhanded tactics?
If untreated, the chances are much much higher than 1 in 500. This is the problem in a nutshell with non informed people directing policy on risk management.
An untreated cavity (like a vast array of other common minor situations) can easily kill you within a few years, and the process isn't likely to be pleasant. Yes it seems very minor, but so do a lot of things *with proper care*.
Remember we used to do amputations to deal with infections before the days of antibiotics, there was a reason for that, we didn't just like to cripple people.
Medical is the only industry I am aware of that is legally forced to provide services to all clients, I'd say that makes it signifigantly different.
I agree with you almost completely, the only real disagreement is when you state the HC law deals with none of the issues of HC.
One of the major drivers of cost actually is the fact that people were using med care without insurance and not paying for various reasons, that was addressed, somewhat in the requirement for HC coverage.
Another goal was increasing the # of people with HC. HC Reform does not just include lowering costs to everyone, but also expanding access to it to those that cannot currently afford it, or have lost coverage through a variety of ways, which that bill also dealt with somewhat.
Could it have been done much better? Absolutely. At least it is a small step.
As it stands, the mantra you hear from the opponents is "Repeal and replace". Notice that they are two distinct steps, instead of a single action to replace. It makes it much easier to avoid exposing the complete lack of any plan to actually replace, and avoid having to have the two compared on merits, or even the requirement to follow up at all with said "replacement".
The party that insists on shutting down the government over spending components they do not agree with ideologically (not deficits - if it were truly about deficits, or even just spending, then you'd see tax increases on the table, or at least reduction in spending on policies they actually agree with, as it stands, it is simply about an oppertunity to remove things from the budget they disagree with) which consists of less than 3% of last years budget, while also attaching riders which include several ideological components among them seeking to take away medical choice from women and restricting regulatory bodies from creating policy based in science.
But you're concerned about having the "right" to choose to go to an emergency room if you get sick so the rest of us can pay for it. Fuck you.
No, fuck you. I have the right of free association and you can't fucking compel me to associate with private enterprise no matter how hard you try to twist the commerce clause.
Your logic about the rest of us paying for it is bullshit. The "rest of us" pay for stupidity all the time. My credit card rates go up because other jackasses spend more than they can afford. I was denied a mortgage that I applied for because of a bunch of jackasses I've never met decided it would be a good idea to get mortgages they couldn't afford while a bunch of other jackasses decided to bundle all those doomed mortgages into securities and resell them. I don't see anybody suggesting indentured servitude and/or a repeal of the bankruptcy code to help defray the costs imposed on society by jackasses that borrow more money than they can afford to repay.
You can't use the stupidity of others as an excuse to take away my rights. Sorry but it doesn't work that way.
As long as you accept that we also have to restore the rights of emergency rooms to verify you can pay before giving you life saving medical treatment, that is an ok position to hold.
Anything short of the above (which is a horrible horrible idea, that will kill many many people, particularly those who *are* well insured but simply do not have ID / their insurance cards on their person at the time) is not sustainable, and actually causes what you so rail against.
So you'd rather them be forced to resort to theft, and other crimes? That seems like such a better solution. Worked great for Napoleon.
No that isn't just entrapment. Entrapment is meant to protect from police soliciting people into illegal things that they did not initiate, and conceivably would not have without the cop inviting them.
Take the following example. A really hot female undercover police officer walking down the street on the Vegas strip, stops random guys that look drunk and offers them sexual favors if they cover her bar tab.
or Vegas.
You are intuitively doing what I do, and using the cached Google copy probably for the search highlighting. That is why you can see it, and people who just click the link cannot.
They do that so that Google can index the responses so they show up higher in search, it's their Achilles heel.
Yes because everything disagreeing with you is a troll, and has no actual points to consider.
(Note: the above was both a reply, and semi-trolling, for illustrative purposes)
It's an easy out to ignore the other side when you're totally wrong. It's no coincidence the huge correlation between strongly religious people, replublican votes, and a lack of critical thinking. Why bother to listen/think when you can find someone else to agree with your preexisting confirmation bias.
Trickle down economics is probably the biggest lie ever successfully pulled off by the republicans.
Soylent Green?
And the world economy...
This is not flame bait. Just because the poster is an uninformed idiot is *not* cause to mod them down improperly. There is no -1 Idiot, Wrong, or Liar for a *reason*
You know what? Visit Shanghai, then visit LA, and let me know which you think is cleaner air wise.
The US may have issues too, but that doesn't justify cherry picking data. Using per capita to compare US and China on something like pollution is almost to the level of Fox News statistics reporting. It's like trying to compare Arizona or Nevada to Japan, disingenuous at best.
Compare industry, fine, but not per capita.
If you think you can compete for a lower price point, fucking go for it.
Make sure to grab some buggy whips while you're there.
I'm sorry, but your uninformed armchair interpretation is completely wrong on many levels. You can clearly see how by looking at the dozens of court cases, 25 years of law/case law, etc.
You just sound like this guy to those that actually are informed and understand: http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/