Any government-run medical system must limit the amount of goods and services provided. Otherwise, costs would quickly spiral out of control.
...
Government healthcare means that those in charge must make decisions to ration services and those decisions WILL result in the deaths of some people in the system. Is that a "death panel"? IMO, that term conjures up the wrong image, but I can see why people use it.
"Any medical system must limit the amount of goods and services provided. Otherwise, costs would quickly spiral out of control."
FTFY. All scarce resoources are rationed. If you think that medical goods and services aren't rationed in a private healthcare system, you are mistaken. The conversation is (or at least, should be) how to distribute those scarce resources in the "best" way possible. The problem is that right now, everybody has their own definition of what "best" means.
Personally, I'd rather Trump wasn't president. I suspect many, if not most, people who voted for Trump also would rather he wasn't president. However, when his opponent drops into name calling ("deplorables" likely did as much as anything to sink Clinton's campaign), most didn't see much choice.
While it is absolutely true that Clinton didn't do herself any favors with that line about deplorables, Trump was doing just fine (won primaries, won the nomination, etc. etc.) before she made that crack. People were voting for him in droves before she said it.
That is clearly illegal. The "mom and pop" contractor is required to pay market rates to H1B visa holders. So now I have to ask, since it is illegal what enforcement actions can be taken and who has standing to bring that action?
I think the best bet is to contact either ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) or CIS (Citizenship & Immigration Services). Or maybe both, just to be sure.
CompanyA sells a product that claims it contains magic. You find it has none, you sue them for false advertising. Company has to pay you for court costs, loss of wealth in purchasing their good, and damages if any exist. CompanyA can go bankrupt in the process, and perhaps you end up owning CompanyA when all is said and done.
CompanyB sees that CompanyA did wrong, and suffered consequences for their actions. CompanyB advertises a product without magic, but instead what the product actually contains. CompanyB stays in business, and people buy their products as needed. Wow! We have just described a basic fundamental of Capitalism and how Western Law works! No need for the Department of Magic in Products which reduces the overall costs for goods. People can actually purchase _more_ of CompanyB's stuff and CompanyB can actually make more stuff, or even branch out into CompanyC.
I don't know if you're trolling or not, to expect that your average consumer is going to sue "CompanyA" over a $5 tube of aloe vera gel and somehow wind up owning said company. I couldn't convince a smart 12-year-old of that actually happening in the real world.
While your example sounds great in theory, here's what happens all too often in the real world:
CompanyA sells a product that claims it contains magic. You find it has none, but don't do anything because it is impossible for the average consumer to finance a lawsuit by themselves, and class-action lawsuits are extremely rare with a miniscule payout to everybody but the lawyers. Knowing this, 99.99% of the time people just shrug and move on with their lives. CompanyA may or may not have to pay some nominal fine which doesn't come close to the money they made through their lies.
CompanyB sees CompanyA make lots of profit and get away with it, and decides that they want a seat at the table.
And how do we know that that last part happens? Because if you had bothered to read even the summary, you would have seen that that is what actually happened.
I find it ironic that you are the one making snarky comments about cognitive dissonance.
In fact, I'm a little surprised some enterprising company out there didn't create a "real" product first, then expose the fraud afterwards. Because capitalism.
There is frequently a large gap between theory (how people think the market should react), and practice (how the market actually reacts).
This entire situation proves, if nothing else, that in this industry, regulation obviously isn't needed.
...government is best, right? Right? Nope, actually they just suck up to the Corporations a bit faster than Democrats, sadly. If only they had not screwed up by forcing Hillary on us as the non-Trump instead of Bernie. Sigh....
Now, now. If you keep talking like that, you're going to cause migraine-inducing cognitive dissonance amongst a certain portion of the population. Although I do have to laugh at the irony of the "free market" resulting in "socialism"* as an act of defiance/desperation.
Kudos to the local City Council for coming up with this remedy, even if it's only temporary. Hopefully the absurdity of the situation will draw enough attention to it that the corrupt state lawmakers are forced to do the right thing.
Imagining the reaction of the local broadband providers' executives when they first heard about this plan makes me chuckle.
* Yes, I am perfectly aware that the "internet access"-market is anything but a free market, and the City Council's response isn't socialism.
I completely agree. The absolute worst offenders (that I'm aware of, anyway) are car rental agencies. Plan on the actual daily rate being about double the advertised rate. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in the US who believe that any attempt to force businesses to be transparent like that is "socialism". It would be funny if it didn't have such pervasive and profound negative consequences.
"Let's be clear, all these fees exist as a way to hide the true cost of the service."
Not really. They exist to inflate pricing while allowing an advertised rate that doesn't actually include what should be part of the service fees.
You are basically saying the same thing the OP said. The cable companies are artificially/fraudulently lowering the advertised cost in order to entice people to sign up. He just chose to phrase it differently.
"hide the true cost of the service" == "allowing an advertised rate that doesn't actually include what should be part of the service fees"
Unlike so many of that set though he did manage to make a lot of money which he lost then made more then lost that and then made more. Reminds me of Ted Turner who also went bankrupt several times. Those guys are risk takers and wheeler dealers...
Here's the thing: Trump didn't "make" that money in the sense that most people use it. It's more accurate to say that he stole that money (maybe not all of it, but certainly a fair portion of it) from gullible people who trusted his schtick about being a savvy businessman.
Adams endorsed Clinoton because he didn't want to get beat up by her supporters.
It is interesting how many posters including the submittor and EditorDavid don't have a clue.
So he claims. And it may very well be true; I don't know. But here's the problem. If you read his blog you will see he has said numerous times that "the truth doesn't matter", in the context of declaring Trump a "persuasion genius". The fact that Trump lies so much that he manages to make Hillary Clinton look honest by comparison (which is no mean feat) doesn't seem to bother Adams in the slightest. The inescapable conclusion is that Adams will blatantly and gleefully lie his ass off to get what he wants. Just like he admires Trump for doing. Genius "master persuaders" like Trump clearly don't need to be constrained by trifling details like facts. And if you disagree with him, he will dismiss you as just not being a genius like he is.
Ahhh, but that's what the Certified Genius Master Persuader Scott Adams wants you to think!
You've fallen right into his trap! While you're playing checkers he and his six pack are playing 15th dimensional Go Chess!!
Man, I wish I had mod points for you. Reading his blog over the last few months has made it painfully clear what a narcissistic dipshit he really is. "Because I'm a hypnotist!!1", is his explanation of every stupid claim he makes. It's sad; I used to enjoy the Dilbert strip. They're mostly ruined for me now.
Instead of being like the character Dilbert, he's more like a cross of the PHB and Dogbert.
People in the military charged with a crime in Germany or any other country with a US military base are tried by the US Military court. This process is clearly defined in the treaties allowing the US military base in the country in the first place. If any country disagrees with this they can make the US military leave. But any country taking this action can expect any mutual defense agreements or military support to also be cancelled. The US military bases in Europe and Asia are not there to protect the US they are there to provide trip wires that will guarantee US military support if the host country is invaded. Can't really see any other country doing the same thing for the US and it is for that reason the US should remove their military bases and let the fun begin.
This is not accurate for a couple of reasons.
First, the 'treaties' you are referring to are actually called SOFAs, or Status of Forces Agreements. And generally speaking, US military personnel who commit crimes against host nation citizens/institutions can expect to face the host nation's criminal justice system.
Second, they are almost always *not* defined in the treaties establishing the bases; they are negotiated separately. However, failure to reach an agreement can lead to (or else accelerate) bases not being established, and/or troops being removed. This change in status for US military personnel in Iraq was one sticking point a few years back.
I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make. Obviously GWB was a two-term president. I even alluded to that when I said, "whereas all of the others were two-term presidents". Bush Sr: one term. Bush Jr: two terms. It's very simple. So, what's your point again?
So is it Obama or EO's that you have a problem with? Because in recent history the high scores currently are:
Ronnie 381
Bill 364
George W 291
Barack 224 (with 1 year to go)
George H 166
And keep in mind that George HW Bush was president for only one term, whereas all of the others were two-term presidents. Which makes him an apple-to-oranges comparison. Extrapolating out (and assuming a constant pace/trendline), that means that Bush Sr. number should be approximately 332. Which puts him in 2nd place and knocks Obama way down the "ramming-shit-down-our-throats" list.
Not that this fact is going to change anybody's mind.
So is it Obama or EO's that you have a problem with? Because in recent history the high scores currently are:
Ronnie 381
Bill 364
George W 291
Barack 224 (with 1 year to go)
George H 166
And keep in mind that George HW Bush was president for only one term, whereas all of the others were two-term presidents. Which makes him an apple-to-oranges comparison. Extrapolating out (and assuming a constant pace/trendline), that means that Bush Sr. number should be approximately 332. Which puts him in 2nd place and knocks Obama way down the "ramming-shit-down-our-throats" list.
Not that this fact is going to change anybody's mind.
Posting to undo an incorrect mod. For some stupid reason "offtopic" was chosen as I scrolled through the choices. My finger wasn't even on the mouse button.:(
Did you read the entire article till the end? It concludes with
Did you? How come you chose not to quote the sentence and two more paragraphs right after that?
From the article:
But also adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown in violent crime, the data actually show that police are less likely to kill black suspects than white ones.
“If one adjusts for the racial disparity in the homicide rate or the rate at which police are feloniously killed, whites are actually more likely to be killed by police than blacks,” said Mr. Moskos, a former Baltimore cop and author of the book “Cop in the Hood.”
“Adjusted for the homicide rate, whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks die at the hands of police,” he said. “Adjusted for the racial disparity at which police are feloniously killed, whites are 1.3 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.”
I'm not saying that the person quoted in the article is right or wrong; I haven't verified his data, and I don't know that anybody else has either. But the issue is not nearly as cut-and-dry as your carefully edited quote tries to make it appear.
The giver. And they're pretty high. A maximum of $14K/year can be given tax-free. After that it gets complicated but the tax rate can jump as high as 35-40%.
I wish I had mod points.
You are correct. It's sad that T.E.D. is getting modded +5s for making factually incorrect statements (and then defending them when challenged rather than just accept it with good grace), and your attempts to introduce facts are getting (relatively, at least) ignored.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean the several other genocides which have happened since WWII, most fucking recent one being the Srebrenica massacre?
You forgot about the Bowling Green massacre, you insensitive clod!
Any government-run medical system must limit the amount of goods and services provided. Otherwise, costs would quickly spiral out of control.
...
Government healthcare means that those in charge must make decisions to ration services and those decisions WILL result in the deaths of some people in the system. Is that a "death panel"? IMO, that term conjures up the wrong image, but I can see why people use it.
"Any medical system must limit the amount of goods and services provided. Otherwise, costs would quickly spiral out of control."
FTFY. All scarce resoources are rationed. If you think that medical goods and services aren't rationed in a private healthcare system, you are mistaken. The conversation is (or at least, should be) how to distribute those scarce resources in the "best" way possible. The problem is that right now, everybody has their own definition of what "best" means.
Personally, I'd rather Trump wasn't president. I suspect many, if not most, people who voted for Trump also would rather he wasn't president. However, when his opponent drops into name calling ("deplorables" likely did as much as anything to sink Clinton's campaign), most didn't see much choice.
While it is absolutely true that Clinton didn't do herself any favors with that line about deplorables, Trump was doing just fine (won primaries, won the nomination, etc. etc.) before she made that crack. People were voting for him in droves before she said it.
What's the matter with Kansas, anyway?
Ha. Well done.
That is clearly illegal. The "mom and pop" contractor is required to pay market rates to H1B visa holders. So now I have to ask, since it is illegal what enforcement actions can be taken and who has standing to bring that action?
I think the best bet is to contact either ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) or CIS (Citizenship & Immigration Services). Or maybe both, just to be sure.
CompanyA sells a product that claims it contains magic. You find it has none, you sue them for false advertising. Company has to pay you for court costs, loss of wealth in purchasing their good, and damages if any exist. CompanyA can go bankrupt in the process, and perhaps you end up owning CompanyA when all is said and done.
CompanyB sees that CompanyA did wrong, and suffered consequences for their actions. CompanyB advertises a product without magic, but instead what the product actually contains. CompanyB stays in business, and people buy their products as needed. Wow! We have just described a basic fundamental of Capitalism and how Western Law works! No need for the Department of Magic in Products which reduces the overall costs for goods. People can actually purchase _more_ of CompanyB's stuff and CompanyB can actually make more stuff, or even branch out into CompanyC.
I don't know if you're trolling or not, to expect that your average consumer is going to sue "CompanyA" over a $5 tube of aloe vera gel and somehow wind up owning said company. I couldn't convince a smart 12-year-old of that actually happening in the real world.
While your example sounds great in theory, here's what happens all too often in the real world:
CompanyA sells a product that claims it contains magic. You find it has none, but don't do anything because it is impossible for the average consumer to finance a lawsuit by themselves, and class-action lawsuits are extremely rare with a miniscule payout to everybody but the lawyers. Knowing this, 99.99% of the time people just shrug and move on with their lives. CompanyA may or may not have to pay some nominal fine which doesn't come close to the money they made through their lies.
CompanyB sees CompanyA make lots of profit and get away with it, and decides that they want a seat at the table.
And how do we know that that last part happens? Because if you had bothered to read even the summary, you would have seen that that is what actually happened.
I find it ironic that you are the one making snarky comments about cognitive dissonance.
In fact, I'm a little surprised some enterprising company out there didn't create a "real" product first, then expose the fraud afterwards. Because capitalism.
There is frequently a large gap between theory (how people think the market should react), and practice (how the market actually reacts).
This entire situation proves, if nothing else, that in this industry, regulation obviously isn't needed.
It does nothing of the kind.
I'm pretty sure that quote is biased. After all, you quoted from Wikipedia, duh!
...government is best, right? Right? Nope, actually they just suck up to the Corporations a bit faster than Democrats, sadly. If only they had not screwed up by forcing Hillary on us as the non-Trump instead of Bernie. Sigh....
Now, now. If you keep talking like that, you're going to cause migraine-inducing cognitive dissonance amongst a certain portion of the population. Although I do have to laugh at the irony of the "free market" resulting in "socialism"* as an act of defiance/desperation.
Kudos to the local City Council for coming up with this remedy, even if it's only temporary. Hopefully the absurdity of the situation will draw enough attention to it that the corrupt state lawmakers are forced to do the right thing.
Imagining the reaction of the local broadband providers' executives when they first heard about this plan makes me chuckle.
* Yes, I am perfectly aware that the "internet access"-market is anything but a free market, and the City Council's response isn't socialism.
I completely agree. The absolute worst offenders (that I'm aware of, anyway) are car rental agencies. Plan on the actual daily rate being about double the advertised rate. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in the US who believe that any attempt to force businesses to be transparent like that is "socialism". It would be funny if it didn't have such pervasive and profound negative consequences.
"Let's be clear, all these fees exist as a way to hide the true cost of the service."
Not really. They exist to inflate pricing while allowing an advertised rate that doesn't actually include what should be part of the service fees.
You are basically saying the same thing the OP said. The cable companies are artificially/fraudulently lowering the advertised cost in order to entice people to sign up. He just chose to phrase it differently.
"hide the true cost of the service" == "allowing an advertised rate that doesn't actually include what should be part of the service fees"
Unlike so many of that set though he did manage to make a lot of money which he lost then made more then lost that and then made more. Reminds me of Ted Turner who also went bankrupt several times. Those guys are risk takers and wheeler dealers...
Here's the thing: Trump didn't "make" that money in the sense that most people use it. It's more accurate to say that he stole that money (maybe not all of it, but certainly a fair portion of it) from gullible people who trusted his schtick about being a savvy businessman.
Citations:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/03/opinions/art-deception-dantonio/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/13/politics/trump-small-business-owners/
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-university-did-not-make-these-americans-great-lawsuit-2016-02-25
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-made-millions-from-multilevel-marketing-firm-endorsements-2015-08-13
Adams endorsed Clinoton because he didn't want to get beat up by her supporters.
It is interesting how many posters including the submittor and EditorDavid don't have a clue.
So he claims. And it may very well be true; I don't know. But here's the problem. If you read his blog you will see he has said numerous times that "the truth doesn't matter", in the context of declaring Trump a "persuasion genius". The fact that Trump lies so much that he manages to make Hillary Clinton look honest by comparison (which is no mean feat) doesn't seem to bother Adams in the slightest. The inescapable conclusion is that Adams will blatantly and gleefully lie his ass off to get what he wants. Just like he admires Trump for doing. Genius "master persuaders" like Trump clearly don't need to be constrained by trifling details like facts. And if you disagree with him, he will dismiss you as just not being a genius like he is.
Ahhh, but that's what the Certified Genius Master Persuader Scott Adams wants you to think!
You've fallen right into his trap! While you're playing checkers he and his six pack are playing 15th dimensional Go Chess!!
Man, I wish I had mod points for you. Reading his blog over the last few months has made it painfully clear what a narcissistic dipshit he really is. "Because I'm a hypnotist!!1", is his explanation of every stupid claim he makes. It's sad; I used to enjoy the Dilbert strip. They're mostly ruined for me now.
Instead of being like the character Dilbert, he's more like a cross of the PHB and Dogbert.
People in the military charged with a crime in Germany or any other country with a US military base are tried by the US Military court. This process is clearly defined in the treaties allowing the US military base in the country in the first place. If any country disagrees with this they can make the US military leave. But any country taking this action can expect any mutual defense agreements or military support to also be cancelled. The US military bases in Europe and Asia are not there to protect the US they are there to provide trip wires that will guarantee US military support if the host country is invaded. Can't really see any other country doing the same thing for the US and it is for that reason the US should remove their military bases and let the fun begin.
This is not accurate for a couple of reasons.
First, the 'treaties' you are referring to are actually called SOFAs, or Status of Forces Agreements. And generally speaking, US military personnel who commit crimes against host nation citizens/institutions can expect to face the host nation's criminal justice system.
Second, they are almost always *not* defined in the treaties establishing the bases; they are negotiated separately. However, failure to reach an agreement can lead to (or else accelerate) bases not being established, and/or troops being removed. This change in status for US military personnel in Iraq was one sticking point a few years back.
And keep in mind that George HW Bush was president for only one term, whereas all of the others were two-term presidents. ....
So was GWB replaced by an android from 2005-2009 or was he sleeping from 2001-2005?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ...served as the 43rd President of the United States from 2001 to 2009...
I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make. Obviously GWB was a two-term president. I even alluded to that when I said, "whereas all of the others were two-term presidents". Bush Sr: one term. Bush Jr: two terms. It's very simple. So, what's your point again?
So is it Obama or EO's that you have a problem with? Because in recent history the high scores currently are:
Ronnie 381
Bill 364
George W 291
Barack 224 (with 1 year to go)
George H 166
And keep in mind that George HW Bush was president for only one term, whereas all of the others were two-term presidents. Which makes him an apple-to-oranges comparison. Extrapolating out (and assuming a constant pace/trendline), that means that Bush Sr. number should be approximately 332. Which puts him in 2nd place and knocks Obama way down the "ramming-shit-down-our-throats" list.
Not that this fact is going to change anybody's mind.
So is it Obama or EO's that you have a problem with? Because in recent history the high scores currently are:
Ronnie 381
Bill 364
George W 291
Barack 224 (with 1 year to go)
George H 166
And keep in mind that George HW Bush was president for only one term, whereas all of the others were two-term presidents. Which makes him an apple-to-oranges comparison. Extrapolating out (and assuming a constant pace/trendline), that means that Bush Sr. number should be approximately 332. Which puts him in 2nd place and knocks Obama way down the "ramming-shit-down-our-throats" list.
Not that this fact is going to change anybody's mind.
I find when most people say they're in favor of small government they mean "Small enough that I can boss everybody around"...
Or in the words of Grover Norquist, "Small enough to drown in a bathtub". Which is the creepiest expression I've heard in a while.
Posting to undo an incorrect mod. For some stupid reason "offtopic" was chosen as I scrolled through the choices. My finger wasn't even on the mouse button. :(
Ha. I wish I had mod points.
What kinds of things did you see/hear about?
Did you read the entire article till the end? It concludes with
Did you? How come you chose not to quote the sentence and two more paragraphs right after that? From the article:
But also adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown in violent crime, the data actually show that police are less likely to kill black suspects than white ones. “If one adjusts for the racial disparity in the homicide rate or the rate at which police are feloniously killed, whites are actually more likely to be killed by police than blacks,” said Mr. Moskos, a former Baltimore cop and author of the book “Cop in the Hood.” “Adjusted for the homicide rate, whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks die at the hands of police,” he said. “Adjusted for the racial disparity at which police are feloniously killed, whites are 1.3 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.”
I'm not saying that the person quoted in the article is right or wrong; I haven't verified his data, and I don't know that anybody else has either. But the issue is not nearly as cut-and-dry as your carefully edited quote tries to make it appear.
The giver. And they're pretty high. A maximum of $14K/year can be given tax-free. After that it gets complicated but the tax rate can jump as high as 35-40%.
I wish I had mod points. You are correct. It's sad that T.E.D. is getting modded +5s for making factually incorrect statements (and then defending them when challenged rather than just accept it with good grace), and your attempts to introduce facts are getting (relatively, at least) ignored.