Lol. Republicans do it too. The current uproar over Fast and Furious (and the documents that the administration does not want to release) is over memos that occurred after the program had ended. The Republican Congress is just trying to prove when different members of the administration knew about it (after it happened) so that they can attack them for political gain. But I kinda doubt that you have been complaining about that.
I only watch TV in hotels after hulu stops working (it seems like most hotels have a software in their router that throttles streaming video after 30 min). And, like you, when I watch it I hate it.
The big companies are never going to offer a la carte. But, I think you will start to see internet "channels" (see how netflix, youtube, and hulu are trying to have original content). And, those most likely will be a la carte for the channel, or maybe even the episode. That is how they will push their way into the market.
Actually, all full episodes of The Daily Show and Colbert Report were available and on Hulu. But, I just saw a story (published less than an hour ago) that said Viacom was suspending putting full episodes online due to this DirectTV thing. Very disappointed about that. Hopefully it will not last.
Poker is gambling. And, betting in poker will change the probability of your opponent folding and you winning the hand. So, by your logic speculation in gambling?
I don't go in-depth with ACs, but I will address one point that always pisses me off. He never said that unemployment would not go over 8%. He put out a graph that compared projected unemployment without the stimulus to projected unemployment with the stimulus. This was to give an idea of the extent to which the stimulus was supposed to help. The graph just happened to show unemployment topping out at 8%. Their projection of unemployment was obviously off SINCE BY THE TIME THE STIMULUS ACT WAS PASSED, UNEMPLOYMENT WAS AT 8%. So, apparently the stimulus act was demonstrably a failure before it was even passed?
Cut a secret deal to kill the public option, while campaigning on its behalf
Oh... he compromised? Yeah, that sounds terrible. Like you, I also wish we had less politicians that compromised.
Granted waivers for 30 companies, including McDonald's, exempting them from health care reform
From what I understand, those waivers are only good until 2014, when the health care law comes into full effect. So, they are not exempted from health care reform. They are exempted from certain provisions while the law is being implemented. Once it comes into effect, they will have to abide by the same laws as everyone else.
Continued renditions of alleged terrorists to countries where they could be tortured
I also wish he hadn't done this, but at least he promised not to torture anyone. Which is more than Republicans would do. So, you are complaining because he is a moderate.
Blocked the release of photos documenting the torture and abuse of detainees by the US military
Muslims get very mad when they have pictures of other Muslims being tortured. While I am all for transparency, and I would have liked to see the pictures released, there are very good reasons for not showing the rest of the world how monstrous we were under the previous administration.
Continued the practice of indefinite detentions for alleged terrorists
Again, less than Republicans want. He is a moderate.
Extended the Patriot Act without making any reforms
He's a moderate.
Pushed for mandatory DNA testing of those arrested for crimes, regardless of whether they have been convicted
Eh. Doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Good arguments can be made on both sides.
Dramatically increased government secrecy, blocking more FOIA requests in 2009 than Bush did in 2008
I don't feel the government is more secretive now than in previous administrations. Denied FOIA requests are a metric that I am not convinced can be directly correlated to "secrecy of government".
Cut a deal to exempt abortion services from health care reform
Compromise again. That bastard.
Announced a $60 billion sale of arms to the Saudi Arabian dictatorship, the largest arms deal in history
Uh... they are our allies. Since when are we not allowed to sell weapons to allies?
Basically, you did not list anything that would make me not vote for him. The things that he did that I actually don't like are likely to be worse under a Republican president.
That was my first thought. If the person does not need the information, they should not have access to it. If they do need the information, you probably want to make sure it is accurate.
But that goes back to your initial complaint. I am young, single, no kids, no health problems. My insurance in $3k per year. I am the perfect example of someone who would drop their insurance. But, if the penalty is $2k, I would only save $1k per year by not having insurance. The penalty is not designed for you who already "knows" you need insurance. It is designed for someone like me who has much lower premiums, so the penalty will make a much bigger difference. Also, I am sure you are right that some people will pay the penalty even when it is not in their best interest (I wonder if you will be able to pay back-premiums for those people who don't have a handle on their finances and forget to pay their premiums all year, and only realize it when they get hit with a big penalty at tax time). I think that is why the penalty is pretty low (I thought I read somewhere that for the first year it is ~$900). I was under the impression that it is expected that Congress will increase it over time as the country adjusts to it.
But the government is not paying for it all. Right now, there are a lot of people (last number I saw was 50 million) that do not have insurance. That means they pay $0 in insurance premiums. Even if they get a big subsidy (for example $4000 on a $5000/year premium), they are still putting in $1000. And it means they will get free preventative care. If you expand that to the 50 million people, that would be $50 billion extra to go towards health care (and reduce my premiums) and also they are more likely to get cheaper care at their primary care physician (which would be free) instead of going to the expensive emergency room. It may end up costing me more between taxes and premiums. It could cost me less. But, there would be millions more people insured. And that is worth something to me as well. I am willing to sacrifice some of my hard-earned money to make this country better. Keep in mind that 60% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills. How many people will be able to go out and start their own businesses, knowing that if it does not go well their family will not suffer from a lapse of coverage. Healthcare is holding us back in this country. I don't think this is the perfect solution, and I do not want it to be the final solution. I am just happy that we are moving forward (at least the Democrats are - Republicans can only seem to look backwards).
But, at least you can inspect you product before you purchase it, or take it back if it turns out to be bad. You are usually paying your insurance premiums a long time before you have to use them, and I have not heard of an insurance company refunding your premiums if they decide to drop your coverage.
We have had that for the past year and a half. It has resulted in our credit rating being downgraded and the recovery being sluggish. If you believe the government that governs least governs best, then you must love our current one. I am personally sick of it and want to see them work together as Americans and solve some very big problems we have (not much they can really do about jobs but, healthcare and reform of the financial industry are problems that they could be tackling and aren't).
The ACA is supposed to address that. There were some provisions to give subsidies to people to help them buy insurance. Another way was by expanding medicaid, which just got struck down by the SCOTUS. So, some changes have to be made. But, even if that provision had survived, I am sure that there will be people who fall through the cracks (don't get enough subsidy to be able to afford the insurance). That is somewhat to be expected though. It is such a complicated system, that you really do have to implement the bill to see how it works (in detail, it should work in general but there will be bugs to be worked out). And it should be Congress's job to fix those bugs as they become apparent (which I am sure the writers of the bill assumed would be necessary). But, with Congress's current dysfunction, I am less confident that they will be able to do anything. So, it will be hard on some people. But, it is better than what we had. Hopefully, after this election those in Washington DC will see the light and congress can see this as a first step and continue to polish and improve it instead of their endless bickering.
Christ! Yes, it is a tax. And maybe a penalty. You can call it a cucumber for all I care. I STILL DONT HAVE TO PAY IT BECAUSE I HAVE INSURANCE!!1! Now, different taxes could go up in the future due to this healthcare bill. They also might go down (but not likely). If you want to have an intelligent discussion about that, then start the discussion. But, for some reason, you keep trying to argue a point that I have not opposed or even addressed. It is a little confusing.
That is how insurance works. It is all based upon statistics. You are protecting yourself against risk. Lets say that you have a 0.01% chance of having a brain aneurysm. So, in a group of 10,000 people, one of you will end up needing brain surgery. There is no way for you to know whether you will be that one person. So, you get together with those 9,999 other people and each pitch in $20 to pay for the $200k operation. If you are the unlucky one (who has the aneurysm), then you at least can console yourself with the fact that you don't have to pay for it all yourself. If you are not the unlucky one (ie. the lucky 9,999) then you spent $20 on peace of mind. You seem to think you lose if you don't have to use your insurance. Cancer is not fun. Brain surgery is not fun. Heart surgery is not fun. People do not want to use their insurance. If you never get any payback from your insurance, you are the lucky one.
Expanding on what I just said. Porterhouse steaks are very good. I also like to get new shoes. If I had insurance for that, I would probably abuse it. But, I have had pretty decent health insurance for 3 years now. I have not gone to the doctor once.
That is why your analogy does to work. With your hypothetical food or clothing insurance, you win if you use it as much as humanly possible. With health insurance, you win if you use it (or need to use it) the least.
Why are you adding co-pay and deductibles into it? You pay those for getting health care. So, you would be paying that amount (in the case of deductibles) or more (in the case of co-pays) even if you dropped your insurance. Also, your plan costs (according to you) $20,000 per year. My plan, with one person, costs me $3000 per year. Multiply that by the 6 in your family, and mine is equivalent to $18,000. So, yours is a little more expensive, but not that much per capita. But, regardless of that, YOU pay $5500. So, with a $2000 penalty it only costs you an extra $3500. Is it worth paying that to have the peace of mind knowing that if you have a stroke, you won't be stuck with a $200k hospital bill?
I must be missing something. How does a hospital get money from giving you a bad credit report? Also if you go to the emergency room, they still have to serve you even if you already owe them money from a previous visit. They do not have to make you better, but they have to keep you from dying. So, your bills can just keep on racking up. Also, here in the US, we don't have debtors prisons, or fines. The hospital can take you to court and try to garnish your wages, but if you don't have any money or job, then there would be nothing to garnish. Keep in mind that somewhere around 60% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills. If you want to use the car insurance analogy, thats fine. But just by being alive in the US, you are a liability to hospitals. The same as by driving a car, you are a liability to other drivers. So, if you don't want to be required to have health insurance, then allow hospitals to let you die. Unless all you want to do is leech off the system (which seems to be the case).
I won't argue with you there. I wanted single payer too. I did not vote for the Republicans and will not in the near future. If it were not for them trying to block everything (and make Obama a one-term president), we probably would have gotten a much better bill.
We were talking specifically about the penalty that was being argued by the Supreme Court. If you have insurance you do not have to pay the penalty. Try to keep up.
Good for you. Most people do not have a quarter million dollars or more lying around to pay hospital bills if they have a heart attack, stroke, car accident, ect. I am glad that you are well enough off that you can get by without insurance. But most people are not. Some people will be able to go their whole lives without having a huge hospital bill. But, they are just gambling and happen to win. It is still irresponsible and makes you a leech on society. Because whether or not those risks come into fruition, they are still being offloaded onto society instead of the person being a self-sufficient human being and taking responsibility for themselves. Just because you win the lottery, does not mean that a lottery ticket is not a bad bet. It just means that you were lucky.
Sign a waiver? Do they have to carry it on them at all times? Tattoo it on their forehead? To do something like that, we would first have to repeal the law that states that hospitals have to provide enough care to stabilize anyone who comes in. Then, before I would be happy with it, we would need to institute a National ID database that includes whether the person is currently insured. It would need to be an ID that could be read no matter what, so everyone would probably need to have an RFID chip implanted in the base of their skull and the ambulance personnel could carry an RFID reader with them that could query the national database. Then, if someone gets in an accident, the emergency personnel could determine if they had insurance. If not (or if the RFID chip was too damaged) then the person would be left to die where they were. If you did have insurance, you would be taken to the hospital. Now, I am sure that national database would not have any errors in it (that said someone was uninsured when they actually did have insurance) because the Federal Government is so good at maintaining accurate information.
Good point. Luckily, we have a government where our elected representatives can modify laws as they find flaws in them. I do not expect the health care law to be perfect (very far from it). But, it is a step in the right direction. And if the Republicans can every get their heads out of their asses and actually start doing their job, then I have hope that in 5 or 10 years we will have a system that I might call good. Not perfect, but better than what we have now.
Also, from what I understood, the penalty was designed to smart small to keep from screwing people over as the bugs get worked out, but as we transition to the new system it would increase to reduce the benefit of paying the penalty over buying insurance.
Slashdot Mirror
Lol. Republicans do it too. The current uproar over Fast and Furious (and the documents that the administration does not want to release) is over memos that occurred after the program had ended. The Republican Congress is just trying to prove when different members of the administration knew about it (after it happened) so that they can attack them for political gain. But I kinda doubt that you have been complaining about that.
Seriously... google "xbmc" and click on the first result. Is this your first time using the interwebs?
I only watch TV in hotels after hulu stops working (it seems like most hotels have a software in their router that throttles streaming video after 30 min). And, like you, when I watch it I hate it.
The big companies are never going to offer a la carte. But, I think you will start to see internet "channels" (see how netflix, youtube, and hulu are trying to have original content). And, those most likely will be a la carte for the channel, or maybe even the episode. That is how they will push their way into the market.
Actually, all full episodes of The Daily Show and Colbert Report were available and on Hulu. But, I just saw a story (published less than an hour ago) that said Viacom was suspending putting full episodes online due to this DirectTV thing. Very disappointed about that. Hopefully it will not last.
Poker is gambling. And, betting in poker will change the probability of your opponent folding and you winning the hand. So, by your logic speculation in gambling?
I don't go in-depth with ACs, but I will address one point that always pisses me off. He never said that unemployment would not go over 8%. He put out a graph that compared projected unemployment without the stimulus to projected unemployment with the stimulus. This was to give an idea of the extent to which the stimulus was supposed to help. The graph just happened to show unemployment topping out at 8%. Their projection of unemployment was obviously off SINCE BY THE TIME THE STIMULUS ACT WAS PASSED, UNEMPLOYMENT WAS AT 8%. So, apparently the stimulus act was demonstrably a failure before it was even passed?
Cut a secret deal to kill the public option, while campaigning on its behalf
Oh... he compromised? Yeah, that sounds terrible. Like you, I also wish we had less politicians that compromised.
Granted waivers for 30 companies, including McDonald's, exempting them from health care reform
From what I understand, those waivers are only good until 2014, when the health care law comes into full effect. So, they are not exempted from health care reform. They are exempted from certain provisions while the law is being implemented. Once it comes into effect, they will have to abide by the same laws as everyone else.
Continued renditions of alleged terrorists to countries where they could be tortured
I also wish he hadn't done this, but at least he promised not to torture anyone. Which is more than Republicans would do. So, you are complaining because he is a moderate.
Blocked the release of photos documenting the torture and abuse of detainees by the US military
Muslims get very mad when they have pictures of other Muslims being tortured. While I am all for transparency, and I would have liked to see the pictures released, there are very good reasons for not showing the rest of the world how monstrous we were under the previous administration.
Continued the practice of indefinite detentions for alleged terrorists
Again, less than Republicans want. He is a moderate.
Extended the Patriot Act without making any reforms
He's a moderate.
Pushed for mandatory DNA testing of those arrested for crimes, regardless of whether they have been convicted
Eh. Doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Good arguments can be made on both sides.
Dramatically increased government secrecy, blocking more FOIA requests in 2009 than Bush did in 2008
I don't feel the government is more secretive now than in previous administrations. Denied FOIA requests are a metric that I am not convinced can be directly correlated to "secrecy of government".
Cut a deal to exempt abortion services from health care reform
Compromise again. That bastard.
Announced a $60 billion sale of arms to the Saudi Arabian dictatorship, the largest arms deal in history
Uh... they are our allies. Since when are we not allowed to sell weapons to allies?
Basically, you did not list anything that would make me not vote for him. The things that he did that I actually don't like are likely to be worse under a Republican president.
That was my first thought. If the person does not need the information, they should not have access to it. If they do need the information, you probably want to make sure it is accurate.
Translation: What could possibly go wrong?
Indeed.
Nope. I buy my insurance myself. It is a high deduuctible plan, though.
But that goes back to your initial complaint. I am young, single, no kids, no health problems. My insurance in $3k per year. I am the perfect example of someone who would drop their insurance. But, if the penalty is $2k, I would only save $1k per year by not having insurance. The penalty is not designed for you who already "knows" you need insurance. It is designed for someone like me who has much lower premiums, so the penalty will make a much bigger difference. Also, I am sure you are right that some people will pay the penalty even when it is not in their best interest (I wonder if you will be able to pay back-premiums for those people who don't have a handle on their finances and forget to pay their premiums all year, and only realize it when they get hit with a big penalty at tax time). I think that is why the penalty is pretty low (I thought I read somewhere that for the first year it is ~$900). I was under the impression that it is expected that Congress will increase it over time as the country adjusts to it.
But the government is not paying for it all. Right now, there are a lot of people (last number I saw was 50 million) that do not have insurance. That means they pay $0 in insurance premiums. Even if they get a big subsidy (for example $4000 on a $5000/year premium), they are still putting in $1000. And it means they will get free preventative care. If you expand that to the 50 million people, that would be $50 billion extra to go towards health care (and reduce my premiums) and also they are more likely to get cheaper care at their primary care physician (which would be free) instead of going to the expensive emergency room. It may end up costing me more between taxes and premiums. It could cost me less. But, there would be millions more people insured. And that is worth something to me as well. I am willing to sacrifice some of my hard-earned money to make this country better. Keep in mind that 60% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills. How many people will be able to go out and start their own businesses, knowing that if it does not go well their family will not suffer from a lapse of coverage. Healthcare is holding us back in this country. I don't think this is the perfect solution, and I do not want it to be the final solution. I am just happy that we are moving forward (at least the Democrats are - Republicans can only seem to look backwards).
But, at least you can inspect you product before you purchase it, or take it back if it turns out to be bad. You are usually paying your insurance premiums a long time before you have to use them, and I have not heard of an insurance company refunding your premiums if they decide to drop your coverage.
We have had that for the past year and a half. It has resulted in our credit rating being downgraded and the recovery being sluggish. If you believe the government that governs least governs best, then you must love our current one. I am personally sick of it and want to see them work together as Americans and solve some very big problems we have (not much they can really do about jobs but, healthcare and reform of the financial industry are problems that they could be tackling and aren't).
The ACA is supposed to address that. There were some provisions to give subsidies to people to help them buy insurance. Another way was by expanding medicaid, which just got struck down by the SCOTUS. So, some changes have to be made. But, even if that provision had survived, I am sure that there will be people who fall through the cracks (don't get enough subsidy to be able to afford the insurance). That is somewhat to be expected though. It is such a complicated system, that you really do have to implement the bill to see how it works (in detail, it should work in general but there will be bugs to be worked out). And it should be Congress's job to fix those bugs as they become apparent (which I am sure the writers of the bill assumed would be necessary). But, with Congress's current dysfunction, I am less confident that they will be able to do anything. So, it will be hard on some people. But, it is better than what we had. Hopefully, after this election those in Washington DC will see the light and congress can see this as a first step and continue to polish and improve it instead of their endless bickering.
Christ! Yes, it is a tax. And maybe a penalty. You can call it a cucumber for all I care. I STILL DONT HAVE TO PAY IT BECAUSE I HAVE INSURANCE!!1! Now, different taxes could go up in the future due to this healthcare bill. They also might go down (but not likely). If you want to have an intelligent discussion about that, then start the discussion. But, for some reason, you keep trying to argue a point that I have not opposed or even addressed. It is a little confusing.
Mine does. Young, single, no health problems. The type of person who might think they can benefit from not buying insurance.
That is how insurance works. It is all based upon statistics. You are protecting yourself against risk. Lets say that you have a 0.01% chance of having a brain aneurysm. So, in a group of 10,000 people, one of you will end up needing brain surgery. There is no way for you to know whether you will be that one person. So, you get together with those 9,999 other people and each pitch in $20 to pay for the $200k operation. If you are the unlucky one (who has the aneurysm), then you at least can console yourself with the fact that you don't have to pay for it all yourself. If you are not the unlucky one (ie. the lucky 9,999) then you spent $20 on peace of mind. You seem to think you lose if you don't have to use your insurance. Cancer is not fun. Brain surgery is not fun. Heart surgery is not fun. People do not want to use their insurance. If you never get any payback from your insurance, you are the lucky one.
Expanding on what I just said. Porterhouse steaks are very good. I also like to get new shoes. If I had insurance for that, I would probably abuse it. But, I have had pretty decent health insurance for 3 years now. I have not gone to the doctor once.
That is why your analogy does to work. With your hypothetical food or clothing insurance, you win if you use it as much as humanly possible. With health insurance, you win if you use it (or need to use it) the least.
Why are you adding co-pay and deductibles into it? You pay those for getting health care. So, you would be paying that amount (in the case of deductibles) or more (in the case of co-pays) even if you dropped your insurance. Also, your plan costs (according to you) $20,000 per year. My plan, with one person, costs me $3000 per year. Multiply that by the 6 in your family, and mine is equivalent to $18,000. So, yours is a little more expensive, but not that much per capita. But, regardless of that, YOU pay $5500. So, with a $2000 penalty it only costs you an extra $3500. Is it worth paying that to have the peace of mind knowing that if you have a stroke, you won't be stuck with a $200k hospital bill?
I must be missing something. How does a hospital get money from giving you a bad credit report? Also if you go to the emergency room, they still have to serve you even if you already owe them money from a previous visit. They do not have to make you better, but they have to keep you from dying. So, your bills can just keep on racking up. Also, here in the US, we don't have debtors prisons, or fines. The hospital can take you to court and try to garnish your wages, but if you don't have any money or job, then there would be nothing to garnish. Keep in mind that somewhere around 60% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills. If you want to use the car insurance analogy, thats fine. But just by being alive in the US, you are a liability to hospitals. The same as by driving a car, you are a liability to other drivers. So, if you don't want to be required to have health insurance, then allow hospitals to let you die. Unless all you want to do is leech off the system (which seems to be the case).
I won't argue with you there. I wanted single payer too. I did not vote for the Republicans and will not in the near future. If it were not for them trying to block everything (and make Obama a one-term president), we probably would have gotten a much better bill.
We were talking specifically about the penalty that was being argued by the Supreme Court. If you have insurance you do not have to pay the penalty. Try to keep up.
Good for you. Most people do not have a quarter million dollars or more lying around to pay hospital bills if they have a heart attack, stroke, car accident, ect. I am glad that you are well enough off that you can get by without insurance. But most people are not. Some people will be able to go their whole lives without having a huge hospital bill. But, they are just gambling and happen to win. It is still irresponsible and makes you a leech on society. Because whether or not those risks come into fruition, they are still being offloaded onto society instead of the person being a self-sufficient human being and taking responsibility for themselves. Just because you win the lottery, does not mean that a lottery ticket is not a bad bet. It just means that you were lucky.
Sign a waiver? Do they have to carry it on them at all times? Tattoo it on their forehead? To do something like that, we would first have to repeal the law that states that hospitals have to provide enough care to stabilize anyone who comes in. Then, before I would be happy with it, we would need to institute a National ID database that includes whether the person is currently insured. It would need to be an ID that could be read no matter what, so everyone would probably need to have an RFID chip implanted in the base of their skull and the ambulance personnel could carry an RFID reader with them that could query the national database. Then, if someone gets in an accident, the emergency personnel could determine if they had insurance. If not (or if the RFID chip was too damaged) then the person would be left to die where they were. If you did have insurance, you would be taken to the hospital. Now, I am sure that national database would not have any errors in it (that said someone was uninsured when they actually did have insurance) because the Federal Government is so good at maintaining accurate information.
Sound kinda 1984-ish, but it could be done.
Good point. Luckily, we have a government where our elected representatives can modify laws as they find flaws in them. I do not expect the health care law to be perfect (very far from it). But, it is a step in the right direction. And if the Republicans can every get their heads out of their asses and actually start doing their job, then I have hope that in 5 or 10 years we will have a system that I might call good. Not perfect, but better than what we have now.
Also, from what I understood, the penalty was designed to smart small to keep from screwing people over as the bugs get worked out, but as we transition to the new system it would increase to reduce the benefit of paying the penalty over buying insurance.