"Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."
How am I supposed to get to your followup from the comment I replied to? Rather than just calling it tyranny, it'd be better to state specifics. If by sharing, you mean file sharing, that is a "free copy" situation. If you mean having some friends over and watching the movie, that's perfectly legit.
They're probably thinking that segregated lanes will mean fewer traffic lanes that cabs can use, therefore congestion. Space is limited and those new lanes will have to go somewhere. I live on the other side of the Atlantic, but when bike lanes are added in my area, it usually comes at the expense of at least one "regular" traffic lane, sometimes one in each direction. I'm all for cycle lanes though, this is just my guess on what they're thinking.
It sounds like a nice system, maybe the US could get there some day. As it is, we have the VA for people that were in the military which is run by the government and while they do great things, they also have a lot of corruption and waste. If we tried to run a national system for everyone, it would be a disaster. Bureaucrats and their cronies and connected companies would rake in the money and the quality of care would plummet. At least with a private system, we have choice. As for those small percentage taxes, here, they inevitably rise. A lot of state sales taxes started out that way, and grew, and grew, and grew. Not to the benefit of the people.
It's a fair point and probably true for a lot of people. It's getting murky though. Some employers are doing self-funded plans, where the insurance company really only deals with billing and claims. Then they may involve an intermediary such as WebMD to centralize the health information. Somewhere in the half dozen web sites you get bounced around in, you've no doubt clicked to agree that your data can be posted on Twitter for all the world to see. And even if you didn't, your data is one security breach away from being data mined. I wouldn't be surprised if we already have a "health score" that's similar to our credit scores. It wouldn't have to reveal specifics.
If you'd stop this knee-jerk hate spewing of yours you'd see some overlap in our comments. Cruz had an individual plan, right? Since he was paying the premium directly and seeing that huge cost increase. Recall I said that it'd be nice if we could buy plans directly and bypass our employers, but effectively, we can't. Your example backs up my point. Yes, he can get an Obamacare plan and pay less, how much are the taxpayers subsidizing that? It's still the same insurers involved, it doesn't magically cost less. The risk is still the same, it's a risk pool.. or at least it was.
"It's those emergency rooms you declare are only used by people with actual emergencies"
Well there's a flat-out lie. I'm not talking about the ERs. There are walk-in clinics specifically for the poor at many hospitals. There are also urgent care centers that cost a lot less for things that are non-emergent but needing prompt attention.
"In each visit, there were quite a few people there who were by general appearance, obviously not from the higher socioeconomic classes"
Nice. I know I always put on an Armani suit before going to the ER. Medic, would you be so kind as to fasten my cuff-links? I bet if I read your comment history you probably reject profiling.. yet here, you're practicing it.
"As poor and uninsured people were getting that free and subsidized healthcare at the most expensive possible venue"
Which isn't true, or can be addressed in the ways it's being addressed in my locale.
"And COBRA wasn't a good option for many, as it often exceeded their monthly income."
No kidding. Again, that plays to my point. That increase in cost is because the worker has to bear the entire payment for the policy without the employer's contribution. Like I said, if we can get individual plans on a free market, those premiums would come way down. They're only high because people are in the habit of getting insurance from work, there is no market for individual plans, so the few offered are insanely priced.
"Costs for the most expensive form of healthcare, for simple things like earaches or children's colds."
There's a public health facility right down the road from where I live that treats these types of things all day long. In some places you can even get this stuff treated at pharmacy clinics like the CVS "Minute Clinic". Look at that, the market finding a way.
"You may not like that, you may be more in favor of healthcare only for those who can afford it, and the est just go live under a bridge until they die, but it's reality"
You do illustrate one point. What the US is not good at is mental health care. You're trapped in a fake narrative that doesn't exist in the real world. The truth is that we have the best system in the world. People from countries with nationalized care come here when nationalized care fails them. If we go that route as well, this dystopian future you're imagining yourself trapped in will actually exist.
Yes, you're both the/. elites, only you two understand how the world works, and if anyone has other ideas, you're there to snark them down.
I'm focusing in on those people that were harmed by "reform". Here we are at the end of hope and change and health insurance costs more than ever and for a lot of people, it comes with more exclusions. The only ones benefiting are the ones getting a full or partial free ride.
I love this myth from the know-it-alls that the poor are left with just the ER or they die in the gutter. There are local public health clinics. There are services for the poor at many major hospitals or other health care centers. Many states have their own ways of addressing this, and that's the beauty of the republic. One size fits all across the entire fifty states is never going to end well.
Health care absolutely should be for-profit. If any business deserves to make money, it's the people saving people's lives. Otherwise, feel free to get your health care in Cuba.
I don't know. Active people get themselves into situations where they grind away their knees or other joints, break bones and what-not. I had some crazy healthcare costs after slamming into the pavement in a bicycling accident. 15+ years later and I'm still dealing with it. I wonder how those numbers would actually break out.
The part I don't like is the privacy aspect. If you have serious health issues you may be healthy enough to work but not healthy enough to hit the default fitness requirements of the wellness program. The programs do offer tailored goals for such people, but that requires a worker to "out" themselves which puts their employment in a precarious state. It also requires involvement from their primary care, who no doubt has too much work to do already, making it more of a burden for the not quite disabled.
I see both sides on this one and I'm not sure which is the better argument. It doesn't seem right to force workers to have their privacy invaded at such intimate levels in order to qualify for a benefit. I do also see the argument that unhealthy sloths can jack the cost of insurance up for everyone at the company. IMO, the real answer isn't wellness programs, it's get health insurance out of the hands of employers. I want to buy my own policy that I can keep wherever I work. Technically that's possible today but going from a group to an individual means the premium is unapproachable. Yet if everyone or even a significant number of people did this, it'd be like auto insurance where they'd be a healthy marketplace for it and premiums would be approachable. Instead of trying for single payer, Obamacare could have been a slam dunk if it could pull this off. Instead, we got the worst possible outcome. The states don't want the marketplace approach nor should they, and the employers remain the dominant path to getting coverage. We need a free market, not a state market, not employer provided.
Here in the northeast, it's the Democrats that usually win when the lines are redrawn. It's part of our system. Someone has to draw the lines, right? No one is going to trust some outside group like the UN to do it. As long as it's done by people, some groups will benefit, others won't. That's not exactly what I'd call a "rigged election". There are no fake ballots or disappearing ballots or polling stations that weren't open or that type of nonsense. Yea, if the district lines were in different places, the results may have been different. But that's always going to be the case.
Blame Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. DUI checkpoints absolutely violate the 4th and the dissenting opinions state as much, yet they're allowed. In my own state, the court had decided against them until years later, they decided to allow them. They all but admit that they violate our rights but because it's safety, they let it slide. If laws mean nothing to the courts, then it's up to the citizenry to defend themselves against a lawless government.
You can drop the name calling, it doesn't add anything.
This is all about the release of information against the interests of a controversial organization. That's what Snowden did. That's what these groups are doing. Yes, it's a different organization. Whether you feel the releases were edited or not, we have no way of knowing if what Snowden released was doctored either.
What you callously refer to as dead tissue is nothing of the sort. You might be fine with categorizing it that way, but that does not reflect the views of a significant portion of the population. If you refuse to accept that there's a different point of view, you're going to have a hard time understanding the resistance.
Honestly though, if you do view this as having no direct impact on living people, why the secrecy?
Slashdot Mirror
"Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."
https://www.nh.gov/constitutio...
TSA didn't stop the underwear bomber from getting on a plane.
One of the guys that tried to carry a handgun onto a plane was a legislator. Do you assume he meant to hijack the plane?
How am I supposed to get to your followup from the comment I replied to? Rather than just calling it tyranny, it'd be better to state specifics. If by sharing, you mean file sharing, that is a "free copy" situation. If you mean having some friends over and watching the movie, that's perfectly legit.
They're probably thinking that segregated lanes will mean fewer traffic lanes that cabs can use, therefore congestion. Space is limited and those new lanes will have to go somewhere. I live on the other side of the Atlantic, but when bike lanes are added in my area, it usually comes at the expense of at least one "regular" traffic lane, sometimes one in each direction. I'm all for cycle lanes though, this is just my guess on what they're thinking.
You're suffering from tyranny because you can't get a free copy of War Games? If you want the system to change, you need a better argument than that.
It sounds like a nice system, maybe the US could get there some day. As it is, we have the VA for people that were in the military which is run by the government and while they do great things, they also have a lot of corruption and waste. If we tried to run a national system for everyone, it would be a disaster. Bureaucrats and their cronies and connected companies would rake in the money and the quality of care would plummet. At least with a private system, we have choice. As for those small percentage taxes, here, they inevitably rise. A lot of state sales taxes started out that way, and grew, and grew, and grew. Not to the benefit of the people.
It's a fair point and probably true for a lot of people. It's getting murky though. Some employers are doing self-funded plans, where the insurance company really only deals with billing and claims. Then they may involve an intermediary such as WebMD to centralize the health information. Somewhere in the half dozen web sites you get bounced around in, you've no doubt clicked to agree that your data can be posted on Twitter for all the world to see. And even if you didn't, your data is one security breach away from being data mined. I wouldn't be surprised if we already have a "health score" that's similar to our credit scores. It wouldn't have to reveal specifics.
If you'd stop this knee-jerk hate spewing of yours you'd see some overlap in our comments. Cruz had an individual plan, right? Since he was paying the premium directly and seeing that huge cost increase. Recall I said that it'd be nice if we could buy plans directly and bypass our employers, but effectively, we can't. Your example backs up my point. Yes, he can get an Obamacare plan and pay less, how much are the taxpayers subsidizing that? It's still the same insurers involved, it doesn't magically cost less. The risk is still the same, it's a risk pool.. or at least it was.
"It's those emergency rooms you declare are only used by people with actual emergencies"
Well there's a flat-out lie. I'm not talking about the ERs. There are walk-in clinics specifically for the poor at many hospitals. There are also urgent care centers that cost a lot less for things that are non-emergent but needing prompt attention.
"In each visit, there were quite a few people there who were by general appearance, obviously not from the higher socioeconomic classes"
Nice. I know I always put on an Armani suit before going to the ER. Medic, would you be so kind as to fasten my cuff-links? I bet if I read your comment history you probably reject profiling.. yet here, you're practicing it.
"As poor and uninsured people were getting that free and subsidized healthcare at the most expensive possible venue"
Which isn't true, or can be addressed in the ways it's being addressed in my locale.
"And COBRA wasn't a good option for many, as it often exceeded their monthly income."
No kidding. Again, that plays to my point. That increase in cost is because the worker has to bear the entire payment for the policy without the employer's contribution. Like I said, if we can get individual plans on a free market, those premiums would come way down. They're only high because people are in the habit of getting insurance from work, there is no market for individual plans, so the few offered are insanely priced.
"Costs for the most expensive form of healthcare, for simple things like earaches or children's colds."
There's a public health facility right down the road from where I live that treats these types of things all day long. In some places you can even get this stuff treated at pharmacy clinics like the CVS "Minute Clinic". Look at that, the market finding a way.
"You may not like that, you may be more in favor of healthcare only for those who can afford it, and the est just go live under a bridge until they die, but it's reality"
You do illustrate one point. What the US is not good at is mental health care. You're trapped in a fake narrative that doesn't exist in the real world. The truth is that we have the best system in the world. People from countries with nationalized care come here when nationalized care fails them. If we go that route as well, this dystopian future you're imagining yourself trapped in will actually exist.
Yes, you're both the /. elites, only you two understand how the world works, and if anyone has other ideas, you're there to snark them down.
I'm focusing in on those people that were harmed by "reform". Here we are at the end of hope and change and health insurance costs more than ever and for a lot of people, it comes with more exclusions. The only ones benefiting are the ones getting a full or partial free ride.
I love this myth from the know-it-alls that the poor are left with just the ER or they die in the gutter. There are local public health clinics. There are services for the poor at many major hospitals or other health care centers. Many states have their own ways of addressing this, and that's the beauty of the republic. One size fits all across the entire fifty states is never going to end well.
Health care absolutely should be for-profit. If any business deserves to make money, it's the people saving people's lives. Otherwise, feel free to get your health care in Cuba.
I don't know. Active people get themselves into situations where they grind away their knees or other joints, break bones and what-not. I had some crazy healthcare costs after slamming into the pavement in a bicycling accident. 15+ years later and I'm still dealing with it. I wonder how those numbers would actually break out.
The part I don't like is the privacy aspect. If you have serious health issues you may be healthy enough to work but not healthy enough to hit the default fitness requirements of the wellness program. The programs do offer tailored goals for such people, but that requires a worker to "out" themselves which puts their employment in a precarious state. It also requires involvement from their primary care, who no doubt has too much work to do already, making it more of a burden for the not quite disabled.
I see both sides on this one and I'm not sure which is the better argument. It doesn't seem right to force workers to have their privacy invaded at such intimate levels in order to qualify for a benefit. I do also see the argument that unhealthy sloths can jack the cost of insurance up for everyone at the company. IMO, the real answer isn't wellness programs, it's get health insurance out of the hands of employers. I want to buy my own policy that I can keep wherever I work. Technically that's possible today but going from a group to an individual means the premium is unapproachable. Yet if everyone or even a significant number of people did this, it'd be like auto insurance where they'd be a healthy marketplace for it and premiums would be approachable. Instead of trying for single payer, Obamacare could have been a slam dunk if it could pull this off. Instead, we got the worst possible outcome. The states don't want the marketplace approach nor should they, and the employers remain the dominant path to getting coverage. We need a free market, not a state market, not employer provided.
Here in the northeast, it's the Democrats that usually win when the lines are redrawn. It's part of our system. Someone has to draw the lines, right? No one is going to trust some outside group like the UN to do it. As long as it's done by people, some groups will benefit, others won't. That's not exactly what I'd call a "rigged election". There are no fake ballots or disappearing ballots or polling stations that weren't open or that type of nonsense. Yea, if the district lines were in different places, the results may have been different. But that's always going to be the case.
You guys don't have elections? Seems like if it was one party's fault, that could easily be rectified.
Ignorance.
Lack of good judgment.
Carelessness.
Sounds like Presidential material to me..
Is he running for President?
Did you not receive your copy of the Democrat talking points?
Blame Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. DUI checkpoints absolutely violate the 4th and the dissenting opinions state as much, yet they're allowed. In my own state, the court had decided against them until years later, they decided to allow them. They all but admit that they violate our rights but because it's safety, they let it slide. If laws mean nothing to the courts, then it's up to the citizenry to defend themselves against a lawless government.
My Nexus 6 had it enabled by default. It's not a requirement for Android, just a suggested best practice to the phone manufacturers.
I stand by my original statement.
You can drop the name calling, it doesn't add anything.
This is all about the release of information against the interests of a controversial organization. That's what Snowden did. That's what these groups are doing. Yes, it's a different organization. Whether you feel the releases were edited or not, we have no way of knowing if what Snowden released was doctored either.
What you callously refer to as dead tissue is nothing of the sort. You might be fine with categorizing it that way, but that does not reflect the views of a significant portion of the population. If you refuse to accept that there's a different point of view, you're going to have a hard time understanding the resistance.
Honestly though, if you do view this as having no direct impact on living people, why the secrecy?
Now if someone was to film this hypothetical murder.. which would be longer, the time in prison or the length of the copyright?
Only a truly depraved individual would attempt to equate the two.
Sounds like the folks that recorded the videos are the conservative version of Edward Snowden.
How does it feel to be on the other side?
Seems to me that some of these groups are the ones doing the harassment. Accusing men of this type of activity just because they're men is wrong.