Why do people keep saying this? An April Fool's Joke is something benevolent and many times obvious. What would make this story a good April Fool's Joke? What would make basically any other story posted so far today a good April Fool's Joke? April Fool's Day is supposed to be funny, not just a day where paranoid nerds suspect every news story of randomly being false.
I hope this post does get modded off-topic and redundant. Not only is it pointless, but you are too cowardly to put your name to your words so you must hide behind anonymity.
Just like that? The entire agricultural system that struggles to feed the more than 6 billion humans will just be tweaked a little bit and everything goes on just as before?
Correct; raise the water bill a bit, add some parabolic mirrors, or make a greenhouse.
That's cold comfort to farmers that their land is now useless for growing crops, but if they could just sell their now-worthless land and buy up some new land 200 miles to the north (that now happens to be sitting underneath suburban housing) then it's all just a wee bump in the road.
Bulldoze the house, or go vertical.
Heck, for that matter, we could probably just move the Earth a few thousand miles further from the Sun.
Don't shareholders of corporations vote with their share of the stock? Did you even think about your signature quote before trying to look cool by using it?
No, maybe we didn't "choose" to have World War 2 - but we certainly contributed to German greviances against us.
Your analogy is akin to defending a child being put in time-out for the second time because he snuck out the first time he was put in it (originally for misbehaving). Remember World War 1? "Well maybe you shouldn't have put him in time-out the first time!"
Look at it this way: if the RGB is 255,000,000 then its about 255,000,000 light years awhile. If the color is 000,000,255 consider it to be only around 255 light years away.
Amen. If only there were a way to sit every voter down in a room and just bullshit about politics for a few hours. Guaran-ass-tee you we would see some changes.
That doesn't seem to make much sense, though. "Here buddy, if you flip-flop your political position I'll give you the ability to publicly endorse mine!"
I'm sorry but where are you getting the vague claims about taxes? The taxes that will be needed will come from those making over $250,000 a year, which excludes 95%+ of the population. I've seen no other populous taxes in my thorough reading of the current legislation, with the exception of the taxes on the insurance companies' expenses combined with cost-cutting measures to bring the industry back in check.
The reason this is necessary is because the private insurance companies have steadily (not according to supply and demand) increased their profits while spending less on care, losing customers yearly, making record gains yearly, and randomly jacking rates up 50% overnight for no explainable reason. Every single one of these claims are indisputable and old news, now something has finally been done about it, regardless of whether or not the legislation is "perfect."
People will be able to stay on their parent's insurance until they are 26 years old within a few months. Children will not be allowed to be denied coverage due a pre-existing condition; also definitely taking effect within the next six months. The things that take effect in 2014 will be awesome for the people, but until then several key things will take effect and will increase the recognition and favorability of the legislation by an awful lot.
And by the way, your wife may be an employee at a hospital, but that should be all the more reason to know the corruption involved in MDS reports and statistics reporting for the purpose of funding. I know because my mother is one of the administrators at a nursing home/rehab facility and I am on the board of directors (not going to say my exact position) of a home health care agency. Her and I both do it for the love of the industry, to help those who need it, and for the money, but we do our jobs very honestly compared to most. Although it might be somewhat disheartening to my financial interests that Medicare pays less than private insurance, in my heart it is impossible to overlook the harmful practices of private health insurance. The US health system is of very high quality, but also has a very high price, and has become harmful to the people who of the country who need it. The health insurance reform legislation is not the best, but it is exponentially further from the worst. If you analyze the bill with relation to the US political spectrum, you realize it's not too far from the center, either. Contrary to what the influential right-wing propaganda says, it is not socialism - it's just not laissez-faire economics. But let's be real, is there any true laissez-faire left in any large sector of a first world economy? The damned little invisible hand is all over the economy in varying degrees; may as well add another finger or two in an effort to make the system work for the people rather than for its CEO's and shareholders.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but diabetes isn't the most life-threatening/difficult disease to treat. You can't say that just because you have been able to pay for your diabetes without insurance that it means the status quo was fair or sustainable. Laissez-faire wasn't working apparently, so a little invisible hand will make things more efficient and helpful to huge fractions of the population. As the parent said: the main news channel in the country is so biased you wouldn't believe, and spreads FUD like it is their job... oh wait, they're so financially tied to the people responsible for this mess (private health insurance oligopolies) that it basically is their job.
Echoing the same unbacked talking points the Republicans/conservatives have been spewing around for over a year. Have you ever done any research into the lobbying funds that go into a large fraction of congressional Republican wallets (and then compare them to Democrats)? It's incredible -- how about FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity? Both have as their main leadership people who are key players in the health insurance lobbying business. All of these "enormous record-breaking protests you've been seeing" are the product of astroturf created by the health insurance lobbyists/shareholders themselves. It's sad that the Republicans butchered their reputation so much throughout the last year: they might not see it now, but the history books will not do them justice and will talk about them in a negative light for the all the extremism rhetoric they have stood next to and taken advantage of. It's fine though - they'll eventually have the opportunity to do good things and repair their image, but if they continue this attitude they will be viewed unfavorably by future generations. Why don't you naysayers actually show one citation from the legislation to back up your claims? The bill has been accessible by anyone for months upon months now, a simple Google search would give you everything you need.
Someone once told me, "The problem with radicals is that they only read radical literature; the problem with conservatives is that they don't read anything." I think Thomas Carver said it. And I'm not just bitter over politics, either; in fact, I'm actually currently writing campaign material in support of a Republican candidate. I just don't like how many conservatives seem to consider me to be the inferior one when I ask for any little piece of evidence to back up some of their outrageous claims.
The next generation will read about the status quo before yesterday and will be appalled; they will be proud that the US took steps towards regulating the out-of-control private insurance companies. The Republicans will not repeal this legislation because once the people of the US find out what this bill entails they will defend it like they do Medicare and Social Security.
Slashdot Mirror
...
Right, because they're going to risk one of the largest companies in the world by hiding the real mistake and instead saying "we don't know," right?
...or he did a great job of showing the merits of his experiment by describing the work the brakes did and describing a positive effect.
Mod this man up.
Why do people keep saying this? An April Fool's Joke is something benevolent and many times obvious. What would make this story a good April Fool's Joke? What would make basically any other story posted so far today a good April Fool's Joke? April Fool's Day is supposed to be funny, not just a day where paranoid nerds suspect every news story of randomly being false.
I hope this post does get modded off-topic and redundant. Not only is it pointless, but you are too cowardly to put your name to your words so you must hide behind anonymity.
He's talking about V8 fruit/vegetable drinks, idiot.
My i7 and 6GB loaded it nearly instantly... a lot of good that Mac does you.
Just like that? The entire agricultural system that struggles to feed the more than 6 billion humans will just be tweaked a little bit and everything goes on just as before?
Correct; raise the water bill a bit, add some parabolic mirrors, or make a greenhouse.
That's cold comfort to farmers that their land is now useless for growing crops, but if they could just sell their now-worthless land and buy up some new land 200 miles to the north (that now happens to be sitting underneath suburban housing) then it's all just a wee bump in the road.
Bulldoze the house, or go vertical.
Heck, for that matter, we could probably just move the Earth a few thousand miles further from the Sun.
Correct; once nightfall hits the USA, nuke China.
So what's everybody so worked up about?
No clue.
The old Terminator movies were about a similar system. Nice try though, next time use Google first.
For the record, they attacked one of our bases for no logical reason whatsoever and no one else has tried any cute shit since then.
Don't shareholders of corporations vote with their share of the stock? Did you even think about your signature quote before trying to look cool by using it?
[citation needed] - seriously.
No, maybe we didn't "choose" to have World War 2 - but we certainly contributed to German greviances against us.
Your analogy is akin to defending a child being put in time-out for the second time because he snuck out the first time he was put in it (originally for misbehaving). Remember World War 1? "Well maybe you shouldn't have put him in time-out the first time!"
Look at it this way: if the RGB is 255,000,000 then its about 255,000,000 light years awhile. If the color is 000,000,255 consider it to be only around 255 light years away.
Arr1 = {a,b,c,d};
Arr2 = {e,f,g,h};
if (b==f) {printf "ZOMG MOAR EVDENSE ARR1 == ARR2!";}
Amen. If only there were a way to sit every voter down in a room and just bullshit about politics for a few hours. Guaran-ass-tee you we would see some changes.
That doesn't seem to make much sense, though. "Here buddy, if you flip-flop your political position I'll give you the ability to publicly endorse mine!"
That was his point.. thanks for playing...
[citation needed]? They really gave everyone a huge voucher to go and buy a TV and other entertainment options?
I'm sorry but where are you getting the vague claims about taxes? The taxes that will be needed will come from those making over $250,000 a year, which excludes 95%+ of the population. I've seen no other populous taxes in my thorough reading of the current legislation, with the exception of the taxes on the insurance companies' expenses combined with cost-cutting measures to bring the industry back in check.
The reason this is necessary is because the private insurance companies have steadily (not according to supply and demand) increased their profits while spending less on care, losing customers yearly, making record gains yearly, and randomly jacking rates up 50% overnight for no explainable reason. Every single one of these claims are indisputable and old news, now something has finally been done about it, regardless of whether or not the legislation is "perfect."
People will be able to stay on their parent's insurance until they are 26 years old within a few months. Children will not be allowed to be denied coverage due a pre-existing condition; also definitely taking effect within the next six months. The things that take effect in 2014 will be awesome for the people, but until then several key things will take effect and will increase the recognition and favorability of the legislation by an awful lot.
And by the way, your wife may be an employee at a hospital, but that should be all the more reason to know the corruption involved in MDS reports and statistics reporting for the purpose of funding. I know because my mother is one of the administrators at a nursing home/rehab facility and I am on the board of directors (not going to say my exact position) of a home health care agency. Her and I both do it for the love of the industry, to help those who need it, and for the money, but we do our jobs very honestly compared to most. Although it might be somewhat disheartening to my financial interests that Medicare pays less than private insurance, in my heart it is impossible to overlook the harmful practices of private health insurance. The US health system is of very high quality, but also has a very high price, and has become harmful to the people who of the country who need it. The health insurance reform legislation is not the best, but it is exponentially further from the worst. If you analyze the bill with relation to the US political spectrum, you realize it's not too far from the center, either. Contrary to what the influential right-wing propaganda says, it is not socialism - it's just not laissez-faire economics. But let's be real, is there any true laissez-faire left in any large sector of a first world economy? The damned little invisible hand is all over the economy in varying degrees; may as well add another finger or two in an effort to make the system work for the people rather than for its CEO's and shareholders.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but diabetes isn't the most life-threatening/difficult disease to treat. You can't say that just because you have been able to pay for your diabetes without insurance that it means the status quo was fair or sustainable. Laissez-faire wasn't working apparently, so a little invisible hand will make things more efficient and helpful to huge fractions of the population. As the parent said: the main news channel in the country is so biased you wouldn't believe, and spreads FUD like it is their job... oh wait, they're so financially tied to the people responsible for this mess (private health insurance oligopolies) that it basically is their job.
Echoing the same unbacked talking points the Republicans/conservatives have been spewing around for over a year. Have you ever done any research into the lobbying funds that go into a large fraction of congressional Republican wallets (and then compare them to Democrats)? It's incredible -- how about FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity? Both have as their main leadership people who are key players in the health insurance lobbying business. All of these "enormous record-breaking protests you've been seeing" are the product of astroturf created by the health insurance lobbyists/shareholders themselves. It's sad that the Republicans butchered their reputation so much throughout the last year: they might not see it now, but the history books will not do them justice and will talk about them in a negative light for the all the extremism rhetoric they have stood next to and taken advantage of. It's fine though - they'll eventually have the opportunity to do good things and repair their image, but if they continue this attitude they will be viewed unfavorably by future generations. Why don't you naysayers actually show one citation from the legislation to back up your claims? The bill has been accessible by anyone for months upon months now, a simple Google search would give you everything you need.
Someone once told me, "The problem with radicals is that they only read radical literature; the problem with conservatives is that they don't read anything." I think Thomas Carver said it. And I'm not just bitter over politics, either; in fact, I'm actually currently writing campaign material in support of a Republican candidate. I just don't like how many conservatives seem to consider me to be the inferior one when I ask for any little piece of evidence to back up some of their outrageous claims.
The next generation will read about the status quo before yesterday and will be appalled; they will be proud that the US took steps towards regulating the out-of-control private insurance companies. The Republicans will not repeal this legislation because once the people of the US find out what this bill entails they will defend it like they do Medicare and Social Security.