I've lost jobs, but never lost insurance. I'd pay COBRA till I either:
COBRA is only available for a limited time (generally 18 months - longer in some special cases), is very expensive especially for someone who's only income is unemployment, and frequently is unaffordable to poor people, and if you worked for a small company (There has always been a way to get insurance that wasn't tied to a job.
Not true for many people. Remember the pre-existing condition clause made it impossible for some and buying insurance on your own generally meant a very costly plan for individuals unless you were young, healthy and had a high deductible. Plus if you were poor, there simply was no plan cheap enough (no subsidies) to buy even if you could find a plan.
Bitcoin is a currency. It cannot try to achieve anything. As for the people behind bitcoin, it's extremely unclear what they are trying to achieve and not all of the possibilities are harmless. I can very easily make an argument that bitcoin looks like merely the latest version of a pump-and-dump scheme. The exchanges look a lot like pyramid schemes. Most of the arguments supporting bitcoin show a shocking lack of understanding of economics and how and why currencies actually work. I see a lot of credulous arguments in support of bitcoin that make me worry that many of the supporters are FAR too trusting and will be taken advantage of.
I do not see why there are still people out there who keep saying Bitcoin is a good investment
For those at the top of the pyramid scheme it probably is. For everyone else? Yeah, not so much. Bitcoin has all the hallmarks of a pump and dump scheme. Thinly traded asset of dubious future value? Check. Marketing campaign to recruit investors? Check. Early large purchases at discounted rate? Check. Absurdly fast rise in "value"? Check. Early investors selling out or disappearing and leaving the new investors holding the bag? Check.
Unregulated bitcoin exchanges are basically pyramid schemes waiting to happen. The bitcoin currency itself looks shockingly like a pump and dump scheme and should be treated as radioactive (i.e. very carefully) until proven otherwise.
Any of those savings (which could be considered part of an employees salary) get passed on to the employee?
Any of those savings (which could be considered part of an employees salary) get passed on to the employee?
We were able to give raises we couldn't before. The company kept some of the savings and some of it got passed on.
The challenge is that we offered health coverage to everyone but not everyone took it. That was their choice to forego the insurance. It's unfair (and can create legal problems) to give raises only to those who took insurance through our company when others are doing the same job just as well. Any time you have two people doing the same job you have to have a justification if you are going to pay them differently based on responsibilities or performance. We also offer an IRA with an employer match but not everyone chooses to participate. We don't give raises to those who don't participate.
Why would anyone think the Government could run healthcare?
Let's see, maybe because they already do through Medicare and other programs. Maybe because governments around the world do a highly competent job of it for better outcomes and lower cost than we incur in the US. Maybe because reflexively assuming governments are incapable of doing anything well is demonstrably false. Maybe because health insurance is a marketplace that is used by everyone and CANNOT be operated effectively or humanely without government involvement.
Is there any sign of competence or efficiency in Medicare, Medicade, or the VA?
Quite a bit actually. Not saying they don't have their flaws (they do) but they are hardly the debacles you seem to be implying.
There is not one single thing that the Government of the US has ever done more efficiently than the private sector.
What a bunch of crap. There are plenty of things the private sector does an absolutely crap job of. Policing, firefighting, military, infrastructure, medical care for at risk groups (elderly and poor especially), basic research, the judiciary, banking regulation, environmental protection, and quite a bit more. Any time you have a situation where market forces do not work well, the private sector is demonstrably unable to deal with the problem. I'm all for doing as much with the private sector as we can but the argument that the private sector is always better is absurd, wrong and frankly damaging to our society.
And the policies of the current administration are a LARGE reason we're losing small business in the US.
And your evidence for this is what exactly? Small businesses are alive and well. I run one myself and I work with entrepreneurs daily. Every piece of evidence I've seen contradicts your argument. Please back up this blanket assertion with some actual facts.
We almost seem to be actively trying to make it impossible for US small businesses to succeed with ACA and too many regulations and endless paperwork and taxation.
The ACA HELPS small business. My company was able to get health insurance through the ACA for our employees and cut expenses while doing so. Our employees generally pay less than before, the company's saves $10K/year on the cost of insurance and none of our employees will lose their coverage if they lose their job. Explain to me the downside here.
The Feds will pay for the Medicaid expansion for the FIRST THREE YEARS. After that, the State is on the hook to cover it.
Terrific, so what? Medicare is funded by the states now. The only difference is the size of the program. Furthermore do you think the cost for those people who don't have coverage magically disappears just because they don't have insurance? It gets paid for one way or another and you can either do it directly through a formal program or you can do it indirectly through higher insurance rates and hospital bills for everyone else. Either way you are going to pay for it.
Which is why cost is an issue, since the States are generally in the same shape as the Feds in regards to budgets - not enough money, too many obligations.
Then, gasp, raise taxes. I know, that gives republicans hives because they think taxes are the root of all evil. Let's be frank though. This has NOTHING to do with the cost. This is ALL about politics since all the resistance is coming from republicans who care more about getting re-elected than about providing poor people health coverage. The cost doesn't go away just because they aren't willing to fund it through Medicaid. If they were proposing some alternative way to get poor people health insurance then I might give some credibility to the argument that they are trying to be responsible but that simply isn't happening.
Compare that to an area where schools have someone on staff who can prescribe pills, or doctors will insist you consider it...
No school I am aware of in the US (and I work part time in a school) has anyone who would be permitted to even give out a vitamin pill much less prescribe anything. The liability alone prohibits it. The ONLY thing a school nurse or trainer is generally allowed to do is either give a bag of ice, give out a bandaid for minor cuts or send the child home to get medical care from a licensed doctor. They are NEVER allowed to prescribe, give out or even recommend any sort of medication.
And as for the Rep. govenors that refused the Medicaid expansion, they did the cost analysis.
I call bullshit on it having anything to do with a cost analysis. This was ALL about politics. This is simply republicans dragging their heels at the expense of a bunch of poor people for political grandstanding. I live in a state with a Republican governor and a republican majority legislature and they passed the medicaid expansion because it makes financial sense. The terms of the deal are quite clear and the cost of providing medical care to those poor people isn't going to go away whether or not the medicare expansion gets passed.
Some governors plan long term and not just short term.
Then you would expect to see states led by democrats doing the same thing. The fact that all the refusals are coming from the opposition party tells you everything you need to know about this issue.
I'm looking to go that route again, but man...I looked at the health sherpa site that shows what obamacare offers in my area, and deductibles on anything but near gold plans is over $3K?!?!?
I got a technically silver PPO plan (effectively gold if I stay in network with Blue Cross) that is compatible with an HSA. (HSAs are great) Cost to me is about $300/month and I get no subsidy. $4800 out of pocket max and $3K deductible. Everyone worries about the deductible but that isn't the important bit. The important bit is the out of pocket max. Health insurance isn't supposed to be to pay for your regular checkup. It's to keep you from going bankrupt if something serious happens.
I would end up on many plans paying about $3K a year in premiums AND $3K+ in deductibles before I started having any insurance kick in. WFT?
That's what an HSA is for. You put in $3K pretax and use that to pay the deductibles. Any plan compatible with an HSA has a minimum deductible of $1250/year. Only "high deductible" health insurance plans are compatible with HSAs.
Sadly, I think we're stuck with obamacare, and it won't be repealed, but it needs to seriously be altered
Sadly? I disagree. I think changes will (and should) be made in due time, but the basic goals it accomplishes are good ones. It removes the tie between employment and health insurance, it eliminates the pre-existing conditions problem and it prevents insurance companies from dropping you when you get sick. We can debate the details of how to deliver those things but the fact that they are possible now is a Good Thing.
I think we're good with disallowing the pre-existing conditions, but aside from that, I can't see much that helps me or most people at my level of IT income or stage of life that is good about ACA as it currently stands...
You are missing the other really important bit, namely that your insurance is no longer tied to your employer. No one should lose health insurance simply because they lost their job.
The cost of individual health care plans was insane, and the crappy ACA plans provide worse coverage with fewer providers - and they're even more expensive!
I have exactly the opposite experience. I got a better plan for roughly the same cost and I had numerous to choose from. I also was able to get a Health Savings Account which is a great deal if you are eligible for one. My out of pocket maximum is around $4800 per year which I can easily manage if I have to. Most importantly my ability to get and keep health insurance is no longer tied to a specific employer which is LONG overdue. It should never be the case that losing your job should cause you to lose your health insurance. That's just morally wrong.
I really think what the feds are up to here is trying to kill off as many individual and small business operators as possible.
I run a small business (a manufacturing company) and the Affordable Care Act has been hugely helpful to us. Our employees were able to get similar coverage to what they had with our company plan, usually for less money out of pocket. Plus the company did not have to pick up any of the cost which saves our company roughly $10,000 per year. Basically we were paying roughly $550 per employee per month and the company picked up half the cost for an HMO. Now our employees are paying between $130-250/month out of pocket and the company doesn't have any of the cost.
Now, if we were talking about an investment of some kind where I stood to both gain and lose, then a court would treat it as such.
In all likelihood that is what we have here. People who stashed their bitcoins there take the risk of them going up or down like a stock. Best case they might be eligible to receive the current market value of what is stored there (basically be "made whole") and worst case the court might consider the bitcoins to be worthless. I think the former is more likely but I could see either happening. Hard to predict here especially since there are a lot of facts still unknown.
Bottom line is that you can't use legal arguments to claim that a contract should be construed in a one-sided way.
Agreed and I'm certainly not arguing that. However contracts do not have to be particularly fair to be enforceable. You are allowed to make a bad deal, there just has to be some form of consideration but in many cases it doesn't have to be equitable as long as both parties agreed to it without duress. Actually the more likely legal argument here is promissory estoppel. Promises were made that were relied upon by those who stored their bitcoins.
Bitcoins may have no legal value, but wouldn't Gox remain on the hook for the dollar-denominated balances in their care?
Not necessarily. Depends on the nature of the custodial agreement and how the accounting was handled. Local laws play a role too. Remember that we we aren't talking about a regulated bank here so the usual rules regarding currency and banking don't necessarily apply.
And the bitcoins have a legal value, they just aren't considered currency by Japan. Big difference. They're still an asset, just legally speaking they are a different kind of asset. It's a distinction that in the end probably doesn't matter all that much.
I'm curious what happens when you drive into another country. For instance I drive from the US to Canada about once a year. Would I receive some obscene roaming data charges just for driving into another country? I have to turn off my cell phone data in Canada to avoid sticker shock on my next bill. Don't really want to have to do that for my car too.
Presuming that what you think a word should mean is what it actually means is arrogant. Words mean what people use them for, not what some ivory tower professionals think they should mean. The truth is that the word doesn't mean someone who tinkers with stuff. It means someone who breaks into computer systems. The fact that a word used to have a different meaning with a teeny-tiny sub-culture is irrelevant to what it means now. Furthermore even among computer geeks, most of them use the term to refer to someone who breaks into computer systems.
Next time you want to make a racially pejorative term, you might pick one that isn't already used to describe people who break into safes.
Nice strawman. Perhaps you are unaware that it is common that words can have multiple meanings and the fact that one of them is polite doesn't mean the others are. Get over it. The battle over the meaning of the word hacker to the population at large has been lost. You are NEVER going to change that fact. Let it go.
Cut it out with all this PC bullshit.
What "PC bullshit"? It IS a derogatory term and has been since LONG before any nerds got their panties in a bunch over the "misuse" of the term hacker.
So you would stand idly by and allow misinformation by a group who clearly and chronically has absolutely no grasp of the field they are discussing ruin your language?
It's not my language. I didn't invent it. I don't own it. I also am not so arrogant as to think other people are stupid and do not grasp the meaning of the word. And even if I have an opinion about it my opinion doesn't mean much. The word hacker, for better or worse, now means someone who breaks into computer systems. Intent doesn't play into it although usually the term isn't used with positive connotations. You may not like this but that is the way it is. Get used to it. That battle was lost a LONG time ago.
Humans have been turning desert into agricultural land via irrigation since the time of the Mesopotamians.
That doesn't make it a good idea. A little is fine but we've gone WAY past just a little. Just because we can do it doesn't mean we should.
Most of California is too dry to maintain agriculture and cities without irrigation.
Which offends me less than the existence of cities like Las Vegas and Phoenix. Why on earth anyone would think the middle of a desert is a good place to build a major metropolitan area eludes me. That said, if its too dry then perhaps it might be worth being careful what quantity of crops you plant there as well as the amount of water they need.
Which was working well until the government decided to dump massive amounts of water to protect a bait fish.
The fact that this was a problem almost certainly means they were diverting too much water to begin with.
You don't get to supplant the definition of a word because you want to embrace it's favorable connotations while rejecting the negatives: I'm assuming you're referring to hacker vs. cracker.
Note to those who do want to replace hacker with cracker. You might pick a replacement word that isn't a racial pejorative next time.
The person bypassing the lock on his own car and then reporting the issue to the car manufacturer is a "hacker".
That is NOT how the term hacker is used by most of the population and I suspect you know that. "Hackers" are not considered good guys. Someone breaks into a computer (or car in your analogy) that is not their own? Hacker. A hacker *might* do what you describe but most are (or at least appear to be) engaged in considerably less honorable activities.
I giggle every time nerd gets in a huff and tries to self righteously insist the word hacker is for the good guys and cracker (which is also a racial pejorative for white people) is the term for bad guys. When I was in college I had a black roommate that used the term cracker in that context to me (I'm white) in front of another black roommate. You should have seen the look on the other guy's face.
...despite the picture you paint of a horrible dystopia, things were just fine.
It wasn't a "horrible dystopia". It was just an earlier time with more primitive technology which I have no desire to return to for a very slight improvement in the quality of voice calls. (which BTW I can still get if I use a POTS line) I rarely have any meaningful difficulty understanding the person on the other end of the line now and I can communicate a lot of other ways besides.
We managed to communicate with each other...
Far less efficiently than we do today. Sure we managed but it is easy to forget how limiting it was. Try it sometime. Turn off your cell phone and only communicate with a landline phone from your house. No internet, no text, no voicemail. If you don't come screaming back to the 21st century you are either on vacation or you are a luddite.:-)
And if you didn't make long-distance or out-of-country calls (because you didn't need to very often), you didn't have to pay those costs, so your monthly bill was quite small.
People didn't make those calls because it was too expensive to make them. It is a chicken and egg problem. You don't make the calls because it is too expensive and it doesn't get cheaper because you aren't making the calls. Furthermore all telecommunications were controlled by a single monopoly with very limited incentive to make things cheaper or better for customers. AT&T kept the long distance business after the breakup because that was where the money was at the time. The explosion in telecommunication services available mostly came after the breakup of AT&T. While it's hardly a utopia, I certainly get a lot more per dollar than I did 40 years ago.
I pay a monthly fee that's ten times that of the bad old days for services I need only occasionally, if at all, because I'm given no other choice.
"Ten times"? "No other choice"? Nonsense. First off I'm certain you are not accounting for inflation. $1 in 1975 is equivalent in purchasing power to $4.35 in 2014. Second, if you are going to compare, compare the cost of voice service only. You can get voice service on a cell phone for as little as $10/month in some places which is equivalent to $2.30 in 1975 once you account for inflation. If you tell me your phone bill was $2.30 in 1975 for nationwide calling I'm going to call you a liar.
We're in an American economy where Congress forces our workers to compete with the Chinese government on wages.
Congress has nothing to do with it. You are going to compete with people from around the globe no matter what Congress does. You are going to compete whether you like it or not. Labor and capital will seek where costs are lowest and national borders plays little role in that. The economy does not stop at our border no matter how much some might wish it did. Furthermore China has 5 people for every 1 in the US. Exactly how do you think the US is going to compete with China without encouraging immigration? When China has a 5:1 ratio of people then China has a larger the talent pool to draw from. It's not as if Americans are smarter. Want to compete globally in the next 100 years? Better be welcoming immigrants with open arms because you'll need them.
You think widespread contempt for the law is a good thing? It is illegal today to hire undocumented workers. Has been for decades.
If the law is pointless, unjust and/or hurts the economy then yes it is a good thing that we ignore the law. We've had lots of laws that weren't worthy of respect. I don't give a crap which side of a line of a map someone was born on. They're just people, same as you and me. If they want to come to my country to work, pay taxes and don't cause trouble then let them come. I do not support wasting tax dollars to keep people on the other side of an artificial barrier unless the represent a threat to my physical safety. If more people are coming than the law permits then it's probably worth wondering why and figuring out a way to let them come here legally. Most work hard, pay taxes and don't cause trouble. I'm not worried about the fact that immigrants want to come here. That means there is opportunity here. What worries me is if someday they stop wanting to come here. That means the opportunity has gone away.
And within a generation, they were: 1. English speakers 2. Citizens 3. Attending college 4. Award winning journalists 5. Military officers
Congrats. So what exactly is your problem with welcoming immigrants?
And you think it's not about race for the immigrants too? Let me guess, you've never lived anywhere near an immigrant neighborhood, have you?
Nice strawman. We live in a nation of immigrants. Almost nobody in North or South America can trace their ancestry back more than a few generations before they hit an immigrant. Over 38 Million first generation immigrants are in the US. As far as I'm concerned they have every much right to be here as I do. Immigrant ghettos at you pointed out tend not to last very long for the most part.
Slashdot Mirror
I always thought that the epoch on a computer should be measured from something like March 14, 1592 @ 6:53:59am (3.14159265359)
Or January 6, 1803 @ 3:9:8am (golden ratio)
Or Feb 7, 1828 @ 1:8:28am (e)
etc
I've lost jobs, but never lost insurance. I'd pay COBRA till I either :
COBRA is only available for a limited time (generally 18 months - longer in some special cases), is very expensive especially for someone who's only income is unemployment, and frequently is unaffordable to poor people, and if you worked for a small company (There has always been a way to get insurance that wasn't tied to a job.
Not true for many people. Remember the pre-existing condition clause made it impossible for some and buying insurance on your own generally meant a very costly plan for individuals unless you were young, healthy and had a high deductible. Plus if you were poor, there simply was no plan cheap enough (no subsidies) to buy even if you could find a plan.
I'm all for what bitcoin is trying to achieve.
Bitcoin is a currency. It cannot try to achieve anything. As for the people behind bitcoin, it's extremely unclear what they are trying to achieve and not all of the possibilities are harmless. I can very easily make an argument that bitcoin looks like merely the latest version of a pump-and-dump scheme. The exchanges look a lot like pyramid schemes. Most of the arguments supporting bitcoin show a shocking lack of understanding of economics and how and why currencies actually work. I see a lot of credulous arguments in support of bitcoin that make me worry that many of the supporters are FAR too trusting and will be taken advantage of.
I do not see why there are still people out there who keep saying Bitcoin is a good investment
For those at the top of the pyramid scheme it probably is. For everyone else? Yeah, not so much. Bitcoin has all the hallmarks of a pump and dump scheme. Thinly traded asset of dubious future value? Check. Marketing campaign to recruit investors? Check. Early large purchases at discounted rate? Check. Absurdly fast rise in "value"? Check. Early investors selling out or disappearing and leaving the new investors holding the bag? Check.
Unregulated bitcoin exchanges are basically pyramid schemes waiting to happen. The bitcoin currency itself looks shockingly like a pump and dump scheme and should be treated as radioactive (i.e. very carefully) until proven otherwise.
Any of those savings (which could be considered part of an employees salary) get passed on to the employee?
Any of those savings (which could be considered part of an employees salary) get passed on to the employee?
We were able to give raises we couldn't before. The company kept some of the savings and some of it got passed on.
The challenge is that we offered health coverage to everyone but not everyone took it. That was their choice to forego the insurance. It's unfair (and can create legal problems) to give raises only to those who took insurance through our company when others are doing the same job just as well. Any time you have two people doing the same job you have to have a justification if you are going to pay them differently based on responsibilities or performance. We also offer an IRA with an employer match but not everyone chooses to participate. We don't give raises to those who don't participate.
Why would anyone think the Government could run healthcare?
Let's see, maybe because they already do through Medicare and other programs. Maybe because governments around the world do a highly competent job of it for better outcomes and lower cost than we incur in the US. Maybe because reflexively assuming governments are incapable of doing anything well is demonstrably false. Maybe because health insurance is a marketplace that is used by everyone and CANNOT be operated effectively or humanely without government involvement.
Is there any sign of competence or efficiency in Medicare, Medicade, or the VA?
Quite a bit actually. Not saying they don't have their flaws (they do) but they are hardly the debacles you seem to be implying.
There is not one single thing that the Government of the US has ever done more efficiently than the private sector.
What a bunch of crap. There are plenty of things the private sector does an absolutely crap job of. Policing, firefighting, military, infrastructure, medical care for at risk groups (elderly and poor especially), basic research, the judiciary, banking regulation, environmental protection, and quite a bit more. Any time you have a situation where market forces do not work well, the private sector is demonstrably unable to deal with the problem. I'm all for doing as much with the private sector as we can but the argument that the private sector is always better is absurd, wrong and frankly damaging to our society.
And the policies of the current administration are a LARGE reason we're losing small business in the US.
And your evidence for this is what exactly? Small businesses are alive and well. I run one myself and I work with entrepreneurs daily. Every piece of evidence I've seen contradicts your argument. Please back up this blanket assertion with some actual facts.
We almost seem to be actively trying to make it impossible for US small businesses to succeed with ACA and too many regulations and endless paperwork and taxation.
The ACA HELPS small business. My company was able to get health insurance through the ACA for our employees and cut expenses while doing so. Our employees generally pay less than before, the company's saves $10K/year on the cost of insurance and none of our employees will lose their coverage if they lose their job. Explain to me the downside here.
The Feds will pay for the Medicaid expansion for the FIRST THREE YEARS. After that, the State is on the hook to cover it.
Terrific, so what? Medicare is funded by the states now. The only difference is the size of the program. Furthermore do you think the cost for those people who don't have coverage magically disappears just because they don't have insurance? It gets paid for one way or another and you can either do it directly through a formal program or you can do it indirectly through higher insurance rates and hospital bills for everyone else. Either way you are going to pay for it.
Which is why cost is an issue, since the States are generally in the same shape as the Feds in regards to budgets - not enough money, too many obligations.
Then, gasp, raise taxes. I know, that gives republicans hives because they think taxes are the root of all evil. Let's be frank though. This has NOTHING to do with the cost. This is ALL about politics since all the resistance is coming from republicans who care more about getting re-elected than about providing poor people health coverage. The cost doesn't go away just because they aren't willing to fund it through Medicaid. If they were proposing some alternative way to get poor people health insurance then I might give some credibility to the argument that they are trying to be responsible but that simply isn't happening.
Compare that to an area where schools have someone on staff who can prescribe pills, or doctors will insist you consider it...
No school I am aware of in the US (and I work part time in a school) has anyone who would be permitted to even give out a vitamin pill much less prescribe anything. The liability alone prohibits it. The ONLY thing a school nurse or trainer is generally allowed to do is either give a bag of ice, give out a bandaid for minor cuts or send the child home to get medical care from a licensed doctor. They are NEVER allowed to prescribe, give out or even recommend any sort of medication.
And as for the Rep. govenors that refused the Medicaid expansion, they did the cost analysis.
I call bullshit on it having anything to do with a cost analysis. This was ALL about politics. This is simply republicans dragging their heels at the expense of a bunch of poor people for political grandstanding. I live in a state with a Republican governor and a republican majority legislature and they passed the medicaid expansion because it makes financial sense. The terms of the deal are quite clear and the cost of providing medical care to those poor people isn't going to go away whether or not the medicare expansion gets passed.
Some governors plan long term and not just short term.
Then you would expect to see states led by democrats doing the same thing. The fact that all the refusals are coming from the opposition party tells you everything you need to know about this issue.
I'm looking to go that route again, but man...I looked at the health sherpa site that shows what obamacare offers in my area, and deductibles on anything but near gold plans is over $3K?!?!?
I got a technically silver PPO plan (effectively gold if I stay in network with Blue Cross) that is compatible with an HSA. (HSAs are great) Cost to me is about $300/month and I get no subsidy. $4800 out of pocket max and $3K deductible. Everyone worries about the deductible but that isn't the important bit. The important bit is the out of pocket max. Health insurance isn't supposed to be to pay for your regular checkup. It's to keep you from going bankrupt if something serious happens.
I would end up on many plans paying about $3K a year in premiums AND $3K+ in deductibles before I started having any insurance kick in. WFT?
That's what an HSA is for. You put in $3K pretax and use that to pay the deductibles. Any plan compatible with an HSA has a minimum deductible of $1250/year. Only "high deductible" health insurance plans are compatible with HSAs.
Sadly, I think we're stuck with obamacare, and it won't be repealed, but it needs to seriously be altered
Sadly? I disagree. I think changes will (and should) be made in due time, but the basic goals it accomplishes are good ones. It removes the tie between employment and health insurance, it eliminates the pre-existing conditions problem and it prevents insurance companies from dropping you when you get sick. We can debate the details of how to deliver those things but the fact that they are possible now is a Good Thing.
I think we're good with disallowing the pre-existing conditions, but aside from that, I can't see much that helps me or most people at my level of IT income or stage of life that is good about ACA as it currently stands...
You are missing the other really important bit, namely that your insurance is no longer tied to your employer. No one should lose health insurance simply because they lost their job.
The cost of individual health care plans was insane, and the crappy ACA plans provide worse coverage with fewer providers - and they're even more expensive!
I have exactly the opposite experience. I got a better plan for roughly the same cost and I had numerous to choose from. I also was able to get a Health Savings Account which is a great deal if you are eligible for one. My out of pocket maximum is around $4800 per year which I can easily manage if I have to. Most importantly my ability to get and keep health insurance is no longer tied to a specific employer which is LONG overdue. It should never be the case that losing your job should cause you to lose your health insurance. That's just morally wrong.
I really think what the feds are up to here is trying to kill off as many individual and small business operators as possible.
I run a small business (a manufacturing company) and the Affordable Care Act has been hugely helpful to us. Our employees were able to get similar coverage to what they had with our company plan, usually for less money out of pocket. Plus the company did not have to pick up any of the cost which saves our company roughly $10,000 per year. Basically we were paying roughly $550 per employee per month and the company picked up half the cost for an HMO. Now our employees are paying between $130-250/month out of pocket and the company doesn't have any of the cost.
Now, if we were talking about an investment of some kind where I stood to both gain and lose, then a court would treat it as such.
In all likelihood that is what we have here. People who stashed their bitcoins there take the risk of them going up or down like a stock. Best case they might be eligible to receive the current market value of what is stored there (basically be "made whole") and worst case the court might consider the bitcoins to be worthless. I think the former is more likely but I could see either happening. Hard to predict here especially since there are a lot of facts still unknown.
Bottom line is that you can't use legal arguments to claim that a contract should be construed in a one-sided way.
Agreed and I'm certainly not arguing that. However contracts do not have to be particularly fair to be enforceable. You are allowed to make a bad deal, there just has to be some form of consideration but in many cases it doesn't have to be equitable as long as both parties agreed to it without duress. Actually the more likely legal argument here is promissory estoppel. Promises were made that were relied upon by those who stored their bitcoins.
Bitcoins may have no legal value, but wouldn't Gox remain on the hook for the dollar-denominated balances in their care?
Not necessarily. Depends on the nature of the custodial agreement and how the accounting was handled. Local laws play a role too. Remember that we we aren't talking about a regulated bank here so the usual rules regarding currency and banking don't necessarily apply.
And the bitcoins have a legal value, they just aren't considered currency by Japan. Big difference. They're still an asset, just legally speaking they are a different kind of asset. It's a distinction that in the end probably doesn't matter all that much.
I'm curious what happens when you drive into another country. For instance I drive from the US to Canada about once a year. Would I receive some obscene roaming data charges just for driving into another country? I have to turn off my cell phone data in Canada to avoid sticker shock on my next bill. Don't really want to have to do that for my car too.
But I guess if I had the money for a new Audi, I wouldn't care about 99$ a month for a overpriced broadband service.
It's $99 for 6 months which translates to $16.50/month.
Acknowledging the truth is arrogant?
Presuming that what you think a word should mean is what it actually means is arrogant. Words mean what people use them for, not what some ivory tower professionals think they should mean. The truth is that the word doesn't mean someone who tinkers with stuff. It means someone who breaks into computer systems. The fact that a word used to have a different meaning with a teeny-tiny sub-culture is irrelevant to what it means now. Furthermore even among computer geeks, most of them use the term to refer to someone who breaks into computer systems.
Pick your battles. Let it go.
Next time you want to make a racially pejorative term, you might pick one that isn't already used to describe people who break into safes.
Nice strawman. Perhaps you are unaware that it is common that words can have multiple meanings and the fact that one of them is polite doesn't mean the others are. Get over it. The battle over the meaning of the word hacker to the population at large has been lost. You are NEVER going to change that fact. Let it go.
Cut it out with all this PC bullshit.
What "PC bullshit"? It IS a derogatory term and has been since LONG before any nerds got their panties in a bunch over the "misuse" of the term hacker.
So you would stand idly by and allow misinformation by a group who clearly and chronically has absolutely no grasp of the field they are discussing ruin your language?
It's not my language. I didn't invent it. I don't own it. I also am not so arrogant as to think other people are stupid and do not grasp the meaning of the word. And even if I have an opinion about it my opinion doesn't mean much. The word hacker, for better or worse, now means someone who breaks into computer systems. Intent doesn't play into it although usually the term isn't used with positive connotations. You may not like this but that is the way it is. Get used to it. That battle was lost a LONG time ago.
Humans have been turning desert into agricultural land via irrigation since the time of the Mesopotamians.
That doesn't make it a good idea. A little is fine but we've gone WAY past just a little. Just because we can do it doesn't mean we should.
Most of California is too dry to maintain agriculture and cities without irrigation.
Which offends me less than the existence of cities like Las Vegas and Phoenix. Why on earth anyone would think the middle of a desert is a good place to build a major metropolitan area eludes me. That said, if its too dry then perhaps it might be worth being careful what quantity of crops you plant there as well as the amount of water they need.
Which was working well until the government decided to dump massive amounts of water to protect a bait fish.
The fact that this was a problem almost certainly means they were diverting too much water to begin with.
Obligatory XKCD.
You don't get to supplant the definition of a word because you want to embrace it's favorable connotations while rejecting the negatives: I'm assuming you're referring to hacker vs. cracker.
Note to those who do want to replace hacker with cracker. You might pick a replacement word that isn't a racial pejorative next time.
The person bypassing the lock on his own car and then reporting the issue to the car manufacturer is a "hacker".
That is NOT how the term hacker is used by most of the population and I suspect you know that. "Hackers" are not considered good guys. Someone breaks into a computer (or car in your analogy) that is not their own? Hacker. A hacker *might* do what you describe but most are (or at least appear to be) engaged in considerably less honorable activities.
I giggle every time nerd gets in a huff and tries to self righteously insist the word hacker is for the good guys and cracker (which is also a racial pejorative for white people) is the term for bad guys. When I was in college I had a black roommate that used the term cracker in that context to me (I'm white) in front of another black roommate. You should have seen the look on the other guy's face.
...despite the picture you paint of a horrible dystopia, things were just fine.
It wasn't a "horrible dystopia". It was just an earlier time with more primitive technology which I have no desire to return to for a very slight improvement in the quality of voice calls. (which BTW I can still get if I use a POTS line) I rarely have any meaningful difficulty understanding the person on the other end of the line now and I can communicate a lot of other ways besides.
We managed to communicate with each other...
Far less efficiently than we do today. Sure we managed but it is easy to forget how limiting it was. Try it sometime. Turn off your cell phone and only communicate with a landline phone from your house. No internet, no text, no voicemail. If you don't come screaming back to the 21st century you are either on vacation or you are a luddite. :-)
And if you didn't make long-distance or out-of-country calls (because you didn't need to very often), you didn't have to pay those costs, so your monthly bill was quite small.
People didn't make those calls because it was too expensive to make them. It is a chicken and egg problem. You don't make the calls because it is too expensive and it doesn't get cheaper because you aren't making the calls. Furthermore all telecommunications were controlled by a single monopoly with very limited incentive to make things cheaper or better for customers. AT&T kept the long distance business after the breakup because that was where the money was at the time. The explosion in telecommunication services available mostly came after the breakup of AT&T. While it's hardly a utopia, I certainly get a lot more per dollar than I did 40 years ago.
I pay a monthly fee that's ten times that of the bad old days for services I need only occasionally, if at all, because I'm given no other choice.
"Ten times"? "No other choice"? Nonsense. First off I'm certain you are not accounting for inflation. $1 in 1975 is equivalent in purchasing power to $4.35 in 2014. Second, if you are going to compare, compare the cost of voice service only. You can get voice service on a cell phone for as little as $10/month in some places which is equivalent to $2.30 in 1975 once you account for inflation. If you tell me your phone bill was $2.30 in 1975 for nationwide calling I'm going to call you a liar.
We're in an American economy where Congress forces our workers to compete with the Chinese government on wages.
Congress has nothing to do with it. You are going to compete with people from around the globe no matter what Congress does. You are going to compete whether you like it or not. Labor and capital will seek where costs are lowest and national borders plays little role in that. The economy does not stop at our border no matter how much some might wish it did. Furthermore China has 5 people for every 1 in the US. Exactly how do you think the US is going to compete with China without encouraging immigration? When China has a 5:1 ratio of people then China has a larger the talent pool to draw from. It's not as if Americans are smarter. Want to compete globally in the next 100 years? Better be welcoming immigrants with open arms because you'll need them.
You think widespread contempt for the law is a good thing? It is illegal today to hire undocumented workers. Has been for decades.
If the law is pointless, unjust and/or hurts the economy then yes it is a good thing that we ignore the law. We've had lots of laws that weren't worthy of respect. I don't give a crap which side of a line of a map someone was born on. They're just people, same as you and me. If they want to come to my country to work, pay taxes and don't cause trouble then let them come. I do not support wasting tax dollars to keep people on the other side of an artificial barrier unless the represent a threat to my physical safety. If more people are coming than the law permits then it's probably worth wondering why and figuring out a way to let them come here legally. Most work hard, pay taxes and don't cause trouble. I'm not worried about the fact that immigrants want to come here. That means there is opportunity here. What worries me is if someday they stop wanting to come here. That means the opportunity has gone away.
And within a generation, they were: 1. English speakers 2. Citizens 3. Attending college 4. Award winning journalists 5. Military officers
Congrats. So what exactly is your problem with welcoming immigrants?
And you think it's not about race for the immigrants too? Let me guess, you've never lived anywhere near an immigrant neighborhood, have you?
Nice strawman. We live in a nation of immigrants. Almost nobody in North or South America can trace their ancestry back more than a few generations before they hit an immigrant. Over 38 Million first generation immigrants are in the US. As far as I'm concerned they have every much right to be here as I do. Immigrant ghettos at you pointed out tend not to last very long for the most part.