I'm not sure how this is 'interesting' or 'insightful'. You can currently choose whichever insurer you want, and you can choose based on what they cover. You can also purchase supplemental insurance if, for some reason, you feel you're trapped into a particular plan by your employer.
The only thing you can't do is pick after you already need the treatment... But then if you could do that it wouldn't be 'insurance', now would it?
If you can't afford anything at all right now, I don't know how you think you're suddenly going to be able to afford it when the government is taking your money to pay for it for you...
The current 'plan' is the 'Public Option'. A public health insurance plan that you can choose over the private ones. Once it exists, it will be possible to legally mandate the purchase of health insurance. It will only be a matter of time before the private insurers go out of business because they can't be profitable competing with the "Public Option". From there it's only a matter of time before they tell you that a wheelchair is a viable alternative to a hip replacement (walking is optional), or that they won't pay for a particular cancer drug because it merely improves your quality of life rather than make you live longer.
So it differs from the current system, where you're insured to the level you're comfortable with. Instead you'll have a system where decisions about your health are made in context of the general population rather than in the context of you as an individual.
If you don't like what your insurance company deems you eligible for, you can switch to another plan, or another provider. Even if you're in a situation where you can't, the competition pressures insurance companies to be more open to covering things.
Also, private insurers may have a profit motive for deciding what to cover, but typically no political motive...
Most importantly, and staying in the context of this discussion, you can decide to withhold your medical history from a doctor to get a fresh opinion. When your 'insurer' is the government, they can and will make it illegal to do that.
We're moving towards government provided health care. You won't get to decide what treatments you are eligible for anymore... At least not unless you're paying cash.
Did you know that the government spending that has the highest multiplier effect is an extension on unemployment benefits, at 1.83?
You're limiting yourself to "government spending". I'm not sure where you got your factors (a google search returned only your comment). I don't doubt that unemployment benefits have the highest factor for government spending, but it doesn't follow that private investment wouldn't be higher still.
Due to the way the banking system works, the invested dollar will be spent several times (and counted as a whole dollar each time). It will be deposited, loaned out, re-deposited, re-loaned, invested in something or other, re-deposited, (repeat numerous times), and ultimately spent (probably as somebody's salary).
As aid to a lower-income person, it will be spent once, probably on goods made in another country.
It's all moot anyway. We make decisions based on a plurality of votes, and we have a plurality of people who are on the receiving end of progressive taxation.
Scientists don't get funding from their peers. Admitting your wrong in certain scientific fields is practically begging to never get grant money again.
otoh, if you got a 'bad' batt, the worst case is that you drive with it until you swap again.
The worst case is that it falsely reports much greater capacity than it has, and you get stuck with no power a couple miles away from the swapping station.
That was before there were deadly explosives (side impact air bags) placed around the widows of vehicles. Sure, they save an adult from a side-impact, but they kill your baby in a car seat.
You can't safely/legally (in some states) fit as many children in a car as you used to be able to. Even you you buy the same size car your parents/grandparents had.
Also, our elected officials complain about them all the time. It usually results in fucking-over the people who already got government-subsidized loans by reducing the interest rate subsidies and applying them to new loans.
Actually, they wouldn't. The Model S seats 7, believe it or not. The electric drive train provides more space for storage. There is room for cargo under the hood (bonnet) because that space isn't needed for an engine.
Yeah, and my wife's Mini-S seats five.
Also, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.
Seriously though. How many car seats can you put in it in the legally mandated location? In many states, I'd wager the answer is "one". Thus a family with young children will need a mini-van.
There is a reason. They can sell them for a profit. For Amazon to make a change that will reduce their profits, they need to justify it or they are violating the law.
Which law? Seriously. Are you under some misguided impression that publicly traded businesses are legally bound to operate solely under profit motive?
And even if they were, they are under the impression that this change is in the best interests of their own profitability barring this "boycott" (which will fail for the same reason ~99% of other such boycotts fail). Any implication that somebody doing this for some implied imposition of morality doesn't have much to stand on in terms of evidence.
So far, for all definitions of censorship, my statements stand. But for that one, it requires that you define what you think censorship is to respond accurately.
Amazon's search results are generated by Amazon. You have to have a really loose definition of censorship to consider tailoring their own output to what they think their customers want as "censorship". At most they're self-censoring. To say they are censoring the authors somehow is a real stretch.
That's usually because some hot-shot web programmer decided they knew better about how to validate e-mail addresses than authors of existing validators.
I've modified my exim config to allow [.-+] as the delimiter between the account, and the identifier. I try '+' first, then '-', and finally '.' for the most broken sites. Too many exchange environments are configured for first.last@somecompany.com for sites to disallow the dot.
If I start getting spam, I know exactly who sold my address, can easily filter all mail to that address directly into the trash, and contact the company in question to tell them why I'll never do business with them again, ever.
I've actually been surprised how few companies have shopped my address around. Bank of America was the worst offender, and I no longer bank there because of it.
It's not censorship in exactly the same way as an adult bookstore not carrying the "Left Behind" series of books isn't censorship.
A vendor catering their search results to the bulk of their customers isn't censorship. There is no reason that Amazon ever needed to carry these books in the first place, much less continue to sell them. And if they stopped, even that wouldn't be censorship.
"You know, Jim, I use Bill's gas station instead of yours because he sells "Big Booties" and "Choking on Cock" behind the counter. Even though I never buy them, I respect him for that."
Are you forcing him to start selling the magazines, or are you letting him know that you're totally full of shit and just like protesting stuff?
Actually, you may not be "within your rights". Look up 'libel'.
Through the "telephone game" we call the internet, it took exactly one hop for this to be called censorship. It's not censorship. Writing that Amazon censored an author and that people should boycott Amazon because said censorship may be libel.
Ok, sure. It shouldn't be immune to criticism, but to call it censorship is a lie.
censorship
n 1: counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any
information of value to the enemy [syn: {censoring},
{censorship}, {security review}]
2: deleting parts of publications or correspondence or
theatrical performances [syn: {censoring}, {censorship}]
They didn't delete anything. They catered to their primary audience by moving things they may find offensive to another area.
On the other hand, the author who is calling for boycotts is a charlatan for attempting to trick hot-headed, small-minded "do-gooders" into retaliating against Amazon by convincing them that this mythical "censorship" happened.
So yeah, it's legal. Not a good reason to tell people to drop it. But it's also moronic to bitch about this, and that's a really good reason to tell people to drop it. But feel free. Be a sheep. Boycott Amazon because the tags in the story summary told you this was censorship, even though it isn't. 'cause censorship is bad, right?
For purposes of the Promotion, the downloading of the 1 billionth app is considered to be either the downloading of the 1 billionth app from iTunes or the receipt of the non-purchase entry after the download of the 999,999,999th app, whichever comes first. Only entries submitted in this time period will be accepted. Sponsorâ(TM)s computer is the official time keeping device for this promotion.
The headline is fine the way it is. Seems like it only comes down to a random draw if there are simultaneous 'entries' just after the 999,999,999th entry. Entries outside of that window are invalid.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure how this is 'interesting' or 'insightful'. You can currently choose whichever insurer you want, and you can choose based on what they cover. You can also purchase supplemental insurance if, for some reason, you feel you're trapped into a particular plan by your employer.
The only thing you can't do is pick after you already need the treatment... But then if you could do that it wouldn't be 'insurance', now would it?
If you can't afford anything at all right now, I don't know how you think you're suddenly going to be able to afford it when the government is taking your money to pay for it for you...
The current 'plan' is the 'Public Option'. A public health insurance plan that you can choose over the private ones. Once it exists, it will be possible to legally mandate the purchase of health insurance. It will only be a matter of time before the private insurers go out of business because they can't be profitable competing with the "Public Option". From there it's only a matter of time before they tell you that a wheelchair is a viable alternative to a hip replacement (walking is optional), or that they won't pay for a particular cancer drug because it merely improves your quality of life rather than make you live longer.
So it differs from the current system, where you're insured to the level you're comfortable with. Instead you'll have a system where decisions about your health are made in context of the general population rather than in the context of you as an individual.
If you don't like what your insurance company deems you eligible for, you can switch to another plan, or another provider. Even if you're in a situation where you can't, the competition pressures insurance companies to be more open to covering things.
Also, private insurers may have a profit motive for deciding what to cover, but typically no political motive...
Most importantly, and staying in the context of this discussion, you can decide to withhold your medical history from a doctor to get a fresh opinion. When your 'insurer' is the government, they can and will make it illegal to do that.
We're moving towards government provided health care. You won't get to decide what treatments you are eligible for anymore... At least not unless you're paying cash.
Did you know that the government spending that has the highest multiplier effect is an extension on unemployment benefits, at 1.83?
You're limiting yourself to "government spending". I'm not sure where you got your factors (a google search returned only your comment). I don't doubt that unemployment benefits have the highest factor for government spending, but it doesn't follow that private investment wouldn't be higher still.
Due to the way the banking system works, the invested dollar will be spent several times (and counted as a whole dollar each time). It will be deposited, loaned out, re-deposited, re-loaned, invested in something or other, re-deposited, (repeat numerous times), and ultimately spent (probably as somebody's salary).
As aid to a lower-income person, it will be spent once, probably on goods made in another country.
It's all moot anyway. We make decisions based on a plurality of votes, and we have a plurality of people who are on the receiving end of progressive taxation.
Clearly people disapprove of other district's congress-people.
Scientists don't get funding from their peers. Admitting your wrong in certain scientific fields is practically begging to never get grant money again.
otoh, if you got a 'bad' batt, the worst case is that you drive with it until you swap again.
The worst case is that it falsely reports much greater capacity than it has, and you get stuck with no power a couple miles away from the swapping station.
Yup. Cat5 and Cat5e aren't rated for gigabit... But most people are using shorter runs, and many cables are better than their rating.
It's not like your switch is going to explode when you plug Cat5 into it and jack the speed up. Try it. It might work fine for your application.
s/ego/reputation/g
...ideology meets reality.
That was before there were deadly explosives (side impact air bags) placed around the widows of vehicles. Sure, they save an adult from a side-impact, but they kill your baby in a car seat.
You can't safely/legally (in some states) fit as many children in a car as you used to be able to. Even you you buy the same size car your parents/grandparents had.
Also, our elected officials complain about them all the time. It usually results in fucking-over the people who already got government-subsidized loans by reducing the interest rate subsidies and applying them to new loans.
Actually, they wouldn't. The Model S seats 7, believe it or not. The electric drive train provides more space for storage. There is room for cargo under the hood (bonnet) because that space isn't needed for an engine.
Yeah, and my wife's Mini-S seats five.
Also, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.
Seriously though. How many car seats can you put in it in the legally mandated location? In many states, I'd wager the answer is "one". Thus a family with young children will need a mini-van.
We waste a lot of gasoline in the name of safety.
There is a reason. They can sell them for a profit. For Amazon to make a change that will reduce their profits, they need to justify it or they are violating the law.
Which law? Seriously. Are you under some misguided impression that publicly traded businesses are legally bound to operate solely under profit motive?
And even if they were, they are under the impression that this change is in the best interests of their own profitability barring this "boycott" (which will fail for the same reason ~99% of other such boycotts fail). Any implication that somebody doing this for some implied imposition of morality doesn't have much to stand on in terms of evidence.
Amazon's search results are generated by Amazon. You have to have a really loose definition of censorship to consider tailoring their own output to what they think their customers want as "censorship". At most they're self-censoring. To say they are censoring the authors somehow is a real stretch.
That's usually because some hot-shot web programmer decided they knew better about how to validate e-mail addresses than authors of existing validators.
I've modified my exim config to allow [.-+] as the delimiter between the account, and the identifier. I try '+' first, then '-', and finally '.' for the most broken sites. Too many exchange environments are configured for first.last@somecompany.com for sites to disallow the dot.
If I start getting spam, I know exactly who sold my address, can easily filter all mail to that address directly into the trash, and contact the company in question to tell them why I'll never do business with them again, ever.
I've actually been surprised how few companies have shopped my address around. Bank of America was the worst offender, and I no longer bank there because of it.
It's not censorship in exactly the same way as an adult bookstore not carrying the "Left Behind" series of books isn't censorship.
A vendor catering their search results to the bulk of their customers isn't censorship. There is no reason that Amazon ever needed to carry these books in the first place, much less continue to sell them. And if they stopped, even that wouldn't be censorship.
You are trying to disrupt the discussion with your apparently fake definition.
Simpler explanation: I used a different dictionary than you. (Wordnet 2.0, FYI. Just because it's free and on my computer)
Regardless, whether the material is being "suppressed" is subjective and contextual.
A vendor that removes themselves from the market is hardly "entrenched". Much less an oligopoly.
Bad analogies are bad.
"You know, Jim, I use Bill's gas station instead of yours because he sells "Big Booties" and "Choking on Cock" behind the counter. Even though I never buy them, I respect him for that."
Are you forcing him to start selling the magazines, or are you letting him know that you're totally full of shit and just like protesting stuff?
Actually, you may not be "within your rights". Look up 'libel'.
Through the "telephone game" we call the internet, it took exactly one hop for this to be called censorship. It's not censorship. Writing that Amazon censored an author and that people should boycott Amazon because said censorship may be libel.
Ok, sure. It shouldn't be immune to criticism, but to call it censorship is a lie.
They didn't delete anything. They catered to their primary audience by moving things they may find offensive to another area.
On the other hand, the author who is calling for boycotts is a charlatan for attempting to trick hot-headed, small-minded "do-gooders" into retaliating against Amazon by convincing them that this mythical "censorship" happened.
So yeah, it's legal. Not a good reason to tell people to drop it. But it's also moronic to bitch about this, and that's a really good reason to tell people to drop it. But feel free. Be a sheep. Boycott Amazon because the tags in the story summary told you this was censorship, even though it isn't. 'cause censorship is bad, right?
The headline is fine the way it is. Seems like it only comes down to a random draw if there are simultaneous 'entries' just after the 999,999,999th entry. Entries outside of that window are invalid.
Dell Adamo, for when you want to be pretentious, but you can't afford Apple.
Did you miss the part where it's more expensive than an Air?
Sounds more like the "Seven Signs of another 'Ocean's Eleven' sequel" to me....