No, they are confused by an unclear description of "net neutrality".
I've seen some places (non-fox news) describe "net neutrality" as "Enforcing traffic to be at equal speeds"... which is not the case. People using that description would be against it because they believe it would mean all web traffic would be slower, to match the speed of the slowest server... That reeks of "All must be fair, so we must race to the bottom" and "Everybody gets a trophy" that many people disapprove of.
If you inform them that Net Neutrality is against throttling speeds, and having customers get what they paid for... then most of those against, turn sides.
I see it as we either need to enforce Net Neutrality, or enable a free market, where we have more than one or two choices for broadband (or any other utility).... If we had 10+ ISP's to choose from, this wouldn't be an issue, one would not throttle, and that would force the others to compete. But we don't have a free market... and too many of those in power (both in government, and the big TelComs) would lose money to allow a free market.
A summer or two ago I saw a kid holding a sign that said "Speed trap ahead!". Over the next hill was a cop, mostly hidden by some bushes. The next stop light had another kid with a sign: "Speed Trap tips" and had a jar full of cash. Good show kids, good show...
Like Chernobyl? Run by the government for the public good... then it exploded in 1986. Then it was brought back online and ran until the end 2000 because the public good needed cheap power.
The problem is the lack of free markets. In most cities you don't have the option of 5 different gas companies. You get one. That is because the city leaders in their infinite wisdom on what is good for the people decided that ABC Company will handle all the hardware and maintenance.
I worked at an ISP as a Tech support manager years back, and our DSL lines had to use the local TelCom's lines. We had to pay a rental fee for those lines (to pay for maintenance) and at the end of the day, we made very little on DSL. You see they had the government contract. All phone lines in the area were controlled by them. Any other TelCom had to use their lines (with the rental fee). They had a monopoly, where the competition had to buy from them. And the TelCom had crappy lines and had no interest in fixing them. One section of town was wired with 'Paper lines'... copper wire wrapped in wax paper. These lines were meant to be used as a temporary fix while real line can be ordered and laid... but they used it as normal line. When ever it rained we had calls in and you can year popping on the line. If you can hear noise... think on what the computer picks up. The only resort they had was call the TelCom to fix it... and a few days later, when things dried out... "Everything is fine'. We got sick of it and we started to put up wireless routers all over town. We offered wireless internet, and started to move all our DSL customers to wireless... only then did the TelCom started to replace those paper lines with real lines. Funny how competition forces improvements heh?
With the utilities we don't have a free market. We have a strongly regulated, heavily controlled, government backed monopoly... and then we blame the free market when it becomes corrupt. I have one choice for a gas company. I have one choice for an electric company. I have one choice for a TelCom. That is not the Free Market.
The problem comes from bankruptcy laws. Banks were having a fit because students would get loans, and when they graduate, declare bankruptcy and have the loans forgiven. The showboat case for this was people graduating as medical doctors, declaring bankruptcy, then getting a high paying job. Banks went to the government to 'fix' this problem and the fix was: Student loans are immune to bankruptcy. If you get a student loan, you will pay it back, even if that means you will have your McPaycheck garnished.
This now means that banks have little to no risk to their loans. Why would they refuse any loan? If the student is successful or not, either way, they get paid. A kid that gets straight D's in school and wants to major in "Classical Nintendo" Sure! Here's money with a nice interest rate.
Now we have banks giving money anybody who wants it, demand for higher education goes up. When demand goes up and supply stays the same... prices go up. Prices go up? Get a loan!
It's a self-feeding model that all started with crony-capitalism. Banks and Government got in bed together. Now I don't blame the banks for complaining... it is a problem. If I lent off a ton of money for students to become doctors, and they kept stiffing me, I'd be pissed. But the Government gave the Banks too sweet of a deal. They gave them a win-win.
What if the banks had a 10 year probation window on student loan bankruptcies instead? If a student declares bankruptcy, the loan is put on hold for 10 years with no interest. If during that 10 year time, the student finds a job that could may payments, the loan sticks. If they can't after 10 years, the loan is forgiven. Banks are protected from those "evil doctors" getting hefty loans then dumping them... Students are protected from not being able to find a job afterwards. The loan (and cost of the education) must reflect the job that is received in the end. Students with poor grades, and majors that aren't in demand are less likely to get loans, as they are now risky to the bank. All of this should lower costs of education.
The problem with the "US vs [other country]" is the US has other issues the other countries don't have.
First, the US is HUGE compared to most of those countries. Second, we have a huge drug problem. Third we have massive traffic related deaths (10+ million per year). The only country that has a higher percentage of citizens owning cars is Morocco, and they don't have nearly the population we do.
When you count the huge drug and traffic accidents to our life expectancies and infant death, the US isn't nearly as bad as people make it sound. When we have birth issues because the parents are junkies, or millions DOA from a car accident, it really doesn't matter if the hospital is top notch or not.
The market has been fine since the beginning of human history. Leave it alone
The Free Market saves! The Free Market has no flaws! Trust in the Free Market, and you will be able to buy Paradise(tm) some day!
Market failure is both a hard fact of reality and, apparently, anathema to the dumbest religion in history.
The Free Market is about profit and loss. Risk and reward. There is no such thing as "Too big to fail" in the Free Market. GM should have failed. Let it be refactored to be profitable without a big bailout, or even sell off it's assets.
Bailing out companies that make poor decisions because they are "Too big to fail" is crony-capitalism. It allows companies to make poor decisions and get away with them, and promotes brib^H^H^H^HPolitical Contributions.
Vast majority of the country is like this. Heck I the town I did live before only had a Radio Shack. About 5 years after I left a Best Buy opened and people freaked. If you wanted to find a computer shop, you had to drive about 30 mins.
That is *IF* somebody brings in an ad, then they verify it... So with a hassle, they will price match. Or I can just buy it from Amazon with no hassle.
And I did compare products that are exactly the same The cables were both in a bag, no mention of "Gold plated Connectors!!!!" or other such gimmick. But just for fun I did find an item to compare at 2 locations. Monsters University Pre-Order (Blueray + DVD) at Walmart and Amazon. Using 7.25% sales tax: Walmart (29.96 + 2.17 = $32.13) and Amazon (23.39 + 3.98 = 27.27). Amazon's total is cheaper than Walmart pre-tax price. Even with tax, it would still be cheaper. Plus I get to order it from my home, and have it on my door step on day of release.
I didn't "get it right now"... And Best Buy (and other B&M stores) are claiming it's "Sales Tax" why people aren't buying their stuff.
On another note: Last time I was in a KMart, I found some CD Jewel cases for $5.99 (+ tax). Amazon's price was $9.99 (+ shipping). KMart sold some CD cases that day.
Amazon's total price is still cheaper than WalMart's list price. Even if there was a sales tax, Amazon would still be cheaper. And if I buy a bit more, the shipping cost will be paid by Amazon.
And the "With big items, it makes a difference"... No, it doesn't. Big items are normally... Big and or heavy. Lets say a TV. The shipping cost of that isn't cheap... Very likely it's higher than what any sales tax that would apply. And either the customer pays it (still being cheaper than the B&M store), or the store eats the cost...
It makes perfect sense. Prices are cheaper, and it's not due to that evil sales tax being forced on B&M stores.
Lets look at the SATA cable example. Best Buy: Cost of Item: $25. Shipping: Free. Sales Tax (7.25%): 1.81 = Total: $26.81. Amazon: Cost of item: $4. Shipping fee: $4.50 (yes more than 100% of the item's cost), Sales Tax (None) = Total: $8.50.
Which one gets the sale?
Now lets say sales tax is collected (If I live in a state with an Amazon hub): $4 + 4.50 + (0.29) = $8.79. Heck even if the shipping is taxed it's cheaper (+0.62).
I think this will drive omnichannel commerce and remove the 10% price advantage that companies like Amazon and Overstock enjoyed with respect to Brick and mortar stores. Competition will increase - and it can only be better for consumers.
Bull. Flat out bull.
People don't pick Amazon or Overstock to save on sales tax... they do it because the prices are cheaper. When I head to BestBuy and find a SATA cable listed for 25 bucks, and Amazon has it for 4.50... I don't pick Amazon because I "save" 7.25% in sales tax.
Plus those Brick & Mortar stores don't charge shipping... Shipping is almost always higher than sales tax. Now I know you are going to say "But Amazon offers free shipping for orders of $35 or more!"... So does UPS ship for free on those orders? No. Amazon eats the cost to encourage people to buy more. So why doesn't the Brick & Mortar stores offer "We pay the sales tax for all orders over $X!"??? They can reduce the price by what ever the local tax rate is (7.25%) easily enough. They don't because they know that isn't the reason why people are shopping online.
There is a good reason why the SCOTUS refused to hear this: It would be struck down. Article 1, section 9 of the US Constitution states: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." To put it simply: If I own a store in New Mexico, and I sell to somebody who lives in a different state... I don't collect any taxes or duties on that item. If I have a store in that state, I will have to collect taxes.
Sears & Roebuck had the same sales model as Amazon back in the late 1800's. They didn't collect sales tax either. Sears sold things by a mail-order catalog. Customers would read the mail-order catalog, and use a mail-in order form for items, with payment. After receiving the order and payment, Sears would deliver the requested item. Amazon does the same thing, just replace "Mail-order/mail-in" with "Online". Changing the way one reads a catalog, or orders items doesn't affect the law. If somebody uses a telephone, it didn't change it, neither should a computer.
Stores in town lost customers due to this, not because of "They don't collect sales tax" but because they offered so much more, at a cheaper price. The brick & mortars did have a "You get it now" features instead of having to wait 2 weeks... but for many, the savings was well worth the wait.
Every year premiums are updated. Every insurance company (health, car, home, etc) does this.
ACA was written with this in mind and in full knowledge that all plans will be forced to lose money, or change to meet the minimum federal guidelines.
If a premium goes up $5 per year, they shouldn't be forced to change the plan. If a person is insured by a company, then as long as they carry insurance through that company, they should be grandfathered. If the company changes the plan, the customer can go someplace else and 'experience' the 'joy' of the exchanges.
Premiums change every year. Obamacare was written so if there is a change (including any changes to premiums, as little as a $5 change), the new policy will have to be 'updated' to meet Federal guidelines.
What would I do? Only require insurance companies to adhere to federal guidelines for plans to be put on the exchange. Allow non-exchange policies to qualify for the individual mandate (or better yet, get rid of the individual mandate).
No his plan got cancelled because it didn't meet new federal requirements, idiot. Just like mine did.
And my last mod point just expired...
Blue Cross had a plan that they liked. Blue Cross had a plan the customer liked. Both were happy. Obama said "If you like your plan you can keep it"... Knowing that the law would require the plan to be changed to meet the requirement. He tried to spin this as "removing the under-insured" but no... People had plans they liked.
Blue Cross now has to offer "Government Approved" plans, and I'm sure all the canceled policy holders got a note of what new "Government Approved" plans they can switch to (With the hike in premiums).
Ever now and then we need a reminder that: There is no such thing as a free lunch.
The short version is: Mathematics isn't plural. There isn't "One Mathematic, two Mathematics". The word mathematics comes from a translation where an X was changed to ics, and when somebody came up with the abbreviation for it, they made assumed it was plural, and made the abbreviation plural too (Maths), while others saw it singular and kept it that way (Math).
So you are saying: Asking people to be treated as well as Corporations is not fair? Asking people who are making over 3x the nation's average pay to NOT get subsidies (while people making average aren't getting subsidies)... that's not fair?
Funding everything + Obamacare + giving citizens the same deal as corporations + making some rather rich people pay their own way... how is that not fair?
The last given to the Senate by the House (linky), before the shutdown, was: Pay for everything, including Obamacare, delay individual mandate for 1 year (Pres. Obama delayed the Corporate Mandate for 1 year, why not people too? People before Corporations right?) and cancel subsidies for lawmakers (Senators and Representatives) to pay for their personal health insurance (they make avg $174,000/year, people in the private sector making 1/3 that won't get subsidies...) and it was rejected.
To me that deal seems rather reasonable, especally with the hardships seen trying to get health insurance through the exchange website.
Here is a nice back and forth with a what compromises were offered and refused.
I tried 3 times just to get a quote from the healthcare.gov site. Every time it said "Try again later". Spent 30-45 mins.
I tried once to get a quote on 2 private sector sites (One a 'market place' style with 4 companies, one directly from a insurance provider). Both of them I had an estimate in about 3-5 minutes.
If a cop see somebody jay-walking, and another person being mugged... should they enforce the law equally, flip a coin and pick which one he should arrest... or should he be selective and go after the one doing the most harm?
Slashdot Mirror
I'll buy that for a dollar!
No, they are confused by an unclear description of "net neutrality".
I've seen some places (non-fox news) describe "net neutrality" as "Enforcing traffic to be at equal speeds"... which is not the case. People using that description would be against it because they believe it would mean all web traffic would be slower, to match the speed of the slowest server... That reeks of "All must be fair, so we must race to the bottom" and "Everybody gets a trophy" that many people disapprove of.
If you inform them that Net Neutrality is against throttling speeds, and having customers get what they paid for... then most of those against, turn sides.
I see it as we either need to enforce Net Neutrality, or enable a free market, where we have more than one or two choices for broadband (or any other utility).... If we had 10+ ISP's to choose from, this wouldn't be an issue, one would not throttle, and that would force the others to compete. But we don't have a free market... and too many of those in power (both in government, and the big TelComs) would lose money to allow a free market.
A summer or two ago I saw a kid holding a sign that said "Speed trap ahead!". Over the next hill was a cop, mostly hidden by some bushes. The next stop light had another kid with a sign: "Speed Trap tips" and had a jar full of cash. Good show kids, good show...
Like Chernobyl? Run by the government for the public good... then it exploded in 1986. Then it was brought back online and ran until the end 2000 because the public good needed cheap power.
The problem is the lack of free markets. In most cities you don't have the option of 5 different gas companies. You get one. That is because the city leaders in their infinite wisdom on what is good for the people decided that ABC Company will handle all the hardware and maintenance.
I worked at an ISP as a Tech support manager years back, and our DSL lines had to use the local TelCom's lines. We had to pay a rental fee for those lines (to pay for maintenance) and at the end of the day, we made very little on DSL. You see they had the government contract. All phone lines in the area were controlled by them. Any other TelCom had to use their lines (with the rental fee). They had a monopoly, where the competition had to buy from them. And the TelCom had crappy lines and had no interest in fixing them. One section of town was wired with 'Paper lines'... copper wire wrapped in wax paper. These lines were meant to be used as a temporary fix while real line can be ordered and laid... but they used it as normal line. When ever it rained we had calls in and you can year popping on the line. If you can hear noise... think on what the computer picks up. The only resort they had was call the TelCom to fix it... and a few days later, when things dried out... "Everything is fine'. We got sick of it and we started to put up wireless routers all over town. We offered wireless internet, and started to move all our DSL customers to wireless... only then did the TelCom started to replace those paper lines with real lines. Funny how competition forces improvements heh?
With the utilities we don't have a free market. We have a strongly regulated, heavily controlled, government backed monopoly... and then we blame the free market when it becomes corrupt. I have one choice for a gas company. I have one choice for an electric company. I have one choice for a TelCom. That is not the Free Market.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Actually, it would.
The problem comes from bankruptcy laws. Banks were having a fit because students would get loans, and when they graduate, declare bankruptcy and have the loans forgiven. The showboat case for this was people graduating as medical doctors, declaring bankruptcy, then getting a high paying job. Banks went to the government to 'fix' this problem and the fix was: Student loans are immune to bankruptcy. If you get a student loan, you will pay it back, even if that means you will have your McPaycheck garnished.
This now means that banks have little to no risk to their loans. Why would they refuse any loan? If the student is successful or not, either way, they get paid. A kid that gets straight D's in school and wants to major in "Classical Nintendo" Sure! Here's money with a nice interest rate.
Now we have banks giving money anybody who wants it, demand for higher education goes up. When demand goes up and supply stays the same... prices go up. Prices go up? Get a loan!
It's a self-feeding model that all started with crony-capitalism. Banks and Government got in bed together. Now I don't blame the banks for complaining... it is a problem. If I lent off a ton of money for students to become doctors, and they kept stiffing me, I'd be pissed. But the Government gave the Banks too sweet of a deal. They gave them a win-win.
What if the banks had a 10 year probation window on student loan bankruptcies instead? If a student declares bankruptcy, the loan is put on hold for 10 years with no interest. If during that 10 year time, the student finds a job that could may payments, the loan sticks. If they can't after 10 years, the loan is forgiven. Banks are protected from those "evil doctors" getting hefty loans then dumping them... Students are protected from not being able to find a job afterwards. The loan (and cost of the education) must reflect the job that is received in the end. Students with poor grades, and majors that aren't in demand are less likely to get loans, as they are now risky to the bank. All of this should lower costs of education.
The problem with the "US vs [other country]" is the US has other issues the other countries don't have.
First, the US is HUGE compared to most of those countries.
Second, we have a huge drug problem.
Third we have massive traffic related deaths (10+ million per year). The only country that has a higher percentage of citizens owning cars is Morocco, and they don't have nearly the population we do.
When you count the huge drug and traffic accidents to our life expectancies and infant death, the US isn't nearly as bad as people make it sound. When we have birth issues because the parents are junkies, or millions DOA from a car accident, it really doesn't matter if the hospital is top notch or not.
The market has been fine since the beginning of human history. Leave it alone
The Free Market saves! The Free Market has no flaws! Trust in the Free Market, and you will be able to buy Paradise(tm) some day!
Market failure is both a hard fact of reality and, apparently, anathema to the dumbest religion in history.
The Free Market is about profit and loss. Risk and reward. There is no such thing as "Too big to fail" in the Free Market. GM should have failed. Let it be refactored to be profitable without a big bailout, or even sell off it's assets.
Bailing out companies that make poor decisions because they are "Too big to fail" is crony-capitalism. It allows companies to make poor decisions and get away with them, and promotes brib^H^H^H^HPolitical Contributions.
Sears Catalog Operated in the 20th century as well. As did many other mail-order catalogs.
Vast majority of the country is like this. Heck I the town I did live before only had a Radio Shack. About 5 years after I left a Best Buy opened and people freaked. If you wanted to find a computer shop, you had to drive about 30 mins.
I shopped around. No local computer shops. Only 2 places carried SATA cables. Best Buy, and Radio Shack. Both were $25.
I could also go to other online stores that offers free shipping. $4 + nada + nada + $4. Still cheaper.
That is *IF* somebody brings in an ad, then they verify it... So with a hassle, they will price match. Or I can just buy it from Amazon with no hassle.
And I did compare products that are exactly the same The cables were both in a bag, no mention of "Gold plated Connectors!!!!" or other such gimmick. But just for fun I did find an item to compare at 2 locations. Monsters University Pre-Order (Blueray + DVD) at Walmart and Amazon. Using 7.25% sales tax: Walmart (29.96 + 2.17 = $32.13) and Amazon (23.39 + 3.98 = 27.27). Amazon's total is cheaper than Walmart pre-tax price. Even with tax, it would still be cheaper. Plus I get to order it from my home, and have it on my door step on day of release.
Still: It's not Sales tax. It's the price.
I didn't "get it right now"... And Best Buy (and other B&M stores) are claiming it's "Sales Tax" why people aren't buying their stuff.
On another note: Last time I was in a KMart, I found some CD Jewel cases for $5.99 (+ tax). Amazon's price was $9.99 (+ shipping). KMart sold some CD cases that day.
For a second example:
Monsters University Blu-Ray + DVD Combo pack (not Collector's Edition)
Local Tax rate: 7.25%
Place: Item Price + Shipping + Tax = Total
WalMart: 29.96 + 0 + $2.17 = $32.13
Amazon: 23.29 + $3.98 + 0 = $27.27
Amazon's total price is still cheaper than WalMart's list price. Even if there was a sales tax, Amazon would still be cheaper. And if I buy a bit more, the shipping cost will be paid by Amazon.
And the "With big items, it makes a difference"... No, it doesn't. Big items are normally... Big and or heavy. Lets say a TV. The shipping cost of that isn't cheap... Very likely it's higher than what any sales tax that would apply. And either the customer pays it (still being cheaper than the B&M store), or the store eats the cost...
It makes perfect sense. Prices are cheaper, and it's not due to that evil sales tax being forced on B&M stores.
Lets look at the SATA cable example.
Best Buy: Cost of Item: $25. Shipping: Free. Sales Tax (7.25%): 1.81 = Total: $26.81.
Amazon: Cost of item: $4. Shipping fee: $4.50 (yes more than 100% of the item's cost), Sales Tax (None) = Total: $8.50.
Which one gets the sale?
Now lets say sales tax is collected (If I live in a state with an Amazon hub): $4 + 4.50 + (0.29) = $8.79. Heck even if the shipping is taxed it's cheaper (+0.62).
I think this will drive omnichannel commerce and remove the 10% price advantage that companies like Amazon and Overstock enjoyed with respect to Brick and mortar stores. Competition will increase - and it can only be better for consumers.
Bull. Flat out bull.
People don't pick Amazon or Overstock to save on sales tax... they do it because the prices are cheaper. When I head to BestBuy and find a SATA cable listed for 25 bucks, and Amazon has it for 4.50... I don't pick Amazon because I "save" 7.25% in sales tax.
Plus those Brick & Mortar stores don't charge shipping... Shipping is almost always higher than sales tax. Now I know you are going to say "But Amazon offers free shipping for orders of $35 or more!"... So does UPS ship for free on those orders? No. Amazon eats the cost to encourage people to buy more. So why doesn't the Brick & Mortar stores offer "We pay the sales tax for all orders over $X!"??? They can reduce the price by what ever the local tax rate is (7.25%) easily enough. They don't because they know that isn't the reason why people are shopping online.
There is a good reason why the SCOTUS refused to hear this: It would be struck down. Article 1, section 9 of the US Constitution states: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." To put it simply: If I own a store in New Mexico, and I sell to somebody who lives in a different state... I don't collect any taxes or duties on that item. If I have a store in that state, I will have to collect taxes.
Sears & Roebuck had the same sales model as Amazon back in the late 1800's. They didn't collect sales tax either.
Sears sold things by a mail-order catalog.
Customers would read the mail-order catalog, and use a mail-in order form for items, with payment.
After receiving the order and payment, Sears would deliver the requested item.
Amazon does the same thing, just replace "Mail-order/mail-in" with "Online". Changing the way one reads a catalog, or orders items doesn't affect the law. If somebody uses a telephone, it didn't change it, neither should a computer.
Stores in town lost customers due to this, not because of "They don't collect sales tax" but because they offered so much more, at a cheaper price. The brick & mortars did have a "You get it now" features instead of having to wait 2 weeks... but for many, the savings was well worth the wait.
Every year premiums are updated. Every insurance company (health, car, home, etc) does this.
ACA was written with this in mind and in full knowledge that all plans will be forced to lose money, or change to meet the minimum federal guidelines.
If a premium goes up $5 per year, they shouldn't be forced to change the plan. If a person is insured by a company, then as long as they carry insurance through that company, they should be grandfathered. If the company changes the plan, the customer can go someplace else and 'experience' the 'joy' of the exchanges.
Premiums change every year. Obamacare was written so if there is a change (including any changes to premiums, as little as a $5 change), the new policy will have to be 'updated' to meet Federal guidelines.
What would I do? Only require insurance companies to adhere to federal guidelines for plans to be put on the exchange. Allow non-exchange policies to qualify for the individual mandate (or better yet, get rid of the individual mandate).
No his plan got cancelled because it didn't meet new federal requirements, idiot. Just like mine did.
And my last mod point just expired...
Blue Cross had a plan that they liked. Blue Cross had a plan the customer liked. Both were happy. Obama said "If you like your plan you can keep it"... Knowing that the law would require the plan to be changed to meet the requirement. He tried to spin this as "removing the under-insured" but no... People had plans they liked.
Blue Cross now has to offer "Government Approved" plans, and I'm sure all the canceled policy holders got a note of what new "Government Approved" plans they can switch to (With the hike in premiums).
Ever now and then we need a reminder that: There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Here is a video from Numberphile on the subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbZCECvoaTA
The short version is: Mathematics isn't plural. There isn't "One Mathematic, two Mathematics". The word mathematics comes from a translation where an X was changed to ics, and when somebody came up with the abbreviation for it, they made assumed it was plural, and made the abbreviation plural too (Maths), while others saw it singular and kept it that way (Math).
So you are saying:
Asking people to be treated as well as Corporations is not fair?
Asking people who are making over 3x the nation's average pay to NOT get subsidies (while people making average aren't getting subsidies)... that's not fair?
Funding everything + Obamacare + giving citizens the same deal as corporations + making some rather rich people pay their own way... how is that not fair?
The last given to the Senate by the House (linky), before the shutdown, was: Pay for everything, including Obamacare, delay individual mandate for 1 year (Pres. Obama delayed the Corporate Mandate for 1 year, why not people too? People before Corporations right?) and cancel subsidies for lawmakers (Senators and Representatives) to pay for their personal health insurance (they make avg $174,000/year, people in the private sector making 1/3 that won't get subsidies...) and it was rejected.
To me that deal seems rather reasonable, especally with the hardships seen trying to get health insurance through the exchange website.
Here is a nice back and forth with a what compromises were offered and refused.
I tried 3 times just to get a quote from the healthcare.gov site. Every time it said "Try again later". Spent 30-45 mins.
I tried once to get a quote on 2 private sector sites (One a 'market place' style with 4 companies, one directly from a insurance provider). Both of them I had an estimate in about 3-5 minutes.
YMMV.
If a cop see somebody jay-walking, and another person being mugged... should they enforce the law equally, flip a coin and pick which one he should arrest... or should he be selective and go after the one doing the most harm?
Mind if I bring some tanks of Algae and a sunlamp with me?
With out CO2, we would all be dead... starting with the plants.