I [hear] of people with good health care benefits have the insurance co trying to find ways to get out of paying out when some one got sick.
I've had some medical adventures lately, and my insurance has tried several times to get out of paying as much as they are supposed to. Some auditor half-way across the country will decide that your doctor kept you in the hospital longer than necessary, or they'll send you a "this sounds like an injury" letter, full of questions about who was responsible, did it happen at work, etc.... even when the problem is something that couldn't possibly be the result of an injury.
Hahahah, "unintended" side effect. [...] By not making the individual mandate severable, they seem to have unnecessarily risked the possibility that the entire law will be stricken, resulting in an opportunity for sanity to prevail.
OK, maybe it was intended... though I'm reluctant to credit the Democrats with that much savvy.
You don't need to have a central monetary authority to have a bubble based on creation of fake currency if fake currency can be created by anybody anyway. It's perfect, it's as if everybody had their own printing press.
Thank you for demonstrating the obvious truth that markets don't need a government authority mucking with them to create instability. That roman_mir guy sure needs to open his damn eyes and... wait...
Current Slashdot cookie:
Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- "Mark Twain, Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
They will not dely decision or do anything else Obama asks.
Did Obama ask them to delay it? I would think it's to his best political advantage if they strike it down and announce that a few months before the election.
The recurrent crashes and bubbles on Wall street are unrelated to markets, they are related to the government's ability and willingness to attempt and control the economy and money supply (inflation). There wouldn't have bee a housing bubble and even Internet bubble before it without artificially low interest rates. There wouldn't be another major collapse in the future (bonds, dollars) without the Fed either. Does it have anything to do with the markets? Not much, not until the signals stop being mingled by the governments.
The first known bubble occurred in 1637 over tulips, when the US federal government was still considered a very remote possibility.
You shouldn't have.
You see, I will explain to you something that hopefully will put this to rest.
Tulips are grown at will, they are nothing more than Federal reserve notes without the Federal reserve. They ARE paper.
You don't need to have a central monetary authority to have a bubble based on creation of fake currency if fake currency can be created by anybody anyway. It's perfect, it's as if everybody had their own printing press.
Fed has a monopoly on that (well, that and fractional reserve, but mostly Fed, god knows how many tens of trillions they've been pumping into the world's economy if only in one year that was revealed showed 15 of them).
Read this closely, kiddies: this is your brain on free-market cool-aid.
I also predict that any company which would lay off any significant portion of its employees for the reason you give is and will continue to be a hellish place to work regardless of what the Supreme Court decides.
Most companies are hellish places to work, without regard to this issue.
Scotus will most likely delay the decision, it's election year, and Obama has ways to pressure them
OTOH, some of them will see it as a way to strike a blow against the evil Democratic Administration.
but Republicans will have to show their base they are not signing under the mandate being constitutional (and it's not), so it's most likely to be delayed.
Their base (if by "base" you mean all the non-rich social conservatives that they've suckered into working for them) wouldn't have ever cared a fig about the mandate, if their pwners hadn't told them too.
And those pwners kind of screwed up, because their real base - rich people - *want* the mandate, because it will drive up the net worth of the health insurance industry. They just don't want the consumer protections in the bill.
But a more important prediction: [...]
My prediction: SCOTUS will castrate the law, and as an unintended side effect we'll have a single-payer system within a decade. I.e., the worst possible outcome for the class that five members of the court think they were born to take care of.
The recurrent crashes and bubbles on Wall street are unrelated to markets, they are related to the government's ability and willingness to attempt and control the economy and money supply (inflation).
Yes, of course. Nothing ever goes wrong without meddling by the big wicked gummit, especially when money is involved.
Based on everything I've read and heard, and all the information I currently have at my fingertips, my prediction is I just got a first post. That's right. I'd like to share this one with the big man himself, Jesus. I couldn't have done it without him. First post for Jesus. Shout out to my homies.
Sure it makes thing run smoothly during the interview but 8 months of thinking, investigating and paper work will far out weigh an hour and a half of lunch
Unless there's corruption involved.
But at first glance I'm inclined to agree with what the GP said.
The King Canute's should see this as an opportunity, not a threat. Let's see the same intellectual engagement in the response to global warming as there has been to climate change itself.
Good suggestion. But that's not going to happen so long as so many powerful people insist on denying it.
Frankly, I suspect that if we decided to get serious about reducing our carbon emissions it would put millions of people to work and provide lots of entrepreneurs / venture capitalists to rake in huge piles of money. Should make liberals *and* libertarians happy. But too many vested interests don't want to let go of the sweet arrangements they have right now.
In 100 years, they'll be seen as buggy-whip makers opposing the Industrial Revolution. Only for real.
So what your suggesting is that we take away the natural process of nature removing the organisms that are unable to migrate or adapt to their environment?
I don't know... should we take away the natural process of bleeding to death when we hurt ourselves real bad?
It's how they operate. I don't know if AGW is happening or not. I think it's very likely that we influence our environment. What gets my panties in a bunch is that the AGW crowd ONLY states the negatives. As if there could be no possible benefit from a warmer planet. Living in the midwest, I've rather enjoyed the 70+ degree weather in March. Yes, yes, that's weather. But I'd rather the trend go warmer than colder. Give me the negatives, but give me the positives too so society can weigh them against each other to determine if we might be better off with global warming.
You can expect a mix of good and bad. But whatever the balance, it's going to upset the status quo, and a lot of people aren't going to be happy with that.
You get a nice spring; Las Vegas becomes a ghost town because there's not enough water.
Some of the good will be very good: places that aren't any good for agriculture now will be good for it in the future. But also vice versa, and countries that export food now aren't going to like importing food in the future.
Ultimately, IMO, the issue is this: we've spent thousands of years evolving a civilization to fit a world as it has been, and on a relatively short time scale that world is going to change, and our civilization is not going to fit so well. Then what happens? Are billions of people going to say, "Oh, well, that's the breaks."? Or are they going to fight over the redistributed resources, spend vast sums trying to make current arrangements continue to work as the world changes, and then spend vast sums again when the current arrangements cannot be stretched any further and new arrangements have to be tried.
Here's a prediction (based on my belief that we will not get serious about addressing GW until it has already caused very serious problems): over time, more and more coastal cities will spend more and more money trying to keep the sea out, until they reach a point where it just isn't technically or economically feasible anymore, and then the cities will be relocated or abandoned.
we don't really understand long term climate, or what caused past climate changes
Another lie. Or lack of knowledge.
We may think we know, but without a time machine, we can't really know for certain. These extrapolations are on a scale often beyond human history, and certainly beyond the history of science.
Science is proving hypotheses by experimentation.
No, science is understanding things as best we can with the evidence we can find or generate. Sometimes we can't generate it -- e.g., galaxy collisions -- so we have to do with what we can find.
People never have a problem with this until they feel a need to deny something that scientists have discovered, and then it's suddenly "if you can't do it in a lab, it ain't science".
Sorry, but science is about drawing inferences from evidence - period.
But who are we going to sue once we get the bill for our idiocy?
Basically we're going to privatize profits and socialize risks.
When it comes time to relocate our coastal cities to higher ground, you can bet the oil execs aren't going to pay for it in proportion to what they gained by obstructing preventative measures.
Extremes in weather are the predictable outcome of more energy in the environment.
On the face of it this makes sense, but what are you basing that on? I mean is it that there is more energy, or just a changing amount of energy?
Global warming = (approximately) more thermal energy in the atmosphere and seas.
I would expect more and/or stronger storms of all types.
Also, from further up-thread:
They're the first one to dismiss "global warming" when it snows hard in their town
They conveniently ignore the fact that a huge snow in winter or spring may not imply colder weather at all, just more water in the air.
They also use an evidence gate: if a cold spell logically disproved global warming, then a warm spell would logically prove it. But they only shout about the cold spells, because that "supports" their beliefs.
Truth is, we're going to keep having both cold spells *and* warm spells -- perhaps more often and/or more extreme -- unless the planet warms up a *lot*.
Slashdot Mirror
Just program your household robot to control your flying car.
I [hear] of people with good health care benefits have the insurance co trying to find ways to get out of paying out when some one got sick.
I've had some medical adventures lately, and my insurance has tried several times to get out of paying as much as they are supposed to. Some auditor half-way across the country will decide that your doctor kept you in the hospital longer than necessary, or they'll send you a "this sounds like an injury" letter, full of questions about who was responsible, did it happen at work, etc. ... even when the problem is something that couldn't possibly be the result of an injury.
The market from TFA (where I don't believe there actually is any real skin in the game) is sitting at about 60% constitutional.
Without skin in the game, that market is going to reflect which political sites link to it and how many zealous readers they have.
Hahahah, "unintended" side effect. [...] By not making the individual mandate severable, they seem to have unnecessarily risked the possibility that the entire law will be stricken, resulting in an opportunity for sanity to prevail.
OK, maybe it was intended... though I'm reluctant to credit the Democrats with that much savvy.
You don't need to have a central monetary authority to have a bubble based on creation of fake currency if fake currency can be created by anybody anyway. It's perfect, it's as if everybody had their own printing press.
Thank you for demonstrating the obvious truth that markets don't need a government authority mucking with them to create instability. That roman_mir guy sure needs to open his damn eyes and... wait...
Current Slashdot cookie:
Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- "Mark Twain, Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
Sorry, but Jesus was two minutes late.
He as busy mowing my lawn.
That's what happens why your dad cuts off your allowance.
Though I'm kind of surprised... usually he's just busy rigging the results of a ball game or making sure it doesn't rain on someone's picnic.
Oh, you didn't know Obama said that did you? Now what was that about clueless Republicans that blindly follow what their leaders say.
What makes you think I give a shit, or even listen, when Obama says something?
Not everyone in this country has joined a political party and guzzled the cool-aid.
They will not dely decision or do anything else Obama asks.
Did Obama ask them to delay it? I would think it's to his best political advantage if they strike it down and announce that a few months before the election.
The recurrent crashes and bubbles on Wall street are unrelated to markets, they are related to the government's ability and willingness to attempt and control the economy and money supply (inflation). There wouldn't have bee a housing bubble and even Internet bubble before it without artificially low interest rates. There wouldn't be another major collapse in the future (bonds, dollars) without the Fed either. Does it have anything to do with the markets? Not much, not until the signals stop being mingled by the governments.
The first known bubble occurred in 1637 over tulips, when the US federal government was still considered a very remote possibility.
You shouldn't have.
You see, I will explain to you something that hopefully will put this to rest.
Tulips are grown at will, they are nothing more than Federal reserve notes without the Federal reserve. They ARE paper.
You don't need to have a central monetary authority to have a bubble based on creation of fake currency if fake currency can be created by anybody anyway. It's perfect, it's as if everybody had their own printing press.
Fed has a monopoly on that (well, that and fractional reserve, but mostly Fed, god knows how many tens of trillions they've been pumping into the world's economy if only in one year that was revealed showed 15 of them).
Read this closely, kiddies: this is your brain on free-market cool-aid.
I also predict that any company which would lay off any significant portion of its employees for the reason you give is and will continue to be a hellish place to work regardless of what the Supreme Court decides.
Most companies are hellish places to work, without regard to this issue.
Scotus will most likely delay the decision, it's election year, and Obama has ways to pressure them
OTOH, some of them will see it as a way to strike a blow against the evil Democratic Administration.
but Republicans will have to show their base they are not signing under the mandate being constitutional (and it's not), so it's most likely to be delayed.
Their base (if by "base" you mean all the non-rich social conservatives that they've suckered into working for them) wouldn't have ever cared a fig about the mandate, if their pwners hadn't told them too.
And those pwners kind of screwed up, because their real base - rich people - *want* the mandate, because it will drive up the net worth of the health insurance industry. They just don't want the consumer protections in the bill.
But a more important prediction: [...]
My prediction: SCOTUS will castrate the law, and as an unintended side effect we'll have a single-payer system within a decade. I.e., the worst possible outcome for the class that five members of the court think they were born to take care of.
The recurrent crashes and bubbles on Wall street are unrelated to markets, they are related to the government's ability and willingness to attempt and control the economy and money supply (inflation).
Yes, of course. Nothing ever goes wrong without meddling by the big wicked gummit, especially when money is involved.
Based on everything I've read and heard, and all the information I currently have at my fingertips, my prediction is I just got a first post. That's right. I'd like to share this one with the big man himself, Jesus. I couldn't have done it without him. First post for Jesus. Shout out to my homies.
Sorry, but Jesus was two minutes late.
It's just a routine phormography investigation.
Sure it makes thing run smoothly during the interview but 8 months of thinking, investigating and paper work will far out weigh an hour and a half of lunch
Unless there's corruption involved.
But at first glance I'm inclined to agree with what the GP said.
Easier, just don't plan your putsch in front of your television.
Remind me again why I want to participate in social networking?
This is the biggest / most ridiculous case of "because it's there" in the history of our species.
What is an evidence gate?
Kinda like Maxwell's Demon.
The premise is that you back up your computers on March 31, so that you're not an April Fool if your hard drive crashes tomorrow.
Thanks for reminding me to stay away tomorrow.
The King Canute's should see this as an opportunity, not a threat. Let's see the same intellectual engagement in the response to global warming as there has been to climate change itself.
Good suggestion. But that's not going to happen so long as so many powerful people insist on denying it.
Frankly, I suspect that if we decided to get serious about reducing our carbon emissions it would put millions of people to work and provide lots of entrepreneurs / venture capitalists to rake in huge piles of money. Should make liberals *and* libertarians happy. But too many vested interests don't want to let go of the sweet arrangements they have right now.
In 100 years, they'll be seen as buggy-whip makers opposing the Industrial Revolution. Only for real.
So what your suggesting is that we take away the natural process of nature removing the organisms that are unable to migrate or adapt to their environment?
I don't know... should we take away the natural process of bleeding to death when we hurt ourselves real bad?
It's how they operate. I don't know if AGW is happening or not. I think it's very likely that we influence our environment. What gets my panties in a bunch is that the AGW crowd ONLY states the negatives. As if there could be no possible benefit from a warmer planet. Living in the midwest, I've rather enjoyed the 70+ degree weather in March. Yes, yes, that's weather. But I'd rather the trend go warmer than colder. Give me the negatives, but give me the positives too so society can weigh them against each other to determine if we might be better off with global warming.
You can expect a mix of good and bad. But whatever the balance, it's going to upset the status quo, and a lot of people aren't going to be happy with that.
You get a nice spring; Las Vegas becomes a ghost town because there's not enough water.
Some of the good will be very good: places that aren't any good for agriculture now will be good for it in the future. But also vice versa, and countries that export food now aren't going to like importing food in the future.
Ultimately, IMO, the issue is this: we've spent thousands of years evolving a civilization to fit a world as it has been, and on a relatively short time scale that world is going to change, and our civilization is not going to fit so well. Then what happens? Are billions of people going to say, "Oh, well, that's the breaks."? Or are they going to fight over the redistributed resources, spend vast sums trying to make current arrangements continue to work as the world changes, and then spend vast sums again when the current arrangements cannot be stretched any further and new arrangements have to be tried.
Here's a prediction (based on my belief that we will not get serious about addressing GW until it has already caused very serious problems): over time, more and more coastal cities will spend more and more money trying to keep the sea out, until they reach a point where it just isn't technically or economically feasible anymore, and then the cities will be relocated or abandoned.
we don't really understand long term climate, or what caused past climate changes
Another lie. Or lack of knowledge.
We may think we know, but without a time machine, we can't really know for certain. These extrapolations are on a scale often beyond human history, and certainly beyond the history of science.
Science is proving hypotheses by experimentation.
No, science is understanding things as best we can with the evidence we can find or generate. Sometimes we can't generate it -- e.g., galaxy collisions -- so we have to do with what we can find.
People never have a problem with this until they feel a need to deny something that scientists have discovered, and then it's suddenly "if you can't do it in a lab, it ain't science".
Sorry, but science is about drawing inferences from evidence - period.
But who are we going to sue once we get the bill for our idiocy?
Basically we're going to privatize profits and socialize risks.
When it comes time to relocate our coastal cities to higher ground, you can bet the oil execs aren't going to pay for it in proportion to what they gained by obstructing preventative measures.
On the face of it this makes sense, but what are you basing that on? I mean is it that there is more energy, or just a changing amount of energy?
Global warming = (approximately) more thermal energy in the atmosphere and seas.
I would expect more and/or stronger storms of all types.
Also, from further up-thread:
They're the first one to dismiss "global warming" when it snows hard in their town
They conveniently ignore the fact that a huge snow in winter or spring may not imply colder weather at all, just more water in the air.
They also use an evidence gate: if a cold spell logically disproved global warming, then a warm spell would logically prove it. But they only shout about the cold spells, because that "supports" their beliefs.
Truth is, we're going to keep having both cold spells *and* warm spells -- perhaps more often and/or more extreme -- unless the planet warms up a *lot*.