I don't have any links to back this up (use google) but the "no-bid" myth has been pushed many times before in these Healthcare.gov threads. I have seen links posted to prove that the myth is false.
The notion that it will self correct assumes that people are honest and not inherently out to screw everyone over -- which is completely disconnected from reality.
The economic theory of capitalism makes no such assumption.
For capitalism to work, one must assume that no single player or group of players can gain a permanent advantage and become powerful enough to single-handedly sway the markets. One must assume that no single player or collaborative group of players can gain control over all of the resources. One must assume that the consumers act perfectly rationally and will not buy from someone who will screw them over later or externalize costs to them. One must assume that marketing and PR will have no effect because capitalism requires the assumption that all players have perfect knowledge of the product and costs associated with it. One must assume that there is no cost to entering a market and therefore all markets will be subject to competition any time the other producers start to abuse their market position.
One must assume a lot of crazy things to think that capitalism will not fail. But assuming that people will not try to cheat and screw others over is not one of them.
My point is that they're not really the victim. Their customers are. The businesses are the conduit. They are the means by which the attacker is able to cause you damage. Framed that way, it becomes clearer that they deserve consequences for their failure.
Having YOUR stuff stolen kind of is the fine. Your anology doesn't work because in this case, it's not the company's information that was stolen. It was their customers. A bank is a closer analogy but even that doesn't work. I'm pretty sure the bank will compensate you if the contents of your security box is stolen due to their poor security practices.
With this company and the recent Adobe breach, there's no compensation for their customers who had their data stolen. The company gets to just go "Well shucks, I'm sorry guys." Meanwhile, their customers have been exposed to possible identity theft or fraud and they're the ones who have to deal with the consequences.
A couple of years ago, my social security number was stolen from a local university that I took a summer class at. My parents then subscribed to one of those identity theft protection services. Were we ever compensated for the service fees needed to protect my identity? Nope. Would I have been compensated if someone stole my identity and destroyed my credit for life? Nope.
Not too long ago, I was looking into various game engines and one feature I saw was the ability to modify semi-constant values during runtime to facilitate rapid development. For example, being able to modify the position of a barrel in a scene to just the right location and then make those changes permanent.
I wondered why this couldn't be implemented as a standalone library to allow any type of program to do this kind of thing. I envisioned a compiler plugin that would read constant values from some files and, with a compiler flag turned on, allow you to edit the values in said files and instantly see the results. With the compiler flag turned off, the values read from the files would be baked into the executable as static constants, eliminating any run speed downside.
It seems that this meta-plugin might make such a system a lot easier to implement. Does anyone know of anything similar to what I'm describing?
Because the hidden costs are kept low because market forces don't allow runaway spending and runaway insurance premium increases
[Insert obnoxious laughing here] The fact that the 80/20 ACA rule has caused many of those insured to receive a check back from the insurance company because of their demand for profit over all else makes your statement hilariously untrue.
The government running things removes the incentive to keep the increase as low as possible (cause only as much pain as the customer will stand for). Government will cause as much pain as they want. And if the costs do start going up the solution will simply be to raise the debt ceiling again and let our great-great-grandchildren worry about it.
You do know that the ACA is not a government takeover of healthcare or health insurance, right? Everything is still controlled by the private sector, they're just not allowed to throw you out when you get too expensive anymore.
Exactly this. Whether or not Obamacare will cost the economy is not relevant to this discussion. The fact of the matter is that the Republican plan of forcing a government shutdown was a terrible strategy that did nothing but hurt the economy. If the Tea Party wants to get rid of Obamacare, they need to offer something of value to the Democrats in return. That's how compromise works and its usually considered a net benefit for all involved. This situation was nothing but a failed attempt at extortion.
It's not fucking up my own life that worries me. It's someone fucking up my life for their own gain. Discriminating against me and leaving me unemployed and hungry without a safety net. Paying me peanuts and forcing me to work ungodly hours to get by or starve. Raiding my retirement savings and leaving me with no hope of retiring without social security. Dumping toxins into my environment and leaving me sick and dying without healthcare. Government has arisen to help with those things because the past has shown that they will be abused otherwise.
In the US, at least, it's illegal for interns to do any front-line work because the company is not paying them. They are not allowed to do anything that could provide a competative advantage to the company to discourage corporations from bringing on tons of interns for free labor.
Lets look at the history of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare. Back in 2008, then-presidential nominee Barack Obama ran a campaign with healthcare reform as one of its central issues. He advocated for universal healthcare but opposed an individual mandate. However, after input from experts that claimed that government-guaranteed healthcare would encourage too many free-riders, Obama decided to include an individual mandate as a central part of his healthcare reform efforts.
The individual mandate is largely credited as an idea by the conservative think-tank The Heritage Foundation as an alternative to a system in which the government pays for healthcare. It required each person to pay for their own healthcare and was proposed by Republicans during the Clinton era as a free-market solution that embodies the tenant of personal responsibility that Republicans claim to hold.
Once adopted by the Democrats and proposed in a bill on September 17, 2009, the Republicans staunchly opposed the measure. The Republicans, some of whom have been around long enough to have supported a similar bill during the Clinton administration, claimed that the individual mandate was an unconstitutional assault on freedom.
After 3 weeks of debate and town hall meetings, the bill passed through the House of Representatives and was sent to the Senate. The Democrats attempted to gain the support of moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe, Bob Bennet, Mike Enzi, and Chuck Grassley but each found themselves subject to intense pressure by the Republican party to fall in line and oppose any healthcare reform effots.
The bill continued to be opposed by conservatives in the Senate who claimed that the bill's "public option" was a deal-breaker. The public option was government-run healthcare insurance that would be available to people alongside private health insurance in the market. Conservatives claimed that the public option would put private insurance out of business because the government is under no pressure to compete or turn a profit. After over 3 months of debate, the public option was dropped from the bill. After several last-minute concessions for conservatives the bill passed through the Senate on December 24, 2009, with support from independents and conservative Democrats to overcome the Republican threat of fillibuster.
The bill languished in the House of Representatives for 3 more months. In order to gets the admendments made to the bill back in the House, the Democrats had to win support from pro-life Representatives who worried that the bill would allow federal funds to be used to pay for abortions. To assuage anti-abortion politicians' fears, Barack Obama signed an executive order on March 21, 2010 to affirm that no federal funds could or would be used to fund abortions. The amendments were finally passed through the House and signed into law by Obama on March 23, 2010 (over 6 months after being proposed).
The very next day, the Republicans introduced the first of many bills to repeal or defund the Affordable Care Act. Over the next 42 and a half months leading to today, the Republicans would attempt this 42 times total. Over Barack Obama's two terms as president, we have seen unprecedented obstructionism by the Republicans who repeatedly shattered filibuster records and showed no hesitation to turn their back on their own past ideas if the Democrats are willing to work with them on it. To illustrate: the Senate Minority Leader Republican Mitch McConnell introduced a measure to reform the filibuster in 2012. After the Democrats came on board and wanted to pass it, Senator McConnell became the first person ever to fillibuster his own bill to prevent it from passing.
Yeah.
The Affordable Care Act itself is likely to be the greatest compromise of Barack Obama's entire career. For the Republicans to ask for more is just absurd when they have proven time and again that they're not really interested in compromise. Their idea of compromise re
Lets look at the history of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare. Back in 2008, then-presidential nominee Barack Obama ran a campaign with healthcare reform as one of its central issues. He advocated for universal healthcare but opposed an individual mandate. However, after input from experts that claimed that government-guaranteed healthcare would encourage too many free-riders, Obama decided to include an individual mandate as a central part of his healthcare reform efforts.
The individual mandate is largely credited as an idea by the conservative think-tank The Heritage Foundation as an alternative to a system in which the government pays for healthcare. It required each person to pay for their own healthcare and was proposed by Republicans during the Clinton era as a free-market solution that embodies the tenant of personal responsibility that Republicans claim to hold.
Once adopted by the Democrats and proposed in a bill on September 17, 2009, the Republicans staunchly opposed the measure. The Republicans, some of whom have been around long enough to have supported a similar bill during the Clinton administration, claimed that the individual mandate was an unconstitutional assault on freedom.
After 3 weeks of debate and town hall meetings, the bill passed through the House of Representatives and was sent to the Senate. The Democrats attempted to gain the support of moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe, Bob Bennet, Mike Enzi, and Chuck Grassley but each found themselves subject to intense pressure by the Republican party to fall in line and oppose any healthcare reform effots.
The bill continued to be opposed by conservatives in the Senate who claimed that the bill's "public option" was a deal-breaker. The public option was government-run healthcare insurance that would be available to people alongside private health insurance in the market. Conservatives claimed that the public option would put private insurance out of business because the government is under no pressure to compete or turn a profit. After over 3 months of debate, the public option was dropped from the bill. After several last-minute concessions for conservatives the bill passed through the Senate on December 24, 2009, with support from independents and conservative Democrats to overcome the Republican threat of fillibuster.
The bill languished in the House of Representatives for 3 more months. In order to gets the admendments made to the bill passed in the House, the Democrats had to win support from pro-life Representatives who worried that the bill would allow federal funds to be used to pay for abortions. To assuage anti-abortion politicians' fears, Barack Obama signed an executive order on March 21, 2010 to affirm that no federal funds could or would be used to fund abortions. The amendments were finally passed through the House and signed into law by Obama on March 23, 2010 (over 6 months after being proposed).
The very next day, the Republicans introduced the first of many bills to repeal or defund the Affordable Care Act. Over the next 42 and a half months leading to today, the Republicans would attempt this 42 times total. Over Barack Obama's two terms as president, we have seen unprecedented obstructionism by the Republicans who repeatedly shattered filibuster records and showed no hesitation to turn their back on their own past ideas if the Democrats are willing to work with them on it. To illustrate: the Senate Minority Leader Republican Mitch McConnell introduced a measure to reform the filibuster in 2012. After the Democrats came on board and wanted to pass it, Senator McConnell became the first person ever to fillibuster his own bill to prevent it from passing.
Yeah.
The Affordable Care Act itself is likely to be the greatest compromise of Barack Obama's entire career. For the Republicans to ask for more is just absurd when they have proven time and again that they're not really interested in compromise. Their idea of compromise reminds me of this old joke: "My wife and I compromise all the time: I admit that I'm wrong
We've seen the sort of devastation and deprivation that 20%+ unemployment causes, are we really going to throw one in four or five people on the scrapheap in sacrifice of our outdated industrial age ideas?
The city must ask businesses to close because evidently putting your employees' lives in mortal danger isn't too big a risk when there's profit to be had!
If I had guess their reason for using "national security", their only REAL evidence was probably obtained illegally by a three letter agency during some dragnet surveillance. They probably "reconstructed" this google maps evidence, as the prosecution often does, and won't tell anyone about the bullshit that's going on because it's blatantly unconstitutional.
Suddenly though the plot of Pacific Rim becomes a perfect metaphor for global warming. Our leaders pushing people to build giant dams to protects us from the monsters coming from the sea that are unleashed by a greedy class of beings that want only to strip our world of all its resources. None of the solutions actually working until the problem is attacked at its source.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have any links to back this up (use google) but the "no-bid" myth has been pushed many times before in these Healthcare.gov threads. I have seen links posted to prove that the myth is false.
It's like saying your car is broken because the website you tried to buy your car from crashes a lot.
I agree overall with your post but not this part:
The notion that it will self correct assumes that people are honest and not inherently out to screw everyone over -- which is completely disconnected from reality.
The economic theory of capitalism makes no such assumption.
For capitalism to work, one must assume that no single player or group of players can gain a permanent advantage and become powerful enough to single-handedly sway the markets. One must assume that no single player or collaborative group of players can gain control over all of the resources. One must assume that the consumers act perfectly rationally and will not buy from someone who will screw them over later or externalize costs to them. One must assume that marketing and PR will have no effect because capitalism requires the assumption that all players have perfect knowledge of the product and costs associated with it. One must assume that there is no cost to entering a market and therefore all markets will be subject to competition any time the other producers start to abuse their market position.
One must assume a lot of crazy things to think that capitalism will not fail. But assuming that people will not try to cheat and screw others over is not one of them.
My point is that they're not really the victim. Their customers are. The businesses are the conduit. They are the means by which the attacker is able to cause you damage. Framed that way, it becomes clearer that they deserve consequences for their failure.
Hashing + Salting = Problem Solved.
Having YOUR stuff stolen kind of is the fine. Your anology doesn't work because in this case, it's not the company's information that was stolen. It was their customers. A bank is a closer analogy but even that doesn't work. I'm pretty sure the bank will compensate you if the contents of your security box is stolen due to their poor security practices.
With this company and the recent Adobe breach, there's no compensation for their customers who had their data stolen. The company gets to just go "Well shucks, I'm sorry guys." Meanwhile, their customers have been exposed to possible identity theft or fraud and they're the ones who have to deal with the consequences.
A couple of years ago, my social security number was stolen from a local university that I took a summer class at. My parents then subscribed to one of those identity theft protection services. Were we ever compensated for the service fees needed to protect my identity? Nope. Would I have been compensated if someone stole my identity and destroyed my credit for life? Nope.
That's the problem.
int FirstPost(int a, int b)
{
if(a < b)
printf("I got first post!");
else
printf("No, I got first post!");
}
int main(int argc, const char** argv)
{
int i = 0;
// What prints out here?
FirstPost(i++, i++);
}
Is it a dupe, or did the successor plane just fly backwards around the earth and roll back time? What day is it?
Not too long ago, I was looking into various game engines and one feature I saw was the ability to modify semi-constant values during runtime to facilitate rapid development. For example, being able to modify the position of a barrel in a scene to just the right location and then make those changes permanent.
I wondered why this couldn't be implemented as a standalone library to allow any type of program to do this kind of thing. I envisioned a compiler plugin that would read constant values from some files and, with a compiler flag turned on, allow you to edit the values in said files and instantly see the results. With the compiler flag turned off, the values read from the files would be baked into the executable as static constants, eliminating any run speed downside.
It seems that this meta-plugin might make such a system a lot easier to implement. Does anyone know of anything similar to what I'm describing?
Because the hidden costs are kept low because market forces don't allow runaway spending and runaway insurance premium increases
[Insert obnoxious laughing here] The fact that the 80/20 ACA rule has caused many of those insured to receive a check back from the insurance company because of their demand for profit over all else makes your statement hilariously untrue.
The government running things removes the incentive to keep the increase as low as possible (cause only as much pain as the customer will stand for). Government will cause as much pain as they want. And if the costs do start going up the solution will simply be to raise the debt ceiling again and let our great-great-grandchildren worry about it.
You do know that the ACA is not a government takeover of healthcare or health insurance, right? Everything is still controlled by the private sector, they're just not allowed to throw you out when you get too expensive anymore.
I don't see any young people complaining about paying social security that they don't need. And I live in a Red state in a very Red district.
Exactly this. Whether or not Obamacare will cost the economy is not relevant to this discussion. The fact of the matter is that the Republican plan of forcing a government shutdown was a terrible strategy that did nothing but hurt the economy. If the Tea Party wants to get rid of Obamacare, they need to offer something of value to the Democrats in return. That's how compromise works and its usually considered a net benefit for all involved. This situation was nothing but a failed attempt at extortion.
It's not fucking up my own life that worries me. It's someone fucking up my life for their own gain. Discriminating against me and leaving me unemployed and hungry without a safety net. Paying me peanuts and forcing me to work ungodly hours to get by or starve. Raiding my retirement savings and leaving me with no hope of retiring without social security. Dumping toxins into my environment and leaving me sick and dying without healthcare. Government has arisen to help with those things because the past has shown that they will be abused otherwise.
In the US, at least, it's illegal for interns to do any front-line work because the company is not paying them. They are not allowed to do anything that could provide a competative advantage to the company to discourage corporations from bringing on tons of interns for free labor.
Lets look at the history of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare. Back in 2008, then-presidential nominee Barack Obama ran a campaign with healthcare reform as one of its central issues. He advocated for universal healthcare but opposed an individual mandate. However, after input from experts that claimed that government-guaranteed healthcare would encourage too many free-riders, Obama decided to include an individual mandate as a central part of his healthcare reform efforts.
The individual mandate is largely credited as an idea by the conservative think-tank The Heritage Foundation as an alternative to a system in which the government pays for healthcare. It required each person to pay for their own healthcare and was proposed by Republicans during the Clinton era as a free-market solution that embodies the tenant of personal responsibility that Republicans claim to hold.
Once adopted by the Democrats and proposed in a bill on September 17, 2009, the Republicans staunchly opposed the measure. The Republicans, some of whom have been around long enough to have supported a similar bill during the Clinton administration, claimed that the individual mandate was an unconstitutional assault on freedom.
After 3 weeks of debate and town hall meetings, the bill passed through the House of Representatives and was sent to the Senate. The Democrats attempted to gain the support of moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe, Bob Bennet, Mike Enzi, and Chuck Grassley but each found themselves subject to intense pressure by the Republican party to fall in line and oppose any healthcare reform effots.
The bill continued to be opposed by conservatives in the Senate who claimed that the bill's "public option" was a deal-breaker. The public option was government-run healthcare insurance that would be available to people alongside private health insurance in the market. Conservatives claimed that the public option would put private insurance out of business because the government is under no pressure to compete or turn a profit. After over 3 months of debate, the public option was dropped from the bill. After several last-minute concessions for conservatives the bill passed through the Senate on December 24, 2009, with support from independents and conservative Democrats to overcome the Republican threat of fillibuster.
The bill languished in the House of Representatives for 3 more months. In order to gets the admendments made to the bill back in the House, the Democrats had to win support from pro-life Representatives who worried that the bill would allow federal funds to be used to pay for abortions. To assuage anti-abortion politicians' fears, Barack Obama signed an executive order on March 21, 2010 to affirm that no federal funds could or would be used to fund abortions. The amendments were finally passed through the House and signed into law by Obama on March 23, 2010 (over 6 months after being proposed).
The very next day, the Republicans introduced the first of many bills to repeal or defund the Affordable Care Act. Over the next 42 and a half months leading to today, the Republicans would attempt this 42 times total. Over Barack Obama's two terms as president, we have seen unprecedented obstructionism by the Republicans who repeatedly shattered filibuster records and showed no hesitation to turn their back on their own past ideas if the Democrats are willing to work with them on it. To illustrate: the Senate Minority Leader Republican Mitch McConnell introduced a measure to reform the filibuster in 2012. After the Democrats came on board and wanted to pass it, Senator McConnell became the first person ever to fillibuster his own bill to prevent it from passing.
Yeah.
The Affordable Care Act itself is likely to be the greatest compromise of Barack Obama's entire career. For the Republicans to ask for more is just absurd when they have proven time and again that they're not really interested in compromise. Their idea of compromise re
Lets look at the history of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare. Back in 2008, then-presidential nominee Barack Obama ran a campaign with healthcare reform as one of its central issues. He advocated for universal healthcare but opposed an individual mandate. However, after input from experts that claimed that government-guaranteed healthcare would encourage too many free-riders, Obama decided to include an individual mandate as a central part of his healthcare reform efforts. The individual mandate is largely credited as an idea by the conservative think-tank The Heritage Foundation as an alternative to a system in which the government pays for healthcare. It required each person to pay for their own healthcare and was proposed by Republicans during the Clinton era as a free-market solution that embodies the tenant of personal responsibility that Republicans claim to hold. Once adopted by the Democrats and proposed in a bill on September 17, 2009, the Republicans staunchly opposed the measure. The Republicans, some of whom have been around long enough to have supported a similar bill during the Clinton administration, claimed that the individual mandate was an unconstitutional assault on freedom. After 3 weeks of debate and town hall meetings, the bill passed through the House of Representatives and was sent to the Senate. The Democrats attempted to gain the support of moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe, Bob Bennet, Mike Enzi, and Chuck Grassley but each found themselves subject to intense pressure by the Republican party to fall in line and oppose any healthcare reform effots. The bill continued to be opposed by conservatives in the Senate who claimed that the bill's "public option" was a deal-breaker. The public option was government-run healthcare insurance that would be available to people alongside private health insurance in the market. Conservatives claimed that the public option would put private insurance out of business because the government is under no pressure to compete or turn a profit. After over 3 months of debate, the public option was dropped from the bill. After several last-minute concessions for conservatives the bill passed through the Senate on December 24, 2009, with support from independents and conservative Democrats to overcome the Republican threat of fillibuster. The bill languished in the House of Representatives for 3 more months. In order to gets the admendments made to the bill passed in the House, the Democrats had to win support from pro-life Representatives who worried that the bill would allow federal funds to be used to pay for abortions. To assuage anti-abortion politicians' fears, Barack Obama signed an executive order on March 21, 2010 to affirm that no federal funds could or would be used to fund abortions. The amendments were finally passed through the House and signed into law by Obama on March 23, 2010 (over 6 months after being proposed). The very next day, the Republicans introduced the first of many bills to repeal or defund the Affordable Care Act. Over the next 42 and a half months leading to today, the Republicans would attempt this 42 times total. Over Barack Obama's two terms as president, we have seen unprecedented obstructionism by the Republicans who repeatedly shattered filibuster records and showed no hesitation to turn their back on their own past ideas if the Democrats are willing to work with them on it. To illustrate: the Senate Minority Leader Republican Mitch McConnell introduced a measure to reform the filibuster in 2012. After the Democrats came on board and wanted to pass it, Senator McConnell became the first person ever to fillibuster his own bill to prevent it from passing. Yeah. The Affordable Care Act itself is likely to be the greatest compromise of Barack Obama's entire career. For the Republicans to ask for more is just absurd when they have proven time and again that they're not really interested in compromise. Their idea of compromise reminds me of this old joke: "My wife and I compromise all the time: I admit that I'm wrong
You read it first, memorize the notes, and then play it.
That's actually one of the best definitions I've ever heard
We've seen the sort of devastation and deprivation that 20%+ unemployment causes, are we really going to throw one in four or five people on the scrapheap in sacrifice of our outdated industrial age ideas?
Yes
The city must ask businesses to close because evidently putting your employees' lives in mortal danger isn't too big a risk when there's profit to be had!
It would be nice if lawmakers put any effort at all into evaluating the effects that their laws will have...
They don't. It just makes for good requests for additional funding.
If I had guess their reason for using "national security", their only REAL evidence was probably obtained illegally by a three letter agency during some dragnet surveillance. They probably "reconstructed" this google maps evidence, as the prosecution often does, and won't tell anyone about the bullshit that's going on because it's blatantly unconstitutional.
Boobles?
Suddenly though the plot of Pacific Rim becomes a perfect metaphor for global warming. Our leaders pushing people to build giant dams to protects us from the monsters coming from the sea that are unleashed by a greedy class of beings that want only to strip our world of all its resources. None of the solutions actually working until the problem is attacked at its source.