"Vested interest" != "interest." Either by the dictionary definition or in the way that the grandparent was using the phrase, they are different things. You can easily have an opinion on something in which you have no vested interest.
This is an oddball recommendation, since it's really a different sort of game than LoTR:O that the submitter mentioned, but I've really been enjoying Cardhunter ever since it came out a couple of months ago. It's turn-based card game and the player interaction is limited to PvP for right now, but Co-op should be coming eventually. A very different style of card game and it's free, so there's no reason not to check it out.
I should say that the devs are very conscientious about the play-to-win aspect that many of these games have: it really isn't a problem in this case. Paying will net you very few advantages.
The health insurance industry did this about twenty years ago (ish. I don't remember exactly). Instead of binning people by risk and associated cost, they starting looking at people on an individual level and simply denying those who might not be profitable. It sounds good when you're angry at irresponsible drivers, and it certainly makes money for the insurance companies, but it doesn't work when you're dependent on cars on driving to make your infrastructure work and when insurance is an integral part of that (required in many states).
How efficiently? I'm burning wood right now too, but I don't have any delusions that it doesn't cause pollution. I'd have difficulty quantifying how much exactly, but that's what the EPA is for. Apparently, it's too much.
If they really want to make a difference, they're going to have to crack down on coal burning stoves too: wood stoves are designed to burn hot, to make the fire more efficient and less polluting, but since coal doesn't have that problem you can get a coal burning stove that will happily maintain a very low fire. And there's no reason you can't just put your wood in there...
it is just a left VS right battle over who controls the kleptocratic fascist state
No, it's another example of why we need an amendment nullifying Citizens United. Money influencing politics is always bad, no matter who is doing it. Let's focus on the real problem here - this is something that we can solve. Throwing up your hands and saying, "It's all fucked." is not constructive.
I don't know what the not-ACA is, but this part (excepting the evil comment) is certainly true:
You make it sound like my doctor can't treat me. That there is some procedure he would recommend but can't because of the evil insurance company.
It happens all the time. In fact, it seems to be so unextraordinary that most of my search results are turning up questionairs about how to deal with it rather than news stories about how outrageous it is. A good doctor will consider your coverage when they make a recommendation, so they'll try not to recommend something that you won't be able to pay for, but it doesn't always work out that way.
This is how it's been for a long time, and it won't change with the Affordable Care Act. The only difference is that private insurers are required to provide a certain level of coverage. So there'll be fewer surprises.
Speaking of that level of coverage, there's also this. One of the biggest features of the Affordable Care Act is the requirement that people with preexisting conditions can't be excluded.
Your other points are supposition. What I've seen so far are stories about how the health care exchange is cost-effective (once you can get past the technical glitches), and stories like this one. But these are just anecdotal. The Affordable Care Act is expected to save us money in the long run, but we won't know exactly how much for a while.
That isn't true, I have no idea where you're getting that from. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, as implied by their name, is strictly about money, they have nothing to do with licensing.
In fact, when I searched for this the only related thing that came up was the interesting point that under the current system your health insurance provider can exclude your doctor if he doesn't match their performance goals. Medicare and the IPAB doesn't do this. Though as you say, in both cases this is about money - regardless of your insurance provider and regardless of the policies that the IPAB sets, you can still see your doctor if you are willing to pay out of pocket.
This is not to say that doctors aren't subject to ethics and competence review, but that has nothing to do with the IPAB or with your health insurance provider.
Your tone is clearly sarcastic, but I don't quite follow the point that you're trying to make. Yes, your doctor is your doctor. What does that have to do with anything? Are you claiming that your doctor can dictate to your insurance company what they will and will not pay for? He can't. Your doctor makes decisions based on your level of coverage, not the other way around.
I am claiming that the Democrats knew what was in the bill, yes. The bit about it being a mess is your opinion - as someone who lived in a single-payer country for a number of years and who knows what healthcare can be, I think that this bill is a desperately needed step in the right direction. I only wish it had gone further.
As for your hyperbolic nonsense about the Independent Payment Advisory Board: someone has to decide what should and should not be covered, and that person can not and never has been your doctor. Right now it's your health insurance company, seeking to maximize its profits. In the future it will be a panel appointed by the president and subject to senate confirmation. This is an improvement.
No, the point that the GP was making, incorrectly, was that Pelosi and the people in congress didn't know what was in the bill. They did know what was in the bill, they had been debating it for months.
The point that Pelosi was making was that the debate had become so politicized (death panels) that what was actually in the bill wasn't really known by the public. She was trying to say that once the bill was passed and the hysteria died down, people would find out that death panels had never been part of it.
That little clip that they belabored on Fox News was: "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it," (my emphasis)
Of course, that's from Fox News so not only is it out of context, it's not even the full sentence: “But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”
Politifact has a little write-up on it, if you'd care to educate yourself.
Your statement seems to lead that there is only one govt. That's the fallacy. There are municipalities (cities, townships, maybe even county) govt, then there's state govt., and finally the federal govt.
When people complain about Big Government, they are talking about the federal level. Why would someone want the size of government to be small at the top (federal level)? Because we have the least amount of say at that level, and it has the most reaching effects. The lower you go, the more influence you have.
This is a common belief, but local governments, being smaller, are also easier to influence. This was the issue with Montana's challenge to Citizens United: Montana had a history of corruption stemming from mining companies which was severe enough that they had special anti-lobbying laws passed. (Struck down by the supreme court.) The money that a big company has to throw around goes much further when the government that they're trying to influence is smaller and more local.
I think you missed the point. Fox News is a fine source when you're looking to debunk right-wing claims: if even Fox says that your claim is untrue, then you have very little ground to stand on.
You are correct that Fox is not a source for truth, you wouldn't cite it as an affirmation of any positive claim, but it's perfectly good for this purpose.
That's... a very interesting report, but very different from the one that I linked. It says a lot of things, such as that the three groups are distinct, but only supports what it says via quotes from individuals. That isn't necessarily a bad method to disseminate information, but it doesn't really counter either of the surveys mentioned in the article that I linked.
The Pew survey suggests that the think-alike hypothesis doesn't explain the Tea Party's religious leanings, since as you can see, Tea Partiers are further right on social issues than the average Republican. They specifically ask about abortion, not Planned Parenthood, so it's not a question of funding.
The article discusses the connection between the Tea Party and religion. It says nothing about gun clinging or racism. I don't know where you got that from, but since we're having a discussion about making assumptions it would help to be a little more careful.
Well... I can think of one excuse. Many websites that I like rely on advertising revenue. Some, like Slashdot, have an option to pay a bit of money instead of seeing ads, and that's nice enough when it's available, but I don't particularly want to keep track of a zillion subscriptions and not every site is large enough to have that sort of thing.
Given that the way this whole internet deal works is for me to send a request to some remote server and for them to send me what I ask for (at their expense), it certainly feels pretty unethical for me to block the only way they have to recoup that money.
I do use NoScript, which winds up blocking a good portion of ads, and I don't feel bad about that one, but fundamentally the problem with a visitor using AdBlock is the same as a spammer sending spam - not only are you doing something that may not be desired, but you're pushing all of the costs for this action onto the other person.
No. I'm sure this will happen again, but it will not be soon. This was humiliating for the Republicans - a grand display with nothing to show for it. They won't bring it up again this year.
The sad thing is that it's embarrassment, not the thousands of people who have lost their jobs over this, not the $24 billion lost from the economy, that will make them pause when they consider doing this again in the future.
We need to do much more than can the politicians and establish term limits.
The thing is, term limits would make repealing laws much easier. The problem right now is that repealing a law which was passed by someone who is still sitting is tantamount to admitting a mistake, something a politician is loath to do. Once all of the people who passed the law in the first place are out of office it becomes much easier to get rid of it.
I'd say it's video games, and we seem to have all but lost that one. Video game DRM is not only more ubiquitous now, but has gotten worse. Steam has normalized the idea of software activation, and even more onerous schemes, like continuous activation, have gained traction and willful double-think when paired with high-profile releases like Diablo 3 (best selling game of 2012).
There are some holdouts, but the Humble Bundle is selling DRMed games now so that really only leaves Good Old Games if you want something DRM free. And they only do old games and indies.
The Galaxy Gear actually exists. You can criticize it, fine, but you can't come along with a reference to a Kickstarter project and say, "I wish the Galaxy Gear was more like this one - imaginary."
Setting aside his writing for the moment, he impressed me back in 2001 on September 11. He had a book where some terrorists hijacked a plane and crashed it into the capital building, so the news drones had him on so they could say things at him about that. Meanwhile, he had a message: "Don't make the mistake of blaming Islam or Muslims for this. This was a specific group of terrorists, not representative of Muslims in general." (I paraphrase.) The talking heads tried to redirect him, ask him how he "felt" about this or that nonsense, but he stayed on message.
He was the only one for at least a couple of days after 9/11 (that I saw on TV at least) who both recognized that this would be a problem and who called for consideration in the face of bigotry. I have trouble believing that he was the only one who recognized that this would be a problem.
It's pro-small business, but larger established companies can use it to force employee retention in poor working conditions. If you have a health problem (maybe work related?) and are dependent on your work-supplied health insurance, then you may not have the option to quit no matter what they do to you.
Slashdot Mirror
"Vested interest" != "interest." Either by the dictionary definition or in the way that the grandparent was using the phrase, they are different things. You can easily have an opinion on something in which you have no vested interest.
This is an oddball recommendation, since it's really a different sort of game than LoTR:O that the submitter mentioned, but I've really been enjoying Cardhunter ever since it came out a couple of months ago. It's turn-based card game and the player interaction is limited to PvP for right now, but Co-op should be coming eventually. A very different style of card game and it's free, so there's no reason not to check it out.
I should say that the devs are very conscientious about the play-to-win aspect that many of these games have: it really isn't a problem in this case. Paying will net you very few advantages.
The health insurance industry did this about twenty years ago (ish. I don't remember exactly). Instead of binning people by risk and associated cost, they starting looking at people on an individual level and simply denying those who might not be profitable. It sounds good when you're angry at irresponsible drivers, and it certainly makes money for the insurance companies, but it doesn't work when you're dependent on cars on driving to make your infrastructure work and when insurance is an integral part of that (required in many states).
How efficiently? I'm burning wood right now too, but I don't have any delusions that it doesn't cause pollution. I'd have difficulty quantifying how much exactly, but that's what the EPA is for. Apparently, it's too much. If they really want to make a difference, they're going to have to crack down on coal burning stoves too: wood stoves are designed to burn hot, to make the fire more efficient and less polluting, but since coal doesn't have that problem you can get a coal burning stove that will happily maintain a very low fire. And there's no reason you can't just put your wood in there...
it is just a left VS right battle over who controls the kleptocratic fascist state
No, it's another example of why we need an amendment nullifying Citizens United. Money influencing politics is always bad, no matter who is doing it. Let's focus on the real problem here - this is something that we can solve. Throwing up your hands and saying, "It's all fucked." is not constructive.
You make it sound like my doctor can't treat me. That there is some procedure he would recommend but can't because of the evil insurance company.
It happens all the time. In fact, it seems to be so unextraordinary that most of my search results are turning up questionairs about how to deal with it rather than news stories about how outrageous it is. A good doctor will consider your coverage when they make a recommendation, so they'll try not to recommend something that you won't be able to pay for, but it doesn't always work out that way.
This is how it's been for a long time, and it won't change with the Affordable Care Act. The only difference is that private insurers are required to provide a certain level of coverage. So there'll be fewer surprises.
Speaking of that level of coverage, there's also this. One of the biggest features of the Affordable Care Act is the requirement that people with preexisting conditions can't be excluded.
Your other points are supposition. What I've seen so far are stories about how the health care exchange is cost-effective (once you can get past the technical glitches), and stories like this one. But these are just anecdotal. The Affordable Care Act is expected to save us money in the long run, but we won't know exactly how much for a while.
That isn't true, I have no idea where you're getting that from. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, as implied by their name, is strictly about money, they have nothing to do with licensing.
In fact, when I searched for this the only related thing that came up was the interesting point that under the current system your health insurance provider can exclude your doctor if he doesn't match their performance goals. Medicare and the IPAB doesn't do this. Though as you say, in both cases this is about money - regardless of your insurance provider and regardless of the policies that the IPAB sets, you can still see your doctor if you are willing to pay out of pocket.
This is not to say that doctors aren't subject to ethics and competence review, but that has nothing to do with the IPAB or with your health insurance provider.
Your tone is clearly sarcastic, but I don't quite follow the point that you're trying to make. Yes, your doctor is your doctor. What does that have to do with anything? Are you claiming that your doctor can dictate to your insurance company what they will and will not pay for? He can't. Your doctor makes decisions based on your level of coverage, not the other way around.
I am claiming that the Democrats knew what was in the bill, yes. The bit about it being a mess is your opinion - as someone who lived in a single-payer country for a number of years and who knows what healthcare can be, I think that this bill is a desperately needed step in the right direction. I only wish it had gone further.
As for your hyperbolic nonsense about the Independent Payment Advisory Board: someone has to decide what should and should not be covered, and that person can not and never has been your doctor. Right now it's your health insurance company, seeking to maximize its profits. In the future it will be a panel appointed by the president and subject to senate confirmation. This is an improvement.
No, the point that the GP was making, incorrectly, was that Pelosi and the people in congress didn't know what was in the bill. They did know what was in the bill, they had been debating it for months.
The point that Pelosi was making was that the debate had become so politicized (death panels) that what was actually in the bill wasn't really known by the public. She was trying to say that once the bill was passed and the hysteria died down, people would find out that death panels had never been part of it.
That little clip that they belabored on Fox News was: "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it," (my emphasis)
Of course, that's from Fox News so not only is it out of context, it's not even the full sentence: “But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”
Politifact has a little write-up on it, if you'd care to educate yourself.
Your statement seems to lead that there is only one govt. That's the fallacy. There are municipalities (cities, townships, maybe even county) govt, then there's state govt., and finally the federal govt.
When people complain about Big Government, they are talking about the federal level. Why would someone want the size of government to be small at the top (federal level)? Because we have the least amount of say at that level, and it has the most reaching effects. The lower you go, the more influence you have.
This is a common belief, but local governments, being smaller, are also easier to influence. This was the issue with Montana's challenge to Citizens United: Montana had a history of corruption stemming from mining companies which was severe enough that they had special anti-lobbying laws passed. (Struck down by the supreme court.) The money that a big company has to throw around goes much further when the government that they're trying to influence is smaller and more local.
No contract, but a locked bootloader. Republic Wireless requires you to run their software and route your call over wifi when you're at home.
I think you missed the point. Fox News is a fine source when you're looking to debunk right-wing claims: if even Fox says that your claim is untrue, then you have very little ground to stand on.
You are correct that Fox is not a source for truth, you wouldn't cite it as an affirmation of any positive claim, but it's perfectly good for this purpose.
That's... a very interesting report, but very different from the one that I linked. It says a lot of things, such as that the three groups are distinct, but only supports what it says via quotes from individuals. That isn't necessarily a bad method to disseminate information, but it doesn't really counter either of the surveys mentioned in the article that I linked.
The Pew survey suggests that the think-alike hypothesis doesn't explain the Tea Party's religious leanings, since as you can see, Tea Partiers are further right on social issues than the average Republican. They specifically ask about abortion, not Planned Parenthood, so it's not a question of funding.
The article discusses the connection between the Tea Party and religion. It says nothing about gun clinging or racism. I don't know where you got that from, but since we're having a discussion about making assumptions it would help to be a little more careful.
Actually, yes: Tea Party = Religious Right. It's not one-to-one, but the two are closely linked.
There is just no excuse.
Well... I can think of one excuse. Many websites that I like rely on advertising revenue. Some, like Slashdot, have an option to pay a bit of money instead of seeing ads, and that's nice enough when it's available, but I don't particularly want to keep track of a zillion subscriptions and not every site is large enough to have that sort of thing.
Given that the way this whole internet deal works is for me to send a request to some remote server and for them to send me what I ask for (at their expense), it certainly feels pretty unethical for me to block the only way they have to recoup that money.
I do use NoScript, which winds up blocking a good portion of ads, and I don't feel bad about that one, but fundamentally the problem with a visitor using AdBlock is the same as a spammer sending spam - not only are you doing something that may not be desired, but you're pushing all of the costs for this action onto the other person.
No. I'm sure this will happen again, but it will not be soon. This was humiliating for the Republicans - a grand display with nothing to show for it. They won't bring it up again this year.
The sad thing is that it's embarrassment, not the thousands of people who have lost their jobs over this, not the $24 billion lost from the economy, that will make them pause when they consider doing this again in the future.
We need to do much more than can the politicians and establish term limits.
The thing is, term limits would make repealing laws much easier. The problem right now is that repealing a law which was passed by someone who is still sitting is tantamount to admitting a mistake, something a politician is loath to do. Once all of the people who passed the law in the first place are out of office it becomes much easier to get rid of it.
I'd say it's video games, and we seem to have all but lost that one. Video game DRM is not only more ubiquitous now, but has gotten worse. Steam has normalized the idea of software activation, and even more onerous schemes, like continuous activation, have gained traction and willful double-think when paired with high-profile releases like Diablo 3 (best selling game of 2012).
There are some holdouts, but the Humble Bundle is selling DRMed games now so that really only leaves Good Old Games if you want something DRM free. And they only do old games and indies.
The Galaxy Gear actually exists. You can criticize it, fine, but you can't come along with a reference to a Kickstarter project and say, "I wish the Galaxy Gear was more like this one - imaginary."
Setting aside his writing for the moment, he impressed me back in 2001 on September 11. He had a book where some terrorists hijacked a plane and crashed it into the capital building, so the news drones had him on so they could say things at him about that. Meanwhile, he had a message: "Don't make the mistake of blaming Islam or Muslims for this. This was a specific group of terrorists, not representative of Muslims in general." (I paraphrase.) The talking heads tried to redirect him, ask him how he "felt" about this or that nonsense, but he stayed on message.
He was the only one for at least a couple of days after 9/11 (that I saw on TV at least) who both recognized that this would be a problem and who called for consideration in the face of bigotry. I have trouble believing that he was the only one who recognized that this would be a problem.
It's a pyramid scheme. As you said, a Ponzi scheme requires investors and a central figure who is taking money from those investors.
It's pro-small business, but larger established companies can use it to force employee retention in poor working conditions. If you have a health problem (maybe work related?) and are dependent on your work-supplied health insurance, then you may not have the option to quit no matter what they do to you.