thats because its typically cheaper for your spouse to get insurance through her employer, because her employer recieves hefty tax incentives to do so.
without regulation you also wouldnt have clean air, clean water, and safe food. you wouldnt have a safe workplace. you wouldnt have a safe car. your bank accoutnants wouldnt be protected by insurance. your bank wouldnt be restricted in what it can do with your money. your grandma out in the country wouldnt have phone or even electricity. and now, most recently, your insurance cant kick you off your plan when you get sick.
No worries, since it doesnt happen that way anyway.
Not only is the rate of it lower in the UK, but its also more likely to be committed by a family member already in the house than a stranger kicking in the door.
the idea of using a different product is fine. i have no problem there.
my problem is justifying or protecting google's delivered product under the concept of free speech itself. to me that's not the proper way to protect it. I see the algorithm as a dumb black box. it gets an input, does some computation, and it spits out an output. i see the output is an answer to the question (input) not known in advance.
and i have trouble seeing that computational output as "speech". i feel there should be a better way to protect googles search results from this sort of legal bullying.
(unless of course they actually are engaged in anticompetitive practices, hich should be covered by existing law already, and "free speech" shouldnt be a protection against those laws. kind of like using the 1st Amendment to protect the practice of discrimination, as some have been wont to do recently)
but do they legally consider that as "speaking" and "expressing thoughts in the marketplace of ideas" when a computer program gives an output? some outputs i can see saying yes (print Manifesto).
but i have trouble seeing the same logic applied to search results, or other computation. that kind of output, that of program, isnt so much ME the programmer saying anything, but actually me asking the computer to do a task and provide me an answer to a question i didnt know. and if i didnt know, how can it be considered my "speech" in the legal and 1st Amendment sense?
Note that I'm not expressing an opinion, but an inability to reach the same conclusion as you, or really any conclusion because I'm still undecided here, and havent seen a satisfactory logic yet.
thats not a true statement. A does not logically follow B. its not happening with health insurance. and it hasnt happened with the other famously mandated purchase, car insurance.
200%? I dont believe you. Flat out. I'll state you are lying.
Forcing everyone to have insurance doesnt mean they can charge what they want. Thats only true if there is no competition, ie, nonly one insurance company, which is tue only in a couple fo states. If anything the ACA fosters a free market approach and better enables competition by making the product and what you get for your money more transparent enabling you to make a better choiuce as a consumer, which will have the effect of forcing comapnies to lower prices where they can.
The idea that no one read it, is complete and udder bull. That's a straight lie that just needs to go away.
plus consider, not accepting cash often protects both you, the complex owner, and the actual persons in the lease office.
The latter is particularly important, because if they accepted cash a typical 500 unit complex would have between 250k and 1M $$ on hand on the first of every month. And since their security is usually non existent, that would make leasing offices a VERY ATTRACTIVE target.
Accepting checks only, which are payable only to the person written on it unlike cash, completely eliminates that.
Its probably part of the lease contract. I know it was in mine.
And there's this:
I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal? The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
No no no no. See, you dont get to intentionally create a problem, and then use the problem as your proof that it doesnt work; It doesnt work because of your sabotage, not because of inherent qualities. Self fulfilling prophesies that you brought about are not proof of dysfunction.
Your proof is an oft repeated myth which has no actual connection to actual USPS finances. Also, the USPS, and their employees, are not funded by taxpayer dollars. So you're wrong about that too: we're not on the hook. None of the taxes you pay during the year go to the USPS. It is soley funded by the fees they take in, whether its from selling stamps or shipping packages.
Further, the USPS could be made even more profitable by bringing back Postal Banking. Most other nations have it. And we used to too. It provided banking services for those the banks refused to provide service too. And still do. (Ah....the free market...) When Postal Banking went it away it was replaced by the notoriously awful payday lenders, which is a lbight upon the earth.
Oh, but dont take my word for any of it. Simple actual research from primary documents, such as the USPS financial report (I've read it, have you? Guessing not, or you wouldnt have linked to that about.com article) would find all this for you.
None of this would mean much if the prevailing myth about postal finances were true – that the Postal Service is losing billions of dollars a year delivering the mail because everyone’s on the Internet, taxpayers are on the hook for this, and so drastic cuts are needed.
Here are the facts: The Postal Service isn’t funded by taxpayers; it earns its revenue by selling stamps. And it’s operationally profitable. Last year it had a $623 million operating profit; the first quarter of fiscal year 2014 produced $1.1 billion in black ink.
[..]the overall loss was due to congressional mandates, particularly a requirement that the agency pre-fund retiree benefits to the tune of about $5.6 billion per year.
[..] the Postal Service would have recorded a net profit of $600 million without the annual payment
The USPS is the only quasi-government agency to be ordered to pay a part of its earnings into the U.S. Treasury in order to hold budget deficits down. Its leaders have been trying for the past seven years to get this unfair payment removed, but have so far been unsuccessful due to the Tea Party/Republican politics in Washington.
elsewhere: the 2006 congressional mandate that the USPS pre-fund future retiree health benefits for the next 75 years, and do so within a decade — an obligation no other public agency or private firm faces. The more than $5 billion annual payments since 2007 — $21 billion total — are the difference between a positive and negative ledger
The new USPS Financial Report issued Friday further validates the claim that the Postal Service is neither broken nor in crisis. Excluding the pre-funding expense the USPS has turned a $660 million profit delivering mail in fiscal year 2013. Showing again that Senator Carper, Senator Coburn and Congressman Issa are manufacturing a postal financial crisis as an excuse to dismantle it. Standing in their shadows are vultures named FedEx and UPS.
Fair enough, and a source of many of my issue with the bill (the "it didnt go far enough" crowd). But I could argue that it is at least partly addressed through the potential to make better informed decisions as a purchaser of insurance.
Such as my own plan, which is miles better than my employer's offering.
My plan, gotten on the exchange, with no subsidies (I make too much money) is an HMO based plan with a higher premium (than average; its actually cheaper than my meployers plan's premium) but no yearly deductible and a very low OOP limit (1k). My particluar plan (this company offered two HMOs like this) also has flat rate fees for things like tests and meds and what not, rather than percentage based coinsurance fees, which in my case was the better option. The result is that the next pregnacy in our household should be far, far less than the $8k+ bill we got handed last time.
that is kind of funny. I wasnt really ranting against the OP, just against Santorum. I just had no idea what he was referring to as I had never heard that story and google wasnt turning anything up.
On the one hand I hope he runs again, for the entertainment value. On the other hand...there is a danger, remote, but it exists, that he could win.
It is because it is very heavily implied that I must take the stance that it does exist in the document. I would hold that an implied existence, particularly existence that is foundational to many pillars of our legal system, is existence.
There is a certain amount of public resources that have gone into you. I can provide examples if you lack the creativity or vigor to look for them. You have a cost to society. It's not a difficult concept, you're not a homesteader who thinks your trusty double-barrel is keeping the Cherokee away, though you're like just as ignorant as one.
2) would you prefer a dictatorial allocation of resources?
3) he's referring to the life expentecy they have over there, which is significantly higher than we have in the US
4) you're actually defending higher prices as a means to limit access, because access to a better system must be limited? HFS are you dumb. Firstly, our system is not better (re: life expentecy and health outcomes). And secondly cost does NOT correlate with quality of care (again: re: life expentecy and health outcomes); if it did we shoul dhave the best health results of any nation on earth....but we dont, we're almost last for all western nations.
The fair way to limit access to something, if access needs to be limited, which access to helathcare DOES NOT, it should be done based on medical need, not the size of y our wallet. and yes, you are a child throwing a tantrum. a very ignorant child.
So what matters to you most is whether its pro or anti government....
not whether or not its working... not wther the outcomes are better or worse... and not whether or not its producing a better return on money spent than the alternative...
See, that's why you're stupid. --
And then you just pull some random stuff out of thin air... and link to one man's personal choice for himself (explcitly stated in the article)... and then pull some more random made up stuff...
And apparently you dont understand what EOL counseling is. It's not telling someone they need to pull the plug. The choice is always the individuals. But many people are not accepting of death. I'm myself am not, i tell you right now.
But it doesnt matter if we're accepting, cause its gonna happen. We cant fight it forever. And at a certain point in our lives our bodies just start failing. and the treatment costs go up, and we get nothing to show for it.
Funny thing though, that actually is another indictment of our own system. you can make the case that if it didnt cost so much, there would be less reason for the EOL counseling. in our country even EOL counseling revolves more around healthcare as a financial decision than a quality of life one. people wouldnt have to make decisions to continue or stop treatment based on finances, but could isntead do it based on QOL.
they could make the decision instead based on the same criteria people in other (more advanced) countries do.
To not have this conversation with yoruself, your family, your doctor, until its too late, is irresponsible. These are real question that you WILL have to ask yourself at some point: "Do I risk open haeart surgery and dying on the table (15% chance), or just live with the problem and risk random death any day?" "Do I take more chemo which might give me another 8 weeks of life, 8 weeks of miserable sick barely alive life...or stop chemo knowing I wont live more than another 4 weeks?"
Theres some good peices at The Incidental Economist (doctors and health professionals who write about health policy) on EOL: http://theincidentaleconomist....
The essay is brave and constructive. It’s brave because Emanuel and others who want to encourage end of life discussions have been falsely accused of promoting euthanasia — Emanuel [the guy who wrote the piece your linked to] has been a notable opponent of euthanasia and assisted suicide — and this article elicited more of the same. It’s constructive because Emanuel writes informally, candidly, and personally in a way that may help make it possible for the rest of us to reflect on our choices in the light of our values.
Social mobility is the ability to move between economic classes. IE, the ability and likelihood of someone to move into a higher economic bracket and earn more than his parents. The ability and likelihood of someone born poor improving their lot such that they move into the middle and even upper classes.
And it IS provably true. It is less likely to the happen in the US than in most of Europe. Only a few members of the EU have less mobility than the US.
The US even has less social mobility than England, the country we rebelled against, and among the list of reasons was the existence of special groups of citiznry with extra rights, namely the nobility, and it was impossible to move "up" into that class. We hated it so much, we even specially banned the very of nobility within our Constitution.
That England. And it now has more ecnomic mobility than the US.
actually, the desire of tax payers to see their dollars well spent in a democracy that holds REAL elections, elections that actually matter and reflect the will of the people, produces a pretty hefty incentive to control costs.
im quite sure you dont know what you're talking about, but not compeltely sure.
So please enlighten me. How is it against the basic premise of the ACA? What specifically in the ACA is counter to the concept of living longer? Because I know its not the part where more people get insurance and thus more people get medical care, casuse that part is pretty clearly tied living longer, healthier lives. We even have scientific studies and charts that prove that proper medical care, and access to it, helps people live longer.
So you'll have to show me which part you're referring to.
No I dont remember what happened to Rick Santorum. Elighten me.
The only thing I can remember about Rick Santorum is how he repeatedly makes a fool of himself, by saying things like "President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob."
Or how he was pro choice until he ran for Congress.... Or compared the ACA to apartheid.... Or how he to believes global arming is a hoax and junk science....in his so very expert scientific opinion.... Or how its also his, very expert, opinion that is tons of tons of coal and oil left, more than enough for centuries of use.... Or how he though they were just killin old folks in the Netherlands... Or how he proposed that the National Weather Service not be allowed to release weather data to the public for free...even though we already paid for it via taxes and it's their job, cause it might compete with for profit companies who sell weather data... Or how wants to change the American Legal system so it aligns with the Bible...while at the same time opposing the idea of Sharia Law, and somehow maintaining that his goal is totally different... Or how he stated that the Right to Privacy doesn't exist in the Constitution, which was how he defending the banning of homosexuality under sodomy laws (you know, "what happens in private between consenting adults is no one's business"....well Santorum thought it was his business)...
Slashdot Mirror
thats because its typically cheaper for your spouse to get insurance through her employer, because her employer recieves hefty tax incentives to do so.
no, regulation is not inherently bad.
without regulation you also wouldnt have clean air, clean water, and safe food.
you wouldnt have a safe workplace.
you wouldnt have a safe car.
your bank accoutnants wouldnt be protected by insurance.
your bank wouldnt be restricted in what it can do with your money.
your grandma out in the country wouldnt have phone or even electricity.
and now, most recently, your insurance cant kick you off your plan when you get sick.
i can go on.
No worries, since it doesnt happen that way anyway.
Not only is the rate of it lower in the UK, but its also more likely to be committed by a family member already in the house than a stranger kicking in the door.
the idea of using a different product is fine. i have no problem there.
my problem is justifying or protecting google's delivered product under the concept of free speech itself.
to me that's not the proper way to protect it. I see the algorithm as a dumb black box.
it gets an input, does some computation, and it spits out an output.
i see the output is an answer to the question (input) not known in advance.
and i have trouble seeing that computational output as "speech".
i feel there should be a better way to protect googles search results from this sort of legal bullying.
(unless of course they actually are engaged in anticompetitive practices,
hich should be covered by existing law already,
and "free speech" shouldnt be a protection against those laws.
kind of like using the 1st Amendment to protect the practice of discrimination,
as some have been wont to do recently)
but do they legally consider that as "speaking" and "expressing thoughts in the marketplace of ideas" when a computer program gives an output?
some outputs i can see saying yes (print Manifesto).
but i have trouble seeing the same logic applied to search results, or other computation.
that kind of output, that of program, isnt so much ME the programmer saying anything,
but actually me asking the computer to do a task and provide me an answer to a question i didnt know.
and if i didnt know, how can it be considered my "speech" in the legal and 1st Amendment sense?
Note that I'm not expressing an opinion, but an inability to reach the same conclusion as you,
or really any conclusion because I'm still undecided here, and havent seen a satisfactory logic yet.
thats not a true statement.
A does not logically follow B.
its not happening with health insurance.
and it hasnt happened with the other famously mandated purchase, car insurance.
200%? I dont believe you. Flat out. I'll state you are lying.
Forcing everyone to have insurance doesnt mean they can charge what they want. Thats only true if there is no competition, ie, nonly one insurance company, which is tue only in a couple fo states. If anything the ACA fosters a free market approach and better enables competition by making the product and what you get for your money more transparent enabling you to make a better choiuce as a consumer, which will have the effect of forcing comapnies to lower prices where they can.
The idea that no one read it, is complete and udder bull. That's a straight lie that just needs to go away.
plus consider, not accepting cash often protects both you, the complex owner, and the actual persons in the lease office.
The latter is particularly important, because if they accepted cash a typical 500 unit complex would have between 250k and 1M $$ on hand on the first of every month.
And since their security is usually non existent, that would make leasing offices a VERY ATTRACTIVE target.
Accepting checks only, which are payable only to the person written on it unlike cash, completely eliminates that.
Its probably part of the lease contract. I know it was in mine.
And there's this:
I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?
The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
http://www.treasury.gov/resour...
The trial against the bitcoins, US Government VS 50,000 Bitcoins, was decided already.
The bitcoins failed to hire a lawyer in their defense, and it's not like they couldn't afford one so there was no need to provide one for them.
Ah...the joys of civil forfeiture.
No no no no.
See, you dont get to intentionally create a problem, and then use the problem as your proof that it doesnt work; It doesnt work because of your sabotage, not because of inherent qualities. Self fulfilling prophesies that you brought about are not proof of dysfunction.
Your proof is an oft repeated myth which has no actual connection to actual USPS finances.
Also, the USPS, and their employees, are not funded by taxpayer dollars.
So you're wrong about that too: we're not on the hook.
None of the taxes you pay during the year go to the USPS.
It is soley funded by the fees they take in, whether its from selling stamps or shipping packages.
Further, the USPS could be made even more profitable by bringing back Postal Banking. Most other nations have it.
And we used to too. It provided banking services for those the banks refused to provide service too. And still do. (Ah....the free market...)
When Postal Banking went it away it was replaced by the notoriously awful payday lenders, which is a lbight upon the earth.
Oh, but dont take my word for any of it.
Simple actual research from primary documents, such as the USPS financial report (I've read it, have you? Guessing not, or you wouldnt have linked to that about.com article) would find all this for you.
None of this would mean much if the prevailing myth about postal finances were true – that the Postal Service is losing billions of dollars a year delivering the mail because everyone’s on the Internet, taxpayers are on the hook for this, and so drastic cuts are needed.
Here are the facts: The Postal Service isn’t funded by taxpayers; it earns its revenue by selling stamps. And it’s operationally profitable. Last year it had a $623 million operating profit; the first quarter of fiscal year 2014 produced $1.1 billion in black ink.
[..]the overall loss was due to congressional mandates, particularly a requirement that the agency pre-fund retiree benefits to the tune of about $5.6 billion per year.
[..] the Postal Service would have recorded a net profit of $600 million without the annual payment
The USPS is the only quasi-government agency to be ordered to pay a part of its earnings into the U.S. Treasury in order to hold budget deficits down. Its leaders have been trying for the past seven years to get this unfair payment removed, but have so far been unsuccessful due to the Tea Party/Republican politics in Washington.
elsewhere: the 2006 congressional mandate that the USPS pre-fund future retiree health benefits for the next 75 years, and do so within a decade — an obligation no other public agency or private firm faces. The more than $5 billion annual payments since 2007 — $21 billion total — are the difference between a positive and negative ledger
The new USPS Financial Report issued Friday further validates the claim that the Postal Service is neither broken nor in crisis. Excluding the pre-funding expense the USPS has turned a $660 million profit delivering mail in fiscal year 2013. Showing again that Senator Carper, Senator Coburn and Congressman Issa are manufacturing a postal financial crisis as an excuse to dismantle it. Standing in their shadows are vultures named FedEx and UPS.
http://www.carper.senate.gov/p...
http://watchdog.org/135210/pos...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
http://www.wausaudailyherald.c...
And also, it seemed we were discussing cost disparity betwen countries, not particular legistlation.
Fair enough, and a source of many of my issue with the bill (the "it didnt go far enough" crowd).
But I could argue that it is at least partly addressed through the potential to make better informed decisions as a purchaser of insurance.
Such as my own plan, which is miles better than my employer's offering.
My plan, gotten on the exchange, with no subsidies (I make too much money) is an HMO based plan with a higher premium (than average; its actually cheaper than my meployers plan's premium) but no yearly deductible and a very low OOP limit (1k). My particluar plan (this company offered two HMOs like this) also has flat rate fees for things like tests and meds and what not, rather than percentage based coinsurance fees, which in my case was the better option. The result is that the next pregnacy in our household should be far, far less than the $8k+ bill we got handed last time.
that is kind of funny.
I wasnt really ranting against the OP, just against Santorum.
I just had no idea what he was referring to as I had never heard that story and google wasnt turning anything up.
On the one hand I hope he runs again, for the entertainment value.
On the other hand...there is a danger, remote, but it exists, that he could win.
It is because it is very heavily implied that I must take the stance that it does exist in the document.
I would hold that an implied existence, particularly existence that is foundational to many pillars of our legal system, is existence.
There is a certain amount of public resources that have gone into you. I can provide examples if you lack the creativity or vigor to look for them.
You have a cost to society. It's not a difficult concept, you're not a homesteader who thinks your trusty double-barrel is keeping the Cherokee away, though you're like just as ignorant as one.
Here, I believe this is the link you are looking for:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Repub...
1) you know thats not race right?
2) would you prefer a dictatorial allocation of resources?
3) he's referring to the life expentecy they have over there, which is significantly higher than we have in the US
4) you're actually defending higher prices as a means to limit access, because access to a better system must be limited? HFS are you dumb. Firstly, our system is not better (re: life expentecy and health outcomes). And secondly cost does NOT correlate with quality of care (again: re: life expentecy and health outcomes); if it did we shoul dhave the best health results of any nation on earth....but we dont, we're almost last for all western nations.
The fair way to limit access to something, if access needs to be limited, which access to helathcare DOES NOT, it should be done based on medical need, not the size of y our wallet. and yes, you are a child throwing a tantrum. a very ignorant child.
So what matters to you most is whether its pro or anti government....
not whether or not its working...
not wther the outcomes are better or worse...
and not whether or not its producing a better return on money spent than the alternative...
See, that's why you're stupid.
--
And then you just pull some random stuff out of thin air...
and link to one man's personal choice for himself (explcitly stated in the article)...
and then pull some more random made up stuff...
And apparently you dont understand what EOL counseling is.
It's not telling someone they need to pull the plug. The choice is always the individuals.
But many people are not accepting of death. I'm myself am not, i tell you right now.
But it doesnt matter if we're accepting, cause its gonna happen.
We cant fight it forever.
And at a certain point in our lives our bodies just start failing.
and the treatment costs go up, and we get nothing to show for it.
Funny thing though, that actually is another indictment of our own system.
you can make the case that if it didnt cost so much, there would be less reason for the EOL counseling.
in our country even EOL counseling revolves more around healthcare as a financial decision than a quality of life one.
people wouldnt have to make decisions to continue or stop treatment based on finances, but could isntead do it based on QOL.
they could make the decision instead based on the same criteria people in other (more advanced) countries do.
To not have this conversation with yoruself, your family, your doctor, until its too late, is irresponsible.
These are real question that you WILL have to ask yourself at some point:
"Do I risk open haeart surgery and dying on the table (15% chance), or just live with the problem and risk random death any day?"
"Do I take more chemo which might give me another 8 weeks of life, 8 weeks of miserable sick barely alive life...or stop chemo knowing I wont live more than another 4 weeks?"
Theres some good peices at The Incidental Economist (doctors and health professionals who write about health policy) on EOL:
http://theincidentaleconomist....
The essay is brave and constructive. It’s brave because Emanuel and others who want to encourage end of life discussions have been falsely accused of promoting euthanasia — Emanuel [the guy who wrote the piece your linked to] has been a notable opponent of euthanasia and assisted suicide — and this article elicited more of the same. It’s constructive because Emanuel writes informally, candidly, and personally in a way that may help make it possible for the rest of us to reflect on our choices in the light of our values.
(Emphasis added)
Social mobility is the ability to move between economic classes.
IE, the ability and likelihood of someone to move into a higher economic bracket and earn more than his parents.
The ability and likelihood of someone born poor improving their lot such that they move into the middle and even upper classes.
And it IS provably true.
It is less likely to the happen in the US than in most of Europe.
Only a few members of the EU have less mobility than the US.
The US even has less social mobility than England, the country we rebelled against, and among the list of reasons was the existence of special groups of citiznry with extra rights, namely the nobility, and it was impossible to move "up" into that class. We hated it so much, we even specially banned the very of nobility within our Constitution.
That England.
And it now has more ecnomic mobility than the US.
actually, the desire of tax payers to see their dollars well spent in a democracy that holds REAL elections, elections that actually matter and reflect the will of the people, produces a pretty hefty incentive to control costs.
governments do enjoy a rather large economies of scale bonus, to put it in Economic RPG terms
im quite sure you dont know what you're talking about, but not compeltely sure.
So please enlighten me.
How is it against the basic premise of the ACA? What specifically in the ACA is counter to the concept of living longer?
Because I know its not the part where more people get insurance and thus more people get medical care, casuse that part is pretty clearly tied living longer, healthier lives.
We even have scientific studies and charts that prove that proper medical care, and access to it, helps people live longer.
So you'll have to show me which part you're referring to.
What I wonder is how is text generated by computer, by algorithm, considered "speech" ?
Oh, he is also opposed to libertarianism within the Republican Party and wants to kick it out of the party.
So there's one plus in his favor.
No I dont remember what happened to Rick Santorum.
Elighten me.
The only thing I can remember about Rick Santorum is how he repeatedly makes a fool of himself, by saying things like "President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob."
Or how he was pro choice until he ran for Congress....
Or compared the ACA to apartheid....
Or how he to believes global arming is a hoax and junk science....in his so very expert scientific opinion....
Or how its also his, very expert, opinion that is tons of tons of coal and oil left, more than enough for centuries of use....
Or how he though they were just killin old folks in the Netherlands...
Or how he proposed that the National Weather Service not be allowed to release weather data to the public for free...even though we already paid for it via taxes and it's their job, cause it might compete with for profit companies who sell weather data...
Or how wants to change the American Legal system so it aligns with the Bible...while at the same time opposing the idea of Sharia Law, and somehow maintaining that his goal is totally different...
Or how he stated that the Right to Privacy doesn't exist in the Constitution, which was how he defending the banning of homosexuality under sodomy laws (you know, "what happens in private between consenting adults is no one's business"....well Santorum thought it was his business)...
Guess I remember more than I thought.