This isnt about your typical state college or university though. They have student loan issues well, but this isnt aimed at them.
This is aimed at predatory "institutions", ie the for-profit colleges. This is aimed at the Pheonixes, DeVrys, and similar for-profit "colleges" that prey on how easy it is to get student loans.
There's hundreds of them now. Places that charge ridiculous tuitions and fees, more so than your typical actual college, and basically treat the students as a means to getting their hands on federal dollars via the student loans, and give them a worthless degree in return. And if you've got something like the GI Bill as well, theyll suck that dry too.
These are the same people after all that got busted just a few years ago for Pell Grant fraud.
Actually they did propose it. Several times. Especially in the 90s they would dust off their plan and push it as the alternative freemarket alternative to socialized medicine aka HillaryCare.
No, they're not embarrassed by the plan, some candidates in comeptitive disctricts trying to keep their jobs aside. The website was a disaster, but for anyone familiar with government contracting, not surprising either. That's not a flaw with the law, but with governemtn contracting practices.
And what deleterious effects? You're the one that needs to face reality. The law is working. It is doing what it was supposed to do. Not one GOP dire prediction has come true.
my wife is a teacher. im not disputing that. my point was that it didnt blow up, it didnt recieve massive amounts of attention, and most people didnt care until he said something. and at that point it did sadly become somewhat of a R/L issue for a lot of folks.
What about women paying to cover prostate exams? What about men paying for pap smears? It called "that's how insurance works".
And no, the junk plans you're talking about were little more than scams. Like say paying 700$ a year for a plan that only pays out a maximum of 300$ in a year.
Your comments and position have no basis in reality. But I doubt you care, since after all reality has a well known liberal bias.
Do we REALLY need to have the discussion about political party hsitory again? How the Southern Democrats, who became the Dixiecrats, and then became Republicans, were always a very conservative segment of the old democratic party, and who had more in common with todays Tea Party?
Youre using the party label, but ignoring that the people you are talking about switched parties some time ago.
Not really no it hasnt. Know why our infrastructure sucks? Cause a lot of it was built way back then, and then later in the 50s witht he Interstate expansion, and hasnt touched since.
We still need roads built and replaced. Bridges. Dams. Airports. Etc. Thats what hte WPA built, and that stuff will always be needful.
You are correct but this country still isnt ready to adopt single payer. especially as it has shifted further rightward in recent history. remember its been almost 50 years since the last round of large social programs was implemented with LBJ's Great Society package. This country, sadly, may never be ready for single payer.
They opposed it because they oppose everything that Obama does. Whatever he does, they support the opposite. No one cared about Common Core originally, and it was implemented in 43 states. But as soon as Obama said it was a good idea, everyone on the started freaking out and saying it was the worst EVAH. When he suggested bombing Syria they said no way. When he was reluctant to bomb Russia/Ukraine they said we needed to. If he said cyanide was toxic they would stand on the Capitol Steps and chug it just to spite him. If he cured cancer they'd complain he was putting doctors out of work.
It's a Republican plan because they came up with it 20+ years ago. Nearly every key aspect of it comes from the GOP plan that Heritage came up with around 1989. Most everything in the plan is oriented around implementing and supporting a free market, ie existing insurance industry, based solution to expanding care. Even the mandate originates with Heritage, and is essential to preventing free riders so that the insurance based approach can work.
Further, the GOP HAS NO HEALTHCARE PLAN. They keep saying they want to repeal Obamacare, but when asked about what they'd replace it with, they have no answer. the few who actually give an answer, invariably end up describing something that resembles Obamacare.
Dems went with a Romneycare clone because they figured, hey, we're never going to get a nationalized healthcare system through congress, not yet. But they themselves implemented this thing up in Mass., and it's working pretty good, so lets do that. Let's compromise. Instead of pushing for a NHS, we'll push for increased access using the a market based approach thorugh the insurance companies. So thats what they did.
Its not terrible. Its not a cluster. And GOP opposition is just smoke and mirrors. The only one flying in the face of the facts is YOU. You completely ignorant of the facts, of history, and the context.
Actually it most certainly is. Not only is it a right, but it is a requirement for a functioning and stable society. Lack of acceptance leads to ostracism, being invisible, and even violence. All of which weve seen concerning -every- minority, racial religious gender/sexual identity or otherwise, in this country's history.
While it's been rumored for sometime, and even a bit of an open secret, he did officially for a specific reason.
Namely that he IS in a high profile position, a public one, and a considerable amount of power and leverage. He is basically offering himself up as a role model for people who dont enjoy his level of acceptance or tolerance. There are people who deal with and put up with abuse constantly because of who they are. They percieve a lack of support, from families, friends, and hte world in general. Some turn to suicide or other self harm. So he by doing this is offering hope and inspiration to those poeple.
In fact, you yourself gave the key phrase: "SHOULD have the same rights". Currently they dont. Currently they suffer considerable abuse and stigma, even in society at large. And as long as that's true, actions like his today will be needful.
And for that he is to be commended. It does take a certain amount of courage to do so.
And that there is precisely why you are wrong. You already have acceptence and full rights under the law. His demanding the same isnt a demand for special recognition or special priviledges, but simply the same ones that you already enjoy.
the assumption that you gain arable land is a bad assumption. in fact its actually 2 bad assumptions: -it assumes that the now warmer areas have good usable soil -and that the previously fertile areas are still arable
you know that Carbon Credits are a fundamentally free market oriented solution, right?
since not all economic entitites will have the same carbon footprint, slapping them all with the same carbon limits is inefficient. Factory A may never come close to their limit, while B may not be able to ever come in under it.
so you apply the limit, but then you do it by creating a system where the limit is represented by credits. they can trade these credits amongst themselves. in our example here A can sell its excess credits it doesnt need to B. it becomes a zero-sum game that will have the effect of everyone achieving the limits through self-averaging.
Further, nothing you stated about the historical record is true. Neither is any of the "science" you espouse. And No its not entirely possible. We've had this discussion before. -CO2 rise is NOT caused by shift in climate, it does "follow" a temperature rise. -The insects got big because of Oxygen levels, not CO2 -The giant dinosuars were after the insects and for a different reason -The ocean IS acidyfing. Do you even science? Do you understand pH ?? Carbonic acid. CO2 when dissolved in water leads to small amounts carbonic acid. On a global scale, it starts to add up.
Basically nothing you ever state is ever true. But you dont care about reality. You dont care how many facts that prove you wrong are presented, you still keep saying the same things over and over. Denialism, thy face is you.
Also i should ask, are you aware of the number of subsidies that go to maintaining our "healthy middle class" ? In case you're not aware, and I really think you are not, we spend many times more on that than we do on the poor.
Slashdot Mirror
This isnt about your typical state college or university though.
They have student loan issues well, but this isnt aimed at them.
This is aimed at predatory "institutions", ie the for-profit colleges.
This is aimed at the Pheonixes, DeVrys, and similar for-profit "colleges" that prey on how easy it is to get student loans.
There's hundreds of them now. Places that charge ridiculous tuitions and fees, more so than your typical actual college, and basically treat the students as a means to getting their hands on federal dollars via the student loans, and give them a worthless degree in return. And if you've got something like the GI Bill as well, theyll suck that dry too.
These are the same people after all that got busted just a few years ago for Pell Grant fraud.
Actually they did propose it. Several times. Especially in the 90s they would dust off their plan and push it as the alternative freemarket alternative to socialized medicine aka HillaryCare.
No, they're not embarrassed by the plan, some candidates in comeptitive disctricts trying to keep their jobs aside.
The website was a disaster, but for anyone familiar with government contracting, not surprising either. That's not a flaw with the law, but with governemtn contracting practices.
And what deleterious effects?
You're the one that needs to face reality.
The law is working. It is doing what it was supposed to do.
Not one GOP dire prediction has come true.
my wife is a teacher. im not disputing that.
my point was that it didnt blow up, it didnt recieve massive amounts of attention, and most people didnt care until he said something.
and at that point it did sadly become somewhat of a R/L issue for a lot of folks.
What about women paying to cover prostate exams?
What about men paying for pap smears?
It called "that's how insurance works".
And no, the junk plans you're talking about were little more than scams.
Like say paying 700$ a year for a plan that only pays out a maximum of 300$ in a year.
Your comments and position have no basis in reality.
But I doubt you care, since after all reality has a well known liberal bias.
Do we REALLY need to have the discussion about political party hsitory again? How the Southern Democrats, who became the Dixiecrats, and then became Republicans, were always a very conservative segment of the old democratic party, and who had more in common with todays Tea Party?
Youre using the party label, but ignoring that the people you are talking about switched parties some time ago.
We jsut covered this a few days ago.
But here you go: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
it also reduces all consumption, leading to worse health outcomes.
there is a balance that has to be struck when going that route.
Not really no it hasnt.
Know why our infrastructure sucks?
Cause a lot of it was built way back then, and then later in the 50s witht he Interstate expansion, and hasnt touched since.
We still need roads built and replaced. Bridges. Dams. Airports. Etc. Thats what hte WPA built, and that stuff will always be needful.
No, because tort reform would only lead to a 3-5% cost savings, at best.
Its been studied. The source of our outrageous costs isnt lawsuits.
You are correct but this country still isnt ready to adopt single payer. especially as it has shifted further rightward in recent history. remember its been almost 50 years since the last round of large social programs was implemented with LBJ's Great Society package. This country, sadly, may never be ready for single payer.
And what part are they leaving out, pray tell?
They opposed it because they oppose everything that Obama does.
Whatever he does, they support the opposite. No one cared about Common Core originally, and it was implemented in 43 states. But as soon as Obama said it was a good idea, everyone on the started freaking out and saying it was the worst EVAH.
When he suggested bombing Syria they said no way.
When he was reluctant to bomb Russia/Ukraine they said we needed to.
If he said cyanide was toxic they would stand on the Capitol Steps and chug it just to spite him.
If he cured cancer they'd complain he was putting doctors out of work.
It's a Republican plan because they came up with it 20+ years ago.
Nearly every key aspect of it comes from the GOP plan that Heritage came up with around 1989.
Most everything in the plan is oriented around implementing and supporting a free market, ie existing insurance industry, based solution to expanding care. Even the mandate originates with Heritage, and is essential to preventing free riders so that the insurance based approach can work.
Further, the GOP HAS NO HEALTHCARE PLAN. They keep saying they want to repeal Obamacare, but when asked about what they'd replace it with, they have no answer. the few who actually give an answer, invariably end up describing something that resembles Obamacare.
Dems went with a Romneycare clone because they figured, hey, we're never going to get a nationalized healthcare system through congress, not yet. But they themselves implemented this thing up in Mass., and it's working pretty good, so lets do that. Let's compromise. Instead of pushing for a NHS, we'll push for increased access using the a market based approach thorugh the insurance companies. So thats what they did.
Its not terrible.
Its not a cluster.
And GOP opposition is just smoke and mirrors.
The only one flying in the face of the facts is YOU.
You completely ignorant of the facts, of history, and the context.
stupid mods.
mod up
Are you denied equal protection, equal status, and equal rights under the law due to yoru height?
No? Get back to us when you are.
Your impression is flawed, because marriage ISNT about making babies.
Marriage also confers certain legal rights, priviledges, and protections.
Actually it most certainly is.
Not only is it a right, but it is a requirement for a functioning and stable society.
Lack of acceptance leads to ostracism, being invisible, and even violence.
All of which weve seen concerning -every- minority, racial religious gender/sexual identity or otherwise, in this country's history.
While it's been rumored for sometime, and even a bit of an open secret, he did officially for a specific reason.
Namely that he IS in a high profile position, a public one, and a considerable amount of power and leverage.
He is basically offering himself up as a role model for people who dont enjoy his level of acceptance or tolerance.
There are people who deal with and put up with abuse constantly because of who they are. They percieve a lack of support, from families, friends, and hte world in general.
Some turn to suicide or other self harm. So he by doing this is offering hope and inspiration to those poeple.
In fact, you yourself gave the key phrase: "SHOULD have the same rights". Currently they dont. Currently they suffer considerable abuse and stigma, even in society at large. And as long as that's true, actions like his today will be needful.
And for that he is to be commended. It does take a certain amount of courage to do so.
And that there is precisely why you are wrong. You already have acceptence and full rights under the law.
His demanding the same isnt a demand for special recognition or special priviledges, but simply the same ones that you already enjoy.
the assumption that you gain arable land is a bad assumption.
in fact its actually 2 bad assumptions:
-it assumes that the now warmer areas have good usable soil
-and that the previously fertile areas are still arable
you really should learn how carbon offsets or carbon credit work before speaking.
you know that Carbon Credits are a fundamentally free market oriented solution, right?
since not all economic entitites will have the same carbon footprint, slapping them all with the same carbon limits is inefficient. Factory A may never come close to their limit, while B may not be able to ever come in under it.
so you apply the limit, but then you do it by creating a system where the limit is represented by credits. they can trade these credits amongst themselves. in our example here A can sell its excess credits it doesnt need to B. it becomes a zero-sum game that will have the effect of everyone achieving the limits through self-averaging.
Further, nothing you stated about the historical record is true.
Neither is any of the "science" you espouse.
And No its not entirely possible.
We've had this discussion before.
-CO2 rise is NOT caused by shift in climate, it does "follow" a temperature rise.
-The insects got big because of Oxygen levels, not CO2
-The giant dinosuars were after the insects and for a different reason
-The ocean IS acidyfing. Do you even science? Do you understand pH ?? Carbonic acid. CO2 when dissolved in water leads to small amounts carbonic acid. On a global scale, it starts to add up.
Basically nothing you ever state is ever true. But you dont care about reality.
You dont care how many facts that prove you wrong are presented, you still keep saying the same things over and over.
Denialism, thy face is you.
to be fair, the potato famine was due to the potato blight, a fungal disease that makes them inedible.
Also i should ask, are you aware of the number of subsidies that go to maintaining our "healthy middle class" ?
In case you're not aware, and I really think you are not, we spend many times more on that than we do on the poor.
Theres a logical contradiction and disconnect in what you said.
Ill leave it to you to find it.
Because there's currently so much competition for internet service in that area....