Another amazing "coincidence", is that my 2 most recent transatlantic flight were also Boeing 777s. Either this is a very common aircraft for long flights, or passengers are being kept in an underground bunker somewhere to keep them quiet about some insidious plot by someone to do something.
I'm not sure finding this flaperon constrains the search area any more than it already was. I think it just makes us more certain that the existing search area is correct.
I am not willing to fly backwards in a plane. Even if it were twice as safe, the absolute increase in survivability rate of my ride of 99.99998 to 99.99999 is not worth it to me. I would be more willing to go 10mph slower to and from the airport.
So if you had the choice between a 100% chance of car accident with a 50% chance of dying, or a 1% chance of an airplane accident with a 100% chance of dying, would you choose the car accident?
Another single point of failure is "The airplane broke and crashed". Even if a deranged pilot crashes the plane, that's not a single point of failure either. Pilots are psychologically evaluated. There are copilots and other crew members that can try to stop the pilot. There are safety systems that try to prevent the pilot from doing things that would crash the plane. There are systems where planes can be controlled from the ground, etc.
Every failure is single point, if you group all the causes into a single point.
As a bruin, I oppose the use of my school's football team to resolve petty squabbles. Furthermore, I think it would be much more interesting to have an academic competition (because I think USC would lose).
First of all, I didn't decide that, the United States government did.
Secondly, allowing people to decide for themselves whether or not they want insurance is only viable if we are willing to let people die as a consequence of their mistakes (or this mistakes of their parents).
And even without people being forced to pay for their own insurance (before the ACA), hospital emergency rooms were required by law to provide emergency healthcare, the costs of which were simply passed on to paying customers.
I don't care if you want to buy inadequate house insurance. If your house burns down I don't feel guilty for not buying you a new one.
If you choose to buy inadequate healthcare insurance, and you get cancer, and can;t afford the treatment, I feel guilty for not helping you get life saving treatment, even if you are a fucking idiot for not buying adequate health insurance.
Maybe you have the lack of compassion necessary to let people die in the streets, but I don't.
She said the buck stops with her. I think there wouldn't be this backlash if her department had not flat out lies about the causes of the attack
Have you ever heard of Hanlon's razor?
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Hillary Clinton is absolutely a pathological liar. This incident, however, is adequately explained by stupidity.
Also, if there had been a rescue attempt, that would have made a huge difference.
It seems as though a "top CIA official" was the reason a rescue was not attempted until it was too late to prevent the deaths that occurred.
Instead, it was a lot of cover ups and lies.
What coverups?
People seem to be fixated on the fact that it was claimed that an anti-muslim video sparked the riot, as evidence of a coverup, but I don;t see what was actually covered up. If anything it just shows they didn't know what happened until days later. How does it benefit Hillary Clinton if the attack was a spontaneous riot caused by a video rather than a planned terrorist attack?
I don't doubt she would have tried to cover everything up that needed to be covered up. But I don't think there was anything ultimately that was hidden.
It's like a drug addict finding out his home is about to be raided, and rushing home to flush his drugs down the toilet, only to discover he already used all his drugs, and the search came up empty.
Even if the guy is a drug addict, there is no reason for the police to keep looking around once it is determined there is nothing there to find.
And perhaps she (and Obama) should stop using the phrase "the buck stops with me" if they don't actually think they should ever face any repercussions.
I think they absolutely should stop using that phrase. I think everybody should, unless they intend do resign once *any* of the people working for them screws up. Otherwise, the buck clearly stops somewhere else.
The obama administration has faced repercussions. The whole incident makes them look incompetent. Should Obama or Hillary face jail time because the made a statement of the buck stopping with them (when it actually didn't)? I think all of Washington would be in jail if that was the standard.
And I have some advice for the Republican party. Pick your battles. When you fight tooth and nail for ridiculous shit, it makes you look bad, and the only people who take you seriously are crazy people. Maybe one day if the crazy white guy population is above 50%, that strategy will make more sense. Until then, I think maybe seeming more rational (or better yet *being* more rational) is a better political strategy, and more importantly it will be better for the country.
Which is the only way to make it better. Right now, it's just a simple wealth transfer tax.
It is indeed a wealth transfer, but there is nothing simple about it. It is not only a tax but also a subsidy depending on who you are. The whole point of insurance is to transfer wealth from those not needing to to those that do. Is it surprising that a law that deals primarily with regulating insurance also involves wealth transfer?
It does exactly nothing to in any way reduce the cost of practicing medicine. The Democrats explicitly rejected any attempt to make the law even slightly about things like tort reform or the ability to operate across state lines in order to wildly reduce the unnecessary overhead.
I am all in favor of tort reform. I'm not sure why the ACA needs to be even bigger than it already is. I think tort reform is important enough to get it's own bill rather than being shoved into an already complicated piece of legislation.
Can you even point to any specific tort reform changes to the law proposed by republicans?
I think republicans bring up tort reform as a way to criticize Obamacare, but don't actually have any real interest in implementing tort reform.
What? He has explicitly said that he has no interest in anything that Republicans tried desperately to add to the mix while the law was being written, or anything they've said since.
can you provide a citation for this? I've certainly heard him say that he doesn't like specific proposals made by republicans. I don;t think I've ever heard him say that he is not open to any proposals that come from republicans, in fact I've heard him say the opposite.
Because anything that would lighten the load on the people who've suddenly had their rates quadrupled would reduce his party's ability to harp about how many people to whom they're redistributing the goodies.
Most people are actually paying less under the ACA than before. If your rates quadrupled after the ACA, you were probably not adequately insured before. Certainly a lot of people are now forced to by adequate insurance that previously were not, and now those people are forced to pay more, unless the are near the poverty line.
The claim that everyone's rates are going up or being quadrupled is not true.
OK, I am just trying to clear up what is being claimed. I found it to be a bit misleading to say "The rate of X is high enough for Y to be true", only to find out that what was actually being claimed is that Y would be true regardless of the rate of X (or at least as long as X isn't a very large negative number).
I don't get it.
You basically interpret 'If you like your doctor you can keep him'
To mean: '... when politicians haven't labeled the policy as a sham policy'.
It's *true* that if you like your doctor you can keep him. What you are not allowed to do is keep a scam insurance policy.
But he was directly responding to fears the government would label people's health insurance policies as sham policies and take them away.
The people who really want to keep bad insurance policies are outliers.
It sounds like you're saying Obama wasn't claiming anything at all.
He claimed lots of things, mostly to combat the ridiculous claims made by republicans (e.g. death panels, government telling you who your doctor will be, etc). People are naturally afraid of big changes. ACA was a big change. It is important that people realize that it will not involve the government forcing you to get a different doctor, and deciding when it is your time to die and killing you.
"If you like your doctor you can keep him" is basically true except for the following scenarios:
1. Your doctor doesn't want to be your doctor anymore (retirement, etc).
2. You currently had an inadequate insurance plan and are completely unwilling to pay more money for an adequate plan that includes your preferred doctor.
3. Your doctor decides to stop taking insurance.
4. Your company decides to switch insurence policies to one your doctor doesn't take.
These are things that would have prevented you from keeping your doctor even if the ACA had not become law, and they continue to be that way even after the ACA.
The only exception is that you are no longer allowed to buy inadequate insurance, which is a good thing, seeing what a serious problem it is. I'm sorry if you have to pay more money, but that's what a non-scam plan costs. For most people who already bought insurance their insurance is actually cheaper. For people with no insurance (or people with inadequate insurance), it will be more expensive.
I don't think anyone tried to hide that information.
You mean, change the law? Obama has said he will veto ANY attempt to change the law.
I don't think that includes efforts to make it better. There is a justified assumption that any changes to the ACA being offered by republicans are obvious attempts to kill it.
If republicans actually decided to try to make it better, and Obama worked with them to make it happen, you'd probably call him a liar again for lying about vetoing any attempts to change the law.
So the doctor that you've always been able to afford before is no longer available - not because the doctor charges more, but because the cost of the insurance that doctor will accept has quadrupled under Obamacare, and many people can no longer afford what they used to afford.
So you *could* keep your doctor in your hypothetical example if not for the fact that you can't afford it.
I will say that doctors will decide to stop accepting certain kinds of insurance even before the ACA. This is not a new thing that only existed after the ACA, and I don't think there is anyway to prevent doctors from changing what kind of insurance they accept even if the ACA were not passed.
It's simple math: the government says that you, as a customer, must suddenly begin to subsidize billions of dollars in new entitlement spending, and that prices you out of certain markets - one of which includes your long time doctor.
Actually it says you as a healthy 18 year old must subsidize sick old people.
And took away health care from millions of people.
Forcing people to switch to a new plan, does not count as taking health care away from people. Furthermore, even if you have no plan now, the fact that insurance companies can not refuse to cover you due to per-existing conditions, means that you will not be stuck uninsured. The worst that can happen is that you are forced to pay a fine for not buying insurance, and this fine is actually less than what it costs to buy insurance.
With an unconstitutional stroke of a pen, he directed the executive branch to ignore the basic requirements of the law he championed, but only long enough to slow down how it impacts election results for his party.
The supreme court says otherwise. This is what I am talking about when I say the detractors want the bill to be worse in an effort to turn public opinion against it, even if it means people not getting healthcare they need.
So let me ask you this. If Obama is a liar. Who is not a liar?
Now, compare by hash is perfectly fine if you do it right. In that case the computer producing bit-errors and the like while you do the hashing for a comparison is more likely than getting a hash collision. Yet for some reason Valery seems to not understand that, or at least did not back then.
It seems like she does understand this, but is saying that the comparison of collision rates to hardware failures is not appropriate.
On page 4 she says:
In other words, VAL-1 is SHA-1 except that the first two inputs map to the same output. This function has an almost identical probability of collision as SHA-1, but it is completely unsuitable for use in compare-by-hash. The point of this example is not that bad hash functions will result in errors, but that we can’t directly compare the probability of a hash collision with the probability of a hardware error. If we could, VAL-1 and SHA-1 would be equally good candidates for compare-by-hash. The relation-ship between the probability of a hash collision and the probability of a hardware error must be more complicated than a straightforward comparison can reveal.
I have never heard of Val Henson before just right now, so I don't have any dog in this fight, but it seems like your characterization of what she doesn't understand is over-simplified.
I think we can all agree that the world that the world that shitty people want reflects their personality. I think feminism and political correctness can often go overboard, but you just seem like a total shithead. As much as I hate the political correctness movement, if it gets rid of people like you (or just shuts you the fuck up), it's worth it.
Hillary Clinton killed the ambassador? I guess Bush must have killed all the people on 9/11 then.
I fucking hate Hillary. I think she is a despicable person. But that doesn't mean everything is her fault. The desperate attempt by republicans to pin something from benghazi on her, just seems pathetic. As someone who would love to see Hillary go down, I wish republicans weren't so dumb.
Still backwards. It's as much about whether the insurer wants to include that doctor's practice as it is about whether that doctor wants to make the (substantial) investment in tying themselves, contractually and logistically, with a given insurer. In most cases, it's the insurer deliberately choosing to work only with a network of doctors and facilities that is limited in size, in order to allow them to manage expenses so they don't go broke taking on the legally mandated huge new collection of people who will cost them more than they will ever pay.
What I am saying is that unless the doctor doesn't take *any* kind of insurance, then you should be able to get the kind of insurance that the doctor accepts, and get the doctor you want. The fact that insurance companies can no longer deny coverage should make this even easier to do than before.
But you're not asking yourself WHY they don't like Obama. It's because they don't like what he stands for and preaches, ideologically.
I don't like what he stands for and preaches ideologically, which is why I didn't vote for him. What I don't understand is why people hate him so much. I can disagree with someone without hating them. I actually like lots of people I disagree with and dislike lots of people I do agree with. Despite my ideological disagreement with Obama, he (unlike most other politicians, seems very reasonable, unlike the people who seem to be opposing him just for the sake of opposing him.
Some people don't like the concept of the Nanny State's top-heavy, bureaucratic swamp being in charge of more and more of their lives.
I don't like the nanny state either. What I like even less is people dying because they have no insurance and can't afford treatment. I am willing to let people deal with the consequences of their decisions for just about everything as long as that consequence is not their premature death.
I am fine with forcing people to plan for their own healthcare. They are not responsible enough to be trusted to do it themselves. For every other thing, I think the best way to shape behavior is to let people make mistakes and let the consequences be the deterrent for making those mistakes again. But it is because I want people to thrive, not because I want to keep my own money for myself, which is why I treat healthcare differently.
And yes government healthcare is a disaster. The only thing worse is private healthcare. We are paying more for healthcare in the US (even with insurance), than other countries are paying (without insurance), and getting worse care. We don;t have the best healthcare in the world, we only have the most expensive healthcare.
Because in the case being discussed, he KNEW that over half the country was actively disliking the prospects of the new law
It seemed like the majority was in favor of it at the time, and even more people are in favor of it now. The people who are not in favor of it are basically people who hate Obama and everything he wants to do, regardless of what it is.
I actually didn't support the bill because I thought it could be done better (i.e. in a way that better decreases the costs of healthcare, and doesn't let insurance companies get away with all the BS they still get away with now).
That said, it seemed like other people hated the bill because of who was behind it. And they actually worked (and to a large degree succeeded) in making it worse in order to try to kill it. This is something I don't understand. Why not try to make it better rather than worse?
You wonder why people don't like him? It's because people don't like someone who looks them in the eye for months straight and simply lies to them, repeatedly and deliberately. The question isn't why people dislike that, it's how can anyone say they DO?
And yet those same people seem to have no problem with other politicians lyin
I don't have your faith in the "well running market", but I generally agree with your approach.
I don't have "faith" in markets be perfect. In fact I think I said " We don't ever get that perfect market, but we should be striving for that."
Unfortunately, I know of no way to accomplish this. E.g., regulatory capture is an unsolved problem, because those in power don't *want* it solved.
I don't claim that a a solution to this problem exists. All I am claiming is that the economic problems are not hard, and economists on either side of the left/right keynes/austrian divide could probably agree on solutions that are better than what we have.
The solution I can see to regulatory capture is a more informed electorate, although I don't see how we get to that. But I don't see any solution that doesn't involve a more informed electorate.
Slashdot Mirror
Like the guy who loses his finger in a meat grinder, and the search yields a different finger...
Another amazing "coincidence", is that my 2 most recent transatlantic flight were also Boeing 777s. Either this is a very common aircraft for long flights, or passengers are being kept in an underground bunker somewhere to keep them quiet about some insidious plot by someone to do something.
Missile fuel is a different story...
I'm not sure finding this flaperon constrains the search area any more than it already was. I think it just makes us more certain that the existing search area is correct.
If you took these differences into account air travel becomes much more dangerous than is portrayed by the airline industry.
And they are still way safer than cars.
I am not willing to fly backwards in a plane. Even if it were twice as safe, the absolute increase in survivability rate of my ride of 99.99998 to 99.99999 is not worth it to me. I would be more willing to go 10mph slower to and from the airport.
So if you had the choice between a 100% chance of car accident with a 50% chance of dying, or a 1% chance of an airplane accident with a 100% chance of dying, would you choose the car accident?
Another single point of failure is "The airplane broke and crashed". Even if a deranged pilot crashes the plane, that's not a single point of failure either. Pilots are psychologically evaluated. There are copilots and other crew members that can try to stop the pilot. There are safety systems that try to prevent the pilot from doing things that would crash the plane. There are systems where planes can be controlled from the ground, etc.
Every failure is single point, if you group all the causes into a single point.
Berkeley also has a football team...
As a bruin, I oppose the use of my school's football team to resolve petty squabbles. Furthermore, I think it would be much more interesting to have an academic competition (because I think USC would lose).
But who are you to decide that for someone else?
First of all, I didn't decide that, the United States government did.
Secondly, allowing people to decide for themselves whether or not they want insurance is only viable if we are willing to let people die as a consequence of their mistakes (or this mistakes of their parents).
And even without people being forced to pay for their own insurance (before the ACA), hospital emergency rooms were required by law to provide emergency healthcare, the costs of which were simply passed on to paying customers.
I don't care if you want to buy inadequate house insurance. If your house burns down I don't feel guilty for not buying you a new one.
If you choose to buy inadequate healthcare insurance, and you get cancer, and can;t afford the treatment, I feel guilty for not helping you get life saving treatment, even if you are a fucking idiot for not buying adequate health insurance.
Maybe you have the lack of compassion necessary to let people die in the streets, but I don't.
Unfortunately UCSD doesn't have a football team. So they'll have to pick a different event, like a mathletetics competition or something.
She said the buck stops with her. I think there wouldn't be this backlash if her department had not flat out lies about the causes of the attack
Have you ever heard of Hanlon's razor?
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Hillary Clinton is absolutely a pathological liar. This incident, however, is adequately explained by stupidity.
Also, if there had been a rescue attempt, that would have made a huge difference.
It seems as though a "top CIA official" was the reason a rescue was not attempted until it was too late to prevent the deaths that occurred.
Instead, it was a lot of cover ups and lies.
What coverups?
People seem to be fixated on the fact that it was claimed that an anti-muslim video sparked the riot, as evidence of a coverup, but I don;t see what was actually covered up. If anything it just shows they didn't know what happened until days later. How does it benefit Hillary Clinton if the attack was a spontaneous riot caused by a video rather than a planned terrorist attack?
I don't doubt she would have tried to cover everything up that needed to be covered up. But I don't think there was anything ultimately that was hidden.
It's like a drug addict finding out his home is about to be raided, and rushing home to flush his drugs down the toilet, only to discover he already used all his drugs, and the search came up empty.
Even if the guy is a drug addict, there is no reason for the police to keep looking around once it is determined there is nothing there to find.
And perhaps she (and Obama) should stop using the phrase "the buck stops with me" if they don't actually think they should ever face any repercussions.
I think they absolutely should stop using that phrase. I think everybody should, unless they intend do resign once *any* of the people working for them screws up. Otherwise, the buck clearly stops somewhere else.
The obama administration has faced repercussions. The whole incident makes them look incompetent. Should Obama or Hillary face jail time because the made a statement of the buck stopping with them (when it actually didn't)? I think all of Washington would be in jail if that was the standard.
And I have some advice for the Republican party. Pick your battles. When you fight tooth and nail for ridiculous shit, it makes you look bad, and the only people who take you seriously are crazy people. Maybe one day if the crazy white guy population is above 50%, that strategy will make more sense. Until then, I think maybe seeming more rational (or better yet *being* more rational) is a better political strategy, and more importantly it will be better for the country.
Which is the only way to make it better. Right now, it's just a simple wealth transfer tax.
It is indeed a wealth transfer, but there is nothing simple about it. It is not only a tax but also a subsidy depending on who you are. The whole point of insurance is to transfer wealth from those not needing to to those that do. Is it surprising that a law that deals primarily with regulating insurance also involves wealth transfer?
It does exactly nothing to in any way reduce the cost of practicing medicine. The Democrats explicitly rejected any attempt to make the law even slightly about things like tort reform or the ability to operate across state lines in order to wildly reduce the unnecessary overhead.
I am all in favor of tort reform. I'm not sure why the ACA needs to be even bigger than it already is. I think tort reform is important enough to get it's own bill rather than being shoved into an already complicated piece of legislation.
Can you even point to any specific tort reform changes to the law proposed by republicans?
I think republicans bring up tort reform as a way to criticize Obamacare, but don't actually have any real interest in implementing tort reform.
What? He has explicitly said that he has no interest in anything that Republicans tried desperately to add to the mix while the law was being written, or anything they've said since.
can you provide a citation for this? I've certainly heard him say that he doesn't like specific proposals made by republicans. I don;t think I've ever heard him say that he is not open to any proposals that come from republicans, in fact I've heard him say the opposite.
Because anything that would lighten the load on the people who've suddenly had their rates quadrupled would reduce his party's ability to harp about how many people to whom they're redistributing the goodies.
Most people are actually paying less under the ACA than before. If your rates quadrupled after the ACA, you were probably not adequately insured before. Certainly a lot of people are now forced to by adequate insurance that previously were not, and now those people are forced to pay more, unless the are near the poverty line.
The claim that everyone's rates are going up or being quadrupled is not true.
OK, I am just trying to clear up what is being claimed. I found it to be a bit misleading to say "The rate of X is high enough for Y to be true", only to find out that what was actually being claimed is that Y would be true regardless of the rate of X (or at least as long as X isn't a very large negative number).
I don't get it. You basically interpret 'If you like your doctor you can keep him' To mean: '... when politicians haven't labeled the policy as a sham policy'.
It's *true* that if you like your doctor you can keep him. What you are not allowed to do is keep a scam insurance policy.
But he was directly responding to fears the government would label people's health insurance policies as sham policies and take them away.
The people who really want to keep bad insurance policies are outliers.
It sounds like you're saying Obama wasn't claiming anything at all.
He claimed lots of things, mostly to combat the ridiculous claims made by republicans (e.g. death panels, government telling you who your doctor will be, etc). People are naturally afraid of big changes. ACA was a big change. It is important that people realize that it will not involve the government forcing you to get a different doctor, and deciding when it is your time to die and killing you.
"If you like your doctor you can keep him" is basically true except for the following scenarios:
1. Your doctor doesn't want to be your doctor anymore (retirement, etc).
2. You currently had an inadequate insurance plan and are completely unwilling to pay more money for an adequate plan that includes your preferred doctor.
3. Your doctor decides to stop taking insurance.
4. Your company decides to switch insurence policies to one your doctor doesn't take.
These are things that would have prevented you from keeping your doctor even if the ACA had not become law, and they continue to be that way even after the ACA.
The only exception is that you are no longer allowed to buy inadequate insurance, which is a good thing, seeing what a serious problem it is. I'm sorry if you have to pay more money, but that's what a non-scam plan costs. For most people who already bought insurance their insurance is actually cheaper. For people with no insurance (or people with inadequate insurance), it will be more expensive.
I don't think anyone tried to hide that information.
She gives reasons as to why the comparison is not appropriate. Are these reasons bad? Which ones are bad, and why are they bad?
You mean, change the law? Obama has said he will veto ANY attempt to change the law.
I don't think that includes efforts to make it better. There is a justified assumption that any changes to the ACA being offered by republicans are obvious attempts to kill it.
If republicans actually decided to try to make it better, and Obama worked with them to make it happen, you'd probably call him a liar again for lying about vetoing any attempts to change the law.
We can't possibly burn all the coal. Not even all the high grade coal, to say nothing of brown coal.
Wouldn't this still be true even if 0 coal was being replenished?
So the doctor that you've always been able to afford before is no longer available - not because the doctor charges more, but because the cost of the insurance that doctor will accept has quadrupled under Obamacare, and many people can no longer afford what they used to afford.
So you *could* keep your doctor in your hypothetical example if not for the fact that you can't afford it.
I will say that doctors will decide to stop accepting certain kinds of insurance even before the ACA. This is not a new thing that only existed after the ACA, and I don't think there is anyway to prevent doctors from changing what kind of insurance they accept even if the ACA were not passed.
It's simple math: the government says that you, as a customer, must suddenly begin to subsidize billions of dollars in new entitlement spending, and that prices you out of certain markets - one of which includes your long time doctor.
Actually it says you as a healthy 18 year old must subsidize sick old people.
And took away health care from millions of people.
Forcing people to switch to a new plan, does not count as taking health care away from people. Furthermore, even if you have no plan now, the fact that insurance companies can not refuse to cover you due to per-existing conditions, means that you will not be stuck uninsured. The worst that can happen is that you are forced to pay a fine for not buying insurance, and this fine is actually less than what it costs to buy insurance.
With an unconstitutional stroke of a pen, he directed the executive branch to ignore the basic requirements of the law he championed, but only long enough to slow down how it impacts election results for his party.
The supreme court says otherwise. This is what I am talking about when I say the detractors want the bill to be worse in an effort to turn public opinion against it, even if it means people not getting healthcare they need.
So let me ask you this. If Obama is a liar. Who is not a liar?
Now, compare by hash is perfectly fine if you do it right. In that case the computer producing bit-errors and the like while you do the hashing for a comparison is more likely than getting a hash collision. Yet for some reason Valery seems to not understand that, or at least did not back then.
It seems like she does understand this, but is saying that the comparison of collision rates to hardware failures is not appropriate.
On page 4 she says:
In other words, VAL-1 is SHA-1 except that the first two inputs map to the same output. This function has an almost identical probability of collision as SHA-1, but it is completely unsuitable for use in compare-by-hash. The point of this example is not that bad hash functions will result in errors, but that we can’t directly compare the probability of a hash collision with the probability of a hardware error. If we could, VAL-1 and SHA-1 would be equally good candidates for compare-by-hash. The relation-ship between the probability of a hash collision and the probability of a hardware error must be more complicated than a straightforward comparison can reveal.
I have never heard of Val Henson before just right now, so I don't have any dog in this fight, but it seems like your characterization of what she doesn't understand is over-simplified.
I think we can all agree that the world that the world that shitty people want reflects their personality. I think feminism and political correctness can often go overboard, but you just seem like a total shithead. As much as I hate the political correctness movement, if it gets rid of people like you (or just shuts you the fuck up), it's worth it.
Hillary Clinton killed the ambassador? I guess Bush must have killed all the people on 9/11 then.
I fucking hate Hillary. I think she is a despicable person. But that doesn't mean everything is her fault. The desperate attempt by republicans to pin something from benghazi on her, just seems pathetic. As someone who would love to see Hillary go down, I wish republicans weren't so dumb.
Still backwards. It's as much about whether the insurer wants to include that doctor's practice as it is about whether that doctor wants to make the (substantial) investment in tying themselves, contractually and logistically, with a given insurer. In most cases, it's the insurer deliberately choosing to work only with a network of doctors and facilities that is limited in size, in order to allow them to manage expenses so they don't go broke taking on the legally mandated huge new collection of people who will cost them more than they will ever pay.
What I am saying is that unless the doctor doesn't take *any* kind of insurance, then you should be able to get the kind of insurance that the doctor accepts, and get the doctor you want. The fact that insurance companies can no longer deny coverage should make this even easier to do than before.
But you're not asking yourself WHY they don't like Obama. It's because they don't like what he stands for and preaches, ideologically.
I don't like what he stands for and preaches ideologically, which is why I didn't vote for him. What I don't understand is why people hate him so much. I can disagree with someone without hating them. I actually like lots of people I disagree with and dislike lots of people I do agree with. Despite my ideological disagreement with Obama, he (unlike most other politicians, seems very reasonable, unlike the people who seem to be opposing him just for the sake of opposing him.
Some people don't like the concept of the Nanny State's top-heavy, bureaucratic swamp being in charge of more and more of their lives.
I don't like the nanny state either. What I like even less is people dying because they have no insurance and can't afford treatment. I am willing to let people deal with the consequences of their decisions for just about everything as long as that consequence is not their premature death.
I am fine with forcing people to plan for their own healthcare. They are not responsible enough to be trusted to do it themselves. For every other thing, I think the best way to shape behavior is to let people make mistakes and let the consequences be the deterrent for making those mistakes again. But it is because I want people to thrive, not because I want to keep my own money for myself, which is why I treat healthcare differently.
And yes government healthcare is a disaster. The only thing worse is private healthcare. We are paying more for healthcare in the US (even with insurance), than other countries are paying (without insurance), and getting worse care. We don;t have the best healthcare in the world, we only have the most expensive healthcare.
Because in the case being discussed, he KNEW that over half the country was actively disliking the prospects of the new law
It seemed like the majority was in favor of it at the time, and even more people are in favor of it now. The people who are not in favor of it are basically people who hate Obama and everything he wants to do, regardless of what it is.
I actually didn't support the bill because I thought it could be done better (i.e. in a way that better decreases the costs of healthcare, and doesn't let insurance companies get away with all the BS they still get away with now).
That said, it seemed like other people hated the bill because of who was behind it. And they actually worked (and to a large degree succeeded) in making it worse in order to try to kill it. This is something I don't understand. Why not try to make it better rather than worse?
You wonder why people don't like him? It's because people don't like someone who looks them in the eye for months straight and simply lies to them, repeatedly and deliberately. The question isn't why people dislike that, it's how can anyone say they DO?
And yet those same people seem to have no problem with other politicians lyin
I don't have your faith in the "well running market", but I generally agree with your approach.
I don't have "faith" in markets be perfect. In fact I think I said " We don't ever get that perfect market, but we should be striving for that."
Unfortunately, I know of no way to accomplish this. E.g., regulatory capture is an unsolved problem, because those in power don't *want* it solved.
I don't claim that a a solution to this problem exists. All I am claiming is that the economic problems are not hard, and economists on either side of the left/right keynes/austrian divide could probably agree on solutions that are better than what we have.
The solution I can see to regulatory capture is a more informed electorate, although I don't see how we get to that. But I don't see any solution that doesn't involve a more informed electorate.