No, you're not understanding what happened. The new law made lots of insurance policies no longer allowed.
I understand that. Recall that I described the example of bad scam policies, and how I thought getting rid of those would be a good thing, even if the people who purchased them might think they want them.
For example: if you're a married couple 80 years old, you still have to carry, by law, insurance that includes full maternity care.
I understand this too. I too as a younger person may not want insurance that covers hip replacements until I think I might need them. The good news is that the cost of insuring an 80 year old for maternity care is probably pretty cheap, just like insuring an 18 year old for a hip replacement is probably really cheap (since neither is very likely). What's nice about this arrangement is that a lot of confusion in terms of what is covered and what isn;t is simplified for not much more cost, and in rare cases when people get pregnant (when they thought they couldn't) or in the odd cases where a college kid actually needs a hip replacement is still covered.
So a lot of existing insurance simply evaporated.
I suppose you could choose to look at it this way if you want. The other way you could look at it is that your existing plan might have become more comprehensive and more expensive, if they happened not to be deemed comprehensive enough.
I don;t doubt there are some examples where it doesn't work well. I also know for sure that there are examples of people who basically had very cheap scam insurance that are angry that they are now forced to pay more for something rather than less for nothing. But I am constantly hearing about people getting what they think is affordable insurance only to find it covers nothing they need, and they are completely screwed. But given the nature of insurance, those people may not ever know how precarious their position was especially if they were forced to switch to a more comprehensive insurance before they ever tried to use their old one for something big.
They then had to go find a way to buy new insurance - usually at much higher prices, often from a different carrier... which wouldn't do business with the doctor you used to use.
So you are describing a scenario where your existing doctor no longer accepts insurance? I'm not sure why you can't get the insurance your preferred doctor accepts.
This isn't a matter of the doctors retiring.
I realize this is not an all encompassing example. I merely mentioned it as an example of someone "not being able to keep their doctor", but not necessarily due to "Obama's lies".
This is about the law forcing people to buy very expensive new health insurance from a new provider that - because of all of the heavy new requirements of what and who they must now cover - greatly reduce the number of doctors they'll work with.
The law doesn't force people to buy very expensive insurance nor does is force people to get a new provider. The law forces people to buy insurance that meets minimum government requirements (i.e. it removes the option to buy insurance that doesn't meet these guidelines).
Imagine this example:
The government passes a law saying all automobiles must have seatbelts. Obama comes out and says "Don't worry, you can still buy the same cars, they will just have seatbelts in them". One company decides it would rather close up shop than take orders from Obama and sell cars with seatbelts. Was Obama lying when he said you can buy the same cars? What if you wanted to specifically buy a car with no seatbelt, and not pay the extra cost of a car with a seatbelt?
This is how I basically look at it. Obama is saying "Don't worry there is still going to be Ford trucks with seatbelts, and toyota camrys with seatbelts, etc". Unfortun
When the government is too lazy or incompetent to find the person who killed your father, they can just give you permission to find the killer and bring whatever justice seems fair. I don't see how anything bad that can come of this, nor its cyberspace analogue.
I don't think anyone really knows how fast it is being made, or what the total amount really is...
I know I certainly don't, which is why I wanted a citation.
I am not really on any extreme side of this debate, I just thought I saw a claim that contradicted my worldview (which happens frequently), and wanted a citation to determine for myself if it was credible.
As it turns out I think the statement was simply very misleading, even if *maybe* technically true.
I'm pretty open to differing points of view. I don't think there is much to be gained by attaching an ideology that you are bound to defend at all costs. When when I do decide to drink the kool-aid of an ideology, I am very careful about what it is (e.g. scientific method, rules of logic, etc)
He said that because people were worried that the doctor the currently had would suddenly be unavailable to them when the law kicked in. This is exactly what happened, to a lot of people.
I don't doubt this is the case. I suspect there are some doctors that retired simply to spite obamacare. My point is that I understood Obama's statement to mean "This law won't prevent you from keeping your doctor, should your doctor still want to be your doctor". I don't expect Obama to guarantee that everyone's doctor will still want to be their doctor.
It happened to our family. The insurance policy with which we were perfectly happy evaporated because the law considered it unacceptable (the new law requires that we buy insurance that covers, among other things, maternity care... which is super handy now that we're in our 50's).
1. Getting rid of insurance plans that don't offer enough protection is important (regardless of whether you agree with the specific rules defined in the ACA. My wife who works in the industry finds lots of people who think they are insured, only to find out they have been buying insurance that covers almost nothing they might actually want (i.e. they are scams) 2. Your insurance covers other people's maternity as well. You may not feel like that's fair, but they are covering your hip surgeries, etc.
The new plans from which could choose did not include the doctor we're happy with, and precluded the use of two of the nearest (and best) hospitals. Our premiums went from roughly $250 a month to over $500, and our deductible went from $2,500 to $12,000.
So nobody being treated at the 2 nearest and best hospitals is insured? Or are they just paying more?
Each of these things was predicted with great clarity by not only the people opposed to the law's passing, but also by the people who WROTE the law. But in front of cameras, Obama lied about each and every point of it, repeatedly, and deliberately.
It sounds like you've just decided Obama is a liar and everything he says can only confirm that belief.
I'm not even going to bother to dispute this. I highly doubt Obama has never lied in a speech to the country.
I will offer a counterexample. My mother's insurance costs actually went down from the ACA. I suspect that despite many differing claims of insurance rates going up or down, what really needs to be considered is that levels of coverage have also been going up and down for those same people, and that difference isn't always as obvious as the dollar amount coming out of your paycheck.
You know, and Obama knew, EXACTLY what "you can keep your doctor" meant when he said it - he was trying to tamp down the very vocal concerns that exactly what has happened would in fact happen.
From how I interpreted it, Obama didn't lie, especially relative the the level of lies I have come to expect from politicians. My company switched from bluecross to aetna after ACA passed. I had to switch my primary care doctor because of it. The fact that this happened *after* the ACA does not mean it was *because of* the ACA. It was my company that decided to switch insurance companies. Even if they did it because of the ACA for whatever reason, that switch is on them. They could have kept bluecross, but they decided to switch to aetna. And it's not the first time they switched. Even before the ACA, they switched from from a different one (can't even remember who) to bluecross.
He knew it was going to, but he lied about it anyway.
I think it's true that Obama never intended to ensure that companies would be forced to keep the same insurance policies for their workers. I didn't think this counted as a "not being able to keep your doctor because of the ACA", I counted it as "not being able to keep your doctor because your company changed providers"
HornWumpus said that "[Coal is replenishing] fast enough that there is no chance of it running out."
If we have so much that we will not run out any time soon, fine. But if that is the case, then the rate of replenishment doesn't matter at all.
I was under the impression that coal was being used at orders of magnitude faster than it is being replenished, and I thought this was being disputed in this thread, but maybe it actually isn't.
Am I correct in saying that a replenishment rate of zero is still fast enough to keep up with demand?
OK, but even if the rate of replenishment were zero or even negative, there would be "no chance" of it running out in the "foreseeable future" if there were enough of it.
If we want to just kick over the table, there are numerous choices that aren't Donald Trump. We could just choose the president via random lottery and also give them $7 billion so they aren't in anyone's pocket. I think if we did that, we'd have a better outcome than a Trump presidency. At least with a random person there is a reasonably good chance that they will be a moral.
I'm all for not electing the same corrupt assholes we've been electing, but I'm not ready to flush the whole country down a classy gold plated toilet just yet.
I would trust the nations nuclear weapons with Kim Kardashian more than with Trump.
When Obama said "You can keep your doctor." I don't think it was meant to be taken that no doctors would retire or move, or die, etc, and that every doctor would remain your doctor in perpetuity until you chose to change it.
Or we develop a good way to store the energy. We could invest in better batteries, or we can pump water up a hill, or lift heavy things to high places, or spin things really fast in a vacuum, or use the energy to split water molecules, etc.
Maybe we would lose a lot of energy transferring it from one form to another, but it's better than just wasting it to heat immediately.
The price of pollution can be tied to the cost of reversing it. If you want to know the cost of putting a bunch of chemicals in the water, just use price of filtering them out again. If we can't actually "fix" the problem through direct action (e.g. hole in the ozone), then determine what level of CFC emission is acceptable and set the price of emission such that we ensure the actual emissions are below that threshold.
Economists are smart. There are very good and mostly objective ways of coming up with these price points.
Besides, who decides what is "energy intensive"? I'm pretty sure the old folks who rely on motorized gear just to stay out of a nursing home, or a crippled kid who relies on power-hungry medical equipment just to stay alive would object to your assessment, no?
Energy intensive == using more energy. The kid who needs power-hungry medical equipment is not any less "energy intensive" simply because he/she *needs* that machine, that would be a subjective assessment. An ambulance that gets 10MPG isn't any more fuel efficient than a moving truck that gets 10MPG, simply because it is used to save lives.
The economist answer is to have everyone pay the fair market price for energy (actually everything), and if some people need extra assistance in paying for goods (i.e. social welfare), then you give them vouchers or cash. You don't pervert the market and subsidize the goods to make them artificially cheaper for everyone.
If little sick Billy's electric bill is an additional $300 per month for his medical equipment, then you have (insert social program) reimburse Billy's family $300/month. This way there is still an incentive for Billy's family to try and use less electricity when it makes sense. If you just give Billy's family free electricity, then there is no incentive for them to spend $x on new weatherstripping, even if it would drastically cut their energy usage.
If you give out subsidies for solar panels, then lots of people may get them, even if it doesn't make economic sense for them, or the environment.
When you have a well running market, the choices of what makes sense economically translate into what is best from a resource management perspective. We don't ever get that perfect market, but we should be striving for that.
Which is balanced out by one network calling her out on every lie including a few extra thrown in for good measure. Maybe we should have another Benghazi hearing, I don't think that horse is dead enough yet.
My lying doctor promised I would be able to play the piano after my surgery. It's been 2 months, and I am still as bad at piano as I have always been. Damned Obamacare!
You don;t need to have *never* been a "victim" of autocorrect. You only need to be good enough. When autonomous cars take over, they *will* get in accidents that kill people. The question is whether they get in more or less accidents than people. Autonomous cars can simultaneously kill thousands of people and be saving thousands of people, but not killing as many people as people do.
The field of computer science is about *making* the software that does all the math (which involves knowing how math works), not simply *using* the software (which involves a computer doing all the math for you).
How many people use trig in their daily life? If we were to go by the standard that core subjects are those that are used by a majority of people, I think we will just have reading, and maybe typing.
I'll bet your fantasy includes you fighting alongside your favorite rappers, and them making you an honorary rapper like them because of how good at fighting you are.
They didn't mention it in the article, but the protocol by which the data is transferred over the cable is a crucial detail. Looking at the screenshots, it's likely that they were using the Microsoft SMB protocol to transfer the music files from the NAS to the laptop where they were then played. This protocol uses TCP under the hood which performs error detection and correction, thereby ensuring that any cable would provide the maximum level of quality providing it was not physically damaged.
Had the testers used the cables by sending analog audio data over them, I'm sure they would have noticed a difference.
They may have even heard a few static pops due to network collisions if they had spent even the minimum effort to develop an "audio over ethernet" protocol that was not performing any error correction, and would amplify the difference between the quality of the cables.
Using error correction to achieve 0% loss over cheap ethernet cables is cheating.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you're not understanding what happened. The new law made lots of insurance policies no longer allowed.
I understand that. Recall that I described the example of bad scam policies, and how I thought getting rid of those would be a good thing, even if the people who purchased them might think they want them.
For example: if you're a married couple 80 years old, you still have to carry, by law, insurance that includes full maternity care.
I understand this too. I too as a younger person may not want insurance that covers hip replacements until I think I might need them. The good news is that the cost of insuring an 80 year old for maternity care is probably pretty cheap, just like insuring an 18 year old for a hip replacement is probably really cheap (since neither is very likely). What's nice about this arrangement is that a lot of confusion in terms of what is covered and what isn;t is simplified for not much more cost, and in rare cases when people get pregnant (when they thought they couldn't) or in the odd cases where a college kid actually needs a hip replacement is still covered.
So a lot of existing insurance simply evaporated.
I suppose you could choose to look at it this way if you want. The other way you could look at it is that your existing plan might have become more comprehensive and more expensive, if they happened not to be deemed comprehensive enough.
I don;t doubt there are some examples where it doesn't work well. I also know for sure that there are examples of people who basically had very cheap scam insurance that are angry that they are now forced to pay more for something rather than less for nothing. But I am constantly hearing about people getting what they think is affordable insurance only to find it covers nothing they need, and they are completely screwed. But given the nature of insurance, those people may not ever know how precarious their position was especially if they were forced to switch to a more comprehensive insurance before they ever tried to use their old one for something big.
They then had to go find a way to buy new insurance - usually at much higher prices, often from a different carrier ... which wouldn't do business with the doctor you used to use.
So you are describing a scenario where your existing doctor no longer accepts insurance? I'm not sure why you can't get the insurance your preferred doctor accepts.
This isn't a matter of the doctors retiring.
I realize this is not an all encompassing example. I merely mentioned it as an example of someone "not being able to keep their doctor", but not necessarily due to "Obama's lies".
This is about the law forcing people to buy very expensive new health insurance from a new provider that - because of all of the heavy new requirements of what and who they must now cover - greatly reduce the number of doctors they'll work with.
The law doesn't force people to buy very expensive insurance nor does is force people to get a new provider. The law forces people to buy insurance that meets minimum government requirements (i.e. it removes the option to buy insurance that doesn't meet these guidelines).
Imagine this example:
The government passes a law saying all automobiles must have seatbelts. Obama comes out and says "Don't worry, you can still buy the same cars, they will just have seatbelts in them". One company decides it would rather close up shop than take orders from Obama and sell cars with seatbelts. Was Obama lying when he said you can buy the same cars? What if you wanted to specifically buy a car with no seatbelt, and not pay the extra cost of a car with a seatbelt?
This is how I basically look at it. Obama is saying "Don't worry there is still going to be Ford trucks with seatbelts, and toyota camrys with seatbelts, etc". Unfortun
When the government is too lazy or incompetent to find the person who killed your father, they can just give you permission to find the killer and bring whatever justice seems fair. I don't see how anything bad that can come of this, nor its cyberspace analogue.
I don't think anyone really knows how fast it is being made, or what the total amount really is...
I know I certainly don't, which is why I wanted a citation.
I am not really on any extreme side of this debate, I just thought I saw a claim that contradicted my worldview (which happens frequently), and wanted a citation to determine for myself if it was credible.
As it turns out I think the statement was simply very misleading, even if *maybe* technically true.
I'm pretty open to differing points of view. I don't think there is much to be gained by attaching an ideology that you are bound to defend at all costs. When when I do decide to drink the kool-aid of an ideology, I am very careful about what it is (e.g. scientific method, rules of logic, etc)
He said that because people were worried that the doctor the currently had would suddenly be unavailable to them when the law kicked in. This is exactly what happened, to a lot of people.
I don't doubt this is the case. I suspect there are some doctors that retired simply to spite obamacare. My point is that I understood Obama's statement to mean "This law won't prevent you from keeping your doctor, should your doctor still want to be your doctor". I don't expect Obama to guarantee that everyone's doctor will still want to be their doctor.
It happened to our family. The insurance policy with which we were perfectly happy evaporated because the law considered it unacceptable (the new law requires that we buy insurance that covers, among other things, maternity care ... which is super handy now that we're in our 50's).
1. Getting rid of insurance plans that don't offer enough protection is important (regardless of whether you agree with the specific rules defined in the ACA. My wife who works in the industry finds lots of people who think they are insured, only to find out they have been buying insurance that covers almost nothing they might actually want (i.e. they are scams) 2. Your insurance covers other people's maternity as well. You may not feel like that's fair, but they are covering your hip surgeries, etc.
The new plans from which could choose did not include the doctor we're happy with, and precluded the use of two of the nearest (and best) hospitals. Our premiums went from roughly $250 a month to over $500, and our deductible went from $2,500 to $12,000.
So nobody being treated at the 2 nearest and best hospitals is insured? Or are they just paying more?
Each of these things was predicted with great clarity by not only the people opposed to the law's passing, but also by the people who WROTE the law. But in front of cameras, Obama lied about each and every point of it, repeatedly, and deliberately.
It sounds like you've just decided Obama is a liar and everything he says can only confirm that belief.
I'm not even going to bother to dispute this. I highly doubt Obama has never lied in a speech to the country.
I will offer a counterexample. My mother's insurance costs actually went down from the ACA. I suspect that despite many differing claims of insurance rates going up or down, what really needs to be considered is that levels of coverage have also been going up and down for those same people, and that difference isn't always as obvious as the dollar amount coming out of your paycheck.
You know, and Obama knew, EXACTLY what "you can keep your doctor" meant when he said it - he was trying to tamp down the very vocal concerns that exactly what has happened would in fact happen.
From how I interpreted it, Obama didn't lie, especially relative the the level of lies I have come to expect from politicians. My company switched from bluecross to aetna after ACA passed. I had to switch my primary care doctor because of it. The fact that this happened *after* the ACA does not mean it was *because of* the ACA. It was my company that decided to switch insurance companies. Even if they did it because of the ACA for whatever reason, that switch is on them. They could have kept bluecross, but they decided to switch to aetna. And it's not the first time they switched. Even before the ACA, they switched from from a different one (can't even remember who) to bluecross.
He knew it was going to, but he lied about it anyway.
I think it's true that Obama never intended to ensure that companies would be forced to keep the same insurance policies for their workers. I didn't think this counted as a "not being able to keep your doctor because of the ACA", I counted it as "not being able to keep your doctor because your company changed providers"
HornWumpus said that "[Coal is replenishing] fast enough that there is no chance of it running out."
If we have so much that we will not run out any time soon, fine. But if that is the case, then the rate of replenishment doesn't matter at all.
I was under the impression that coal was being used at orders of magnitude faster than it is being replenished, and I thought this was being disputed in this thread, but maybe it actually isn't.
Am I correct in saying that a replenishment rate of zero is still fast enough to keep up with demand?
OK, but even if the rate of replenishment were zero or even negative, there would be "no chance" of it running out in the "foreseeable future" if there were enough of it.
In 1998 Clinton and Congress got the budget to BALANCE, once. That is they took in as much as they spent.
That's called shrinking the deficit to zero.
You are thinking of the debt which is >0 even if the deficit == 0
If we want to just kick over the table, there are numerous choices that aren't Donald Trump. We could just choose the president via random lottery and also give them $7 billion so they aren't in anyone's pocket. I think if we did that, we'd have a better outcome than a Trump presidency. At least with a random person there is a reasonably good chance that they will be a moral.
I'm all for not electing the same corrupt assholes we've been electing, but I'm not ready to flush the whole country down a classy gold plated toilet just yet.
I would trust the nations nuclear weapons with Kim Kardashian more than with Trump.
It's easy to blame everything bad on someone you don't like, and apologize for someone you do like. It's harder to be unbiased.
When Obama said "You can keep your doctor." I don't think it was meant to be taken that no doctors would retire or move, or die, etc, and that every doctor would remain your doctor in perpetuity until you chose to change it.
Or we develop a good way to store the energy. We could invest in better batteries, or we can pump water up a hill, or lift heavy things to high places, or spin things really fast in a vacuum, or use the energy to split water molecules, etc.
Maybe we would lose a lot of energy transferring it from one form to another, but it's better than just wasting it to heat immediately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The price of pollution can be tied to the cost of reversing it. If you want to know the cost of putting a bunch of chemicals in the water, just use price of filtering them out again. If we can't actually "fix" the problem through direct action (e.g. hole in the ozone), then determine what level of CFC emission is acceptable and set the price of emission such that we ensure the actual emissions are below that threshold.
Economists are smart. There are very good and mostly objective ways of coming up with these price points.
Besides, who decides what is "energy intensive"? I'm pretty sure the old folks who rely on motorized gear just to stay out of a nursing home, or a crippled kid who relies on power-hungry medical equipment just to stay alive would object to your assessment, no?
Energy intensive == using more energy. The kid who needs power-hungry medical equipment is not any less "energy intensive" simply because he/she *needs* that machine, that would be a subjective assessment. An ambulance that gets 10MPG isn't any more fuel efficient than a moving truck that gets 10MPG, simply because it is used to save lives.
The economist answer is to have everyone pay the fair market price for energy (actually everything), and if some people need extra assistance in paying for goods (i.e. social welfare), then you give them vouchers or cash. You don't pervert the market and subsidize the goods to make them artificially cheaper for everyone.
If little sick Billy's electric bill is an additional $300 per month for his medical equipment, then you have (insert social program) reimburse Billy's family $300/month. This way there is still an incentive for Billy's family to try and use less electricity when it makes sense. If you just give Billy's family free electricity, then there is no incentive for them to spend $x on new weatherstripping, even if it would drastically cut their energy usage.
If you give out subsidies for solar panels, then lots of people may get them, even if it doesn't make economic sense for them, or the environment.
When you have a well running market, the choices of what makes sense economically translate into what is best from a resource management perspective. We don't ever get that perfect market, but we should be striving for that.
Which is balanced out by one network calling her out on every lie including a few extra thrown in for good measure. Maybe we should have another Benghazi hearing, I don't think that horse is dead enough yet.
Can you offer a citation? I can't find anything on google indicating that coal is anything but being used faster than it is replenished.
My lying doctor promised I would be able to play the piano after my surgery. It's been 2 months, and I am still as bad at piano as I have always been. Damned Obamacare!
You don;t need to have *never* been a "victim" of autocorrect. You only need to be good enough. When autonomous cars take over, they *will* get in accidents that kill people. The question is whether they get in more or less accidents than people. Autonomous cars can simultaneously kill thousands of people and be saving thousands of people, but not killing as many people as people do.
It improves written language and reading comprehension skills, those languages just aren't any of the same ones spoken by the rest of humanity.
The field of computer science is about *making* the software that does all the math (which involves knowing how math works), not simply *using* the software (which involves a computer doing all the math for you).
How many people use trig in their daily life? If we were to go by the standard that core subjects are those that are used by a majority of people, I think we will just have reading, and maybe typing.
I'll bet your fantasy includes you fighting alongside your favorite rappers, and them making you an honorary rapper like them because of how good at fighting you are.
Yeah, and it's so amazingly ridiculous that it must be completely serious. Jesus...
woosh
I was hoping the facetiousness of my post would be obvious.
They didn't mention it in the article, but the protocol by which the data is transferred over the cable is a crucial detail. Looking at the screenshots, it's likely that they were using the Microsoft SMB protocol to transfer the music files from the NAS to the laptop where they were then played. This protocol uses TCP under the hood which performs error detection and correction, thereby ensuring that any cable would provide the maximum level of quality providing it was not physically damaged.
Had the testers used the cables by sending analog audio data over them, I'm sure they would have noticed a difference.
They may have even heard a few static pops due to network collisions if they had spent even the minimum effort to develop an "audio over ethernet" protocol that was not performing any error correction, and would amplify the difference between the quality of the cables.
Using error correction to achieve 0% loss over cheap ethernet cables is cheating.