I'm sorry but your argument is surrounded with paranoia. The reason we pay more is because medical research is stagnant in other countries. We've invented so many medical devices and procedures its not even worth listing that the whole world has been saved on. That costs money. We have expensive healthcare but rather good quality of care. Now if we want the government to reduce the cost of healthcare we get the government out of healthcare. Medicare inflates the cost of healthcare and providing tax incentives to Cadillac health insurance policies distorts the natural market too.
Another conspiracy theory I heard was that Democrats wanted Obamacare to fail so that in ten years they'd propose fixing it with single-payer. Since Obamacare can't fund itself and the website is a tort law travesty which sounds more likely?
In the private sector that which does not live on its own is terminated. Obamacare is on life support and there aren't enough young gullible people to support it.
That's the exact opposite economically to produce affordable healthcare for the whole nation. Sure poor people will have little incentive not to come in for every cough but someone will pay for it. That will tax our whole economy, not including dead weight loss inefficiencies.
How is taking over more of the economy an even better idea when the DHHS can't even take over half of medicine? Single-payer is dead in the water and immoral. There is no real way to kill the entirety of Obamacare but Congress should work to mitigate its impending harm.
Anthropogenic Global Warming/ Manmade Global Warmi
on
How Science Goes Wrong
·
· Score: 1
Anthropogenic Global Warming/ Manmade Global Warming
When Google.com opened you could use it to search. When ebay.com opened you could bid on items. When Amazon.com opened you could buy products. How is this simply a glitch or issue and not a fundamental problem that is inherent to the cronyism of Obamacare?
I think the fact that the Lincoln Memorial was just so easily defaced is contrary to your argument and I get the impression you've never visited D.C.. I've walked through the WWII memorial in the middle of the night with no guards or cameras around. President Obama has practically admitted to making the Govt Shutdown and Sequester hurt because he's for larger government. Shutting down the WWII memorial, and the Nordmandy beaches in France, and State/Federal co-sponsored monuments ARE political acts.
What if you were an investigative journalist and found out 3 months ago Kathleen Sebelius decided to pull the plug on development of the actual Healthcare.gov. Instead she directed web development employees to start winging an intricate maze that makes it look like the site is working. But never produces any results?
First of all it wasn't a bill proposed by the Republicans a decade ago. It was a non-profit think tanks policy report setup to counter Hillarycare.
The Rules for political non-profits are quite clear. I wish you'd have learned about them a little before saying anything ignorant. Here's a little help from me to you:
"To be tax-exempt as a social welfare organization described in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(4), an organization must not be organized for profit and must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare."
"To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual."
That took me all of one minute. Let me break it down for you. The tax system is so convoluted that different types of organizations fall under different sections of the 501(c) umbrella. Fiscal conservative groups would rightly be denied 501(c)3 status but they are perfectly entitled to 501(c)4 status because the government is not allowed to say social welfare is only furthering Federalism.
Here's a story that contradicts your statement and its not the only company doing this. Why would young people want to pay more for insurance under Obamacare than they would pay for the exact same coverage now? Why would companies keep their employees in expensive health insurance plans when they can drop them into the Obamacare cesspool and pay a smaller fine?
Anyway I'm glad I could so effectively refute everything you said with facts even though I'm an idiot. Today is Oct 1st the day exchanges are mandated by law to be setup. I dare you to successfully get healthcare through an Obamacare exchange today and not call it convoluted.
That's my point. Romneycare is Obamacare, if there was a clear choice between candidates instead of two people saying the same thing about Obamneycare then the race could have been more in favor of the Republicans. That and the illegal stifling of differing voices by the IRS.
I guess you haven't read any of the summary of testimonies. A lot of these fiscal conservative groups applying for 501(c)(4) status are still in purgatory, a lot of them were asked questions outside the standard operating procedure. The fiscal conservative groups were targeted regardless of man-power and most of them were tentatively authorized to be a 501(c)(4) without a new process, designed outside the standard operating procedure to target fiscal conservatives. There is a normal process for these springwells of new non-profits. The Occupy non-profits fell under this emerging group standard operating procedure.
The reason the media is staying silent about this whole thing is because they egged it on. Loius Lerner's emails specifically mention articles by lefty and mainstream lefty periodicals crying out for justice. Like dywolf ignorantly said below they were misinformed about how the IRS non-profit system works.
Everyone wants affordable healthcare. No one wants Obamacare. Those are two separate statements. 51% of the country voted for Obamacare over 49% for Romneycare. I bet the election would have been even more in favor of Republicans without Romney and without the IRS illegally silencing dissent to the President.
The Democrats keep promising to provide affordable healthcare and I can't wait for the trainwreck of Obamacare to hit. That's when people will truly see what a convoluted, corrupt mess a command economy is.
And unfortunately those billions would be in the form of poor people's energy bills. Rich people would find loopholes or transition to renewable energy while poor people spent more of their paycheck on higher cost energy.
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/13/climate_tipping_point_concentration_of_carbon Unlike the most recent articles saying we already hit the carbon ppm tipping point these U.N. pros knew the first rule of scare tactics: Put the scare date way in the future and tell us we need to drastically reduce industry and increase energy price to stop the enviro-holocaust. Gotta give credit where credit is due, the U.N. knows how to make their dates relatively unprovable.
FACT: The Earth has a natural balance. The more Co2, the more plant growth.
Axiom: Newton's Third Law
Further reading: Bastiat.
Ever try to model the whole economy? That's essentially impossible to find a close regressive curve. Now try Climate. Anyone stating they know all of the relevant variables has a personal benefit.
I was ready to believe the insurance industry regardless of the appeal to authority argument to make us trust it. The article did two things:
1. Stated that the Climate is changing
2. Failed to address or prove how this is man made.
No one disputes that the climate changes. There are even proven periods of dramatic change. How does that automatically mean we point the finger at humans? I heard the Ice Age came about because the dinosaurs were smoking trees.
The IPCC report that will be coming out by the U.N. is going to state that mass deaths were previously overcalculated.
On the other hand, reducing our economic output to reduce carbon emissions will cause measurable levels of starvation and death due to cold weather and will affect the poor people the most. (Poor people pay a larger portion of their income for electricity than rich people. Incentivizing reduced electricity use and vis-a-vis carbon emissions through price controls hurts poor people.)
So who should I decide is correct? The WSJ, the IPCC, & Fox News or you? You're not even arguing with the most current data by groups you support.
Have you truly looked into contributions from oil companies or are you stating what you heave read. Did you know oil companies donate to groups like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club? Is it ok for them to donate significantly more to environmental groups than they do to Skeptical Anthropogenic Global Warming Research groups? Is that because you have decided, based on outdated and overstated data, that they are right?
Continue your rounding up of the witches. Everything that ends well starts with persecution of the opposition.
Back in the day Snapstream made an awesome consumer product, Beyond Tv, which was exactly what MCE should have been. The product and their customer support was a dream. It allowed multiple tuners, was relatively lightweight, and I even bought their networked streaming Link product. Being internet professionals us forum posters complained that we paid for a product which didn't have every single feature we wanted. I think this contributed to Snapstream deciding us consumers were never appreciative and businesses were a lot easier and more lucrative. Ultimately I miss their consumer products, I could honestly still use them, and I think I wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Just for some perspective, on another Anthropogenic Global Warming topic, I made an argument that each one of these emergency environmental crisii all have the same narrative and solution. My comment was upvoted 6 times for insightful and funny, downvoted 5 times for troll and overrated. I understand my opinion was different but if you don't believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming its not because you think science hasn't backed up the argument its because you are a troll and no intelligent person would disbelieve that global climate scientists would have any profit/fame motive for making the global climate a life/death issue.
I just want to state how awesome you are. Since you've read all of Ayn Rand's books which one would you say is your favorite? Atlas Shrugged is the trendy choice over the Fountainhead but I can't help but to enjoy it more. Did you prefer Adam Smith's "Of Moral Sentiments" or the classic "Wealth of Nations" more? Even though Smith's opus was Wealth of Nations and outlined his general thesis of economics I prefer Of Moral Sentiments because it better juxtaposed the irrationality of the market through behavioral economics. Just because the current Administration is trying to stifle the production of fossil fuels does not mean we have peaked. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS1&f=A Dependent on the whims of the government we could surpass peak oil. New technologies have allowed us to incentivize the mining of prior cost prohibitive oil fields. So my argument is if we have reached peak oil its because of our own constraints not because its physically not there. I'm not even going to argue Ayn Rand not liking Adam Smith. That is trollbait.
I agree with everything you say. It is absolutely the type of argument I believe your side makes in this bi-polar country. Thank you for conveying your side's argument so clearly.
Ah, there is your problem. You believe everything you learn in school. How are those sophomore feminist basket weaving classes going for you? Pretty hard? Math is hard. Sometimes data and trends are interrupted or reversed by events outside of models. Then you create a new model to try and predict the new normal. You don't keep trying to force the new round peg into the old square hole.
I think you meant anthropomorphic climate change? Economically we can either believe the alarmists and go back to the middle ages now or we can believe the skeptics and continue to produce research and an increase in the quality of life. We might solve this whole anthropomorphic climate change problem by famine and disease or we can more efficiently deal with it when continued research has figured out that clouds have more to do with it than humans and our new cold fusion energy sources don't produce pollution.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry but your argument is surrounded with paranoia. The reason we pay more is because medical research is stagnant in other countries. We've invented so many medical devices and procedures its not even worth listing that the whole world has been saved on. That costs money. We have expensive healthcare but rather good quality of care. Now if we want the government to reduce the cost of healthcare we get the government out of healthcare. Medicare inflates the cost of healthcare and providing tax incentives to Cadillac health insurance policies distorts the natural market too.
Another conspiracy theory I heard was that Democrats wanted Obamacare to fail so that in ten years they'd propose fixing it with single-payer. Since Obamacare can't fund itself and the website is a tort law travesty which sounds more likely?
In the private sector that which does not live on its own is terminated. Obamacare is on life support and there aren't enough young gullible people to support it.
That's the exact opposite economically to produce affordable healthcare for the whole nation. Sure poor people will have little incentive not to come in for every cough but someone will pay for it. That will tax our whole economy, not including dead weight loss inefficiencies.
How is taking over more of the economy an even better idea when the DHHS can't even take over half of medicine? Single-payer is dead in the water and immoral. There is no real way to kill the entirety of Obamacare but Congress should work to mitigate its impending harm.
Anthropogenic Global Warming/ Manmade Global Warming
When Google.com opened you could use it to search. When ebay.com opened you could bid on items. When Amazon.com opened you could buy products. How is this simply a glitch or issue and not a fundamental problem that is inherent to the cronyism of Obamacare?
I think the fact that the Lincoln Memorial was just so easily defaced is contrary to your argument and I get the impression you've never visited D.C.. I've walked through the WWII memorial in the middle of the night with no guards or cameras around. President Obama has practically admitted to making the Govt Shutdown and Sequester hurt because he's for larger government. Shutting down the WWII memorial, and the Nordmandy beaches in France, and State/Federal co-sponsored monuments ARE political acts.
What if you were an investigative journalist and found out 3 months ago Kathleen Sebelius decided to pull the plug on development of the actual Healthcare.gov. Instead she directed web development employees to start winging an intricate maze that makes it look like the site is working. But never produces any results?
First of all it wasn't a bill proposed by the Republicans a decade ago. It was a non-profit think tanks policy report setup to counter Hillarycare.
The Rules for political non-profits are quite clear. I wish you'd have learned about them a little before saying anything ignorant. Here's a little help from me to you:
http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Other-Non-Profits/Social-Welfare-Organizations
"To be tax-exempt as a social welfare organization described in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(4), an organization must not be organized for profit and must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare."
"To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual."
That took me all of one minute. Let me break it down for you. The tax system is so convoluted that different types of organizations fall under different sections of the 501(c) umbrella. Fiscal conservative groups would rightly be denied 501(c)3 status but they are perfectly entitled to 501(c)4 status because the government is not allowed to say social welfare is only furthering Federalism.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/walgreen-moves-health-coverage-private-exchange-20289346
Here's a story that contradicts your statement and its not the only company doing this. Why would young people want to pay more for insurance under Obamacare than they would pay for the exact same coverage now? Why would companies keep their employees in expensive health insurance plans when they can drop them into the Obamacare cesspool and pay a smaller fine?
Anyway I'm glad I could so effectively refute everything you said with facts even though I'm an idiot. Today is Oct 1st the day exchanges are mandated by law to be setup. I dare you to successfully get healthcare through an Obamacare exchange today and not call it convoluted.
That's my point. Romneycare is Obamacare, if there was a clear choice between candidates instead of two people saying the same thing about Obamneycare then the race could have been more in favor of the Republicans. That and the illegal stifling of differing voices by the IRS.
I guess you haven't read any of the summary of testimonies. A lot of these fiscal conservative groups applying for 501(c)(4) status are still in purgatory, a lot of them were asked questions outside the standard operating procedure. The fiscal conservative groups were targeted regardless of man-power and most of them were tentatively authorized to be a 501(c)(4) without a new process, designed outside the standard operating procedure to target fiscal conservatives. There is a normal process for these springwells of new non-profits. The Occupy non-profits fell under this emerging group standard operating procedure.
The reason the media is staying silent about this whole thing is because they egged it on. Loius Lerner's emails specifically mention articles by lefty and mainstream lefty periodicals crying out for justice. Like dywolf ignorantly said below they were misinformed about how the IRS non-profit system works.
Check the polls bro.
Everyone wants affordable healthcare. No one wants Obamacare. Those are two separate statements. 51% of the country voted for Obamacare over 49% for Romneycare. I bet the election would have been even more in favor of Republicans without Romney and without the IRS illegally silencing dissent to the President.
The Democrats keep promising to provide affordable healthcare and I can't wait for the trainwreck of Obamacare to hit. That's when people will truly see what a convoluted, corrupt mess a command economy is.
And unfortunately those billions would be in the form of poor people's energy bills. Rich people would find loopholes or transition to renewable energy while poor people spent more of their paycheck on higher cost energy.
Check out Bastiat's economic theory on broken windows. That will be the investment and innovation in your story.
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/13/climate_tipping_point_concentration_of_carbon
Unlike the most recent articles saying we already hit the carbon ppm tipping point these U.N. pros knew the first rule of scare tactics:
Put the scare date way in the future and tell us we need to drastically reduce industry and increase energy price to stop the enviro-holocaust.
Gotta give credit where credit is due, the U.N. knows how to make their dates relatively unprovable.
FACT: The Earth has a natural balance. The more Co2, the more plant growth.
Axiom: Newton's Third Law
Further reading: Bastiat.
Ever try to model the whole economy? That's essentially impossible to find a close regressive curve. Now try Climate. Anyone stating they know all of the relevant variables has a personal benefit.
I was ready to believe the insurance industry regardless of the appeal to authority argument to make us trust it. The article did two things:
1. Stated that the Climate is changing
2. Failed to address or prove how this is man made.
No one disputes that the climate changes. There are even proven periods of dramatic change. How does that automatically mean we point the finger at humans? I heard the Ice Age came about because the dinosaurs were smoking trees.
The IPCC report that will be coming out by the U.N. is going to state that mass deaths were previously overcalculated. On the other hand, reducing our economic output to reduce carbon emissions will cause measurable levels of starvation and death due to cold weather and will affect the poor people the most. (Poor people pay a larger portion of their income for electricity than rich people. Incentivizing reduced electricity use and vis-a-vis carbon emissions through price controls hurts poor people.)
So who should I decide is correct? The WSJ, the IPCC, & Fox News or you? You're not even arguing with the most current data by groups you support.
Have you truly looked into contributions from oil companies or are you stating what you heave read. Did you know oil companies donate to groups like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club? Is it ok for them to donate significantly more to environmental groups than they do to Skeptical Anthropogenic Global Warming Research groups? Is that because you have decided, based on outdated and overstated data, that they are right?
Continue your rounding up of the witches. Everything that ends well starts with persecution of the opposition.
Back in the day Snapstream made an awesome consumer product, Beyond Tv, which was exactly what MCE should have been. The product and their customer support was a dream. It allowed multiple tuners, was relatively lightweight, and I even bought their networked streaming Link product. Being internet professionals us forum posters complained that we paid for a product which didn't have every single feature we wanted. I think this contributed to Snapstream deciding us consumers were never appreciative and businesses were a lot easier and more lucrative. Ultimately I miss their consumer products, I could honestly still use them, and I think I wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Just for some perspective, on another Anthropogenic Global Warming topic, I made an argument that each one of these emergency environmental crisii all have the same narrative and solution. My comment was upvoted 6 times for insightful and funny, downvoted 5 times for troll and overrated. I understand my opinion was different but if you don't believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming its not because you think science hasn't backed up the argument its because you are a troll and no intelligent person would disbelieve that global climate scientists would have any profit/fame motive for making the global climate a life/death issue.
I just want to state how awesome you are. Since you've read all of Ayn Rand's books which one would you say is your favorite? Atlas Shrugged is the trendy choice over the Fountainhead but I can't help but to enjoy it more. Did you prefer Adam Smith's "Of Moral Sentiments" or the classic "Wealth of Nations" more? Even though Smith's opus was Wealth of Nations and outlined his general thesis of economics I prefer Of Moral Sentiments because it better juxtaposed the irrationality of the market through behavioral economics. Just because the current Administration is trying to stifle the production of fossil fuels does not mean we have peaked. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS1&f=A Dependent on the whims of the government we could surpass peak oil. New technologies have allowed us to incentivize the mining of prior cost prohibitive oil fields. So my argument is if we have reached peak oil its because of our own constraints not because its physically not there. I'm not even going to argue Ayn Rand not liking Adam Smith. That is trollbait.
I agree with everything you say. It is absolutely the type of argument I believe your side makes in this bi-polar country. Thank you for conveying your side's argument so clearly.
Ah, there is your problem. You believe everything you learn in school. How are those sophomore feminist basket weaving classes going for you? Pretty hard? Math is hard. Sometimes data and trends are interrupted or reversed by events outside of models. Then you create a new model to try and predict the new normal. You don't keep trying to force the new round peg into the old square hole.
I think you meant anthropomorphic climate change? Economically we can either believe the alarmists and go back to the middle ages now or we can believe the skeptics and continue to produce research and an increase in the quality of life. We might solve this whole anthropomorphic climate change problem by famine and disease or we can more efficiently deal with it when continued research has figured out that clouds have more to do with it than humans and our new cold fusion energy sources don't produce pollution.