This smacks of we can't dispute the skeptical claims, so we'll make up some mystical economic numbers. Maybe people won't look at them in depth like they did the "settled science".
The cost isn't different between US and Germany, The way it's paid for is different. Germany subsidizes solar power far more than the US. Just because tax revenue is spent, doesn't mean it's cheaper. One of the biggest reasons for it being uneconomical is that there is still the huge amount of hazardous waste that needs to be disposed of from the manufacturing process. It may be less of a carbon footprint, but green energy it is not.
As a Libertarian, I am going to have to side with the republicans on this one. The ACA is complete and utter crap. The fact that the backend of the website doesn't work is just the tip of the iceberg. But by all means, go ahead and continue to follow your elites and their welfare state agenda.
blink... blink... wow. there really are people in the world who think like this?
Supply and Demand my friend. If you want rent prices to go down, you need to flood the market with more housing, not less. Only an idiot would think that limiting the increase of available houses while the population is growing would reduce the cost of said houses. But then I notice that you post as AC and I am probably poking a troll.
If you can't afford to live in the Bay Area, then don't. You can always find a good place much cheaper if you just expand your scope a bit. So you may have to add 45 minutes to your commute everyday. The idea is to build your wealth over time and not demand instant gratification.
The insurance companies were happy to jump at an opportunity to raise their rates and get new customers. If the law was removed, I'm sure they would just complain about losing customers and raise rates even more.
Not going to argue against that point. I have often heard that the ACA was merely a means to destroy the current system and usher in a single payer system. There may be some truth to that.
If you got a plan on the exchanges for half of your regular insurance cost, then your statement "So now they're covered and not leaning on the taxpayers for it." is false. The simple fact that you have subsidised insurance, means exactly that you are leaning on the taxpayers for it.
Like most numbers that come out of government, it takes a bit of creative license. Both major parties have mastered this deception. The real question is... Are we better off now that this law is in place? To which I have to think, probably not.
After Bush had already stated that you're either with "us" (meaning him) or you're with the terrorists and the American public were still bleating like sheep.
Way to take it out of context and put your own spin on it. Bush was addressing foreign nations at that point in his speech. The "us" he was referring to, was the majority of Americans who supported some sort of retaliation for 9/11. But by all means, go ahead and tout your revisionist history.
The creation of the electoral college had nothing to do with large distances or travel time. It had everything to do with giving the lower population areas a voice. If we went with just the popular vote, candidates would end up only campaigning in a handful of high population cities. I once saw an extreme example, but quite apropos. Imagine somebody campaigning on the idea all our problems would be solved by nuking Montana. That candidate would only have to convince enough people in the top 5-10 population centers to win enough votes to do so. Can you at least see that the people in Montana might have a problem with that? I am always open minded about replacing the electoral college, but unless an idea comes across that gives low population centers a voice, it probably is not a good idea.
Seeing how his using #2 in your list is exactly what he was doing... the reason for excluding major crime areas in your comparison, is for the very reason that they have the strictest gun laws on the books and don't fit the general populace of the rest of the US. Now if you want to include those data points, then reduce your data points to individual counties instead of entire countries. When you do that, you will find that areas with strict gun laws do, in fact have higher crime rates and those with liberal gun policies have much lower rates.
It really isn't all that hard to comprehend... an armed society is a polite society. Those who wish not to be polite, quickly find themselves removed from that society. While on the opposite hand, criminals will always choose the path of least resistance when conducting a crime.
There is a difference here still. One voluntarily signs a loan that requires full coverage insurance. You could always save your money and buy the vehicle out right, but for the convenience of using someone else's money, the lender requires it. This is much different from the ACA which is a straight up tax on people to redistribute the cost of those who could not afford or would not normally get insurance.
Bill Whittle put up a video recently talking about this very problem. The entire US Constitution is approximately 4400 words. The ACA is upwards of 20,000 pages, and still growing.
None of the homes need to be larger than 850 sq foot.
So, when the population of earth doubles again, are we then to redefine personal living space at say 400 sq foot? Maybe we should all just accept our 1 sq meter per person now. Then what?
At some point we are going to have to reduce the population of the planet. Either we do it, or mother nature will do it for us. Until then, I plan to live comfortably in a much larger house than what scientists think I should live in.
Humanity will never accept an egalitarian life style. There will always be have and have not's.
Just because 70% of the population wants something, doesn't mean it is a good idea. We may well end up with a single payer system. Good luck finding a doctor when we do.
There are many things we could have done to bring down the cost of medical care. eg. Force doctors to post their prices. Not force insurance agencies into "must provide" plans. Allow insurance to be purchased across state lines, etc... Hell, just bring back the free market's risk/reward concept to the medical world. Sadly, none of these options will ever see the light of day. But don't let my ranting get in the way of your utopian view of how a single payer system will solve everything.
Meanwhile, I will sit here and wait quietly in the VA hospital for my chance to be seen... I am told it might be next Thursday.
The theory about self-regulation works just fine. It just doesn't stand up so well, when governments step in and bail out the industries and or insurance companies.
You don't think the insurance company might have a problem with this? If the shipping company was insured, the insurance company will eventually step in and demand the shipping company fix the issue or start denying claims. If the shipping company wasn't insured, well... they end up going out of business. Either way, the problem is self correcting over the long term.
Nice try, but the libertarian philosophy doesn't get rid of litigation. If you buy a toy for your kid and the kid dies of poisoning, then you get to take the company to court and put them out of business. Then you can say the market corrected. The whole point of free market philosophy is to bring back the risk to companies such that they do the right thing. When you constantly bail out companies with government tax money, where is the incentive to self correct ones bad business strategy?
The military frequently uses charter flights to get troops into and out of the theater of operations.
I know everybody is blaming the UAV here, but there are two other possibilities to this story. 1) The pilot of the passenger plane is at fault. 2) The air raffic controller is at fault.
Slashdot Mirror
This smacks of we can't dispute the skeptical claims, so we'll make up some mystical economic numbers. Maybe people won't look at them in depth like they did the "settled science".
Now, let me go read the actual report...
Neat toy. Completely useless as a camera platform, but then if all you want to do is annoy the Secret Service...
So, if my corporation doesn't create something the customer wants, they will magically create the jobs for me to hire new employees?
Seems a bit idiotic... Hope you don't try to start your own business with that line of thinking
The cost isn't different between US and Germany, The way it's paid for is different. Germany subsidizes solar power far more than the US. Just because tax revenue is spent, doesn't mean it's cheaper. One of the biggest reasons for it being uneconomical is that there is still the huge amount of hazardous waste that needs to be disposed of from the manufacturing process. It may be less of a carbon footprint, but green energy it is not.
As a Libertarian, I am going to have to side with the republicans on this one. The ACA is complete and utter crap. The fact that the backend of the website doesn't work is just the tip of the iceberg. But by all means, go ahead and continue to follow your elites and their welfare state agenda.
blink... blink... wow. there really are people in the world who think like this?
Supply and Demand my friend. If you want rent prices to go down, you need to flood the market with more housing, not less. Only an idiot would think that limiting the increase of available houses while the population is growing would reduce the cost of said houses. But then I notice that you post as AC and I am probably poking a troll.
If you can't afford to live in the Bay Area, then don't. You can always find a good place much cheaper if you just expand your scope a bit. So you may have to add 45 minutes to your commute everyday. The idea is to build your wealth over time and not demand instant gratification.
The insurance companies were happy to jump at an opportunity to raise their rates and get new customers. If the law was removed, I'm sure they would just complain about losing customers and raise rates even more.
Not going to argue against that point. I have often heard that the ACA was merely a means to destroy the current system and usher in a single payer system. There may be some truth to that.
If you got a plan on the exchanges for half of your regular insurance cost, then your statement "So now they're covered and not leaning on the taxpayers for it." is false. The simple fact that you have subsidised insurance, means exactly that you are leaning on the taxpayers for it.
Like most numbers that come out of government, it takes a bit of creative license. Both major parties have mastered this deception. The real question is... Are we better off now that this law is in place? To which I have to think, probably not.
Fez likes them big, Fez likes them small, Fez likes them all.
After Bush had already stated that you're either with "us" (meaning him) or you're with the terrorists and the American public were still bleating like sheep.
Way to take it out of context and put your own spin on it. Bush was addressing foreign nations at that point in his speech. The "us" he was referring to, was the majority of Americans who supported some sort of retaliation for 9/11. But by all means, go ahead and tout your revisionist history.
The creation of the electoral college had nothing to do with large distances or travel time. It had everything to do with giving the lower population areas a voice. If we went with just the popular vote, candidates would end up only campaigning in a handful of high population cities. I once saw an extreme example, but quite apropos. Imagine somebody campaigning on the idea all our problems would be solved by nuking Montana. That candidate would only have to convince enough people in the top 5-10 population centers to win enough votes to do so. Can you at least see that the people in Montana might have a problem with that? I am always open minded about replacing the electoral college, but unless an idea comes across that gives low population centers a voice, it probably is not a good idea.
Seeing how his using #2 in your list is exactly what he was doing... the reason for excluding major crime areas in your comparison, is for the very reason that they have the strictest gun laws on the books and don't fit the general populace of the rest of the US. Now if you want to include those data points, then reduce your data points to individual counties instead of entire countries. When you do that, you will find that areas with strict gun laws do, in fact have higher crime rates and those with liberal gun policies have much lower rates.
It really isn't all that hard to comprehend... an armed society is a polite society. Those who wish not to be polite, quickly find themselves removed from that society. While on the opposite hand, criminals will always choose the path of least resistance when conducting a crime.
There is a difference here still. One voluntarily signs a loan that requires full coverage insurance. You could always save your money and buy the vehicle out right, but for the convenience of using someone else's money, the lender requires it. This is much different from the ACA which is a straight up tax on people to redistribute the cost of those who could not afford or would not normally get insurance.
Sorry to inform you, but the Axiom is just a utopian pipe dream from a movie.
Bill Whittle put up a video recently talking about this very problem. The entire US Constitution is approximately 4400 words. The ACA is upwards of 20,000 pages, and still growing.
Is it bad that I am still using MS BOB?
On a different note: Does anybody know why Slashdot doesn't render correctly anymore?
Does this mean that the founding fathers of the USA have all gone to hell? They did effectively disobey secular authority... the King of England.
None of the homes need to be larger than 850 sq foot.
So, when the population of earth doubles again, are we then to redefine personal living space at say 400 sq foot? Maybe we should all just accept our 1 sq meter per person now. Then what?
At some point we are going to have to reduce the population of the planet. Either we do it, or mother nature will do it for us. Until then, I plan to live comfortably in a much larger house than what scientists think I should live in.
Humanity will never accept an egalitarian life style. There will always be have and have not's.
Just because 70% of the population wants something, doesn't mean it is a good idea. We may well end up with a single payer system. Good luck finding a doctor when we do.
There are many things we could have done to bring down the cost of medical care. eg. Force doctors to post their prices. Not force insurance agencies into "must provide" plans. Allow insurance to be purchased across state lines, etc... Hell, just bring back the free market's risk/reward concept to the medical world. Sadly, none of these options will ever see the light of day. But don't let my ranting get in the way of your utopian view of how a single payer system will solve everything.
Meanwhile, I will sit here and wait quietly in the VA hospital for my chance to be seen... I am told it might be next Thursday.
The theory about self-regulation works just fine. It just doesn't stand up so well, when governments step in and bail out the industries and or insurance companies.
You don't think the insurance company might have a problem with this? If the shipping company was insured, the insurance company will eventually step in and demand the shipping company fix the issue or start denying claims. If the shipping company wasn't insured, well... they end up going out of business. Either way, the problem is self correcting over the long term.
Nice try, but the libertarian philosophy doesn't get rid of litigation. If you buy a toy for your kid and the kid dies of poisoning, then you get to take the company to court and put them out of business. Then you can say the market corrected. The whole point of free market philosophy is to bring back the risk to companies such that they do the right thing. When you constantly bail out companies with government tax money, where is the incentive to self correct ones bad business strategy?
The military frequently uses charter flights to get troops into and out of the theater of operations.
I know everybody is blaming the UAV here, but there are two other possibilities to this story. 1) The pilot of the passenger plane is at fault. 2) The air raffic controller is at fault.