Why should an insurance company want to pay for your child's existing illness?
Insurance is to insure you against the risk of an expensive injury or illness. It's not a charity or a health care discount subscription plan. If you already have the illness, it's not a risk any more. It's a certainty. So if you haven't already been paying for insurance, you'll have to pay that bill yourself.
You don't buy auto collision insurance to fix your car after you crash. You don't buy fire insurance after your house starts on fire. It should be pretty clear why not. Why do you think health insurance should be any different? Politics?
You used "logic" and "Congress" together. Congress doesn't use "logic" to decide. Decisions in congress are guided by politics and corruption. Some wording similar to "logic" may be used to explain (spin) the decision afterward.
Mod parent up. Repeating these cliches is so interesting and informative.
He mentioned we have violence but no sex on our TV! Did you know that?!? And he complained about parents! (Not sure what he was trying to say about parents, but some of them are bad, I guess.)
And yet you don't include any estimates of the externalities. But "trust us, they're huge".
"And so, therefore, we'll be forcing you to buy higher-priced, inferior energy from politically-connected rent seeking alternative energy companies. Our self-serving estimates for externalities of our favored energy companies are low."
It's pretty easy to decide these things when you get to use unlimited, unsupported, variable fudge factors. It's amazing how the answers always turn out beneficial to you and your point of view.
Nevermind the facts then. Attack the messenger. It's a good way to change the subject when you're losing an argument.
It doesn't take "an environmental scientist" to run a spreadsheet and make graphs of data collected by others. And his sponsors, as you've listed them, show he's probably free from the inherent bias toward alarmism that environmental groups use for fundraising.
The report is extensively footnoted. Go look up the data yourself if you choose to disbelieve the data's presentation in the report.
Air quality and water quality have been improving for decades now. The reason for the improvement is prosperity. People have time to worry about the air quality when they don't have to worry about starving.
Why not leave possible future problems for the future? Why should people today be forced to subsidize the people of the future? Why are the people of the future more worthy of living free prosperous lives than the people of today?
Also, why wouldn't we expect the people of the future to have more resources available and better means to exploit them than we have today?
It seems like they should be able to take care of themselves when the time comes.
Because the price doesn't reflect the costs. If you were actually paying with your dollars for the externalities, things would be very different. But the only way to do that is by some non-market entity forcing against someone's will.
This seems to be a talking point you guys have memorized pretty well. The AC got there before you.
By using "externalities" as FUD, you can justify anything just by pretending they're high on the competitive product.
The current price of anything fails to include all of the associated externalities.
To some people, that means "we'll just use the numbers we have". To others, it means "therefore, we can make up any economic argument we want and use externalities as FUD when someone points out how the numbers don't add up".
Highly-paid artists, actors, and athletes deliver a small value, but they deliver it to millions of people at once, and they can do it over and over. The total amount of value is huge. Hence their compensation is huge.
I can remember people whining about performers' pay since the 1980s. It's been 25 years now and people like you still don't understand the way mass media multiplies value. Maybe you just don't care to understand it because you prefer whining. Who knows?
I'm not going to address the rest of your post because of the ignorant and/or poorly-reasoned premise.
It's interesting there where you try to claim that inferior, higher priced forms of energy are more efficient. If they were more efficient, why wouldn't they be less expensive than fossil fuels? Then we'd just switch to them because they're cheaper -- rather than being forced against our will to pay extra for them and to subsidize them.
Or did you mean "more efficient" at delivering subsidies and windfall profits into the hands of the politically-connected ruling class at the expense of the average American?
For example, I cite the power of extractive and fossil energy interests in discouraging broad funding of research in distributed and/or alternative energy sources over the last 40 years.
Also, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "cite". You're basically repeating slanders and talking points. When you "cite" something, usually it means you're going to provide a reference of some kind.
Your attempt to champion government central planning of energy research doesn't seem to be an effective counterexample to North Korea and Cuba's failures either.
No, we'll just be in for more bullshit articles about how government regulations are stifling innovation.
What we really need is some basic R&D into why conservatives hold on to the mantra that the free market cures all ills when it's been shown time and again to fail completely in so many areas.
No one ever said the free market cures all ills. There's no utopia. Nothing cures all ills.
Why is it that socialists promise that government will solve every problem? And then they get power and use it to build up themselves at the expense of average people -- oh, that's why.
Why should I believe that some academics or policy wonks can make my choices better than I can make them myself? Are they here in my house observing my life? Where do they get the information to use to make these decisions about my life?
Conservatives believe that the free market delivers one thing that socialism can never deliver: freedom.
It also happens to efficiently deploy economic resources for production of the most goods, creating the most wealth for the most people. Unlike socialism, freedom delivers for average people, not just for the politically-connected ruling class.
You fail to explain how auditing the Federal Reserve helps anything or solves any problem.
We face a lot of problems, including an increasingly totalitarian government. You think these problems will just go away if the Federal Reserve is audited? Last I checked President Obama and his czars didn't work for the Fed. Congress and the courts don't work for the Fed either. The IRS and the ATF and the DEA don't work for the Fed. The Fed has no troops. Our major problems are not primarily monetary. So auditing the Fed is a good idea, but it's completely beside the point at this time.
What are you talking about? What does it have to do with the government trying to seize control of computers? What does it have to do with anything that's happened in the last 6 months?
Yeah, well racism isn't what it used to be. You used to have to dislike someone because of their race. Now it's an all-purpose weapon of first resort to discredit anyone disagreeing with President Obama.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should an insurance company want to pay for your child's existing illness?
Insurance is to insure you against the risk of an expensive injury or illness. It's not a charity or a health care discount subscription plan. If you already have the illness, it's not a risk any more. It's a certainty. So if you haven't already been paying for insurance, you'll have to pay that bill yourself.
You don't buy auto collision insurance to fix your car after you crash. You don't buy fire insurance after your house starts on fire. It should be pretty clear why not. Why do you think health insurance should be any different? Politics?
Actually, YOURS is the world's most insightful post.
Now you're just being sarcastic.
You used "logic" and "Congress" together. Congress doesn't use "logic" to decide. Decisions in congress are guided by politics and corruption. Some wording similar to "logic" may be used to explain (spin) the decision afterward.
Mod parent up. Repeating these cliches is so interesting and informative.
He mentioned we have violence but no sex on our TV! Did you know that?!? And he complained about parents! (Not sure what he was trying to say about parents, but some of them are bad, I guess.)
It's the world's most insightful post.
It's a report on the science conducted by other people. Peer review is hardly required to cite a paper.
Environmental scientists don't get funding when they say the environment is getting better. That's an incentive.
It is notable that you've provided zero citations to support your own position.
And yet you don't include any estimates of the externalities. But "trust us, they're huge".
"And so, therefore, we'll be forcing you to buy higher-priced, inferior energy from politically-connected rent seeking alternative energy companies. Our self-serving estimates for externalities of our favored energy companies are low."
It's pretty easy to decide these things when you get to use unlimited, unsupported, variable fudge factors. It's amazing how the answers always turn out beneficial to you and your point of view.
Nevermind the facts then. Attack the messenger. It's a good way to change the subject when you're losing an argument.
It doesn't take "an environmental scientist" to run a spreadsheet and make graphs of data collected by others. And his sponsors, as you've listed them, show he's probably free from the inherent bias toward alarmism that environmental groups use for fundraising.
The report is extensively footnoted. Go look up the data yourself if you choose to disbelieve the data's presentation in the report.
Here's a huge research paper on how your environmental alarmism is out-of-date.
Air quality and water quality have been improving for decades now. The reason for the improvement is prosperity. People have time to worry about the air quality when they don't have to worry about starving.
They're FUD when they're used as FUD. They're not FUD when they're carefully analyzed and quantified. Here, they're used as FUD.
No, that's not why. There's no utopia because human imagination is unlimited. We can always imagine something better than we have.
Perfection is elusive.
Why not leave possible future problems for the future? Why should people today be forced to subsidize the people of the future? Why are the people of the future more worthy of living free prosperous lives than the people of today?
Also, why wouldn't we expect the people of the future to have more resources available and better means to exploit them than we have today?
It seems like they should be able to take care of themselves when the time comes.
Because the price doesn't reflect the costs. If you were actually paying with your dollars for the externalities, things would be very different. But the only way to do that is by some non-market entity forcing against someone's will.
This seems to be a talking point you guys have memorized pretty well. The AC got there before you.
By using "externalities" as FUD, you can justify anything just by pretending they're high on the competitive product.
The current price of anything fails to include all of the associated externalities.
To some people, that means "we'll just use the numbers we have". To others, it means "therefore, we can make up any economic argument we want and use externalities as FUD when someone points out how the numbers don't add up".
Green tech loses two jobs for every one job gained.
But who cares? At least politically-connected green tech companies will get rich at the expense of average people. That's what matters, right?
Highly-paid artists, actors, and athletes deliver a small value, but they deliver it to millions of people at once, and they can do it over and over. The total amount of value is huge. Hence their compensation is huge.
I can remember people whining about performers' pay since the 1980s. It's been 25 years now and people like you still don't understand the way mass media multiplies value. Maybe you just don't care to understand it because you prefer whining. Who knows?
I'm not going to address the rest of your post because of the ignorant and/or poorly-reasoned premise.
It's interesting there where you try to claim that inferior, higher priced forms of energy are more efficient. If they were more efficient, why wouldn't they be less expensive than fossil fuels? Then we'd just switch to them because they're cheaper -- rather than being forced against our will to pay extra for them and to subsidize them.
Or did you mean "more efficient" at delivering subsidies and windfall profits into the hands of the politically-connected ruling class at the expense of the average American?
False dichotomy AND strawman in two sentences.
Which one of those was a sentence?
For example, I cite the power of extractive and fossil energy interests in discouraging broad funding of research in distributed and/or alternative energy sources over the last 40 years.
Also, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "cite". You're basically repeating slanders and talking points. When you "cite" something, usually it means you're going to provide a reference of some kind.
Your attempt to champion government central planning of energy research doesn't seem to be an effective counterexample to North Korea and Cuba's failures either.
No, we'll just be in for more bullshit articles about how government regulations are stifling innovation.
What we really need is some basic R&D into why conservatives hold on to the mantra that the free market cures all ills when it's been shown time and again to fail completely in so many areas.
No one ever said the free market cures all ills. There's no utopia. Nothing cures all ills.
Why is it that socialists promise that government will solve every problem? And then they get power and use it to build up themselves at the expense of average people -- oh, that's why.
Why should I believe that some academics or policy wonks can make my choices better than I can make them myself? Are they here in my house observing my life? Where do they get the information to use to make these decisions about my life?
Conservatives believe that the free market delivers one thing that socialism can never deliver: freedom.
It also happens to efficiently deploy economic resources for production of the most goods, creating the most wealth for the most people. Unlike socialism, freedom delivers for average people, not just for the politically-connected ruling class.
The past is gone. Saying "I told you so" doesn't solve any current problems.
Right now, auditing the Federal Reserve is exactly "nothing of note". And he's not even going to succeed at doing that.
You fail to explain how auditing the Federal Reserve helps anything or solves any problem.
We face a lot of problems, including an increasingly totalitarian government. You think these problems will just go away if the Federal Reserve is audited? Last I checked President Obama and his czars didn't work for the Fed. Congress and the courts don't work for the Fed either. The IRS and the ATF and the DEA don't work for the Fed. The Fed has no troops. Our major problems are not primarily monetary. So auditing the Fed is a good idea, but it's completely beside the point at this time.
What are you talking about? What does it have to do with the government trying to seize control of computers? What does it have to do with anything that's happened in the last 6 months?
Yeah, well racism isn't what it used to be. You used to have to dislike someone because of their race. Now it's an all-purpose weapon of first resort to discredit anyone disagreeing with President Obama.
Criticism of Obama makes you a racist, didn't you know?
Also, you're a racist if calling you a racist advances a leftist agenda. And if you defend yourself, you're just like a Klan member.
Yeah. While the ship is going down, we can always count on Ron Paul to audit the ship's manifest. Someone might have stolen some cargo, after all.
What does this have to do with "Civil Liberties"?
The ACLU doesn't seem to be about civil liberties at all any more, if it ever was.