The companies along their greed to make more money on costumers also didn't change... if anything, it only grew. Now they also have a whole lot more politicians in their pockets,
Yes, it is indeed frightening how many greedy corporations are trying to sway net neutrality legislation in their favor. You can find a list here.
Well your first link is literally internet garbage. Please get back to me as to its value.
It mirrors the stupidity of Trudeau's comments.
I would never call Castro a good guy in a historic narrative but there really is quite a bit to learn from what he did and in a positive context.
And what do you think is there "to learn" from Castro "in a postiive context"? Which parts of Cuban society would you like to see replicated in Canada or the US?
Well I think we can settle together quite nicely on that Hillary wasn't all that great although lining Clinton up with Alinsky to define her as far left I think is not accurate as plenty of people go far left when they're young and I don't think the comparisons to her later life are terribly apt. Lots of politicians practice "real politik" like Alinksy, on both sides of the political spectrum but yet Hillary typically advocated moderate Democratic party values until Bernie made things uncomfortable for her.
I'm not "defining her as far left". I am saying that she has been both far left and moderate and gone back and forth between the two. I simply don't know if she holds any coherent political beliefs at all.
And responding to Sanders the way she did was her big mistake. If she had stood up as a consistent and proud moderate, she ran a small risk of losing to Sanders, but she would have gone into the election with a much better profile. Instead, she came across as a dishonest and opportunistic sleazeball who tried to steal Sanders' chances, and at the same time left people like me wondering what her actual political views were, or if she simply was in the pocket of special interests all along.
On that last: it's de-identified before it ever hits our system.
De-identification doesn't work in general. You could probably recover the personal identities of most of the people in your database by combining it with other data sources.
You're perfectly free to call Russia's actions "interference", but if you do, then the term "interference" only amounts to "engaged in free speech and provided relevant information". That kind of interference is not objectionable to me. In fact, most countries, including the US, do that all the time.
I won't give an exact number, but it suffices to say that like most people in the Silicon Valley, I'm in the top single-digit percent.
Yes, I figured that out after posting: an early employee at a company whose stock price has increased a hundredfold. So, like most of the wealthy Silicon Valley liberals, a few thousand dollars more in income/payroll taxes probably just don't matter to you.
There are fewer and fewer jobs available without a college degree.
Well, yes. As you subsidize college degrees more and more a bunch of things happen: educational standards of colleges will drop, college tuitions will rise, and college degrees will become even more of a requirement.
The main point of college is not to teach facts, but rather to teach students how to become lifelong learnersâ"to inspire them to explore areas outside the very rigid set of subjects offered in Kâ"12 [...] In practice, this means that for the better part of a decade, it has been essentially impossible to work your way through college on minimum wage even at the cheapest state schools,
What that means is that (1) college costs are spiraling out of control just as modern technologies should really be decreasing the cost of education dramatically, and that (2) colleges are fulfilling the role that a failing K-12 public school system ought to perform.
So, in a sense, Hillary is right: attending a public university ought to be free. However, it shouldn't be free because of massive federal subsidies ($350 billion in her case, and that's probably an underestimate), it should be free because public universities should cut their costs, take advantage of new technologies, and focus on teaching. They should be located where housing is cheap (since most students don't live at home anyway) and moved from their expensive locations if necessary.
And you're also right that K-12 has become a chore that saps creativity and independence from kids; but the solution to that is to fix K-12, not to add another four years of mind-numbing education on top of that.
When some business is underperforming and inefficient, you don't "fix" it by throwing more money at it; you fix it by actually reforming it and cutting costs.
Nixon, a Republican president, signed of on creating the EPA. Yes the Republican party has changed a lot since then. The party today would never endorse such government interference in the private sector
Well, as I was saying, Republicans were indeed somewhat more moderate in the 1960's and 1970's, but after that, they simply returned to historical norms. In addition, presidents often are not typical for what a party stands for. Also, the EPA was merely intended to consolidate environmental regulation that was already happening at the federal level anyway.
Democrats, since the 1990's, have started to embrace extreme left positions, such as democratic socialism, social justice, and critical theory. Between Republicans returning to their historical norms in the 1980's and Democrats gradually moving to the far left over the last couple of decades, the gap has indeed widened. But it's the Democrats that deviate from historical norms, not the Republicans.
and yet here we are, not China, with our relatively clean air and water
Yes, and we are also a relatively free market oriented society, as opposed to China's far left government. Leftist governments tend to be quite bad for the environment.
You said they'd demonize us. I was replying to your incorrect message that Democrats would be upset with someone trying to make a profit.
I said Democratic politicians demonize people who make profits in healthcare, not that government bureaucrats are rude to you.
It's my employer, not my personal company. You'd have to ask them about their financing discussions. But yes, it's a major part of our strategy.
Your strategy isn't specific to Medicaid, so it's not relevant to this discussion. That is, your service would presumably be useful even if Medicaid were abolished entirely.
Finally...
My company got a lot of help from Medicare when we wanted to analyze their data.
I find it disturbing that privacy in our healthcare system has been eroded to the point that your company can get medical records on "220 million people and 9 billion health insurance claims", and have much of that data handed to them with a smile by government officials.
Sorry to break it to you now that you are back from years in the wilderness with no news of the outside world, but there has been an election and Democrats are now irrelevant so you'll have to find someone else to blame.
I'm glad you noticed that Democrats have lost both the presidency and both houses. However, Democrats haven't disappeared from the US political scene, and any business has to take into account the risk that, sooner or later, Democrats will come into office again. Furthermore, any business also has to face the risk that Republicans might actually succeed in cutting the Medicare/Medicaid gravy train. So, between those two risks, those $500 billion in Medicaid spending are a highly unpredictable, and hence risky, source of revenue for any startup.
Any attempt to influence the outcome of an election (easily) qualifies as interference.
Well, yes. Kind of like not wanting to pay for a woman's abortion "qualifies as" denying her the right to control her own body, or how not wanting to pay for other people's college education "qualifies as" denying access to education, or opposing the presence of illegal Mexicans in the US "qualifies as" racism, or opposing "gay marriage" qualifies as homophobia.
Considering Russia's interference (confirmed fact) during the election
Sure, if they did, they did it in the same way in which Mark Felt "interfered" with President Nixon, Daniel Ellsberg "interfered" with the Vietnam War, or Linda Tripp "interfered" with Bill Clinton's presidency. Why would any reasonable person have a problem with truthful information about the malfeasance of US presidential candidates being released?
The Dems just want single payer at least the honest ones do.
Well, the vast majority of the Dems seems to want to shovel trillions into the hands of big drug companies, the AMA, and hospitals.
We're not going to demonize you if you don't act like a demon. If you come up with a clever scheme to siphon billions into your pocket away from actual health care then yeah, we'll demonize you. You're a demon. Stop it.
Funny, that's pretty much exactly what I would say about the crony capitalist ACA scheme.
I suppose every political party that loses needs its conspiracy theories. For Republicans, it was birtherism under Obama. For Democrats, it's Russian conspiracy theories under Trump.
No, she was a moderate who only adopted more progressive policies after being pushed to the left by Sanders. Such a shift to one side or the other during the primaries is not at all indicative of a candidate's real priorities
So you are saying then that she was not only lying, but that she believed that those lies would be effective in misleading enough voters to hand her victory.
Personally, I simply don't know what Hillary believes anymore. I used to assume that she was a moderate, but given her history with Alinsky, it's just as likely that she was a radical pretending to be a moderate for all these years. In the end, it didn't matter.
and is regularly done by politicians.
True, but that doesn't make it alright. And I think Hillary's lies have been outside the normal range even for politicians.
Considering that the current healthcare bill in Congress is nothing more than a tax break repeal to pave the way for more tax breaks for the wealthy, the Democrats will quite certainly fix that once they get back in power.
And that kind of uncertainty is precisely why businesses would be foolish to invest for the long term in business models that rely on the continued largesse of specific political parties or administrations. Thanks for supporting my point.
My company got a lot of help from Medicare when we wanted to analyze their data. There was about as much paperwork as you'd expect from a giant government entity, but everyone was nice and helpful.
Why wouldn't they be "nice and helpful"?
Your portrayal of government healthcare, at least under a Democrat president, is far from the reality I actually witnessed.
I didn't "portray government healthcare", I outlined the risks that a business faces when dealing with the government. The very fact that you qualify this with "under a Democrat president" means that you recognize that there are huge political risks involved. After all, who is going to invest large amounts of money in a market that can be destroyed by a change in administrations?
The question is: did you actually bet your company on a business model that relied on the federal government and Medicaid? If not, you're pretty much supporting my point.
I was referring to 60's and 70's Republicans who were about as conservative as today's Democrats.
From 1960 to 1980, the "moderate" wing of the Republicans had somewhat more power. Republicans still were against abortion, against a guaranteed minimum income, and against gay rights, and for free markets and balanced budgets.
Republicans haven't changed that much, except maybe for getting a little software on social issues. It's the Democrats that have been taken over (temporarily) by left wing radical; the senile, wrinkly detritus of the 1960's social movements, people like Clinton and Sanders. Hopefully, as they leave the scene, Democrats will return to some semblance of sanity.
"My gut is that it's a big opportunity with $500 billion in federal spend every year in a system that hasn't evolved technologically much since 1965,"
If you get in there as an entrepreneur, you'll be suffocating under a mounting of paperwork before being demonized by Democrats for trying to make a profit. And before you can build a real business, you can bet that Congress is going to pull out the rug from under your business model anyway by reforming government health care yet again. Sorry, but "here's a bucket of government money, go build something" is just not an attractive proposition even under the best of conditions, let alone when it involves poor people and a politically controversial area of public policy..
The best you can hope for at this point is that, as physicians exit the market, the big corporations that take over their functions will be able to invest some money in technology and innovation.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it is indeed frightening how many greedy corporations are trying to sway net neutrality legislation in their favor. You can find a list here.
This indignation is precious in light of how people bent over backwards to rationalize the failings of the healthcare.gov site.
I don't find it bad at all that I am not good at misleading people.
It mirrors the stupidity of Trudeau's comments.
And what do you think is there "to learn" from Castro "in a postiive context"? Which parts of Cuban society would you like to see replicated in Canada or the US?
I'm not "defining her as far left". I am saying that she has been both far left and moderate and gone back and forth between the two. I simply don't know if she holds any coherent political beliefs at all.
And responding to Sanders the way she did was her big mistake. If she had stood up as a consistent and proud moderate, she ran a small risk of losing to Sanders, but she would have gone into the election with a much better profile. Instead, she came across as a dishonest and opportunistic sleazeball who tried to steal Sanders' chances, and at the same time left people like me wondering what her actual political views were, or if she simply was in the pocket of special interests all along.
Aren't you the guy that hates all governments and sees all taxes as armed robbery?
No, you must have me confused with someone else.
De-identification doesn't work in general. You could probably recover the personal identities of most of the people in your database by combining it with other data sources.
You're perfectly free to call Russia's actions "interference", but if you do, then the term "interference" only amounts to "engaged in free speech and provided relevant information". That kind of interference is not objectionable to me. In fact, most countries, including the US, do that all the time.
Yes, I figured that out after posting: an early employee at a company whose stock price has increased a hundredfold. So, like most of the wealthy Silicon Valley liberals, a few thousand dollars more in income/payroll taxes probably just don't matter to you.
Well, yes. As you subsidize college degrees more and more a bunch of things happen: educational standards of colleges will drop, college tuitions will rise, and college degrees will become even more of a requirement.
What that means is that (1) college costs are spiraling out of control just as modern technologies should really be decreasing the cost of education dramatically, and that (2) colleges are fulfilling the role that a failing K-12 public school system ought to perform.
So, in a sense, Hillary is right: attending a public university ought to be free. However, it shouldn't be free because of massive federal subsidies ($350 billion in her case, and that's probably an underestimate), it should be free because public universities should cut their costs, take advantage of new technologies, and focus on teaching. They should be located where housing is cheap (since most students don't live at home anyway) and moved from their expensive locations if necessary.
And you're also right that K-12 has become a chore that saps creativity and independence from kids; but the solution to that is to fix K-12, not to add another four years of mind-numbing education on top of that.
When some business is underperforming and inefficient, you don't "fix" it by throwing more money at it; you fix it by actually reforming it and cutting costs.
Well, as I was saying, Republicans were indeed somewhat more moderate in the 1960's and 1970's, but after that, they simply returned to historical norms. In addition, presidents often are not typical for what a party stands for. Also, the EPA was merely intended to consolidate environmental regulation that was already happening at the federal level anyway.
Democrats, since the 1990's, have started to embrace extreme left positions, such as democratic socialism, social justice, and critical theory. Between Republicans returning to their historical norms in the 1980's and Democrats gradually moving to the far left over the last couple of decades, the gap has indeed widened. But it's the Democrats that deviate from historical norms, not the Republicans.
Yes, and we are also a relatively free market oriented society, as opposed to China's far left government. Leftist governments tend to be quite bad for the environment.
When you have so few left, that is indeed tragic.
I said Democratic politicians demonize people who make profits in healthcare, not that government bureaucrats are rude to you.
Your strategy isn't specific to Medicaid, so it's not relevant to this discussion. That is, your service would presumably be useful even if Medicaid were abolished entirely.
Finally...
I find it disturbing that privacy in our healthcare system has been eroded to the point that your company can get medical records on "220 million people and 9 billion health insurance claims", and have much of that data handed to them with a smile by government officials.
I'm glad you noticed that Democrats have lost both the presidency and both houses. However, Democrats haven't disappeared from the US political scene, and any business has to take into account the risk that, sooner or later, Democrats will come into office again. Furthermore, any business also has to face the risk that Republicans might actually succeed in cutting the Medicare/Medicaid gravy train. So, between those two risks, those $500 billion in Medicaid spending are a highly unpredictable, and hence risky, source of revenue for any startup.
Well, yes. Kind of like not wanting to pay for a woman's abortion "qualifies as" denying her the right to control her own body, or how not wanting to pay for other people's college education "qualifies as" denying access to education, or opposing the presence of illegal Mexicans in the US "qualifies as" racism, or opposing "gay marriage" qualifies as homophobia.
You people are really good playing word games.
Sure, if they did, they did it in the same way in which Mark Felt "interfered" with President Nixon, Daniel Ellsberg "interfered" with the Vietnam War, or Linda Tripp "interfered" with Bill Clinton's presidency. Why would any reasonable person have a problem with truthful information about the malfeasance of US presidential candidates being released?
Well, the vast majority of the Dems seems to want to shovel trillions into the hands of big drug companies, the AMA, and hospitals.
Funny, that's pretty much exactly what I would say about the crony capitalist ACA scheme.
Calling yourself a "veteran" for playing soldier in the Bundeswehr: that's pretty funny!
I suppose every political party that loses needs its conspiracy theories. For Republicans, it was birtherism under Obama. For Democrats, it's Russian conspiracy theories under Trump.
Let me help you out there:
https://www.google.com/search?...
https://www.pastemagazine.com/...
So you are saying then that she was not only lying, but that she believed that those lies would be effective in misleading enough voters to hand her victory.
Personally, I simply don't know what Hillary believes anymore. I used to assume that she was a moderate, but given her history with Alinsky, it's just as likely that she was a radical pretending to be a moderate for all these years. In the end, it didn't matter.
True, but that doesn't make it alright. And I think Hillary's lies have been outside the normal range even for politicians.
And that kind of uncertainty is precisely why businesses would be foolish to invest for the long term in business models that rely on the continued largesse of specific political parties or administrations. Thanks for supporting my point.
Why wouldn't they be "nice and helpful"?
I didn't "portray government healthcare", I outlined the risks that a business faces when dealing with the government. The very fact that you qualify this with "under a Democrat president" means that you recognize that there are huge political risks involved. After all, who is going to invest large amounts of money in a market that can be destroyed by a change in administrations?
The question is: did you actually bet your company on a business model that relied on the federal government and Medicaid? If not, you're pretty much supporting my point.
From 1960 to 1980, the "moderate" wing of the Republicans had somewhat more power. Republicans still were against abortion, against a guaranteed minimum income, and against gay rights, and for free markets and balanced budgets.
Republicans haven't changed that much, except maybe for getting a little software on social issues. It's the Democrats that have been taken over (temporarily) by left wing radical; the senile, wrinkly detritus of the 1960's social movements, people like Clinton and Sanders. Hopefully, as they leave the scene, Democrats will return to some semblance of sanity.
If you get in there as an entrepreneur, you'll be suffocating under a mounting of paperwork before being demonized by Democrats for trying to make a profit. And before you can build a real business, you can bet that Congress is going to pull out the rug from under your business model anyway by reforming government health care yet again. Sorry, but "here's a bucket of government money, go build something" is just not an attractive proposition even under the best of conditions, let alone when it involves poor people and a politically controversial area of public policy..
The best you can hope for at this point is that, as physicians exit the market, the big corporations that take over their functions will be able to invest some money in technology and innovation.