I meant on health care, but I am willing to give him time. My point, though, was that McCain's plan could have eased the burden on those who pay for their own health care by april (when tax refunds come around). The rest of us would benefit more slowly as employers realized they should let us choose our own health providers, with increased competition lowering the cost/improving the standards.
I don't care if it's the McCain plan or the Kennedy plan or whoever. That tax break makes sense. Obama wants to give tax breaks to the middle class and that would be a good one.
And why do you think employer's provide health insurance (which often times they even charge for) instead of just handing over the money and letting you figure it out?
Oh and the government is capable of motivations far more devious than profit.
The cost of supporting old people doesn't just go away when the funds are channeled through the government which is why I suggested that people spend their lives saving instead of going into debt, and if they don't, let their families pay, not me.
Seriously. I'm talking about letting people pay for their own damned health care here not reverting to an agrarian society.
As our population gets older, it's not "insurance" for accidents, but rather an on-going part of their care.
Which they or their families should pay for. Somewhere along the line we got this idea that people should not have to bother to save for retirement and that the government should replace the family as the caretaker of the elderly. It's just not workable.
Your policy is a logical choice for you. All we're asking is that we all get to choose the policy that's best for us, instead of having our employer or government clumsily dictate it.
There already is a lot of competition driving health care costs down.
Yes but where is the competition to bring the standard of care up? There is some. Some employers will offer multiple health plans, but it's more like Verizon vs. AT&T than figuring out where to eat lunch. The McCain plan was an obvious, painless, and timely way to improve health care for Americans. All Obama has delivered, to this day, is promises.
The only people who would be able to afford health insurance in that plan are people who don't need it.
What do you mean by people who don't need it? Surely you aren't saying that everyone who pays for health insurance can afford a catastrophe out of pocket.
What kind of negotiating position does someone who needs life-saving care have versus an insurance company?
Probably an inch or two better than the position he has against the US government.
I don't know if the GP was talking about the US or not. In some countries hate speech is not protected. In the US it is, as long as it is purely speech and is not exhorting someone else to violence.
The new MS natural kbs are pretty unreliable. I'm on I think my fourth one at home and my second at work (keys will stop working one or two at a time). But I guess at one fifth the price one can afford to replace them.
There's rumors that Schwarzenegger might run against Barbara Boxer in 2010 though.
I don't see what the point would be. While he's not the worst governor of Cahlifornia ever, he's lost a lot of credibility with California republicans for failing to reign in our horrendous state legislature. Not that that's an easy job. I don't envy his job, but there's a larger sense here that he's given in too much, that he's said one thing and then allowed another to happen.
This is ongoing too. What kind of a Republican has a budget that raises taxes? Again NOT an easy job to solve the budget crisis, but I discovered $37 billion dollars in his budget for " Health and Human Services." Nobody knows wtf this department does and yet it's nearly as expensive K-12 education!
In the governments defense I don't think they knew when they wrote the law how much the boxes should retail for. Also if they didn't subsidize the converters people might be more likely to just go out and buy a new TV, since they were going to have to spend some money anyways, thus sending even more money to China.
Sure you can drive a corporation out of business but there's no way you can make them create jobs. If we just sit here in a little bubble, we will only get poorer and poorer while the rest of the world grows.
My point was that most people who want a laptop want to be able to get business done on it, or school, or apply for a job. Lots of people like to get work done (even coding) on the airplane. It's advantageous to have a small laptop for the airplane because it can be hard to get a full size to open properly while on the tray table. Therefore having a netbook with Windows makes perfect sense.
I was kind of venting too. I wish I could get away with running just Linux for business, but the lack of Office and Exchange makes that difficult. Also CrossOver right now is charging for a product that almost works but not quite, which is annoying. In a netbook situation, where I may not have gigabytes up on gigabytes of storage for dual booting, I will have to go with Windows.
Except that you can only sorta check your email or do word processing on Linux. I try, believe me. Last time I checked, Outlook will not connect to an exchange server under wine or CrossOver. Thunderbird does IMAP ok, but IMAP is not a replacement for all that Exchange does.
OpenOffice will word documents, but you never know if they're going to look right in Word so you have to have it anyways. Word sort of runs in CrossOver but still crashes frequently and does not output to PDF (the plugin doesn't work).
So if your netbook is just for reading then fine. If you ever think you're getting some work done on the airplane you're wrong. * I mean the business side of work not actual work like writing software.
I generally believe that the closer the government is to the people, the more subject to their whims, the more effective that government is going to be. Education is a quintessential local issue, and it makes sense to fix the problem at that level. In particular, federal oversight seems like a good idea when the exceptional local school board is promoting an anti-education agenda, but federal standards largely fail to solve big problems like dropouts, delinquency, and under performance.
I'm assuming that since you're on/. you think you're superior because you're smart, but I think this applies regardless. So you're smarter than most. Are you also faster, stronger, quicker, tougher and more attractive? Are you a great shot with a bow, an expert negotiator, and the most interesting man in the world? If not all of the above then you got where you are as much because of the society in which you live as your "innate superiority."
He probably deserved to have gone to jail at one point but considering he never killed anybody I think it's fair he's out now. And certainly I'm glad he's out trying to make a difference rather than sitting in jail.
The problem with federal oversight (other than the Constitution which I'm rather fond of) is that the federal government is not particularly good at managing education or anything else. Any time they try to set standards the process is hijacked by moneyed interests. This has definitely happened with environment and safety. The national debacle that is NCLB is probably more the fault of Bush unilateralism, but I don't see how we can put it past another president to come up with a system that's equally as fail.
Slashdot Mirror
I meant on health care, but I am willing to give him time. My point, though, was that McCain's plan could have eased the burden on those who pay for their own health care by april (when tax refunds come around). The rest of us would benefit more slowly as employers realized they should let us choose our own health providers, with increased competition lowering the cost/improving the standards.
I don't care if it's the McCain plan or the Kennedy plan or whoever. That tax break makes sense. Obama wants to give tax breaks to the middle class and that would be a good one.
And why do you think employer's provide health insurance (which often times they even charge for) instead of just handing over the money and letting you figure it out?
Oh and the government is capable of motivations far more devious than profit.
The cost of supporting old people doesn't just go away when the funds are channeled through the government which is why I suggested that people spend their lives saving instead of going into debt, and if they don't, let their families pay, not me.
Seriously. I'm talking about letting people pay for their own damned health care here not reverting to an agrarian society.
Not sure where you are but in the US only Los Angeles is overpopulated. New York is intentionally overcrowded.
As our population gets older, it's not "insurance" for accidents, but rather an on-going part of their care.
Which they or their families should pay for. Somewhere along the line we got this idea that people should not have to bother to save for retirement and that the government should replace the family as the caretaker of the elderly. It's just not workable.
Your policy is a logical choice for you. All we're asking is that we all get to choose the policy that's best for us, instead of having our employer or government clumsily dictate it.
There already is a lot of competition driving health care costs down.
Yes but where is the competition to bring the standard of care up? There is some. Some employers will offer multiple health plans, but it's more like Verizon vs. AT&T than figuring out where to eat lunch. The McCain plan was an obvious, painless, and timely way to improve health care for Americans. All Obama has delivered, to this day, is promises.
The only people who would be able to afford health insurance in that plan are people who don't need it.
What do you mean by people who don't need it? Surely you aren't saying that everyone who pays for health insurance can afford a catastrophe out of pocket.
What kind of negotiating position does someone who needs life-saving care have versus an insurance company?
Probably an inch or two better than the position he has against the US government.
I don't know if the GP was talking about the US or not. In some countries hate speech is not protected. In the US it is, as long as it is purely speech and is not exhorting someone else to violence.
In California restaurants are legally required to post those ratings on the storefront. Most seem to do so inconspicuously though.
The new MS natural kbs are pretty unreliable. I'm on I think my fourth one at home and my second at work (keys will stop working one or two at a time). But I guess at one fifth the price one can afford to replace them.
Just curious if you can't ask for ID, how are you supposed to verify ID? I know when I sign it looks like scribbles most of the.
There's rumors that Schwarzenegger might run against Barbara Boxer in 2010 though.
I don't see what the point would be. While he's not the worst governor of Cahlifornia ever, he's lost a lot of credibility with California republicans for failing to reign in our horrendous state legislature. Not that that's an easy job. I don't envy his job, but there's a larger sense here that he's given in too much, that he's said one thing and then allowed another to happen.
This is ongoing too. What kind of a Republican has a budget that raises taxes? Again NOT an easy job to solve the budget crisis, but I discovered $37 billion dollars in his budget for " Health and Human Services." Nobody knows wtf this department does and yet it's nearly as expensive K-12 education!
I'm not sure anyone would want exclusive rights to the derivative work I make based on a burrito.
I would not sue the Dog, lest he bear spray me.
In the governments defense I don't think they knew when they wrote the law how much the boxes should retail for. Also if they didn't subsidize the converters people might be more likely to just go out and buy a new TV, since they were going to have to spend some money anyways, thus sending even more money to China.
As long as we and our buddies control the oil, friend, I do.
Sure you can drive a corporation out of business but there's no way you can make them create jobs. If we just sit here in a little bubble, we will only get poorer and poorer while the rest of the world grows.
My point was that most people who want a laptop want to be able to get business done on it, or school, or apply for a job. Lots of people like to get work done (even coding) on the airplane. It's advantageous to have a small laptop for the airplane because it can be hard to get a full size to open properly while on the tray table. Therefore having a netbook with Windows makes perfect sense.
I was kind of venting too. I wish I could get away with running just Linux for business, but the lack of Office and Exchange makes that difficult. Also CrossOver right now is charging for a product that almost works but not quite, which is annoying. In a netbook situation, where I may not have gigabytes up on gigabytes of storage for dual booting, I will have to go with Windows.
Except that you can only sorta check your email or do word processing on Linux. I try, believe me. Last time I checked, Outlook will not connect to an exchange server under wine or CrossOver. Thunderbird does IMAP ok, but IMAP is not a replacement for all that Exchange does.
OpenOffice will word documents, but you never know if they're going to look right in Word so you have to have it anyways. Word sort of runs in CrossOver but still crashes frequently and does not output to PDF (the plugin doesn't work).
So if your netbook is just for reading then fine. If you ever think you're getting some work done on the airplane you're wrong. * I mean the business side of work not actual work like writing software.
I generally believe that the closer the government is to the people, the more subject to their whims, the more effective that government is going to be. Education is a quintessential local issue, and it makes sense to fix the problem at that level. In particular, federal oversight seems like a good idea when the exceptional local school board is promoting an anti-education agenda, but federal standards largely fail to solve big problems like dropouts, delinquency, and under performance.
Your country doesn't have the equivalent of Ivy league schools, but perhaps if you weren't dead set on keeping them free you would.
I'm assuming that since you're on /. you think you're superior because you're smart, but I think this applies regardless. So you're smarter than most. Are you also faster, stronger, quicker, tougher and more attractive? Are you a great shot with a bow, an expert negotiator, and the most interesting man in the world? If not all of the above then you got where you are as much because of the society in which you live as your "innate superiority."
He probably deserved to have gone to jail at one point but considering he never killed anybody I think it's fair he's out now. And certainly I'm glad he's out trying to make a difference rather than sitting in jail.
The problem with federal oversight (other than the Constitution which I'm rather fond of) is that the federal government is not particularly good at managing education or anything else. Any time they try to set standards the process is hijacked by moneyed interests. This has definitely happened with environment and safety. The national debacle that is NCLB is probably more the fault of Bush unilateralism, but I don't see how we can put it past another president to come up with a system that's equally as fail.