that's nice and all but it's not that big a deal when a stay at the hospital is $20k. You're probably thinking of tax credits, e.g. when the amount paid is given to you as cash. I've heard that suggested in the past and it's silly. It's basically a round about way to do single payer healthcare. We keep all the disadvantages of insurance companies: high cost and substandard care. The 'substandard care' comes from the inevitable caps on the credit.
The only real fix is a single insurer; e.g. a single payer. That's because health care isn't something that should be left to the free market. Neither is food, which is why we do the farm bill every year. Some things you don't leave up to the invisible hand.
into paying for somebody else's healthcare? When you're young you don't need much. Maybe a little pre-natal care. It's not until you're in your 50s that most people really need the stuff. And those folks don't want to pay.
More importantly, while there are plenty of arguments to be made in favor of single payer healthcare any time it comes up the insurance companies spend half a billion dollars or more shooting it down. I still get people who tell me they don't want it because of "death panels". I ask them about "Wallet Biopsies" and that shuts them up, but I can't compete with the lobbying and advertising budgets of big phrama and big insurance.
I wish we could get a national referendum. Take out the deep south and the rural parts of Texas and Arizona and you've got over 60% in favor of medicare for all.
I'm just not overly concerned with a violent 120 lb woman. Yeah, every now and then they get a gun, but not often enough that I worry about it. Even a knife isn't that big a problem. Sure, getting cut sucks, but I can pick up a chair and use my longer arms to greater strength to safely overpower someone a foot shorter and 100lbs lighter.
Now, if _I_ get violent the opposite is not true. Imagine living in a world where 50% of the population is significantly stronger than you and where a lot of them have designs on your body. Now imagine you're well enough educated to know how you would have been treated a scant 50 years ago. Or how you'd be treated right now if you'd been born in Saudi Arabia.
doesn't mean you should give up all hope. That's basically Conservatism in a nutshell: The idea that things can never get better so let's keep everything the same. It's that line of thought that got us 1200 years of dark ages.
I'm not saying we do knee jerk methods either. We use the scientific method. Hypothesis, Gather data, test, implement, more data gathering, adjust, adjust, adjust. And you live with the fact that you will _never_ have a perfect system or a body of philosophy that solves all problems.
restaurants that have reusable utensils? This will hurt fast food, but I can't really think of a problem fast food solves that doesn't have better solutions. The biggest problem it solves is overworked people with 2-3 jobs who don't have time to cook/clean. Best solution there is a solid middle class that doesn't need 3 jobs per person to get by.
they keep it on as background noise when they work or use it to dance to at clubs. That kind of music needs to be bland because otherwise you can't tune it out while you go about your work.
it's about the oil companies running a decades long campaign to hide the effects of fossil fuels on the environment, often to prevent research into alternative and cleaner fuel sources.
for that? Still, If I coded a lot of Java I could see likeing object serialization. Being able to write out the state of your objects cuts down on the amount of custom save code you'd have to write.
shouting fire in a movie theater is a crime and should be. Suggesting one of your legion of followers should go kill somebody is too. No right is absolute. Even life when it contradicts my right to self defense (e.g. you're trying to murder me).
You do understand that the wording of that amendment is effectively a ban, right? Because just about any research done is going to show that sensible gun laws (e.g. gun control) are what reduces gun violence and injuries.
When it comes to anything controversial you always leave yourself an out. The wording lets Congress critters claim, much as you have, that there is no ban, even when they know no research will be done as a direct result of the amendment. It's the worst kind of dishonesty.
I know that's not a popular thing to say, but that doesn't make it less true. We have an administration who's stated goal is less regulation and who's people keep getting caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar with no consequences. Is it any wonder why ISPs think they can get away with more?
with just as much vehemence. Sorry, but that's not a goal post you get to move to. Cars kill fewer people because they are heavily regulated. It took weeks before my kid was ready to pass a driver's test and she had to show she was a responsible driver.
And you better believe they're out there hoping for impulse buys. Nobody _needs_ an AR-15. You _want_ one.
of school shootings. Particularly one that might lead to stronger gun laws. This is also why the CDC can't, by law, do any research on gun violence.
A better question is why the NRA is so vehemently opposed to gun laws. You don't see the Auto makers campaigning against driver's licenses and insurance. My guess is they're worried stronger laws would bite into impulse buys. A coworker the other day went to buy a pistol for target shooting and home defense and go excited and walked out with an AR-15 and several boxes of ammo. His wife was pissed. If he'd had 7 days to think it over he'd have cancelled the order and settled for the $400 pistol over the $1000 AR-15.
and Carrier Air conditioning would very much like a word with Mr President. Maybe if they could block him from building his next hotel...
Seriously, the amount of open corruption and violations of the emoluments clause on display here is insane. And at the rate this guy is going he's on track to get reelected when the Dems run Hilary Bot 2.0 in 2020...
enough to go to college, but they _are_ smart enough to hold a gun. For thousands of years demagogues have used desperation and fear to motivate and organize these people. Perhaps if you have the guts to brutally oppress and kill them you can keep them under control. Much like we keep the population of stray dogs under control. But I don't know a lot of folks who have what it takes to go that route or who would say it's the right thing to do.
If you abandon the working class they will turn on you out of desperation. And if you wait until they actually turn on you to oppress them it'll be too late. Now's the time to act. Either fix the world so it's a better place for everyone or hope you're gonna get to be one of the oppressors and get to work on justifications for the brutal things you're going to have to do to maintain your quality of life.
because money == power and power can and will be abused.
Also, if you don't think Rich people are hurting you then you don't live in Flint, Mi or drink their water. And you know absolutely nothing of history or how the power of wealth has been abused. I'm not going to bother but I could spend days explaining all the ways the power of money has been abused.
Bottom line: You're not free if somebody controls your access to food, shelter, health care and education. Until then they can make you do whatever they want by withholding those things.
but you can't squeeze blood from a stone. Wages are dropping adjusted for inflation. That is fact. Jobs are going overseas leaving people without work. Older people can't easily be retrained. As you get older your ability to learn new things is diminished. Again, this is just cold, hard reality.
The Charities are overwhelmed. That's how it's always been. If Charity worked there would be no poor. My experience with charity is that it's either scams (like Goodwill, which is a private for profit company that bills itself a charity) or they're just there to give well to do and wealthy people a balm on their conscience. e.g. they make you feel better without actually doing anything of material value. I know that sounds harsh, but, well, reality is harsh. I've had relatives hit rock bottom with major medical issues and charities gave them $20 gift cards to buy groceries. The Government paid for the medical care that kept them alive and made them healthy again.
What's needed is a system that leaves nobody behind. Such a system is advantageous even for the John Galts of the world because they're outnumbered 100 to 1 by folks who aren't super human wonderkinds. Fascists will find and mobilize those regular joes when the economy collapses and they'll come for the John Galts of the world how abandoned them. This pattern has repeated for thousands and thousands of years. It would be nice if we'd learn from history for a change and do something about it.
Oh, I suppose there's a third option now: Autonomous kill bots and brutal oppression via global surveillance. I guess if you get to be one of the John Galts that owns the kill bots and orders the surveillance that's Ok, but there's only gonna be about 20-50k of those world wide. Your odds of being a member of that class are really, really low...
you're one job loss away from homelessness. If you're under 65 we have no safety net whatsoever (and a weak one if you're over 65).
And we're not living in the best economy ever unless you're a stockbroker or a billionaire. Wealth inequality the the worst it's been since the 1920s (and yes, we're on our way to another major crash. Would have had one in 2008 if the gov't hadn't bailed out the banks at the point of a gun).
The economy peaked for the middle class in the 1970s. Wages have been stagnant or declining ever since (depending on your industry). Coincidentally the decline in wages matches the growth in income at the top 1%. Imagine that.
Slashdot Mirror
sign... good times. good times.
that's nice and all but it's not that big a deal when a stay at the hospital is $20k. You're probably thinking of tax credits, e.g. when the amount paid is given to you as cash. I've heard that suggested in the past and it's silly. It's basically a round about way to do single payer healthcare. We keep all the disadvantages of insurance companies: high cost and substandard care. The 'substandard care' comes from the inevitable caps on the credit.
The only real fix is a single insurer; e.g. a single payer. That's because health care isn't something that should be left to the free market. Neither is food, which is why we do the farm bill every year. Some things you don't leave up to the invisible hand.
into paying for somebody else's healthcare? When you're young you don't need much. Maybe a little pre-natal care. It's not until you're in your 50s that most people really need the stuff. And those folks don't want to pay.
More importantly, while there are plenty of arguments to be made in favor of single payer healthcare any time it comes up the insurance companies spend half a billion dollars or more shooting it down. I still get people who tell me they don't want it because of "death panels". I ask them about "Wallet Biopsies" and that shuts them up, but I can't compete with the lobbying and advertising budgets of big phrama and big insurance.
I wish we could get a national referendum. Take out the deep south and the rural parts of Texas and Arizona and you've got over 60% in favor of medicare for all.
I'm just not overly concerned with a violent 120 lb woman. Yeah, every now and then they get a gun, but not often enough that I worry about it. Even a knife isn't that big a problem. Sure, getting cut sucks, but I can pick up a chair and use my longer arms to greater strength to safely overpower someone a foot shorter and 100lbs lighter.
Now, if _I_ get violent the opposite is not true. Imagine living in a world where 50% of the population is significantly stronger than you and where a lot of them have designs on your body. Now imagine you're well enough educated to know how you would have been treated a scant 50 years ago. Or how you'd be treated right now if you'd been born in Saudi Arabia.
It's a very, very different perspective.
doesn't mean you should give up all hope. That's basically Conservatism in a nutshell: The idea that things can never get better so let's keep everything the same. It's that line of thought that got us 1200 years of dark ages.
I'm not saying we do knee jerk methods either. We use the scientific method. Hypothesis, Gather data, test, implement, more data gathering, adjust, adjust, adjust. And you live with the fact that you will _never_ have a perfect system or a body of philosophy that solves all problems.
It's much easier to police a few dozen manufacturers (given how mega conglomerates work it's not very many) than millions and millions of individuals.
restaurants that have reusable utensils? This will hurt fast food, but I can't really think of a problem fast food solves that doesn't have better solutions. The biggest problem it solves is overworked people with 2-3 jobs who don't have time to cook/clean. Best solution there is a solid middle class that doesn't need 3 jobs per person to get by.
they keep it on as background noise when they work or use it to dance to at clubs. That kind of music needs to be bland because otherwise you can't tune it out while you go about your work.
any authoritarian regime does. Here in America we do it with religion. You need to put a damper on progress somehow if you want to say in power.
or don't believe in it then you won't seek alternatives. It's the age old question of "Who killed the electric car?".
it's about the oil companies running a decades long campaign to hide the effects of fossil fuels on the environment, often to prevent research into alternative and cleaner fuel sources.
for that? Still, If I coded a lot of Java I could see likeing object serialization. Being able to write out the state of your objects cuts down on the amount of custom save code you'd have to write.
when it wasn't profitable on a 5 year timescale like they do here in the states.
shouting fire in a movie theater is a crime and should be. Suggesting one of your legion of followers should go kill somebody is too. No right is absolute. Even life when it contradicts my right to self defense (e.g. you're trying to murder me).
I misread it. So the ban is still in effect.
You do understand that the wording of that amendment is effectively a ban, right? Because just about any research done is going to show that sensible gun laws (e.g. gun control) are what reduces gun violence and injuries.
When it comes to anything controversial you always leave yourself an out. The wording lets Congress critters claim, much as you have, that there is no ban, even when they know no research will be done as a direct result of the amendment. It's the worst kind of dishonesty.
I know that's not a popular thing to say, but that doesn't make it less true. We have an administration who's stated goal is less regulation and who's people keep getting caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar with no consequences. Is it any wonder why ISPs think they can get away with more?
with just as much vehemence. Sorry, but that's not a goal post you get to move to. Cars kill fewer people because they are heavily regulated. It took weeks before my kid was ready to pass a driver's test and she had to show she was a responsible driver.
And you better believe they're out there hoping for impulse buys. Nobody _needs_ an AR-15. You _want_ one.
is not research. That said, as of this year you're right. See here.
we've had a shooting at a school literally every week this year, and most of them qualify as mass shootings.
of school shootings. Particularly one that might lead to stronger gun laws. This is also why the CDC can't, by law, do any research on gun violence.
A better question is why the NRA is so vehemently opposed to gun laws. You don't see the Auto makers campaigning against driver's licenses and insurance. My guess is they're worried stronger laws would bite into impulse buys. A coworker the other day went to buy a pistol for target shooting and home defense and go excited and walked out with an AR-15 and several boxes of ammo. His wife was pissed. If he'd had 7 days to think it over he'd have cancelled the order and settled for the $400 pistol over the $1000 AR-15.
and Carrier Air conditioning would very much like a word with Mr President. Maybe if they could block him from building his next hotel...
Seriously, the amount of open corruption and violations of the emoluments clause on display here is insane. And at the rate this guy is going he's on track to get reelected when the Dems run Hilary Bot 2.0 in 2020...
enough to go to college, but they _are_ smart enough to hold a gun. For thousands of years demagogues have used desperation and fear to motivate and organize these people. Perhaps if you have the guts to brutally oppress and kill them you can keep them under control. Much like we keep the population of stray dogs under control. But I don't know a lot of folks who have what it takes to go that route or who would say it's the right thing to do.
If you abandon the working class they will turn on you out of desperation. And if you wait until they actually turn on you to oppress them it'll be too late. Now's the time to act. Either fix the world so it's a better place for everyone or hope you're gonna get to be one of the oppressors and get to work on justifications for the brutal things you're going to have to do to maintain your quality of life.
because money == power and power can and will be abused.
Also, if you don't think Rich people are hurting you then you don't live in Flint, Mi or drink their water. And you know absolutely nothing of history or how the power of wealth has been abused. I'm not going to bother but I could spend days explaining all the ways the power of money has been abused.
Bottom line: You're not free if somebody controls your access to food, shelter, health care and education. Until then they can make you do whatever they want by withholding those things.
but you can't squeeze blood from a stone. Wages are dropping adjusted for inflation. That is fact. Jobs are going overseas leaving people without work. Older people can't easily be retrained. As you get older your ability to learn new things is diminished. Again, this is just cold, hard reality.
The Charities are overwhelmed. That's how it's always been. If Charity worked there would be no poor. My experience with charity is that it's either scams (like Goodwill, which is a private for profit company that bills itself a charity) or they're just there to give well to do and wealthy people a balm on their conscience. e.g. they make you feel better without actually doing anything of material value. I know that sounds harsh, but, well, reality is harsh. I've had relatives hit rock bottom with major medical issues and charities gave them $20 gift cards to buy groceries. The Government paid for the medical care that kept them alive and made them healthy again.
What's needed is a system that leaves nobody behind. Such a system is advantageous even for the John Galts of the world because they're outnumbered 100 to 1 by folks who aren't super human wonderkinds. Fascists will find and mobilize those regular joes when the economy collapses and they'll come for the John Galts of the world how abandoned them. This pattern has repeated for thousands and thousands of years. It would be nice if we'd learn from history for a change and do something about it.
Oh, I suppose there's a third option now: Autonomous kill bots and brutal oppression via global surveillance. I guess if you get to be one of the John Galts that owns the kill bots and orders the surveillance that's Ok, but there's only gonna be about 20-50k of those world wide. Your odds of being a member of that class are really, really low...
you're one job loss away from homelessness. If you're under 65 we have no safety net whatsoever (and a weak one if you're over 65).
And we're not living in the best economy ever unless you're a stockbroker or a billionaire. Wealth inequality the the worst it's been since the 1920s (and yes, we're on our way to another major crash. Would have had one in 2008 if the gov't hadn't bailed out the banks at the point of a gun).
The economy peaked for the middle class in the 1970s. Wages have been stagnant or declining ever since (depending on your industry). Coincidentally the decline in wages matches the growth in income at the top 1%. Imagine that.