As for the 1/4 who haven't paid, I believe the deadline for payment is 4/10, therefore the number of people who had paid by 4/1 is not really meaningful.
No, the deadline for people who enrolled in March is 4/10. For people who enrolled in, say, February, the deadline would have been around 3/10. And for January, it would have been around 2/10. See the pattern?
Trick is that you don't actually have health insurance until the first month's premium is paid, which means that someone who went to the exchange back in December (before the first deadline expired) and got health insurance but didn't pay till 10 APR, hasn't actually had health insurance for the last three months....
What's the new talking point going to be when less than 1% fail to make their first payment?
Hmm, since ~20% of the people who should have already made their first payment haven't, it's unlikely that less than 1% are going to fail to make their first payment.
Personally, I've got no axe to grind in this particular fight. I personally think the correct solution would to have been to gradually lower age of eligibility for Medicare to birth (over a five-ten year period), but the only technical beef I have with the ACA is that there is a LOWER income limit on the subsidies (if you make too much money, no subsidy. But if you make too little money, no subsidy either).
This whole "but they have not PAID yet!!!" talking point has got to die. The Obamacare opponents are grasping at straws now hoping against hope that the majority of Americans are deadbeats.
Note that I didn't say "they haven't paid". What I said is that it is NOT known to what extent people have or will pay.
Note that it's one thing to sign up for a service you want and need, and another to sign up because you are required to.
And still another thing to send off that first check (which may be much larger than you might think - remember, the website can ESTIMATE your subsidy level, but its estimates are NOT guaranteed!)
Note also that, contrary to your belief (and, presumably, the rest of the left), the majority of Americans are NOT the subject of the discussion. About 2.5% of the population is the subject of the discussion. Of which some fraction had insurance before, so fewer than that are in the pool of "new insurees" we're talking about, who may or may not pay their bills.
And an even smaller fraction are part of the "young invincibles" that have to sign up to make the books balance. Good luck with that.
1) how many of those people have actually PAID for their insurance. Which is what actually activates the insurance - signing up on the website does nothing but express intent.
2) how many of those people are actually formerly uninsured. Remember those people who lost their insurance plans? Well, if they get insurance under the ACA, they're counted as part of that 7.5 million, even though they had insurance before.
3) Okay, THREE things. how many of those people are in the demographic that the ACA needs to get insured to make the bookkeeping balance - if not enough of the "young invincibles" sign up, health insurance prices for NEXT year are going to be taking quite a jump....
For example, they may have moved people on an existing program like Medicaid to Obamacare enrollments
If you're eligible for Medicaid, you are NOT eligible for the ACA subsidies for health insurance. Which means that if you CHOOSE to buy your own insurance when eligible for Medicaid, insurance will cost you five times what it costs someone who makes a bit more money (and is therefore eligible for subsidies).
That said, what they're not saying, so far, is how many of those 7.5 million (7.1 is sooo yesterday - today's number is 7.5) have actually paid a premium for this new insurance.
Note that many insurance companies aren't going to be accepting new clients after the close of "open enrollment" absent changes in life/employent/whatever. If you marry, divorce, get a job, lose a job, become a widow/widower, you can get insurance, but you can't just any old time.
Apparently the possibility that people might take advantage of the "no pre-existing condition" clause of the ACA to get insurance when something catastrophic happens disturbs the insurance companies' bottom line deeply.
It's a contraction of "not have used". Again try to avoid using words/phrases that you've only heard and never read when writing. It occasionally makes you look illiterate.
It's got to still be cheaper than having to not only drag all that fuel around the oceans, but also having to have the ships to drag that fuel around, and the ships to protect those ships. Why are there so many comments in this story which completely ignore logistics? Fuel tenders don't just magic themselves to the location of your fleet.
I suspect I know more about the logistics then you do. Trust me on this, replacing reactor cores every five years, instead of every forty years, is not a trivial change in the operational capabilities of your nuclear carriers.
Even ignoring the internal changes required (be easier to do a new design from scratch than to modify the existing carriers to do this - and that means carriers capable of using this technology in 20 years or so), having to maintain extra carriers to keep the minimum number available for sea-duty is a non-trivial problem.
Still not enough. I don't know what the Nimitz's electrical power generation is, but I DO know what the ratio of electrical power generation to heat generation of a nuclear submarine is.
If the two are even remotely comparable (no reason not to be, since the majority of the steam produced in a nuclear reactor aboard a ship is used to make the ship go, not to make the lights turn on), then even a Ford-class carrier can't make enough electricity to manufacture sufficient fuel onboard.
One is to put one of these chemical plants in an aircraft carrier, power it with the carrier's reactor, and generate fuel for the aircraft on board.
the nuclear plant of an aircraft carrier doesn't have the power output required to produce enough fuel for the planes operating on the carrier. Most of the power produced by those reactors comes in the form of steam for the main turbines, only a relatively small part goes to the turbogenerators that supply electricity.
And adding more turbogenerators means, basically, designing a new carrier - there's not a lot of spare space (or piping) in the current carriers for that large a mod.
Plus there's the whole "shorten the life of the reactor cores by ~75% by running them at full power all the time to make jet fuel" thing....
He was a Senator, but couldn't point to a single legislative accomplishment. He was in the state senate, but had a record of just voting present on key bills and had no major bills to his name. He was a community organizer, but once again couldn't point to any significant accomplishments. He claims to be a legal scholar, but locked his school records.
He seems to have worked on the assumption that it was better to have no failures for which he could be blamed, rather than aiming for successes for which he could get credit.
In some people's minds, lack of failure is a surer measure of success, than attempting success (and possibly failing, thereby).
And the amount of energy you'd have to put in to do that would have to be at least equal to the amount of energy you'd get out.
No. The amount you put in would be at least half of what you'd get out. An antimatter bomb gets half its boom from the matter it combines with, which requires no energy to manufacture....
We got rid of our cable TV subscription. Still have Internet, still have phone, but now I don't have to pay to find that there's nothing on TV, and since TV doesn't cost me anything I don't feel guilty about not turning it on. I go play music or work on something or read or even surf the Internet.
We also got rid of cable TV. And the landline telephone (we're all carrying cellphones, why bother with a landline?).
However, we never felt guilty about not watching TV when we had cable. If there was something to watch, we did, if not, not. Which is what led us to ditching cable - we'd sometimes go a month without turning the TV on, and we decided it was pretty silly to pay for something we used less often then we paid the bill for it
Personally, I don't much care what people taking surveys learn.
While I've never had the opportunity (okay, for values of "never" equaling "not in the last decade") to pollute someone's survey, I'd be delighted to tell them I believed in ESP, witches, the devil, just to see the looks on their faces....
If I were to call Prof. Mary Anne Franks a skanky cunt with progressive derangement syndrome exacerbated with fascist tendencies she could have me arrested?
Well, as long as you use "skanky", it's pretty clear this is an opinion, not an alleged statement of fact.
Since it's an opinion, both the First Amendment and the assorted defamation/libel/slander laws make it perfectly fine to say.
Mind you, without the "skanky", it's possible that she could SUE you, assuming she had a psychiatrist's report that proved she did not, in fact, have "progressive derangement syndrome exacerbated with fascist tendencies".
In no case could she have you arrested, since saying bad things about her is a civil matter, not a criminal one.
If I decide that the Income Tax is incompatible with the constitution, am I no longer liable to pay it?
This is correct.
But (there's always a but), might want to read the 16th Amendment first:
BLOCKQUOTE>The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
And just in case, you might want to read Article 5 of the Constitution.
The energy budget for interstellar travel is insane, assuming we want to get somewhere within a generation.
Why should we need to get there in a generation? A 500 year trip could be made at 1% of c. Which means only 6000-odd km/s (got to have a maneuvering reserve) of delta-V, which is not especially difficult to achieve once we have a workable fusion drive.
Use a reasonably sized asteroid as your starship, and go - so it'll be your umpteen-great grandchildren who will arrive - no biggy.
And this is about an order of magnitude larger than going to the moon which with 40 years past would put us about 40-60 years out from getting to Mars. Sounds about right.
In terms of deltaV required, a trip to Mars is maybe 20% harder than a trip to the Moon, depending on the extent to which you can use aerobraking on arrival at Mars (it's pretty clear you can use aerobraking on return to Earth).
As to time required, well, nuclear submarines manage to stay underwater for months (typically 60+ days submerged), and the limiting factor for them is food carried (they make their own oxygen and fresh water). Again, not an 80-year problem....
Slashdot Mirror
No, the deadline for people who enrolled in March is 4/10. For people who enrolled in, say, February, the deadline would have been around 3/10. And for January, it would have been around 2/10. See the pattern?
Trick is that you don't actually have health insurance until the first month's premium is paid, which means that someone who went to the exchange back in December (before the first deadline expired) and got health insurance but didn't pay till 10 APR, hasn't actually had health insurance for the last three months....
Hmm, since ~20% of the people who should have already made their first payment haven't, it's unlikely that less than 1% are going to fail to make their first payment.
Personally, I've got no axe to grind in this particular fight. I personally think the correct solution would to have been to gradually lower age of eligibility for Medicare to birth (over a five-ten year period), but the only technical beef I have with the ACA is that there is a LOWER income limit on the subsidies (if you make too much money, no subsidy. But if you make too little money, no subsidy either).
Note that I didn't say "they haven't paid". What I said is that it is NOT known to what extent people have or will pay.
Note that it's one thing to sign up for a service you want and need, and another to sign up because you are required to.
And still another thing to send off that first check (which may be much larger than you might think - remember, the website can ESTIMATE your subsidy level, but its estimates are NOT guaranteed!)
Note also that, contrary to your belief (and, presumably, the rest of the left), the majority of Americans are NOT the subject of the discussion. About 2.5% of the population is the subject of the discussion. Of which some fraction had insurance before, so fewer than that are in the pool of "new insurees" we're talking about, who may or may not pay their bills.
And an even smaller fraction are part of the "young invincibles" that have to sign up to make the books balance. Good luck with that.
Expanded Medicaid. Not Medicare.
And no, those numbers don't include that.
What those numbers don't show is two things:
1) how many of those people have actually PAID for their insurance. Which is what actually activates the insurance - signing up on the website does nothing but express intent.
2) how many of those people are actually formerly uninsured. Remember those people who lost their insurance plans? Well, if they get insurance under the ACA, they're counted as part of that 7.5 million, even though they had insurance before.
3) Okay, THREE things. how many of those people are in the demographic that the ACA needs to get insured to make the bookkeeping balance - if not enough of the "young invincibles" sign up, health insurance prices for NEXT year are going to be taking quite a jump....
If you're eligible for Medicaid, you are NOT eligible for the ACA subsidies for health insurance. Which means that if you CHOOSE to buy your own insurance when eligible for Medicaid, insurance will cost you five times what it costs someone who makes a bit more money (and is therefore eligible for subsidies).
That said, what they're not saying, so far, is how many of those 7.5 million (7.1 is sooo yesterday - today's number is 7.5) have actually paid a premium for this new insurance.
Note that many insurance companies aren't going to be accepting new clients after the close of "open enrollment" absent changes in life/employent/whatever. If you marry, divorce, get a job, lose a job, become a widow/widower, you can get insurance, but you can't just any old time.
Apparently the possibility that people might take advantage of the "no pre-existing condition" clause of the ACA to get insurance when something catastrophic happens disturbs the insurance companies' bottom line deeply.
What makes you think bribing people in Russia is illegal?
Far as I can tell, it's pretty much part of doing business over there....
not've used
It's a contraction of "not have used". Again try to avoid using words/phrases that you've only heard and never read when writing. It occasionally makes you look illiterate.
And apparently you won't get honorary degrees from Brandeis University if you say bad things about Islam, either, even if you're a (former) Islamic...
I suspect I know more about the logistics then you do. Trust me on this, replacing reactor cores every five years, instead of every forty years, is not a trivial change in the operational capabilities of your nuclear carriers.
Even ignoring the internal changes required (be easier to do a new design from scratch than to modify the existing carriers to do this - and that means carriers capable of using this technology in 20 years or so), having to maintain extra carriers to keep the minimum number available for sea-duty is a non-trivial problem.
Still not enough. I don't know what the Nimitz's electrical power generation is, but I DO know what the ratio of electrical power generation to heat generation of a nuclear submarine is.
If the two are even remotely comparable (no reason not to be, since the majority of the steam produced in a nuclear reactor aboard a ship is used to make the ship go, not to make the lights turn on), then even a Ford-class carrier can't make enough electricity to manufacture sufficient fuel onboard.
the nuclear plant of an aircraft carrier doesn't have the power output required to produce enough fuel for the planes operating on the carrier. Most of the power produced by those reactors comes in the form of steam for the main turbines, only a relatively small part goes to the turbogenerators that supply electricity.
And adding more turbogenerators means, basically, designing a new carrier - there's not a lot of spare space (or piping) in the current carriers for that large a mod.
Plus there's the whole "shorten the life of the reactor cores by ~75% by running them at full power all the time to make jet fuel" thing....
And yet GP is correct.
On the graphs, there is a line for "pre 0", which is ~5x as high as the "year 0" line.
So, why are we blaming contact for the primary problems, if population fell by 80% (to the year 0 levels) from pre-contact?
I'm hoping you mean "emphasis" here.
Otherwise I have no clue what you're trying to say....
Or do you see an Employer Mandate that I don't?
He seems to have worked on the assumption that it was better to have no failures for which he could be blamed, rather than aiming for successes for which he could get credit.
In some people's minds, lack of failure is a surer measure of success, than attempting success (and possibly failing, thereby).
Alas, there's not much evidence of that.
No. The amount you put in would be at least half of what you'd get out. An antimatter bomb gets half its boom from the matter it combines with, which requires no energy to manufacture....
We also got rid of cable TV. And the landline telephone (we're all carrying cellphones, why bother with a landline?).
However, we never felt guilty about not watching TV when we had cable. If there was something to watch, we did, if not, not. Which is what led us to ditching cable - we'd sometimes go a month without turning the TV on, and we decided it was pretty silly to pay for something we used less often then we paid the bill for it
And AR = Arkansas....
While I've never had the opportunity (okay, for values of "never" equaling "not in the last decade") to pollute someone's survey, I'd be delighted to tell them I believed in ESP, witches, the devil, just to see the looks on their faces....
Well, as long as you use "skanky", it's pretty clear this is an opinion, not an alleged statement of fact.
Since it's an opinion, both the First Amendment and the assorted defamation/libel/slander laws make it perfectly fine to say.
Mind you, without the "skanky", it's possible that she could SUE you, assuming she had a psychiatrist's report that proved she did not, in fact, have "progressive derangement syndrome exacerbated with fascist tendencies".
In no case could she have you arrested, since saying bad things about her is a civil matter, not a criminal one.
This is correct.
But (there's always a but), might want to read the 16th Amendment first:
BLOCKQUOTE>The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
And just in case, you might want to read Article 5 of the Constitution.
Why should we need to get there in a generation? A 500 year trip could be made at 1% of c. Which means only 6000-odd km/s (got to have a maneuvering reserve) of delta-V, which is not especially difficult to achieve once we have a workable fusion drive.
Use a reasonably sized asteroid as your starship, and go - so it'll be your umpteen-great grandchildren who will arrive - no biggy.
Yes, the "Hollywood Shower" was a real thing in the boats.
Though the phrase was more often a disparagement used for people who let the water run long enough to get hot before getting in the shower....
In terms of deltaV required, a trip to Mars is maybe 20% harder than a trip to the Moon, depending on the extent to which you can use aerobraking on arrival at Mars (it's pretty clear you can use aerobraking on return to Earth).
As to time required, well, nuclear submarines manage to stay underwater for months (typically 60+ days submerged), and the limiting factor for them is food carried (they make their own oxygen and fresh water). Again, not an 80-year problem....