Note that if the Feds required that all of your marketing department drive Rolls-Royces, then what you said would still be true.
It would even be true if the Feds required that any software guy had to wear a clown suit to work.
Neither of these things is at all relevant to your business, however.
If the consequence of violating the federal requirements is large fines, throwing your noncompliant employees in prison, and prohibiting you from operating in your current line of business, then they all would be directly relevant to your business.
So, any Federal regulations are, by definition, good, since, by definition, they're all relevant to your business?
There's a big difference between "protect people's privacy" and
1) Pass Federal regulations mandating that everyone follow a certain process to ostensibly (but not really) protect people's privacy
2)????
3) Profit!
For any particular set of Federal regulations, the question should be "does this accomplish the intended purpose?"
For some regulations, the answer is "yes". For some, it's "no".
Realizing that not all regulations work as intended, even if they have a large compliance requirement built-in, is a first step in the process of replacing broken regulations with useful ones.
Note, of course, that some Federal regulations exist so as to allow your Congresscritter to write exceptions to same for his large contributors. That particular subset of regulations is "working as intended" if it has costly compliance requirements that demonstrably do nothing worthwhile, so they're okay....
If you aren't compliant, you won't be able to sell certain services or take on certain customers. Being compliant is certainly not a waste from a business standpoint.
Note that if the Feds required that all of your marketing department drive Rolls-Royces, then what you said would still be true.
It would even be true if the Feds required that any software guy had to wear a clown suit to work.
Neither of these things is at all relevant to your business, however. And the point of the article is that much of the (unnecessary) compliance requirements of various Federal laws are about as important as my two examples.
With the loss of electrical power, the reactor shut down... as designed... to prevent a nuclear accident. Ironically, this is what doomed the crew. With no power, they couldn't surface.
No. The emergency high pressure air system doesn't require power to work.
Unfortunately, the Thresher's system didn't have adequate provision for drying out the air pumped into the high pressure air system tanks. So when they tried an emergency blow, the small amount of water in the HP air froze up and prevented the air from reaching the ballast tanks.
The goal was one launch a week. Getting 8% of the target is a "damn good"???
Of course, that goal didn't assume we'd stop building shuttles once we had five of the damn things. Which was the biggest failure of the Shuttle era. We should have built one or two every year for the last 30 years.
If you're a felon, owning a firearm is illegal, too.
Oddly enough, there are enough repeat offenders as to suggest that many, if not all, felons routinely disobey that particular law.
Never mind that a felon, pretty much by definition, has broken a law or three. The notion that people who break laws against robbery and assault and murder would find it morally reprehensible to break a law against owning a suppressor is just silly.
I guess it's because of how their claws are arranged, but a cat can climb up a tree and has a very hard time climbing back down. The cat is likely to be SOL if you leave it there, or it might decide that getting hurt by falling is preferable to starvation.
I've kept cats for nearly 20 years. In that time, I've seen them climb into trees hundreds of times. I've never bothered to do anything about getting them out of the trees.
And yet, like a miracle, they were always at the back door waiting to be let inside come dinner time. Nor have I ever had any of my cats injured as a result of being forced to get out of the trees by themselves.
In other words, "cats can't climb down from trees" is a pile of crap....
If you had pinpoint precision, plus satellite & infrared / thermal coverage you could do some real damage to crime.
If you could make a satellite hover over Chicago, that might mean something.
And if you can see down into every alley in Chicago with a satellite, it might mean something.
As is, you can't make a satellite hover over Chicago, and if you could, it couldn't see down into every alley, so that won't help nearly so much as you might think.
Unlike the Pope, he and his political party send their dark agents throughout the empire to confiscate the savings...
Uhmmm, Catholics still pass the basket and collect tithes, supposed to be 10% of your net.
But no-one actually forces you to make that tithe. They can pass the basket every Sunday for the rest of my life (if I still were going to church), but nothing requires me to drop a dime into it.
Unlike, say, the feds.
Note that I just did my taxes, so I'm feeling a bit annoyed on the subject of taxes right at this moment.
Firstly, your assumption that I despise those I refer to as 'uneducated masses' is unfounded. I have many good friends that would fall into that category,
That sounds suspiciously like "Some of my best friends are black"....
IIRC, there are still something like six particles, which the math says MUST exist, but have never been observed.
You forgot to add "if the Standard Model is a true and accurate description of reality".
One possibility that seems to be frequently overlooked is that we'll discover something totally unexpected, as opposed to just a confirmation that we already know everything....
Seriously, though, you DO know that our current theories are quite simply, the most accurate and comprehensive theories mankind has ever developed, right?
Seriously, you DO know that the same was true at every point in history, right?
30 years ago, the then current theories were quite simply, the most accurate and comprehensive theories mankind had ever developed. Ditto 60 years ago. And 100. And 1000. And....
Second of all, the bill originated in the House, passed the House, was basically rewritten by the Senate,
Actually, one version originated in the House, and one in the Senate. The Senate didn't start with the House bill, as required by the Constitution.
Note that that particular Constitutional requirement has been generally ignored by everyone for better than a century, since it's a colossal waste of time to do a bill in the House, then redo it in the Senate, then back to the House, then back to the Senate, etc, etc.
In general, this is not a problem. Hell, it's not even a problem in this specific bill.
Though it will be funny as hell if the Senate decides not to pass the Reconciliation Bill. Which will leave the original Senate Bill as the law....
Of all the people counted by the Census over the last century (not including re-counts of same people), that's a pretty intolerable percentage of lives wrecked by abuse of Census data over the last century.
110,000 Japanese and Japanese-American lives wrecked by abuse of Census data over the last century.
1,536,600,000 people counted by all censuses over the last century. Divide that number by five to account for people counted in more than one census (basically everyone, some more often than others)
Wow, 5 for 5. I'm playing Republican Talking Point Bingo right now and you just won me $250!
Thank you CrimsonAvenger!
You're welcome.
Alas, I haven't looked at the Republican talking points. Just the bill itself and the CBO analysis. Fascinating reading, really. You should try it sometime.
CBO's main findings were that by 2016 the Senate health reform bill would have virtually no impact on large-group premiums and would raise nongroup premiums 10 percent to 13 percent.
Note that "no impact" means "no change from previous projections", NOT "no change from today's rates".
Note that the "nongroup premiums part" is also a change from previous projections, not a change from today's rates.
Alternately, we can look at the CBO Director's blog on the subject:
The average, unsubsidized premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law.
Or
In the small group market, which is defined in this analysis as consisting of employers with 50 or fewer workers, CBO and JCT estimate that the change in the average premium per person resulting from the legislation could range from an increase of 1 percent to a reduction of 2 percent in 2016 (relative to current law). In the large group market, which is defined here as consisting of employers with more than 50 workers, the legislation would yield an average premium per person that is zero to 3 percent lower in 2016 (relative to current law).
Note that the "premium increase/decrease" they're talking about is relative to what the premium increase/decrease was expected to be absent this reform (annual increases about 2.5% higher than inflation).
So, best case the CBO can see is a 3% reduction relative to the usual (inflation + 2.4% per year) increase over the next six years. A fair guesstimate for that baseline guesstimate is probably a 30%-40% increase (assuming inflation doesn't spike, and I am thinking it will, for reasons completely unrelated to healthcare reform).
So expect, in the best possible case, that your premiums will only be about 26%-37% higher in six years, but could be about 50%-53% higher as a result of this new "reform" measure.
it does. Mandatory insurance will reduce health insurance rates since the people who are currently forgoing insurance are the part of the population that hardly ever makes claims. average cost of a policy will go down.
Then why did the White House say that they expected insurance rates to rise as a result of this?
also, when all children have insurance that means fewer people will reach adulthood suffering from chronic conditions aggravated by poor healthcare in childhood. You can not assume that parents automatically give their children the best possible healthcare. parents on average are just as stupid as the next average person is, and 1/2 of them are stupider. You can be certain there are lots of parents out there who make any excuse not to take their kids to the doctor because of cost.
And what makes you think the manadatory insurance will be free? When I read it, looked like the subsidies are designed to hold your insurance costs to about 10% of your income. Which is more than I pay for insurance now. Someone who couldn't afford insurance before likely doesn't have an extra 10% to toss about post reform, so they likely aren't going to be up to casually paying copays for their neat new insurance either.
As I've said before, the solution to reforming healthcare was a two page bill that extended Medicare to everyone on page one, and increased Medicare taxes to about 300% of current levels to pay for it on page two. Instead, we get 2000 or so pages of special benefits for whomever offered the highest bribes to the Dems....
These higher premiums lead to even more people being unable to afford health care. It's a cycle that had to be stopped.
So, to stop this cycle, we're changing from "we have higher premiums because some people use the ER for free" to "we have higher premiums because we're subsidizing the people who used to use the ER for free"?
Note, by the way, that even the White House has said that they expect health insurance premiums to rise by an extra 10% as a result of this "reform".
Note also that this "reform" doesn't include a single element that is even intended to reduce health insurance costs.
And note that it doesn't expect to provide universal health insurance either. It's expected that not much more than 2/3 the people currently without health insurance will have it as a result of this "reform".
Finally, I note that people are already talking about "reforming the reform". Which is probably a good idea, but wouldn't it be smarter to see what, if anything, it actually accomplishes first?
Slashdot Mirror
So, any Federal regulations are, by definition, good, since, by definition, they're all relevant to your business?
There's a big difference between "protect people's privacy" and
1) Pass Federal regulations mandating that everyone follow a certain process to ostensibly (but not really) protect people's privacy
2)????
3) Profit!
For any particular set of Federal regulations, the question should be "does this accomplish the intended purpose?"
For some regulations, the answer is "yes". For some, it's "no".
Realizing that not all regulations work as intended, even if they have a large compliance requirement built-in, is a first step in the process of replacing broken regulations with useful ones.
Note, of course, that some Federal regulations exist so as to allow your Congresscritter to write exceptions to same for his large contributors. That particular subset of regulations is "working as intended" if it has costly compliance requirements that demonstrably do nothing worthwhile, so they're okay....
Note that if the Feds required that all of your marketing department drive Rolls-Royces, then what you said would still be true.
It would even be true if the Feds required that any software guy had to wear a clown suit to work.
Neither of these things is at all relevant to your business, however. And the point of the article is that much of the (unnecessary) compliance requirements of various Federal laws are about as important as my two examples.
No. The emergency high pressure air system doesn't require power to work.
Unfortunately, the Thresher's system didn't have adequate provision for drying out the air pumped into the high pressure air system tanks. So when they tried an emergency blow, the small amount of water in the HP air froze up and prevented the air from reaching the ballast tanks.
Of course, that goal didn't assume we'd stop building shuttles once we had five of the damn things. Which was the biggest failure of the Shuttle era. We should have built one or two every year for the last 30 years.
Specifically, it's a Three Stooges joke. Though I wouldn't be surprised to find it was older than that. But Curly used it regularly.
If you're a felon, owning a firearm is illegal, too.
Oddly enough, there are enough repeat offenders as to suggest that many, if not all, felons routinely disobey that particular law.
Never mind that a felon, pretty much by definition, has broken a law or three. The notion that people who break laws against robbery and assault and murder would find it morally reprehensible to break a law against owning a suppressor is just silly.
I've kept cats for nearly 20 years. In that time, I've seen them climb into trees hundreds of times. I've never bothered to do anything about getting them out of the trees.
And yet, like a miracle, they were always at the back door waiting to be let inside come dinner time. Nor have I ever had any of my cats injured as a result of being forced to get out of the trees by themselves.
In other words, "cats can't climb down from trees" is a pile of crap....
What doesn't surprise me at all is that non-native speakers don't get old American jokes. Which the GGP was, in case you weren't aware.
If you could make a satellite hover over Chicago, that might mean something.
And if you can see down into every alley in Chicago with a satellite, it might mean something.
As is, you can't make a satellite hover over Chicago, and if you could, it couldn't see down into every alley, so that won't help nearly so much as you might think.
But no-one actually forces you to make that tithe. They can pass the basket every Sunday for the rest of my life (if I still were going to church), but nothing requires me to drop a dime into it.
Unlike, say, the feds.
Note that I just did my taxes, so I'm feeling a bit annoyed on the subject of taxes right at this moment.
I think Lucas did a good job of showing Anakin as a whiny emo kid who thought that his adolescence was unlike any that had ever gone before.
Which, when you come right down to it, is how most adolescents view their high school years....
That sounds suspiciously like "Some of my best friends are black"....
An undeserved one, really. Soyuz has had as many crew-loss incidents as Shuttle, with considerably fewer flights than Shuttle.
You forgot to add "if the Standard Model is a true and accurate description of reality".
One possibility that seems to be frequently overlooked is that we'll discover something totally unexpected, as opposed to just a confirmation that we already know everything....
Note, for reference, that the same could have been said truthfully 100 years ago in 1910.
Seriously, you DO know that the same was true at every point in history, right?
30 years ago, the then current theories were quite simply, the most accurate and comprehensive theories mankind had ever developed. Ditto 60 years ago. And 100. And 1000. And....
Two things:
1) There will always be a feud somewhere, so that condition would never apply.
2) I expect you meant "food", not "feud".
Probably because this particular case is only three weeks old. This is not the IBM case, nor is it the original Novell case.
Actually, one version originated in the House, and one in the Senate. The Senate didn't start with the House bill, as required by the Constitution.
Note that that particular Constitutional requirement has been generally ignored by everyone for better than a century, since it's a colossal waste of time to do a bill in the House, then redo it in the Senate, then back to the House, then back to the Senate, etc, etc.
In general, this is not a problem. Hell, it's not even a problem in this specific bill.
Though it will be funny as hell if the Senate decides not to pass the Reconciliation Bill. Which will leave the original Senate Bill as the law....
Yes, they did keep saying it wouldn't raise rates.
And the CBO, who were tasked with actually analyzing the effects, said it would raise insurance rates.
110,000 Japanese and Japanese-American lives wrecked by abuse of Census data over the last century.
1,536,600,000 people counted by all censuses over the last century. Divide that number by five to account for people counted in more than one census (basically everyone, some more often than others)
So, 0.035% is a "pretty intolerable percentage"?
You're welcome.
Alas, I haven't looked at the Republican talking points. Just the bill itself and the CBO analysis. Fascinating reading, really. You should try it sometime.
From an article in Slate:
CBO's main findings were that by 2016 the Senate health reform bill would have virtually no impact on large-group premiums and would raise nongroup premiums 10 percent to 13 percent.
Note that "no impact" means "no change from previous projections", NOT "no change from today's rates".
Note that the "nongroup premiums part" is also a change from previous projections, not a change from today's rates.
Alternately, we can look at the CBO Director's blog on the subject:
Or
Note that the "premium increase/decrease" they're talking about is relative to what the premium increase/decrease was expected to be absent this reform (annual increases about 2.5% higher than inflation).
So, best case the CBO can see is a 3% reduction relative to the usual (inflation + 2.4% per year) increase over the next six years. A fair guesstimate for that baseline guesstimate is probably a 30%-40% increase (assuming inflation doesn't spike, and I am thinking it will, for reasons completely unrelated to healthcare reform).
So expect, in the best possible case, that your premiums will only be about 26%-37% higher in six years, but could be about 50%-53% higher as a result of this new "reform" measure.
Then why did the White House say that they expected insurance rates to rise as a result of this?
And what makes you think the manadatory insurance will be free? When I read it, looked like the subsidies are designed to hold your insurance costs to about 10% of your income. Which is more than I pay for insurance now. Someone who couldn't afford insurance before likely doesn't have an extra 10% to toss about post reform, so they likely aren't going to be up to casually paying copays for their neat new insurance either.
As I've said before, the solution to reforming healthcare was a two page bill that extended Medicare to everyone on page one, and increased Medicare taxes to about 300% of current levels to pay for it on page two. Instead, we get 2000 or so pages of special benefits for whomever offered the highest bribes to the Dems....
So, to stop this cycle, we're changing from "we have higher premiums because some people use the ER for free" to "we have higher premiums because we're subsidizing the people who used to use the ER for free"?
Note, by the way, that even the White House has said that they expect health insurance premiums to rise by an extra 10% as a result of this "reform".
Note also that this "reform" doesn't include a single element that is even intended to reduce health insurance costs.
And note that it doesn't expect to provide universal health insurance either. It's expected that not much more than 2/3 the people currently without health insurance will have it as a result of this "reform".
Finally, I note that people are already talking about "reforming the reform". Which is probably a good idea, but wouldn't it be smarter to see what, if anything, it actually accomplishes first?