The really sad thing about the UKSA is that it doesn't seem to include developing rockets or things of that sort. From the announcement, it seems to be about creating a new government position for someone's nephew to fill....
They tried. We had better weapons, for the most part.
Once upon a time in MA, there was a war between the local Indians and the assorted Puritans who had bought land from the Indians (an example of the greatest con in history - the Indians sold land they didn't even own).
This was just about the first real war in the New England area. The interesting thing was that the Indians were better armed than the Puritans. The Indians used flintlocks while the Puritans used matchlocks.
And where did the Indians get flintlocks? They bought them from the Puritans with some of that money they got from selling land they had no clear title to....
Alas, when it came right down to it, better weapons weren't sufficient to let the Indians kick Puritan ass.
Long story short - the Puritans won, the Indians lost.
Note also that when the Indians of the Great Plains acquired guns, they generally acquired better guns than the US Cavalry were using (the US Cavalry were still using single-shot rifles up to the Spanish-American War). The Indians still lost....
Employer provided health insurance is literally the worst of all possible health care provisioning systems. As far as I can tell, it has no upsides whatsoever.
It had one upside. It allowed people to get around the wage controls in place during WW2. Which, in fact, is why we have employer provided health insurance at all.
No, someone who had the wrong leg amputated deserves a giant payout. There's no such thing as an excessively large damage award; if you screw up, you need to pay.
Yep. On the other hand, suing your doctor because your baby was born with a birth defect has happened a time or two as well. That's the area we need to focus on eliminating - the stupid lawsuits....
Are you going that you don't have a fundamental right not to be killed by random strangers?
Actually, I don't think I do. Have such a Right, I mean. Nor does anyone else.
Otherwise, all you'd have to do to avoid being murdered is invoke that Right, and the murderer would have to let you live.
I've never had any trouble actually getting up in the morning but I'm always a wreck for the first few hours if I'm forced to get up early
This was true for me up until I decided to stop drinking any caffeine. No coffee, no tea, no sodas.
Suddenly waking up was like flipping a lightswitch - I go from dead asleep to fully alert and functional in a couple seconds on a bad day, less than that most of the time.
The high cost to the human race's colonization of space is caused by the complexity and danger of reaching and leaving escape velocity within the earth's atmosphere.
Umm, no. We don't do escape speed "within the earth's atmosphere". Never have, and doubt we ever will (it would take a continuous 62 gravities acceleration to reach escape speed before we left the atmosphere).
The high cost to the human race's colonization of space is mostly limited by the need for an enormous amount of upfront costs - we need to lift enough basic machinery to build pretty much everything required (including duplicates of itself) for an advanced civilization before we can make a reasonable start on "colonizing space".
Using energy more efficiently isn't a solution in itself, but it can be part of a solution. If you can cut energy use by just 30%, that's 30% fewer nuclear power plants we'll need to build.
No, if we can cut energy use by 30% (try it sometime, by the way), then that's 30% more coal plants we can shut down after we build some nuclear plants.
Does not guaranteed healthcare promote the "general welfare" of American citizens?
It might. But since this law doesn't actually do that, that's a pretty much irrelevant argument.
Note, for the record, that this law doesn't guarantee healthcare to all American citizens to any greater extent than it was already guaranteed. It does not even guarantee that all Americans have health insurance (it is expected to make sure that 32 million more people are insured or on Medicaid than were before. But 32 million isn't the total number of people without health insurance, much less without healthcare.
Nor does this law guarantee that health insurance will be more affordable. The subsidies will kick in so that you don't have to pay more than 10% of your gross income for your health insurance (note that I pay less than that now, and am within the income range that the subsidies should apply (400% of poverty level - considerably more than half the country meets that criterion). Note that if you make more than 133% of the poverty limit, and less than 145% of the poverty limit, this bill will require you to spend 10% of your income (14.5% of the poverty level), but the guy at 133% won't have to spend anything. Net effect - you're better off making less.
Nor does it do anything to reduce medical costs (doctors, insurance companies, etc. will be free to increase their rates as they always have).
Nor does it guarantee you access to a doctor.
Actually, all it really seems to do is reduce Medicare spending (a subject of interest to me because my Mom-in-Law used Medicare), and create a couple new ways to game the system.
Not being a USA citizen, I can't think of any reason why this bill is controversial.
What exactly are the pro's and cons?
Biggest problem with this bill is that it costs a lot without actually providing all that much. And it took 2000 pages to do it.
Note that if they'd really wanted to "fix" health insurance, a two page bill would work: make Medicare work from conception on, and increase Medicare taxes about threefold to pay for it.
As is, they spent 2000 pages building a bill that noone could possibly read, even the people voting for it....
Given that virtually every other first world nation on Earth is capable of providing better coverage for roughly half the per-capita cost, I don't have a problem with the insurance companies going out of business if they are somehow so phenomenally incompetent that they cannot wring more than a 3.5% profit margin with 2x the money per person in the system is being spent.
So, what you're saying is that the hospitals and doctors would never overcharge, eh? It must be the insurance campanies that are overcharging you.
If that were so, you ought to be able to manage cheaper healthcare in the USA by not getting health insurance and just paying out of your pocket. Oh, wait, that doesn't work, does it?
It's a kind of bill that I can't imagine either party or any politician disliking out of principle.
You have a very limited imagination, then. I have no trouble at all imagining a politician disliking the idea of letting the riff-raff in "flyover country" read the bills he's proposing....
Which gun law prevents you from getting a gun license, and purchasing a shotgun or something suitable for protecting your home? IANAGE (gun enthusiast) but I feel like the only barrier that the laws really provided was if you expected to walk into a store that minute and walkout with a gun and or a handgun (and some background checks that you aren't a convicted fellon / have outstanding warrants / have otherwise taken choices that resulted in the loss of the privilege to personally own a gun).
Chicago's gun laws basically make it impossible to buy a firearm unless you're politically connected. Ditto New York City. Ditto Washington DC (up till the last Supreme Court ruling on the subject). As examples.
You are mistaken about the barriers the laws provide. Specifically, you're describing the last big Federal anti-gun law, and ignoring other Federal laws plus all State and local laws (of which there are thousands).
Given that you can get a gun faster than you can get a passport, I'm not sure what your point is other than a general "i hate gun laws because i hate them"
Unless you live in Chicago, New York City, Washington DC, California, many other places in the USA.
When faced with the prospect of paying a fine, and getting nothing in return, and paying somewhat more and getting a valuable benefit - health coverage - people are very likely to go for the coverage.
False dichotomy. If they pay the fine until they need the health insurance, they still get the health insurance they need, at a lower cost.
An example: I never really needed health insurance till I got cancer. So all the money I ever paid into it was essentially wasted (my occasional doctor visits could have easily been paid out of the money I saved by not buying insurance). Once I got cancer, I really needed health insurance. My chemotherapy required four months, as I recall. If the new rules had been in effect in the years before I got cancer, I could have paid for health insurance for four months (about $2500) and the insurance would have covered the $60,000+ my chemo and related expenses cost.
So, thirty years of fines ($30,000 or so), plus four months health insurance ($2500 or so), plus routine medical costs for thirty years (about $15,000), set against medical insurance costs for 30 years (at $640 per month, that's about $230,000).
Is there anyone out there actually dumb enough to think that "can't be refused based on pre-existing conditions" will get people to plop down an extra $180,000 over a lifetime for health insurance?
Had they been more reasonable and less greedy, it would not have been far less of an issue.
For reference, on average, Health Insurance companies are running about a 3.5% profit margin. If they were "more reasonable and less greedy", they could reduce your health insurance costs by 3.5% if they were non-profit. Any lower, and they go out of business, and you don't get health insurance at all.
So, is the cost of this plan $940 billion, plus a deficit increase on the order of $400 billion over the next decade, really worth less than 3.5% decrease in health insurance costs? Because that's what you're paying, and that's the most you're getting....
I would imagine that the invasion of Finland would count.
And there's that whole "grab the eastern half of Poland" thing.
Arguably the Korean War (it's not entirely clear whether North Korea was acting as a proxy for the USSR, the Chinese, or just jumping the gun on their own - note that the USSR didn't provide ground troops, but did provide fighter pilots and hardware, both planes and tanks and guns)
The Bible endorses slavery, and the "red" south was the area with slaves, and the "blue" north didn't have them and worked to get rid of them.
Noting, of course, that the "red" south was dominated by Democrats at that time. And the "blue" north was dominated by Republicans.
Note that South Carolina seceded from the Union because a Republican President was elected for the first time.
Note also that the Bible's endorsement of slavery (in the Old Testament, which isn't actually considered binding on Christians) doesn't at all change the fact that the Abolitionists were a largely Christian group, both in the USA and Europe.
Moving the moon 10 meters further from the earth would take over 10^13 Joules of energy (and that only accounts for the change in gravitational potential).
Hmm, 10^13 joules. 1.2 gigawatts. So, we're talking about 140 minutes output for this tidal generator....
I think you're abusing the definition of pyramid scheme. What you're really looking for is "poorly managed system." Now, excuse me, I need to get "pyramid scheme" to a doctor to see how bad your abuse was. You'll be hearing from its lawyer.
NO, SSA isn't a poorly managed system. And while it's not totally unfair to call it a pyramid scheme, they're pretty up-front about it. The laws governing SSA pretty much state right out that you're paying in now to support current recipients, and when you need a payout by and by, new people will be paying in to support you.
Of course, there's those misleading letters they send out every couple years which mention "your investment" in SSA. Untruthful, at the least.
Note that once upon a time, when SSA was first created, it was sold to the American people as an "investment" into their individual retirements. That's because back then, it was considered embarrassing to be on the dole - and SSA is basically the dole by another name (and restricted to the elderly).
Nowadays, that particular form of embarrassment has been eliminated (mostly) from the American psyche.
Oh, and note, for the record, that this is the first year that the SSA has taken in less than it will pay out. Used to be estimated that that wouldn't happen till 2017 or 2018. They do expect that they'll be net positive for a couple years mid-decade, but till then, and after that, the SSA will no longer be usable to hide the size of the deficit....
Slashdot Mirror
The really sad thing about the UKSA is that it doesn't seem to include developing rockets or things of that sort. From the announcement, it seems to be about creating a new government position for someone's nephew to fill....
Once upon a time in MA, there was a war between the local Indians and the assorted Puritans who had bought land from the Indians (an example of the greatest con in history - the Indians sold land they didn't even own).
This was just about the first real war in the New England area. The interesting thing was that the Indians were better armed than the Puritans. The Indians used flintlocks while the Puritans used matchlocks.
And where did the Indians get flintlocks? They bought them from the Puritans with some of that money they got from selling land they had no clear title to....
Alas, when it came right down to it, better weapons weren't sufficient to let the Indians kick Puritan ass.
Long story short - the Puritans won, the Indians lost.
Note also that when the Indians of the Great Plains acquired guns, they generally acquired better guns than the US Cavalry were using (the US Cavalry were still using single-shot rifles up to the Spanish-American War). The Indians still lost....
It had one upside. It allowed people to get around the wage controls in place during WW2. Which, in fact, is why we have employer provided health insurance at all.
Yep. On the other hand, suing your doctor because your baby was born with a birth defect has happened a time or two as well. That's the area we need to focus on eliminating - the stupid lawsuits....
Actually, I don't think I do. Have such a Right, I mean. Nor does anyone else.
Otherwise, all you'd have to do to avoid being murdered is invoke that Right, and the murderer would have to let you live.
This was true for me up until I decided to stop drinking any caffeine. No coffee, no tea, no sodas.
Suddenly waking up was like flipping a lightswitch - I go from dead asleep to fully alert and functional in a couple seconds on a bad day, less than that most of the time.
Umm, no. We don't do escape speed "within the earth's atmosphere". Never have, and doubt we ever will (it would take a continuous 62 gravities acceleration to reach escape speed before we left the atmosphere).
The high cost to the human race's colonization of space is mostly limited by the need for an enormous amount of upfront costs - we need to lift enough basic machinery to build pretty much everything required (including duplicates of itself) for an advanced civilization before we can make a reasonable start on "colonizing space".
Skylab was in Low Earth Orbit. It never got more than 275 miles from Earth. It would have been better to say:
1970's - humankind gave up on going farther from Earth than LEO.
No, if we can cut energy use by 30% (try it sometime, by the way), then that's 30% more coal plants we can shut down after we build some nuclear plants.
It might. But since this law doesn't actually do that, that's a pretty much irrelevant argument.
Note, for the record, that this law doesn't guarantee healthcare to all American citizens to any greater extent than it was already guaranteed. It does not even guarantee that all Americans have health insurance (it is expected to make sure that 32 million more people are insured or on Medicaid than were before. But 32 million isn't the total number of people without health insurance, much less without healthcare.
Nor does this law guarantee that health insurance will be more affordable. The subsidies will kick in so that you don't have to pay more than 10% of your gross income for your health insurance (note that I pay less than that now, and am within the income range that the subsidies should apply (400% of poverty level - considerably more than half the country meets that criterion). Note that if you make more than 133% of the poverty limit, and less than 145% of the poverty limit, this bill will require you to spend 10% of your income (14.5% of the poverty level), but the guy at 133% won't have to spend anything. Net effect - you're better off making less.
Nor does it do anything to reduce medical costs (doctors, insurance companies, etc. will be free to increase their rates as they always have).
Nor does it guarantee you access to a doctor.
Actually, all it really seems to do is reduce Medicare spending (a subject of interest to me because my Mom-in-Law used Medicare), and create a couple new ways to game the system.
Biggest problem with this bill is that it costs a lot without actually providing all that much. And it took 2000 pages to do it.
Note that if they'd really wanted to "fix" health insurance, a two page bill would work: make Medicare work from conception on, and increase Medicare taxes about threefold to pay for it.
As is, they spent 2000 pages building a bill that noone could possibly read, even the people voting for it....
Note that the FINES are much lower than the cost of health insurance.
So, what you're saying is that the hospitals and doctors would never overcharge, eh? It must be the insurance campanies that are overcharging you.
If that were so, you ought to be able to manage cheaper healthcare in the USA by not getting health insurance and just paying out of your pocket. Oh, wait, that doesn't work, does it?
You have a very limited imagination, then. I have no trouble at all imagining a politician disliking the idea of letting the riff-raff in "flyover country" read the bills he's proposing....
Chicago's gun laws basically make it impossible to buy a firearm unless you're politically connected. Ditto New York City. Ditto Washington DC (up till the last Supreme Court ruling on the subject). As examples.
You are mistaken about the barriers the laws provide. Specifically, you're describing the last big Federal anti-gun law, and ignoring other Federal laws plus all State and local laws (of which there are thousands).
Unless you live in Chicago, New York City, Washington DC, California, many other places in the USA.
False dichotomy. If they pay the fine until they need the health insurance, they still get the health insurance they need, at a lower cost.
An example: I never really needed health insurance till I got cancer. So all the money I ever paid into it was essentially wasted (my occasional doctor visits could have easily been paid out of the money I saved by not buying insurance). Once I got cancer, I really needed health insurance. My chemotherapy required four months, as I recall. If the new rules had been in effect in the years before I got cancer, I could have paid for health insurance for four months (about $2500) and the insurance would have covered the $60,000+ my chemo and related expenses cost.
So, thirty years of fines ($30,000 or so), plus four months health insurance ($2500 or so), plus routine medical costs for thirty years (about $15,000), set against medical insurance costs for 30 years (at $640 per month, that's about $230,000).
Is there anyone out there actually dumb enough to think that "can't be refused based on pre-existing conditions" will get people to plop down an extra $180,000 over a lifetime for health insurance?
And if people stop paying for insurance till they really need it, how are hospitals going to be assured of getting paid?
For reference, on average, Health Insurance companies are running about a 3.5% profit margin. If they were "more reasonable and less greedy", they could reduce your health insurance costs by 3.5% if they were non-profit. Any lower, and they go out of business, and you don't get health insurance at all.
So, is the cost of this plan $940 billion, plus a deficit increase on the order of $400 billion over the next decade, really worth less than 3.5% decrease in health insurance costs? Because that's what you're paying, and that's the most you're getting....
I would imagine that the invasion of Finland would count.
And there's that whole "grab the eastern half of Poland" thing.
Arguably the Korean War (it's not entirely clear whether North Korea was acting as a proxy for the USSR, the Chinese, or just jumping the gun on their own - note that the USSR didn't provide ground troops, but did provide fighter pilots and hardware, both planes and tanks and guns)
Noting, of course, that the "red" south was dominated by Democrats at that time. And the "blue" north was dominated by Republicans.
Note that South Carolina seceded from the Union because a Republican President was elected for the first time.
Note also that the Bible's endorsement of slavery (in the Old Testament, which isn't actually considered binding on Christians) doesn't at all change the fact that the Abolitionists were a largely Christian group, both in the USA and Europe.
Since India has had nuke-capable ballistic missiles for some years, this doesn't actually add all that much to their nuclear capability.
Slaves require a large up-front investment. If you already own slaves, then you'll lose money switching away from slaves to free employees.
Note, by the way, that slavery wasn't outlawed because of cost questions. It was those damn Christians and their morality!
If slavery were more cost-effective than paid employees, then slavery would still be legal....
Hmm, 10^13 joules. 1.2 gigawatts. So, we're talking about 140 minutes output for this tidal generator....
NO, SSA isn't a poorly managed system. And while it's not totally unfair to call it a pyramid scheme, they're pretty up-front about it. The laws governing SSA pretty much state right out that you're paying in now to support current recipients, and when you need a payout by and by, new people will be paying in to support you.
Of course, there's those misleading letters they send out every couple years which mention "your investment" in SSA. Untruthful, at the least.
Note that once upon a time, when SSA was first created, it was sold to the American people as an "investment" into their individual retirements. That's because back then, it was considered embarrassing to be on the dole - and SSA is basically the dole by another name (and restricted to the elderly).
Nowadays, that particular form of embarrassment has been eliminated (mostly) from the American psyche.
Oh, and note, for the record, that this is the first year that the SSA has taken in less than it will pay out. Used to be estimated that that wouldn't happen till 2017 or 2018. They do expect that they'll be net positive for a couple years mid-decade, but till then, and after that, the SSA will no longer be usable to hide the size of the deficit....