It'd be a shame to make the bill comprehensive and have it tied up in wrangling for the next 8 years.
If the bill, as written, were signed into law by Obama tomorrow, it wouldn't take effect till 2013.
Given that four year delay, I'm not sure I really see that they needed to hurry the bill through. And yes, voting late Saturday evening is attempting to hurry the bill through - the House doesn't work weekends any more often than the rest of America.
I do find it funny that there's such an outcry that 1.2T over 10 years to get most people health insurance is a big number, but 1.5T to bail out the banks and economy over an 8 month period doesn't have people in the streets with pitchforks.
Two things.
One, as I recall, when people did get out in the streets about the bailout of the banks, the Left spent a lot of time making "teabaggers" jokes about them.
Two, so far in US history, no government health care has ever failed to cost a great deal more than was projected. This one will be no different.
The "federals" also allowed slavery when the constitution was written. The point of it is that it can be changed through amendments as changing times require changing purpose. Wrongs that couldn't originally be righted can through time be resolved.
Yep. Tell you what, you let me know when the Amendment gets passed that allows for this sort of thing....
You're going to have to demonstrate that "to save the life of the mother" is equivalent to "i can't live with a child" in most states.
Sorry, I should have been willing to type the extra words. The phrase that is most often used in the assorted laws is "to save the life or health of the mother".
And there have been cases where the courts have ruled that the mental health of the mother qualifies.
So, yes, "I can't live with a child" has worked as an excuse for an abortion in some places.
Note that this is by no means universal, of course. Nor is it even common.
What I was trying to point out was that "abortion during the third trimester is illegal" just isn't so in the USA.
I am sure this bill will certainly help many of those who cannot afford insurance and will now recieve it.
How will it manage that?
It's not like it mandates lower insurance prices. It just mandates that you must buy the insurance.
Now, there is a provision for helping to pay for insurance for people who can't afford it, but that provision doesn't phase in for several years after the requirement to buy the insurance.
It should also be noted that the provisions of this bill generally don't take effect till 2013. Odd that it won't actually do anything till after the next Presidential election, eh?
so health care reform bill has passed it first step - actually a move forward even if you dont like the bill, everyone (except the fat insurance companies) admitted that things had to change, and so this is a start
Actually, the insurance companies love this bill. They get millions of new customers who are going to be paying premiums, but not using much in the way of medical services - clear profit for them.
I've read that the drug companies like it too. Apparently it extends the period before "generic" drugs can be made available, thus letting them sell higher-priced drugs for longer.
Let's see... Buy insurance, or go to jail. It sounds like Massachusetts.
No, it sounds like a reasonable society.
Haven't looked at the details of the bill, have you?
What this bill does is require health insurance companies to sell you a policy regardless of pre-existing conditions, and with no cost-bias as a result of pre-existing condition.
And it requires you to buy insurance, whether you think you need it or not. If you don't buy insurance, you're fined.
The trick is that the fine is quite a bit smaller than the cost of insurance. So people who don't think they need insurance are likely to pay the fine every year, rather than buy insurance.
Until suddenly they need insurance. THEN they'll buy the insurance.
Thus, the insurance companies get nailed.
Now, I really don't whether the insurance companies lose money like that. I DO care that they'll raise MY insurance rates to cover that situation. And they will.
Note that there was a relatively simple solution to the health care situation in the USA that Congress carefully avoided - extend Medicare coverage to everyone. They didn't do that one, mostly because there's no campaign contributions to be had by doing that...
It's like when the government promises to create 2 million jobs in 3 years, and then those jobs are CREATED IN TWO MONTHS!!
Course, that didn't really happen. What happened is that after the Stimulus was passed, the phrase "create three (not two) million jobs" magically morphed into "create or save three million jobs".
So far, rather than "create or save three million jobs", they've manage to "create or save about 650,00 jobs". And it took some fascinating accounting to do that much.
Like count anyone who got a pay raise with stimulus money as a "job saved"....
I remember when my daughter was born. She was 9 weeks early, so she spent several weeks in the neonatal ICU. What was interesting (and maybe somewhat relevant) is that quite often when my wife spoke, our daughter would seem to turn her head towards the sound. My voice didn't seem to have the same effect, nor did the voices of the medical staff.
When my wife was pregnant, she told me that my daughter would stop moving whenever I spoke.
Not in the USA. Abortion rules vary from State to State, of course, but no State has been able to successfully forbid abortions based on time since conception. They can just restrict it slightly by specifying restrictions that are easily overcome of the right doctor is found.
In at least the US, on-Demand abortions come with severe restrictions. Notably, they don't happen after the third-trimester.
Umm, birth happens at the end of the third trimester, so abortion is pretty much impossible after the third trimester.
But if you meant "during the third trimester", then in the USA it's just a function of what State you choose to have your abortion in, and what doctor you use. Some are more easygoing than others about what "to save the life of the mother" means.
Good point. By the same logic, I think we ought to do away with vaccinations, since deaths from measles, mumps, and rubella are extremely low these days. Deaths from heart disease are also much lower than they were in the 1950's, so I think we can safely stop worrying about smoking and obesity as well.
Amazing logic!
We have a problem with measles, etc. We develop vaccinations to deal with the problem, and thus have reduced deaths from measles, etc.
Therefore devloping a solution to "distracted driving" will reduce deaths from "distracted driving". In spite of the fact that we don't actually see any increase in deaths due to the causes of "distracted driving" (texting, cellphones, etc.
So, again, what is the problem that we're trying to solve?
I'd agree that airbags aren't that helpful. That was my point (though I probably cocked it up) that airbags aren't that helpful and yet we have to effectively pay for them now no matter what.
So, your argument is that even if it's pointless, laws regulating the way things are done are a good thing?
Personally, I don't agree.
As to the cost of the English sockets, doesn't much matter what it costs to make them. Matters only what the cost of a transition would be. And that cost would include everyone in the USA (assuming we're talking a transition in the USA, as opposed to the world) getting all new sockets, plus all new appliances (or, as a minimum, having an electrician rewire all their electrical equipment).
Alas, that cost would be too high to be worth the bother.
But, the real question is - "why are we debating this?". TFA said it was an objective* analysis. The * led to the definition of "objective" that they were using:
Objectivity in this sentence has a one-off, government-approved change in definition. Its meaning here, and only here, is the exact opposite of what it usually means.
In other words, the entire article was a joke. The fact that most of/. seems to have taken it seriously says disturbing things about most of/.
I find the cost argument flawed. The cost difference is minimal compared to the additional safety features especially when compared to something like an airbag which is expensive and not even safe for everyone. Yet they're required.
If you want to figure out the cost difference, call an electrician, ask him how much he'd charge to replace all the outlets in your house/apartment/whatever you live in. If it's more than about $10, it'll cost more to fix the problem nationwide than we spend dealing with electrical fires from all sources.
Note further that airbags are required, without any real evidence that they help you more than just wearing seatbelts would. In other words, bad example, since airbags added some amount to cost of vehicles without adding anything meaningful to vehicle safety.
Note, by the by, that I'm a big fan of seatbelts. I once saw a car hit another at about 90 mph, ride over it, go flying, land spinning, and end up upside down on the highway. All four occupants unbuckled their belts and got out of the car swearing a blue streak. None were more than slightly injured.
And this was before airbags were required in vehicles, so no airbags, just seatbelts....
I think it's unlikely that a bunch of local monopolists are going to start poaching on each other's territory.
Nah, they're all out for the main chance. Put them in competition with each other, and every damn one of them will figure he can steal customers from the others.
So, they'll all try, mostly be offering bargains to switch.
And then the guy losing customers will offer counterbargains...
Yah, once things have stabilized, it'll be back to business as usual. But at a lower cost to the average consumer everywhere.
Then, of course, the weaker players will start going out of business, being bought up by the stronger players, etc. Then the new monopoly that forms won't be geographically restricted, and everyone will be screwed equally.
Black people are different on the outside, why can't they be different on the inside, too?
Because what makes them different on the outside is such a mind-bogglingly infinitesimal fraction of the entire genetic code. It's simply not likely that there are any broad measures of mental capacity linked to it. About the only things closely linked are discrete details like larger gaps between the condyles in the knee, angle of the upper mandibular ridge, etc. Something as broadly affected as mental capacity is unlikely to have much correlation.
While I think that the argument that black people are intrinsically dumber than the rest of us is silly, I should point out that your counter-argument is just as silly.
There was an article recently describing the development of a "smart(er) rat" by the change of a single gene. Which pretty much refutes the notion that it requires much larger genetic changes to "think different" than to "look different".
There's no indications that "distracted driving" is any more a problem now (with cellphones and texting and whatnot) than it's ever been (accident rates are declining, fatal accident rates are declining), so we must do something about this threat to civilization right now!!!
It never occurred to you that just because nobody died in the accident that doesn't mean there weren't other consequences?
Nah, I assumed they were trying to solve the "self-induced panic of the year".
But, no, I really don't see a need to "solve" a problem that doesn't seem to result in extra fatalities, extra accidents, extra costs, extra anything.
Of course, that's just me. Since I'm not suffering from the "self-induced panic of the year", I don't tend to see things the way other people who do suffer the problem do....
A quick check shows that highway fatality rate in the USA in 2008 was at its lowest level since they started keeping records (1.37 per 100,000,000 miles traveled {0.85 per 100,000,000 km traveled, for you SI types}).
So, what exactly is the problem they're trying to solve?
It's not people dying in accidents due to texting, since they're dying in accidents more rarely since texting became available.
And no, I don't think the one caused the other.
Nonetheless, highway deaths are down in the USA - I don't see a real need for a high-tech (or any other kind of) solution to the problem of people driving with distractions....
Why do we keep invoking "dark matter" to explain that which is adequately explained by the massive black hole at the center of this and almost every other galaxy?
Because the massive black holes don't adequately explain things.
Rotation speeds of stars about the center of the galaxy don't behave as they should in the case where the massive black hole is the only thing acting on them other than nearby bits of galaxy.
Yeah really, the only thing I see wrong in this case is that B&N was working with them, but if the company didn't want B&N to steal their idea, they should've signed a contract to that effect.
They were working with B&N since the beginning of this year. If their case is legitimate, than B&N managed to work up a competing device in just a few months.
Which I find extremely unlikely. I expect that this is just a case of parallel development.
Slashdot Mirror
If the bill, as written, were signed into law by Obama tomorrow, it wouldn't take effect till 2013.
Given that four year delay, I'm not sure I really see that they needed to hurry the bill through. And yes, voting late Saturday evening is attempting to hurry the bill through - the House doesn't work weekends any more often than the rest of America.
Well, no. The $1.2 trillion "cost" is the part over and above the tax on the wealthy that is nominally paying for all this.
Two things.
One, as I recall, when people did get out in the streets about the bailout of the banks, the Left spent a lot of time making "teabaggers" jokes about them.
Two, so far in US history, no government health care has ever failed to cost a great deal more than was projected. This one will be no different.
Yep. Tell you what, you let me know when the Amendment gets passed that allows for this sort of thing....
Sorry, I should have been willing to type the extra words. The phrase that is most often used in the assorted laws is "to save the life or health of the mother".
And there have been cases where the courts have ruled that the mental health of the mother qualifies.
So, yes, "I can't live with a child" has worked as an excuse for an abortion in some places.
Note that this is by no means universal, of course. Nor is it even common.
What I was trying to point out was that "abortion during the third trimester is illegal" just isn't so in the USA.
How will it manage that?
It's not like it mandates lower insurance prices. It just mandates that you must buy the insurance.
Now, there is a provision for helping to pay for insurance for people who can't afford it, but that provision doesn't phase in for several years after the requirement to buy the insurance.
It should also be noted that the provisions of this bill generally don't take effect till 2013. Odd that it won't actually do anything till after the next Presidential election, eh?
Actually, the insurance companies love this bill. They get millions of new customers who are going to be paying premiums, but not using much in the way of medical services - clear profit for them.
I've read that the drug companies like it too. Apparently it extends the period before "generic" drugs can be made available, thus letting them sell higher-priced drugs for longer.
Haven't looked at the details of the bill, have you?
What this bill does is require health insurance companies to sell you a policy regardless of pre-existing conditions, and with no cost-bias as a result of pre-existing condition.
And it requires you to buy insurance, whether you think you need it or not. If you don't buy insurance, you're fined.
The trick is that the fine is quite a bit smaller than the cost of insurance. So people who don't think they need insurance are likely to pay the fine every year, rather than buy insurance.
Until suddenly they need insurance. THEN they'll buy the insurance.
Thus, the insurance companies get nailed.
Now, I really don't whether the insurance companies lose money like that. I DO care that they'll raise MY insurance rates to cover that situation. And they will.
Note that there was a relatively simple solution to the health care situation in the USA that Congress carefully avoided - extend Medicare coverage to everyone. They didn't do that one, mostly because there's no campaign contributions to be had by doing that...
Course, that didn't really happen. What happened is that after the Stimulus was passed, the phrase "create three (not two) million jobs" magically morphed into "create or save three million jobs".
So far, rather than "create or save three million jobs", they've manage to "create or save about 650,00 jobs". And it took some fascinating accounting to do that much.
Like count anyone who got a pay raise with stimulus money as a "job saved"....
When my wife was pregnant, she told me that my daughter would stop moving whenever I spoke.
Not in the USA. Abortion rules vary from State to State, of course, but no State has been able to successfully forbid abortions based on time since conception. They can just restrict it slightly by specifying restrictions that are easily overcome of the right doctor is found.
Umm, birth happens at the end of the third trimester, so abortion is pretty much impossible after the third trimester.
But if you meant "during the third trimester", then in the USA it's just a function of what State you choose to have your abortion in, and what doctor you use. Some are more easygoing than others about what "to save the life of the mother" means.
Amazing logic!
We have a problem with measles, etc. We develop vaccinations to deal with the problem, and thus have reduced deaths from measles, etc.
Therefore devloping a solution to "distracted driving" will reduce deaths from "distracted driving". In spite of the fact that we don't actually see any increase in deaths due to the causes of "distracted driving" (texting, cellphones, etc.
So, again, what is the problem that we're trying to solve?
So, your argument is that even if it's pointless, laws regulating the way things are done are a good thing?
Personally, I don't agree.
As to the cost of the English sockets, doesn't much matter what it costs to make them. Matters only what the cost of a transition would be. And that cost would include everyone in the USA (assuming we're talking a transition in the USA, as opposed to the world) getting all new sockets, plus all new appliances (or, as a minimum, having an electrician rewire all their electrical equipment).
Alas, that cost would be too high to be worth the bother.
But, the real question is - "why are we debating this?". TFA said it was an objective* analysis. The * led to the definition of "objective" that they were using:
Objectivity in this sentence has a one-off, government-approved change in definition. Its meaning here, and only here, is the exact opposite of what it usually means.
In other words, the entire article was a joke. The fact that most of /. seems to have taken it seriously says disturbing things about most of /.
If you want to figure out the cost difference, call an electrician, ask him how much he'd charge to replace all the outlets in your house/apartment/whatever you live in. If it's more than about $10, it'll cost more to fix the problem nationwide than we spend dealing with electrical fires from all sources.
Note further that airbags are required, without any real evidence that they help you more than just wearing seatbelts would. In other words, bad example, since airbags added some amount to cost of vehicles without adding anything meaningful to vehicle safety.
Note, by the by, that I'm a big fan of seatbelts. I once saw a car hit another at about 90 mph, ride over it, go flying, land spinning, and end up upside down on the highway. All four occupants unbuckled their belts and got out of the car swearing a blue streak. None were more than slightly injured.
And this was before airbags were required in vehicles, so no airbags, just seatbelts....
Nah, they're all out for the main chance. Put them in competition with each other, and every damn one of them will figure he can steal customers from the others.
So, they'll all try, mostly be offering bargains to switch.
And then the guy losing customers will offer counterbargains...
Yah, once things have stabilized, it'll be back to business as usual. But at a lower cost to the average consumer everywhere.
Then, of course, the weaker players will start going out of business, being bought up by the stronger players, etc. Then the new monopoly that forms won't be geographically restricted, and everyone will be screwed equally.
While I think that the argument that black people are intrinsically dumber than the rest of us is silly, I should point out that your counter-argument is just as silly.
There was an article recently describing the development of a "smart(er) rat" by the change of a single gene. Which pretty much refutes the notion that it requires much larger genetic changes to "think different" than to "look different".
I take it you didn't notice the disclaimer about the word "objective"?
The one where they were using the "government approved" definition, which meant exactly the opposite of the standard definition?
So, to summarize:
There's no indications that "distracted driving" is any more a problem now (with cellphones and texting and whatnot) than it's ever been (accident rates are declining, fatal accident rates are declining), so we must do something about this threat to civilization right now!!!
That about cover it?
Nah, I assumed they were trying to solve the "self-induced panic of the year".
But, no, I really don't see a need to "solve" a problem that doesn't seem to result in extra fatalities, extra accidents, extra costs, extra anything.
Of course, that's just me. Since I'm not suffering from the "self-induced panic of the year", I don't tend to see things the way other people who do suffer the problem do....
A quick check shows that highway fatality rate in the USA in 2008 was at its lowest level since they started keeping records (1.37 per 100,000,000 miles traveled {0.85 per 100,000,000 km traveled, for you SI types}).
So, what exactly is the problem they're trying to solve?
It's not people dying in accidents due to texting, since they're dying in accidents more rarely since texting became available.
And no, I don't think the one caused the other.
Nonetheless, highway deaths are down in the USA - I don't see a real need for a high-tech (or any other kind of) solution to the problem of people driving with distractions....
You're making the fundamental assumption here that no legislature would ever pass a law that couldn't achieve the stated purpose of the law.
History tends to show that few, if any, laws achieve their stated purposes. Though they pretty much all tend to remove a bit of freedom....
Because the massive black holes don't adequately explain things.
Rotation speeds of stars about the center of the galaxy don't behave as they should in the case where the massive black hole is the only thing acting on them other than nearby bits of galaxy.
First, he was a fictional character. One who would not characterize himself as wise, I think, based on the stories I've read.
Second, that's not actually what he said.
They were working with B&N since the beginning of this year. If their case is legitimate, than B&N managed to work up a competing device in just a few months.
Which I find extremely unlikely. I expect that this is just a case of parallel development.