Higher rates, yes... but not 2-4x increases over what they had been doing for about a decade before. It wasn't a gradual thing, it was a massive jump from one year to the next.
It still doesn't take collusion. There is a common factor: occupancy. Each hotel can determine that they're at 100% for one week that coincides with a conference and each can choose to triple their rates without any contact with the others. I don't doubt that it happens multiple times per year for other conferences, too. It might be worst for WWDC since the hotels know their victims are all Apple fanbois who will spend a lot of money for things other people would not.
Collusion doesn't have to be explicitly communicated
Yeah, it does. From the dictionary: "agreement between people to act together secretly or illegally in order to deceive or cheat someone". How do you make an agreement with someone if you never communicate with them? There doesn't need to be communications to explain it.
But either way they all jumped the same degree at the same time.
I don't doubt that the prices are multiple that for other times. I've seen it lots of times for other events. I only responded to the part about collusion.
It isn't my "plan". I was referring specifically to the quote of Friedman's that used "2 cents per pound" as a price control that creates artificial scarcity. The "20% margin" would be more realistic and not create that scarcity, while still controlling prices.
If you were going home for the weekend, why not take along a passenger that was going the same way. In general that's the basic idea of Uber and Lyft. I have a car, you're going my way, hop in.
Uber and Lyft are not "you're going my way" services, they are on-demand taxis. There has been noise about Uber becoming the ride providers for medical organizations -- a lift to the doctor's office. The system is being designed so the rider doesn't even need the Uber app, the ride is arranged by the office. If you think Uber is a "you're going my way" service, then you have to realize that you're riding with someone who has to visit the doctor multiple times a day. If they're that sick, should they be driving passengers commercially?
This is something that private pilots have to be taught when they get their license. It's ok to ride-share and share costs if someone is "going my way", but you run into trouble when you start "going their way" and taking money for it.
the hotels decided to collude on higher prices - by that I mean 2-4x above normal rates for that time of year,
It doesn't take collusion for all the hotels in an area to individually recognize periods of high demand and respond with higher rates. And it isn't just for the WWDC.
The fact that the whole thing is described by what white people are doing only goes to *highlight* that nobody gives a fuck unless it's affecting white people.
The fact that the terms are only used when white people do it only goes to highlight that it is being blamed on white people. It's not affecting just white people, it affects everyone, and everyone does it.
Yes, if you pass a law that nobody can sell something above cost then there will be a shortage, simply because nobody will sell if they cannot make any profit, and must operate at a loss. Friedman's comment is stupid in that respect. Do'h, Mr. PhD economist.
Now pass a law that nobody can sell at more than 20% margin. Is the answer quite so simple then? Of course not, since as I understand it most grocery stores operate at about 5% or so. Where is the shortage under those more reasonable price controls?
How did people ever wake up before there were alarm clocks?
I dunno. I seem to be able to wake up during a complete power failure when the alarm clock is off. I've been able to wake up while camping and completely off the grid.
Unless they drive like a human they're going to piss people off.
That applies to other drivers but also pedestrians. I had a moronic human stop dead still in the middle of the street because I was standing on the sidewalk looking across to the other side. I was actually planning to jaywalk when the traffic cleared, but she made sure that the traffic would never clear and forced a lot of other people to stop for no reason other than to not run into her.
When she stuck her hand out the window and started waving me across, I just waved back at her and laughed. One thing human drivers also do is wave pedestrians across and then try to run them over.
The summary said that the first car was dented and got a broken taillight. Did the AV park itself immediately so it would not be driving illegally, or did it continue in violation of the law?
But if you're honest, you'll definitely recognize that everyone else believes it.
There are some truths that are truths because everyone believes them. There are other truths where it doesn't matter how many people believe it, it simply isn't true. Technology tends to fall into the latter category. Sociology is the former.
For example, "everyone" believed that analog AMPS cell phone calls were private and couldn't be eavesdropped on. Oh, wait, if I tune my TV up around channel 64 or so I can pick up your cell phone call! Clear as a bell. Both sides. It's even easier if I tune my DC-to-daylight radio receiver up around 800 MHz. Who is the smart person and who is the fool here? And then the "smart people" said that radio transmissions made "in the clear" must be made private -- by banning radios that could tune those frequencies! That will do it. Everyone knew that privacy was restored. Oh, wait...
I recall not long ago a company lost a long-time employee who had his Apple laptop encrypted. They needed what was on it. They took it to Apple, proved it belonged to them and Apple said "sorry, we can't, that's impossible." Oh, wait. Apple said "no problem" and handed them back an unencrypted laptop.
Technology does have some impossible problems, but encryption systems isn't one of them. Yes, you might be able to create an unbreakable, unlockable system, but you can also make a reasonably secure unlockable system. That puts it into the realm of possible. Think of a large company that has different keys for different doors, but also a master key that opens them all. (Yes, it is relatively simple to break a physical master key system, so let's pretend it's a keypad system with two codes.) Sometimes crooks get their hands on the master key and cause problems. Most of the time they don't. Have companies abandoned all such systems because they are potentially breakable? Of course not.
Let me ask this: have you abandoned the use of credit cards because they are easily "breakable"?
There is a concept called "appropriate levels of security". I'm sure it has an official name, but that's what I'm going to call it for now.
If you thought the TSA luggage lock was intended to provide "security" in any absolute sense, then it is your worldview that needs adjustment.
What is the purpose of the lock? It cannot be to provide "security", because most likely your luggage is soft-sided. A simple box cutter or pocket knife will open it up. If it's hard sided, then a blow with a two-by-four will crack it, or a knife will cut the fabric where the zipper is, or a screwdriver will strip the zipper open.
So, why the lock? Notice that the methods I mentioned are all irreversible. It's easy to see a cut-open bag. A busted hard-side bag is obvious. The obvious answer is, the lock is there only to make any trivial break-in harder, and make the actual break-in obvious earlier than it would be otherwise. A baggage handler who sees a cut open suitcase while loading the plane can report it, and you don't have to wait to get home at the end of the trip to find out that you're missing something. (A secondary purpose for the lock is to make sure the zipper stays closed, but a paperclip can do that, too.)
Now, maybe you're someone who uses a commercially manufactured shipping case with actual locking mechanisms, but the vast majority of people do not. If you are, then you have a trivial solution to the problem of "TSA locks". Go to any local gun shop or show and buy a small package of ammo. I got a box of 20 rounds last weekend for $5. Put the ammo in the suitcase. Declare at checkin that you're carrying ammunition. Guess who HAS to lock his case then? You.
he's asked Amazon a couple times whether their devices are tracking speech at times other than when prompted by the word "Alexa" - and they've pointedly not answered.
I've gone to the "horse's mouth", so to speak, and asked Alexa herself. "Are you listening to me?" and so far, she's pointedly not answered. Not even lit up. I think that proves she is. Doesn't it?
I live in Virginia, have done for quite some time. North and South Virginia. I'm not "outside".
I'm not familiar with the states of North Virginia and South Virginia. I know Virginia and West Virginia. But in any case, you are outside the culture and thus your claim about not judging holds.
Your reply assumes that because X misuses "obviously" in some arbitrary context,
No, I assumed YOU misused it. Specifically you in this specific context. That's why I asked why it was obvious. There is also a general interpretation that arises because so many people misuse it the way you did, but that is a secondary point. You called it "obviously insane" with nothing to back up why it was insane in the first place, and why it should be obvious even then. Then you followed that all up with a statement that people who aren't involved shouldn't be determining criminality, which I bent a bit to include "obvious insanity".
I was debating how to respond, but I think it's sufficient to say my karma ran over your dogma.
I think you're the one with the wild dogma, calling people in other cultures "obviously" insane, and referring to North Virginia. I didn't have to debate with anyone how to respond to that. It was obvious.
I think the original poster was placing the modern state of Virginia in the context of women's suffrage,
While it is fascinating to assume that "suffrage" has something to do with "suffering", it does not, and "child brides" is just as far removed. The point is that "obviously insane" is a contradiction to the ending sentence where the OP points out that someone from outside has no standing. He's not a part of that culture and has no standing, especially to call it "obviously". I've found that the argument "obviously" usually is not.
What part of FCC makes you think of democracy? Even so, when was the vote for net neutrality that shows that "enough people" want the FCC to do it instead of, say, the FTC or maybe congress?
"Like the other lawsuits, their new case hinges on the Administrative Procedure Act, which they argue prevents the FCC from "arbitrary and capricious" redactions to already existing policy."
In other words, once a policy is implemented it can never be rescinded, even if it should not have been implemented in the first place, because someone, somewhere will always think that rescinding it is "arbitrary and capricious", no matter how much discussion and consideration the agency went through. It does not matter if the creation was arbitrary and capricious, the deletion must not occur.
Is there a renewed uproar over the removal of CW requirements for amateur radio licenses? That change certainly was arbitrary and capricious.
It's hilarious that Chris Hansen's show was cancelled
"His affair came to light after a story was published by Radar Magazine, which documented his affair with a local news reporter 20 years his junior."
In 2013 Chris Hansen would have been about 53; twenty years his junior would put her at 33. Both were well above the age of consent, and the age difference is hardly significant. It appears no laws were broken, and there is no story here. What is hilarious about it? His show said nothing at all about married people having affairs, it was about people who would show up when a 22 year old (or so) lied about her age and asked them to.
Obviously, that's insane....
But I'd rather hear from them as to what should be a crime rather than a specific individual in a specific culture calling everything worldwide that would be a crime where they live a crime.
Substitute "insane" for "crime" in that last sentence. Why is it "obviously" insane? And why insane at all? Different culture. It's "insane" in your culture, but that make it true globally?
You can walk nude in public at any age, anywhere you like, provided it doesn't cause actual offence.
Thus pointing out the difference between nudity and pornography. But the question is, if I can wear a t-shirt that offends people without breaking the law, why should just offending people make nudity a breach of the law? Why should Rosanne Barr be hauled off to prison for "offensive nudity" if Cheryl Teigs would not be?
Facebook has terms of service that are independent of the law. They're universal.
When a TOS says "not for illegal purposes", the it is, inherently, not universal. Not even global.
to get a series of numbers out that tells you when things become ok.
You can run as many conferences and get as many numbers as you wish, but local law will still determine what's legal. If you're looking for a "number" from a "conference" I can guess that the last NAMBLA conference came up with "0".
So all one has to do is to watch Jeopardy and frame solicitation for murder as a question. " Would you kill my wife for 1 million dollars? ".
Wrong. If you were following the jeopardy model, you would post "Yes, I would", and accept as correct the question "would you pay me $1 million to kill your wife?" That's how Jeopardy works: answer first, question second.
You had a plan that didn't meet the minimum requirements which is a fancy way of saying that you were self-insuring for a good portion of your healthcare.
Shouldn't that be someone's right? And you do realize that not everyone needs everything that is in the minimum coverage required for ACA, don't you? Like, I really don't need OB/GYN services AT ALL, or a lot of other things. Why should I pay for a plan that has all of those, and how much "self insurance" am I really on the hook for for things that cannot happen to me?
The lie was obvious when he made it, and he knew that plans that were going to be closed because they didn't provide everything ACA required couldn't be kept, and changing plans in many cases (if not most) requires changing doctors. Is the excuse that he was ignorant of how insurance works?
President Obama spoke poorly about "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" because he likely didn't expect anybody would *like* a lot of the plans out there.
What an asinine excuse. The conditional clause "if you like your plan" ASSUMES there are people who like the plan as a starting point.
That is he conflated a plan that people like with a good plan.
That is, he lied. He's not in the position to tell people what plan they should like, and he's hardly qualified to judge what a "good plan" is for anyone but himself. And maybe Michelle, if she let him make those decisions for her, which is doubtful.
But apparently there were a lot of people who liked bad plans.
There are a HUUUGE number of people who don't give a flying fuck what YOU think is a bad plan, or what Obama thinks is a bad plan. They're able to judge for themselves if the plan they have has the services they need. Any plan that has the services needed by the purchaser at a price that is acceptable is a good plan.
What the ACA did take away was a chance to "roll the dice" and be under-insured...
What ACA did was take away the CHOICE to select a plan that meets ones needs while not being chock-full of irrelevant stuff at a high price.
which apparently a lot of people were doing because healthcare is so expensive.
Oh My God! People were CHOOSING!
It's not surprising that ACA polls poorly.
That's true, but not for because of the excuses you provide.
You mean the American (US) system where I got an emergency transport from work via ambulance and never got a bill for anything at all? That horrible system?
Yeah, The Intercept looks like real top-level high-quality reporting. The guy wasn't put in "debtor's prison" for owing money, he was arrested for contempt of court for not coming to court when required to discuss the debt. He wasn't killed by the prison system while not in "debtor's prison", he committed suicide.
Really top-notch news source, fer sure. Not a lick of bias in sight, no sirree!
Slashdot Mirror
Higher rates, yes... but not 2-4x increases over what they had been doing for about a decade before. It wasn't a gradual thing, it was a massive jump from one year to the next.
It still doesn't take collusion. There is a common factor: occupancy. Each hotel can determine that they're at 100% for one week that coincides with a conference and each can choose to triple their rates without any contact with the others. I don't doubt that it happens multiple times per year for other conferences, too. It might be worst for WWDC since the hotels know their victims are all Apple fanbois who will spend a lot of money for things other people would not.
Collusion doesn't have to be explicitly communicated
Yeah, it does. From the dictionary: "agreement between people to act together secretly or illegally in order to deceive or cheat someone". How do you make an agreement with someone if you never communicate with them? There doesn't need to be communications to explain it.
But either way they all jumped the same degree at the same time.
I don't doubt that the prices are multiple that for other times. I've seen it lots of times for other events. I only responded to the part about collusion.
So your "not more than 20% margin" plan
It isn't my "plan". I was referring specifically to the quote of Friedman's that used "2 cents per pound" as a price control that creates artificial scarcity. The "20% margin" would be more realistic and not create that scarcity, while still controlling prices.
I was not talking about rent control at all.
If you were going home for the weekend, why not take along a passenger that was going the same way. In general that's the basic idea of Uber and Lyft. I have a car, you're going my way, hop in.
Uber and Lyft are not "you're going my way" services, they are on-demand taxis. There has been noise about Uber becoming the ride providers for medical organizations -- a lift to the doctor's office. The system is being designed so the rider doesn't even need the Uber app, the ride is arranged by the office. If you think Uber is a "you're going my way" service, then you have to realize that you're riding with someone who has to visit the doctor multiple times a day. If they're that sick, should they be driving passengers commercially?
This is something that private pilots have to be taught when they get their license. It's ok to ride-share and share costs if someone is "going my way", but you run into trouble when you start "going their way" and taking money for it.
the hotels decided to collude on higher prices - by that I mean 2-4x above normal rates for that time of year,
It doesn't take collusion for all the hotels in an area to individually recognize periods of high demand and respond with higher rates. And it isn't just for the WWDC.
The fact that the whole thing is described by what white people are doing only goes to *highlight* that nobody gives a fuck unless it's affecting white people.
The fact that the terms are only used when white people do it only goes to highlight that it is being blamed on white people. It's not affecting just white people, it affects everyone, and everyone does it.
housing is for living in, not for investment returns
When you are living in someone elses housing, they expect a return on their investment. Why else would they provide housing for you to live in?
It can be both. You're creating an artificial dichotomy.
Now pass a law that nobody can sell at more than 20% margin. Is the answer quite so simple then? Of course not, since as I understand it most grocery stores operate at about 5% or so. Where is the shortage under those more reasonable price controls?
Or your alarm clock.
How did people ever wake up before there were alarm clocks?
I dunno. I seem to be able to wake up during a complete power failure when the alarm clock is off. I've been able to wake up while camping and completely off the grid.
Unless they drive like a human they're going to piss people off.
That applies to other drivers but also pedestrians. I had a moronic human stop dead still in the middle of the street because I was standing on the sidewalk looking across to the other side. I was actually planning to jaywalk when the traffic cleared, but she made sure that the traffic would never clear and forced a lot of other people to stop for no reason other than to not run into her.
When she stuck her hand out the window and started waving me across, I just waved back at her and laughed. One thing human drivers also do is wave pedestrians across and then try to run them over.
The summary said that the first car was dented and got a broken taillight. Did the AV park itself immediately so it would not be driving illegally, or did it continue in violation of the law?
And if you've just gone up to an AV and slapped it, you're automatically hired for the position of "dummy for driverless car".
But if you're honest, you'll definitely recognize that everyone else believes it.
There are some truths that are truths because everyone believes them. There are other truths where it doesn't matter how many people believe it, it simply isn't true. Technology tends to fall into the latter category. Sociology is the former.
For example, "everyone" believed that analog AMPS cell phone calls were private and couldn't be eavesdropped on. Oh, wait, if I tune my TV up around channel 64 or so I can pick up your cell phone call! Clear as a bell. Both sides. It's even easier if I tune my DC-to-daylight radio receiver up around 800 MHz. Who is the smart person and who is the fool here? And then the "smart people" said that radio transmissions made "in the clear" must be made private -- by banning radios that could tune those frequencies! That will do it. Everyone knew that privacy was restored. Oh, wait ...
I recall not long ago a company lost a long-time employee who had his Apple laptop encrypted. They needed what was on it. They took it to Apple, proved it belonged to them and Apple said "sorry, we can't, that's impossible." Oh, wait. Apple said "no problem" and handed them back an unencrypted laptop.
Technology does have some impossible problems, but encryption systems isn't one of them. Yes, you might be able to create an unbreakable, unlockable system, but you can also make a reasonably secure unlockable system. That puts it into the realm of possible. Think of a large company that has different keys for different doors, but also a master key that opens them all. (Yes, it is relatively simple to break a physical master key system, so let's pretend it's a keypad system with two codes.) Sometimes crooks get their hands on the master key and cause problems. Most of the time they don't. Have companies abandoned all such systems because they are potentially breakable? Of course not.
Let me ask this: have you abandoned the use of credit cards because they are easily "breakable"?
Sure feel like my luggage is secure
There is a concept called "appropriate levels of security". I'm sure it has an official name, but that's what I'm going to call it for now.
If you thought the TSA luggage lock was intended to provide "security" in any absolute sense, then it is your worldview that needs adjustment.
What is the purpose of the lock? It cannot be to provide "security", because most likely your luggage is soft-sided. A simple box cutter or pocket knife will open it up. If it's hard sided, then a blow with a two-by-four will crack it, or a knife will cut the fabric where the zipper is, or a screwdriver will strip the zipper open.
So, why the lock? Notice that the methods I mentioned are all irreversible. It's easy to see a cut-open bag. A busted hard-side bag is obvious. The obvious answer is, the lock is there only to make any trivial break-in harder, and make the actual break-in obvious earlier than it would be otherwise. A baggage handler who sees a cut open suitcase while loading the plane can report it, and you don't have to wait to get home at the end of the trip to find out that you're missing something. (A secondary purpose for the lock is to make sure the zipper stays closed, but a paperclip can do that, too.)
Now, maybe you're someone who uses a commercially manufactured shipping case with actual locking mechanisms, but the vast majority of people do not. If you are, then you have a trivial solution to the problem of "TSA locks". Go to any local gun shop or show and buy a small package of ammo. I got a box of 20 rounds last weekend for $5. Put the ammo in the suitcase. Declare at checkin that you're carrying ammunition. Guess who HAS to lock his case then? You.
he's asked Amazon a couple times whether their devices are tracking speech at times other than when prompted by the word "Alexa" - and they've pointedly not answered.
I've gone to the "horse's mouth", so to speak, and asked Alexa herself. "Are you listening to me?" and so far, she's pointedly not answered. Not even lit up. I think that proves she is. Doesn't it?
Imagine being asleep and not waking up because your cat unplugged everything it could find.
The only way I can imagine that would happen is if you didn't have a locking power plug on your iron lung.
Which, honestly, is a better response than I get from my co-workers.
"If we were, you'd know about it, bottom."
I live in Virginia, have done for quite some time. North and South Virginia. I'm not "outside".
I'm not familiar with the states of North Virginia and South Virginia. I know Virginia and West Virginia. But in any case, you are outside the culture and thus your claim about not judging holds.
Your reply assumes that because X misuses "obviously" in some arbitrary context,
No, I assumed YOU misused it. Specifically you in this specific context. That's why I asked why it was obvious. There is also a general interpretation that arises because so many people misuse it the way you did, but that is a secondary point. You called it "obviously insane" with nothing to back up why it was insane in the first place, and why it should be obvious even then. Then you followed that all up with a statement that people who aren't involved shouldn't be determining criminality, which I bent a bit to include "obvious insanity".
I was debating how to respond, but I think it's sufficient to say my karma ran over your dogma.
I think you're the one with the wild dogma, calling people in other cultures "obviously" insane, and referring to North Virginia. I didn't have to debate with anyone how to respond to that. It was obvious.
I think the original poster was placing the modern state of Virginia in the context of women's suffrage,
While it is fascinating to assume that "suffrage" has something to do with "suffering", it does not, and "child brides" is just as far removed. The point is that "obviously insane" is a contradiction to the ending sentence where the OP points out that someone from outside has no standing. He's not a part of that culture and has no standing, especially to call it "obviously". I've found that the argument "obviously" usually is not.
what part of democratic do you not understand,
What part of FCC makes you think of democracy? Even so, when was the vote for net neutrality that shows that "enough people" want the FCC to do it instead of, say, the FTC or maybe congress?
In other words, once a policy is implemented it can never be rescinded, even if it should not have been implemented in the first place, because someone, somewhere will always think that rescinding it is "arbitrary and capricious", no matter how much discussion and consideration the agency went through. It does not matter if the creation was arbitrary and capricious, the deletion must not occur.
Is there a renewed uproar over the removal of CW requirements for amateur radio licenses? That change certainly was arbitrary and capricious.
It's hilarious that Chris Hansen's show was cancelled
"His affair came to light after a story was published by Radar Magazine, which documented his affair with a local news reporter 20 years his junior."
In 2013 Chris Hansen would have been about 53; twenty years his junior would put her at 33. Both were well above the age of consent, and the age difference is hardly significant. It appears no laws were broken, and there is no story here. What is hilarious about it? His show said nothing at all about married people having affairs, it was about people who would show up when a 22 year old (or so) lied about her age and asked them to.
Obviously, that's insane. ...
But I'd rather hear from them as to what should be a crime rather than a specific individual in a specific culture calling everything worldwide that would be a crime where they live a crime.
Substitute "insane" for "crime" in that last sentence. Why is it "obviously" insane? And why insane at all? Different culture. It's "insane" in your culture, but that make it true globally?
You can walk nude in public at any age, anywhere you like, provided it doesn't cause actual offence.
Thus pointing out the difference between nudity and pornography. But the question is, if I can wear a t-shirt that offends people without breaking the law, why should just offending people make nudity a breach of the law? Why should Rosanne Barr be hauled off to prison for "offensive nudity" if Cheryl Teigs would not be?
Facebook has terms of service that are independent of the law. They're universal.
When a TOS says "not for illegal purposes", the it is, inherently, not universal. Not even global.
to get a series of numbers out that tells you when things become ok.
You can run as many conferences and get as many numbers as you wish, but local law will still determine what's legal. If you're looking for a "number" from a "conference" I can guess that the last NAMBLA conference came up with "0".
So all one has to do is to watch Jeopardy and frame solicitation for murder as a question. " Would you kill my wife for 1 million dollars? ".
Wrong. If you were following the jeopardy model, you would post "Yes, I would", and accept as correct the question "would you pay me $1 million to kill your wife?" That's how Jeopardy works: answer first, question second.
You had a plan that didn't meet the minimum requirements which is a fancy way of saying that you were self-insuring for a good portion of your healthcare.
Shouldn't that be someone's right? And you do realize that not everyone needs everything that is in the minimum coverage required for ACA, don't you? Like, I really don't need OB/GYN services AT ALL, or a lot of other things. Why should I pay for a plan that has all of those, and how much "self insurance" am I really on the hook for for things that cannot happen to me?
The lie was obvious when he made it, and he knew that plans that were going to be closed because they didn't provide everything ACA required couldn't be kept, and changing plans in many cases (if not most) requires changing doctors. Is the excuse that he was ignorant of how insurance works?
President Obama spoke poorly about "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" because he likely didn't expect anybody would *like* a lot of the plans out there.
What an asinine excuse. The conditional clause "if you like your plan" ASSUMES there are people who like the plan as a starting point.
That is he conflated a plan that people like with a good plan.
That is, he lied. He's not in the position to tell people what plan they should like, and he's hardly qualified to judge what a "good plan" is for anyone but himself. And maybe Michelle, if she let him make those decisions for her, which is doubtful.
But apparently there were a lot of people who liked bad plans.
There are a HUUUGE number of people who don't give a flying fuck what YOU think is a bad plan, or what Obama thinks is a bad plan. They're able to judge for themselves if the plan they have has the services they need. Any plan that has the services needed by the purchaser at a price that is acceptable is a good plan.
What the ACA did take away was a chance to "roll the dice" and be under-insured...
What ACA did was take away the CHOICE to select a plan that meets ones needs while not being chock-full of irrelevant stuff at a high price.
which apparently a lot of people were doing because healthcare is so expensive.
Oh My God! People were CHOOSING!
It's not surprising that ACA polls poorly.
That's true, but not for because of the excuses you provide.
Still, beats the hell out of the American system.
You mean the American (US) system where I got an emergency transport from work via ambulance and never got a bill for anything at all? That horrible system?
Really top-notch news source, fer sure. Not a lick of bias in sight, no sirree!