Careful. Short term discomfort lasted 70 years for the soviets. The government needs to stop inflating the currency, fix the tax code so that each tax is justified for one specific case, with all funds directed to that case, close the loopholes for the wealthy, pay off the debt, and then lower the unneeded tax once that's done. Basically it needs to work within a budget like the rest of us.
These F35s are way too expensive to be useful in a battle. China would throw 10x as many half assed shitboxes and still win. They need to be cheap and reliable. These F35s are expensive and failure prone, like a lot of products today. "The more they over do the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain".
This is a non sequitur. Whether I have insurance or a car is irrelevant to the post you replied to. I'm talking about the shortcomings of the current system. Lets cut to the chase.. The point of insurance SHOULD be to protect your assets should they be damaged. The details are dictated by the policy. If the law was changed so that people couldn't sue for auto accidents, then there's no need to cover everyone and no need to have it mandatory. It would also end a lot of passive aggressive money grabs and would force people to recognize their mortality on the road. This is a net benefit because the reality is, with or without insurance, you're just as vulnerable as the next schlub. Don't like the risk? Don't drive or ride in a vehicle. Just don't ask me to pay into the pot to fund your 'right' to sue just to stick it someone.
Exactly. I'm saying the coverage should only protect the policy holder. Liability only protects you from lawsuits: an artificial threat created by law. Useless. The only thing that should happen is the state citing for cause. This way there's no need for liability coverage. If you want to cover yourself and your car, go ahead, but it shouldn't be mandated. This will lower coverage prices since the law would not enable the insurance companies to have us over a barrel.
Every government is owned by money. I think you've been swallowing too much of your own propaganda. Driving is a necessity at this point. there are politicians who think internet access is a right..and if that's a right, then driving definitely is. No car = no job if you live outside the city.
Of course you do.. because leftist ideology is all about retribution. It's end justifies means disguised as a principled stand. Having or not having insurance does not prevent a government from enforcing law. I just want a system that allows people the freedom to do what they need to do in order to live the best life they can. That includes access to the road, insured or not. mandatory insurance has created premium levels many cannot afford. I'm not interested in retribution. I'd just want my car replaced and/or my body patched up. In your example, I'd be rich enough to afford the coverage, and it would be worth it to cover 100k. If I drove a 20 yo honda and had no money, insuring it is a waste anyway. My best bet for avoiding long term disability is avoiding the accident in the first place. Wealth doesn't enter into that.
Actually, experience with managing the system itself gives insight into how it could be managed better. Managerial types use a lot of verbose garbage to cover up their histrionic narcissism, like you've done here, to justify that feelings and consensus matter more than the facts and the truth. It's ok to defend group work and such, but when the ideology becomes more important than reality, you end up with a chernobyl.
Simple. By the time they graduate highschool, they're tired of proving they can write book reports, handle 4 function math, and write code. Another 4 years of that shit at 50k of debt? fuck that. I suppose a degree matters if your requirements include some pretty obscure or complex mathematics, but otherwise, if the applicant shows his resume of well written code to you, why would you give a shit about whether he went to college or not?
You pay your docs shit and you saddle them with bureaucracy. That's why many patients come to the states. The wait is half a year or more for these supposedly 'non critical' operations. That sounds just like the 'rapacious' insurance companies you speak of. The only difference is that your 'insurance company' can fuck you over with law as well as money. How nice.
..and yet all you've countered with is ad hominem. If my position is paranoid delusion, it should be simple to disprove. Optional insurance is fine. Mandatory insurance is oppressive, especially when associated with activities needed to function. The state mandates it, forcing you to pay fines or have property confiscated if you don't comply, and the insurance companies lobby the state to make it more pervasive, so they can squeeze a little more profit. This mentality is only limited by the law which in turn is limited by surveillance technology. Meanwhile both put on friendly faces telling us how much they care about our needs and safety and convenience. None of this factors in the costs of misery caused from being micromanaged by statisticians.
If this was just about protecting your assets while taking risks ( like driving), then the law would not allow frivolous lawsuits and policies would only provide care for injuries and property replacement for the policy holder. Obviously, cops can still cite for traffic violations. Want to drive without insurance? Ok, but it's your ticket if your car is wrecked or you suffer injury. I don't know, maybe that would help society realize that it's not invulnerable on the road, put down the fucking cellphone and drive.
You save for now, then they start charging higher premiums if you don't get the service, then it becomes law and the prices go back up, leaving you with the monitoring and the high price. Mandatory insurance of any kind is slavery. Artificial protection against artificial threats (lawsuits).
Lossy digital compression and processing filter this out. This is especially true on consumer electronics used today. If people were still using all analog AC powered equipment, maybe.
Well, yeah, that's right. the US isn't perfect either. So why should india be lauded for launching rockets? Maybe we can agree that judging a country based on its rocket launching ability isn't a very good metric. Please read the post I responded to for context.
It's borrowing money to pay for that social(ist?) healthcare, and pay government workers wages that contradict the market. Perhaps a 10% state that focuses on what it's supposed to, coupled with the principal benefactors of corporate welfare paying back what was given to them would help.
They still had to study the work of others who pioneered it, based on military funding...and they still can't clean up their garbage, their sewage, or feed, house, and clothe 90% of their population. They can't even keep the power grid they do have up and running reliably.
Look, north korea has rockets too, and they're in even worse shape.
Slashdot Mirror
Careful. Short term discomfort lasted 70 years for the soviets. The government needs to stop inflating the currency, fix the tax code so that each tax is justified for one specific case, with all funds directed to that case, close the loopholes for the wealthy, pay off the debt, and then lower the unneeded tax once that's done. Basically it needs to work within a budget like the rest of us.
These F35s are way too expensive to be useful in a battle. China would throw 10x as many half assed shitboxes and still win. They need to be cheap and reliable. These F35s are expensive and failure prone, like a lot of products today. "The more they over do the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain".
This is a non sequitur. Whether I have insurance or a car is irrelevant to the post you replied to. I'm talking about the shortcomings of the current system. Lets cut to the chase.. The point of insurance SHOULD be to protect your assets should they be damaged. The details are dictated by the policy. If the law was changed so that people couldn't sue for auto accidents, then there's no need to cover everyone and no need to have it mandatory. It would also end a lot of passive aggressive money grabs and would force people to recognize their mortality on the road. This is a net benefit because the reality is, with or without insurance, you're just as vulnerable as the next schlub. Don't like the risk? Don't drive or ride in a vehicle. Just don't ask me to pay into the pot to fund your 'right' to sue just to stick it someone.
Don't be dense. I'm making a suggestion for change, not describing the current system.
Exactly. I'm saying the coverage should only protect the policy holder. Liability only protects you from lawsuits: an artificial threat created by law. Useless. The only thing that should happen is the state citing for cause. This way there's no need for liability coverage. If you want to cover yourself and your car, go ahead, but it shouldn't be mandated. This will lower coverage prices since the law would not enable the insurance companies to have us over a barrel.
Every government is owned by money. I think you've been swallowing too much of your own propaganda. Driving is a necessity at this point. there are politicians who think internet access is a right..and if that's a right, then driving definitely is. No car = no job if you live outside the city.
Of course you do.. because leftist ideology is all about retribution. It's end justifies means disguised as a principled stand. Having or not having insurance does not prevent a government from enforcing law. I just want a system that allows people the freedom to do what they need to do in order to live the best life they can. That includes access to the road, insured or not. mandatory insurance has created premium levels many cannot afford. I'm not interested in retribution. I'd just want my car replaced and/or my body patched up. In your example, I'd be rich enough to afford the coverage, and it would be worth it to cover 100k. If I drove a 20 yo honda and had no money, insuring it is a waste anyway. My best bet for avoiding long term disability is avoiding the accident in the first place. Wealth doesn't enter into that.
Depends on your definition of 'rounded'. College campuses have their own shitty political and social biases too.
Actually, experience with managing the system itself gives insight into how it could be managed better. Managerial types use a lot of verbose garbage to cover up their histrionic narcissism, like you've done here, to justify that feelings and consensus matter more than the facts and the truth. It's ok to defend group work and such, but when the ideology becomes more important than reality, you end up with a chernobyl.
Yeah, that's why today's software is so well designed...oh wait. Cheaper is not always better.
I suspect it's more complicated than your sanctimonious sermon implies.
That's because of the false assumption that a degree automatically makes your skills more applicable. College today is papermill bullshit.
Pretty easy to do when college costs 50k.
Simple. By the time they graduate highschool, they're tired of proving they can write book reports, handle 4 function math, and write code. Another 4 years of that shit at 50k of debt? fuck that. I suppose a degree matters if your requirements include some pretty obscure or complex mathematics, but otherwise, if the applicant shows his resume of well written code to you, why would you give a shit about whether he went to college or not?
The government scares me less because they don't want to maximize the money they get from me.
hahahah hahaha ahah ha...ha.....
You pay your docs shit and you saddle them with bureaucracy. That's why many patients come to the states. The wait is half a year or more for these supposedly 'non critical' operations. That sounds just like the 'rapacious' insurance companies you speak of. The only difference is that your 'insurance company' can fuck you over with law as well as money. How nice.
If it answers the question, why not?
..and yet all you've countered with is ad hominem. If my position is paranoid delusion, it should be simple to disprove. Optional insurance is fine. Mandatory insurance is oppressive, especially when associated with activities needed to function. The state mandates it, forcing you to pay fines or have property confiscated if you don't comply, and the insurance companies lobby the state to make it more pervasive, so they can squeeze a little more profit. This mentality is only limited by the law which in turn is limited by surveillance technology. Meanwhile both put on friendly faces telling us how much they care about our needs and safety and convenience. None of this factors in the costs of misery caused from being micromanaged by statisticians.
If this was just about protecting your assets while taking risks ( like driving), then the law would not allow frivolous lawsuits and policies would only provide care for injuries and property replacement for the policy holder. Obviously, cops can still cite for traffic violations. Want to drive without insurance? Ok, but it's your ticket if your car is wrecked or you suffer injury. I don't know, maybe that would help society realize that it's not invulnerable on the road, put down the fucking cellphone and drive.
Uh no it won't. It will encourage everyone to not give a shit. We'll be equal alright, equally poor, unhealthy, and enslaved.
Yes. Do you?
It would result in a miserable micromanaged society. Fuck that.
You save for now, then they start charging higher premiums if you don't get the service, then it becomes law and the prices go back up, leaving you with the monitoring and the high price. Mandatory insurance of any kind is slavery. Artificial protection against artificial threats (lawsuits).
Lossy digital compression and processing filter this out. This is especially true on consumer electronics used today. If people were still using all analog AC powered equipment, maybe.
Well, yeah, that's right. the US isn't perfect either. So why should india be lauded for launching rockets? Maybe we can agree that judging a country based on its rocket launching ability isn't a very good metric. Please read the post I responded to for context.
It's borrowing money to pay for that social(ist?) healthcare, and pay government workers wages that contradict the market. Perhaps a 10% state that focuses on what it's supposed to, coupled with the principal benefactors of corporate welfare paying back what was given to them would help.
Microsoft is still operating under NSL restraints. That means the NSA has the keys anyway.
They still had to study the work of others who pioneered it, based on military funding. ..and they still can't clean up their garbage, their sewage, or feed, house, and clothe 90% of their population. They can't even keep the power grid they do have up and running reliably.
Look, north korea has rockets too, and they're in even worse shape.
The only thing that can jack up taxes is the government itself.