The problem is until we are willing to essentially throw everything out, baby bath water and all, we can't really fix it.
Take the C argument. The issue is really again one of input validation, buffer over flows happen ultimately because of of problems with input validation. Yes a language that enforces bounds checking everywhere and takes memory management out of the hands of the programer solves the specific problem of the buffer overflow; it does not make it much more secure though in the grand scheme of things.
There have been plenty of exploits and injects in software written in Java, perl, Python, Ruby, BASIC, etc. It almost always comes down to input validation, and that is because input validation is *HARD* for any non trivial range of allowed inputs.
Then start mixing other technologies and it gets even more fun. So your C program is on a system using UTF-8, how big a buffer do you need to handle data from the database server with a VARCHAR(128) field? What character encoding is it using? What else writes data to that field what character encoding do those things use?
So where were all the right wingers when this was going down during the Bush era? You know, the ones who are now claiming that Obama is destroying the constitution? Massive amnesia and/or massive hypocrisy?
I see this written often and I still gota ask, "What does it matter where they were?" Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Honestly there should be no such thing as a SWAT team at all. The police are supposed be a safety force.
If a situation really requires "Special Weapons and Tactics" than I would argue its not merely a criminal enterprise anymore but a rebellion. Its not a job for police at all its a job for the Governors Office and the State Militia (National Guard).
There needs to some serious accountability, and management by real professionals not Barny Fife playing with the fun new toys he got from his Homeland Security grant.
The trouble is this is more or less a shell company created by these governments to place them outside the law and that should not work. You can't just create an extra legal entity to shield yourself for having to follow the legal regulations that apply to you.
We just had a SCOTUS ruling the other day that said you can't hire a proxy gun buyer to acquire weapons for you (say because you can't pass the background check) and then convey them to you in a private sale. They court basically held that when someone fills out the form and says they are purchasing a gun for their own use than that must be their intent at the time they sign the form.
Sure in that case it does not do much someone can still stand on the sidewalk outside the gun dealer and offer to by a weapon someone just purchased from them right then and there, and that was the dissents argument, but its really not the point.
*BINGO* the right loves to co-opt libertarian arguments about privatization to create these 'public-private' partnerships specifically because they create legal gray areas where tons of power, weapons, and money are moved outside accountability.
Nobody knows what laws apply to these groups, and it takes decades and dollars the public does not have to get it sorted out in the courts.
As libertarian when I hear public private partnership I know to be truly scared; to they point where a new public agency sounds like a better alternative.
Except that at the federal level we have an FBI and DOJ that spend much of their time advising local law enforcement to if not outright lie, at least not to advertise their capabilities and methods. Then we have all kinds of federal money being appropriated at the federal level and handed to the Homeland Security to distribute to local law enforcement specifically to help them militarize.
In short I don't really really see what you suggest happening, not unless in a surprise upset Gary Johnson is elected president in 2016. Its much more likely the FBI will help intimidate and silence anyone who makes to much noise about this issue.
I think most libertarians would say there is nothing wrong with government outsourcing law enforcement; but there is something wrong with doing so as a way to skirt legal requirements.
In this example the PEOPLE have enacted records requirements for state and local law enforcement. If the various municipalities want to outsource that is fine but whoever they hire needs to be subject to the same legal requirements. If they are working for the 'state' they are state actors and should be expected to follow the same rules the state is subject; that should be in their contract and if they don't want to agree to those terms then they can't bid on the job. Just like if I want my house painted, anyone is welcome to bid on the job but if you won't make it the color I want than I can't hire you. If the LEC can't follow the records rules for all activities related to their working for law enforcement they can't be hired or that is how it should work.
As a libertarian though my main issue is really with the state having to much power in the first place. Private security forces are just fine, but they should work for private groups. Your home owners association should be hiring security to keep your neighborhood safe for example, they naturally don't get the legal protection and police powers a 'state' agency would have, which is a powerful and important check on them and you.
I think you want to go KVM or VMWare player. You will have just tons of problems finding diver support for new hardware on a kernel that is 10+ years old. While its true that 2.4 has been patched and maintained its been mostly fixes not nearly as much in terms of driver back-ports etc.
Much of the software you mention the Loki games and Corel will need older libc(s) to work, and they won't work with recent kernels. You are beyond the point where a chroot tree is likely to do it for you.
Rather then spend weeks fighting to get software that old working on new hardware I'd just install a distro from that era in VM and take my spin down memory lane.
Honestly I think the problem is the universities don't actually teach and CS. They don't even teach programing they teach C++, C#, or Java.
We would be better off if students were taught in their professors boutique language that exists nowhere in industry frankly. That would at least move the emphasis toward general theory and patterns. As it stands today most grands spent all their time memorizing whats in the standard library for whatever language they were taught and don't have any clue how to architect software or systems of software.
So the next thing you know unsanitized input is being concatenated onto some string and fed to some cousin of eval() in the language du jour. If we are lucky they read on some security blog they should make sure to check stuff passed to that function but it never occurs to anyone the very fact they need eval() in the first place suggests strongly their approach is bad, and we still have an inject once some hacker figures out they can use parens instead of spaces and bypass the input checking or something.
D - The court actually does mean for the ruling to be narrow; does not see this case as setting a strong precedent and will grant certiorari for what might otherwise be seen as similar media delivery technology cases
See based on what you just wrote I have total sympathy for the industry. Government stepped in an regulated without considering the law of unintended consequences, and now is going to try and fix the glitch with still more regulation.
The EPA needs to be stripped of its power to regulate carbon.
Fortuitously forest grows pretty darn fast; if you are not picky about what specie of tree you get. Much more of the USA is forested than say 100 years ago, and lots of that is just from nature reclaiming land not deliberate planting by humans.
As people stopped cutting wood as a primary fuel source for heating and cooking and as agriculture has consolidated and moved toward more efficient land use lots has grown back.
There is nothing shady about managing your suppliers. Every well run business does it. The only thing different is Amazon's suppliers are used to having monopoly power and getting any terms they want. Amazon is pushing back! Its a good for the consumer and I think ultimately will be good for the talent.
On the book side the job publishers actually do is shrinking (doubly so if we are talking e-books). Everyone I know that has ever had anything published or tried recently, tells me they are expected to provide manuscript in very very specific formats, already largely edited. At that point the only value adds pretty much come down to bundling it into the e-book container (they could do that themselves but for DRM signing etc) and access to the distribution channel (which Amazon could pretty easily provide them with directly), and some fancy name with authority behind it to slap on the work.
Amazon thinks they don't deserve such a big cut for all that lack of actual work; and I agree. The publishing industry does not have to be the gatekeepers anymore unless you want a large run of dead tree, where someone needs to put up real capital. A quick look at interest rates these days ought to give you an idea of what the real value of that is too.
The movie world is still a little different, the talent isn't in a position to produce a feature film, although that isn't necessarily the case with an animated work like "Lego Movie"; and if you look the gulf between what really talented folks can do in their basement vs. what Hollywood cranks out is for the most part narrowing too. So value the 'Studios' are providing is declining not matter what fantastic sums of money they manage to blow on the production. I am all for Amazon putting the squeeze on these guys too.
Amazon *IS* the market, the market should set prices. If Amazons history is any guide at all they will use any cost to compete, so as consumers we cant expect to see some of it passed on to use in the form of lower prices. I also can't think of well anything other than Amazon's own products Kindle etc, that are exclusive to them, so I am not worried about Amazon being a monopoly yet; someday it might be a concern but not now.
People who use the roads most should pay the most for them. The gas tax worked well in that sense. I would propose we simply shift to a tire tax. That way it does not matter what the power source is. The tax should be applied to the amount of miles the tire is estimated for. Buy a 60K mile tire you pay more in tax than if you buy 30K mile rated tire.
Manufactures could make tires with red stripe on them or something that are tax exempt, for use on farm equipment etc, just like the sell diesel dyed red etc, today in some states. If they catch someone with red stripped tires rolling down a public road fine the hell out of em.
Right, Their completely unethical behavior had nothing to do with the problem.
Much of medical and any profession is about trust; what the CIA did is violate that trust they had credentialed doctors saying one thing while doing another. The were perpetrating FRAUD, and you are arguing the problem is they got caught.
It might be possible for HP, Apple, or Xerox to move things around that quickly but I doubt a University could get that done at any priority.
I know people who work on university networks. They face the most bizare requirements. At Michigan for instance essentially any two ports anywhere on the entire campus have to be able to be made layer 2 adjacent upon request.
Big research universities like MIT have odd problems like academics doing "network research" collaborating with different colleges withing the university, large portions of the network managed by academic teams rather than the "Network Engineers" to many cooks in their kitchens.
That is pretty common an usual pretty much the smallest direct allocation you can get. Nobody will route anything smaller than that. Lots of ISP will subnet C allocations and resell smaller ranges, but than they are not your allocation so if you change ISPs you WILL be changing ip address ( for all be a few edge cases if that is really a problem than you are doing it wrong), what sucks through is it usually becomes a pain to get pointer records in DNS updated etc; as you need to get whoever controls the zone to do it for you.
Right, what we should do is get rid of withholding and make EVERYONE pay quarterly estimated taxes. I suspect we would very suddenly have TEA party ( or similar ) membership right around 53% of the adult population.
The entire reason for the IRS and the income tax was to restore slavery. Sure the slaves are different, but interestingly and unsurprisingly the slave holders are largely the same group.
A) chances the person taking the bribe will be caught accepting the bribe. B) chances the person taking the bribe will be caught doing whatever they were bribed to do C) risk level after considering any negative consequences for the bribed associated with B D) actual difficulty executing B E) how likely the briber can expect his payoff to secure the desired outcome
Lets look at this situation:
A) Group of officers starts a "Fraternal Order of Police" or something similar its ostensibly a charity for injured officers but also throws some fancy thank you and holiday parties for the force (the payoff). They pass out window stickers to contributors at certain levels. They know this helps because people like show off how generous they are (legit reason many charities do this (the cover)), they also know some people will cynically believe it will buy them special treatment and this badge is how they prove their entitlement. The officers with a nod and a wink agree to actually provide this special treatment because they think it will increase the donations leading the fancier and more frequent parties.
B) Will they get caught? Not very likely unless someone does anything very stupid. They time when they collect the funds vs the time when they commit the act are widely separated. They act itself is in the negative. Not pulling someone over in the first place because you saw an FOB sticker in the window creates no audit-able event. Even fairly honest members of the public are unlikely to call the mayors office and complain that they just blew an officers doors off and he sat and did nothing. If there are lots of people around and the behavior is egregious they can pull someone over and warn them, none of the whiteness are likely to be able to tell if a warning or a ticket was issued.
C) The risk is low because the odds getting caught are low and even if someone suspects their shot at proving anything is almost nil. It will be very hard to make any conspiracy charges stick, the worst the will likely happen is officers might be dismissed for under performance. Proving negatives are not easy; especially when there is already a discretionary element to writing tickets or not in the first place.
D) Could not be any easier to execute, in fact its probably easier than doing their job correctly.
E) Not every officer, likely not even most, will be in on the conspiracy, the payer cannont know for sure he won't get pulled over by an honest cop.
So considering the situation the 'price' of this bribe should be low.
Anecdotal? Sure. Did the stickers still do what I was told they would do? Absolutely.
Um pretty much by your own admission "Absolutely" is really "Maybe." We cannot know what would have happened without the stickers and we don't have any solid statistics around similar incidents with and without stickers. Anecdotally I have never had and FOP or IAFF stickers on my cars and I have only been warned for speeding myself. Which says nothing about their effectiveness but is proof you can get let off without having them. So possession of such stickers is not a necessary condition for being let go; therefore form the available evidence we can draw no real conclusion about how effective they are.
No clearly you don't understand. Politics requires people voting for you, they do that based on what they think, which does not require it be true. Its often easier if it isnt.
Personally I still consider the ACA to be a completely immoral redistribution of wealth and so I don't care if it works really smoothly, I am still against. Clear cutting a forest is an efficient way to acquire lumber but that does not make it the right way.
If Libertarians were willing to just die on the street properly when they ran out of money after a simple injury, then the system would be cheaper for everybody. But they never follow through on this.
Fuck you! plenty of them are willing to run that risk. I have at least two family members who were found dead in early middle age. Both died of causes that if they had been visiting a doctor probably would have been caught and treated. They made life style choices that left them without insurance, knowing full well that if they had a major problem it would bankrupt them they never got checked out. Lots and Lots of people choose that.
Yes if you show up at the ER "we" pay the cost of stabilizing you, but by no means treats something or puts the rest of us on the hook for years of chemo treatments for something like cancer.
The only selfish jerks are people like you who want to impose your life style choices on everyone else because you can't afford the real cost of the protection YOU insist on having.
My own health insurance costs are going to double this year! People who support the ACA are thieving assholes with entitlement problems.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is until we are willing to essentially throw everything out, baby bath water and all, we can't really fix it.
Take the C argument. The issue is really again one of input validation, buffer over flows happen ultimately because of of problems with input validation. Yes a language that enforces bounds checking everywhere and takes memory management out of the hands of the programer solves the specific problem of the buffer overflow; it does not make it much more secure though in the grand scheme of things.
There have been plenty of exploits and injects in software written in Java, perl, Python, Ruby, BASIC, etc. It almost always comes down to input validation, and that is because input validation is *HARD* for any non trivial range of allowed inputs.
Then start mixing other technologies and it gets even more fun. So your C program is on a system using UTF-8, how big a buffer do you need to handle data from the database server with a VARCHAR(128) field? What character encoding is it using? What else writes data to that field what character encoding do those things use?
So where were all the right wingers when this was going down during the Bush era? You know, the ones who are now claiming that Obama is destroying the constitution? Massive amnesia and/or massive hypocrisy?
I see this written often and I still gota ask, "What does it matter where they were?" Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Honestly there should be no such thing as a SWAT team at all. The police are supposed be a safety force.
If a situation really requires "Special Weapons and Tactics" than I would argue its not merely a criminal enterprise anymore but a rebellion. Its not a job for police at all its a job for the Governors Office and the State Militia (National Guard).
There needs to some serious accountability, and management by real professionals not Barny Fife playing with the fun new toys he got from his Homeland Security grant.
The trouble is this is more or less a shell company created by these governments to place them outside the law and that should not work. You can't just create an extra legal entity to shield yourself for having to follow the legal regulations that apply to you.
We just had a SCOTUS ruling the other day that said you can't hire a proxy gun buyer to acquire weapons for you (say because you can't pass the background check) and then convey them to you in a private sale. They court basically held that when someone fills out the form and says they are purchasing a gun for their own use than that must be their intent at the time they sign the form.
Sure in that case it does not do much someone can still stand on the sidewalk outside the gun dealer and offer to by a weapon someone just purchased from them right then and there, and that was the dissents argument, but its really not the point.
*BINGO* the right loves to co-opt libertarian arguments about privatization to create these 'public-private' partnerships specifically because they create legal gray areas where tons of power, weapons, and money are moved outside accountability.
Nobody knows what laws apply to these groups, and it takes decades and dollars the public does not have to get it sorted out in the courts.
As libertarian when I hear public private partnership I know to be truly scared; to they point where a new public agency sounds like a better alternative.
Except that at the federal level we have an FBI and DOJ that spend much of their time advising local law enforcement to if not outright lie, at least not to advertise their capabilities and methods. Then we have all kinds of federal money being appropriated at the federal level and handed to the Homeland Security to distribute to local law enforcement specifically to help them militarize.
In short I don't really really see what you suggest happening, not unless in a surprise upset Gary Johnson is elected president in 2016. Its much more likely the FBI will help intimidate and silence anyone who makes to much noise about this issue.
I think most libertarians would say there is nothing wrong with government outsourcing law enforcement; but there is something wrong with doing so as a way to skirt legal requirements.
In this example the PEOPLE have enacted records requirements for state and local law enforcement. If the various municipalities want to outsource that is fine but whoever they hire needs to be subject to the same legal requirements. If they are working for the 'state' they are state actors and should be expected to follow the same rules the state is subject; that should be in their contract and if they don't want to agree to those terms then they can't bid on the job. Just like if I want my house painted, anyone is welcome to bid on the job but if you won't make it the color I want than I can't hire you. If the LEC can't follow the records rules for all activities related to their working for law enforcement they can't be hired or that is how it should work.
As a libertarian though my main issue is really with the state having to much power in the first place. Private security forces are just fine, but they should work for private groups. Your home owners association should be hiring security to keep your neighborhood safe for example, they naturally don't get the legal protection and police powers a 'state' agency would have, which is a powerful and important check on them and you.
I think you want to go KVM or VMWare player. You will have just tons of problems finding diver support for new hardware on a kernel that is 10+ years old. While its true that 2.4 has been patched and maintained its been mostly fixes not nearly as much in terms of driver back-ports etc.
Much of the software you mention the Loki games and Corel will need older libc(s) to work, and they won't work with recent kernels. You are beyond the point where a chroot tree is likely to do it for you.
Rather then spend weeks fighting to get software that old working on new hardware I'd just install a distro from that era in VM and take my spin down memory lane.
Honestly I think the problem is the universities don't actually teach and CS. They don't even teach programing they teach C++, C#, or Java.
We would be better off if students were taught in their professors boutique language that exists nowhere in industry frankly. That would at least move the emphasis toward general theory and patterns. As it stands today most grands spent all their time memorizing whats in the standard library for whatever language they were taught and don't have any clue how to architect software or systems of software.
So the next thing you know unsanitized input is being concatenated onto some string and fed to some cousin of eval() in the language du jour. If we are lucky they read on some security blog they should make sure to check stuff passed to that function but it never occurs to anyone the very fact they need eval() in the first place suggests strongly their approach is bad, and we still have an inject once some hacker figures out they can use parens instead of spaces and bypass the input checking or something.
D - The court actually does mean for the ruling to be narrow; does not see this case as setting a strong precedent and will grant certiorari for what might otherwise be seen as similar media delivery technology cases
See based on what you just wrote I have total sympathy for the industry. Government stepped in an regulated without considering the law of unintended consequences, and now is going to try and fix the glitch with still more regulation.
The EPA needs to be stripped of its power to regulate carbon.
Fortuitously forest grows pretty darn fast; if you are not picky about what specie of tree you get. Much more of the USA is forested than say 100 years ago, and lots of that is just from nature reclaiming land not deliberate planting by humans.
As people stopped cutting wood as a primary fuel source for heating and cooking and as agriculture has consolidated and moved toward more efficient land use lots has grown back.
There is nothing shady about managing your suppliers. Every well run business does it. The only thing different is Amazon's suppliers are used to having monopoly power and getting any terms they want. Amazon is pushing back! Its a good for the consumer and I think ultimately will be good for the talent.
On the book side the job publishers actually do is shrinking (doubly so if we are talking e-books). Everyone I know that has ever had anything published or tried recently, tells me they are expected to provide manuscript in very very specific formats, already largely edited. At that point the only value adds pretty much come down to bundling it into the e-book container (they could do that themselves but for DRM signing etc) and access to the distribution channel (which Amazon could pretty easily provide them with directly), and some fancy name with authority behind it to slap on the work.
Amazon thinks they don't deserve such a big cut for all that lack of actual work; and I agree. The publishing industry does not have to be the gatekeepers anymore unless you want a large run of dead tree, where someone needs to put up real capital. A quick look at interest rates these days ought to give you an idea of what the real value of that is too.
The movie world is still a little different, the talent isn't in a position to produce a feature film, although that isn't necessarily the case with an animated work like "Lego Movie"; and if you look the gulf between what really talented folks can do in their basement vs. what Hollywood cranks out is for the most part narrowing too. So value the 'Studios' are providing is declining not matter what fantastic sums of money they manage to blow on the production. I am all for Amazon putting the squeeze on these guys too.
Amazon *IS* the market, the market should set prices. If Amazons history is any guide at all they will use any cost to compete, so as consumers we cant expect to see some of it passed on to use in the form of lower prices. I also can't think of well anything other than Amazon's own products Kindle etc, that are exclusive to them, so I am not worried about Amazon being a monopoly yet; someday it might be a concern but not now.
People who use the roads most should pay the most for them. The gas tax worked well in that sense. I would propose we simply shift to a tire tax. That way it does not matter what the power source is. The tax should be applied to the amount of miles the tire is estimated for. Buy a 60K mile tire you pay more in tax than if you buy 30K mile rated tire.
Manufactures could make tires with red stripe on them or something that are tax exempt, for use on farm equipment etc, just like the sell diesel dyed red etc, today in some states. If they catch someone with red stripped tires rolling down a public road fine the hell out of em.
There problem solved.
Right, Their completely unethical behavior had nothing to do with the problem.
Much of medical and any profession is about trust; what the CIA did is violate that trust they had credentialed doctors saying one thing while doing another. The were perpetrating FRAUD, and you are arguing the problem is they got caught.
What kills me is the supporters of this epically stupid law is that people don't see that problem is the fact that
A colonoscopy -- a half hour, non surgical procedure involving light anesthesia -- with NO problematic results -- is seven grand.
The problem is not that insurance is/was unaffordable, its that the actual care costs to much.
It might be possible for HP, Apple, or Xerox to move things around that quickly but I doubt a University could get that done at any priority.
I know people who work on university networks. They face the most bizare requirements. At Michigan for instance essentially any two ports anywhere on the entire campus have to be able to be made layer 2 adjacent upon request.
Big research universities like MIT have odd problems like academics doing "network research" collaborating with different colleges withing the university, large portions of the network managed by academic teams rather than the "Network Engineers" to many cooks in their kitchens.
That is pretty common an usual pretty much the smallest direct allocation you can get. Nobody will route anything smaller than that. Lots of ISP will subnet C allocations and resell smaller ranges, but than they are not your allocation so if you change ISPs you WILL be changing ip address ( for all be a few edge cases if that is really a problem than you are doing it wrong), what sucks through is it usually becomes a pain to get pointer records in DNS updated etc; as you need to get whoever controls the zone to do it for you.
Right, what we should do is get rid of withholding and make EVERYONE pay quarterly estimated taxes. I suspect we would very suddenly have TEA party ( or similar ) membership right around 53% of the adult population.
I wonder if you can make an expost facto constitutional argument.
The entire reason for the IRS and the income tax was to restore slavery. Sure the slaves are different, but interestingly and unsurprisingly the slave holders are largely the same group.
Good point, 2500 USD is pretty cheap for bribe...
Some of the 'pricing' that goes into a bribe are
A) chances the person taking the bribe will be caught accepting the bribe.
B) chances the person taking the bribe will be caught doing whatever they were bribed to do
C) risk level after considering any negative consequences for the bribed associated with B
D) actual difficulty executing B
E) how likely the briber can expect his payoff to secure the desired outcome
Lets look at this situation:
A)
Group of officers starts a "Fraternal Order of Police" or something similar its ostensibly a charity for injured officers but also throws some fancy thank you and holiday parties for the force (the payoff). They pass out window stickers to contributors at certain levels. They know this helps because people like show off how generous they are (legit reason many charities do this (the cover)), they also know some people will cynically believe it will buy them special treatment and this badge is how they prove their entitlement. The officers with a nod and a wink agree to actually provide this special treatment because they think it will increase the donations leading the fancier and more frequent parties.
B)
Will they get caught? Not very likely unless someone does anything very stupid. They time when they collect the funds vs the time when they commit the act are widely separated. They act itself is in the negative. Not pulling someone over in the first place because you saw an FOB sticker in the window creates no audit-able event. Even fairly honest members of the public are unlikely to call the mayors office and complain that they just blew an officers doors off and he sat and did nothing. If there are lots of people around and the behavior is egregious they can pull someone over and warn them, none of the whiteness are likely to be able to tell if a warning or a ticket was issued.
C) The risk is low because the odds getting caught are low and even if someone suspects their shot at proving anything is almost nil. It will be very hard to make any conspiracy charges stick, the worst the will likely happen is officers might be dismissed for under performance. Proving negatives are not easy; especially when there is already a discretionary element to writing tickets or not in the first place.
D) Could not be any easier to execute, in fact its probably easier than doing their job correctly.
E) Not every officer, likely not even most, will be in on the conspiracy, the payer cannont know for sure he won't get pulled over by an honest cop.
So considering the situation the 'price' of this bribe should be low.
Anecdotal? Sure. Did the stickers still do what I was told they would do? Absolutely.
Um pretty much by your own admission "Absolutely" is really "Maybe." We cannot know what would have happened without the stickers and we don't have any solid statistics around similar incidents with and without stickers. Anecdotally I have never had and FOP or IAFF stickers on my cars and I have only been warned for speeding myself. Which says nothing about their effectiveness but is proof you can get let off without having them. So possession of such stickers is not a necessary condition for being let go; therefore form the available evidence we can draw no real conclusion about how effective they are.
No clearly you don't understand. Politics requires people voting for you, they do that based on what they think, which does not require it be true. Its often easier if it isnt.
Personally I still consider the ACA to be a completely immoral redistribution of wealth and so I don't care if it works really smoothly, I am still against. Clear cutting a forest is an efficient way to acquire lumber but that does not make it the right way.
If Libertarians were willing to just die on the street properly when they ran out of money after a simple injury, then the system would be cheaper for everybody. But they never follow through on this.
Fuck you! plenty of them are willing to run that risk. I have at least two family members who were found dead in early middle age. Both died of causes that if they had been visiting a doctor probably would have been caught and treated. They made life style choices that left them without insurance, knowing full well that if they had a major problem it would bankrupt them they never got checked out. Lots and Lots of people choose that.
Yes if you show up at the ER "we" pay the cost of stabilizing you, but by no means treats something or puts the rest of us on the hook for years of chemo treatments for something like cancer.
The only selfish jerks are people like you who want to impose your life style choices on everyone else because you can't afford the real cost of the protection YOU insist on having.
My own health insurance costs are going to double this year! People who support the ACA are thieving assholes with entitlement problems.