I live in New Jersey. My employer pays only about 10% of my total premium. I cover myself and my kids (the number of kids is irrelevant with this insurer.) Total cost: ~$250 a month.
Fun fact: most people in Congress don't actually read what they're voting on. They have whole staffs who do this for them, and let them know if it's in line with their positions or not (and if there's anything that should be added/removed.) Most Congresspeople are not policy wonks and don't spend all their time reading the actual text of bills.
I certainly agree with you there, although that is more a consequence of employers paying a share of your insurance, and that share dropping to $0 when you're on COBRA. $1000 a month is insanely expensive, in any case.
That's a nonsense argument. The government influencing you to do (or not do) anything could be considered "against freedom." Try formulating a more substantive argument next time.
I'm as critical of income inequality as anyone (the core rhetoric of the "99%" talk), but the Affordable Care Act offers subsidies to those who can't afford insurance or have difficulty affording it. The tax penalty is specifically designed not to punish the poor, and yet you are here to portray it as though it is. Your brand of intellectual dishonesty does no one any good.
Bingo. Congress thought the "stick" approach would work better here, but then they also give plenty of "carrots" (subsidies, etc.) so if you get hit with the "stick," it is really your own damn fault.
Social engineering through the tax code is nothing new, anyway. We give people breaks for buying houses and having kids, why not health insurance?
You hear "all too often" about that? Really? Where? Doctors are routinely letting people die in order to harvest their organs, huh? Let's see some proof of that--and not just one or two isolated cases, I want a verified pattern of patients being left to die specifically to harvest their organs.
A CEO who says "fuck the shareholders" would quite probably be in violation of the law, given that his/her primary responsibility is to the shareholders.
I thought Maxtor and those... DeathStar, erm, DeskStar things were considered the worst. I actually never had a problem with a Seagate drive, but perhaps I've just been lucky.
Ugh, yeah, I've noticed the age of the Internet has made that worse, too. People erroneously think that medical diagnosis is simply a matter of checking off a bunch of symptoms. "Well, I have 8 out of the 10 symptoms listed for African megalocephalitic herpes! I'm going to die!"
Oh, absolutely. What Microsoft needs to do and what they can do are two different things. I agree that they can't beat Apple's supply chain and therefore they can't beat the pricing (without taking steep losses.) And given that Microsoft's loss model for the Xbox division has netted them a lousy third place, it's unlikely they're willing to do the same in the much more competitive and crowded tablet market. iPad's got the high end, Kindle Fire has promise in the low end, and a glut of generic Android tablets fill the bargain basement segment. If Microsoft thinks they can somehow squeeze right into the middle of all that, get market penetration, and make a profit--well, they'd better have both an absurdly brilliant product and an absurdly brilliant marketing strategy.
Obviously, I'm not confident Microsoft could deliver either.
Obviously, there are people who want Linux to be successful on the desktop. I'm not implying that it's being deliberately sabotaged to prevent that, either. Just that "winning" the desktop isn't necessary. Is Apple a failure, too, for not having conquered the desktop market? No, because they found their own niches: premium-priced desktops, laptops, smartphones, portable music players, and tablets. You can fault their methods but not their results.
If you think administering a Windows server is anything like using a Windows desktop, you're a hopeless idiot. Same goes for Linux. They are completely different roles.
Besides that, how the hell did Linux ever become so successful in the server market without having had any success on the desktop? Gee, that sorta destroys your whole point, doesn't it?
Shuttleworth and other Linux desktop enthusiasts are welcome to keep doing what they're doing, I just don't expect it to come to much. It's not about what I believe, it's about market trends and reality. There is no compelling reason for most users to switch to Linux on the desktop--but desktop operating systems serve an entirely different role from server OSes, so the failure of Linux on the desktop is a completely orthogonal issue from Linux's future on servers and embedded devices.
I say this as someone who uses Windows on the desktop and Linux on servers, though occasionally I have a need for a Windows server and use that when appropriate. I have a couple Linux desktops lying around, but to be honest, I've rarely found them to offer any significant productivity advantages over Windows desktops.
Linux is already a big success in the server and mobile markets. It doesn't need to be successful on the desktop, ever. Instead of wasting effort on a market segment where it has no momentum and no significant penetration, the focus should probably be on making it a better server platform and a better mobile platform--two areas where it thrives.
Today's game consoles are basically squeezed-down PCs anyway. "Build your own" used to be a flippant response, now it's actually very doable. Get a small case, put some hardware in it, a TV-out graphics card, hook up some gamepads, install whatever interface you want (maybe Linux running MAME, Windows running Steam, basically do whatever you care to here), and bam! You've got a game console.
It's weird how people complain so much now, when there is so much cheap commodity hardware available that there's no excuse not to just buy some and build whatever suits your needs.
Just because you know it's possible for your competitors to reverse-engineer your hardware doesn't mean you should make it easy for them, or basically hand them the keys to it. Make them do the work themselves--while you continue plowing forward with a better product.
Slashdot Mirror
What company? Where? What level of coverage?
Those dollar amounts mean nothing without context.
Jeez, where the hell do you live?
I live in New Jersey. My employer pays only about 10% of my total premium. I cover myself and my kids (the number of kids is irrelevant with this insurer.) Total cost: ~$250 a month.
Not that it helps you right now, but in 2014 no insurer would be able to deny you for having a preexisting condition (thanks to the ACA.)
Why would he? That's what staffers are for.
Fun fact: most people in Congress don't actually read what they're voting on. They have whole staffs who do this for them, and let them know if it's in line with their positions or not (and if there's anything that should be added/removed.) Most Congresspeople are not policy wonks and don't spend all their time reading the actual text of bills.
I am all in favor of the Affordable Care Act. I just don't like people making specious arguments in favor of it (or against it, for that matter.)
I think more people will support it as it comes into full effect, though, like you said.
My employer pays for about 10% of it. I pay the rest. It isn't cheap by any means, but it is not a crippling cost, either.
I certainly agree with you there, although that is more a consequence of employers paying a share of your insurance, and that share dropping to $0 when you're on COBRA. $1000 a month is insanely expensive, in any case.
That's a nonsense argument. The government influencing you to do (or not do) anything could be considered "against freedom." Try formulating a more substantive argument next time.
You notice how much of the criticism of the law comes from sheer ignorance about what it actually does? Even on Slashdot.
Really? I'm not in the 1% and I have no difficulty affording my health insurance. Exaggerate much?
+5, Insightful? Sigh.
I'm as critical of income inequality as anyone (the core rhetoric of the "99%" talk), but the Affordable Care Act offers subsidies to those who can't afford insurance or have difficulty affording it. The tax penalty is specifically designed not to punish the poor, and yet you are here to portray it as though it is. Your brand of intellectual dishonesty does no one any good.
Bingo. Congress thought the "stick" approach would work better here, but then they also give plenty of "carrots" (subsidies, etc.) so if you get hit with the "stick," it is really your own damn fault.
Social engineering through the tax code is nothing new, anyway. We give people breaks for buying houses and having kids, why not health insurance?
Slashdot sure is full of antisocial psychos these days.
Because they're dead.
You hear "all too often" about that? Really? Where? Doctors are routinely letting people die in order to harvest their organs, huh? Let's see some proof of that--and not just one or two isolated cases, I want a verified pattern of patients being left to die specifically to harvest their organs.
Pony up, bro.
A CEO who says "fuck the shareholders" would quite probably be in violation of the law, given that his/her primary responsibility is to the shareholders.
I thought Maxtor and those... DeathStar, erm, DeskStar things were considered the worst. I actually never had a problem with a Seagate drive, but perhaps I've just been lucky.
Ugh, yeah, I've noticed the age of the Internet has made that worse, too. People erroneously think that medical diagnosis is simply a matter of checking off a bunch of symptoms. "Well, I have 8 out of the 10 symptoms listed for African megalocephalitic herpes! I'm going to die!"
Oh, absolutely. What Microsoft needs to do and what they can do are two different things. I agree that they can't beat Apple's supply chain and therefore they can't beat the pricing (without taking steep losses.) And given that Microsoft's loss model for the Xbox division has netted them a lousy third place, it's unlikely they're willing to do the same in the much more competitive and crowded tablet market. iPad's got the high end, Kindle Fire has promise in the low end, and a glut of generic Android tablets fill the bargain basement segment. If Microsoft thinks they can somehow squeeze right into the middle of all that, get market penetration, and make a profit--well, they'd better have both an absurdly brilliant product and an absurdly brilliant marketing strategy.
Obviously, I'm not confident Microsoft could deliver either.
You aren't bright.
Obviously, there are people who want Linux to be successful on the desktop. I'm not implying that it's being deliberately sabotaged to prevent that, either. Just that "winning" the desktop isn't necessary. Is Apple a failure, too, for not having conquered the desktop market? No, because they found their own niches: premium-priced desktops, laptops, smartphones, portable music players, and tablets. You can fault their methods but not their results.
If you think administering a Windows server is anything like using a Windows desktop, you're a hopeless idiot. Same goes for Linux. They are completely different roles.
Besides that, how the hell did Linux ever become so successful in the server market without having had any success on the desktop? Gee, that sorta destroys your whole point, doesn't it?
Shuttleworth and other Linux desktop enthusiasts are welcome to keep doing what they're doing, I just don't expect it to come to much. It's not about what I believe, it's about market trends and reality. There is no compelling reason for most users to switch to Linux on the desktop--but desktop operating systems serve an entirely different role from server OSes, so the failure of Linux on the desktop is a completely orthogonal issue from Linux's future on servers and embedded devices.
I say this as someone who uses Windows on the desktop and Linux on servers, though occasionally I have a need for a Windows server and use that when appropriate. I have a couple Linux desktops lying around, but to be honest, I've rarely found them to offer any significant productivity advantages over Windows desktops.
Keep fucking that chicken, though.
Linux is already a big success in the server and mobile markets. It doesn't need to be successful on the desktop, ever. Instead of wasting effort on a market segment where it has no momentum and no significant penetration, the focus should probably be on making it a better server platform and a better mobile platform--two areas where it thrives.
Today's game consoles are basically squeezed-down PCs anyway. "Build your own" used to be a flippant response, now it's actually very doable. Get a small case, put some hardware in it, a TV-out graphics card, hook up some gamepads, install whatever interface you want (maybe Linux running MAME, Windows running Steam, basically do whatever you care to here), and bam! You've got a game console.
It's weird how people complain so much now, when there is so much cheap commodity hardware available that there's no excuse not to just buy some and build whatever suits your needs.
Good thing Linux's long-term success has nothing to do with whether it is ever popular on the desktop, then.
Just because you know it's possible for your competitors to reverse-engineer your hardware doesn't mean you should make it easy for them, or basically hand them the keys to it. Make them do the work themselves--while you continue plowing forward with a better product.
Life must be an utterly exhausting exercise for you.