Bullshit again. McCain and Obama want a lot of the same things. The only difference is that when Progressive Republicans do it, they do it slower. When Progressive Democrats do it, they do it full speed ahead. Just look at Lyndsey Graham. He supports cap and trade just like his Democrat friends do. Cap and Trade, according to Obama will "necessarily cause electricity rates to skyrocket". No ones putting words in his mouth.
So when the choice is Progressive or Progressive light, who are you going to vote for? Most people will take the progressive since he/she is going to give them more faster.
This country (the US) hasn't been making progress. We're heading back toward a king where the State grants your rights and doesn't limit them. If you want to define progressive as those in favor of making progress, then the Founders were the most progressive individuals that ever lived. Most of the laws passed since our founding have done more to limit the common man than anyone else.
Bullshit. Progressives work to make things better for their friends. If you happen to be in a high enough place and know the right people, you are "their friend". Obama said it himself when talking about some millionaire traders "I know those guys and they worked hard for that money". Because of course, everyone else just has their money given to them.
Progressives are those work toward making you do what they want. It's a stepping stone toward a dictatorship.
Some of us simply don't have the option to upgrade IE6. As much as I would love to deploy new computers on our production floor, the boss won't let me spend the money unless it's absolutely necessary since they're only used for one task. Therefore, those computers get upgraded when it becomes absolutely necessary and not until then. Of course, they also have the Internet blocked for most of the day:)
Actually, I would argue that it happens with the same regularity to all those professions. The difference is that when someone in IT (or any other profession with a high skill level) is informed of things by someone that knows better than them, they are more likely to follow that advice or perform the work themselves. If your auto mechanic tells you you need a new air filter, you might buy it from him or simply say "no thanks" and then go to your local auto store and buy it yourself.
The difference is that you (the IT Pro) give advice all day that no one listens to, but you yourself take the advice of the doctor, lawyer, etc. The doctor, lawyer, or whoever else is giving advice all day long and most people are just ignoring it.
This bears repeating. The end user does not give a crap if you have to spend hours rebuilding their box. In their mind, that is what you're there for. They do not give a shit if you were working on something else. You can't possibly be doing anything more important than they are. This goes for everyone from the lowly data entry clerks to the high level engineers. They are doing work that must be done for the company to make money. You are simply sitting in your office browsing the web all day waiting for something to happen.
The good news is that as technology moves forward, a lot more of their job can be automated. Automate it enough, and they'll be forced to do something different. You have no idea how many people would love it if their entire workday could be automated. That is until you tell them "if we automate everything, we don't need you".
As far as Franken is concerned, if he believes that people should help each other (which I do as well), then why does he need government involvment? I certainly don't need any help from the government to give food to the nearby food bank or donate clothes to those in need. In fact, more government regulation to "help those that need it" usually ends up doing the opposite.
You do not need the government to help the poor, downtrodden, unfortunate, or anyone else down on their luck. You need to get off your ass and get involved in your community. Help your neighbor when they need help. Volunteer with local charities. Help people that need help instead of continually asking the government to do it. That just invites fraud and abuse.
If you don't like the license agreement and the fact that it can be changed at any time, STOP USING FACEBOOK or any other site with a similar agreement. The problem isn't the agreement. The problem is that people don't care. Nobody has to use Facebook or any other social networking site. If you don't like their TOS, don't use their service. It's that simple.
You may not see the helicopter or any guns on the ground, but you are LIVING in a WAR ZONE. If I'm living in those kinds of conditions, the last thing I'm doing is stopping with a van full of kids to try to help the survivors. Maybe I'm an asshole for leaving them, but since you have no idea what has just happened, for all you know, you're the next target. You are better off driving away and calling for help from a phone elsewhere.
The problem is that the van was not clearly marked as an ambulance or anything of the sort. As far as the gunship crew knew, it was just more insurgents coming to rescue their buddies and possibly to start shooting the crew on the ground. Given that the gunship had no idea what was inside the van, I'm not at all surprised that the gunner wanted further permission to engage (which he waited for).
Now I put what I can afford in a savings account in case I have a health problem, but unfortunately if I were to have a major accident right now I would go bankrupt form medical bills and if I end up with a chronic condition I will die from it as I cannot afford medicine or treatment.
You can get treatment. Most hospitals offer programs of some sort and their are charities available. Not to mention programs like Medicaid that already exist.
I'm glad your health care plan is so great - keep it. But I want coverage too, and if I don't get coverage from somewhere it will be your tax dollars paying for my emergency room visit, so what do you have to lose in this battle?
Health care. Once enough people are getting "free" health care and the government is determining who should be cared for and who shouldn't, rationing will take hold. Look at Canada, Europe, and Massachusetts. Canada and Europe already ration care and Massachusetts is looking at rationing due to rising costs. The new law is pretty close to what Massachusetts already does, so don't think costs will get lower. When you can no longer get health care because the government has rationed it, you will just complain even more. Instead of the government getting out of the way, they have actually just gotten between you and your doctor. Once fully implemented, rationing will affect everyone except the people with the most money. Thanks a lot. Enjoy your "free" care while it lasts.
If you want coverage, go out and buy it. If you're not happy with what insurance companies are doing, lobby the government to allow competition across state lines. Government control always ends badly.
There's no such thing as free. SOMEONE is paying for it.
That's correct.
For example, persons in positions of high pay will be taxed and pay more than others will by virtue of their higher salaries. That tax money will, in part, fund health care for the low-paid people who are just entering the work force. This is a good thing; this is the way stewardship of a government-imposed fiat monetization system is supposed to look.
But it's not the way a Republic is suppose to look.
There should be taxes to redistribute wealth acting in opposition to the inherent structural toward concentrating the wealth in the hands of some few.
You mean people that work hard (and don't post on Slashdot all day) should have their money taken away and given to the ones that post on Slashdot all day. Spoken like a true Communist.
That's bullshit. Either your bullshit, or your employer/insurance company's bullshit.
There is no way an insurance company has done the actuarial work necessary in just a couple days to determine how much your rate will go up, much less communicated that information to clients, which requires legal review, etc.
And do you mean your actual premiums, or the portion that you pay? Because it wouldn't surprise me if some employers used this health care bill as an excuse to jack up the employee-paid portion, so that they pay less.
Couple of days? The bill was put online last Wednesday night. It's been a week. Do you think the insurance companies don't have lawyers pouring over the bill the moment it was made available? It might be 2700 pages, but they're paid to know it and know it they will. It doesn't take that long to determine that adding 30 million people to the rolls plus requiring them to cover people who might already be sick will require an increase in their rates. And depending on the State, they have a certain ratio of customers to possible payouts they have to maintain. And that's all assuming they didn't calculate it based on the previous bill (which is fairly close to the one we have).
Whether your employer decides to jack up the portion you pay or not based on this bill is just more proof that the costs are all being passed on to the employee. It all gets passed onto you and I at some point.
What some groups are saying is that it's expensive, &c. This actually is not the case, according to the congressional budget office, but it least it's a sane criticism, if mistaken.
The CBO can only work with the numbers Congress provides. The legislation calls for implementing taxation for 4 years before any payouts begin. The first 10 years might show that it breaks even, but it's only based on 6 years of payments and it's only based on things that might happen (everyone in Congress knows that it's pretty likely those things won't happen, but they can say it will all day long). The next 10 years is where the problems really start to show up because now you're paying out and taxing at the same time. There simply isn't enough funding.
The government should regulate anything that one person's actions directly affect another person's rights. ie. FDA makes sure some company doesn't sell you shitty drugs. however, health insurance doesn't affect me if you don't have it.
If you live in a bubble this is true; if you live in society, it's not. If enough people don't have insurance
Did you ever stop to consider that maybe some people don't want insurance or don't think they need it? Or some people don't want to vaccinate their kids? No one should have to carry insurance if they don't want to, that's why it's called "freedom". If you're willing to take the risk, you shouldn't have to buy insurance. If you're having kids, they are your responsibility, not mine and not the States.
however, health insurance doesn't affect me if you don't have it.
That's not true. By denying someone coverage due to prior conditions or via recission, insurance companies skew the risk pools. When uninsured people show up needing emergency medical care and can't afford to pay it, it drives prices up for everyone who has insurance and can pay.
And now the costs will be driven up even more since sick people will be able to get insurance after the fact. That's like buying car insurance after you've had an accident and expecting the company to pay the repair bills. It wouldn't fly. If you think premiums will go down, you're dreaming. Adding 30 million people to the insurance rolls and requiring companies to insure people whether they're sick or not is going to increase costs, not lower them.
Insurance is based on risk. That's why some car insurance places charge more than others and why your insurance sometimes goes up if you get into an accident. You're suddenly a higher risk than everyone else, so you have to pay more.
If there were real competition in the health insurance industry, you'd see a lot more companies willing to cover people with shitty health, just like there are plenty of car insurance companies that cover bad drivers, but they pay a lot more than the good drivers. The health insurance industry is the only industry that can't compete across state lines, so you end up with a handful of companies in every state instead of a lot of companies competing for your business across the country.
These higher premiums lead to even more people being unable to afford health care. It's a cycle that had to be stopped.
So, to stop this cycle, we're changing from "we have higher premiums because some people use the ER for free" to "we have higher premiums because we're subsidizing the people who used to use the ER for free"?
So you think its more expensive to send people to the doctor BEFORE they have to go to the ER... ER Costs > Doctors costs . I mean either way your going to pay for it, which would rather pay for? Dont shoot the messenger here, Im not saying its right, or fair or whatever. Its the facts of the situation, and honestly ive been one of those "poor" people, i just finished paying off my medical bills from 4 and a half years ago. My credit is ruined, im underemployed beacuse of my credit rating (Had interviewers specifically state this), And Ive lived well under the poverty line, even though I made more then the poverty level. Im not saying its right for people to not pay the bill. Im saying when you have a medical bill in one hand and a rent,power,gas,water,phone,food bill in the other, you have to choose one, and honestly which would you choose? All of this would have been avoided, if I could have afforded to go to a doctor before it got serious.
All of it would have been avoided if insurance weren't tied to an employer. And you could have gone to a doctor, you just would have had to pay out of pocket. ERs are required to treat you. I don't know any doctors that would turn you down though. I'm sure you could've worked something out with a doctor.
But now you have the pleasure of being required to buy health insurance, otherwise you can go to jail. You'll be subsidized of course, by everyone here, so you'll have far less incentive to find anything more than basic coverage. At least until the system fails and the country goes bankrupt. Then you'll be right back at square one and everyone else will be screwed. The government has successfully replaced a government created problem with a new government created problem.
Finally, I note that people are already talking about "reforming the reform". Which is probably a good idea, but wouldn't it be smarter to see what, if anything, it actually accomplishes first?
No. Once it's that firmly in place, it will be impossible to remove. You have to get it changed or repealed now before all the agencies are created and funded. Otherwise, it'll be here to stay.
Real reform would've resulted in being allowed to buy insurance across state lines and giving the tax credit that businesses currently enjoy to individuals. Health insurance is the only insurance I have that I can't take with me when I switch jobs. That is flat out stupid. If I like my health insurance and my doctor, I either need to stay where I'm working or buy my insurance privately. Since my job gets a tax credit for providing it, I get insurance for "free".
The problem isn't the parties, it's the ideals of those elected. Not every Democrat voted for the recent healthcare bill. If it were such a good thing for the People, it would have received real bipartisan support. Unfortunately, it was nothing but a bunch of Progressives that voted for it. The same people supported it (about 30% of the population). These are people that believe are rights come from government and not from our Creator. So they believe they are granting us more rights. They are doing nothing of the kind.
This isn't about Republicans vs Democrats. This is about Progressives vs everyone else. Even most liberals didn't support this thing. Hell, a few of the Progressives didn't support it at first because "it doesn't go far enough". Once they were assured that this was just the beginning, they supported it. Unless it's repealed quickly, it'll never go away.
Hmm, I wonder why. Maybe because the socialized medicine is going to cut his medicare. Yeah, Medicare is a big waste of government money, but the money from one system shouldn't just be redirected to the new bigger system. If you're going to cut it, send it back to the People where it belongs.
I tried this too. It turned out that our marketing department wanted to see the ads they were buying (or at least wanted to make sure they were showing up correctly), so I had to remove some of the blocks.
Which is great for someone technical, but ends up involving a lot more calls to the help desk if you put it on a regular users machine. "Hey, I got this message about a warning of some kind?". You'll get about 5 of those in a row before deciding to turn it off and find another solution.
Any time something pops up on a users computer that they aren't use to seeing, they're going to do one of two things. They're either going to call you up about it (not a bad thing if it doesn't happen to often) or they're going to try to "fix it" themselves. That usually ends up making the problem worse. I don't know what it is, but most people are simply incapable of just reading a screen and making a decision. I guess it's the same thing as the oil light on a car. People see it, don't know exactly what it means, but since the car keeps going, they don't worry about it.
It might be Windows only, but it certainly is not limited to Internet Explorer. I use FireFox at home exclusively and ran into one of these. It threw up a screen that looks just like the Windows security center telling me I might be infected. Before seeing this, I always thought people were just being careless. After seeing it, I was pissed that a site like the NY Times would allow such an ad on their site. Suddenly, the "safe sites" aren't so safe anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit again. McCain and Obama want a lot of the same things. The only difference is that when Progressive Republicans do it, they do it slower. When Progressive Democrats do it, they do it full speed ahead. Just look at Lyndsey Graham. He supports cap and trade just like his Democrat friends do. Cap and Trade, according to Obama will "necessarily cause electricity rates to skyrocket". No ones putting words in his mouth.
So when the choice is Progressive or Progressive light, who are you going to vote for? Most people will take the progressive since he/she is going to give them more faster.
This country (the US) hasn't been making progress. We're heading back toward a king where the State grants your rights and doesn't limit them. If you want to define progressive as those in favor of making progress, then the Founders were the most progressive individuals that ever lived. Most of the laws passed since our founding have done more to limit the common man than anyone else.
Bullshit. Progressives work to make things better for their friends. If you happen to be in a high enough place and know the right people, you are "their friend". Obama said it himself when talking about some millionaire traders "I know those guys and they worked hard for that money". Because of course, everyone else just has their money given to them.
Progressives are those work toward making you do what they want. It's a stepping stone toward a dictatorship.
Some of us simply don't have the option to upgrade IE6. As much as I would love to deploy new computers on our production floor, the boss won't let me spend the money unless it's absolutely necessary since they're only used for one task. Therefore, those computers get upgraded when it becomes absolutely necessary and not until then. Of course, they also have the Internet blocked for most of the day :)
Actually, I would argue that it happens with the same regularity to all those professions. The difference is that when someone in IT (or any other profession with a high skill level) is informed of things by someone that knows better than them, they are more likely to follow that advice or perform the work themselves. If your auto mechanic tells you you need a new air filter, you might buy it from him or simply say "no thanks" and then go to your local auto store and buy it yourself.
The difference is that you (the IT Pro) give advice all day that no one listens to, but you yourself take the advice of the doctor, lawyer, etc. The doctor, lawyer, or whoever else is giving advice all day long and most people are just ignoring it.
People are stupid, it's that simple.
This bears repeating. The end user does not give a crap if you have to spend hours rebuilding their box. In their mind, that is what you're there for. They do not give a shit if you were working on something else. You can't possibly be doing anything more important than they are. This goes for everyone from the lowly data entry clerks to the high level engineers. They are doing work that must be done for the company to make money. You are simply sitting in your office browsing the web all day waiting for something to happen.
The good news is that as technology moves forward, a lot more of their job can be automated. Automate it enough, and they'll be forced to do something different. You have no idea how many people would love it if their entire workday could be automated. That is until you tell them "if we automate everything, we don't need you".
Here's Coulter's quote in context http://old.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml And here's the video where she explains it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJfGmaDrXJQ
As far as Franken is concerned, if he believes that people should help each other (which I do as well), then why does he need government involvment? I certainly don't need any help from the government to give food to the nearby food bank or donate clothes to those in need. In fact, more government regulation to "help those that need it" usually ends up doing the opposite.
You do not need the government to help the poor, downtrodden, unfortunate, or anyone else down on their luck. You need to get off your ass and get involved in your community. Help your neighbor when they need help. Volunteer with local charities. Help people that need help instead of continually asking the government to do it. That just invites fraud and abuse.
Isn't the whole point of Facebook to share user information.
Yes. Which is why all the hub bub about them sharing your information is completely lame. If you don't want to share your information, don't share it.
Or
If you don't like the license agreement and the fact that it can be changed at any time, STOP USING FACEBOOK or any other site with a similar agreement. The problem isn't the agreement. The problem is that people don't care. Nobody has to use Facebook or any other social networking site. If you don't like their TOS, don't use their service. It's that simple.
You may not see the helicopter or any guns on the ground, but you are LIVING in a WAR ZONE. If I'm living in those kinds of conditions, the last thing I'm doing is stopping with a van full of kids to try to help the survivors. Maybe I'm an asshole for leaving them, but since you have no idea what has just happened, for all you know, you're the next target. You are better off driving away and calling for help from a phone elsewhere.
The problem is that the van was not clearly marked as an ambulance or anything of the sort. As far as the gunship crew knew, it was just more insurgents coming to rescue their buddies and possibly to start shooting the crew on the ground. Given that the gunship had no idea what was inside the van, I'm not at all surprised that the gunner wanted further permission to engage (which he waited for).
Now I put what I can afford in a savings account in case I have a health problem, but unfortunately if I were to have a major accident right now I would go bankrupt form medical bills and if I end up with a chronic condition I will die from it as I cannot afford medicine or treatment.
You can get treatment. Most hospitals offer programs of some sort and their are charities available. Not to mention programs like Medicaid that already exist.
I'm glad your health care plan is so great - keep it. But I want coverage too, and if I don't get coverage from somewhere it will be your tax dollars paying for my emergency room visit, so what do you have to lose in this battle?
Health care. Once enough people are getting "free" health care and the government is determining who should be cared for and who shouldn't, rationing will take hold. Look at Canada, Europe, and Massachusetts. Canada and Europe already ration care and Massachusetts is looking at rationing due to rising costs. The new law is pretty close to what Massachusetts already does, so don't think costs will get lower. When you can no longer get health care because the government has rationed it, you will just complain even more. Instead of the government getting out of the way, they have actually just gotten between you and your doctor. Once fully implemented, rationing will affect everyone except the people with the most money. Thanks a lot. Enjoy your "free" care while it lasts.
If you want coverage, go out and buy it. If you're not happy with what insurance companies are doing, lobby the government to allow competition across state lines. Government control always ends badly.
There's no such thing as free. SOMEONE is paying for it.
That's correct.
For example, persons in positions of high pay will be taxed and pay more than others will by virtue of their higher salaries. That tax money will, in part, fund health care for the low-paid people who are just entering the work force. This is a good thing; this is the way stewardship of a government-imposed fiat monetization system is supposed to look.
But it's not the way a Republic is suppose to look.
There should be taxes to redistribute wealth acting in opposition to the inherent structural toward concentrating the wealth in the hands of some few.
You mean people that work hard (and don't post on Slashdot all day) should have their money taken away and given to the ones that post on Slashdot all day. Spoken like a true Communist.
That's bullshit. Either your bullshit, or your employer/insurance company's bullshit.
There is no way an insurance company has done the actuarial work necessary in just a couple days to determine how much your rate will go up, much less communicated that information to clients, which requires legal review, etc.
And do you mean your actual premiums, or the portion that you pay? Because it wouldn't surprise me if some employers used this health care bill as an excuse to jack up the employee-paid portion, so that they pay less.
Couple of days? The bill was put online last Wednesday night. It's been a week. Do you think the insurance companies don't have lawyers pouring over the bill the moment it was made available? It might be 2700 pages, but they're paid to know it and know it they will. It doesn't take that long to determine that adding 30 million people to the rolls plus requiring them to cover people who might already be sick will require an increase in their rates. And depending on the State, they have a certain ratio of customers to possible payouts they have to maintain. And that's all assuming they didn't calculate it based on the previous bill (which is fairly close to the one we have).
Whether your employer decides to jack up the portion you pay or not based on this bill is just more proof that the costs are all being passed on to the employee. It all gets passed onto you and I at some point.
Thus, your "no" was incorrect - certain groups *are* screaming that this new health care plan is 'oppression' and taking away from all of our rights.
In a hilarious twist, most of the people who are saying that it's oppression and taking away our rights were also fully supportive of the Patriot Act.
http://haacked.com/images/TerroristsHateFreedom.gif
So you mean Democrats and Republicans. I'm pretty sure the Patriot Act passed with overwhelming support of both parties.
What some groups are saying is that it's expensive, &c. This actually is not the case, according to the congressional budget office, but it least it's a sane criticism, if mistaken.
The CBO can only work with the numbers Congress provides. The legislation calls for implementing taxation for 4 years before any payouts begin. The first 10 years might show that it breaks even, but it's only based on 6 years of payments and it's only based on things that might happen (everyone in Congress knows that it's pretty likely those things won't happen, but they can say it will all day long). The next 10 years is where the problems really start to show up because now you're paying out and taxing at the same time. There simply isn't enough funding.
If it remains law, the country will go bankrupt.
The government should regulate anything that one person's actions directly affect another person's rights. ie. FDA makes sure some company doesn't sell you shitty drugs. however, health insurance doesn't affect me if you don't have it.
If you live in a bubble this is true; if you live in society, it's not. If enough people don't have insurance
Did you ever stop to consider that maybe some people don't want insurance or don't think they need it? Or some people don't want to vaccinate their kids? No one should have to carry insurance if they don't want to, that's why it's called "freedom". If you're willing to take the risk, you shouldn't have to buy insurance. If you're having kids, they are your responsibility, not mine and not the States.
That's not true. By denying someone coverage due to prior conditions or via recission, insurance companies skew the risk pools. When uninsured people show up needing emergency medical care and can't afford to pay it, it drives prices up for everyone who has insurance and can pay.
And now the costs will be driven up even more since sick people will be able to get insurance after the fact. That's like buying car insurance after you've had an accident and expecting the company to pay the repair bills. It wouldn't fly. If you think premiums will go down, you're dreaming. Adding 30 million people to the insurance rolls and requiring companies to insure people whether they're sick or not is going to increase costs, not lower them.
Insurance is based on risk. That's why some car insurance places charge more than others and why your insurance sometimes goes up if you get into an accident. You're suddenly a higher risk than everyone else, so you have to pay more.
If there were real competition in the health insurance industry, you'd see a lot more companies willing to cover people with shitty health, just like there are plenty of car insurance companies that cover bad drivers, but they pay a lot more than the good drivers. The health insurance industry is the only industry that can't compete across state lines, so you end up with a handful of companies in every state instead of a lot of companies competing for your business across the country.
So, to stop this cycle, we're changing from "we have higher premiums because some people use the ER for free" to "we have higher premiums because we're subsidizing the people who used to use the ER for free"?
So you think its more expensive to send people to the doctor BEFORE they have to go to the ER... ER Costs > Doctors costs . I mean either way your going to pay for it, which would rather pay for? Dont shoot the messenger here, Im not saying its right, or fair or whatever. Its the facts of the situation, and honestly ive been one of those "poor" people, i just finished paying off my medical bills from 4 and a half years ago. My credit is ruined, im underemployed beacuse of my credit rating (Had interviewers specifically state this), And Ive lived well under the poverty line, even though I made more then the poverty level. Im not saying its right for people to not pay the bill. Im saying when you have a medical bill in one hand and a rent,power,gas,water,phone,food bill in the other, you have to choose one, and honestly which would you choose? All of this would have been avoided, if I could have afforded to go to a doctor before it got serious.
All of it would have been avoided if insurance weren't tied to an employer. And you could have gone to a doctor, you just would have had to pay out of pocket. ERs are required to treat you. I don't know any doctors that would turn you down though. I'm sure you could've worked something out with a doctor.
But now you have the pleasure of being required to buy health insurance, otherwise you can go to jail. You'll be subsidized of course, by everyone here, so you'll have far less incentive to find anything more than basic coverage. At least until the system fails and the country goes bankrupt. Then you'll be right back at square one and everyone else will be screwed. The government has successfully replaced a government created problem with a new government created problem.
Finally, I note that people are already talking about "reforming the reform". Which is probably a good idea, but wouldn't it be smarter to see what, if anything, it actually accomplishes first?
No. Once it's that firmly in place, it will be impossible to remove. You have to get it changed or repealed now before all the agencies are created and funded. Otherwise, it'll be here to stay.
Real reform would've resulted in being allowed to buy insurance across state lines and giving the tax credit that businesses currently enjoy to individuals. Health insurance is the only insurance I have that I can't take with me when I switch jobs. That is flat out stupid. If I like my health insurance and my doctor, I either need to stay where I'm working or buy my insurance privately. Since my job gets a tax credit for providing it, I get insurance for "free".
The problem isn't the parties, it's the ideals of those elected. Not every Democrat voted for the recent healthcare bill. If it were such a good thing for the People, it would have received real bipartisan support. Unfortunately, it was nothing but a bunch of Progressives that voted for it. The same people supported it (about 30% of the population). These are people that believe are rights come from government and not from our Creator. So they believe they are granting us more rights. They are doing nothing of the kind.
This isn't about Republicans vs Democrats. This is about Progressives vs everyone else. Even most liberals didn't support this thing. Hell, a few of the Progressives didn't support it at first because "it doesn't go far enough". Once they were assured that this was just the beginning, they supported it. Unless it's repealed quickly, it'll never go away.
Hmm, I wonder why. Maybe because the socialized medicine is going to cut his medicare. Yeah, Medicare is a big waste of government money, but the money from one system shouldn't just be redirected to the new bigger system. If you're going to cut it, send it back to the People where it belongs.
I tried this too. It turned out that our marketing department wanted to see the ads they were buying (or at least wanted to make sure they were showing up correctly), so I had to remove some of the blocks.
Which is great for someone technical, but ends up involving a lot more calls to the help desk if you put it on a regular users machine. "Hey, I got this message about a warning of some kind?". You'll get about 5 of those in a row before deciding to turn it off and find another solution.
Any time something pops up on a users computer that they aren't use to seeing, they're going to do one of two things. They're either going to call you up about it (not a bad thing if it doesn't happen to often) or they're going to try to "fix it" themselves. That usually ends up making the problem worse. I don't know what it is, but most people are simply incapable of just reading a screen and making a decision. I guess it's the same thing as the oil light on a car. People see it, don't know exactly what it means, but since the car keeps going, they don't worry about it.
It might be Windows only, but it certainly is not limited to Internet Explorer. I use FireFox at home exclusively and ran into one of these. It threw up a screen that looks just like the Windows security center telling me I might be infected. Before seeing this, I always thought people were just being careless. After seeing it, I was pissed that a site like the NY Times would allow such an ad on their site. Suddenly, the "safe sites" aren't so safe anymore.
I think this is the most awesome post I've ever read :)