I have to disagree with that. It's possible to set up a single payer system that everyone pays into as we do with insurance. The good part about that is government isn't on the take and marking up the rates due to artificial inflation. If they were, they would have to answer to the citizens, and not the stockholders. The great thing about this is you don't have to enslave anyone, because everyone will be working on the same system that's employed in the private healthcare industry, which isn't slavery now. Switching providers from Met Life to Fed Health shouldn't be that big of an ordeal.
IMO, the real problem people have is the FUD being spewed by the healthcare industry because they stand to lose a lot of profits. They might even be fighting for their very existence, but I don't think they're entitled to exist when they fleece their customers, collude with competition, and refuse to employ price control. Why try to act right and serve customers better when it's easier to scare people with talk about "death panels", "enslavement" and "communism". Hell, it might cost a bit to lobby, but it's cheaper than changing how you do business.
So, in your infinite wisdom, what is the root cause of this vigilantism? Do you think they have no just cause? Especially after knowing this company is not above paying off officials to get out of trouble and avoid scrutiny, how can you believe this is going to be handled above board and professionally?
Maybe times have changed since I was a kid, but saving money to spend it on something I actually wanted, rather than putting gas in the car or paying for a power bill.
How was the integrity of your IFF system? Did you check to ensure your cables were properly shielded? Or did your plane receive shielded cables when the system was installed? Typically, shielding the wires removes any erroneous indications from outside radiation.
Who says they're picking our good and bad guys for us? Just because Iran's not on my BFF list doesn't mean Anon is speaking for me. Maybe the people involved are there voluntarily, which means they are complicit in the selection of a target. If that were not the case, there wouldn't be a story in the first place.
But I can't say this isn't even a little bit entertaining. Maybe they'll declare a jihad on computers next?
Let me be the first to say: Huh? Seriously, make the distinction here. They're both bad. One you can fight, because you know it's coming. The other one is like the frog in the frying pan. The bad you can see coming, you can fight... which makes it less bad.
I'm having a hard time understanding how it's a bad thing. The proposal should get voter approval in the municipality to be serviced. It shouldn't be run as a government agency, but more of a service to customers. The stipulation of the program not being able to offer services below cost doesn't even seem to be a bad idea. Where is the story here?
Yeah, and some times they are your spouses or your colleagues at work or your boss or your neighbor or anybody, where do you think politicians come from? Space?
Who cares about which one is purely liberal or purely conservative? Where are the socially liberal, fiscally conservative representatives for the majority of us out there? I know the pedantic crowd might pick it apart, but it's possible to compromise between fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
I'm tired of Uncle Sam telling citizens what they can do to themselves... That includes abortion and drug use. I support military action in countries where innocents are being slaughtered. I do not condone killing people for oil. I think my tax dollars should be used for research and anything that will give our country a competitive advantage. I think my tax dollars should be used to provide emergency assistance to families in need with checks and balances in place and enforced to ensure they're still trying to be a benefit to society
I thought taxes bought civilization and profits bought lobbyists. Is my math wrong? Why would the government need to spend tax dollars to get the government to do it's bidding?
Forever might have been a strong term, but he's not far from the mark in recent times. I guess invalidating a whole argument based on a small inconsistency is rational though. One thing to think about: If the Republicans don't represent the racists, bigots, and xenophobes of the country; another group will.
Daaaaaaang... You sound so smart! It seems like the kid beat you to it though.
FTA:
"Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn't be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn't gonna happen."
So he's 12. And he does math. And he thought of that. From what I can tell, the numbers he's crunched stated that there should have been some carbon but there was none. Nice work on the quick reaction though.
Forcing people to pay to not be ripped off is a protection racket and should be considered a crime like any other kind of theft.
How does that even equate? If that's the way you see it, you're in the wrong society. You don't HAVE to pay anything. You can sit on your work and hope nobody has the same idea as you. I'm sure there are a lot of people doing just that. The only change is that if someone does the paperwork that the original inventor decided to NOT do, then the person with the effort that is in line with the established process wins. It's not hard. It's not complicated. Sure, there are a lot of hypotheticals that could be considered here but I'm not going to indulge those.
Also, you wouldn't be giving a murderous criminal organization any of your hard earned money unless you were living in the states. If that's the case, then you're in the wrong country and that's your fault.
You'll have to excuse how terse that was. Inane vitriolic hypotheticals kinda bug me.
So correct me if I'm wrong but those people aren't beholden to us because they're not elected? I thought if they took public money, they are responsible to the public. Am I missing something? Or do you have another understanding of this?
Just like Marx didn't take into account the greedy corrupting the system, it seemd you're no taking into account that capitalism suffers from bullying. They have the money so they can make the rules. In capitalism, the power is (supposed to be) in the people. It's looking like the natural end of functional capitalism doesn't meet the theoretical end.
Because having the task of muting your TV thrust on you against your will is a decent alternative. Yes, turning the TV off also helps, but it doesn't fix the problem of the system being gamed to annoy people into paying attention to something they normally wouldn't. Maybe it's an insignificant ordeal getting addressed, but it still needed addressed. In this instance, the free market doesn't really apply to third parties. When it comes to the decision of which adverts and how loud they are, your opinion doesn't matter. Only your demographic.
If they can't deliver the speeds, how hard is it to have a truthful advertising campaign? Seriously, making up a problem in another area to cover up their failings seems to be issue here. Nobody wants to go on record saying they fucked up. Unless the person is a person of integrity. Unfortunately, the corporate persona doesn't value integrity. Just money.
It's a good thing that premiums haven't gone up a similar amount every other year, or that statement would seem suspect.
You're talking to the guy that has market-ticker.org as a reference for everything he cites. I'm not going to go bashing a site though. Go give it a peek. There are lot of suspect statements to go around. Something tells me he's been getting his info from limited, biased sources.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, bro. We spent all of our cash on bombs, bribes, and bullets. :T
I have to disagree with that. It's possible to set up a single payer system that everyone pays into as we do with insurance. The good part about that is government isn't on the take and marking up the rates due to artificial inflation. If they were, they would have to answer to the citizens, and not the stockholders. The great thing about this is you don't have to enslave anyone, because everyone will be working on the same system that's employed in the private healthcare industry, which isn't slavery now. Switching providers from Met Life to Fed Health shouldn't be that big of an ordeal.
IMO, the real problem people have is the FUD being spewed by the healthcare industry because they stand to lose a lot of profits. They might even be fighting for their very existence, but I don't think they're entitled to exist when they fleece their customers, collude with competition, and refuse to employ price control. Why try to act right and serve customers better when it's easier to scare people with talk about "death panels", "enslavement" and "communism". Hell, it might cost a bit to lobby, but it's cheaper than changing how you do business.
So, in your infinite wisdom, what is the root cause of this vigilantism? Do you think they have no just cause? Especially after knowing this company is not above paying off officials to get out of trouble and avoid scrutiny, how can you believe this is going to be handled above board and professionally?
That's not memorization, that's math... Unless you haven't learned basic math, but have decided to memorize the "hard" ones.
Maybe times have changed since I was a kid, but saving money to spend it on something I actually wanted, rather than putting gas in the car or paying for a power bill.
Just like you need money to make money, you need insurance to get affordable insurance?
Roughly 25% equates to average? We shouldn't let facts get in the way of your slander though. Sure, it's a lot of people. No, it's not the average.
Wait, this is the senate... Isn't it supposed to be hard?
How was the integrity of your IFF system? Did you check to ensure your cables were properly shielded? Or did your plane receive shielded cables when the system was installed? Typically, shielding the wires removes any erroneous indications from outside radiation.
Who says they're picking our good and bad guys for us? Just because Iran's not on my BFF list doesn't mean Anon is speaking for me. Maybe the people involved are there voluntarily, which means they are complicit in the selection of a target. If that were not the case, there wouldn't be a story in the first place.
But I can't say this isn't even a little bit entertaining. Maybe they'll declare a jihad on computers next?
Let me be the first to say: Huh? Seriously, make the distinction here. They're both bad. One you can fight, because you know it's coming. The other one is like the frog in the frying pan. The bad you can see coming, you can fight... which makes it less bad.
I'm having a hard time understanding how it's a bad thing. The proposal should get voter approval in the municipality to be serviced. It shouldn't be run as a government agency, but more of a service to customers. The stipulation of the program not being able to offer services below cost doesn't even seem to be a bad idea. Where is the story here?
Yeah, and some times they are your spouses or your colleagues at work or your boss or your neighbor or anybody, where do you think politicians come from? Space?
I thought they came from Fox News?
Who cares about which one is purely liberal or purely conservative? Where are the socially liberal, fiscally conservative representatives for the majority of us out there? I know the pedantic crowd might pick it apart, but it's possible to compromise between fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
I'm tired of Uncle Sam telling citizens what they can do to themselves... That includes abortion and drug use. I support military action in countries where innocents are being slaughtered. I do not condone killing people for oil. I think my tax dollars should be used for research and anything that will give our country a competitive advantage. I think my tax dollars should be used to provide emergency assistance to families in need with checks and balances in place and enforced to ensure they're still trying to be a benefit to society
If only....
I thought taxes bought civilization and profits bought lobbyists. Is my math wrong? Why would the government need to spend tax dollars to get the government to do it's bidding?
Forever might have been a strong term, but he's not far from the mark in recent times. I guess invalidating a whole argument based on a small inconsistency is rational though. One thing to think about: If the Republicans don't represent the racists, bigots, and xenophobes of the country; another group will.
FTA:
So he's 12. And he does math. And he thought of that. From what I can tell, the numbers he's crunched stated that there should have been some carbon but there was none. Nice work on the quick reaction though.
Gee whiz, mister.... It looks like you just got trolled!
How does that even equate? If that's the way you see it, you're in the wrong society. You don't HAVE to pay anything. You can sit on your work and hope nobody has the same idea as you. I'm sure there are a lot of people doing just that. The only change is that if someone does the paperwork that the original inventor decided to NOT do, then the person with the effort that is in line with the established process wins. It's not hard. It's not complicated. Sure, there are a lot of hypotheticals that could be considered here but I'm not going to indulge those.
Also, you wouldn't be giving a murderous criminal organization any of your hard earned money unless you were living in the states. If that's the case, then you're in the wrong country and that's your fault.
You'll have to excuse how terse that was. Inane vitriolic hypotheticals kinda bug me.
The fact that you called it inferior without any type of reasoning is not a valid argument at all.
So correct me if I'm wrong but those people aren't beholden to us because they're not elected? I thought if they took public money, they are responsible to the public. Am I missing something? Or do you have another understanding of this?
Just like Marx didn't take into account the greedy corrupting the system, it seemd you're no taking into account that capitalism suffers from bullying. They have the money so they can make the rules. In capitalism, the power is (supposed to be) in the people. It's looking like the natural end of functional capitalism doesn't meet the theoretical end.
Because having the task of muting your TV thrust on you against your will is a decent alternative. Yes, turning the TV off also helps, but it doesn't fix the problem of the system being gamed to annoy people into paying attention to something they normally wouldn't. Maybe it's an insignificant ordeal getting addressed, but it still needed addressed. In this instance, the free market doesn't really apply to third parties. When it comes to the decision of which adverts and how loud they are, your opinion doesn't matter. Only your demographic.
If they can't deliver the speeds, how hard is it to have a truthful advertising campaign? Seriously, making up a problem in another area to cover up their failings seems to be issue here. Nobody wants to go on record saying they fucked up. Unless the person is a person of integrity. Unfortunately, the corporate persona doesn't value integrity. Just money.
It's a good thing that premiums haven't gone up a similar amount every other year, or that statement would seem suspect.
You're talking to the guy that has market-ticker.org as a reference for everything he cites. I'm not going to go bashing a site though. Go give it a peek. There are lot of suspect statements to go around. Something tells me he's been getting his info from limited, biased sources.