So you're saying that you are paying $286 more each month for worse coverage, eh? Sounds like you're letting the insurance company pull the wool over your eyes.
This isn’t a political discussion over the website or the law, nor is this isn’t a theoretical debate of "should there be a law passed to do X?" but instead a discussion over "A law was passed to do X, which also promises Y & Z... since it’s passages, X has not worked, Y & Z have turned out to be false, and we’ve also seen A through Q of negative side effects. Is this a bad or unworkable law?"
I wish you could read this again in two years time when the political winds change.
You might think you won this debate. I think you're barking mad. Wouldn't care except you seem to think that you should be able to smoke in people's faces. Douche. Bag.
As we have seen through history the only real fascists have always been liberal
This is just partisan nonsense. If you actually, you know, read about fascism, you'll learn that it doesn't fit into the current left/right political divide.
People generally think of fascism as far-right because:
The emphasis on militarism
The emphasis on nationalism. (Do you here that America was exceptional?)
These are all defining qualities of facism that you see on the political right *today*
But facism is also leftist in that:
It broadens the mandate for government intervention in the economy
It is anti-materialist. (I suppose people in facists states seek spiritual sustenance.)
Furthermore, both the Dems and the GOP (in practice) have an overlapping facist trait: the belief in the states role in monitoring its citizens. This is a true 3rd rail in US politics, since as many Rs/Ds are for it as against it.
Fascism has traits not seen in either the Dems or the GOP, such as endorsing terror to gain political power, and the notion that the entire population should be permanently and emotionally engaged in the political process.
Stop reading just right-wing books, and broaden your horizon a little. Just because you read it doesnt mean you have to believe it. And just because something is written down doesn't make it true. Real scholarship starts when you seek out differing views, and try to understand them.
Do you know that your own source demolishes your claim. You said that that Schumer is "one of the most hardcore authoritarians in the Senate"; however, when you check all the Ds and Rs, Schumer is rated less authoritarian than EVERY R senator except Olympia Snowe, who is a moderate who already left the senate.
One of the grand ironies of Libertarianism, is that these days the right is increasingly dominated by authoritarianism. (Take the above website to see the hugely robust difference between R and D senators. Bear in mind that R senators tend to be more moderate than their house colleagues.)
I'm sure you'll agree that not everything is relative. I suspect you would only extend your positivism to the study of guns and society if such a study have you the answers you wanted. Criminologists and sociologists who actually study these things, for realzys, well, you'll only listen to what they say if they tell you want you want to hear.
And people die from violence at 10x the rate in the USA to the OECD average.
But that's not your business, and you know everything anyway. And did you know that the USA is exceptional? Did you know?
Other countries successfully keep the murder rate about 1/10th of that of the USA. Those countries have regulations on guns. I'm sure it is just a big co-incidence, and it is not the case the America is *exceptionally* stupid about guns.
Implying that she should not merely accept the opinion of "domain-experts" but that she would form the correct opinion if only she would learn about climate science.
That is exactly what I'm implying. Same goes for people who think the moon landing is a hoax, or that smoking doesn't cause cancer, or that the earth is
It's not defeatist to point out that something that cannot happen, will not.
It would be, but that's not the claim being made.
There are volumous peer-reviewed references for Dunning-Kruger, and denialist cherry-picking, but I don't need to show you how to use google-scholar. You have to be interested in learning something besides.
It's not defeatist to point out that something that cannot happen, will not.
But things are happening now. We're not talking about future possibilities here.
I suspect that you don't *want* to believe me, which is fine. I hope you remember this little conversation in a decades time, and it causes you to ponder the relationship be ideology and interpretation in your life.
Don't be so defeatist. The cost of addressing climate change is close to zero. That is the consensus in the economics community. And it is already happening. Too slowly, but it *is* happening. The main problem is the ideological agenda of certain people... who often claim that AGW isn't happening, and even if it is, there's nothing to be done about it, because the world would end. These people are _alarmists_, because the world isn't ending, change _is_ happening.
Simply making wild claims about trying to get to the moon by flapping your arms does nothing but muddy the waters. If you're interested in learning what can and is being done, then I recommend becoming an engineer, and learning the art of:
It's not that you disagree with people, but that you are incapable of processing information. like the above video. I'm sure it will make no sense to you, but typical people will laugh and shake their head.
An ideologue as the ability to look at a black wall and call it white. That is you.
If the warming projections decrease, then that is a very serious problem with their science.
If the warming projections increase, then that is a very serious problem with their science.
If the warming projections do not change, then that is a very serious problem with their science.
That's how it works for you Jane Q, whether you admit it or not. The fundamental principle is that AGW is wrong, you are right, and your mind finds the "logic" to fit.
There are people who think the earth is less than 10000 years old. I work with one of them. He has an explanation for everything, but he doesn't understand what he's talking about. Who am I to point out the finer details of radiometric dating, when he will not listen, because if he's not right about the young earth thing, then his web of belief will fall to bits.
My question to you is this: are you capable of learning something about climate science?
Just as they get to the point where they can admit there's been no warming for 17 years and started coming up with excuses, here comes another "estimate".
If the issue was actually insurance like we issue for cars, then the costs would be trivial. There are really good reasons why this stuff is so expensive.
I think I'll trust an actuary to calculate the actual cost. Put in a reasonable mark-up, and you have: insurance. If the market is, well, efficient, then the mark-up will be reasonable. So let's apply those good-old liberal ideas of free markets, and let the magic happen.
What happened in 2008? Obama was elected, adopted the GOP healthcare plan, and was promptly labelled a tyrant by an apocalyptic cult. Just the opinion of a 20+ year GOP insider who knows a hell of a lot more about what happens on the hill than you do.
Now we know the president either lied outright about what would happen to existing policies
You _can_ keep your policy if you like it, so long as you've had the policy since before the ACA was passed. The fact that insurance companies are changing the policies and then trying to up-sell clients onto more expensive planes: who would have thunk it, that businesses would act this way. I agree that Obama shouldn't have used the language he did, because it is too easy to pick apart. But it is hardly the lie you WANT it to be.
Do you want Republicans that spend like liberal Democrats,
If you go by history, democrats know how to balance the budget and bring deficits down. Conservatives have their own "economics" that says that tax cuts are free, and then are disconnected from their largess anyway, so the budget gets fscked up.
The problem with the tea party isn't that they want small government, but that they want to cut the parts of the government they don't want, which don't cost much anyway. The three biggest chunks of government are: military, social security, and medicare. Most of the tea-party supports the military largess, and they are on social security and medicare. So reform is a non-starter.
So the real reason people hate the tea party is that they think black-is-white, are will destroy the country to prove it.
So, the SEC will fine me for not being invested in a minimum government approved set of funds,
OMG, you have to pay a fine for not being insured!!! I guess that fine will go towards the actuarial cost you are incurring to society for just existing, and expecting not to die on the side of the street if you fall over an break your leg.
So which is it? Should the government scrap you off the side of the road in case misfortune visits you. If so, should someone else pay, or should you? If you can't afford to pay, shouldn't you be forced to insurance yourself.
What's that zen mantra of conservationism again? "Personal responsibility". Only an ideologue can look at a black wall and say it is white.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying that you are paying $286 more each month for worse coverage, eh? Sounds like you're letting the insurance company pull the wool over your eyes.
This isn’t a political discussion over the website or the law, nor is this isn’t a theoretical debate of "should there be a law passed to do X?" but instead a discussion over "A law was passed to do X, which also promises Y & Z... since it’s passages, X has not worked, Y & Z have turned out to be false, and we’ve also seen A through Q of negative side effects. Is this a bad or unworkable law?"
I wish you could read this again in two years time when the political winds change.
You might think you won this debate. I think you're barking mad. Wouldn't care except you seem to think that you should be able to smoke in people's faces. Douche. Bag.
is "being inconsiderate" something that should rise to the level of a crime?
When it kills people? Yes.
Your chances of dieing from my "lifestyle choices" are so remote as to be effectively zero.
It is because of delusions like this that we have laws. Go move to Somalia if you want to smoke in people's faces.
As we have seen through history the only real fascists have always been liberal
This is just partisan nonsense. If you actually, you know, read about fascism, you'll learn that it doesn't fit into the current left/right political divide.
People generally think of fascism as far-right because:
These are all defining qualities of facism that you see on the political right *today*
But facism is also leftist in that:
Furthermore, both the Dems and the GOP (in practice) have an overlapping facist trait: the belief in the states role in monitoring its citizens. This is a true 3rd rail in US politics, since as many Rs/Ds are for it as against it.
Fascism has traits not seen in either the Dems or the GOP, such as endorsing terror to gain political power, and the notion that the entire population should be permanently and emotionally engaged in the political process.
Stop reading just right-wing books, and broaden your horizon a little. Just because you read it doesnt mean you have to believe it. And just because something is written down doesn't make it true. Real scholarship starts when you seek out differing views, and try to understand them.
Do you know that your own source demolishes your claim. You said that that Schumer is "one of the most hardcore authoritarians in the Senate"; however, when you check all the Ds and Rs, Schumer is rated less authoritarian than EVERY R senator except Olympia Snowe, who is a moderate who already left the senate.
One of the grand ironies of Libertarianism, is that these days the right is increasingly dominated by authoritarianism. (Take the above website to see the hugely robust difference between R and D senators. Bear in mind that R senators tend to be more moderate than their house colleagues.)
I'm Libertarian myself, but am not a sucker for the right-wing entertainment complex. As such, the GOP has little to offer me, since it has turned into an apocalyptic cult. Fortunately, the wing-nuts in the left (and they are just as barking mad) do not control their political party.
A conservative post-modernist I see.
I'm sure you'll agree that not everything is relative. I suspect you would only extend your positivism to the study of guns and society if such a study have you the answers you wanted. Criminologists and sociologists who actually study these things, for realzys, well, you'll only listen to what they say if they tell you want you want to hear.
And people die from violence at 10x the rate in the USA to the OECD average.
But that's not your business, and you know everything anyway. And did you know that the USA is exceptional? Did you know?
I'm standing on the street corner on my college campus, during classes, and there is nobody within a block of me in any direction
Smokers are rarely that considerate. Just keep keeping that smoke to yourself; I don't want to die from your lifestyle choices.
Other countries successfully keep the murder rate about 1/10th of that of the USA. Those countries have regulations on guns. I'm sure it is just a big co-incidence, and it is not the case the America is *exceptionally* stupid about guns.
If the cost is close to zero then you won't need to enact any taxes, carbon trading, or restrictions.
A tax can be revenue neutral.
While one part of the economy shrinks, others grow.
This is exactly what is happening in places that have implemented a carbon tax.
Not theory. Real life, to pick on example.
The real alarmists are the ones who say nothing can be done, because it would destroy the economy. It simply isn't true.
Implying that she should not merely accept the opinion of "domain-experts" but that she would form the correct opinion if only she would learn about climate science.
That is exactly what I'm implying. Same goes for people who think the moon landing is a hoax, or that smoking doesn't cause cancer, or that the earth is
It's not defeatist to point out that something that cannot happen, will not.
It would be, but that's not the claim being made.
There are volumous peer-reviewed references for Dunning-Kruger, and denialist cherry-picking, but I don't need to show you how to use google-scholar. You have to be interested in learning something besides.
It's not defeatist to point out that something that cannot happen, will not.
But things are happening now. We're not talking about future possibilities here.
I suspect that you don't *want* to believe me, which is fine. I hope you remember this little conversation in a decades time, and it causes you to ponder the relationship be ideology and interpretation in your life.
Don't be so defeatist. The cost of addressing climate change is close to zero. That is the consensus in the economics community. And it is already happening. Too slowly, but it *is* happening. The main problem is the ideological agenda of certain people... who often claim that AGW isn't happening, and even if it is, there's nothing to be done about it, because the world would end. These people are _alarmists_, because the world isn't ending, change _is_ happening.
Simply making wild claims about trying to get to the moon by flapping your arms does nothing but muddy the waters. If you're interested in learning what can and is being done, then I recommend becoming an engineer, and learning the art of:
Solving problems.
There has been warming.
This video explains the source of the confusion.
Jane, the Dunning Kruger effect is referring to you. That is you.
What this video to learn about how people like you think about whether it is warming or not.
If. You. Dare.
It's not that you disagree with people, but that you are incapable of processing information. like the above video. I'm sure it will make no sense to you, but typical people will laugh and shake their head.
An ideologue as the ability to look at a black wall and call it white. That is you.
If the warming projections decrease, then that is a very serious problem with their science.
If the warming projections increase, then that is a very serious problem with their science.
If the warming projections do not change, then that is a very serious problem with their science.
That's how it works for you Jane Q, whether you admit it or not. The fundamental principle is that AGW is wrong, you are right, and your mind finds the "logic" to fit.
There are people who think the earth is less than 10000 years old. I work with one of them. He has an explanation for everything, but he doesn't understand what he's talking about. Who am I to point out the finer details of radiometric dating, when he will not listen, because if he's not right about the young earth thing, then his web of belief will fall to bits.
My question to you is this: are you capable of learning something about climate science?
Just as they get to the point where they can admit there's been no warming for 17 years and started coming up with excuses, here comes another "estimate".
Haha, I don't think any scientists made that claim. Just a bunch of cranks who think measuring data from 1998 isn't cherry picking.
Double down on stupid.
Psychologists have a term for that.
The Government is outgunned by 16:1
Some Americans don't believe in democracy.
As for this up-sell notion... the policies that got dropped were dropped due to them not offering all the stuff required by the ACA to be offered.
The law states that policies are grandfathered in if there were agreed to before the ACA was passed.
The insurance companies are just taking advantage of people, as is their God given right in a capitalist economy.
And are you pretending the ACA did anything to actually reduce costs are help resolve the problem you're talking about?
Changing the subject is a sign of cognitive dissonance in action.
If the issue was actually insurance like we issue for cars, then the costs would be trivial. There are really good reasons why this stuff is so expensive.
I think I'll trust an actuary to calculate the actual cost. Put in a reasonable mark-up, and you have: insurance. If the market is, well, efficient, then the mark-up will be reasonable. So let's apply those good-old liberal ideas of free markets, and let the magic happen.
Otherwise, the bill should be in the mail.
And if you can't pay, and declare bankruptcy? Who pays then? You pretending this isn't a problem?
There were issues that could have been addressed by our government that could have actually helped.
Right, like an almost-single-payer system, like what works in most of the OECD. Instead, in an attempt to compromise, we get a regulated insurance market and a mandate, just like leading conservatives supported up until 2008.
What happened in 2008? Obama was elected, adopted the GOP healthcare plan, and was promptly labelled a tyrant by an apocalyptic cult. Just the opinion of a 20+ year GOP insider who knows a hell of a lot more about what happens on the hill than you do.
Now we know the president either lied outright about what would happen to existing policies
You _can_ keep your policy if you like it, so long as you've had the policy since before the ACA was passed. The fact that insurance companies are changing the policies and then trying to up-sell clients onto more expensive planes: who would have thunk it, that businesses would act this way. I agree that Obama shouldn't have used the language he did, because it is too easy to pick apart. But it is hardly the lie you WANT it to be.
Do you want Republicans that spend like liberal Democrats,
If you go by history, democrats know how to balance the budget and bring deficits down. Conservatives have their own "economics" that says that tax cuts are free, and then are disconnected from their largess anyway, so the budget gets fscked up.
The problem with the tea party isn't that they want small government, but that they want to cut the parts of the government they don't want, which don't cost much anyway. The three biggest chunks of government are: military, social security, and medicare. Most of the tea-party supports the military largess, and they are on social security and medicare. So reform is a non-starter.
So the real reason people hate the tea party is that they think black-is-white, are will destroy the country to prove it.
Haha, anecdotal bullpucky. Probably made up too, you AC.
So, the SEC will fine me for not being invested in a minimum government approved set of funds,
OMG, you have to pay a fine for not being insured!!! I guess that fine will go towards the actuarial cost you are incurring to society for just existing, and expecting not to die on the side of the street if you fall over an break your leg.
So which is it? Should the government scrap you off the side of the road in case misfortune visits you. If so, should someone else pay, or should you? If you can't afford to pay, shouldn't you be forced to insurance yourself.
What's that zen mantra of conservationism again? "Personal responsibility". Only an ideologue can look at a black wall and say it is white.
If you go by there actions, the modern GOP believes in three things:
(1) Tax cuts for the rich
(2) War, war, and more war
(3) Fundamentalist religion
The rest is just window-dressing that they don't actually believe, but it comes out of their mouths in the hope that you'll vote for them.