Just because you have to buy private for-profit insurance doesn't mean that a for-profit hospital will set up in your town. The "solution" is to cut costs by eliminating the profit motive in insurance and carers. Just that should eliminate 30-50% of healthcare costs (10%-15% profit, and the 10%-20% of a company dedicated to increasing profit but unrelated to services, times two middlemen). Having basic insurance doesn't guarantee access to health care. That was proposed, and shot down by the Republicans who would rather the poor just crawl under a rock and die.
The current status in the US should assume that 100% of adults have herpes (passes by mouth, and is asymptomatic in most cases), HPV, and Toxoplasmosis. To assume otherwise is silly. There has not been a study into the rates of those in adults, corrected (or correlated with) demographics. It's not high on the list to narrow down the level of "common" diseases to who is more likely to have it, and how they get it. Treating it in 100% of the population would be the goal, due to the level of infection.
terrorists and other criminals faking their identities will be more easily detected.
Objection. Assuming facts not already in evidence.
They already check to see who you are when you enter or leave the country and you are required to show ID. You have no privacy now.
That assumes the border database is inaccessible to all other governments and government organizations. Again, something that hasn't been shown to be true.
Most likely, the database will be open to all law enforcement, and if so, the privacy of someone not at the border would be reduced by this system.
That's not biometrics. That's scanning a passport and making sure you like like your picture. Nothing more.
Facial recognition isn't biometrics? That the "database" is a file of 1 for the current system and a national database for the new system doesn't make a difference to the fact it is biometrics.
Hilariously, said candidate wants France to imitate the US, in pursuing oversea citizens - if US people live in a country where they didn't pay as much as they would pay in the US, you get them to pay what's missing to the US treasury. That would apply to French overseas citizens paying what they didn't pay to the French treasury.
Currently the US is the only country that taxes non-resident citizens (or at least was, last I read up on the subject). The Fair Tax, and many others are replacements would eliminate that.
Yet I'm *relieved* that Trump won and not the other option. It was that bad, Cthulhu would have been the lesser evil.
I blame the Democrats. They should have run Sanders (or Michelle Obama, if they really wanted a female). But they decided they'd rather nominate Hillary and lose the election than nominate anyone else. Hillary *caused* Trump. Hillary was a plant by Trump to get Trump elected. He's been friends with the Clintons for decades, and encouraged Hillary previously. It was all to get elected against her. She was in the race before he was. If she didn't run, he would have waited 4 more years for her to run. It was all a long-con by Trump, and Hillary was the idiot patsy. If she stepped down when the polls showed her losing, Bernie would have won.
The two most hated candidates in history ran against each other.
Nothing new. I'm not pro-union. I'm anti-evil. Like the "subprime" crisis caused by rich white bankers, and blamed on poor blacks, I call out inappropriate re-assignment of blame. That some see that as filing me in a particular party or ideology (incorrectly), that doesn't mean I'm a member of those groups.
The rate of drug use among welfare users is lower than Congress members. Despite the hate spewed by the 1%, the poor don't use drugs because they can't afford them.
Even if I do make more than that, why would I work 40 hour weeks for 48+ weeks a year for a mere few thousand dollars extra? I sure wouldn't.
But others might. Just because you are a cat doesn't mean horses don't exist (go read Animal Farm, if you don't get the reference). WWII time, income tax was 90%+. Simply lump all income together (no capital gains tax separated out at a lower rate), eliminate deductions, and add more tiers in the income tax, and we'd be able to fund UBI in the US without great changes. Cut the military by 50%+, back to a defensive force, and move to single payer medical care, and we'd end up with a net tax cut, with a huge increase in benefits.
The problem is that cutting taxes pisses off the Big Government Republicans, and cutting military pisses off Warmonger Democrats, so we get no progress.
That's not how it works. The poor won't flock to the $2000 a month places. And $5000 a month is $60,000 a year, which is well above any proposals for UBI.
Sounds like you are lying to make UBI sound bad because you don't like it.
What happens if everybody has an education and is competing on the same level for "skilled" jobs and nobody wants to do the "unskilled" jobs? What happens if we don't have anyone to man the register or pick your food from a field? Wouldn't you say those jobs are necessary?
If the job is "necessary" then the employer will pay market rates for that job. In some places, unskilled work is paid higher than skilled work. This is done for some things like construction, where people don't want the job, so to get a person willing to stand for 8 hours in the hot sun directing traffic in a construction zone gets paid about the same as someone 3-years after getting an engineering degree. If you have to have someone there, you pay them more until there is someone willing to take the job. Even if it's unskilled.
It's mainly the US that asserts "unskilled" and "necessary" jobs be paid at slave wages. Outside the US, "trades" are not seen as "unskilled" and unskilled jobs are paid higher (comparatively, even if not absolutely).
Sounds like slavery. The employer gets 100%, and the employee is valueless, less than human.
I'd say the reality is somewhere in the middle. The job has some "value", but the employers don't pay based solely on value to them, as then we'd see higher wages for things like engineering. Instead, the employer claims "market value" when it benefits them, and "value" when it benefits them. Whatever harms the employee most. If employers weren't unethical evil machines, we wouldn't have (or need) unions.
False. Those statistics are counting "millionaires" not 1%. The 1% is relatively static (among the 5%, the 1% have ups and downs as well). The numbers done were about saving wealth, not making it. Someone making $20k a year in 1980 could retire a millionaire. It isn't hard (on paper). Just hard (in practice). Most of those millionaires may not come from millionaires, but they also never make it into the 1%. It's about the ability for a determined lower middle class person being able to retire upper middle class.
Find me a union contract that wasn't signed by management. Every complaint on unions could be levied on the executives that signed the contracts. Unions were a reaction to the abuses by employers. The employers brought about every "evil" of unions themselves. Then blame the victims.
Then why do so many hit large solid and visible objects like cell towers (and windmills that are off and locked)? If they can see the wires in zoos, why can't they see them as guy wires for antennas? The whole story about windmills killing birds at such an extraordinary rate doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny.
So then they are changing the odds, but not in a way that adjusts the "elements of chance". They don't control the odds of the next card pull, and have no knowledge of the odds of that event. They alter their chance of winning, but don't adjust the "game" (as in order or number of cards) at all. Just like card counters, who are 100% legal.
That probably wouldn't work if someone generated 5MW in wind in OR and "exported" 5MW and "imported" 5MW and claimed no power they supplied was wind. The moment they try to enforce it, the company can file for a dismissal for improper jurisdiction. And probably granted.
Actually, they regularly run into things like parked cars and windowless buildings. Did you have data to back up your claim, or were you just lying and hoping nobody would contradict you? The reason they hit the windows in houses, not the house, is that they hit the house, and you don't notice, but when they hit the window, you notice.
Have you ever driven? If 80% of the drives in front pulled over, the 20% who didn't would pull into the open space and floor it. I've seen lots of people cut off or tailgate emergency services. I've pulled over, completely off the road, and stopped before an intersection, so I left it clear for the approaching fire truck. The person behind me pulled in behind me, but failed to stop completely, and hit me. He saw the truck, pulled over, and slowed, but missed the car in front, and managed to hit me.
Perhaps you drive on different roads, where drivers are polite and attentive. But that's not the roads I've driven. And yes, I've driven in Europe, though not Sweden.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because you have to buy private for-profit insurance doesn't mean that a for-profit hospital will set up in your town. The "solution" is to cut costs by eliminating the profit motive in insurance and carers. Just that should eliminate 30-50% of healthcare costs (10%-15% profit, and the 10%-20% of a company dedicated to increasing profit but unrelated to services, times two middlemen). Having basic insurance doesn't guarantee access to health care. That was proposed, and shot down by the Republicans who would rather the poor just crawl under a rock and die.
Nearly 100% of those with no access to health care have not had a hysterectomy.
The current status in the US should assume that 100% of adults have herpes (passes by mouth, and is asymptomatic in most cases), HPV, and Toxoplasmosis. To assume otherwise is silly. There has not been a study into the rates of those in adults, corrected (or correlated with) demographics. It's not high on the list to narrow down the level of "common" diseases to who is more likely to have it, and how they get it. Treating it in 100% of the population would be the goal, due to the level of infection.
terrorists and other criminals faking their identities will be more easily detected.
Objection. Assuming facts not already in evidence.
They already check to see who you are when you enter or leave the country and you are required to show ID. You have no privacy now.
That assumes the border database is inaccessible to all other governments and government organizations. Again, something that hasn't been shown to be true.
Most likely, the database will be open to all law enforcement, and if so, the privacy of someone not at the border would be reduced by this system.
That's not biometrics. That's scanning a passport and making sure you like like your picture. Nothing more.
Facial recognition isn't biometrics? That the "database" is a file of 1 for the current system and a national database for the new system doesn't make a difference to the fact it is biometrics.
Hilariously, said candidate wants France to imitate the US, in pursuing oversea citizens - if US people live in a country where they didn't pay as much as they would pay in the US, you get them to pay what's missing to the US treasury. That would apply to French overseas citizens paying what they didn't pay to the French treasury.
Currently the US is the only country that taxes non-resident citizens (or at least was, last I read up on the subject). The Fair Tax, and many others are replacements would eliminate that.
Yet I'm *relieved* that Trump won and not the other option. It was that bad, Cthulhu would have been the lesser evil.
I blame the Democrats. They should have run Sanders (or Michelle Obama, if they really wanted a female). But they decided they'd rather nominate Hillary and lose the election than nominate anyone else. Hillary *caused* Trump. Hillary was a plant by Trump to get Trump elected. He's been friends with the Clintons for decades, and encouraged Hillary previously. It was all to get elected against her. She was in the race before he was. If she didn't run, he would have waited 4 more years for her to run. It was all a long-con by Trump, and Hillary was the idiot patsy. If she stepped down when the polls showed her losing, Bernie would have won.
The two most hated candidates in history ran against each other.
Nothing new. I'm not pro-union. I'm anti-evil. Like the "subprime" crisis caused by rich white bankers, and blamed on poor blacks, I call out inappropriate re-assignment of blame. That some see that as filing me in a particular party or ideology (incorrectly), that doesn't mean I'm a member of those groups.
When Kinect voice was updated to Cortana, I had the experience he talked about. "Hey Cortana, go home" - "confirm 'turn off'"
The rate of drug use among welfare users is lower than Congress members. Despite the hate spewed by the 1%, the poor don't use drugs because they can't afford them.
Even if I do make more than that, why would I work 40 hour weeks for 48+ weeks a year for a mere few thousand dollars extra? I sure wouldn't.
But others might. Just because you are a cat doesn't mean horses don't exist (go read Animal Farm, if you don't get the reference). WWII time, income tax was 90%+. Simply lump all income together (no capital gains tax separated out at a lower rate), eliminate deductions, and add more tiers in the income tax, and we'd be able to fund UBI in the US without great changes. Cut the military by 50%+, back to a defensive force, and move to single payer medical care, and we'd end up with a net tax cut, with a huge increase in benefits.
The problem is that cutting taxes pisses off the Big Government Republicans, and cutting military pisses off Warmonger Democrats, so we get no progress.
That's not how it works. The poor won't flock to the $2000 a month places. And $5000 a month is $60,000 a year, which is well above any proposals for UBI.
Sounds like you are lying to make UBI sound bad because you don't like it.
That's how we'll get Great Again. Crash the economies of everyone else, so we are comparatively good again.
What happens if everybody has an education and is competing on the same level for "skilled" jobs and nobody wants to do the "unskilled" jobs? What happens if we don't have anyone to man the register or pick your food from a field? Wouldn't you say those jobs are necessary?
If the job is "necessary" then the employer will pay market rates for that job. In some places, unskilled work is paid higher than skilled work. This is done for some things like construction, where people don't want the job, so to get a person willing to stand for 8 hours in the hot sun directing traffic in a construction zone gets paid about the same as someone 3-years after getting an engineering degree. If you have to have someone there, you pay them more until there is someone willing to take the job. Even if it's unskilled.
It's mainly the US that asserts "unskilled" and "necessary" jobs be paid at slave wages. Outside the US, "trades" are not seen as "unskilled" and unskilled jobs are paid higher (comparatively, even if not absolutely).
Jobs are meant to fill a need of the employer.
Sounds like slavery. The employer gets 100%, and the employee is valueless, less than human.
I'd say the reality is somewhere in the middle. The job has some "value", but the employers don't pay based solely on value to them, as then we'd see higher wages for things like engineering. Instead, the employer claims "market value" when it benefits them, and "value" when it benefits them. Whatever harms the employee most. If employers weren't unethical evil machines, we wouldn't have (or need) unions.
False. Those statistics are counting "millionaires" not 1%. The 1% is relatively static (among the 5%, the 1% have ups and downs as well). The numbers done were about saving wealth, not making it. Someone making $20k a year in 1980 could retire a millionaire. It isn't hard (on paper). Just hard (in practice). Most of those millionaires may not come from millionaires, but they also never make it into the 1%. It's about the ability for a determined lower middle class person being able to retire upper middle class.
All of them? India, a system with explicit castes, has about the same wealth mobility as the US.
I'd say it's worse than having a system where the poor person with the $1B idea could act on it.
And if you complain, you are fired. And sued if you tell people why you were fired.
Find me a union contract that wasn't signed by management. Every complaint on unions could be levied on the executives that signed the contracts. Unions were a reaction to the abuses by employers. The employers brought about every "evil" of unions themselves. Then blame the victims.
Then why do so many hit large solid and visible objects like cell towers (and windmills that are off and locked)? If they can see the wires in zoos, why can't they see them as guy wires for antennas? The whole story about windmills killing birds at such an extraordinary rate doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny.
So then they are changing the odds, but not in a way that adjusts the "elements of chance". They don't control the odds of the next card pull, and have no knowledge of the odds of that event. They alter their chance of winning, but don't adjust the "game" (as in order or number of cards) at all. Just like card counters, who are 100% legal.
That probably wouldn't work if someone generated 5MW in wind in OR and "exported" 5MW and "imported" 5MW and claimed no power they supplied was wind. The moment they try to enforce it, the company can file for a dismissal for improper jurisdiction. And probably granted.
Michelle Obama has a better chance of winning than Trump's reelection.
Actually, they regularly run into things like parked cars and windowless buildings. Did you have data to back up your claim, or were you just lying and hoping nobody would contradict you? The reason they hit the windows in houses, not the house, is that they hit the house, and you don't notice, but when they hit the window, you notice.
Have you ever driven? If 80% of the drives in front pulled over, the 20% who didn't would pull into the open space and floor it. I've seen lots of people cut off or tailgate emergency services. I've pulled over, completely off the road, and stopped before an intersection, so I left it clear for the approaching fire truck. The person behind me pulled in behind me, but failed to stop completely, and hit me. He saw the truck, pulled over, and slowed, but missed the car in front, and managed to hit me.
Perhaps you drive on different roads, where drivers are polite and attentive. But that's not the roads I've driven. And yes, I've driven in Europe, though not Sweden.