I would suspect the effort to associate might be more along the lines of identifying gang members, likely drug users/pushers , terrorists, or ghe ability to target adds.
I suspect it will be used to avoid breaches of peace before it will be used to sell things. Governments and the surveilance state has more ability to take advantage of it currently and most police opperations activly look for tech that allows them to not think as much so cheaper less inteligent people can fill positions without second guessing anoyances like constitutionality or the basic right and wrong of an action.
Unless they could prove what? That a few documents that no one else can access the originals for said something that cannot be validated unless someone specifically admitted to it?
The Guardian isn't saying RSA did something, they are saying documents released by Snowden say RSA did something. The Guardian can also think they were snowden documents and they still be NSA planted documents or it could all be a conspiracy but all we know for sure is that there is a news report about something that purports to be documents taken without permission by someone who is wanted for crimes in the US and hiding out in Russia after leaving China is claiming that a company worked with a spy agency and sold back doors to 10 million.
If it turns out to be wrong or incorrect, the Guardian issues a retraction.
Or the entire story about them doing so is subterfuge designed to possibly make foreign nations think changing encryption companies protects them when it doesn't or it was planted by a competitor standing to benefit from the same concept.
There are possibilities that this is all a game of sorts. Spying is more or less a game anyways. Sometimes you plant information in order to make something believable. Sometimes you plant information to find leaks. Sometimes you plant information in order to confuse people.
your right, it ends with acceptance- acceptance of the facts and dealing with them. You would be long past the anger stages wanting retribution unless you are somehow brainwashed into an ideology before being captive.
As for being silly, just about every freed wrongfully imprisoned person exhibits this reaction if they have been confined for any amount of time. It is not un-ordinary. While they might be angry, their reactions are not one of wanting to harm anyone.
I don't know about legitimate, but if your intended goal is to face murder charges in the US, it is very possible.
Now back to reality, do not for a minute think that every person in the US accepts or even knows about what the US government is doing or capable of doing. But the US government does treat criminal acts against it's people as criminal acts commited in the US regardless of where that person is. The U.K.does also, Russia does, many countries do this. About the biggest difference is that through treaties or recognitions of laws and equitable criminal proceedings in those other nations, they may count the punishment in those other countries as satisfying their jurisdictional elements.
"Largely rejected since then"?? Romneycare was implemented in Spring 2006 - a long time ago in the life of the iPhone but very recent political history. And Mitt got praise from Gingrich, Heritage Fund, etc. Back in 2007 / 2008, Rush Limbaugh said Romney embodied all 3 legs of the conservative stool. The National Review endorsed him in Dec 2007 - http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223076/romney-president/editors and said he could speak on healthcare with more authority than any other.
lol.. One state adopted it which is largely a democrat state with a moderate republican governor who when running for president said Obama's plan was nothing like what Massachusetts did and that there was a difference between a state doing something like that verses the federal government doing it. You would think Romney would have offered the plan during his presidential bid but he didn't as even he rejected it then. So that is representative of all republicans liking the plan now. Who would have ever thought that while trying not to laugh.
What will a GOP Prez / House / Senate do? Repeal it? Have all the new insured go back to living on a wing & a prayer? Have insurerd drop millions with pre-existing conditions? The law survived a SCOTUS challenge and by 2016, California will be forcing the nation towards single-payer.
You do realize there are at least 2 more SCOTUS challenges to be had and by most reasoning, there will be at least two more after that when the mandates fully kick in and people are subject to the taxes right? But a GOP house/senate/administration can easily thwart any single payer efforts in California by simply passing a federal law allowing insurance to be available across state lines and baring penalties under state law for participation or lack of participation in state programs.
But here is something I do wonder about. The government controlling insurance and medical access does some real damage to long held insitutitons. For instance, the ban on making abortions illegal was won in Roe v. Wade due to a right to privacy where the government didn't have an inherent right to know about the kinds of medical treatments people would have. But now, the feds can simply outlaw abortion because the ACA deeply interweaves them into it and the reasons for Roe v. Wade are now gone. But to make it even more fascinating, if the courts somehow find there is still a separation, they can ban abortions by creating a tax penalty for those performing it and receiving it that makes it cost prohibitive to anyone touching the procedures. And the courts specifically held up the ACA by changing the penalty in the mandate to a tax in order to not find it unconstitutional.
So yes, what can a GOP prez/house/senate do. Or should I say in this day and age of reinterpreting laws and the constitution in order to make anything fly, what can they not do?
Isn't that a result of the salinity keeping it from freezing?
Anyways, we have seen supercooling effects like this in the past where the pressure involved allows water to remain below it's freezing point. It's the theory behind an ice dam in the Midwest US that caused a lot of the geographical markings when it burst. I don't really see anything extraordinary here as apposed to theories in history. It's just that is is happening right now in front of us. Water does have that quality, under pressure, it raises the boiling point and can lower the point which it will actually freeze.
I see you are optimistic but facts simply do not pan out for you. First, the HMOs BS that we said was the cause of need to reform healthcare was largely the fault of the federal government in the first place. The HMO acts was created in the 1960's and signed into law in 73 I believe in order to address the costs of medicare which is constantly being changed to this day to do the same. Senator Kennedy was instrumental in both, title VII of the social security acts (medicare) and the HMO acts and leading the charge of needing to fix his failings of the past with health care reform yet again.
But to claim this was a Republican plan is just another lie that will blow back in their faces. Sure, republicans thought most of it up and passed it around, but it was rejected by large margins both when it was created and when it was passed into law. That is a bit like saying segregation is a democrat idea since they largely were behind it but rejected it since then. Of course the lie can go on and some people will not bother fact checking, but those who are impacted by the changes of the ACA will likely look deeply into the claims this time around. You don't get too many changes to burn the people and keep your job unless you have a lot of blind support. For the most part, the burning only effects small factions of people- except this time around.
Note: if by some fluke or mischance Obamacare doesn't lower costs or cover more people, it's still good for the Dems ( although bad for Obama ) so long as they keep hitting on the fact that the plan is and has always been an idea favored and promoted by Republicans.
NO, not really. You see, the people who are supposed to sign up in order to pay for the sick and so on are likely not to sign up. When the penalties increase to the point they force people to sign up, there will be resentment among the masses working against the democrats. As for claiming it is a republican law, that is easily dispelled and with the trust issues stemming from if you like your plan, it won't be hard to get the truth out. The fact of the matter is that the plan was developed as an alternative to other plans being purposed in the past and it was largely rejected by republicans then. Bill Clinton would have signed it into law had the republicans ever pushed for it to become law when they took the majority of the house and senate during his tenure. The republicans had possession of the house, senate, and presidency during G.W, Bush's term and rejected the plan. But when the democrats take it up, they magically claim it is a republican plan despite all this rejection and the continued rejection it saw during passage and implementation of law which absolutely no republicans voted for.
Its sort of the chicken and egg problem here. Is it that a particular set of occupations is preferred by particular set of people because that particular set of people like it more or is it because others find it harder to get into it.
I don't seriously think any specific changes need to be made for a specific outreach to other diverse groups of people, but if getting in is contrastingly hard for those diverse groups, perhaps looking into why might be warranted. If it comes down to the general course load for the minority students are greater due to the lack of preparation typical on high schools with high concentrations of them, then perhaps increasing the standards and availability of those high schools can correct the issues. But if it is some inherent s&p500 company will not higher someone who lists Compton CA as their address on the application, then we got other problems to address.
My guess will be that the disproportionate amounts of poverty within minority communities plays a large role in the expectations of students who often want more immediate gratification of employment even if it means less over all income earned in a life time. Or in other words, growing up in a family of 4 with a household income of $25k, getting a career expecting to make $50k or so might be more attractive then someone who grew up in a family setting making $80K. So other avenues are taken.
The only problem I had with your comment was the sentences I quoted. If that took the entirety of your comment out of context, I'm sorry. It was the principle of the content on those sentences I intended to address and I intended it to be open to others in moderating too.
That being said, I disagree with down moding your comments too. It isn't about what you said or what someone else said, down moding is not supposed to mean "I disagree" or "we better hide dissenting views to make out position stronger". It is supposed to remove the rubbish comments that are intended to disrupt debate so we can have a debate and communicate. It really does seem like there are some who do exist on this site to either push for or object to a specific ideology without care of the facts or objective opinions of others and I think that can be a dangerous thing. I also think it is pointless in calling it a debate when it happens- whether it is you, me, c.f. or anyone else being down modded.
From what I can see, even very barebones plans can be grandfathered so long as they don't change much, which is the basic definition of grandfathering. So while I still think it was not a very bright strategy to for Obama to sell the "keep your plan" so strongly, the decisions to cancel them falls squarely on the insurers.
Not really.. There are two ways an existing plan can remain, one is if it does not change at all and the other is if there is some hardship.
There is a hardship exception that allows insurance providers to keep or even create the barebones plans and the plans that do not meet the requirements under the ACA, but in order to qualify, the insurance provider has to show how changing the plan will create an economic hardship for them or a class of people defined by the actuaries. Now class is defined by an actuary group and not what we would think like with working class, poor middle and so on.
It should be noteworthy that the DHHS just recently (within the last week or so) released new guidelines on the hardship exceptions that they claim "clarified the law" that expanded the ability to use the hardship exceptions. If it was squarely on the insurance providers, we wouldn't have seen that.
The true grandfather clause meant that if no changes were made, the policy could remain until any change is made, then it would have to follow all the new rules. A subsidy given by the government would qualify as a change and so would changes in the risk pools made by the actuary (which would by default have to be made with people moving to subsidized plans and medicare/medicaid roles).
So yes, you can blame the insurance providers if you ignore the fact that they would be penalized for not updating their policies to meet the new guidelines despite the class pools changing and the penalties they would face. But all this is sort of like arguing if the room is painted white or eggshell. This stuff was being brought up before Obama made any of the statements and the statements were specifically to address those situations. You act as if it is not Obama's fault for making the claims when the claims were specifically made to counter the reality that materialized. Add to that that Obama knew before he said it once that it wasn't true but kept on saying it in order to sell the product. In fact, the delay he put for the employer coverage mandates was specifically to address the fact that "66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013," and "156 million Americansâ"more than half the populationâ"was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013."
Please stop repeating party line BS and either look into the facts or be quiet about it. There is no real reason why we are even having this conversation right now. The bottom line is that Obama knew before he ever mumbled those words that they were not true and he said them specifically to counter punch the people who claimed it was going to happen only for the American people to be deceived and then shocked when it is happening. I don't trust what most other politicians say either, but rarely do we have such obvious examples as to why we should be skeptical of them.
Why go that far, just stuff it down your pants leg and sneak it out. Then destroy it so you don't get caught, and if you do, plead guilty for a $50,000 fine and some community service. That is all you need to do Mr. Sandy Berger.
Their disposition isn't really for the FBI to determine, as they weren't on US soil until we brought them here, so they couldn't have broken any US laws.
The US imposes jurisdiction on any US entity anywhere in the world. This is why you see the US filing charges on foreign nationals who murder or rob US citizens in foreign lands. Likewise, any embassy, military base, ship or whatever in time of peace, the US imposes jurisdiction unless a previous agreement with a government has made it otherwise.
But to the point in which you used it, the context is spot on. I just wanted to point out that foreigners in foreign lands, can be subject to criminal prosecution in the US if the right set of circumstances exist.
I think the day has come for the moderators to be a little less sympathetic to the authority/FBI side of the debate, and more sympathetic to the dissenters/ACLU side of the debate.
What debate? If you are going to down mod one side in efforts to hide or censor their commentary, it really isn't a debate is it? We also know that with enough negative mods, posting replies become limited if not outright barred making it not a debate at all.
If the post itself is something other then I do not agree, mod away. If that is all it is, then refrain from moding as it only serves to censor the speech and if your views can only win by censoring others, you really need to rethink them. People will have a difference of opinion, difference of ideology, a difference in values, that's just part of life in a free world. Even what those differences irritate you.
Very few people can carry a grudge over the length of time you would be locked up in Gitmo before being released. Your emotions would be going through a process a lot like the five stages of mourning.
This is largely what stops wrongfully convicted people from retaliating outside of the legal system on those who did them wrong in the process (corrupt cop, witness IDs the wrong man, Lab tech mixes samples up and so on). By the end of your stay, you would be more likely to defend those people then to harm them in a semi sort of Stockholm syndrome way. It's why slaves in the south picked up arms to defend the masters who beat them or housed them in horrid conditions during the civil war.
It's a bit of neither if you paid attention to when and why it was being said. It isn't a matter of Obama simply not understanding what would happen, people were making the charge for much the same reasons as outlined in your linked article, that people would lose their insurance and access to their doctors and that plans were going to cost more. The claim was that no it is not, if you like your insurance plan, you can keep it, if you like your doctor, you can keep him, and the average family would see a $1200 savings in premium costs.
So this isn't really about expectations that didn't pan out. It is specifically about something being said to counter something that was actually factually correct. When people are saying the sun will come up tomorrow and a government leader says no it will not, support me, then it does come up- the reasons why it came up are unimportant when looking at the trustworthiness of that government leader.
So you are right, it is not like he promised eternal life and is now casting everyone in carbonite. It is more like he promised what people were saying was going to happen wouldn't happen and then blaming the people when it happens.
There have been informal surveys that ask if you prefer Obamacare or the Patient protection and affordable care act and they pick either one based on emotions rather than facts.
I spoke with a girl just the other day who said she didn't know much about it when I asked if you got her government mandated insurance yet. She was outraged when I told her she was facing a penalty if she didn't have insurance by the end of the year.
The bottom line is that people just don't pay enough attention. Sometimes, they hear something that sounds good and like it, sometimes they hear a person is associated with it and like it. Sometimes, you are better off trying to guess what color any random woman's underwear might be then expect people to know about this stuff.
Not a strange coincidence at all. People who want to be taken seriously in their complaints will call it the ACA or affordable care act, sometimes with the PP or patient protection in front of it. If they call it Obamacare, they are treated like a partisan loon and ignored.
The Media, they changed up the terms several times now, I suppose this time it is more because Obama started saying they will call it something else when it starts working so if it gets called something else, it must be working right? You see, if you like your doctor or insurance plans, you can keep it- period. You will have to pay a lot more for them if they are still available but you can keep them so that wasn't a lie. And yes, that was what one of the Obamacare apologists said, it isn't a lie because you can keep them if you are willing to pay more.
HE also said if you like your insurance you can keep it, if you like your doctor, you can keep him. Something about period too.
It seems to me that Obama is just like any other politicians and lieing out his ass to get whatever he wants done and it wouldn't surprise me if that statement wasn't concocted with the knowledge of trying to get rid of the Obamacare name simply to make it appear to be working better than it is.
I mean seriously, he set up the perfect scam with that line, he says when it works good, they will not call it obamacare and if he gets it called something else, it must be working good then right?
I can remember that too. I also remember driving 20 minutes to a pay phone at a closed gas station in the middle of nowhere and not knowing the number for the local cops to report an accident. Nothing was listed on the phone and the phone book had already been pilfered before I got there. Of course at this time in life, all one would have to do is call the operator and ask them to connect you to the police. They might ask what city you were in and if you didn't know, you could get the police at the billing address for the payphone owner instead of the location of the phone (yes, people can own payphone) but it was generally effective.
in my area, the idea behind 911 was pushed as an easy way to remember one number for every emergency. Once you describe the situation to them, they would connect to the proper agency and dispatch services whether it be police, fire, ambulance or any combination of them with one call. That is the only difficult thing in an emergency, the police showing up to realize you need fire and EMS also- taking the extra time to dispatch them after the fact. It could mean the difference between life and death. Of course cell phones made as much difference where you didn't have to drive another 20 minutes to find a phone.
Now that I think about it, I do remember calling in an accident last summer and in all the rush and excitement, I forgot where I specifically was at. It was in North Carolina on US74/US23 at the 105 exit where someone failed to stop for the stopped traffic in the one lane construction. I was in between exit signs and wasn't really paying attention until I saw a puff of smoke in front of me (the smoke was antifreeze spraying on a hot engine in the vehicle who rear ended the other). Luckily, others were there and calling in too- I'm not from the area and asking the 911 operator to just us my GPS on the phone just seemed to piss her off.
But as long as the people voting for government are big fans of Miley Cyrus, Honey Boo Boo, and Duck Dynasty, there's no way we're going to have a government that can do anything right at all.
I hate to break it to you but the problems with government have existed long before any of that was a thought in anyone's head.
A blue tooth ring either on your finger or a key chain or something- perhaps even in the pocket your money or wallet is in. Place an activator in a pocket and a button on the ring. When they are within a certain range, pressing the button in a certain sequence could activate the call or panic program discretely.
Perhaps it could be even less complicated and you press the button only without an activation device but in a sequence not easily replicated by normal situations. Maybe by tapping out S.O.S in Morse Code or something.
It could even be off when it is not being used as long as the phone can automatically detect it when turned on and use it as intended. This way, a battery can last 5 years or so while not being used before needing replaced or charged. Just turn it on every once in a while to ensure it still connects properly- perhaps using a separate sequence to keep it to a simulation instead of a real panic.
Really? So that's why the ACLU sued and we know have rules stating we cannot institutionalize someone unless they are a danger to themselves or others?
What exactly is the alternative to not being able to institutionalize someone and they commit a crime- do we say oh well, they are crazy and let them go? Do we just ignore them? Or do we treat them as we do any other person and send them to jail after committing a crime? And if anything other then treating them the same is true, how do you distinguish between criminals pretending to be mentally ill in order to escape punishment verses the truly mentally ill people? Ever heard of Vincent Louis Gigante?
Slashdot Mirror
Who is defending the NSA? I'm saying this could be a ruse to get you to not use the only product they may have dificulties with.
Snowden may be authentic but how do you know third party disclosures not validated by anyone involved-including snowden is?
I would suspect the effort to associate might be more along the lines of identifying gang members, likely drug users/pushers , terrorists, or ghe ability to target adds.
I suspect it will be used to avoid breaches of peace before it will be used to sell things. Governments and the surveilance state has more ability to take advantage of it currently and most police opperations activly look for tech that allows them to not think as much so cheaper less inteligent people can fill positions without second guessing anoyances like constitutionality or the basic right and wrong of an action.
Wouldn't that just make you EMO?
Unless they could prove what? That a few documents that no one else can access the originals for said something that cannot be validated unless someone specifically admitted to it?
The Guardian isn't saying RSA did something, they are saying documents released by Snowden say RSA did something. The Guardian can also think they were snowden documents and they still be NSA planted documents or it could all be a conspiracy but all we know for sure is that there is a news report about something that purports to be documents taken without permission by someone who is wanted for crimes in the US and hiding out in Russia after leaving China is claiming that a company worked with a spy agency and sold back doors to 10 million.
If it turns out to be wrong or incorrect, the Guardian issues a retraction.
Or the entire story about them doing so is subterfuge designed to possibly make foreign nations think changing encryption companies protects them when it doesn't or it was planted by a competitor standing to benefit from the same concept.
There are possibilities that this is all a game of sorts. Spying is more or less a game anyways. Sometimes you plant information in order to make something believable. Sometimes you plant information to find leaks. Sometimes you plant information in order to confuse people.
your right, it ends with acceptance- acceptance of the facts and dealing with them. You would be long past the anger stages wanting retribution unless you are somehow brainwashed into an ideology before being captive.
As for being silly, just about every freed wrongfully imprisoned person exhibits this reaction if they have been confined for any amount of time. It is not un-ordinary. While they might be angry, their reactions are not one of wanting to harm anyone.
I don't know about legitimate, but if your intended goal is to face murder charges in the US, it is very possible.
Now back to reality, do not for a minute think that every person in the US accepts or even knows about what the US government is doing or capable of doing. But the US government does treat criminal acts against it's people as criminal acts commited in the US regardless of where that person is. The U.K.does also, Russia does, many countries do this. About the biggest difference is that through treaties or recognitions of laws and equitable criminal proceedings in those other nations, they may count the punishment in those other countries as satisfying their jurisdictional elements.
lol.. One state adopted it which is largely a democrat state with a moderate republican governor who when running for president said Obama's plan was nothing like what Massachusetts did and that there was a difference between a state doing something like that verses the federal government doing it. You would think Romney would have offered the plan during his presidential bid but he didn't as even he rejected it then. So that is representative of all republicans liking the plan now. Who would have ever thought that while trying not to laugh.
You do realize there are at least 2 more SCOTUS challenges to be had and by most reasoning, there will be at least two more after that when the mandates fully kick in and people are subject to the taxes right? But a GOP house/senate/administration can easily thwart any single payer efforts in California by simply passing a federal law allowing insurance to be available across state lines and baring penalties under state law for participation or lack of participation in state programs.
But here is something I do wonder about. The government controlling insurance and medical access does some real damage to long held insitutitons. For instance, the ban on making abortions illegal was won in Roe v. Wade due to a right to privacy where the government didn't have an inherent right to know about the kinds of medical treatments people would have. But now, the feds can simply outlaw abortion because the ACA deeply interweaves them into it and the reasons for Roe v. Wade are now gone. But to make it even more fascinating, if the courts somehow find there is still a separation, they can ban abortions by creating a tax penalty for those performing it and receiving it that makes it cost prohibitive to anyone touching the procedures. And the courts specifically held up the ACA by changing the penalty in the mandate to a tax in order to not find it unconstitutional.
So yes, what can a GOP prez/house/senate do. Or should I say in this day and age of reinterpreting laws and the constitution in order to make anything fly, what can they not do?
Isn't that a result of the salinity keeping it from freezing?
Anyways, we have seen supercooling effects like this in the past where the pressure involved allows water to remain below it's freezing point. It's the theory behind an ice dam in the Midwest US that caused a lot of the geographical markings when it burst. I don't really see anything extraordinary here as apposed to theories in history. It's just that is is happening right now in front of us. Water does have that quality, under pressure, it raises the boiling point and can lower the point which it will actually freeze.
I see you are optimistic but facts simply do not pan out for you. First, the HMOs BS that we said was the cause of need to reform healthcare was largely the fault of the federal government in the first place. The HMO acts was created in the 1960's and signed into law in 73 I believe in order to address the costs of medicare which is constantly being changed to this day to do the same. Senator Kennedy was instrumental in both, title VII of the social security acts (medicare) and the HMO acts and leading the charge of needing to fix his failings of the past with health care reform yet again.
But to claim this was a Republican plan is just another lie that will blow back in their faces. Sure, republicans thought most of it up and passed it around, but it was rejected by large margins both when it was created and when it was passed into law. That is a bit like saying segregation is a democrat idea since they largely were behind it but rejected it since then. Of course the lie can go on and some people will not bother fact checking, but those who are impacted by the changes of the ACA will likely look deeply into the claims this time around. You don't get too many changes to burn the people and keep your job unless you have a lot of blind support. For the most part, the burning only effects small factions of people- except this time around.
NO, not really. You see, the people who are supposed to sign up in order to pay for the sick and so on are likely not to sign up. When the penalties increase to the point they force people to sign up, there will be resentment among the masses working against the democrats. As for claiming it is a republican law, that is easily dispelled and with the trust issues stemming from if you like your plan, it won't be hard to get the truth out. The fact of the matter is that the plan was developed as an alternative to other plans being purposed in the past and it was largely rejected by republicans then. Bill Clinton would have signed it into law had the republicans ever pushed for it to become law when they took the majority of the house and senate during his tenure. The republicans had possession of the house, senate, and presidency during G.W, Bush's term and rejected the plan. But when the democrats take it up, they magically claim it is a republican plan despite all this rejection and the continued rejection it saw during passage and implementation of law which absolutely no republicans voted for.
Its sort of the chicken and egg problem here. Is it that a particular set of occupations is preferred by particular set of people because that particular set of people like it more or is it because others find it harder to get into it.
I don't seriously think any specific changes need to be made for a specific outreach to other diverse groups of people, but if getting in is contrastingly hard for those diverse groups, perhaps looking into why might be warranted. If it comes down to the general course load for the minority students are greater due to the lack of preparation typical on high schools with high concentrations of them, then perhaps increasing the standards and availability of those high schools can correct the issues. But if it is some inherent s&p500 company will not higher someone who lists Compton CA as their address on the application, then we got other problems to address.
My guess will be that the disproportionate amounts of poverty within minority communities plays a large role in the expectations of students who often want more immediate gratification of employment even if it means less over all income earned in a life time. Or in other words, growing up in a family of 4 with a household income of $25k, getting a career expecting to make $50k or so might be more attractive then someone who grew up in a family setting making $80K. So other avenues are taken.
The only problem I had with your comment was the sentences I quoted. If that took the entirety of your comment out of context, I'm sorry. It was the principle of the content on those sentences I intended to address and I intended it to be open to others in moderating too.
That being said, I disagree with down moding your comments too. It isn't about what you said or what someone else said, down moding is not supposed to mean "I disagree" or "we better hide dissenting views to make out position stronger". It is supposed to remove the rubbish comments that are intended to disrupt debate so we can have a debate and communicate. It really does seem like there are some who do exist on this site to either push for or object to a specific ideology without care of the facts or objective opinions of others and I think that can be a dangerous thing. I also think it is pointless in calling it a debate when it happens- whether it is you, me, c.f. or anyone else being down modded.
Not really.. There are two ways an existing plan can remain, one is if it does not change at all and the other is if there is some hardship.
There is a hardship exception that allows insurance providers to keep or even create the barebones plans and the plans that do not meet the requirements under the ACA, but in order to qualify, the insurance provider has to show how changing the plan will create an economic hardship for them or a class of people defined by the actuaries. Now class is defined by an actuary group and not what we would think like with working class, poor middle and so on.
It should be noteworthy that the DHHS just recently (within the last week or so) released new guidelines on the hardship exceptions that they claim "clarified the law" that expanded the ability to use the hardship exceptions. If it was squarely on the insurance providers, we wouldn't have seen that.
The true grandfather clause meant that if no changes were made, the policy could remain until any change is made, then it would have to follow all the new rules. A subsidy given by the government would qualify as a change and so would changes in the risk pools made by the actuary (which would by default have to be made with people moving to subsidized plans and medicare/medicaid roles).
So yes, you can blame the insurance providers if you ignore the fact that they would be penalized for not updating their policies to meet the new guidelines despite the class pools changing and the penalties they would face. But all this is sort of like arguing if the room is painted white or eggshell. This stuff was being brought up before Obama made any of the statements and the statements were specifically to address those situations. You act as if it is not Obama's fault for making the claims when the claims were specifically made to counter the reality that materialized. Add to that that Obama knew before he said it once that it wasn't true but kept on saying it in order to sell the product. In fact, the delay he put for the employer coverage mandates was specifically to address the fact that "66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013," and "156 million Americansâ"more than half the populationâ"was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013."
Please stop repeating party line BS and either look into the facts or be quiet about it. There is no real reason why we are even having this conversation right now. The bottom line is that Obama knew before he ever mumbled those words that they were not true and he said them specifically to counter punch the people who claimed it was going to happen only for the American people to be deceived and then shocked when it is happening. I don't trust what most other politicians say either, but rarely do we have such obvious examples as to why we should be skeptical of them.
Why go that far, just stuff it down your pants leg and sneak it out. Then destroy it so you don't get caught, and if you do, plead guilty for a $50,000 fine and some community service. That is all you need to do Mr. Sandy Berger.
The US imposes jurisdiction on any US entity anywhere in the world. This is why you see the US filing charges on foreign nationals who murder or rob US citizens in foreign lands. Likewise, any embassy, military base, ship or whatever in time of peace, the US imposes jurisdiction unless a previous agreement with a government has made it otherwise.
But to the point in which you used it, the context is spot on. I just wanted to point out that foreigners in foreign lands, can be subject to criminal prosecution in the US if the right set of circumstances exist.
What debate? If you are going to down mod one side in efforts to hide or censor their commentary, it really isn't a debate is it? We also know that with enough negative mods, posting replies become limited if not outright barred making it not a debate at all.
If the post itself is something other then I do not agree, mod away. If that is all it is, then refrain from moding as it only serves to censor the speech and if your views can only win by censoring others, you really need to rethink them. People will have a difference of opinion, difference of ideology, a difference in values, that's just part of life in a free world. Even what those differences irritate you.
Very few people can carry a grudge over the length of time you would be locked up in Gitmo before being released. Your emotions would be going through a process a lot like the five stages of mourning.
This is largely what stops wrongfully convicted people from retaliating outside of the legal system on those who did them wrong in the process (corrupt cop, witness IDs the wrong man, Lab tech mixes samples up and so on). By the end of your stay, you would be more likely to defend those people then to harm them in a semi sort of Stockholm syndrome way. It's why slaves in the south picked up arms to defend the masters who beat them or housed them in horrid conditions during the civil war.
It's a bit of neither if you paid attention to when and why it was being said. It isn't a matter of Obama simply not understanding what would happen, people were making the charge for much the same reasons as outlined in your linked article, that people would lose their insurance and access to their doctors and that plans were going to cost more. The claim was that no it is not, if you like your insurance plan, you can keep it, if you like your doctor, you can keep him, and the average family would see a $1200 savings in premium costs.
So this isn't really about expectations that didn't pan out. It is specifically about something being said to counter something that was actually factually correct. When people are saying the sun will come up tomorrow and a government leader says no it will not, support me, then it does come up- the reasons why it came up are unimportant when looking at the trustworthiness of that government leader.
So you are right, it is not like he promised eternal life and is now casting everyone in carbonite. It is more like he promised what people were saying was going to happen wouldn't happen and then blaming the people when it happens.
There have been informal surveys that ask if you prefer Obamacare or the Patient protection and affordable care act and they pick either one based on emotions rather than facts.
I spoke with a girl just the other day who said she didn't know much about it when I asked if you got her government mandated insurance yet. She was outraged when I told her she was facing a penalty if she didn't have insurance by the end of the year.
The bottom line is that people just don't pay enough attention. Sometimes, they hear something that sounds good and like it, sometimes they hear a person is associated with it and like it. Sometimes, you are better off trying to guess what color any random woman's underwear might be then expect people to know about this stuff.
Not a strange coincidence at all. People who want to be taken seriously in their complaints will call it the ACA or affordable care act, sometimes with the PP or patient protection in front of it. If they call it Obamacare, they are treated like a partisan loon and ignored.
The Media, they changed up the terms several times now, I suppose this time it is more because Obama started saying they will call it something else when it starts working so if it gets called something else, it must be working right? You see, if you like your doctor or insurance plans, you can keep it- period. You will have to pay a lot more for them if they are still available but you can keep them so that wasn't a lie. And yes, that was what one of the Obamacare apologists said, it isn't a lie because you can keep them if you are willing to pay more.
HE also said if you like your insurance you can keep it, if you like your doctor, you can keep him. Something about period too.
It seems to me that Obama is just like any other politicians and lieing out his ass to get whatever he wants done and it wouldn't surprise me if that statement wasn't concocted with the knowledge of trying to get rid of the Obamacare name simply to make it appear to be working better than it is.
I mean seriously, he set up the perfect scam with that line, he says when it works good, they will not call it obamacare and if he gets it called something else, it must be working good then right?
I can remember that too. I also remember driving 20 minutes to a pay phone at a closed gas station in the middle of nowhere and not knowing the number for the local cops to report an accident. Nothing was listed on the phone and the phone book had already been pilfered before I got there. Of course at this time in life, all one would have to do is call the operator and ask them to connect you to the police. They might ask what city you were in and if you didn't know, you could get the police at the billing address for the payphone owner instead of the location of the phone (yes, people can own payphone) but it was generally effective.
in my area, the idea behind 911 was pushed as an easy way to remember one number for every emergency. Once you describe the situation to them, they would connect to the proper agency and dispatch services whether it be police, fire, ambulance or any combination of them with one call. That is the only difficult thing in an emergency, the police showing up to realize you need fire and EMS also- taking the extra time to dispatch them after the fact. It could mean the difference between life and death. Of course cell phones made as much difference where you didn't have to drive another 20 minutes to find a phone.
Now that I think about it, I do remember calling in an accident last summer and in all the rush and excitement, I forgot where I specifically was at. It was in North Carolina on US74/US23 at the 105 exit where someone failed to stop for the stopped traffic in the one lane construction. I was in between exit signs and wasn't really paying attention until I saw a puff of smoke in front of me (the smoke was antifreeze spraying on a hot engine in the vehicle who rear ended the other). Luckily, others were there and calling in too- I'm not from the area and asking the 911 operator to just us my GPS on the phone just seemed to piss her off.
I hate to break it to you but the problems with government have existed long before any of that was a thought in anyone's head.
A blue tooth ring either on your finger or a key chain or something- perhaps even in the pocket your money or wallet is in. Place an activator in a pocket and a button on the ring. When they are within a certain range, pressing the button in a certain sequence could activate the call or panic program discretely.
Perhaps it could be even less complicated and you press the button only without an activation device but in a sequence not easily replicated by normal situations. Maybe by tapping out S.O.S in Morse Code or something.
It could even be off when it is not being used as long as the phone can automatically detect it when turned on and use it as intended. This way, a battery can last 5 years or so while not being used before needing replaced or charged. Just turn it on every once in a while to ensure it still connects properly- perhaps using a separate sequence to keep it to a simulation instead of a real panic.
Really? So that's why the ACLU sued and we know have rules stating we cannot institutionalize someone unless they are a danger to themselves or others?
What exactly is the alternative to not being able to institutionalize someone and they commit a crime- do we say oh well, they are crazy and let them go? Do we just ignore them? Or do we treat them as we do any other person and send them to jail after committing a crime? And if anything other then treating them the same is true, how do you distinguish between criminals pretending to be mentally ill in order to escape punishment verses the truly mentally ill people? Ever heard of Vincent Louis Gigante?