What if you forget, or need to travel at short notice?
Then one would hope there's a provision for dealing with this. TFA doesn't say but I would hope there would be a mechanism in place to deal with situations like these. Say a family member dies and you don't have 72 hours to make it to the states for the funeral?
If there isn't a mechanism in place for dealing with those types of situations then people need to complain until one is put in place.
Our DNA database contains thousands of people who have never been criminally convicted
Then vote the fucking assholes in the Surveillance^WLabour Party out of office. In my home state the police have to destroy your fingerprints/DNA if you are arrested for a crime and later cleared (via dismissal or acquittal) of having committed that crime. I'm growing weary of hearing Britons whine about your surveillance soceity while you keep electing the same assholes who are busy setting it up. Contrast this to the outage in the US over the Real-ID scheme. We've actually had quite a few states come out and say they won't take part in it. Where's that spirit in the mother country?
I find it ironic that your unelected upper house is the voice of sanity in the UK. Perhaps you made a mistake when you stripped them of all their power?
It's widely required at other places of employment, as well.
And for many types of licenses -- liquor licenses, insurance agent/broker licenses, teacher licenses, CPA license, medical license, pistol permits, etc, etc, etc. People rarely complain about any of those but all of a sudden if the government wants to verify the identity of people crossing the border it's a burden and a sign of the impending police state?
After America started running headlong towards a police-state, it just wouldn't make sense to go there.
In the same way that an American Jew wouldn't have gone to Germany in 1938.
Yes, because America is confiscating the property of a minority group while condoning violence against said group and laying long term plans for the extermination of that group. Your comparison is totally legitimate and not trolling at all. Mod parent up!
It's a country that can arrest and detain without warrant, without charges, without representation and without trial.
Yeah, if your caught on a battlefield while engaged in hostilities against US forces. Do you have a single citation for that happening to somebody at the border or are you just blowing smoke?
And it believes in torture
Apparently you haven't been watching the news lately?
And the death penalty.
So I take it you won't be visiting Japan either then?
So I can get mugged in Times Square?
New York City is one of the safer cities in the United States and probably in the World. Nice way to stereotype though.
Visit the Creationist museum at the Grand Canyon?
How about the Museum of National History in NYC? How about just going to see the Grand Canyon? You gonna tell me the US is the only country in the World with religious nutjobs?
Now you might be a member of the crowd that goes "If you're innocent then you've got nothing to hide" but I'm more of a guy in the "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" crowd.
I'm not a member of the former crowd. I'm actually a member of the latter crowd. Dive into my posting history if you care to do so.
I also recognize that every government on this planet exercises sovereignty over their borders and that said governments have a legitimate interest in preventing known bad actors from entering their country. It has nothing to do with "if you are innocent you have nothing to hide". Given the ease with which one can obtain falsified identification documents are you really that surprised that they've expanded the entry/exit process into biometrics?
Canada will deny you entry if you've been convicted of drug possession or DWI -- even if said conviction was a misdemeanor/civil affair if your home country. Why don't I see anybody complaining about that?
Afaik, no state on this planet has my fingerprints yet, and I do not plan on handing them over any time soon
I had to hand them over just to get a job (New York State requires them if you work for an OMH licensed facility) so I'm already "screwed" in this sense. I don't happen to agree with most of these policies but I do understand the motivation behind them. To each their own I suppose -- but I wouldn't be deterred from coming to the EU if I had to cough up my prints and/or a picture.
In any case, the outrage over this article is completely misplaced. RTFA -- they aren't requesting any information beyond that which is already requested on the paper forms you fill out in-flight. It seems to me that filling them out online 72 hours in advance isn't particularly burdensome.
Derwood Staeben, U.S. consul general in London, said nearly all applications would be approved in less than 10 seconds. He said travelers would not be required to give any more information than is already requested on the paper immigration forms, which are being replaced.
This information was already collected. Are we really supposed to believe that collecting it in advance instead of in-flight is really that burdensome? If this is all it takes to deter you from coming to the US then I'm guessing you weren't that serious about coming in the first place.
As a potential Johnny foreigner, I will spend my hard won Euros somewhere else.
If you are going to be deterred from coming to the US over the requirement that you register online and cough up some fingerprints I suppose you really didn't care that much about coming in the first place anyway, did you?
I think this program is security theater more than anything else but our entry/exit requirements still aren't that onerous compared to other countries I can think of. In the end you'll have to weigh them against your reason for coming here. I'm in love with Italy and Italian culture -- I'd cough up my prints if that was the requirement to go there. New York State already has them anyway.....
Actually, you do. The DMV, like any other government agency, is ultimately accountable to voters.
Too bad I live in a state with about two million more Democrats than Republicans and voters that line up at the ballot box and sheepishly vote for the candidate with the right consonant next to their name. Real change only happens in battleground states. In the other states it's the Democratic or Republican party machine that calls all the shots.
effectively putting the nail in said Republican's Senate campaign, leading to the election of his Democratic opponent
Like a Republican was gonna win in Illinois anyway..... if the GOP thought they had a shot they would have found a better ringer than this dumbass. Of course with recent events the GOP might actually have a shot in that state. For better or worse though that didn't happen in time to stop Obama....
While I do share your concern regarding taxation of vices (I enjoy smoking occasionally and drinking often) you have to realize first off that this is already happening: businesses are realizing they can cut costs by 'encouraging' their employees to be healthy. This encouragement isn't really though - it's more of a discouragement of bad habits (ie, you pay a health 'fine' if you smoke). If it's not already happened, it will soon.
So why should I support UHC if the logical outcome is even more governmental intrusion into our private lives and vices? Saying it's already here isn't a justification for embracing it, IMHO.
but maybe if we're lucky, your employer would (finally) be fined for treating you inhumanely and lowering your overall health.
If you actually believe that will happen can I have some of what you are smoking?
You can't do most drugs, you already get taxed highly on cigarettes
And I disagree with both of those policies. So again I'll ask you, why should I be in favor of UHC if the logical outcome of UHC is even more governmental intrusion into my private life?
you clearly have no idea the hell insurance companies put people through
Actually I used to work for an independent agent so I do have a decent idea of the hell that insurance companies can put people through. I guess I view them differently than I do DMV for two reasons:
1) I know how to handle an insurance company bureaucrat. When they tried to dick over my girlfriend on paying her collision deductible after she was rear-ended I asked them which hospital she should visit for her neck pains. Had a check for the collision deductible the next day. Amazing how the prospect of a four digit no-fault claim puts a $500 collision deductible into perspective.....
2) I have a choice of which insurance company I deal with. If mine fucks me over I can go and find another one. I don't have this choice when it comes to DMV.
Wrong. You would ask her if she fancies going out for a drink sometime.
Not really. Jeri Ryan doesn't do it for me. To each their own I suppose but I'm not a big fan of blonde hair and I had the misfortune of dating a German once......
If it makes you feel better, my wife's in the phone book. The number's under my name, but we're the only family with this last name in my city. On Friday when she came home from work, one of our neighbors called to say that their kid had a hurt foot and asked if she'd take a look at it. It was snowing so she asked them to pick her up in their 4x4, and they went to her (closed) office so she could take X-rays.
Good for her. Doctors like your wife are a rarity in this day and age it seems. I don't suppose she's accepting new patients in the Binghamton NY area?;)
I personally think this is a cool idea for a class. Just think how YOU would respond if they brought in Jeri Ryan [imdb.com] as a guest speaker!
I would have asked her why she kept playing a role that sucked and how she feels about being the final nail in the coffin of the last Star Trek series (Enterprise doesn't count);)
The point of an insurance company is to bear risk, not avoid it.
Medical insurance providers should have zero access, and in all reality should not be able to ask any health questions period.
Do you also think that your car insurance company should have zero access to your driving/accident record? How can you bear risk if you have no idea what that risk is?
The presence of ubiquitous medical benefits has insulated the general public from the costs of medical care and prescriptions for a long time, allowing equipment, malpractice, and pharmaceutical providers to jack up their rates beyond all reason.
The medical insurance industry has produced this market imbalance, and they should be forced to take responsibility for it
How'd they create it? By insulating the general public from the costs? Doesn't the general public share some blame too if that's the case?
This is intended to 'ease entry into..... a superficial model, who will fall in love with the nerdiest student at the end of the semester after realizing that he is beautiful on the inside.
Don't you mean to say that he'll discover how beautiful she is on the "inside"?;)
You can't even shop for insurance across state lines because of the government's regulations.
Beware of unintended consequences if you get rid of this. The reason for that is because insurance has historically been regulated by the states. Would you rather see it regulated by the Feds instead? Tell me, who is more responsive to your concerns? Your Congresscritter or Assemblyman?
Interesting comparison to modern medical care where my present physician doesn't even know my name
That is interesting isn't it? Our family doctor growing up kept his home phone number listed in the white pages and met us at the ER more than once at 3AM. How many modern Doctors do you know that keep a listed phone number? How many of them would be willing to meet you at odd hours at the ER when one of your kids has a problem?
The medical field just isn't what it used to be. Scratch that, customer service just isn't what it used to be. Hardly limited to the medical field.....
It's called pump priming, and it's how you end recessions. You have to spend money to make money. Create 200k jobs and the economy improves. See the Hoover Dam.
The Hoover Dam didn't end the Depression. World War 2 ended the Depression. Deficits during WW3 reached as high as 30% of GDP. The current budget deficit is projected to be around 8% of GDP. Unless you plan on increasing that almost four-fold and taking millions of people out of the workforce (they went overseas, remember?) I think the comparison between today and the 30s/40s is absurd.
Interoperability is where the government steps in, for better or worse -- only the most ideological libertarian would deny that such a role exists.
I'm not a libertarian and I've never denied that Government has some roles. I'm just really skeptical about UHC. Here are just some of my concerns (off the top my head):
1) What evidence do we have that it will actually make health care more affordable? When has Government ever been able to do anything cheaply or efficiently?
2) Will Government in health care be used as yet another excuse to expand the nanny state? Will alcohol be taxed higher because it's bad for me? McDonalds? Doritos? Will all of this enforced by my employer similar to the way the so-called War on Drugs is enforced? Stop smoking or lose your job? Lose weight or lose your job?
3) What reason do we have to believe that our new Government overlords will be anymore benevolent than our existing insurance company overlords? I don't see how arguing with a Government bureaucrat over treatment is any preferable to arguing with a private sector bureaucrat. Who would you rather deal with: DMV or your auto-insurance company?
4) Will there be a way for me to opt-out if I don't see the benefits in having my health record instantly accessible from anywhere in the United States?
5) Will Government involvement in health care be used as an excuse to further erode the doctor-patient privilege? Go read the laws around credit reporting sometime -- the Government wrote in nice little exceptions for itself for all of the privacy laws related to credit reports. Will it do the same thing for medical records?
Just are just off the top of my head. I'd have to say that #2 is probably my biggest concern. I'm sick of the nanny state and the war on vice. And I see no signs that it's going to get any better. In fact I see the exact opposite......
Their search ability could be limited much like the limited credit searches of those who are wanting to provide you credit, ie they can't see the whole picture unless they are actually your provider or you have approved them to.
Yeah, because the credit reporting system has never been abused.
Slashdot Mirror
What if you forget, or need to travel at short notice?
Then one would hope there's a provision for dealing with this. TFA doesn't say but I would hope there would be a mechanism in place to deal with situations like these. Say a family member dies and you don't have 72 hours to make it to the states for the funeral?
If there isn't a mechanism in place for dealing with those types of situations then people need to complain until one is put in place.
Our DNA database contains thousands of people who have never been criminally convicted
Then vote the fucking assholes in the Surveillance^WLabour Party out of office. In my home state the police have to destroy your fingerprints/DNA if you are arrested for a crime and later cleared (via dismissal or acquittal) of having committed that crime. I'm growing weary of hearing Britons whine about your surveillance soceity while you keep electing the same assholes who are busy setting it up. Contrast this to the outage in the US over the Real-ID scheme. We've actually had quite a few states come out and say they won't take part in it. Where's that spirit in the mother country?
I find it ironic that your unelected upper house is the voice of sanity in the UK. Perhaps you made a mistake when you stripped them of all their power?
It's widely required at other places of employment, as well.
And for many types of licenses -- liquor licenses, insurance agent/broker licenses, teacher licenses, CPA license, medical license, pistol permits, etc, etc, etc. People rarely complain about any of those but all of a sudden if the government wants to verify the identity of people crossing the border it's a burden and a sign of the impending police state?
After America started running headlong towards a police-state, it just wouldn't make sense to go there. In the same way that an American Jew wouldn't have gone to Germany in 1938.
Yes, because America is confiscating the property of a minority group while condoning violence against said group and laying long term plans for the extermination of that group. Your comparison is totally legitimate and not trolling at all. Mod parent up!
It's a country that can arrest and detain without warrant, without charges, without representation and without trial.
Yeah, if your caught on a battlefield while engaged in hostilities against US forces. Do you have a single citation for that happening to somebody at the border or are you just blowing smoke?
And it believes in torture
Apparently you haven't been watching the news lately?
And the death penalty.
So I take it you won't be visiting Japan either then?
So I can get mugged in Times Square?
New York City is one of the safer cities in the United States and probably in the World. Nice way to stereotype though.
Visit the Creationist museum at the Grand Canyon?
How about the Museum of National History in NYC? How about just going to see the Grand Canyon? You gonna tell me the US is the only country in the World with religious nutjobs?
Now you might be a member of the crowd that goes "If you're innocent then you've got nothing to hide" but I'm more of a guy in the "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" crowd.
I'm not a member of the former crowd. I'm actually a member of the latter crowd. Dive into my posting history if you care to do so.
I also recognize that every government on this planet exercises sovereignty over their borders and that said governments have a legitimate interest in preventing known bad actors from entering their country. It has nothing to do with "if you are innocent you have nothing to hide". Given the ease with which one can obtain falsified identification documents are you really that surprised that they've expanded the entry/exit process into biometrics?
Canada will deny you entry if you've been convicted of drug possession or DWI -- even if said conviction was a misdemeanor/civil affair if your home country. Why don't I see anybody complaining about that?
Afaik, no state on this planet has my fingerprints yet, and I do not plan on handing them over any time soon
I had to hand them over just to get a job (New York State requires them if you work for an OMH licensed facility) so I'm already "screwed" in this sense. I don't happen to agree with most of these policies but I do understand the motivation behind them. To each their own I suppose -- but I wouldn't be deterred from coming to the EU if I had to cough up my prints and/or a picture.
In any case, the outrage over this article is completely misplaced. RTFA -- they aren't requesting any information beyond that which is already requested on the paper forms you fill out in-flight. It seems to me that filling them out online 72 hours in advance isn't particularly burdensome.
Did anybody bother to RTFA?
Derwood Staeben, U.S. consul general in London, said nearly all applications would be approved in less than 10 seconds. He said travelers would not be required to give any more information than is already requested on the paper immigration forms, which are being replaced.
This information was already collected. Are we really supposed to believe that collecting it in advance instead of in-flight is really that burdensome? If this is all it takes to deter you from coming to the US then I'm guessing you weren't that serious about coming in the first place.
As a potential Johnny foreigner, I will spend my hard won Euros somewhere else.
If you are going to be deterred from coming to the US over the requirement that you register online and cough up some fingerprints I suppose you really didn't care that much about coming in the first place anyway, did you?
I think this program is security theater more than anything else but our entry/exit requirements still aren't that onerous compared to other countries I can think of. In the end you'll have to weigh them against your reason for coming here. I'm in love with Italy and Italian culture -- I'd cough up my prints if that was the requirement to go there. New York State already has them anyway.....
If you think $500 headphones are high quality, you're sorely mistaken. http://www.stax.co.jp/ [stax.co.jp]
I only have one question regarding those $5,000 headphones: Can I get them with a white wire? ;)
Actually, you do. The DMV, like any other government agency, is ultimately accountable to voters.
Too bad I live in a state with about two million more Democrats than Republicans and voters that line up at the ballot box and sheepishly vote for the candidate with the right consonant next to their name. Real change only happens in battleground states. In the other states it's the Democratic or Republican party machine that calls all the shots.
effectively putting the nail in said Republican's Senate campaign, leading to the election of his Democratic opponent
Like a Republican was gonna win in Illinois anyway..... if the GOP thought they had a shot they would have found a better ringer than this dumbass. Of course with recent events the GOP might actually have a shot in that state. For better or worse though that didn't happen in time to stop Obama....
While I do share your concern regarding taxation of vices (I enjoy smoking occasionally and drinking often) you have to realize first off that this is already happening: businesses are realizing they can cut costs by 'encouraging' their employees to be healthy. This encouragement isn't really though - it's more of a discouragement of bad habits (ie, you pay a health 'fine' if you smoke). If it's not already happened, it will soon.
So why should I support UHC if the logical outcome is even more governmental intrusion into our private lives and vices? Saying it's already here isn't a justification for embracing it, IMHO.
but maybe if we're lucky, your employer would (finally) be fined for treating you inhumanely and lowering your overall health.
If you actually believe that will happen can I have some of what you are smoking?
And we already have a nanny state
And that's an argument for further expanding it?
You can't do most drugs, you already get taxed highly on cigarettes
And I disagree with both of those policies. So again I'll ask you, why should I be in favor of UHC if the logical outcome of UHC is even more governmental intrusion into my private life?
you clearly have no idea the hell insurance companies put people through
Actually I used to work for an independent agent so I do have a decent idea of the hell that insurance companies can put people through. I guess I view them differently than I do DMV for two reasons:
1) I know how to handle an insurance company bureaucrat. When they tried to dick over my girlfriend on paying her collision deductible after she was rear-ended I asked them which hospital she should visit for her neck pains. Had a check for the collision deductible the next day. Amazing how the prospect of a four digit no-fault claim puts a $500 collision deductible into perspective.....
2) I have a choice of which insurance company I deal with. If mine fucks me over I can go and find another one. I don't have this choice when it comes to DMV.
Wrong. You would ask her if she fancies going out for a drink sometime.
Not really. Jeri Ryan doesn't do it for me. To each their own I suppose but I'm not a big fan of blonde hair and I had the misfortune of dating a German once......
If it makes you feel better, my wife's in the phone book. The number's under my name, but we're the only family with this last name in my city. On Friday when she came home from work, one of our neighbors called to say that their kid had a hurt foot and asked if she'd take a look at it. It was snowing so she asked them to pick her up in their 4x4, and they went to her (closed) office so she could take X-rays.
Good for her. Doctors like your wife are a rarity in this day and age it seems. I don't suppose she's accepting new patients in the Binghamton NY area? ;)
I personally think this is a cool idea for a class. Just think how YOU would respond if they brought in Jeri Ryan [imdb.com] as a guest speaker!
I would have asked her why she kept playing a role that sucked and how she feels about being the final nail in the coffin of the last Star Trek series (Enterprise doesn't count) ;)
Alternatively take a leaf out of the parent's book and piss your life away being an internet troll.
Says the person who is feeding him......
The point of an insurance company is to bear risk, not avoid it.
Medical insurance providers should have zero access, and in all reality should not be able to ask any health questions period.
Do you also think that your car insurance company should have zero access to your driving/accident record? How can you bear risk if you have no idea what that risk is?
The presence of ubiquitous medical benefits has insulated the general public from the costs of medical care and prescriptions for a long time, allowing equipment, malpractice, and pharmaceutical providers to jack up their rates beyond all reason.
The medical insurance industry has produced this market imbalance, and they should be forced to take responsibility for it
How'd they create it? By insulating the general public from the costs? Doesn't the general public share some blame too if that's the case?
Honestly a HOT CHICK is not worth the pain of their upkeep, and maintenance.
You forgot to mention that most nerds don't make enough money to afford the maintenance of keeping a hot chick ;)
This is intended to 'ease entry into ..... a superficial model, who will fall in love with the nerdiest student at the end of the semester after realizing that he is beautiful on the inside.
Don't you mean to say that he'll discover how beautiful she is on the "inside"? ;)
You can't even shop for insurance across state lines because of the government's regulations.
Beware of unintended consequences if you get rid of this. The reason for that is because insurance has historically been regulated by the states. Would you rather see it regulated by the Feds instead? Tell me, who is more responsive to your concerns? Your Congresscritter or Assemblyman?
Interesting comparison to modern medical care where my present physician doesn't even know my name
That is interesting isn't it? Our family doctor growing up kept his home phone number listed in the white pages and met us at the ER more than once at 3AM. How many modern Doctors do you know that keep a listed phone number? How many of them would be willing to meet you at odd hours at the ER when one of your kids has a problem?
The medical field just isn't what it used to be. Scratch that, customer service just isn't what it used to be. Hardly limited to the medical field.....
It's called pump priming, and it's how you end recessions. You have to spend money to make money. Create 200k jobs and the economy improves. See the Hoover Dam.
The Hoover Dam didn't end the Depression. World War 2 ended the Depression. Deficits during WW3 reached as high as 30% of GDP. The current budget deficit is projected to be around 8% of GDP. Unless you plan on increasing that almost four-fold and taking millions of people out of the workforce (they went overseas, remember?) I think the comparison between today and the 30s/40s is absurd.
Interoperability is where the government steps in, for better or worse -- only the most ideological libertarian would deny that such a role exists.
I'm not a libertarian and I've never denied that Government has some roles. I'm just really skeptical about UHC. Here are just some of my concerns (off the top my head):
1) What evidence do we have that it will actually make health care more affordable? When has Government ever been able to do anything cheaply or efficiently?
2) Will Government in health care be used as yet another excuse to expand the nanny state? Will alcohol be taxed higher because it's bad for me? McDonalds? Doritos? Will all of this enforced by my employer similar to the way the so-called War on Drugs is enforced? Stop smoking or lose your job? Lose weight or lose your job?
3) What reason do we have to believe that our new Government overlords will be anymore benevolent than our existing insurance company overlords? I don't see how arguing with a Government bureaucrat over treatment is any preferable to arguing with a private sector bureaucrat. Who would you rather deal with: DMV or your auto-insurance company?
4) Will there be a way for me to opt-out if I don't see the benefits in having my health record instantly accessible from anywhere in the United States?
5) Will Government involvement in health care be used as an excuse to further erode the doctor-patient privilege? Go read the laws around credit reporting sometime -- the Government wrote in nice little exceptions for itself for all of the privacy laws related to credit reports. Will it do the same thing for medical records?
Just are just off the top of my head. I'd have to say that #2 is probably my biggest concern. I'm sick of the nanny state and the war on vice. And I see no signs that it's going to get any better. In fact I see the exact opposite......
Their search ability could be limited much like the limited credit searches of those who are wanting to provide you credit, ie they can't see the whole picture unless they are actually your provider or you have approved them to.
Yeah, because the credit reporting system has never been abused.