Pity the lesson of Y2K went unheeded - where every COBOL programmer was paid whatever they asked to fix their code, but after should have all been taken out to a field and shot in the head.
Why shoot the programmers? Why not shoot the managers too ignorant to modernize their code base?
To get back on topic, I see spinning drives as the new backup or large file storage medium. You boot off your SSD and keep most of your files there, but anything you want a backup copy of or anything large enough to not need fast access, like movies, pictures, and music get stored on the HDD.
Every job provided health insurance plan covers healthy individuals, which are the bulk of workers. The larger the company, the larger the pool, and thus the smaller effect an ill hire would have on the plan costs. Some states allow employers to pool together.
At the end of the year, every pool - every single pool! - has its premiums adjusted so that that pool is profitable to the insurance company. If your company consisted of 10 people all with MS and nobody else, then your insurance costs would be astronomical.
When somebody enters the pool with a pre-existing condition, they are effectively punishing every other member of the pool with higher rates without having paid premiums while not needing care.
Awesome! Now you get it. Except, each insurance company will have the same number of pools as plans offered. In other words, all of America would be in the same pool, and it would be even better, because as you said, "The larger the company, the larger the pool, and thus the smaller effect an ill hire would have on the plan costs. Some states allow employers to pool together."
And yet, it has not caused insurance companies to leave the business. Or as you put it, "The problem is the immediate departure from the industry by all participants". Strange, that doesn't happen because my company is pulled together and it won't happen if all of America is pulled together.
If your context is your proposal: Clearly not, because being forced to cover all comers regardless of pre-existing conditions or coverage at flat rates while not requiring the cheap-to-cover healthy individuals to pay for coverage would cause rational individuals to delay coverage until needed, requiring insurance companies to charge astronomical rates people like you wouldn't "allow", thus ending the potential for profit and the insurance companies would leave the market.
Bullshit. That doesn't happen now. Well, it does happen some, but to a much smaller extent. See, you don't need insurance to get covered. You can walk into any emergency room with any problem and get treated. It's the law. And yet, 90% of America still has insurance coverage.
So, stop saying that if you make everyone pay the same price based on insurance package and ban insurance companies from denying based on health, that people will stop buying insurance. It won't happen because it does not happen so much now.
And even in some bizaro world where people stopped buying insurance because they could not be turned down, the fix would be quite simple, as I showed in a previous post. Other fixes may include allowing insurance companies to have a ridiculously high deductible for first year of coverage that decreases year to year.
The whole point is prevent insurance companies from jacking up the rates of "high-risk" customers who have done nothing wrong. My mother, for example, who is 62 and has been with the same insurance company for 30 years has to pay well over $2000/mo for catastrophic only coverage. And no, she has no pre-existing condition other than age. She would change companies, but no one else is offering anything better. If she were allowed to be pooled together, her payments would be less than $500 a month. That's $1500/month she would be saving. Around here, that's a house payment. That would buy, insure and put gas in a Mercedes Benz. But since she is a small business owner (a hair dresser), she doesn't have the option to pool together.
See, an understanding of how insurance works is necessary to design reasonable proposals for reform.
Let's see, you think that people will drop their insurance if they suddenly can not be turned down for preexisting conditions in numbers large enough to cause all the insurance companies to leave the business and loose trillions of dollars. Yet, anyone can get treated, insurance or not, today at any hospital in the nation and strangely enough, 90% of Americans still have insurance.
See, an understanding of how reality works is necessary to design reasonable proposals for reform.
Wow. Your reading comprehension is seriously lacking. At no point have I suggested an insurance company should not be allowed to deny new coverage of a person found to be a victim of MS, or any serious disease. At the point they are diagnosed it is a pre-existing condition and should not be covered by anything new. The suggestion that insurance companies should be on he hook for every old disease they have the day they sign up for coverage (which you suggest the insurance company cannot deny) is entirely yours.
That's in the bill we are discussing. It's actually the one part of the bill I agree with. The part that I think should be added that is not in there is a flat rate. In other words, all customers of a given insurance company on a certain plan should pay the same price. There is nothing that I am aware of in the current bill that prevents insurance companies from gouging customers, or jacking up the prices of the more expensive customers to rates that they can literally not afford. It does, however, force citizens to pay whatever the insurance companies want as it forces everyone to have health insurance.
Of course, we know that price control does not work. That is not what I'm talking about. Prices are set by the insurance company itself and dictated by market forces. If you want, you get the Cadillac, low deductible, full coverage for more services, gets you the good room and food in the hospital plan, great! Get it. Everyone pays the same high price. The basic plans would probably have a much higher deductible but a lower monthly premium and would be intended for catastrophic coverage only, but have lower premiums that everyone on that particular plan pays. Whichever coverage point the customer chooses will have a set price. That price will be the same no matter if the customer is 18 or if the customer is 64. Basically, the insurance company will not be allowed to different prices for the same product, period. Just like when you go into a store to get a loaf of bread, the checker can not charge you $5 and then charge the next guy $2. You both pay the same price, not matter how hungry you are, or what you intend to do with the bread.
This will prevent insurance companies from overcharging customers as they become more expensive to cover in an attempt to drive them to the competition. Say, when a female customer gets married (likely to start having babies... childbirth is expensive), or a customer turns 60 (elderly are expensive medically). The sad part is that no matter what the insurance companies charge, EVERYONE will require coverage by law. We are not talking about going to court and "innocent until proven guilty" law either. The current plan will be administered by the IRS.
The company I work for handed out a price list for the differing levels of coverage from our insurance companies. There was no questionnaire, physical or anything else. It was just "employee--$X.XX/mo, employee + spouse--$Y.YY/mo, employee + spouse + child--$Z.ZZ/mo" and so on. There were three levels of coverage, each with differing benefits and each with a different price. How are they able to do this? Because those that never use the service pay the same as those that go every day. And here you said that insurance companies would leave the business before doing such a thing, and yet, every job provided health insurance plan I ever had came with a set price. I guess the company that insures me and my family must be magic or something. Maybe they are really a tire company that just sells health insurance or something because they obviously are not a health insurance company because you said that they couldn't do that. I wonder what they are...
Actuary tables are very good. When you sign up and are not ill your payments will be based on not being ill. If you sign up and are already ill, your costs will go up because it is a known fact that it will cost much more to cover you.
Ok then, explain how the Canadian Government has been successfully doing that and raising the limit on tax free income when its necessary, not decreasing it.
Oh... you can't? Well... sorry... you'll just have to live with your FUD.
The US is doing it to. It's called a graduated income tax. The limit as to what is considered "rich" varies depending on who you ask.
But since we are already off topic, I'll go on. A sales tax would eliminate any tax loopholes that only accountants know about. Who can afford accountants? The "rich" of course. When the poor try to use an accountant, they usually get ripped off by being given a "refund anticipation loan" at a such an obscene interest that it would be illegal in many countries.
An added benefit to a sales tax is the government has no way to try to buy votes or control our lives. Sure, they could charge higher taxes on sodas, beer and cigarettes, but there will no longer be the ability to buy a vote from Senator Fleabite of Nebraska by securing funding for a new ice fishing park.
Adding the "everyone must get coverage" clause without flat rate pricing will cause insurance companies to gouge those in high risk categories, much like auto insurance companies do today.
Such pricing makes sense. Once again, insurance is paying somebody to assume the risk that bad things will happen. When bad things are more likely to happen, you cost more to insure.
Such pricing may make sense for auto insurers, although I disagree, it will certainly not make sense for health insurance companies.
For a health company insurance company insuring someone with MS, for example, they are on the hook for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars to cover that single person. And you are saying that they should not be allowed to deny a MS patient coverage (I agree), but can base rates on preexisting conditions or risks(I disagree). How much would an insurance company have to charge to break even? What's to stop them from charging that amount or more to either cover the cost of this patient, or force this money loser to move to their competition?
What about the elderly? How much would you, as an insurer, charge to insure an 85-yr-old man? How about a 64-yr-old woman with a history of heart disease in her family? How about a woman vs. a man? Do you think it's really fair to charge women, who give birth and see the doctor much more often than men more than you would charge men? Is lacking a penis considered a "pre-existing condition"?
That's because, right now, if you become ill without coverage you cannot get coverage. Once again, refer to your two line proposal.... Seriously, do you disassociate yourself so much from the topic at hand that you started that you are so unable to continue with subject context? You created a proposal that changes the system such that people cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. Thus, why would people without immediate need bother with insurance? If they get ill, -then- they can get insurance. Until then, they won't need it.
Well, Gee. I don't work for an insurance company, and I don't have an MBA, and I certainly don't have a law degree or have any experience writing contracts, but since you insist, let me take a whack at it.
1) New customers with pre-existing conditions will not be denied coverage. 1a) Insurance company will provide a "loan", with collateral provided such as a car, home, boat... to pay for immediate coverage. 1b) Loan will be paid forgiven over the course of the first year after the procedure by equal, twelve, monthly installments. 1c) Once "loan" is forgiven, any liens on the collateral will be null and void. 1d) If coverage is dropped within before the lien is released, the collateral property will become the property of the insurance company and sold. If there any funds remaining from such sale and the loan is paid off, the remaining funds will be returned to the customer, after appropriate fees and interest is paid.
There ya go. Is it iron clad? Surely not. However, like I said, I have no experience in such matters. I'm sure those with law degrees and MBA's and such could make something much more iron clad.
Will any contract prevent someone from skipping town completely? No. But it's no different today. Hospitals may not legally deny coverage to ANYONE, provided they go to the more expensive emergency room. If someone that does not have coverage today and goes to a hospital for treatment and skips town, the hospital is stuck with the bill. Insurance companies are in a much better position to absorb such costs because 90% of the population pays insurance dues. 90% of the population does not to to hospitals.
I'm not particularly interested in hearing what people believe, I'm rather more interested in cold, hard facts and forming my own opinion. Neither Fox or CNN are sufficient for this purpose.
Omitting bias from a news report is impossible. There is no such things as "just the facts", even in plain text. Consider the following:
Pelosi wants to raise taxes on anyone who pays taxes
vs.
Pelosi wants to eliminate Bush's tax cuts
Both are facts. Both have a bias.
The only hope is to get both stories and make up your own mind. No network gives 100% fair coverage. Fox will have two conservatives and a liberal to debate a topic. CNN will have three liberals and one pseudo conservative to debate a given topic. MSNBC will have three liberals and a picture of a conservative's head on a SS uniformed mannequin to discuss a given topic.
That doesn't matter, as the healthy will not get coverage.
I'm healthy and I have coverage. My whole family is healthy and I have the all covered.
Being unable to "deny coverage or treatment based on a preexisting condition" is the way to lose millions in investments. Such a legal requirement without requiring the healthy to be insured - which your short two line proposal does not include - will bankrupt the insurance companies very very fast. Except that the companies would leave the market even quicker.
Again, the healthy have coverage today. Over 90% of the population is covered. Are over 90% of the population not healthy?
People don't pay for insurance because they are not healthy. That's not the point of insurance, by definition. People get insured in case something happens that makes them NOT healthy in the future. So your claim that healthy people won't get coverage falls flat. Sure, some won't. These are most of the less than 10% of the population that is not covered today.
Adding the "everyone must get coverage" clause without flat rate pricing will cause insurance companies to gouge those in high risk categories, much like auto insurance companies do today. The elderly, the over weight, women of "birthing age", or those with family histories of diabetes, cancer or mental illness could be charged more, MUCH more, and they would be REQUIRED BY LAW to purchase it at any price or face the wrath of the IRS.
So true. Because any voice contrary to what we already believe should be feared and silenced!
Sarcasm noted and agreed with. However there should be reasonable argument whose points don't have to include conspiracy theories.
I wish I could agree. Read the comment after yours:
Right, it's because Fox is saying something we disagree with that we want them to shut the hell up. It can't possibly be because they knowingly and willingly claim lies as facts and then try and hide behind the 1st amendment as a way to avoid responsibility for their actions. Nope, it's definitely because they do not share our beliefs.
Moron.
Here, the poster claims that FNC is not news. So how far of a stretch is it to say that they don't deserve Bill of Rights protection guaranteeing free press? And since what they are saying are all "lies", they should not get free speech protection either since they can't claim parody since they claim to be a News organization.
Stretch? Google "fairness doctrine" and imagine how it could apply to Fox News or anyone else who reports something that the party in power disagrees with or simply doesn't want reported. The White House already tried to ban them from WH press events.
Stewart himself points out over and over again that TDS is comedy.
True, but for the majority of the audience, it is their primary "news" source.
Fox News bills itself as, well, news. Then again, why am I saying anything who says O'Reilly gives liberals a fair shake?
First, Bill O'Reilly is a commentator, not a news anchor. If you want to call Bill O'Reilly or any of the other FNC commentators "news", then shouldn't you do the same for Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews (who got a tingle up his leg from hearing Obama speak)? Why are not you not here screaming about how unfair MSNBC is?
Next, I have never, EVER seen a conservative on Olbermann's show. I see several on O'Reilly every night. HERE is a video of a liberal on O'Reilly that, strangely enough, is not shouted down. (That must not be a real video, since you believe that it never happens). Can you find an Olbermann video of a conservative? No? I guess you have to admit that FNC is more "Fair and Balanced" than MSNBC.
Oh, and HERE is a story about Bill O'Reilly "blasting" Laura Ingraham. Laura is a conservative and O'Reilly was defending Michelle Obama. Have you ever seen Matthews, Olbermann, or Maddow (a feminist) stand up for Laura Bush over the objections of one more liberal than they are?
Your comparison is poor. Insurance is not a buffet market restaurant. It is a third party, charging its customers a flat rate for all their eating needs. Then you're requiring it, by law, to not refuse heavy eaters, binge eaters, and people who only decide to get coverage when they are hungry and forego coverage when they are not.
Strange. My cell phone provider has found a way to keep me from getting a cell phone only when I need to make a call. It's a shame that the massive legal teams at these insurance companies can't find a way to do the same.
Oh, and buffet restaurants are not legally allowed to discriminate.
But even if you drop the restaurant analogy, you can't touch "I guess you are wrong when you assumed that the board members of insurance companies would rather loose millions in investments and make thousands of their employees unemployed than simplify their books by charging a flat rate."
You would have been better off showing that those that have cheaper rates, like the young and healthy, would probably get higher rates because they would need to be charged the same as the 64-yr-old smoking diabetic who has to wheel around an O2 tank behind their Hoverounds.
Because any voice contrary to what we already believe should be feared and silenced!
I agree completely, and I hope you will support my position that medical care is a work of the devil since it's god that made us sick, go intends for us to be sick. This makes health care imminently affordable, since we need no treatment because doing so would defy god's will. Furthermore, I'm sure you will agree with my ideas on the geocentric, flat, young earth theory./satire
The point of the above is that accepting contrary voices just because they're contrary doesn't put you in any better position to identify the truth than "fearing and silencing" contrary opinions. The fact is that Fox is not a useful resource, they're crowd baiting and playing on irrational fears to make a profit.
So, if I disagree with you, my point is "satire"? Are you saying that those that oppose health care don't have valid points worth hearing? Even take it beyond health care, are you saying that anyone with an opinion different than yours or the Democratic party so ridiculous that they must be stricken from the record and banned repeating?
Also, since we are on health care, can you show me where controlling health care is a power spelled out in the Constitution? If you can't find it, shouldn't that be a power that is reserved to the states of the people" according to the Tenth Amendment?
Or do you feel that The Constitution and/or The Bill of Rights is "...the work of the devil..."? (yes, more/satire)
Let me help you out here:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Health Care is NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states. Why is it not reserved to the states respectively, or to the people?
The problem is that they irresponsibly provide a contrary position marketed to a segment of the American population least capable of dividing fact from fiction.
You just described "The Daily Show" to the letter.
It would be funny if a majority of people didn't get their news from talkshows like Letterman, Leno and even Stewart. I would think Fox News should be the least of your worries. Why are you railing on Fox News and not John Stewart? Oh, that's right. Fox News is the only network that will present the side from the right as well as the left, whereas Stewart only has conservatives on to ridicule them.
Fox does not report the news, they manufacture a good story in the guise of news to make money off people.
Like the CNN reporter that went to a Tea Party rally and dried to prove the Tea Partiers wrong by saying things like, "You do realize you paid more in taxes under Reagan, right?" How about the CNN report that called a picture of Obama made to look like Hitler "offensive", but called a statue of Bush with a Hitler mustache and a NAZI uniform a "look alike".
And CNN is the more moderate of the networks. Don't even get me started on MSNBC. When was the last time you saw a conservative on Olbermann's show? I saw a liberal on O'Reilly every time I watch him and they are almost always given a fair shake.
Hmmm.. Maybe you should actually WATCH FoxNews instead of just repeating what you heard your GreenPeace friends utter over organic, fair market, open range latte's. You might actually learn what the other side has to say. As of right now, it appears you only know half the story.
Actually, I should have been more specific... Back to the Future 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future_Part_II) is what I was really referring to. (Flying cars, etc...)
Hence, the "Hover Board" reference, but no worries, mate!
Thanks for keeping me in check.
Cheers!
I knew what you meant and just wanted to give you hard time. Thanx for being a good sport.
The problem is the immediate departure from the industry by all participants.
You are right. There used to be a bunch of restaurants around here that charged people based on how much they ate. Then one day, a buffet opened up that charged everyone the same amount. Then all the restaurants closed all across the country because they refused to stay in business because they insisted on charging their customers on how much they ate as opposed to a flat rate.
Oh wait. No they didn't. All the restaurants stayed open and even a few new ones opened up along with a few more buffet style restaurants. So... I guess you are wrong when you assumed that the board members of insurance companies would rather loose millions in investments and make thousands of their employees unemployed than simplify their books by charging a flat rate.
Right now the US government provides healthcare for about 2.8m military personal (active and retired) and their families for about $40b/year. For $1250/mo that is a pretty efficient program.
You have obviously never dealt with the military health care program. I have and let me tell you a little about it.
First, is sick call for active duty. If you are sick, you have to show up at the medical center by 6:00am. Keep in mind this is an hour and a half before you would normally show up for "work", so you better know you are sick the night before so you can wake up early. If you wake up at 7:00am for 7:30 PT and realize you have explosive diarrhea, tough! You better pack a diaper.
If you are not outside the medical center and standing in line by 6:30am, you are sent back to your unit. Notice I said STANDING and OUTSIDE, regardless of the weather. If you have a cold and it's 10 degrees F and raining, tough. You better be in line by 6:30 or you won't get seen. And by seen, I don't mean by a doctor. In two years that I was in the Army, I never saw an actual doctor for an illness. Regardless of my ailment, I was seen by a medic who gave me over the counter pills and sent me back to work. If I had an injury, like a sprained ankle, I was given a "profile", meaning there were some thing I was not allowed to do, like run or march.
Next, surgery. I had two wisdom teeth pulled by an Army surgeon. I was given local anesthetic only. I showed up at 6:00am, waited until noon while filling out loads of paper work. I met the doctor who put me in the chair, gave me my shots and after testing the anesthetic by saying, "can you feel this?", he began to pull my teeth. I vividly remember the sound of the drill cutting into my teeth, the vibrations in my skull, smell of the smoke, the sound of the scraping, the feel of his knee on my chest as he grunted to get the teeth out and sound of the "pop" as pulled each tooth out, one half at a tooth at a time. I was given Vicodin and some gauze and was sent back to my unit. I was given a day off and a "profile" from aerobic activity for another two days.
I had my other two teeth pulled by a civilian dentist after I left the service. I showed up and was given a thorough exam before scheduling the surgery. On surgery day, I walked in, filled out one sheet of paper and took a pill that knocked me out. I woke up a few hours later on a bed at the dentist's office and my wisdom teeth were gone.
Of course, I won't even go into details on the comparison between military and civilian doctor's offices. But I will say that one has sterile, florescent lighting and white tile floors, visit your local post office of court house for an example. The other has comfortable couches, carpet, TV's and other entertainment while you wait.
As for military families, I was single, so I didn't have to experience that. However, a buddy of mine did. He unfortunately lost his baby due to a miscarriage. His wife had pains and went in to see the doctors around 6:00am. Around 3:00pm, she saw a doctor's assistant who performed an exam and determined that their baby had died. She was told to come back Monday for a DNC because it was Friday and they wouldn't be able to complete the procedure before "quitting time" of 4:00pm. She had to go home with her dead baby in her belly and carry it around all weekend before someone would remove it on Monday afternoon. SICK!!
So, please don't even try to tell me how great and efficient military health care is. I know from experience that it sucks and it made up my mind years ago that I will never let the government control my health care. I get much better care now that I ever did in the military and don't pay anywhere near $1250/month for my entire family, much less myself!
Don't raise taxes for the little guy, but the capital gains tax, and the taxes on anyone making over $250,000 a year definitely need to rise
Why $250,000/yr? Why not $225,000? Surely people that make $225,000/yr can afford to pay more in taxes. Hell, so can people making $200,000. I mean, $200,000 is a LOT of money. Most houses don't cost that much. $150,000/yr is plenty. You would be had pressed to find anyone who punches a time clock making $150,000/yr. $150K will buy you a new car every two months! They don't need $150K/yr. Why do you not tax them more? For that matter, if you are making $100,000/yr, you can buy two new Cadillacs a year and pay CASH for them. Why are you not taxing these fat cats? While we are at it, you can live comfortably on $75,000, especially considering that the majority of the people in the world make less than $100/month and seem to do just fine. Why do these people think that they need more than $75,000/yr? Surely they could survive on $50,000/yr if we were to tax $25,000/yr, especially when you consider the benefits they would receive. They would not longer need a car as we could afford public transportation. There would no longer need health care as it would be provided for them at the new government run health offices we could afford now. They could show up at 5:00am and be processed by noon. That's less than half a day! Everything would be provided and all people would be equal, regardless of how much money they make or how hard they work. True Utopia!
Anyway, the point is that when you start telling people that $X is enough to live on, someone will find a smaller number that is also enough to live on. Those that say that the rich should pay their fair share may wake up to find that the level that makes you "rich" has dipped below whatever they are making. I laughed at a bunch of students in California who were protesting higher tuition rates. These same students have been screaming for higher taxes on the rich and saying that these fat cats must pay their fair share. Well, guess what? Now those students are "rich" and are being asked to pay their fair share. They are obviously not too happy about it.
No insurance company may deny coverage or treatment based on a preexisting condition. Insurance companies may only base prices on the level of coverage received. No insurance company may charge different customers different rates based on any conditions (age, health, race, etc)
There! I fixed the problem in three sentences. What's the point of the other 2000 pages?
Re:A false choice, of course...
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
We have nothing to fear but Fox itself.
So true. Because any voice contrary to what we already believe should be feared and silenced!
Another failed Bush program that lined the pockets of the politically connected.
Uh, actually Bush wanted a REAL fence, not a virtual one. Congress even passed funding for it, only to fail to fund it. So tell me again how this "virtual" fence failure is Bush's fault?
Besides, the whole blame Bush BS has gotten really REALLY old. Let it go. Everyone's blaming Palin now.
Which is what these devices do, if I follow the news from the past few years. These missiles just explode, and anyone near enough gets killed or injured also. This is not any different from a car bomb, which that same government would most probably call terrorism. When it is a missile instead of a car, it is obviously terrorism also, but I bet that the government won't call it that.
WRONG!
Sure, they are both bombs, but being a bomb does not make it a tool of terrorism. We use explosives all the time for all kinds of things. Is blasting rock to build a tunnel terrorism? Of course not. Terrorists also use pencils. Does that mean that pencils should be banned because they are the tools of terrorists?
By definition, terrorism is meant to cause "terror" among the population. This is why an attack that kills tens of civilians can just as powerful as one that kills hundreds or thousands. Remember the "Beltway Sniper"? How about the Anthrax scares? Remember when Tylenol was poisoned with cyanide? These were all successful terrorist attacks, even though the actual casualty count was low.
Causing terror is only half of what makes an act terrorism. All militaries use tactics to confuse and terrorize their enemy. It is an accepted and legal tactic of war. The second half of what makes a terrorist's act "terrorism" is the target. A terrorist has no interest in killing, maiming or even terrorizing military targets. (and no, the guy that shot up Ft. Hood was not a traditional terrorist, except for the fact that his targets were completely unarmed). The goal of a terrorist is to create terror among civilians. THAT is their target. That is what makes us different from them. We try our hardest to PROTECT the civilian population and only take out the military targets. Terrorists attack the civilians and AVOID the military targets. And THAT is why you are wrong. That is where your intellect fails. I sincerely hope that it is just your political ideology that has clouded your judgement and not raw stupidity. On second thought, I don't know which is worse. Raw stupidity can be dealt with. History has shown that ideologically induced stupidity is very dangerous.
Good information. To quote Johnny Carson, "I did not know that."
Still, I'd hardly consider mosquitoes to be a valid reason to prevent energy exploration and exploitation of such areas, although I'm sure there are some that think every bug is sacred.
And, yes, I know there is other live forms there, but like ANWR, we are talking about extremely vast areas. It would be like not building a house in Houston because there is an endangered desert rat in El Paso.
I like to admire the Asian tundra on Google Earth, and think about what a paradise it must be for mosquito predators, birds and such. I guess now we will be trying to discover how much environmental degradation is required to crash that eco-system. Too bad.
Um... tundra is permanently frozen ground. Not a lot of mosquitoes can lay their eggs in a puddle of ice. Think frozen desert (Death Valley, not ice cream). You could even call it something like Mars on Earth. Not a big ecosystem to crash there.
Since this seems to be the "joke" thread, allow me to put in my $0.02
I was on a farm doing research on genetic engineering and kept seeing something zip around at amazing speeds. I asked the farmer what it was and he told me it was chickens.
"See," he said, "the drumstick is everyone's favorite part of the chicken. So we engineered chickens with three legs. For every two chickens we sell, it's like we are selling three, leg-wise. It actually reduces waste since the factories don't find themselves with extra breasts and other crappy parts that they have to throw away or turn into chicken nuggets."
I said, "WOW!!!! That's amazing. How do they taste?"
He replied, "Hell if I know. We haven't been able to catch one yet!"
Slashdot Mirror
Pity the lesson of Y2K went unheeded - where every COBOL programmer was paid whatever they asked to fix their code, but after should have all been taken out to a field and shot in the head.
Why shoot the programmers? Why not shoot the managers too ignorant to modernize their code base?
To get back on topic, I see spinning drives as the new backup or large file storage medium. You boot off your SSD and keep most of your files there, but anything you want a backup copy of or anything large enough to not need fast access, like movies, pictures, and music get stored on the HDD.
Every job provided health insurance plan covers healthy individuals, which are the bulk of workers. The larger the company, the larger the pool, and thus the smaller effect an ill hire would have on the plan costs. Some states allow employers to pool together.
At the end of the year, every pool - every single pool! - has its premiums adjusted so that that pool is profitable to the insurance company. If your company consisted of 10 people all with MS and nobody else, then your insurance costs would be astronomical.
When somebody enters the pool with a pre-existing condition, they are effectively punishing every other member of the pool with higher rates without having paid premiums while not needing care.
Awesome! Now you get it. Except, each insurance company will have the same number of pools as plans offered. In other words, all of America would be in the same pool, and it would be even better, because as you said, "The larger the company, the larger the pool, and thus the smaller effect an ill hire would have on the plan costs. Some states allow employers to pool together."
And yet, it has not caused insurance companies to leave the business. Or as you put it, "The problem is the immediate departure from the industry by all participants". Strange, that doesn't happen because my company is pulled together and it won't happen if all of America is pulled together.
If your context is your proposal: Clearly not, because being forced to cover all comers regardless of pre-existing conditions or coverage at flat rates while not requiring the cheap-to-cover healthy individuals to pay for coverage would cause rational individuals to delay coverage until needed, requiring insurance companies to charge astronomical rates people like you wouldn't "allow", thus ending the potential for profit and the insurance companies would leave the market.
Bullshit. That doesn't happen now. Well, it does happen some, but to a much smaller extent. See, you don't need insurance to get covered. You can walk into any emergency room with any problem and get treated. It's the law. And yet, 90% of America still has insurance coverage.
So, stop saying that if you make everyone pay the same price based on insurance package and ban insurance companies from denying based on health, that people will stop buying insurance. It won't happen because it does not happen so much now.
And even in some bizaro world where people stopped buying insurance because they could not be turned down, the fix would be quite simple, as I showed in a previous post. Other fixes may include allowing insurance companies to have a ridiculously high deductible for first year of coverage that decreases year to year.
The whole point is prevent insurance companies from jacking up the rates of "high-risk" customers who have done nothing wrong. My mother, for example, who is 62 and has been with the same insurance company for 30 years has to pay well over $2000/mo for catastrophic only coverage. And no, she has no pre-existing condition other than age. She would change companies, but no one else is offering anything better. If she were allowed to be pooled together, her payments would be less than $500 a month. That's $1500/month she would be saving. Around here, that's a house payment. That would buy, insure and put gas in a Mercedes Benz. But since she is a small business owner (a hair dresser), she doesn't have the option to pool together.
See, an understanding of how insurance works is necessary to design reasonable proposals for reform.
Let's see, you think that people will drop their insurance if they suddenly can not be turned down for preexisting conditions in numbers large enough to cause all the insurance companies to leave the business and loose trillions of dollars. Yet, anyone can get treated, insurance or not, today at any hospital in the nation and strangely enough, 90% of Americans still have insurance.
See, an understanding of how reality works is necessary to design reasonable proposals for reform.
Wow. Your reading comprehension is seriously lacking. At no point have I suggested an insurance company should not be allowed to deny new coverage of a person found to be a victim of MS, or any serious disease. At the point they are diagnosed it is a pre-existing condition and should not be covered by anything new. The suggestion that insurance companies should be on he hook for every old disease they have the day they sign up for coverage (which you suggest the insurance company cannot deny) is entirely yours.
That's in the bill we are discussing. It's actually the one part of the bill I agree with. The part that I think should be added that is not in there is a flat rate. In other words, all customers of a given insurance company on a certain plan should pay the same price. There is nothing that I am aware of in the current bill that prevents insurance companies from gouging customers, or jacking up the prices of the more expensive customers to rates that they can literally not afford. It does, however, force citizens to pay whatever the insurance companies want as it forces everyone to have health insurance.
Of course, we know that price control does not work. That is not what I'm talking about. Prices are set by the insurance company itself and dictated by market forces. If you want, you get the Cadillac, low deductible, full coverage for more services, gets you the good room and food in the hospital plan, great! Get it. Everyone pays the same high price. The basic plans would probably have a much higher deductible but a lower monthly premium and would be intended for catastrophic coverage only, but have lower premiums that everyone on that particular plan pays. Whichever coverage point the customer chooses will have a set price. That price will be the same no matter if the customer is 18 or if the customer is 64. Basically, the insurance company will not be allowed to different prices for the same product, period. Just like when you go into a store to get a loaf of bread, the checker can not charge you $5 and then charge the next guy $2. You both pay the same price, not matter how hungry you are, or what you intend to do with the bread.
This will prevent insurance companies from overcharging customers as they become more expensive to cover in an attempt to drive them to the competition. Say, when a female customer gets married (likely to start having babies... childbirth is expensive), or a customer turns 60 (elderly are expensive medically). The sad part is that no matter what the insurance companies charge, EVERYONE will require coverage by law. We are not talking about going to court and "innocent until proven guilty" law either. The current plan will be administered by the IRS.
The company I work for handed out a price list for the differing levels of coverage from our insurance companies. There was no questionnaire, physical or anything else. It was just "employee--$X.XX/mo, employee + spouse--$Y.YY/mo, employee + spouse + child--$Z.ZZ/mo" and so on. There were three levels of coverage, each with differing benefits and each with a different price. How are they able to do this? Because those that never use the service pay the same as those that go every day. And here you said that insurance companies would leave the business before doing such a thing, and yet, every job provided health insurance plan I ever had came with a set price. I guess the company that insures me and my family must be magic or something. Maybe they are really a tire company that just sells health insurance or something because they obviously are not a health insurance company because you said that they couldn't do that. I wonder what they are...
Actuary tables are very good. When you sign up and are not ill your payments will be based on not being ill. If you sign up and are already ill, your costs will go up because it is a known fact that it will cost much more to cover you.
Oh. I get it. So the insurance
Ok then, explain how the Canadian Government has been successfully doing that and raising the limit on tax free income when its necessary, not decreasing it.
Oh... you can't? Well... sorry... you'll just have to live with your FUD.
The US is doing it to. It's called a graduated income tax. The limit as to what is considered "rich" varies depending on who you ask.
But since we are already off topic, I'll go on. A sales tax would eliminate any tax loopholes that only accountants know about. Who can afford accountants? The "rich" of course. When the poor try to use an accountant, they usually get ripped off by being given a "refund anticipation loan" at a such an obscene interest that it would be illegal in many countries.
An added benefit to a sales tax is the government has no way to try to buy votes or control our lives. Sure, they could charge higher taxes on sodas, beer and cigarettes, but there will no longer be the ability to buy a vote from Senator Fleabite of Nebraska by securing funding for a new ice fishing park.
Adding the "everyone must get coverage" clause without flat rate pricing will cause insurance companies to gouge those in high risk categories, much like auto insurance companies do today.
Such pricing makes sense. Once again, insurance is paying somebody to assume the risk that bad things will happen. When bad things are more likely to happen, you cost more to insure.
Such pricing may make sense for auto insurers, although I disagree, it will certainly not make sense for health insurance companies.
For a health company insurance company insuring someone with MS, for example, they are on the hook for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars to cover that single person. And you are saying that they should not be allowed to deny a MS patient coverage (I agree), but can base rates on preexisting conditions or risks(I disagree). How much would an insurance company have to charge to break even? What's to stop them from charging that amount or more to either cover the cost of this patient, or force this money loser to move to their competition?
What about the elderly? How much would you, as an insurer, charge to insure an 85-yr-old man? How about a 64-yr-old woman with a history of heart disease in her family? How about a woman vs. a man? Do you think it's really fair to charge women, who give birth and see the doctor much more often than men more than you would charge men? Is lacking a penis considered a "pre-existing condition"?
That's because, right now, if you become ill without coverage you cannot get coverage. Once again, refer to your two line proposal. ...
Seriously, do you disassociate yourself so much from the topic at hand that you started that you are so unable to continue with subject context? You created a proposal that changes the system such that people cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. Thus, why would people without immediate need bother with insurance? If they get ill, -then- they can get insurance. Until then, they won't need it.
Well, Gee. I don't work for an insurance company, and I don't have an MBA, and I certainly don't have a law degree or have any experience writing contracts, but since you insist, let me take a whack at it.
1) New customers with pre-existing conditions will not be denied coverage.
1a) Insurance company will provide a "loan", with collateral provided such as a car, home, boat... to pay for immediate coverage.
1b) Loan will be paid forgiven over the course of the first year after the procedure by equal, twelve, monthly installments.
1c) Once "loan" is forgiven, any liens on the collateral will be null and void.
1d) If coverage is dropped within before the lien is released, the collateral property will become the property of the insurance company and sold. If there any funds remaining from such sale and the loan is paid off, the remaining funds will be returned to the customer, after appropriate fees and interest is paid.
There ya go. Is it iron clad? Surely not. However, like I said, I have no experience in such matters. I'm sure those with law degrees and MBA's and such could make something much more iron clad.
Will any contract prevent someone from skipping town completely? No. But it's no different today. Hospitals may not legally deny coverage to ANYONE, provided they go to the more expensive emergency room. If someone that does not have coverage today and goes to a hospital for treatment and skips town, the hospital is stuck with the bill. Insurance companies are in a much better position to absorb such costs because 90% of the population pays insurance dues. 90% of the population does not to to hospitals.
I'm not particularly interested in hearing what people believe, I'm rather more interested in cold, hard facts and forming my own opinion. Neither Fox or CNN are sufficient for this purpose.
Omitting bias from a news report is impossible. There is no such things as "just the facts", even in plain text. Consider the following:
Pelosi wants to raise taxes on anyone who pays taxes
vs.
Pelosi wants to eliminate Bush's tax cuts
Both are facts. Both have a bias.
The only hope is to get both stories and make up your own mind. No network gives 100% fair coverage. Fox will have two conservatives and a liberal to debate a topic. CNN will have three liberals and one pseudo conservative to debate a given topic. MSNBC will have three liberals and a picture of a conservative's head on a SS uniformed mannequin to discuss a given topic.
That doesn't matter, as the healthy will not get coverage.
I'm healthy and I have coverage. My whole family is healthy and I have the all covered.
Being unable to "deny coverage or treatment based on a preexisting condition" is the way to lose millions in investments. Such a legal requirement without requiring the healthy to be insured - which your short two line proposal does not include - will bankrupt the insurance companies very very fast. Except that the companies would leave the market even quicker.
Again, the healthy have coverage today. Over 90% of the population is covered. Are over 90% of the population not healthy?
People don't pay for insurance because they are not healthy. That's not the point of insurance, by definition. People get insured in case something happens that makes them NOT healthy in the future. So your claim that healthy people won't get coverage falls flat. Sure, some won't. These are most of the less than 10% of the population that is not covered today.
Adding the "everyone must get coverage" clause without flat rate pricing will cause insurance companies to gouge those in high risk categories, much like auto insurance companies do today. The elderly, the over weight, women of "birthing age", or those with family histories of diabetes, cancer or mental illness could be charged more, MUCH more, and they would be REQUIRED BY LAW to purchase it at any price or face the wrath of the IRS.
We have nothing to fear but Fox itself.
So true. Because any voice contrary to what we already believe should be feared and silenced!
Sarcasm noted and agreed with.
However there should be reasonable argument whose points don't have to include conspiracy theories.
I wish I could agree. Read the comment after yours:
Right, it's because Fox is saying something we disagree with that we want them to shut the hell up. It can't possibly be because they knowingly and willingly claim lies as facts and then try and hide behind the 1st amendment as a way to avoid responsibility for their actions. Nope, it's definitely because they do not share our beliefs.
Moron.
Here, the poster claims that FNC is not news. So how far of a stretch is it to say that they don't deserve Bill of Rights protection guaranteeing free press? And since what they are saying are all "lies", they should not get free speech protection either since they can't claim parody since they claim to be a News organization.
Stretch? Google "fairness doctrine" and imagine how it could apply to Fox News or anyone else who reports something that the party in power disagrees with or simply doesn't want reported. The White House already tried to ban them from WH press events.
Stewart himself points out over and over again that TDS is comedy.
True, but for the majority of the audience, it is their primary "news" source.
Fox News bills itself as, well, news. Then again, why am I saying anything who says O'Reilly gives liberals a fair shake?
First, Bill O'Reilly is a commentator, not a news anchor. If you want to call Bill O'Reilly or any of the other FNC commentators "news", then shouldn't you do the same for Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews (who got a tingle up his leg from hearing Obama speak)? Why are not you not here screaming about how unfair MSNBC is?
Next, I have never, EVER seen a conservative on Olbermann's show. I see several on O'Reilly every night. HERE is a video of a liberal on O'Reilly that, strangely enough, is not shouted down. (That must not be a real video, since you believe that it never happens). Can you find an Olbermann video of a conservative? No? I guess you have to admit that FNC is more "Fair and Balanced" than MSNBC.
Oh, and HERE is a story about Bill O'Reilly "blasting" Laura Ingraham. Laura is a conservative and O'Reilly was defending Michelle Obama. Have you ever seen Matthews, Olbermann, or Maddow (a feminist) stand up for Laura Bush over the objections of one more liberal than they are?
Your comparison is poor. Insurance is not a buffet market restaurant. It is a third party, charging its customers a flat rate for all their eating needs. Then you're requiring it, by law, to not refuse heavy eaters, binge eaters, and people who only decide to get coverage when they are hungry and forego coverage when they are not.
Strange. My cell phone provider has found a way to keep me from getting a cell phone only when I need to make a call. It's a shame that the massive legal teams at these insurance companies can't find a way to do the same.
Oh, and buffet restaurants are not legally allowed to discriminate.
But even if you drop the restaurant analogy, you can't touch "I guess you are wrong when you assumed that the board members of insurance companies would rather loose millions in investments and make thousands of their employees unemployed than simplify their books by charging a flat rate."
You would have been better off showing that those that have cheaper rates, like the young and healthy, would probably get higher rates because they would need to be charged the same as the 64-yr-old smoking diabetic who has to wheel around an O2 tank behind their Hoverounds.
I agree completely, and I hope you will support my position that medical care is a work of the devil since it's god that made us sick, go intends for us to be sick. This makes health care imminently affordable, since we need no treatment because doing so would defy god's will. Furthermore, I'm sure you will agree with my ideas on the geocentric, flat, young earth theory. /satire
The point of the above is that accepting contrary voices just because they're contrary doesn't put you in any better position to identify the truth than "fearing and silencing" contrary opinions. The fact is that Fox is not a useful resource, they're crowd baiting and playing on irrational fears to make a profit.
So, if I disagree with you, my point is "satire"? Are you saying that those that oppose health care don't have valid points worth hearing? Even take it beyond health care, are you saying that anyone with an opinion different than yours or the Democratic party so ridiculous that they must be stricken from the record and banned repeating?
Also, since we are on health care, can you show me where controlling health care is a power spelled out in the Constitution? If you can't find it, shouldn't that be a power that is reserved to the states of the people" according to the Tenth Amendment?
Or do you feel that The Constitution and/or The Bill of Rights is "...the work of the devil..."? (yes, more /satire)
Let me help you out here:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Health Care is NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states. Why is it not reserved to the states respectively, or to the people?
The problem is that they irresponsibly provide a contrary position marketed to a segment of the American population least capable of dividing fact from fiction.
You just described "The Daily Show" to the letter.
It would be funny if a majority of people didn't get their news from talkshows like Letterman, Leno and even Stewart. I would think Fox News should be the least of your worries. Why are you railing on Fox News and not John Stewart? Oh, that's right. Fox News is the only network that will present the side from the right as well as the left, whereas Stewart only has conservatives on to ridicule them.
Fox does not report the news, they manufacture a good story in the guise of news to make money off people.
Like the CNN reporter that went to a Tea Party rally and dried to prove the Tea Partiers wrong by saying things like, "You do realize you paid more in taxes under Reagan, right?" How about the CNN report that called a picture of Obama made to look like Hitler "offensive", but called a statue of Bush with a Hitler mustache and a NAZI uniform a "look alike".
And CNN is the more moderate of the networks. Don't even get me started on MSNBC. When was the last time you saw a conservative on Olbermann's show? I saw a liberal on O'Reilly every time I watch him and they are almost always given a fair shake.
Hmmm.. Maybe you should actually WATCH FoxNews instead of just repeating what you heard your GreenPeace friends utter over organic, fair market, open range latte's. You might actually learn what the other side has to say. As of right now, it appears you only know half the story.
Actually, I should have been more specific... Back to the Future 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future_Part_II) is what I was really referring to. (Flying cars, etc...)
Hence, the "Hover Board" reference, but no worries, mate!
Thanks for keeping me in check.
Cheers!
I knew what you meant and just wanted to give you hard time. Thanx for being a good sport.
The problem is the immediate departure from the industry by all participants.
You are right. There used to be a bunch of restaurants around here that charged people based on how much they ate. Then one day, a buffet opened up that charged everyone the same amount. Then all the restaurants closed all across the country because they refused to stay in business because they insisted on charging their customers on how much they ate as opposed to a flat rate.
Oh wait. No they didn't. All the restaurants stayed open and even a few new ones opened up along with a few more buffet style restaurants. So... I guess you are wrong when you assumed that the board members of insurance companies would rather loose millions in investments and make thousands of their employees unemployed than simplify their books by charging a flat rate.
Right now the US government provides healthcare for about 2.8m military personal (active and retired) and their families for about $40b/year. For $1250/mo that is a pretty efficient program.
You have obviously never dealt with the military health care program. I have and let me tell you a little about it.
First, is sick call for active duty. If you are sick, you have to show up at the medical center by 6:00am. Keep in mind this is an hour and a half before you would normally show up for "work", so you better know you are sick the night before so you can wake up early. If you wake up at 7:00am for 7:30 PT and realize you have explosive diarrhea, tough! You better pack a diaper.
If you are not outside the medical center and standing in line by 6:30am, you are sent back to your unit. Notice I said STANDING and OUTSIDE, regardless of the weather. If you have a cold and it's 10 degrees F and raining, tough. You better be in line by 6:30 or you won't get seen. And by seen, I don't mean by a doctor. In two years that I was in the Army, I never saw an actual doctor for an illness. Regardless of my ailment, I was seen by a medic who gave me over the counter pills and sent me back to work. If I had an injury, like a sprained ankle, I was given a "profile", meaning there were some thing I was not allowed to do, like run or march.
Next, surgery. I had two wisdom teeth pulled by an Army surgeon. I was given local anesthetic only. I showed up at 6:00am, waited until noon while filling out loads of paper work. I met the doctor who put me in the chair, gave me my shots and after testing the anesthetic by saying, "can you feel this?", he began to pull my teeth. I vividly remember the sound of the drill cutting into my teeth, the vibrations in my skull, smell of the smoke, the sound of the scraping, the feel of his knee on my chest as he grunted to get the teeth out and sound of the "pop" as pulled each tooth out, one half at a tooth at a time. I was given Vicodin and some gauze and was sent back to my unit. I was given a day off and a "profile" from aerobic activity for another two days.
I had my other two teeth pulled by a civilian dentist after I left the service. I showed up and was given a thorough exam before scheduling the surgery. On surgery day, I walked in, filled out one sheet of paper and took a pill that knocked me out. I woke up a few hours later on a bed at the dentist's office and my wisdom teeth were gone.
Of course, I won't even go into details on the comparison between military and civilian doctor's offices. But I will say that one has sterile, florescent lighting and white tile floors, visit your local post office of court house for an example. The other has comfortable couches, carpet, TV's and other entertainment while you wait.
As for military families, I was single, so I didn't have to experience that. However, a buddy of mine did. He unfortunately lost his baby due to a miscarriage. His wife had pains and went in to see the doctors around 6:00am. Around 3:00pm, she saw a doctor's assistant who performed an exam and determined that their baby had died. She was told to come back Monday for a DNC because it was Friday and they wouldn't be able to complete the procedure before "quitting time" of 4:00pm. She had to go home with her dead baby in her belly and carry it around all weekend before someone would remove it on Monday afternoon. SICK!!
So, please don't even try to tell me how great and efficient military health care is. I know from experience that it sucks and it made up my mind years ago that I will never let the government control my health care. I get much better care now that I ever did in the military and don't pay anywhere near $1250/month for my entire family, much less myself!
I didn't read past this sentence:
Don't raise taxes for the little guy, but the capital gains tax, and the taxes on anyone making over $250,000 a year definitely need to rise
Why $250,000/yr? Why not $225,000? Surely people that make $225,000/yr can afford to pay more in taxes. Hell, so can people making $200,000. I mean, $200,000 is a LOT of money. Most houses don't cost that much. $150,000/yr is plenty. You would be had pressed to find anyone who punches a time clock making $150,000/yr. $150K will buy you a new car every two months! They don't need $150K/yr. Why do you not tax them more? For that matter, if you are making $100,000/yr, you can buy two new Cadillacs a year and pay CASH for them. Why are you not taxing these fat cats? While we are at it, you can live comfortably on $75,000, especially considering that the majority of the people in the world make less than $100/month and seem to do just fine. Why do these people think that they need more than $75,000/yr? Surely they could survive on $50,000/yr if we were to tax $25,000/yr, especially when you consider the benefits they would receive. They would not longer need a car as we could afford public transportation. There would no longer need health care as it would be provided for them at the new government run health offices we could afford now. They could show up at 5:00am and be processed by noon. That's less than half a day! Everything would be provided and all people would be equal, regardless of how much money they make or how hard they work. True Utopia!
Anyway, the point is that when you start telling people that $X is enough to live on, someone will find a smaller number that is also enough to live on. Those that say that the rich should pay their fair share may wake up to find that the level that makes you "rich" has dipped below whatever they are making. I laughed at a bunch of students in California who were protesting higher tuition rates. These same students have been screaming for higher taxes on the rich and saying that these fat cats must pay their fair share. Well, guess what? Now those students are "rich" and are being asked to pay their fair share. They are obviously not too happy about it.
do private insurers have better resume???
NO.
OK, then fix that. How's this:
No insurance company may deny coverage or treatment based on a preexisting condition.
Insurance companies may only base prices on the level of coverage received. No insurance company may charge different customers different rates based on any conditions (age, health, race, etc)
There! I fixed the problem in three sentences. What's the point of the other 2000 pages?
We have nothing to fear but Fox itself.
So true. Because any voice contrary to what we already believe should be feared and silenced!
I'm still waiting for the "Back to the Future" cars to start surfacing.
DeLoreans have been around for years. The company started in 1975 and went bankrupt in 1982.
Right on...
Another failed Bush program that lined the pockets of the politically connected.
Uh, actually Bush wanted a REAL fence, not a virtual one. Congress even passed funding for it, only to fail to fund it. So tell me again how this "virtual" fence failure is Bush's fault?
Besides, the whole blame Bush BS has gotten really REALLY old. Let it go. Everyone's blaming Palin now.
Which is what these devices do, if I follow the news from the past few years. These missiles just explode, and anyone near enough gets killed or injured also. This is not any different from a car bomb, which that same government would most probably call terrorism. When it is a missile instead of a car, it is obviously terrorism also, but I bet that the government won't call it that.
WRONG!
Sure, they are both bombs, but being a bomb does not make it a tool of terrorism. We use explosives all the time for all kinds of things. Is blasting rock to build a tunnel terrorism? Of course not. Terrorists also use pencils. Does that mean that pencils should be banned because they are the tools of terrorists?
By definition, terrorism is meant to cause "terror" among the population. This is why an attack that kills tens of civilians can just as powerful as one that kills hundreds or thousands. Remember the "Beltway Sniper"? How about the Anthrax scares? Remember when Tylenol was poisoned with cyanide? These were all successful terrorist attacks, even though the actual casualty count was low.
Causing terror is only half of what makes an act terrorism. All militaries use tactics to confuse and terrorize their enemy. It is an accepted and legal tactic of war. The second half of what makes a terrorist's act "terrorism" is the target. A terrorist has no interest in killing, maiming or even terrorizing military targets. (and no, the guy that shot up Ft. Hood was not a traditional terrorist, except for the fact that his targets were completely unarmed). The goal of a terrorist is to create terror among civilians. THAT is their target. That is what makes us different from them. We try our hardest to PROTECT the civilian population and only take out the military targets. Terrorists attack the civilians and AVOID the military targets. And THAT is why you are wrong. That is where your intellect fails. I sincerely hope that it is just your political ideology that has clouded your judgement and not raw stupidity. On second thought, I don't know which is worse. Raw stupidity can be dealt with. History has shown that ideologically induced stupidity is very dangerous.
Good information. To quote Johnny Carson, "I did not know that."
Still, I'd hardly consider mosquitoes to be a valid reason to prevent energy exploration and exploitation of such areas, although I'm sure there are some that think every bug is sacred.
And, yes, I know there is other live forms there, but like ANWR, we are talking about extremely vast areas. It would be like not building a house in Houston because there is an endangered desert rat in El Paso.
I like to admire the Asian tundra on Google Earth, and think about what a paradise it must be for mosquito predators, birds and such. I guess now we will be trying to discover how much environmental degradation is required to crash that eco-system. Too bad.
Um... tundra is permanently frozen ground. Not a lot of mosquitoes can lay their eggs in a puddle of ice. Think frozen desert (Death Valley, not ice cream). You could even call it something like Mars on Earth. Not a big ecosystem to crash there.
Since this seems to be the "joke" thread, allow me to put in my $0.02
I was on a farm doing research on genetic engineering and kept seeing something zip around at amazing speeds. I asked the farmer what it was and he told me it was chickens.
"See," he said, "the drumstick is everyone's favorite part of the chicken. So we engineered chickens with three legs. For every two chickens we sell, it's like we are selling three, leg-wise. It actually reduces waste since the factories don't find themselves with extra breasts and other crappy parts that they have to throw away or turn into chicken nuggets."
I said, "WOW!!!! That's amazing. How do they taste?"
He replied, "Hell if I know. We haven't been able to catch one yet!"
________________________________________________________
Please, tip your waitress.