Consider a macroscopic canister filled with a classical gas (comprised of elastic molecules bouncing around and obeying Newton's laws). Suppose that at some time I gave you the positions and velocities of every single molecule in said gas to within one part in 10^-20. Though you might be able to predict the positions and velocities of every molecule for a short period of time, you would find that your prediction diverges exponentially from the true result, even though the error was initially tiny and you understood all of the dynamics in the system. Such sensitivity to initial conditions is the essence of chaos theory. Weather is a chaotic system, and you can only predict it a few days out without requiring exponentially more resources (i.e., sensors and computing power).
So, does this mean that all of fluid dynamics is bunk? What about pV = NkT? After all, if it's impossible to predict the future behavior of the gas molecules, how can we say anything about the gas? The reason you can make statements about pressure, volume, etc. is that these are bulk quantities, described by global constraint equations (e.g., conservation of energy, conservation of particle number, etc.). Climate, too, is a bulk quantity governed by global constraint equations, especially conservation of energy. Casting doubt on macroscopic climatology simply because it is impossible to make "microscopic" predictions shows a profound lack of understanding of physics.
Get rid of all the stupid environmentalists who opposed nuclear energy.
The lack of new nuclear power plants has little to do with environmentalists. Nuclear plants are a huge long-term investment—tens of billions of dollars—and the payback period is decades away. If long-term market prices change in an unfavorable way, you're screwed. For example, solar power has been following its own version of Moore's Law for some time now, so why on Earth would you build a nuclear plant if there's a good chance it will be eclipsed by the sun in twenty years? They used to make economic sense, but haven't since the 80s when oil prices plummeted. Since then, essentially the only actors willing to make the investment have been governments.
Congratulations, you tripped my bullshit alarm in the first ten words of your post. "The founders" were not a homogeneous wise group, and the Constitution is itself a series of compromises between many people with different viewpoints. Moreover, rampant use of the filibuster is a recent phenomenon spurred by a Senate rule change in the 1970s. Prior to that, it was used maybe once or twice a year, and simple majorities were required to pass most legislation.
No offense, but you sound like someone who get all their history from Glenn Beck.
So no research ever happens without federal funding?
With regards to basic science, pretty much. Don't worry, though: it's not unique to the U.S., and is the standard around the world. It's simply a reflection of the fact that private companies will not fund research that has no potential for profit in the next five years. A hundred and fifty years ago, only nobles could afford to do science because they could afford to fund their own research. Public funding really changed the game. In fact, the most prominent historical exception, Bell Labs, is the exception that proves the rule. It was able to insulate its scientists from profitability concerns because AT&T had such a strong monopoly, and was essentially quasi-governmental. When the monopoly went away, its star faded.
The system's also something of an artifact of the way in which scientists are trained. To do meaningful research, you have to get a Ph.D. and spend years slogging through grad school. Professors have no way of funding their own research and rely on grants to support their students. Grad school isn't like med school or law school, where the eventual earning potential is high enough to justify taking out massive loans.
There is not a single Democrat in Congress who has ever advocated the forced censorship or abolition of "hate speech." Where did you get this notion? (I see this sentiment a lot on Slashdot, but have never seen a shred of evidence other than the fact that they tend to be more politically correct.)
I am extremely skeptical of the anti-radiation alarmists, but don't dismiss the possibility of non-ionizing radiation doing damage out of hand. After all, microwaves are also non-ionizing.
Printing on paper is not the same as printing on plastic. Look at both under a microscope: paper looks like a pillowy fibrous material, while plastic still looks flat.
Besides, have you seen how the Senate operates these days? After one year in office, Obama hasn't even finished making low-level appointments because certain Republicans senators decided to put a blanket hold on all of his nominations.
Contrary to popular belief, that rarely happens. Sometimes, last-minute amendments are added to already-long bills, and so the opposition party says, "This x-page bill was voted on less than a day after it was introduced!" In truth, the vast majority of the legislation has usually been debated for months.
What's pathetic is that you care so little for your freedom that you're happy for laws to be passed without any public debate so long as you're eventually notified.
Did I say that? My point is that there will be a public debate, and that debate will come when the negotiations are finished. As long as you don't know what's in the treaty, you're allowing yourself to be scared by a bogeyman. It's no different than Glenn Beck's rantings about how the Obama administration is supposedly directing FEMA to build concentration camps. If you have no proof of something, you shouldn't allow yourself to be scared by it.
I find it pathetic that your comment has been modded up, because it proves that you and several others have completely bought into the FUD surrounding ACTA. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: all treaties must be ratified in public by the Senate. I repeat, all treaties must be ratified in public by the Senate. There is no "treason" here because nothing has been voted on; if the ACTA negotiations are ever finished and it is presented before the Senate, it will automatically become public knowledge. These "leaked" documents that periodically appear are beyond worthless: we have no idea whether they're legitimate or not, so there's no reason to let yourself get worked up over it.
In all seriousness, "czar" is just an informal term that the media began using to describe these types of positions. Unfortunately, people who aren't very well-informed see the word and think that they represent some sort of communist plot to seize power. They really don't have any authority, and are ultimately just specialized advisors to the president.
Biden puts his foot in his mouth from time to time, but he was also the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee and was widely considered the Senate's foremost expert on foreign relations. I'm legitimately curious: what statements did he make that made him appear ignorant to you?
This is not to say that Obama ordered this, but as he is the CEO, if you will, and appointed the guy that directly oversees it, he definitely bears some responsibility. As this particular case is not terribly high profile, he probably wasn't briefed or asked about it. Regardless, it is certainly within his power to tell them to stop.
Except in this case, the subpoena was issued on January 30th, four days before Eric Holder was confirmed by the Senate. Obama had zero influence in this decision (direct or indirect), and the subpoena was rescinded a scant three weeks after Holder's installation.
The subpoena was issued on January 30th, Eric Holder was confirmed on February 3rd, and the subpoena was rescinded on February 25th. There are a lot of things you can criticize the Obama Justice Department for, but this is not one of them. Looks to me like they actually did solve this problem.
I don't get how anyone can claim they have the right to being cured of any sickness they get. Doctors work their asses off to get where they are.
If you think that the extra costs we spend in the U.S. on health care go to doctors or for better treatment, you're sadly mistaken. Approximately 30% of the costs go directly to the insurance industry. Another 14% are spent by hospitals on staff whose sole job is to file insurance claims. That's right, almost half our costs are administrative in nature.
The best cost to remove is the litigation and effects of the litigation that are destroying the system.
I find it sad that right-wing politicians have convinced you of an idea that has no basis in fact. The direct costs of tort are negligible: 0.46%, according to the recent estimates. [1] While you might assert that the indirect costs of defensive medicine are higher, you have no way to prove that this is the case. Indeed, there is a lack of statistical correlation between the states with lower health costs and the states with tort caps. And while correlation does not imply causation, lack of correlation does imply lack of causation.
By the way, Canada has more tort per capita than the U.S. They also have lower infant mortality rates, higher life expectancies, higher cancer survival rates, and lower costs. Please, tell me how my evidence is wrong and how litigation really is destroying the system. I'll be especially persuaded by the anecdotal testimony of some doctor bitching and moaning about his malpractice insurance costs.
(FYI, don't get surgery in Texas. If the surgeon accidentally cuts your balls off because he switched your chart with someone else's, the most you'll be able to get is $250k. And just think, since the cap was passed in 2003, the state has seen its costs rise more than anyone else's. Tort "reform," indeed.)
[1] G.F. Anderson et al., "Health Spending in the United States and the Rest of the Industrialized World," Health Affairs 24, no. 4 (2005): 903-914.
Well, the CBO estimates 20 million by 2019, not 11 or 12 million. They were also basing this on 2000 numbers, vs. the Lewin Group's use of 2006 numbers. The Lewin group also assumed that every insurer would offer some kind of plan, and that every individual would have some coverage. (That's what the Universal in Universal Health Care means.) The CBO assumed that some companies and some people would not take part in a plan, and elect to pay fines instead. That accounts for the differences.
Like I said, the Lewin group is a wholly-owned subsidiary of United Health Care. Their stated agenda is to prevent health care reform, and even they're not claiming that it will shut down the private market.
Nice talking point, but it's too easily recognized. I'd change the companies involved around a little, though. I'd ask how to explain the success of the opposition to Obama care when it's not government funded and the support for it is. I mean, it's not like ACORN is paying me to post on Slashdot.
What? The health care industry has already spent tens of billons fighting reform. The federal government has spent nothing, unless you include the salaries of the president and Democratic representatives. Besides, a poll was released today by AARP that suggested that 79% of all people are in favor of a public option.
But since the government is directly providing the service of delivering mail poorly, and UPS and FedEx are providing the service of delivering mail correctly, no shit they're going to do b
For 44 cents, you can send a letter from Maine and have it arrive in Hawaii in three days or less. FedEx and UPS would charge you at least $5. How is the USPS doing poorly? Also, for the record, the public option would be a quasi-public entity as well.
Just like the Social Security "Trust" Fund? Just like the tax to increase the money available to win the Spanish American war that stuck around for 100 years? Just like Defense Appropriations are supposed to be used to by weapons and hire people to use them, but the Democrats wanted to spend them on private congressional jets? Face it, man, when the government takes your money it throws it into a big pot and then assigns and divides it based on its current ideology.
You're missing the point. By law, those funds will be kept separate. It would take a second law to overturn the first one. If that time ever came, you could complain about that. It doesn't make the statement that "under this bill, the federal government will pay for abortions" any less false.
If that's what they genuinely mean, I ask for the plan's supporters to talk about it in terms of 8 million uninsured Americans, not 42 million uninsured people. (also, I keep hearing that "Health Insurance is a human right. How can you justify denying it to illegal immigrants on those grounds? Keep in mind that it is against the law for a doctor to refuse an emergency case based on the patient's immigration status, or even their ability to pay.)
It may be disingenuous, but it's much less so than making claims about death panels.
Except not spend 14 trillion, mainly on bureaucracy. The Democrat plan will be more costly, for the possible benefit of insurance covering more people. The Republican plan provides provisions for health insurance portability, so you can get cheaper insurance (but likely insurance that covers less) across state lines. It also includes tort reform, which WILL bring actual medical costs down. The Republican plan is cheaper than the Democrat plan. The status quo is cheaper than the Democrat plan. My plan to light a billion dollars on fire using a billion dollars worth of gasoline, plus 25 dollars for a new lighter and some lighter fluid is cheaper than the Democrat plan.
$14 trillion? You pulled that number out of your ass. No one's claiming that it will cost nearly that much
None of those "arguments" hold any water whatsoever.
Her point was that the government run system would necessarily introduce rationing.
Any system, not just government-run ones, has rationing. Would you spend $500,000 to keep someone alive an extra three months? If so, would you spend $1 million to keep someone alive for one month? What about $5 million to keep someone alive for a week? A billion for a day?
And actually, a little bit of "rationing" through the use of efficacy studies is important. The Mayo Clinic has some of the best health care outcomes in the country and also keep their costs low, a result of their stringent standards. Constrast this with the hospitals in McAllen, Texas, whose doctors spend three times as much as the national average and have some of the worst outcomes.
Right now, the rationing is done by private entities with no accountability to anyone, and whose sole bottom line is profit. The reality is that there is nothing in the bill that gives anyone the authority to pick winners and losers. You can say that it will all you want, but it doesn't make it so.
The public "option" would almost definitely drive private insurance out of business.
Well, the nonpartisan CBO would dispute that. They estimate that 11 or 12 million people will move to the public option if it existed. Even the Lewin Group, a wholly-owned subsidiary of United Health Care, says that only 100 million people will move to the public option. At the same time, how do you explain UPS and FedEx's ability to compete with the USPS, despite the fact that they are legally prohibited from sending certain types of mail? The facts just aren't what you think they are.
The bill will send the question of whether to pay for abortion to an unelected committee. Since Democrats are picking the committee, do you want to bet against them deciding to pay for it?
Wrong. Though the bill allows the public option to pay for abortions, it will only do so if you pay extra premiums, premiums whose funds are by law kept completely separate from the rest of its money. In other words, zero public dollars will be used for abortions. This language has been explicitly written into the bill, and has no unelected committee could override that.
To get that, you need to include short term uninsured, long term uninsured, and the 26 million illegal immigrants.
The plan specifically prevents illegal immigrants from getting coverage on the public option. I don't know what more you could ask for.
Well, this policy seems stupid especially in light of the Republican plan. This plan is to find the people who genuinely can't get insurance (i.e. the 8 million ling term uninsured) and change the rules for medicaid so that those people qualify. And then leave everyone else alone. If Republicans were implementing the Fairness Doctrine, maybe you would have heard about it.
That's because the Republican plan is absolutely atrocious, and does nothing to contain costs. The growth in costs is completely unsustainable. Just 25 years ago, health care was at 8% of GDP. Five years ago, it was at 14% of GDP. Today, it's at 17% of GDP. If nothing is done right now, health care costs will swallow the federal budget and GDP by 2020. Do I care about the uninsured? Yes. Does it bother me that 62% of all bankruptcies in the U.S. are a result of health care costs, and that 80% of them have health insurance? Absolutely. Regardless, my interest here is mainly selfish.
Actually anyone even remotely joking about assassination has been arrested. If you think people with loaded guns near Obama have mentioned assassination weren't arrested, then you're clearly nuts.
In New Hampshire, a protester with a gun was holding a sign that said "It's time to water the tree of liberty." In case you're not familiar with the full quote to which he was referring, it is "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Not only was he not arrested, he was also invited to give an interview on a national talk show. So, still think I'm nuts?
And didn't Obama make a statement last week that he doesn't care what popular opinion is on healthcare? If you want to argue that Obama is this huge proponent of free speech, then why did Obama tell people to shut up and get out of the way?
He said nothing of the sort. I have no idea what you pulled that out of.
Why did he back Pelosi on saying critics who disagree are un-American?
He didn't back Pelosi: he publicly disagreed with her. Of course, Pelosi didn't even say that critics are un-American: what she actually said was that people going to town halls and shouting down legitimate dialog are un-American. Seriously, for someone who claims to be liberal, you certainly believe an awfully-large number of fact-free right-wing talking points.
The tactic or herding protesters together and keeping them at a safe distance has existed for years. It isn't solely a Bush tactic.
Well, it's not happening under Obama. Like I said, he's the only President in decades to even pay lip service to civil liberties, and his actions back that up.
All treaty negotiations are secret, but the treaty itself has to be voted on by Congress and is thus public. Anyone making statements along the lines of "This treaty may do x" is spreading FUD.
As for the difference between the parties, while Democrats can be bought for the right price, Republicans will do it for free. This health care situation is proof of that. A few Democratic senators may have been bought by the health care industry and are holding things up, but you also have Republican ex-governors and senators making shit up about death panels.
Over half of all Americans currently believe that the health care bill creates death panels, that it includes a government takeover of medicine, that it pays for abortions, and that it pays for health care for illegal immigrants. Each assertion has no basis in fact. A stupid populace leads to stupid policy, so I'm thinking that we might need the Fairness Doctrine again.
Give me a break. Protesters have been showing up to Obama town hall meetings with loaded guns and signs tacitly calling for his assassination, and no one's done a thing. Contrast this with Bush's town halls, where people who were wearing signs that just said "No Bush" were arrested, and protesters were shuffled to "free speech zones" miles away from the venue. Actions speak louder than words, and Obama's actions show that he's the only president in recent memory to give a damn about freedom of speech.
As for Flickr, they're a private company and they do what they want.
It's really kind of misleading to say that a guitar string is a 2D wave, or a ripple on a pond is a 3D wave. Really, there are two separate concepts: the dimensionality of the domain of the wave, and the dimensionality of the wave itself. A compression wave and a guitar string are both one-dimensional waves in a one-dimensional space. A ripple on a pond is a one-dimensional wave on a two-dimensional space. Sound in a room is a one-dimensional wave in a three-dimensional space. Electromagnetic waves are six-dimensional waves in a three-dimensional space.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider a macroscopic canister filled with a classical gas (comprised of elastic molecules bouncing around and obeying Newton's laws). Suppose that at some time I gave you the positions and velocities of every single molecule in said gas to within one part in 10^-20. Though you might be able to predict the positions and velocities of every molecule for a short period of time, you would find that your prediction diverges exponentially from the true result, even though the error was initially tiny and you understood all of the dynamics in the system. Such sensitivity to initial conditions is the essence of chaos theory. Weather is a chaotic system, and you can only predict it a few days out without requiring exponentially more resources (i.e., sensors and computing power).
So, does this mean that all of fluid dynamics is bunk? What about pV = NkT? After all, if it's impossible to predict the future behavior of the gas molecules, how can we say anything about the gas? The reason you can make statements about pressure, volume, etc. is that these are bulk quantities, described by global constraint equations (e.g., conservation of energy, conservation of particle number, etc.). Climate, too, is a bulk quantity governed by global constraint equations, especially conservation of energy. Casting doubt on macroscopic climatology simply because it is impossible to make "microscopic" predictions shows a profound lack of understanding of physics.
Get rid of all the stupid environmentalists who opposed nuclear energy.
The lack of new nuclear power plants has little to do with environmentalists. Nuclear plants are a huge long-term investment—tens of billions of dollars—and the payback period is decades away. If long-term market prices change in an unfavorable way, you're screwed. For example, solar power has been following its own version of Moore's Law for some time now, so why on Earth would you build a nuclear plant if there's a good chance it will be eclipsed by the sun in twenty years? They used to make economic sense, but haven't since the 80s when oil prices plummeted. Since then, essentially the only actors willing to make the investment have been governments.
Congratulations, you tripped my bullshit alarm in the first ten words of your post. "The founders" were not a homogeneous wise group, and the Constitution is itself a series of compromises between many people with different viewpoints. Moreover, rampant use of the filibuster is a recent phenomenon spurred by a Senate rule change in the 1970s. Prior to that, it was used maybe once or twice a year, and simple majorities were required to pass most legislation.
No offense, but you sound like someone who get all their history from Glenn Beck.
So no research ever happens without federal funding?
With regards to basic science, pretty much. Don't worry, though: it's not unique to the U.S., and is the standard around the world. It's simply a reflection of the fact that private companies will not fund research that has no potential for profit in the next five years. A hundred and fifty years ago, only nobles could afford to do science because they could afford to fund their own research. Public funding really changed the game. In fact, the most prominent historical exception, Bell Labs, is the exception that proves the rule. It was able to insulate its scientists from profitability concerns because AT&T had such a strong monopoly, and was essentially quasi-governmental. When the monopoly went away, its star faded.
The system's also something of an artifact of the way in which scientists are trained. To do meaningful research, you have to get a Ph.D. and spend years slogging through grad school. Professors have no way of funding their own research and rely on grants to support their students. Grad school isn't like med school or law school, where the eventual earning potential is high enough to justify taking out massive loans.
There is not a single Democrat in Congress who has ever advocated the forced censorship or abolition of "hate speech." Where did you get this notion? (I see this sentiment a lot on Slashdot, but have never seen a shred of evidence other than the fact that they tend to be more politically correct.)
I am extremely skeptical of the anti-radiation alarmists, but don't dismiss the possibility of non-ionizing radiation doing damage out of hand. After all, microwaves are also non-ionizing.
It was something all Slashdot agreed on until the Obama administration started pushing for it.
Printing on paper is not the same as printing on plastic. Look at both under a microscope: paper looks like a pillowy fibrous material, while plastic still looks flat.
Besides, have you seen how the Senate operates these days? After one year in office, Obama hasn't even finished making low-level appointments because certain Republicans senators decided to put a blanket hold on all of his nominations.
Nothing passes the Senate anymore.
Contrary to popular belief, that rarely happens. Sometimes, last-minute amendments are added to already-long bills, and so the opposition party says, "This x-page bill was voted on less than a day after it was introduced!" In truth, the vast majority of the legislation has usually been debated for months.
What's pathetic is that you care so little for your freedom that you're happy for laws to be passed without any public debate so long as you're eventually notified.
Did I say that? My point is that there will be a public debate, and that debate will come when the negotiations are finished. As long as you don't know what's in the treaty, you're allowing yourself to be scared by a bogeyman. It's no different than Glenn Beck's rantings about how the Obama administration is supposedly directing FEMA to build concentration camps. If you have no proof of something, you shouldn't allow yourself to be scared by it.
I find it pathetic that your comment has been modded up, because it proves that you and several others have completely bought into the FUD surrounding ACTA. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: all treaties must be ratified in public by the Senate. I repeat, all treaties must be ratified in public by the Senate. There is no "treason" here because nothing has been voted on; if the ACTA negotiations are ever finished and it is presented before the Senate, it will automatically become public knowledge. These "leaked" documents that periodically appear are beyond worthless: we have no idea whether they're legitimate or not, so there's no reason to let yourself get worked up over it.
In all seriousness, "czar" is just an informal term that the media began using to describe these types of positions. Unfortunately, people who aren't very well-informed see the word and think that they represent some sort of communist plot to seize power. They really don't have any authority, and are ultimately just specialized advisors to the president.
Biden puts his foot in his mouth from time to time, but he was also the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee and was widely considered the Senate's foremost expert on foreign relations. I'm legitimately curious: what statements did he make that made him appear ignorant to you?
This is not to say that Obama ordered this, but as he is the CEO, if you will, and appointed the guy that directly oversees it, he definitely bears some responsibility. As this particular case is not terribly high profile, he probably wasn't briefed or asked about it. Regardless, it is certainly within his power to tell them to stop.
Except in this case, the subpoena was issued on January 30th, four days before Eric Holder was confirmed by the Senate. Obama had zero influence in this decision (direct or indirect), and the subpoena was rescinded a scant three weeks after Holder's installation.
The subpoena was issued on January 30th, Eric Holder was confirmed on February 3rd, and the subpoena was rescinded on February 25th. There are a lot of things you can criticize the Obama Justice Department for, but this is not one of them. Looks to me like they actually did solve this problem.
I don't get how anyone can claim they have the right to being cured of any sickness they get. Doctors work their asses off to get where they are.
If you think that the extra costs we spend in the U.S. on health care go to doctors or for better treatment, you're sadly mistaken. Approximately 30% of the costs go directly to the insurance industry. Another 14% are spent by hospitals on staff whose sole job is to file insurance claims. That's right, almost half our costs are administrative in nature.
The best cost to remove is the litigation and effects of the litigation that are destroying the system.
I find it sad that right-wing politicians have convinced you of an idea that has no basis in fact. The direct costs of tort are negligible: 0.46%, according to the recent estimates. [1] While you might assert that the indirect costs of defensive medicine are higher, you have no way to prove that this is the case. Indeed, there is a lack of statistical correlation between the states with lower health costs and the states with tort caps. And while correlation does not imply causation, lack of correlation does imply lack of causation.
By the way, Canada has more tort per capita than the U.S. They also have lower infant mortality rates, higher life expectancies, higher cancer survival rates, and lower costs. Please, tell me how my evidence is wrong and how litigation really is destroying the system. I'll be especially persuaded by the anecdotal testimony of some doctor bitching and moaning about his malpractice insurance costs.
(FYI, don't get surgery in Texas. If the surgeon accidentally cuts your balls off because he switched your chart with someone else's, the most you'll be able to get is $250k. And just think, since the cap was passed in 2003, the state has seen its costs rise more than anyone else's. Tort "reform," indeed.)
[1] G.F. Anderson et al., "Health Spending in the United States and the Rest of the Industrialized World," Health Affairs 24, no. 4 (2005): 903-914.
What? Sensationalistic libertarian FUD on Slashdot? Why, I never!
Well, the CBO estimates 20 million by 2019, not 11 or 12 million. They were also basing this on 2000 numbers, vs. the Lewin Group's use of 2006 numbers. The Lewin group also assumed that every insurer would offer some kind of plan, and that every individual would have some coverage. (That's what the Universal in Universal Health Care means.) The CBO assumed that some companies and some people would not take part in a plan, and elect to pay fines instead. That accounts for the differences.
Like I said, the Lewin group is a wholly-owned subsidiary of United Health Care. Their stated agenda is to prevent health care reform, and even they're not claiming that it will shut down the private market.
Nice talking point, but it's too easily recognized. I'd change the companies involved around a little, though. I'd ask how to explain the success of the opposition to Obama care when it's not government funded and the support for it is. I mean, it's not like ACORN is paying me to post on Slashdot.
What? The health care industry has already spent tens of billons fighting reform. The federal government has spent nothing, unless you include the salaries of the president and Democratic representatives. Besides, a poll was released today by AARP that suggested that 79% of all people are in favor of a public option.
But since the government is directly providing the service of delivering mail poorly, and UPS and FedEx are providing the service of delivering mail correctly, no shit they're going to do b
For 44 cents, you can send a letter from Maine and have it arrive in Hawaii in three days or less. FedEx and UPS would charge you at least $5. How is the USPS doing poorly? Also, for the record, the public option would be a quasi-public entity as well.
Just like the Social Security "Trust" Fund? Just like the tax to increase the money available to win the Spanish American war that stuck around for 100 years? Just like Defense Appropriations are supposed to be used to by weapons and hire people to use them, but the Democrats wanted to spend them on private congressional jets? Face it, man, when the government takes your money it throws it into a big pot and then assigns and divides it based on its current ideology.
You're missing the point. By law, those funds will be kept separate. It would take a second law to overturn the first one. If that time ever came, you could complain about that. It doesn't make the statement that "under this bill, the federal government will pay for abortions" any less false.
If that's what they genuinely mean, I ask for the plan's supporters to talk about it in terms of 8 million uninsured Americans, not 42 million uninsured people. (also, I keep hearing that "Health Insurance is a human right. How can you justify denying it to illegal immigrants on those grounds? Keep in mind that it is against the law for a doctor to refuse an emergency case based on the patient's immigration status, or even their ability to pay.)
It may be disingenuous, but it's much less so than making claims about death panels.
Except not spend 14 trillion, mainly on bureaucracy. The Democrat plan will be more costly, for the possible benefit of insurance covering more people. The Republican plan provides provisions for health insurance portability, so you can get cheaper insurance (but likely insurance that covers less) across state lines. It also includes tort reform, which WILL bring actual medical costs down. The Republican plan is cheaper than the Democrat plan. The status quo is cheaper than the Democrat plan. My plan to light a billion dollars on fire using a billion dollars worth of gasoline, plus 25 dollars for a new lighter and some lighter fluid is cheaper than the Democrat plan.
$14 trillion? You pulled that number out of your ass. No one's claiming that it will cost nearly that much
Her point was that the government run system would necessarily introduce rationing.
Any system, not just government-run ones, has rationing. Would you spend $500,000 to keep someone alive an extra three months? If so, would you spend $1 million to keep someone alive for one month? What about $5 million to keep someone alive for a week? A billion for a day?
And actually, a little bit of "rationing" through the use of efficacy studies is important. The Mayo Clinic has some of the best health care outcomes in the country and also keep their costs low, a result of their stringent standards. Constrast this with the hospitals in McAllen, Texas, whose doctors spend three times as much as the national average and have some of the worst outcomes.
Right now, the rationing is done by private entities with no accountability to anyone, and whose sole bottom line is profit. The reality is that there is nothing in the bill that gives anyone the authority to pick winners and losers. You can say that it will all you want, but it doesn't make it so.
The public "option" would almost definitely drive private insurance out of business.
Well, the nonpartisan CBO would dispute that. They estimate that 11 or 12 million people will move to the public option if it existed. Even the Lewin Group, a wholly-owned subsidiary of United Health Care, says that only 100 million people will move to the public option. At the same time, how do you explain UPS and FedEx's ability to compete with the USPS, despite the fact that they are legally prohibited from sending certain types of mail? The facts just aren't what you think they are.
The bill will send the question of whether to pay for abortion to an unelected committee. Since Democrats are picking the committee, do you want to bet against them deciding to pay for it?
Wrong. Though the bill allows the public option to pay for abortions, it will only do so if you pay extra premiums, premiums whose funds are by law kept completely separate from the rest of its money. In other words, zero public dollars will be used for abortions. This language has been explicitly written into the bill, and has no unelected committee could override that.
To get that, you need to include short term uninsured, long term uninsured, and the 26 million illegal immigrants.
The plan specifically prevents illegal immigrants from getting coverage on the public option. I don't know what more you could ask for.
Well, this policy seems stupid especially in light of the Republican plan. This plan is to find the people who genuinely can't get insurance (i.e. the 8 million ling term uninsured) and change the rules for medicaid so that those people qualify. And then leave everyone else alone. If Republicans were implementing the Fairness Doctrine, maybe you would have heard about it.
That's because the Republican plan is absolutely atrocious, and does nothing to contain costs. The growth in costs is completely unsustainable. Just 25 years ago, health care was at 8% of GDP. Five years ago, it was at 14% of GDP. Today, it's at 17% of GDP. If nothing is done right now, health care costs will swallow the federal budget and GDP by 2020. Do I care about the uninsured? Yes. Does it bother me that 62% of all bankruptcies in the U.S. are a result of health care costs, and that 80% of them have health insurance? Absolutely. Regardless, my interest here is mainly selfish.
Actually anyone even remotely joking about assassination has been arrested. If you think people with loaded guns near Obama have mentioned assassination weren't arrested, then you're clearly nuts.
In New Hampshire, a protester with a gun was holding a sign that said "It's time to water the tree of liberty." In case you're not familiar with the full quote to which he was referring, it is "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Not only was he not arrested, he was also invited to give an interview on a national talk show. So, still think I'm nuts?
And didn't Obama make a statement last week that he doesn't care what popular opinion is on healthcare? If you want to argue that Obama is this huge proponent of free speech, then why did Obama tell people to shut up and get out of the way?
He said nothing of the sort. I have no idea what you pulled that out of.
Why did he back Pelosi on saying critics who disagree are un-American?
He didn't back Pelosi: he publicly disagreed with her. Of course, Pelosi didn't even say that critics are un-American: what she actually said was that people going to town halls and shouting down legitimate dialog are un-American. Seriously, for someone who claims to be liberal, you certainly believe an awfully-large number of fact-free right-wing talking points.
The tactic or herding protesters together and keeping them at a safe distance has existed for years. It isn't solely a Bush tactic.
Well, it's not happening under Obama. Like I said, he's the only President in decades to even pay lip service to civil liberties, and his actions back that up.
All treaty negotiations are secret, but the treaty itself has to be voted on by Congress and is thus public. Anyone making statements along the lines of "This treaty may do x" is spreading FUD.
As for the difference between the parties, while Democrats can be bought for the right price, Republicans will do it for free. This health care situation is proof of that. A few Democratic senators may have been bought by the health care industry and are holding things up, but you also have Republican ex-governors and senators making shit up about death panels.
Over half of all Americans currently believe that the health care bill creates death panels, that it includes a government takeover of medicine, that it pays for abortions, and that it pays for health care for illegal immigrants. Each assertion has no basis in fact. A stupid populace leads to stupid policy, so I'm thinking that we might need the Fairness Doctrine again.
Give me a break. Protesters have been showing up to Obama town hall meetings with loaded guns and signs tacitly calling for his assassination, and no one's done a thing. Contrast this with Bush's town halls, where people who were wearing signs that just said "No Bush" were arrested, and protesters were shuffled to "free speech zones" miles away from the venue. Actions speak louder than words, and Obama's actions show that he's the only president in recent memory to give a damn about freedom of speech.
As for Flickr, they're a private company and they do what they want.
It's really kind of misleading to say that a guitar string is a 2D wave, or a ripple on a pond is a 3D wave. Really, there are two separate concepts: the dimensionality of the domain of the wave, and the dimensionality of the wave itself. A compression wave and a guitar string are both one-dimensional waves in a one-dimensional space. A ripple on a pond is a one-dimensional wave on a two-dimensional space. Sound in a room is a one-dimensional wave in a three-dimensional space. Electromagnetic waves are six-dimensional waves in a three-dimensional space.