Cobra is the extension of existing coverage, his "pre-existing condition" would not have been a factor - he would not have to apply for coverage, he would only need to start paying the full cost of his previous coverage.
Besides, denying anyone coverage because of a pre-existing condition is illegal, remember?
Massachusetts spent three years rolling it's citizens into what I'll call "RomneyCare" - this President & his supporters implemented a similar law that applied to 49 other states and decided that the entire rollout would be over a handful of months.
Massachusetts didn't lard up the definition of "healthcare" to include every conceivable service, then jack up the copays and deductibles to get something that kinda-sorta looks like affordable coverage.
Massachusetts knew how to implement RomneyCare for less than the federal government would spend on a failed website.
Massachusetts was able to provide coverage for all uninsured residents, once Obamacare is fully implemented, the best estimate are that the number of uninsured Americans will drom from an estimated 40 million to an estimated 30 million, or about one in ten Americans, down from about one in twelve Americans.
Why did the Democrats insist on "improving" what Romney already implemented in Massachusetts?
(Keeping kids on their parent's plans until their 26th birthday isn't such a big deal, there were a few STATES that already implemented that, it not a novel idea invented for Obamacare.)
They gave themselves over three years to implement the website, but choose to spend most of that "refining" their design.
Then, once they implemented the website (the parts of the website they choose to implement, saving "payment" and "appeal" backend systems for later), they allowed themselves 3-6 months for every uninsured American to get on to the website and apply for coverage. If there was a problem with the website, they had a plan - they had paper applications, call centers, and in-person navigators to assist applicants. The only problem was the call centers, the in-person navigators, and the folks processing the paper applications relied on the same website that people were unable to use...
It was a really great plan, except they awarded the contract to build the website based on factors that seemed to not consider previous successes or failures of the companies responding to the RFP.
Republican politicians were neither 'the' nor 'a' reason Detroit was mis-managed. Literal decades after decades of single-party rule robbed the locals of any need for their politicians to defend/justify their actions, so they went off the rails in a spectacular fashion.
The ONLY blame you can heap on Republicans in Detroit would be for letting the Democrats run the city by failing to win more elections... But are we really going to blame the loser of an election for the actions of the winner?
First of all, why is the Teacher's Union demonized here but the prison guards or border guards' union is not? Food for thought.
Because this is a report on a lawsuit brought by the parents of students who believe their children are not being treated equally because they are in some cases) being taught by incompetent teachers that "the system" can't seem to get out of the classroom...
Oddly, we need a version of "male abortion" to achieve "reproductive equality" with women, who, oddly, felt they needed the right to have an abortion in order to achieve "reproductive equality", all of which begs the question, what where women talking about when they claimed "reproductive inequality" back in the 70's?
I wonder if this will help or hurt future same-sex couples find sperm donors, egg donors, and surrogate mothers - all of which could find themselves caught up in a similar web of unintended consequences...
once we get battery technology competitive with fossil fuels
Not gonna happen anytime soon... I can put 30 gallons of gasoline in my suburban in less than 7 minutes, then drive almost 600 miles before I need to refill my truck... Can you imagine a battery pack that can recharge in under 10 minutes and then drive 600 miles? A Chevy Volt has a $10K battery pack (as I recall) and a range of 38 miles - how long does it take to recharge that battery pack? Four hours if you have a charging station, 10+ hours off a standard 110V outlet.
Batteries are not even in the same league as fossil fuels.
Great, can't wait to see diesel-electric locomotives with rubber tires driving down the highway.. you don't think those road-ready locamotives will put increased wear and tear on the roadway, do you?
And BTW, there are only two ways to power electric locomotives - overhead wires or through on-board diesel generators - how do you propose to power your imaginary plug-in electric "18 wheeler"? A trailer full of batteries? That would kind of cut into the carrying capacity of the truck, wouldn't it? And the cost... Oh, that will be one very expensive battery pack.
it turns out many electric-car owners have solar panels on their homes while eliminates or dramatically reduces their dependence on utilities.
So do most people leave their electric cars at home when their solar panels are generating electricity? No? Well then they need the power grid to soak up the electricity their solar panels generate during the day, and then they can recharge their electric car batteries at night off the power grid.
In effect, the power grid becomes a sort of storage battery for their "free" electricity.
If I drive my plug-in electric car, say, 50 miles a day, how big a solar array will I need to generate enough power to recharge my car at night? Probably pretty a pretty big one.
I wonder, how many rooftop solar arrays make economic sense without taxpayer subsidies?
he can turn it off (which he did) but he can't turn it away.
Yes, he can - he could have put the glasses in his pocket and sat a few rows closer... But I can't expect you to know that, it was stated by the "victim" in his own narrative of what happened.
I asked if they thought my Google Glass was such a big piracy machine, why didn’t they ask me not to wear them in the theater? I would have probably sat five or six rows closer to the screen (as I didn’t have any other pair of prescription glasses with me) and none of this would have happened.
And if the untrained cop ignorantly plugged his google glasses into an FBI laptop and "found" evidence of copyright infringement, would it stand up in court? If the untrained cop didn't find evidence, would a court find that convincing? If the untrained cop broke the google glasses, what would happen then? Would the fellow have agreed that it wasn't the officer's fault because the suspect asked him to do it?
Based on his actual narrative, once an officer that knew how to access the contents of the glasses (assumed, because the narrative doesn't say he had to instruct the officer) arrived, they examined the glasses and sent him on his way.
Presumably after paying a vendor $15 to sit in a dark room for two hours, one would assume he would "point" his face at the very thing he paid for. Gee, can't wait for your argument here when Glass comes in prescription form. I suppose all those with bad eyesight will be assumed criminals.
The theater (presumably) has a clearly stated "No Cameras" policy, and he choose to wear a camera into the theater.
His glasses ARE prescription glasses, but by his own account, he would have simply moved up a few rows if he were asked to take off his google glasses/camera.
He was profiled NOT for wearing prescription glasses, he was profiled for wearing a camera on his face.
Yep as in "He was free to leave, but chose not to" and "He was free to get a lawyer, but chose not to"... He was free alright, but oddly he didn't realize it at the time, even though the officers told him he was not under arrest.
So why not actually investigate by looking at the contents of the memory rather than detaining him for hours for questioning?
Because likely no one there initially knew how to examine the google glasses for evidence without corrupting the evidence.
Imagine a defense attorney questioning the officer:
"So you hooked the defendant's glasses up to a computer - had you been trained in how to do this with google glasses?"
"No."
"So how did you know how to do it?"
"Well I just plugged a wire into the only jack it fit on the google glasses and the other end into one of the many USB ports on the laptop, and then I just sorta figured it out."
"How de we know you didn't upload the video onto the google glasses?"
"Uhm, I don't know..."
I thought America learned this lesson after the OJ Murder trial, about the "chain of evidence" (essentially, if you can prove any one of the officers that takes control of the evidence against a black defendant ever uttered the "N-word" the evidence is tainted)...
He was told he wasn't under arrest and he never asked for a lawyer. Both were choices he made, but doesn't want to take responsibility for it seems.
He also said in his narrative that if asked, he would have put his glasses in his pocket and moved a few rows closer to the screen - again, another choice he made (he knew his glasses were a camera, he chose to keep them on his head in the theater).
The FBI got there too fast - they were waiting for the call, supporting the claim that there is a problem with someone recording movies at that particular theater.
Several FBI Agents don't simply show up because the local theater manager calls up and asks them to come over... Not on a Saturday night.
He never asked for a lawyer, he wasn't denied a lawyer.
He was told he wasn't under arrest, he chose to stay.
Everything that happened to him was a result of a conscious decision he made - he chose to wear his google glasses, he chose to walk out with the federal agent, he chose to answer questions, and he chose not to secure legal counsel...
Slashdot Mirror
Cobra is the extension of existing coverage, his "pre-existing condition" would not have been a factor - he would not have to apply for coverage, he would only need to start paying the full cost of his previous coverage.
Besides, denying anyone coverage because of a pre-existing condition is illegal, remember?
Massachusetts spent three years rolling it's citizens into what I'll call "RomneyCare" - this President & his supporters implemented a similar law that applied to 49 other states and decided that the entire rollout would be over a handful of months.
Massachusetts didn't lard up the definition of "healthcare" to include every conceivable service, then jack up the copays and deductibles to get something that kinda-sorta looks like affordable coverage.
Massachusetts knew how to implement RomneyCare for less than the federal government would spend on a failed website.
Massachusetts was able to provide coverage for all uninsured residents, once Obamacare is fully implemented, the best estimate are that the number of uninsured Americans will drom from an estimated 40 million to an estimated 30 million, or about one in ten Americans, down from about one in twelve Americans.
Why did the Democrats insist on "improving" what Romney already implemented in Massachusetts?
(Keeping kids on their parent's plans until their 26th birthday isn't such a big deal, there were a few STATES that already implemented that, it not a novel idea invented for Obamacare.)
They gave themselves over three years to implement the website, but choose to spend most of that "refining" their design.
Then, once they implemented the website (the parts of the website they choose to implement, saving "payment" and "appeal" backend systems for later), they allowed themselves 3-6 months for every uninsured American to get on to the website and apply for coverage. If there was a problem with the website, they had a plan - they had paper applications, call centers, and in-person navigators to assist applicants. The only problem was the call centers, the in-person navigators, and the folks processing the paper applications relied on the same website that people were unable to use...
It was a really great plan, except they awarded the contract to build the website based on factors that seemed to not consider previous successes or failures of the companies responding to the RFP.
Wow, your phone is more 'powerful' than a 14 year-old desktop?
Seriously doubt it.
And by the way, a 14 year old Win XP desktop is considered a kinda sorta wimpy desktop these days...
Which existing policy that DeBlassio has promised to repeal/reverse will accelerate the the drop in crime in NYC?
Republican politicians were neither 'the' nor 'a' reason Detroit was mis-managed. Literal decades after decades of single-party rule robbed the locals of any need for their politicians to defend/justify their actions, so they went off the rails in a spectacular fashion.
The ONLY blame you can heap on Republicans in Detroit would be for letting the Democrats run the city by failing to win more elections... But are we really going to blame the loser of an election for the actions of the winner?
Don't worry, DeBlassio will reverse the drop in crime rates...
Yeah, because the only thing keeping people out of Detroit now is high land prices!
Because this is a report on a lawsuit brought by the parents of students who believe their children are not being treated equally because they are in some cases) being taught by incompetent teachers that "the system" can't seem to get out of the classroom...
Oddly, we need a version of "male abortion" to achieve "reproductive equality" with women, who, oddly, felt they needed the right to have an abortion in order to achieve "reproductive equality", all of which begs the question, what where women talking about when they claimed "reproductive inequality" back in the 70's?
...ever goes unpunished.
I wonder if this will help or hurt future same-sex couples find sperm donors, egg donors, and surrogate mothers - all of which could find themselves caught up in a similar web of unintended consequences...
Not gonna happen anytime soon... I can put 30 gallons of gasoline in my suburban in less than 7 minutes, then drive almost 600 miles before I need to refill my truck... Can you imagine a battery pack that can recharge in under 10 minutes and then drive 600 miles? A Chevy Volt has a $10K battery pack (as I recall) and a range of 38 miles - how long does it take to recharge that battery pack? Four hours if you have a charging station, 10+ hours off a standard 110V outlet.
Batteries are not even in the same league as fossil fuels.
Great, can't wait to see diesel-electric locomotives with rubber tires driving down the highway.. you don't think those road-ready locamotives will put increased wear and tear on the roadway, do you?
And BTW, there are only two ways to power electric locomotives - overhead wires or through on-board diesel generators - how do you propose to power your imaginary plug-in electric "18 wheeler"? A trailer full of batteries? That would kind of cut into the carrying capacity of the truck, wouldn't it? And the cost... Oh, that will be one very expensive battery pack.
So do most people leave their electric cars at home when their solar panels are generating electricity? No? Well then they need the power grid to soak up the electricity their solar panels generate during the day, and then they can recharge their electric car batteries at night off the power grid.
In effect, the power grid becomes a sort of storage battery for their "free" electricity.
If I drive my plug-in electric car, say, 50 miles a day, how big a solar array will I need to generate enough power to recharge my car at night? Probably pretty a pretty big one.
I wonder, how many rooftop solar arrays make economic sense without taxpayer subsidies?
Yes, he can - he could have put the glasses in his pocket and sat a few rows closer... But I can't expect you to know that, it was stated by the "victim" in his own narrative of what happened.
Source: AMC movie theater calls FBI to arrest a Google Glass user
And if the untrained cop ignorantly plugged his google glasses into an FBI laptop and "found" evidence of copyright infringement, would it stand up in court? If the untrained cop didn't find evidence, would a court find that convincing? If the untrained cop broke the google glasses, what would happen then? Would the fellow have agreed that it wasn't the officer's fault because the suspect asked him to do it?
Based on his actual narrative, once an officer that knew how to access the contents of the glasses (assumed, because the narrative doesn't say he had to instruct the officer) arrived, they examined the glasses and sent him on his way.
The theater (presumably) has a clearly stated "No Cameras" policy, and he choose to wear a camera into the theater.
His glasses ARE prescription glasses, but by his own account, he would have simply moved up a few rows if he were asked to take off his google glasses/camera.
He was profiled NOT for wearing prescription glasses, he was profiled for wearing a camera on his face.
This reminds me of the MIT student who had a shirt with wires and electronic components on it that was stopped by TSA - many here mocked the TSA for their foolishness, but to the untrained eye she looked like a disheveled suicide bomber. Similarly, how is an observer to know if the person wearing google glasses is filming them or not?
Yep as in "He was free to leave, but chose not to" and "He was free to get a lawyer, but chose not to"... He was free alright, but oddly he didn't realize it at the time, even though the officers told him he was not under arrest.
He says in his own narrative that if he had to take off the glasses he would have simply moved up a few rows and been fine.
Apparently his vision is not as bad as yours.
Also, he wore the glasses for 6 weeks WITHOUT prescription lenses, he'd only had his prescription lenses for the previous two weeks.
So why not actually investigate by looking at the contents of the memory rather than detaining him for hours for questioning?
Because likely no one there initially knew how to examine the google glasses for evidence without corrupting the evidence.
Imagine a defense attorney questioning the officer:
"So you hooked the defendant's glasses up to a computer - had you been trained in how to do this with google glasses?"
"No."
"So how did you know how to do it?"
"Well I just plugged a wire into the only jack it fit on the google glasses and the other end into one of the many USB ports on the laptop, and then I just sorta figured it out."
"How de we know you didn't upload the video onto the google glasses?"
"Uhm, I don't know..."
I thought America learned this lesson after the OJ Murder trial, about the "chain of evidence" (essentially, if you can prove any one of the officers that takes control of the evidence against a black defendant ever uttered the "N-word" the evidence is tainted)...
He was told he wasn't under arrest and he never asked for a lawyer. Both were choices he made, but doesn't want to take responsibility for it seems.
He also said in his narrative that if asked, he would have put his glasses in his pocket and moved a few rows closer to the screen - again, another choice he made (he knew his glasses were a camera, he chose to keep them on his head in the theater).
It really says a lot about our priorities as a nation when burglaries barely interest the local cops but piracy requires the FBI.
So you are equating "local cops" with the "FBI"? "Burglaries" with "Movie Piracy"?
Burglaries tend to involve insured losses of a few thousand dollars, movie piracy (arguably) costs movie studios millions of dollars - hardly equal.
Local cops are concerned with local crimes, the FBI is interested in crimes that cross state lines.
But yeah, next time your car is broken into and your MacBook Pro is stolen, wonder why the FBI isn't investigating it.
The FBI got there too fast - they were waiting for the call, supporting the claim that there is a problem with someone recording movies at that particular theater.
Several FBI Agents don't simply show up because the local theater manager calls up and asks them to come over... Not on a Saturday night.
You obviously didn't read the story - his Google Glasses ARE prescription glasses (he paid $600 for the prescription lenses in them).
He said if asked, he would have taken off his glasses and sat a few rows closer (without objection),
He never asked for a lawyer, he wasn't denied a lawyer.
He was told he wasn't under arrest, he chose to stay.
Everything that happened to him was a result of a conscious decision he made - he chose to wear his google glasses, he chose to walk out with the federal agent, he chose to answer questions, and he chose not to secure legal counsel...