What about the tens of thousands(studies show 18k-45k depending on methodology, the 18k figure is from conservative estimates) of American citizens who die every year because they simply can't afford to take part in your health care system?
Our brilliant leaders in the last administration decided to fine those folks that can't afford insurance, to help drive down premiums for those that can afford coverage.
Then, when administrations change, the new leader chooses to eliminate the Individual mandate - because taking money from people that can't afford health insurance is just mean - and gets attacked for taking healthcare away from people!
europeans don't count premies that die shortly after birth, Americans do - we have older women having riskier pregnancies and delivering more at risk babies.
A lot of the differences are in what is and is not counted.
Capture the same life span metrics from european countries and America, and the two will be much closer.
The stories people hear in the U.S. about long waiting times, people dying before getting service etc. are hand-picked outliers designed to set an anti-public health care agenda.
You know I've never heard of any American crossing the border to get expedited healthcare they didn't want to wait for in the US.
I have heard of people going to Mexico, assorted Asian countries, for elective procedures that are cheaper overseas when paying out of pocket.
So are you trying to tell me that there are only extremely few cases of Canadians crossing the border to cost US hospitals along our northern border? That's odd...
Researchers found that more than 122 million people around the world are forced to live on $3.10 a day, the benchmark for "moderate poverty," due to healthcare expenditure.
How many Americans, Europeans, Australians, etc. are forced to live on $3.10/day because of medical bills?
Don't want your information to be scraped? Have it behind a login
And the protection the login affords you is embedded in the "Term of Use" when you created your account, but if I'm reading this right (and I may not be), using your login and ignoring Terms of Use is A-OK.
Using automated scripts to access publicly available data is not "hacking," and neither is violating a website's terms of use.
If I'm reading this correctly, I'm not so sure I agree with that last bit, about "violating terms of use". So all terms of use are null and void (if my browser can find it, it's publicly accessible, no matter what I have to agree to in order to get access to it?)? For example, if I have a website that stipulates you must agree not to disseminate the information made available to you by agreeing to these terms of use, you remain free to ignore that agreement?
Or are they saying that an automated script that can bypass a Term of Use agreement isn't hacking?
Funny how they don't complain about the FCC behaving much the same way, even considering the FCC *has* a board of Commissioners and *is* subject to Congressional oversight.
I'm no political analyst, but I suspect that because the FCC is different (for the very reasons you mention) is why "they" don't complain about it.
NN regulations were shoved onto us along party lines by the FCC, why is it so startlingly amazing that those very same regulations were rolled back the same way?
Bottom line, republicans felt the regulations were over-reaching, said they'd repeal them, now they have. If you wanted this not to happen, perhaps you should have worked harder to make sure the guy promising to to do this didn't win the last election. The fix is to pass actual legislation implementing what you want, not BS regulations invented out of whole cloth and imposed on the people by the will of an appointed commissioner...
FFS the Net Neutrality regulations are exactly 18 month old, what hellish conditions did these regulations rectify, what nightmares from 2015 will come back to haunt us now?
Bottom line, these regulations went in-place along party lines, and they were removed along party lines. Let's see some actual federal legislation on this topic, instead of random executive orders like we've had so far, OK?
Maybe your buddies in China will buy it from you...oh wait, they're going "Green" too..
When? They are still today building new coal-fired power stations in China - that they manufacture and export solar cells doesn't make them "green", and BTW, the plants that make those "green" solar cells are themselves belching toxins into the environment, but yeah, they signed the Paris Climate Accord, and in the indeterminate future they promise to slow down their construction of cola-fired power plants, so yes, they are "going green", I guess.
The rental in the Silicon Valley area are ridiculously high, and one reason being there are way too many people competing for the housing
Nonsense. This is exactly backwards. The problem is supply not demand. The rich liberals want to protect their property values with artificial scarcity by electing city governments and zoning boards that issue nearly zero permits for housing construction.
Trying to understand the distinction you're trying to make - the OP said there are "way too many people competing for the housing" and you said "The problem is supply, not demand."
The same way having less than some contrived amount of income in the bank means one is "at risk of being homeless" despite having a stable job, paying all your bills, and renting/paying mortgage payment on-time for years. The argument goes "if they lost their job, they don't have sufficient funds in the bank to cover 2,4, 6 whatever arbitrary number of weeks of living expenses". Of course, with the vast majority of Americans having effectively no savings and negative net worth, that isn't so surprising.
The paradox in this story isn't that people earning minimum wage are unable to survive in Silicon Valley, it's that engineers/professionals earning $50K+ are unable to survive in Silicon Valley. The vast majority of the "food insecure" residents are gainfully employed at wages that would secure a comfortable lifestyle almost anywhere else in America, but in Silicon Valley it comes up short.
You don't need a fridge for bean storage, and some how people found ways to eat before the discovery of electricity.
Cooking simple food at home can save money over eating out (obviously), and TFA does not say that 1:4 valley residents is homeless, AKA living in a van down by the river, just that they struggle to afford food.
I think that if we had a UBI they could just move to wherever housing was cheaper.
UBI wouldn't make a significant difference in this situation, the issue is a lack of housing, not a lack of affordable housing. The basis of the paradox is that the vast majority of the people discussed in this piece are gainfully employed, making decent or better incomes, but there is a lack of housing. Handing these workers a bit more money ($12-18K/yr in UBI) won't suddenly cause apartment buildings to spring up in Atherton.
If only ISPs were able to do that in the US. No sarcasm, if there was an even remotely free market this wouldn't be an issue.
Just a reminder, it wasn't the FCC that told your local community to hand major cable/ISP vendors monopolies in exchange for a few free TVs and a public access channel.
Net Neutrality should not be necessary. It is needed because the government screwed up, and sold/leased/gave-away the right-of-ways to a single vendor in most areas.
What the heck does last-mile access have to do with Net Neutrality? Net Neutrality is about ISPs throttling or blocking traffic from select sources, not to prevent your town from agreeing to give Comcast a monopoly in home cable/broadband access in exchange for some free televisions and a local public access channel/studio.
We should not expect every ISP to dig their own trenches.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks - you did notice I questioned my interpretation, right?
"if I'm reading this right (and I may not be)"
What about the tens of thousands(studies show 18k-45k depending on methodology, the 18k figure is from conservative estimates) of American citizens who die every year because they simply can't afford to take part in your health care system?
Our brilliant leaders in the last administration decided to fine those folks that can't afford insurance, to help drive down premiums for those that can afford coverage.
Then, when administrations change, the new leader chooses to eliminate the Individual mandate - because taking money from people that can't afford health insurance is just mean - and gets attacked for taking healthcare away from people!
europeans don't count premies that die shortly after birth, Americans do - we have older women having riskier pregnancies and delivering more at risk babies.
A lot of the differences are in what is and is not counted.
Capture the same life span metrics from european countries and America, and the two will be much closer.
The stories people hear in the U.S. about long waiting times, people dying before getting service etc. are hand-picked outliers designed to set an anti-public health care agenda.
You know I've never heard of any American crossing the border to get expedited healthcare they didn't want to wait for in the US.
I have heard of people going to Mexico, assorted Asian countries, for elective procedures that are cheaper overseas when paying out of pocket.
So are you trying to tell me that there are only extremely few cases of Canadians crossing the border to cost US hospitals along our northern border? That's odd...
Researchers found that more than 122 million people around the world are forced to live on $3.10 a day, the benchmark for "moderate poverty," due to healthcare expenditure.
How many Americans, Europeans, Australians, etc. are forced to live on $3.10/day because of medical bills?
Your example of people not being able to get insulin is actually a catalog of all the non-traditional ways people get insulin.
Don't want your information to be scraped? Have it behind a login
And the protection the login affords you is embedded in the "Term of Use" when you created your account, but if I'm reading this right (and I may not be), using your login and ignoring Terms of Use is A-OK.
. "Good bots" were responsible for 23 percent of Web traffic in 2016.
Nearly one-fourth of all internet traffic is from the innocently-named "Good bots"? That's kind of amazing.
Using automated scripts to access publicly available data is not "hacking," and neither is violating a website's terms of use .
If I'm reading this correctly, I'm not so sure I agree with that last bit, about "violating terms of use". So all terms of use are null and void (if my browser can find it, it's publicly accessible, no matter what I have to agree to in order to get access to it?)? For example, if I have a website that stipulates you must agree not to disseminate the information made available to you by agreeing to these terms of use, you remain free to ignore that agreement?
Or are they saying that an automated script that can bypass a Term of Use agreement isn't hacking?
There were no rules prior to 2015 either, that was the OPs point.
NN rules have existed for 18 months, that's it.
Funny how they don't complain about the FCC behaving much the same way, even considering the FCC *has* a board of Commissioners and *is* subject to Congressional oversight.
I'm no political analyst, but I suspect that because the FCC is different (for the very reasons you mention) is why "they" don't complain about it.
NN regulations were shoved onto us along party lines by the FCC, why is it so startlingly amazing that those very same regulations were rolled back the same way?
Bottom line, republicans felt the regulations were over-reaching, said they'd repeal them, now they have. If you wanted this not to happen, perhaps you should have worked harder to make sure the guy promising to to do this didn't win the last election. The fix is to pass actual legislation implementing what you want, not BS regulations invented out of whole cloth and imposed on the people by the will of an appointed commissioner...
FFS the Net Neutrality regulations are exactly 18 month old, what hellish conditions did these regulations rectify, what nightmares from 2015 will come back to haunt us now?
Bottom line, these regulations went in-place along party lines, and they were removed along party lines. Let's see some actual federal legislation on this topic, instead of random executive orders like we've had so far, OK?
since the US government actually owns the internet
Seriously? Which parts? The last mile, the backbone fiber links? The transatlantic wires? The routers? The protocol? The DNS servers?
Truth is the US Gov't owns none of the public internet, and hasn't for decades.
Maybe your buddies in China will buy it from you...oh wait, they're going "Green" too..
When? They are still today building new coal-fired power stations in China - that they manufacture and export solar cells doesn't make them "green", and BTW, the plants that make those "green" solar cells are themselves belching toxins into the environment, but yeah, they signed the Paris Climate Accord, and in the indeterminate future they promise to slow down their construction of cola-fired power plants, so yes, they are "going green", I guess.
I seem to recall Mitt Romney pointing that out in 2012.
I also believe the then-President said something about workers losing their jobs to ATMs.
(I'm so old i still call THe 'MAC' machines.)
The rental in the Silicon Valley area are ridiculously high, and one reason being there are way too many people competing for the housing
Nonsense. This is exactly backwards. The problem is supply not demand. The rich liberals want to protect their property values with artificial scarcity by electing city governments and zoning boards that issue nearly zero permits for housing construction.
Trying to understand the distinction you're trying to make - the OP said there are "way too many people competing for the housing" and you said "The problem is supply, not demand."
Supply and Demand are two sides of the same coin.
What does it even mean to be "at risk" of hunger?
The same way having less than some contrived amount of income in the bank means one is "at risk of being homeless" despite having a stable job, paying all your bills, and renting/paying mortgage payment on-time for years. The argument goes "if they lost their job, they don't have sufficient funds in the bank to cover 2,4, 6 whatever arbitrary number of weeks of living expenses". Of course, with the vast majority of Americans having effectively no savings and negative net worth, that isn't so surprising.
The paradox in this story isn't that people earning minimum wage are unable to survive in Silicon Valley, it's that engineers/professionals earning $50K+ are unable to survive in Silicon Valley. The vast majority of the "food insecure" residents are gainfully employed at wages that would secure a comfortable lifestyle almost anywhere else in America, but in Silicon Valley it comes up short.
You don't need a fridge for bean storage, and some how people found ways to eat before the discovery of electricity.
Cooking simple food at home can save money over eating out (obviously), and TFA does not say that 1:4 valley residents is homeless, AKA living in a van down by the river, just that they struggle to afford food.
I think that if we had a UBI they could just move to wherever housing was cheaper.
UBI wouldn't make a significant difference in this situation, the issue is a lack of housing, not a lack of affordable housing. The basis of the paradox is that the vast majority of the people discussed in this piece are gainfully employed, making decent or better incomes, but there is a lack of housing. Handing these workers a bit more money ($12-18K/yr in UBI) won't suddenly cause apartment buildings to spring up in Atherton.
If only ISPs were able to do that in the US. No sarcasm, if there was an even remotely free market this wouldn't be an issue.
Just a reminder, it wasn't the FCC that told your local community to hand major cable/ISP vendors monopolies in exchange for a few free TVs and a public access channel.
Net Neutrality should not be necessary. It is needed because the government screwed up, and sold/leased/gave-away the right-of-ways to a single vendor in most areas.
What the heck does last-mile access have to do with Net Neutrality? Net Neutrality is about ISPs throttling or blocking traffic from select sources, not to prevent your town from agreeing to give Comcast a monopoly in home cable/broadband access in exchange for some free televisions and a local public access channel/studio.
We should not expect every ISP to dig their own trenches.
No, the taxpayer should? I think not.
How many days a week?
Define 'no break'. You don't get a meal break? They lock the bathrooms?
Being in a temperature-controlled room for 10 hours, four shifts a week is not 'just like' driving a delivery truck 60-70/hrs a week.
I thought this article was about Amazon UK?
Drivers are self-employed independent contractors, they don't have an HR department.