I personally don't think everyone has a "right" to healthcare. I do, however, think universal healthcare is good for the country. I also think the FDA, EPA, and the interstate highway system are good for the country. A population with a better quality of life, higher productivity, lower birth rate, less bankruptcy from medical bills, and all the other good things which come from universal healthcare is a good thing for everyone. Do you think all these "hippies" who want universal health care is a good thing don't pay taxes? I pay taxes, they pay taxes. The increasingly popular attitude of "I've got mine, the rest of you can go to hell" is sad.
Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 is a misdemeanor and fined a maximum of $5,000. This is less harsh than the penalty in many states for selling an ounce of weed.
Make sure to use cash to pay for your tinfoil. Dollar for dollar (pun intended) using cash is one of the most effective ways to increase your privacy. You cannot have total privacy and live in the modern world, but you can drastically reduce your electronic footprint.
From 1965 to 1980 there were 25 tax brackets, the bottom tax rate was 14%, the top tax rate was 70% on income above $200,00 ($1.42M in inflation adjusted dollars).
From 1946 to 1963 there were 24 tax brackets, the bottom tax rate was 20%, the top tax rate was 91% on income above $200,000 ($2.30M in inflation adjusted dollars).
This seems much more fair than 2011, where there were 6 tax brackets with a bottom tax rate of 10%, and a top tax rate of 35% on income over $379,000.
I was the poster who suggested a line item on hospital bills indicating how much of the bill was to treat the uninsured as a way to stop hiding those costs. Another way to stop hiding those costs are to make the part of insurance premiums the employer pays be considered income to the employee and itemized in their paycheck deductions. I don't feel making the patient shop around for the best deal in medical care is, at this time, practical. Next time you use your medical insurance ask the doctor exactly how much each test and procedure costs and how much the insurance company will pay. I doubt they will know, but they will refer you to someone else -- who also won't know.
There is also no constitutional right to social security, roads, clean water, safe food, or any of dozens of other things we, as a society, consider important. You mention taxes, do you think we should go back to the tax structure the United States had in the 1950s and 1960s?
It does sound good, though not very practical. Hospitals already provide an itemized bill. I doubt adding a "6% surcharge of total bill for costs related to treating uninsured patients" item is a hardship for the billing department. Any hospital which doesn't know how much it spends on treating the uninsured is, in my view, incompetent and not a place I want to be. Do you have any better ideas for showing people how much money it costs them for treating the uninsured?
I think much of the opposition to health insurance reform is because the costs to treat the uninsured are hidden. People who receive health care and do not have money or insurance cost hospitals (and patients and shareholders) a lot of money. When they pass these costs on, I think the hospitals should be required to break out these costs as separate line items on the bills they send to their patients and the insurance companies. I feel people would be much less opposed to health insurance reform when they see exactly how much they are paying to treat the uninsured. I do not think a civilized person can think "let them die in the streets" to be an option.
From a bottle of honey in my pantry: "Made in a cottage food operation that is not subject to Florida's food safety regulations." Unpasteurized (raw) milk is not covered under the Florida cottage food law, though you can still sell raw milk for "pet consumption". My point is that there ARE reasonable rules for many "cottage" products.
If AT&T is required by law to provide the same level of service with the same legal obligations then I think this is a good idea. I doubt they will want to do this. By same level of service I mean support fax, e911, same analog handoff to the customer, service during a power outage, and same voice quality. By same legal requirements I mean the services are regulated by the PUC/PSC, same resale requirements, same reliability requirements. They won't offer this. Verizon tried something similar in some areas after Sandy, but they made the mistake of admitting fax would not work and 911 service might not work. The NY AG said that was not acceptable. If AT&T does not think it can make money on POTS service, then AT&T should be required to divest itself from the "last mile" infrastructure. Remember AT&T said they needed the spectrum from T-Mobile or it would be unable to offer 4G service. They lied.
See also: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/verizon-would-end-century-of-regulation-by-killing-wireline-phone-says-ny-ag/
The total dollar amount of debt is not important. What is important is the radio of debt to GDP which started skyrocketing in the USA only since 2001. Current tax rates also concern me. Maybe moving marginal tax rates back to the rates in the 1950s or 1960s would be a good thing?
I feel it is a government's duty to maximize the good done by the money they spend. I also feel in many cases spending money on open source software development does more good than spending the money on closed source software development.
I have very little in common with the NSA, but there is one thing. If I want total privacy I must spend so many resources to accomplish my goal that I will have no resources left to accomplish anything else. The NSA has a similar problem. The alternative is to strike a balance. I don't know if keeping all the NSA's contracts only on paper is worth the additional security, but I doubt it. The worst of my secrets are simply embarrassing. I don't know what the worst of the NSA's secrets might be, but I'm pretty sure they closer to traitorous than embarrassing.
I try to keep my consumption of highly processed foods to reasonable amounts because they tend have very high amounts of things I already consume plenty of i.e. saturated fats, sodium salt, and processed sugar. I do not, however, obsess over eating healthy. Could I have a more healthy diet? Absolutely! Could I have a much less healthy diet? I did for many years. Do I feel guilty about the occasional soft drink or bacon cheeseburger? Never.
Why isn't acetaminophen also used in combination with asprin, naproxin, or ibuprofen in a single pill? Does it do no good with used with those non-opiate pain medications?
Drug tests usually test for compounds the drug is metabolized into, not the actual drug. For example if you had not used cocaine, then snorted a couple of lines and immediately took a drug test, you would still test negative. I'd have few moral issues with drug tests if they tested for intoxication at the time of the test.
In my view Obama takes into account a wide range of viewpoints and pushes a policy which tries be acceptable to the maximum number of people. What he utterly and totally fails to realize this doesn't work. The Republicans don't want this. They want to fight for their views and go back to their districts and tell the voters "it was a hard fight, we lost on some points and we won on some points, but we still got the best of those socialist hippies".
Here are some counter words: EPA, FDA, FTC. For every high profile failure of a government project or government agency there are dozens of government agencies which quietly do a very good job. The solution to high profile failure of governmental projects is to fire the people responsible, find out what went wrong, make sure it doesn't go wrong again, and hire people who can get the job done right. Much like private companies. The solution is not to preach that government always does a worse job than free enterprise.
Many VoIP plans charge for incoming, many don't. Per min rates on VoIP are often less then 1 cent per min. The rates are so low I didn't even think of it when I made my earlier post.
...contrary to current dogma, the bulk of human history has had "haves" and "have nots" - and the disparity between the two has been STAGGERING.
<br> There are various definitions of the the "American Dream", one definition could be "through hard work you can be wealthier than your parents, feed your family, and have economic stability." Some people, myself included, contend the staggering disparity between the poor and the wealthy is directly contradictory to this ideal.
Slashdot Mirror
I personally don't think everyone has a "right" to healthcare. I do, however, think universal healthcare is good for the country. I also think the FDA, EPA, and the interstate highway system are good for the country. A population with a better quality of life, higher productivity, lower birth rate, less bankruptcy from medical bills, and all the other good things which come from universal healthcare is a good thing for everyone. Do you think all these "hippies" who want universal health care is a good thing don't pay taxes? I pay taxes, they pay taxes. The increasingly popular attitude of "I've got mine, the rest of you can go to hell" is sad.
Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 is a misdemeanor and fined a maximum of $5,000. This is less harsh than the penalty in many states for selling an ounce of weed.
Make sure to use cash to pay for your tinfoil. Dollar for dollar (pun intended) using cash is one of the most effective ways to increase your privacy. You cannot have total privacy and live in the modern world, but you can drastically reduce your electronic footprint.
From 1965 to 1980 there were 25 tax brackets, the bottom tax rate was 14%, the top tax rate was 70% on income above $200,00 ($1.42M in inflation adjusted dollars).
From 1946 to 1963 there were 24 tax brackets, the bottom tax rate was 20%, the top tax rate was 91% on income above $200,000 ($2.30M in inflation adjusted dollars).
This seems much more fair than 2011, where there were 6 tax brackets with a bottom tax rate of 10%, and a top tax rate of 35% on income over $379,000.
I'm not a tax expert, and maybe I'm reading the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates page incorrectly.
I was the poster who suggested a line item on hospital bills indicating how much of the bill was to treat the uninsured as a way to stop hiding those costs. Another way to stop hiding those costs are to make the part of insurance premiums the employer pays be considered income to the employee and itemized in their paycheck deductions. I don't feel making the patient shop around for the best deal in medical care is, at this time, practical. Next time you use your medical insurance ask the doctor exactly how much each test and procedure costs and how much the insurance company will pay. I doubt they will know, but they will refer you to someone else -- who also won't know.
There is also no constitutional right to social security, roads, clean water, safe food, or any of dozens of other things we, as a society, consider important. You mention taxes, do you think we should go back to the tax structure the United States had in the 1950s and 1960s?
It does sound good, though not very practical. Hospitals already provide an itemized bill. I doubt adding a "6% surcharge of total bill for costs related to treating uninsured patients" item is a hardship for the billing department. Any hospital which doesn't know how much it spends on treating the uninsured is, in my view, incompetent and not a place I want to be. Do you have any better ideas for showing people how much money it costs them for treating the uninsured?
OBXKCD http://xkcd.com/1170/
I think much of the opposition to health insurance reform is because the costs to treat the uninsured are hidden. People who receive health care and do not have money or insurance cost hospitals (and patients and shareholders) a lot of money. When they pass these costs on, I think the hospitals should be required to break out these costs as separate line items on the bills they send to their patients and the insurance companies. I feel people would be much less opposed to health insurance reform when they see exactly how much they are paying to treat the uninsured. I do not think a civilized person can think "let them die in the streets" to be an option.
From a bottle of honey in my pantry: "Made in a cottage food operation that is not subject to Florida's food safety regulations." Unpasteurized (raw) milk is not covered under the Florida cottage food law, though you can still sell raw milk for "pet consumption". My point is that there ARE reasonable rules for many "cottage" products.
If AT&T is required by law to provide the same level of service with the same legal obligations then I think this is a good idea. I doubt they will want to do this. By same level of service I mean support fax, e911, same analog handoff to the customer, service during a power outage, and same voice quality. By same legal requirements I mean the services are regulated by the PUC/PSC, same resale requirements, same reliability requirements. They won't offer this. Verizon tried something similar in some areas after Sandy, but they made the mistake of admitting fax would not work and 911 service might not work. The NY AG said that was not acceptable. If AT&T does not think it can make money on POTS service, then AT&T should be required to divest itself from the "last mile" infrastructure. Remember AT&T said they needed the spectrum from T-Mobile or it would be unable to offer 4G service. They lied.
See also: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/verizon-would-end-century-of-regulation-by-killing-wireline-phone-says-ny-ag/
The total dollar amount of debt is not important. What is important is the radio of debt to GDP which started skyrocketing in the USA only since 2001. Current tax rates also concern me. Maybe moving marginal tax rates back to the rates in the 1950s or 1960s would be a good thing?
I feel it is a government's duty to maximize the good done by the money they spend. I also feel in many cases spending money on open source software development does more good than spending the money on closed source software development.
I have very little in common with the NSA, but there is one thing. If I want total privacy I must spend so many resources to accomplish my goal that I will have no resources left to accomplish anything else. The NSA has a similar problem. The alternative is to strike a balance. I don't know if keeping all the NSA's contracts only on paper is worth the additional security, but I doubt it. The worst of my secrets are simply embarrassing. I don't know what the worst of the NSA's secrets might be, but I'm pretty sure they closer to traitorous than embarrassing.
I try to keep my consumption of highly processed foods to reasonable amounts because they tend have very high amounts of things I already consume plenty of i.e. saturated fats, sodium salt, and processed sugar. I do not, however, obsess over eating healthy. Could I have a more healthy diet? Absolutely! Could I have a much less healthy diet? I did for many years. Do I feel guilty about the occasional soft drink or bacon cheeseburger? Never.
Why isn't acetaminophen also used in combination with asprin, naproxin, or ibuprofen in a single pill? Does it do no good with used with those non-opiate pain medications?
See: http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/informationbydrugclass/ucm239874.htm
I think if it this way: Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Euthanasia is a permanent solution to a permanent problem.
Wishing someone would die and acting on it are two different things. I wish Fred Phelps was dead, but I'm not going to kill him.
Nobody buys in bulk for a discount anymore?
Drug tests usually test for compounds the drug is metabolized into, not the actual drug. For example if you had not used cocaine, then snorted a couple of lines and immediately took a drug test, you would still test negative. I'd have few moral issues with drug tests if they tested for intoxication at the time of the test.
In my view Obama takes into account a wide range of viewpoints and pushes a policy which tries be acceptable to the maximum number of people. What he utterly and totally fails to realize this doesn't work. The Republicans don't want this. They want to fight for their views and go back to their districts and tell the voters "it was a hard fight, we lost on some points and we won on some points, but we still got the best of those socialist hippies".
Here are some counter words: EPA, FDA, FTC. For every high profile failure of a government project or government agency there are dozens of government agencies which quietly do a very good job. The solution to high profile failure of governmental projects is to fire the people responsible, find out what went wrong, make sure it doesn't go wrong again, and hire people who can get the job done right. Much like private companies. The solution is not to preach that government always does a worse job than free enterprise.
Many VoIP plans charge for incoming, many don't. Per min rates on VoIP are often less then 1 cent per min. The rates are so low I didn't even think of it when I made my earlier post.
Landlines do not normally pay to receive calls in the USA. Only cell phones and toll free numbers pay to receive calls.
<br>
There are various definitions of the the "American Dream", one definition could be "through hard work you can be wealthier than your parents, feed your family, and have economic stability." Some people, myself included, contend the staggering disparity between the poor and the wealthy is directly contradictory to this ideal.