There IS no service in areas that are unprofitable. That's why satellite internet exists at all. But yea, don't let facts get in the way of your shilling duties.
Um, Cite? Because really, "around page 28" of a report that FCC gave to Congress in "march or may of 1988" (which was prior to the emergence of the Internet!) is a pretty ridiculous claim.
Even if said report exists and says the things you claim it says, the Internet is a FAR different place now than in 1988. It is likely the rationalizations they used simply do not apply any longer.
But if you are using the supplied compiler then it could still be compromised. The compiler could be programmed to inject the malicious code.
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out WHOOOSH and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.
Please tell me what voltage do you put on a data line to give it a 2 or 3.
It's binary. You only have digital 1's and 0's It seems you dont know anything at all about processors or electronics.
I don't know about that, I think Carter handled a lot of things very poorly. Look at how badly he handled things that were exclusive to his administration, such as Iran-Contra.
I can always tell when I am making points with liberals because they become very insulting and call me all kinds of names, that almost always become gruberisms "I am so much smarter than you. You are an ignorant hayseed, unable to think rationally"
And I can always tell when I am debating an intellectually dishonest Twue Believer because they never respond to your complete destruction of their talking-point arguments, but move the goalposts onto a new set of bullshit.
First, I would have to be a liberal first for you to "make points". I am an Independent and have been my entire adult life. I despise ideologies, including yours. Give me facts and I will make up my own mind. Second, for the record, I am a "she", not a "he". Why is it a Twue Believer always assumes that anyone who eviscerates their non-arguments must be a liberal? Why do you feel the need to resort to constructing straw men? I did not say I am smarter than you, nor call you an ignorant hayseed. I simply stated you are unable to construct a rational argument, and you have just proven it once more with this diversion.
Post ACA there are two kinds of Health Insurance in America, QHP plans, and PHSP plans. QHP plans, a.k.a. ObamaCare, come in four flavors, known as bronze, silver, gold, and platinum.
Well, not quite. While it is true that insurance plans that are carried on exchanges must be standardized, companies are still free to offer non-standard plans through their own sales channels. This "standardization" is a good thing; otherwise it is impossible to make meaningful comparisons between plans.
Do you know what "managed care" actually is? Do you understand that managed care is rationed care?
Rationed in what manner? If you were to say that the actuarial have used their magic models to figure out what they must charge to be profitable when delivering a set of services, then you are correct. But then every company on the planet "rations", don't they? If you mean to say that I will be unable to get some needed medical attention because Granny Smith just got the last bottle of Tylenol, you would be incorrect.
Do you understand how egregious of a lie it is to make claims about payments being lowered without releasing the statistics about the covered plan enrollees distribution above and below FPL -- which would enable subsidy payments to be deducted, which would show the TRUE cost, something they are DESPERATELY trying to cover up?
This might have been an interesting assertion, but you failed to provide any citations, so for all I know it's just some bullshit some random dude on the internet made up. That said, nobody has made the claim that payments have been lowered, and if you have purchased a candy bar anytime in the last 20 year you will understand that sometimes providers change what's in the package to be able to change the price they charge for it. That isn't a "lie", that's "Sales & Marketing".
Instead we get the astounding lie "We really don't know...." It's as insane as not being able to type "Select Count(*) From SignUp_Table" something they said they couldn't do for what, eight months?
If you really think their schema is that simple as to be able to pull a verified number with a simple count(*) statement, I hope you never actually design a database for more than an address book. First of all, HealthCare.gov does not use a SQL database; they use a custom NoSql solution by MarkLogic. Second, they track enrollees from 51 different states (including Washington D.C.), each with a different schema. Third, as you have already noted, definitions of things have been changing, which just might complicate your little count(*) DML statement, and fourth, "enrolled" means something completely different to you than it does to the AR dep
If you were the guy who had to tell the employees their health care costs were going up... Or the guy who took a cut in pay to help cover the cost increase for the employees.. perhaps you'd understand how offensive that remark is.
Perhaps. But it remains an anecdotal fallacy to take your personal experience and even the experiences of your peers and form an opinion of the entire medical system based on it. I'm sorry you find logic to be so offensive.
You want to argue liberal talking points, that's fine and dandy.
Actually I want to -- and have been -- arguing facts. I would appreciate it if you would do the same and cease your silly diversions (i.e. "marxism", "liberal talking points") that show you to be nothing more than an ideologue who is unable to rationally examine facts.
Had the Administration told the truth.... Had they held open hearings... They had a GOLDEN opportunity to do something really good for people.
They did. For nearly two years, in countless Town Hall meetings and Congressional hearings. And you know what? They DID do something really good for people. Certainly it was not the best possible outcome, but we've already been over that, haven't we? Perfect is not the enemy of better.
Funny thing, these new Democrats, nothing is ever their fault. I can say that, I am an ex-Democrat myself, OK?
Did they kick you out for your inability to create a rational argument?
Anyone who argues what a grand and glorious thing the ACA is - they are either a paid OFA troll, or a die hard ideologue
Nobody has argued that the ACA is a grand and glorious thing. Perhaps you might dial down the level of hyperbole a bit?
Their profits have been increased at the cost of increasing the national debt. What a GREAT DEAL!!
Actually, the deficit (and therefore the debt) would be higher without the ACA, so sayeth the CBO. But please, don't let actual facts get in the way of a good rant.
What's going to happen next, with the Republicans in Congress, assuming they actually grow a spine, is going to make everything much, much worse for everybody
That's an awful big assumption! They would also need to grow a brain and cure the psychosis that seems to have infected them. They would also have to win the Presidency and maintain their control of Congress. Tell me, what kind of odds do you give Mr. Santorum or Mr. Perry at winning the next Presidential election?
And had the Democrats not been such toxic, hateful, insulting little trolls none of this had to happen. None of it.
Gosh, and you have been a perfect exemplar of the calm, rational discussion one can expect from the modern Conservative!
Am I bitter about this. Yes.....
Really? I couldn't tell.
I don't want to be rammed into a one size fits all Federally Mandated you have no choices group insurance plan.
Huh. I wonder what part of the country you live in? Because where *I* live, I was able to choose from dozens of different plans from eight different insurers and NONE of them were the Federal government.
"Asshole" and "Misogynist" are terms which typically refer to men who talk shit about women's skills solely because they are women.
For example, when died, did people speculate that it never would've happened if his dick-sucking skills weren't so polished?
Heavens no. If I were calling you a liar, I would have said "I think you are lying". What I said was that your personal sample size of ONE represents an anecdotal fallacy.
Bullshit. I had no concept of race when I was growing up. I literally had to ask my mother why other kids were being so mean to this one girl in our class. I still don't get why skin color matters. It doesn't.
Let me get this straight. In your first sentence, you claim "bullshit!" because you personally are not racist.(anecdotal fallacy!). Then in your very next sentence you had to ask your mother why all the racists are treating the little girl so badly? Is that about size of it? Your personal sample size of ONE is more important than the racism you personally witnessed?
I still don't get why skin color matters. It doesn't.
It doesn't to you. But I bet you're not a minority, are you? So why would it.
Our group plan went up 30% last year when we were cancelled. This year it went up 20%
Anecdotal fallacy
The promise was that ALL THE UNINSURED WOULD BE COVERED, remember?
No; in four years of covering the ACA as a reporter, I never heard this claim once. Cite please?
We were all told the ACA would actually reduce the deficit, it will add 1 trillion dollars - about the cost of the Iraq war.
According to the CBO, it is on track to do exactly that. But you would've known that if you had bothered to read the cites from my last post.
Apparently you don't understand how politics work. You give the insurance companies a blowjob, you get something in return.
Apparently you do not understand how debate works. I have provided several pieces of evidence alongside my assertions ("Citations"). It is now up to you to either concede or rebut them. Not to ignore them and raise a fresh round of complaints.
A giant lie is told, ALWAYS laced with a big emotional heart strings tugging argument (your post is full of them oh sniff sniff boo hoo)
My post has ONE of them -- my personal experience with the fact that the ACA saved my friend's life. The remainder is citations -- every one of which you have conveniently ignored.
Having been involved in the Healthcare and Insurance industry since the mid 80's from the software side I can assure you that in my experience 90% of whats wrong with Healthcare was caused directly by the Federal Government fucking with it.
And you haven't shown yourself to be biased at all! Why, everything you've stated thus far has been either axiomatic or backed up by citation. Wait...
But keep those emotionally charged arguments coming, and that Marxist rhetoric where profit is a demon, there are still a few people who believe that nonsense and none of them are going to argue with you...
Of course you would never stoop to using emotionally charged words *cough* "Marxist"! Certainly none of those people who are getting double the results at half the cost would argue! You know, all those people in all those Marxist countries like Germany, Switzerland, France, England, Australia and Canada! Because as everyone knows, they're ALL just clamoring to change their systems to be exactly like ours...
The excuse that Government "is not a corporation and cannot be run like one" is nonsense. It's a great ivory tower view....
Perhaps you'd care to back up that opinion with a fact or two explaining why two radically different types of organizations should be run in exactly the same manner? Note that I did not state that government cannot be efficient, but that efficiency is not the top mission of a government agency.
I'll look up the Medicare claim for you when I have a chance, the fraud level in Medicare is enormous - as it is with most programs run the the Feds.
I hear that bank robbers go after banks because that's where all the money is...
The ACA was a giant payoff to the insurance companies
Yes it was. It was also all that was politically achievable in one piece of legislation. Don't believe me? Ask Hillary Clinton what happened to her husband's attempt to take on both the insurance industry AND the healthcare industry all at the same time. Realpolitik is a bitch. I would much prefer we went with some form of single-payer as every other first-world nation on the planet has done (incidentally, at nearly 18% of GDP, the US spends twice as much on healthcare as other nations and gets half the results).
with quid pro quo to the DNC that has blown up in their faces.
So this "pro quo" you speak of is going to be delivered exactly when? I didn't notice Aetna or Cigna littering the DNC with contributions this last election cycle...
Any other view is naive my friend...
How about the view that the ACA saved my best friend's life? That it made it possible for her to purchase insurance which detected her cancer and is providing for treatment she never would've gotten otherwise?
How about the view that insurance premium increases have been checked for the first time in my adult life, where they previously had been growing annually at more than double -- sometimes triple -- inflation? You might recall the litany of stories in 2013 of how we would see crazy increases in premium costs? None of those crazy increases actually happened.
Which of these views is "naïve"? All in all, that's not too shabby for what was admittedly a giant insurance company blowjob. I can't wait to see how much better it gets when we get around to reforming the other half. Maybe we'll exorcise the Profit Demon from our healthcare system once and for all and remove the perverse incentives it creates that keep people sick rather than cure them.
First, it's a false equivalency. Government is not a corporation, and cannot be run like one. Efficiency is not the first job of Government, stability is.
Second, you say that "there aren't any" examples of efficient government programs, but I can think of one off the top of my head: Medicare is the most efficiently run HMO on the planet, with administrative costs (~2.4%) several TIMES lower than any privately run insurance company (~11-30%). I note you provided no information on your claim that "A single Medicare fraud case a few years back cost the taxpayers an amount of money equivalent to the profits of the entire Healthcare Insurance Industry", which is a ludicrous claim given that the Wellpoint alone generated nearly $3 billion in profit in FY2013. In 2011 Medicare expenditures were $565 billion, with fraud accounting for %3-10 depending on what your definition of "fraud" is.
Third, the government does not "run healthcare". The ACA was a set of reforms to mainly insurance and secondarily to Medicare. Outside of the VA, how many hospitals does the government run? How many doctors does the government employ?
Fourth, there are PLENTY of examples of wasteful corporations, which by and large are not any more efficient than a similarly-sized government organization. The vast majority of government organizations have an SG&A of around 10%, which is certainly competitive with private enterprise.
Slashdot Mirror
There IS no service in areas that are unprofitable. That's why satellite internet exists at all. But yea, don't let facts get in the way of your shilling duties.
Um, Cite? Because really, "around page 28" of a report that FCC gave to Congress in "march or may of 1988" (which was prior to the emergence of the Internet!) is a pretty ridiculous claim. Even if said report exists and says the things you claim it says, the Internet is a FAR different place now than in 1988. It is likely the rationalizations they used simply do not apply any longer.
IMO the F-35 is reasons #1-#20 on the list of reasons to get away from Lockheed.
And we should all listen to AC! He's never wrong!
He's a lawyer. Lawyers never ask questions they do not already know the answer to.
Sure, because lambdas and asynchronous programming is something that should be taught in an intro course. Right before they get into assembly.
What is the square root of jack shit?
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out WHOOOSH and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.
So, what, just double or triple the voltage?
By that definition the United States is a Communist nation.
Iran-Contra was Reagan's scandal.
You must be new here. Nothing is beneath the dignity of /.!
Unfortunately there IS no effective counter to an idiot with a gun. Which your assertion makes no allowance for.
I am not anti-gun. I am anti-idiot-with-a-gun.
WE MUST NEVER CENSOR TROLLS! Because, umm, wait. Why must we never censor trolls?
Well duh! Rats in the toilet cost extra. And my employer frowns on splurging like that.
Ummmm
Cue the Streisand Effect in 3... 2... 1...
And I can always tell when I am debating an intellectually dishonest Twue Believer because they never respond to your complete destruction of their talking-point arguments, but move the goalposts onto a new set of bullshit.
First, I would have to be a liberal first for you to "make points". I am an Independent and have been my entire adult life. I despise ideologies, including yours. Give me facts and I will make up my own mind. Second, for the record, I am a "she", not a "he". Why is it a Twue Believer always assumes that anyone who eviscerates their non-arguments must be a liberal? Why do you feel the need to resort to constructing straw men? I did not say I am smarter than you, nor call you an ignorant hayseed. I simply stated you are unable to construct a rational argument, and you have just proven it once more with this diversion.
Well, not quite. While it is true that insurance plans that are carried on exchanges must be standardized, companies are still free to offer non-standard plans through their own sales channels. This "standardization" is a good thing; otherwise it is impossible to make meaningful comparisons between plans.
Rationed in what manner? If you were to say that the actuarial have used their magic models to figure out what they must charge to be profitable when delivering a set of services, then you are correct. But then every company on the planet "rations", don't they? If you mean to say that I will be unable to get some needed medical attention because Granny Smith just got the last bottle of Tylenol, you would be incorrect.
This might have been an interesting assertion, but you failed to provide any citations, so for all I know it's just some bullshit some random dude on the internet made up. That said, nobody has made the claim that payments have been lowered, and if you have purchased a candy bar anytime in the last 20 year you will understand that sometimes providers change what's in the package to be able to change the price they charge for it. That isn't a "lie", that's "Sales & Marketing".
If you really think their schema is that simple as to be able to pull a verified number with a simple count(*) statement, I hope you never actually design a database for more than an address book. First of all, HealthCare.gov does not use a SQL database; they use a custom NoSql solution by MarkLogic. Second, they track enrollees from 51 different states (including Washington D.C.), each with a different schema. Third, as you have already noted, definitions of things have been changing, which just might complicate your little count(*) DML statement, and fourth, "enrolled" means something completely different to you than it does to the AR dep
Perhaps. But it remains an anecdotal fallacy to take your personal experience and even the experiences of your peers and form an opinion of the entire medical system based on it. I'm sorry you find logic to be so offensive.
Actually I want to -- and have been -- arguing facts. I would appreciate it if you would do the same and cease your silly diversions (i.e. "marxism", "liberal talking points") that show you to be nothing more than an ideologue who is unable to rationally examine facts.
They did. For nearly two years, in countless Town Hall meetings and Congressional hearings. And you know what? They DID do something really good for people. Certainly it was not the best possible outcome, but we've already been over that, haven't we? Perfect is not the enemy of better.
Did they kick you out for your inability to create a rational argument?
Nobody has argued that the ACA is a grand and glorious thing. Perhaps you might dial down the level of hyperbole a bit?
Actually, the deficit (and therefore the debt) would be higher without the ACA, so sayeth the CBO. But please, don't let actual facts get in the way of a good rant.
That's an awful big assumption! They would also need to grow a brain and cure the psychosis that seems to have infected them. They would also have to win the Presidency and maintain their control of Congress. Tell me, what kind of odds do you give Mr. Santorum or Mr. Perry at winning the next Presidential election?
Gosh, and you have been a perfect exemplar of the calm, rational discussion one can expect from the modern Conservative!
Really? I couldn't tell.
Huh. I wonder what part of the country you live in? Because where *I* live, I was able to choose from dozens of different plans from eight different insurers and NONE of them were the Federal government.
"Asshole" and "Misogynist" are terms which typically refer to men who talk shit about women's skills solely because they are women. For example, when died, did people speculate that it never would've happened if his dick-sucking skills weren't so polished?
Heavens no. If I were calling you a liar, I would have said "I think you are lying". What I said was that your personal sample size of ONE represents an anecdotal fallacy.
Let me get this straight. In your first sentence, you claim "bullshit!" because you personally are not racist.(anecdotal fallacy!). Then in your very next sentence you had to ask your mother why all the racists are treating the little girl so badly? Is that about size of it? Your personal sample size of ONE is more important than the racism you personally witnessed?
It doesn't to you. But I bet you're not a minority, are you? So why would it.
Anecdotal fallacy
No; in four years of covering the ACA as a reporter, I never heard this claim once. Cite please?
According to the CBO, it is on track to do exactly that. But you would've known that if you had bothered to read the cites from my last post.
Apparently you do not understand how debate works. I have provided several pieces of evidence alongside my assertions ("Citations"). It is now up to you to either concede or rebut them. Not to ignore them and raise a fresh round of complaints.
My post has ONE of them -- my personal experience with the fact that the ACA saved my friend's life. The remainder is citations -- every one of which you have conveniently ignored.
And you haven't shown yourself to be biased at all! Why, everything you've stated thus far has been either axiomatic or backed up by citation. Wait...
Of course you would never stoop to using emotionally charged words *cough* "Marxist"! Certainly none of those people who are getting double the results at half the cost would argue! You know, all those people in all those Marxist countries like Germany, Switzerland, France, England, Australia and Canada! Because as everyone knows, they're ALL just clamoring to change their systems to be exactly like ours...
Perhaps you'd care to back up that opinion with a fact or two explaining why two radically different types of organizations should be run in exactly the same manner? Note that I did not state that government cannot be efficient, but that efficiency is not the top mission of a government agency.
I hear that bank robbers go after banks because that's where all the money is...
Yes it was. It was also all that was politically achievable in one piece of legislation. Don't believe me? Ask Hillary Clinton what happened to her husband's attempt to take on both the insurance industry AND the healthcare industry all at the same time. Realpolitik is a bitch. I would much prefer we went with some form of single-payer as every other first-world nation on the planet has done (incidentally, at nearly 18% of GDP, the US spends twice as much on healthcare as other nations and gets half the results).
So this "pro quo" you speak of is going to be delivered exactly when? I didn't notice Aetna or Cigna littering the DNC with contributions this last election cycle...
How about the view that the ACA saved my best friend's life? That it made it possible for her to purchase insurance which detected her cancer and is providing for treatment she never would've gotten otherwise?
How about the view that the number of uninsured Americans has dropped significantly for the first time since Nixon was President?
How about the view that insurance premium increases have been checked for the first time in my adult life, where they previously had been growing annually at more than double -- sometimes triple -- inflation? You might recall the litany of stories in 2013 of how we would see crazy increases in premium costs? None of those crazy increases actually happened.
How about the view that budget impact was better than the CBO forecast?
Which of these views is "naïve"? All in all, that's not too shabby for what was admittedly a giant insurance company blowjob. I can't wait to see how much better it gets when we get around to reforming the other half. Maybe we'll exorcise the Profit Demon from our healthcare system once and for all and remove the perverse incentives it creates that keep people sick rather than cure them.
First, it's a false equivalency. Government is not a corporation, and cannot be run like one. Efficiency is not the first job of Government, stability is.
Second, you say that "there aren't any" examples of efficient government programs, but I can think of one off the top of my head: Medicare is the most efficiently run HMO on the planet, with administrative costs (~2.4%) several TIMES lower than any privately run insurance company (~11-30%). I note you provided no information on your claim that "A single Medicare fraud case a few years back cost the taxpayers an amount of money equivalent to the profits of the entire Healthcare Insurance Industry", which is a ludicrous claim given that the Wellpoint alone generated nearly $3 billion in profit in FY2013. In 2011 Medicare expenditures were $565 billion, with fraud accounting for %3-10 depending on what your definition of "fraud" is.
Third, the government does not "run healthcare". The ACA was a set of reforms to mainly insurance and secondarily to Medicare. Outside of the VA, how many hospitals does the government run? How many doctors does the government employ?
Fourth, there are PLENTY of examples of wasteful corporations, which by and large are not any more efficient than a similarly-sized government organization. The vast majority of government organizations have an SG&A of around 10%, which is certainly competitive with private enterprise.