You are completely delusional if you think Pelosi's quote helped the cause
It was a dumb statement, but immaterial to anything of importance. You are distracted by shiny things.
You completely ignored my points, bragging about winning the election instead. You cannot vote the world flat, although you seem to have voted your forehead flat.
Voters hate the ACA, but they hate the way it was before*, and they hate the "socialized" version that most of the world has.
So, what the hell do they want then?
GOP/Trump have pushed the idea that there are easy fixes that ONLY they know how to do using some unspecified side-effect-free deregulation and making "great deals". Your turn guys; you hyped the magic beans, now grow your bean stalk and make the Giant pay for it. Else, you'll get F'd like H by restless voters.
* I've seen multiple surveys showing only around 20 to 25% want to go back to the way it was during the W years. That suggests they want SOME kind of Federally-managed health insurance.
If a leader's messaging staff screws up, the blame usually still falls on the leader, for he/she selects his own messaging staff and can fire them at will.
They should have stopped it after one
It's possible they warned O, but he may have chose to ignore it for strategic reasons. Politicians do intentionally spin at times. Inserting "most" into the statement does beg the question about what happens to the rest. We don't really know what happened in the back room. Insert saying about making sausage and laws.
The ACA barely passed, for the "blue dogs" gave him hell. It may have required spin to put it over the top.
it does nothing to guarantee people keep their existing doctors. That'd be insane.
It's not all-or-nothing: the law could have offered carrots and/or sticks to encourage insurance co's to not shuffle doctors.
Spokesman: "Our business is doing fine, in fact we are booming... Uh, I mean we are NOT booming, I mean... we are doing fine. Have a great day, thank you, bye."
He said it in an incomplete or misleading way multiple times. The ACA had nothing in it that guaranteed people would be able to keep their existing doctors, and experts would have told you that there would likely be a fair amount of doctor shuffling. If he had said "most people can keep...", he perhaps would be off the hook.
In the minds of most people, a partial lie repeated many times has at least the same strength as a pure lie stated once. This is because a single statement has a fair chance of being a mere mistake. But if you say it say 7 times, then it's hard to claim it was a mistake.
But that's water under the bridge. I used it merely as a warning/reminder to the new decision-making crew.
Just PAY medical costs for the 20 million who got coverage. Nothing else, just pay for it. It will... STILL has all the benefits that are CLIAMED by ACA supporters.
In the short-term you are partly right. But what about the future? Matching the present is one thing, but the future will come.
Also, ACA required a minimum of coverage for a wider set of afflictions than typical insurance of the time. That would go away.
it will not have a $600 million website
That figure is misleading, it was not just the website in terms of UI, but lots of back-end data coordination with insurance co's, tax records, etc. Get a better news source; your current one failed you.
pay off DNC donors and Obama's friends, what the ACA was really about
Speculation on the motivations behind it is probably a useless game because we cannot rip out their neurons to exam the actual motivation calculation path. Most political decisions are probably biased in some way anyhow. It's what humans do and roaches are not in charge (yet). GOP and Trump will make biased decisions also, mark my word.
But at this point it's moot; simply propose something better instead of complain and speculate. Show us how the money flows in the alternative without magic nodes in the flow chart. If you don't like the model, make a better one. (Same goes for climate models.)
We are supposed to be nerds who think things out and present details that add up, rather than just be platitude hawkers. That's for muggles.
Do you truly, in the deepest of your heart, believe that [Steve Jobs] accomplished that alone?
Jobs had an uncanny ability to coordinate the intersection of new technology, manufacturability, and consumer taste. He also knew to spot a zig when others were zagging.
He made Woz's Apple II marketable, tamed GUI's when Xerox Star failed, helped start Pixar when the financial failure of Tron spooked the rest of the CGI market, brought out cool desktop computer designs when the rest of the industry was bland beige or Sony black, simplified Apple's product line, and made the brave choice of tossing the physical phone keyboard for an all-screen design despite Blackberry's success. Other co's would have me-too'd on the Blackberry: playing it safe by cloning the design of the top competitor.
There are many interesting ideas floating around, but to package them in a way that consumers can digest, and manufacture them at a reasonable cost requires a multidisciplinary approach, and guts. Few people have the skill or knowledge to balance all three.
Jobs may have had the equivalent of Google Glass useful, marketable, and affordable by now.
a weak analog signal is just noisy, but easy for people to pick out the information from. a weak digital signal is chunky in ways [difficult for humans to comprehend].
I have indeed found this to be true. When our TV signals went all-digital in our area, the distortion from weak signals was often found to be very strange and made the experience worse than useless in some cases by distorting the image in disturbing ways.
I lost my appetite at one local mom-and-pop restaurant because the bad TV reception resulted in absolutely grotesque faces that gave me nightmares. Honest.
The closest analogy I can think of to explain it is that Indian Jones scene where the guy's face melts off from the supernatural fire-balls, but add psychedelic colors. I wanted a sandwich, not an LSD trip.
I think the error correction algorithm tried to glue the "puzzle" back together by filling in the missing pieces with older cached copies of segments and guess their relative movements to each other using the movement found in the good pieces. It may be good enough for some objects, but NOT faces. FAIL. (There may be a TV set option to fiddle with settings to turn off this auto-guess, but most consumers won't or can't find it.)
I'm not sure if digital sound can also go bad in extremely haunting ways, but it can potentially still be highly annoying, sounding like the ghost of Max Headroom's and Yoko Ono's love-child on drugs. (Hmmm, can ghosts get high?)
With analog signal weakness, usually you just get hiss and occasionally Dalek-like sounds. But I'll take that over LSD trips.
A high deductible is better than NO insurance at all, especially when you are diagnosed with cancer. The law can be charged to require a lower deductible, but that would raise somewhere else to compensate. Democrats have not been against practical changes to ACA.
As far as general ACA criticism, I invite any conservative to propose a better alternative. All the proposals from conservatives so far either don't have any real numbers behind them, or some group or type of coverage takes a hit to help a different group.
There are inherent trade-offs that need to be balanced; there is no free lunch or magic formula. It's easy to complain, but hard to offer alternatives that actually add up. (Single payer has reduced general medical costs overseas, I would note, but arguably creates less choice and longer waits.)
Some have proposed requiring states to accept out-of-state insurance companies to increase competition. For one, this risks trampling on state's rights. Second, states can already optionally allow any outside insurance company they want in by lowering or eliminating state standards. It hasn't reduced their costs in practice. It appears to be a ploy by GOP to reduce patient safeguards (and increase profits) by not allowing states to legislate medical safeguards.
Yes, taking away safeguards will reduce rates for many or most. But, some will then get hit harder with the consequences of lower safeguards. That defeats the very purpose of insurance. GOP seems to want insurance-lite. It's okay to propose such to the public, but be honest that it's really half-ass insurance rather than dress it up in fancy political-speak.
Obama got the Lie-of-the-Year award for implying most or all can "keep your doctor". Don't make the same mistake, GOP, you will also deserve a Lie-of-the-Year award. (I kept my doctor, by the way.)
See, we ain't need no stinkin' ACA; market forces are solving illnesses.
Market forces will also solve global warming (if real). Humans will evolve fans on their head to keep cool similar to how Kevin Costner evolved gills in Waterworld.
Oh wait, evolution is false. Hollywood brainwashed us. I mean God will blink fans onto human heads, but only if we follow his law and keep gender dodgers out of the wrong restrooms.
What, monitoring genders is gov't regulation you say? You see, many will volunteer to monitor wankers for free. No new taxes needed. I know plenty of conservatives who actually enjoy monitoring wankers.
It all works out logically if you follow all conservative principles rather than just some.
"Vader is a loser. Real men don't need helmets and don't breath through vacuum cleaners. My hair is my helmet, and it's very real, by the way. Very real."
"I'm gonna build my own black hole and make the Klingons pay for it. Those Klingons don't send us their best people, too many criminals. And they smell."
"The EM Drive is a Chinese conspiracy to fleece us so we pay for fake Galactic Warming fixes. It's a job killer for us."
"Dark matter is also fake, by the way. Smart people tell me galaxies are supposed to rotate biggly on the outside; it's what they do. They negotiated a nice deal with gravity to swing wide. Gravity is open to deals if you know how."
"R2D2's kind took our jobs! He's trash-can with wheels. Put garbage in him, he shouldn't be working. Do you let your trash-can do your taxes, or your toilet mow the lawn? Weeeak."
VB-Classic-desktop was great at smallish git-er-done applications (ignoring DLL hell for now), but didn't make large-scale and API development easy.
Dot-Net attempted to remedy that, but also complicated things for non-specialists. It lost a lot of that git-er-done feel. I've been kicking around ways to have both in a language and related IDE.
While it may be possible to get closer to such a goal, it's hard to make both sides happy, though. It would probably take some experimenting with multiple philosophies.
I'd like to see a table-oriented GUI engine such that the vast majority of GUI operations can be tablized in terms of attributes and "action lists". It could also maybe be programming-language neutral since most of it is driven by tables and attributes rather than direct code. If you study GUI's, much if it can be packaged into common actions/idioms. If somebody gives me 2 million dollars to experiment, I'll retire and get right on this experiment;-)... honest!
And find a way to make it http-friendly so that it can become a CRUD Browser of sorts. There's a big demand for internal-org CRUD browsing that shouldn't require mastering the screwy and overly fluid HTML/CSS/DOM stack. Internal apps don't care as much about UI fads and eye-candy.
MS actually does a really good job supporting things for a long time.
While generally true, they seem to make you jump through progressively smaller hoops over time, having to fiddle with obscure settings and/or the registry at times to get older stuff to work.
I've seen this with features from their older Dot-Net API calls or practices, 32-bit-ODBC, and ASP-Classic. More fiddling as time goes on is needed to get them to work right. Many database vendors haven't released (decent) 64-drivers for ODBC yet. (Why the ODBC standard is hard-wired to byte-word-size is odd. Bad idea. Unix's text-centric standards & conventions paid off for similar things.)
Then there is the VB Classic (desktop) debacle. That ticked off a lot of orgs. There were a lot of code bases that had to be re-written or thrown out. MS could have split or sold desktop-VB-Classic off to another company, for example (maybe with the licensing condition that they cannot make a VB-Net IDE clone for X years.) Similar with FoxPro.
At first I thought it was the high-percent caret diet, which resulted in punctuated dashes at the restroom, clogging the pipes and interrupting my period, which is a plus, by the way. You can quote me on that.
But it almost put me in a comma. However, this research without question underscores and pounds home the real cause!
Slashdot Mirror
Buurrrp
Alexa: "Congratulations! You've just ordered a Burmese rug! It will arrive in about 5 days."
It was a dumb statement, but immaterial to anything of importance. You are distracted by shiny things.
You completely ignored my points, bragging about winning the election instead. You cannot vote the world flat, although you seem to have voted your forehead flat.
You are full of it. She said that because there were rushed last-minute changes, as always with big legislation. It's not a plot to hide stuff.
And GOP has been given plenty of opportunities to propose an alternative that mathematically adds up, but fail.
Voters hate the ACA, but they hate the way it was before*, and they hate the "socialized" version that most of the world has.
So, what the hell do they want then?
GOP/Trump have pushed the idea that there are easy fixes that ONLY they know how to do using some unspecified side-effect-free deregulation and making "great deals". Your turn guys; you hyped the magic beans, now grow your bean stalk and make the Giant pay for it. Else, you'll get F'd like H by restless voters.
* I've seen multiple surveys showing only around 20 to 25% want to go back to the way it was during the W years. That suggests they want SOME kind of Federally-managed health insurance.
Clod desensitization is not covered under ACA.
If a leader's messaging staff screws up, the blame usually still falls on the leader, for he/she selects his own messaging staff and can fire them at will.
It's possible they warned O, but he may have chose to ignore it for strategic reasons. Politicians do intentionally spin at times. Inserting "most" into the statement does beg the question about what happens to the rest. We don't really know what happened in the back room. Insert saying about making sausage and laws.
The ACA barely passed, for the "blue dogs" gave him hell. It may have required spin to put it over the top.
It's not all-or-nothing: the law could have offered carrots and/or sticks to encourage insurance co's to not shuffle doctors.
These co's are just probing the swamp...I mean waters.
In two ways. Nice!
Spokesman: "Our business is doing fine, in fact we are booming ... Uh, I mean we are NOT booming, I mean ... we are doing fine. Have a great day, thank you, bye."
If that is true, then most of the change should be from the single category of lung cancer. I'll see if I can find a change break-down by category.
He said it in an incomplete or misleading way multiple times. The ACA had nothing in it that guaranteed people would be able to keep their existing doctors, and experts would have told you that there would likely be a fair amount of doctor shuffling. If he had said "most people can keep...", he perhaps would be off the hook.
In the minds of most people, a partial lie repeated many times has at least the same strength as a pure lie stated once. This is because a single statement has a fair chance of being a mere mistake. But if you say it say 7 times, then it's hard to claim it was a mistake.
But that's water under the bridge. I used it merely as a warning/reminder to the new decision-making crew.
In the short-term you are partly right. But what about the future? Matching the present is one thing, but the future will come.
Also, ACA required a minimum of coverage for a wider set of afflictions than typical insurance of the time. That would go away.
That figure is misleading, it was not just the website in terms of UI, but lots of back-end data coordination with insurance co's, tax records, etc. Get a better news source; your current one failed you.
Speculation on the motivations behind it is probably a useless game because we cannot rip out their neurons to exam the actual motivation calculation path. Most political decisions are probably biased in some way anyhow. It's what humans do and roaches are not in charge (yet). GOP and Trump will make biased decisions also, mark my word.
But at this point it's moot; simply propose something better instead of complain and speculate. Show us how the money flows in the alternative without magic nodes in the flow chart. If you don't like the model, make a better one. (Same goes for climate models.)
We are supposed to be nerds who think things out and present details that add up, rather than just be platitude hawkers. That's for muggles.
Jobs had an uncanny ability to coordinate the intersection of new technology, manufacturability, and consumer taste. He also knew to spot a zig when others were zagging.
He made Woz's Apple II marketable, tamed GUI's when Xerox Star failed, helped start Pixar when the financial failure of Tron spooked the rest of the CGI market, brought out cool desktop computer designs when the rest of the industry was bland beige or Sony black, simplified Apple's product line, and made the brave choice of tossing the physical phone keyboard for an all-screen design despite Blackberry's success. Other co's would have me-too'd on the Blackberry: playing it safe by cloning the design of the top competitor.
There are many interesting ideas floating around, but to package them in a way that consumers can digest, and manufacture them at a reasonable cost requires a multidisciplinary approach, and guts. Few people have the skill or knowledge to balance all three.
Jobs may have had the equivalent of Google Glass useful, marketable, and affordable by now.
I have indeed found this to be true. When our TV signals went all-digital in our area, the distortion from weak signals was often found to be very strange and made the experience worse than useless in some cases by distorting the image in disturbing ways.
I lost my appetite at one local mom-and-pop restaurant because the bad TV reception resulted in absolutely grotesque faces that gave me nightmares. Honest.
The closest analogy I can think of to explain it is that Indian Jones scene where the guy's face melts off from the supernatural fire-balls, but add psychedelic colors. I wanted a sandwich, not an LSD trip.
I think the error correction algorithm tried to glue the "puzzle" back together by filling in the missing pieces with older cached copies of segments and guess their relative movements to each other using the movement found in the good pieces. It may be good enough for some objects, but NOT faces. FAIL. (There may be a TV set option to fiddle with settings to turn off this auto-guess, but most consumers won't or can't find it.)
I'm not sure if digital sound can also go bad in extremely haunting ways, but it can potentially still be highly annoying, sounding like the ghost of Max Headroom's and Yoko Ono's love-child on drugs. (Hmmm, can ghosts get high?)
With analog signal weakness, usually you just get hiss and occasionally Dalek-like sounds. But I'll take that over LSD trips.
A high deductible is better than NO insurance at all, especially when you are diagnosed with cancer. The law can be charged to require a lower deductible, but that would raise somewhere else to compensate. Democrats have not been against practical changes to ACA.
As far as general ACA criticism, I invite any conservative to propose a better alternative. All the proposals from conservatives so far either don't have any real numbers behind them, or some group or type of coverage takes a hit to help a different group.
There are inherent trade-offs that need to be balanced; there is no free lunch or magic formula. It's easy to complain, but hard to offer alternatives that actually add up. (Single payer has reduced general medical costs overseas, I would note, but arguably creates less choice and longer waits.)
Some have proposed requiring states to accept out-of-state insurance companies to increase competition. For one, this risks trampling on state's rights. Second, states can already optionally allow any outside insurance company they want in by lowering or eliminating state standards. It hasn't reduced their costs in practice. It appears to be a ploy by GOP to reduce patient safeguards (and increase profits) by not allowing states to legislate medical safeguards.
Yes, taking away safeguards will reduce rates for many or most. But, some will then get hit harder with the consequences of lower safeguards. That defeats the very purpose of insurance. GOP seems to want insurance-lite. It's okay to propose such to the public, but be honest that it's really half-ass insurance rather than dress it up in fancy political-speak.
Obama got the Lie-of-the-Year award for implying most or all can "keep your doctor". Don't make the same mistake, GOP, you will also deserve a Lie-of-the-Year award. (I kept my doctor, by the way.)
See, we ain't need no stinkin' ACA; market forces are solving illnesses.
Market forces will also solve global warming (if real). Humans will evolve fans on their head to keep cool similar to how Kevin Costner evolved gills in Waterworld.
Oh wait, evolution is false. Hollywood brainwashed us. I mean God will blink fans onto human heads, but only if we follow his law and keep gender dodgers out of the wrong restrooms.
What, monitoring genders is gov't regulation you say? You see, many will volunteer to monitor wankers for free. No new taxes needed. I know plenty of conservatives who actually enjoy monitoring wankers.
It all works out logically if you follow all conservative principles rather than just some.
They can have em!
The bursts are probably T's intergalactic tweets:
"Vader is a loser. Real men don't need helmets and don't breath through vacuum cleaners. My hair is my helmet, and it's very real, by the way. Very real."
"I'm gonna build my own black hole and make the Klingons pay for it. Those Klingons don't send us their best people, too many criminals. And they smell."
"The EM Drive is a Chinese conspiracy to fleece us so we pay for fake Galactic Warming fixes. It's a job killer for us."
"Dark matter is also fake, by the way. Smart people tell me galaxies are supposed to rotate biggly on the outside; it's what they do. They negotiated a nice deal with gravity to swing wide. Gravity is open to deals if you know how."
"R2D2's kind took our jobs! He's trash-can with wheels. Put garbage in him, he shouldn't be working. Do you let your trash-can do your taxes, or your toilet mow the lawn? Weeeak."
I'll hide the headphone jack up your "courage"
VB-Classic-desktop was great at smallish git-er-done applications (ignoring DLL hell for now), but didn't make large-scale and API development easy.
Dot-Net attempted to remedy that, but also complicated things for non-specialists. It lost a lot of that git-er-done feel. I've been kicking around ways to have both in a language and related IDE.
While it may be possible to get closer to such a goal, it's hard to make both sides happy, though. It would probably take some experimenting with multiple philosophies.
I'd like to see a table-oriented GUI engine such that the vast majority of GUI operations can be tablized in terms of attributes and "action lists". It could also maybe be programming-language neutral since most of it is driven by tables and attributes rather than direct code. If you study GUI's, much if it can be packaged into common actions/idioms. If somebody gives me 2 million dollars to experiment, I'll retire and get right on this experiment ;-) ... honest!
And find a way to make it http-friendly so that it can become a CRUD Browser of sorts. There's a big demand for internal-org CRUD browsing that shouldn't require mastering the screwy and overly fluid HTML/CSS/DOM stack. Internal apps don't care as much about UI fads and eye-candy.
Yeah, merge NASA and ACME.
Bee-beep!
(Best ACME invention ever)
The dinosaurs found a creative solution to that.
FUD usually "works" successfully in sales and politics. That's life.
While generally true, they seem to make you jump through progressively smaller hoops over time, having to fiddle with obscure settings and/or the registry at times to get older stuff to work.
I've seen this with features from their older Dot-Net API calls or practices, 32-bit-ODBC, and ASP-Classic. More fiddling as time goes on is needed to get them to work right. Many database vendors haven't released (decent) 64-drivers for ODBC yet. (Why the ODBC standard is hard-wired to byte-word-size is odd. Bad idea. Unix's text-centric standards & conventions paid off for similar things.)
Then there is the VB Classic (desktop) debacle. That ticked off a lot of orgs. There were a lot of code bases that had to be re-written or thrown out. MS could have split or sold desktop-VB-Classic off to another company, for example (maybe with the licensing condition that they cannot make a VB-Net IDE clone for X years.) Similar with FoxPro.
Corporations and robots are people and will be able to vote soon.
See, Trump is creating jobs.
So that's what's causing the pain in my asterisk.
At first I thought it was the high-percent caret diet, which resulted in punctuated dashes at the restroom, clogging the pipes and interrupting my period, which is a plus, by the way. You can quote me on that.
But it almost put me in a comma. However, this research without question underscores and pounds home the real cause!