They do not belong in the main article, except for a brief mention that they exist, and a redirect.
No, and they've explained it OVER AND OVER
on
Wal-mart's Wikipedia War
·
· Score: 3, Informative
NPOV does not mean "give equal treatment to all viewpoints". Read the talk page for the explanation, but you continue to make the same mistake that many others do.
"Where do you get off deleting opposing points of view?"
Where do you get off insisting they be included? Again NPOV DOES NOT mean equal treatment for all view points. It does not mean balance a biased viewpoint on one side with an equally biased viewpoint from the other.
"That that extra 50% is being collected primarily from the poor and middle class and simply being given to the weathiest and shipped out of the country?"
Bullshit. The rich pay more in taxes than the poor do, and your example is no exception.
Look into the K12 planet fisaco currently going down in Orange County. A couple million dollars for a system that is down at least once a week, and hasn't worked correctly since it was implemented.
Here's the part YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY LEAVING OUT.
The prosecution (or plaintiff) must MAKE THEIR CASE. Without doing so, the defendant wins.
"What do you think a plead is?"
Apparently you don't know, because it's a "plea" and you're wrong about
"In civil cases if you leave any line of the complaint unanswered it is held as admitted."
You must still justify your complaint. Usually an unanswered complaint is admitted, but IT IS NOT an automatic admission as you claim. YOU ARE WRONG.
You give ONE very specific example and extrapolate that to mean that accusations are "taken as fact". That is completely wrong, and you know it.
More importantly, you completely failed to address my example, because it destroys your point.
The plaintiff (or prosecution) must ALWAYS justify their accusation, even if unanswered. If it is unanswered that is USUALLY a rubber stamp process, but that is not always the case, as you imply.
You need to improve your knowledge of the legal system before you toss about incorrect, inflammatory statements. Especially when you are obviously, demonstrably wrong.
"In short, once an accusation is made it is up to you to rebut it or it stands as fact."
This is wrong. In fact, it is up to the accuser to justify the viability of their accusation. That is why, in many cases, defenses can successfully move to have a case dismissed if the prosecution hasn't sufficiently proven their case.
If what you said were true, that wouldn't be possible because the accusation would "stand as fact".
Many plans cap the out of pocket expenses. Simply adding the numbers is disingenuous, because they don't add together, in many cases expenses in one category count toward another category as well.
In other words, your numbers aren't accurate. They COULD be, but in my case they aren't even close.
You listed in your original post TWO things that could happen.
NEITHER of those things applies to me, as I've neither died nor mortgaged myself.
So answer my question. DIRECTLY. No silly games with words, no changing the subject, no moving the goalposts, no justifications or observations that don't matter.
WHY DID YOU LIST ONLY TWO POSSIBILITIES WHEN I HAVE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO.
"paying $10,000 dollars a year counts as being mortgaged into penury"
THEN WHY AREN'T I MORTGAGED INTO PENURY? I'm not. THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO SAY ABOUT THAT. I AM NOT MORTGAGED INTO PENURY. PLEASE TRY TO TELL ME AGAIN WHAT I AM AND AM NOT.
So save your slimy attempts to weasel me into a position I don't fit into, and answer the god damned question.
Now explain why, in your original post, you gave two otions, and failed to mention insurance?
It's pretty damned obvious to me that I've answered every single one of your questions, refuted every single one of your points, and have shown you that private insurance is prevalent and viable as a healthcare option.
You STILL haven't explained why you made an ill informed, factually incorrect, hyperbolic statement. All you've done is change the subject and move the goalposts.
So up to your original, WRONG, statement please. I've answered every single one of your questions as honestly as I can, and it's about god damned time the people who post on this web board spreading false and grossly misleading information be held to some accountability.
Or you can just admit you were trolling and we can move on.
"If nearly a third of the population can't afford that,"
If that were true, you'd be right. Had you read my link, however, you'd realize that only 15-18% don't have insurance, not a third (and please, stop saying 30% is a third, it's not, and it's obvious hyperbole).
The point is, and was, and will continue to be, THE ORIGINAL POSTER GAVE TWO OPTIONS AND I REFUTED HIM WITH FACTS. If you want to discuss the fairness and effectiveness of the current healthcare system, do that. I won't be taking part.
"But the employer isn't paying out of the goodness of their hearts, you know"
No, they're paying to make sure you're well and can come to work. It's not altruism, but more of a symbiotic relationship.
"In other words, if the employer weren't paying that money direct to the insurer, all other things being equal, it'd be coming to you."
And because of economy of scale, employers can negotitate smaller premuims than individuals. As a result, YOU would pay more. In the current situation, the employer drives your costs down.
And be honest, why didn't acknowledge (again) that you overstated your position and misread your own link? Why are you in such a raging hurry to find some loophole to force your point through that you ignore EVERY SINGLE refutation and respond with a factually incorrect point?
"This year, workers on average contribute $558 of the $3,695 annual premium cost of single coverage and $2,661 of the $9,950 cost of premiums for family coverage."
2661 dollars for family coverage. 558 dollars for individaul coverage. Aroud 220 dollars a moth for a family.
$500 deductible, maximum out of pocket per year is 2500. And yes, it's fully comprehensive, including mental health benefits, which is unusual for insurance.
"would it cover the total cost of care if you (or a loved one) had a serious, long-term illness?"
If they were on the plan, yes. They're not currently (no wife or kids) and adding them would about double my monthly cost. Maximum lifetime benefit is (I think) 5 million. And the institution I work for provides short and long term disability coverage with no cost to me.
HOWEVER, my insurance is very good. It is not indicative of the state of insurance for everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
In the article dedicated to them.
r ies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theo
They do not belong in the main article, except for a brief mention that they exist, and a redirect.
NPOV does not mean "give equal treatment to all viewpoints". Read the talk page for the explanation, but you continue to make the same mistake that many others do.
_ 2001_attacks#Evidence_citation_in_summary.
"Where do you get off deleting opposing points of view?"
Where do you get off insisting they be included? Again NPOV DOES NOT mean equal treatment for all view points. It does not mean balance a biased viewpoint on one side with an equally biased viewpoint from the other.
For those of you that would like to read more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11%2C
"But how many instances is having a 6 pack in the trunk illegial? Only one that I know of, when you're under 21."
In dry counties. When crossing state/county lines. When the alcohol content is too high.
There are three examples off the top of my head. All of them are illegal in various places, regardless of your age.
In other words, your lack of knowledge on the subject is not a valid reason to assume you are correct.
This isn't one of those "Post your god damned facts because I think you're full of shit" posts, I'm genuinely interested.
"That that extra 50% is being collected primarily from the poor and middle class and simply being given to the weathiest and shipped out of the country?"
Bullshit. The rich pay more in taxes than the poor do, and your example is no exception.
Look into the K12 planet fisaco currently going down in Orange County. A couple million dollars for a system that is down at least once a week, and hasn't worked correctly since it was implemented.
Here's the part YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY LEAVING OUT.
u ideme/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.dsp_content&conten tid=7126 /04/how-riaa-litigation-process-works.html
The prosecution (or plaintiff) must MAKE THEIR CASE. Without doing so, the defendant wins.
"What do you think a plead is?"
Apparently you don't know, because it's a "plea" and you're wrong about
"In civil cases if you leave any line of the complaint unanswered it is held as admitted."
You must still justify your complaint. Usually an unanswered complaint is admitted, but IT IS NOT an automatic admission as you claim. YOU ARE WRONG.
You give ONE very specific example and extrapolate that to mean that accusations are "taken as fact". That is completely wrong, and you know it.
More importantly, you completely failed to address my example, because it destroys your point.
The plaintiff (or prosecution) must ALWAYS justify their accusation, even if unanswered. If it is unanswered that is USUALLY a rubber stamp process, but that is not always the case, as you imply.
You need to improve your knowledge of the legal system before you toss about incorrect, inflammatory statements. Especially when you are obviously, demonstrably wrong.
http://www.illinoislegalaid.com/index.cfm/staticg
http://www.lewis-attorneys.com/faq.html
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/200
That was three examples out of dozens. Stop spreading wrong information.
"With over 2,000 dead, and thousands more left injured, the current situation is basically a complete disaster."
That is a misrepresentation.
"should being "high" be illegal if being "drunk" is not?"
That is also a misrepresentation. As someone else said, there are MANY MANY instances where being drunk IS illegal.
So yes, you are misrepresenting the facts. Now ask yourself why you aren't willing to acknowledge it.
"it was about banning animal cruelty"
Which was already banned. So, as GP said, there are better things for the politicians to be doing than banning something which is already banned.
Unless you're trying to say it wasn't banned already. Is that what you're trying to say?
"In short, once an accusation is made it is up to you to rebut it or it stands as fact."
This is wrong. In fact, it is up to the accuser to justify the viability of their accusation. That is why, in many cases, defenses can successfully move to have a case dismissed if the prosecution hasn't sufficiently proven their case.
If what you said were true, that wouldn't be possible because the accusation would "stand as fact".
"While there may be a legal difference"
That's ALL. Stop right there. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, and detention IS NOT arrest.
You can play semantic games all you like, but there is a difference, and she WAS NOT arrested, which is what the original poster claimed.
Not that she was "de facto" arrested, or "essentially" arrested, but ARRESTED. And she wasn't.
http://www.poolife.com/
That's pretty dumb.
Then of course there's this one
http://www.heebmagazine.com/
WTF?
Then there's this one
http://www.nads.com/
Yikes!
You were modded insightful too, and you didn't do anything but bitch.
"Whats insightful about a idiot saying a name change will make it a complete and total failure of a product!?"
Funny, I read, re-read, and triple read his post. Nowhere did he say that.
What he DID say is that the name is a huge step backward. As someone who finds the name silly and more than a little ridiculous, I agree.
In other words, those of us with money may reconsider buying something with such a stupid name.
Insightful enough for ya?
Many plans cap the out of pocket expenses. Simply adding the numbers is disingenuous, because they don't add together, in many cases expenses in one category count toward another category as well.
In other words, your numbers aren't accurate. They COULD be, but in my case they aren't even close.
You listed in your original post TWO things that could happen.
NEITHER of those things applies to me, as I've neither died nor mortgaged myself.
So answer my question. DIRECTLY. No silly games with words, no changing the subject, no moving the goalposts, no justifications or observations that don't matter.
WHY DID YOU LIST ONLY TWO POSSIBILITIES WHEN I HAVE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO.
"paying $10,000 dollars a year counts as being mortgaged into penury"
THEN WHY AREN'T I MORTGAGED INTO PENURY? I'm not. THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO SAY ABOUT THAT. I AM NOT MORTGAGED INTO PENURY. PLEASE TRY TO TELL ME AGAIN WHAT I AM AND AM NOT.
So save your slimy attempts to weasel me into a position I don't fit into, and answer the god damned question.
http://www.lawyers.com/lawyers/A~1001916~LDS/CRIME +ARREST+EVIDENCE.html#one
Being taken into custody is NOT being arrested. IT IS NOT. Please stop trying to play ridiculous semantic games. Being DETAINED is NOT being arrested.
Stop correcting people when you're wrong, god damn that pisses me off.
Why shouldn't a company (barring certain necessary industries) be allowed to charge what the market will bear?
The reason people in Austrailia pay more is because they choose to pay more.
Now explain why, in your original post, you gave two otions, and failed to mention insurance?
It's pretty damned obvious to me that I've answered every single one of your questions, refuted every single one of your points, and have shown you that private insurance is prevalent and viable as a healthcare option.
You STILL haven't explained why you made an ill informed, factually incorrect, hyperbolic statement. All you've done is change the subject and move the goalposts.
So up to your original, WRONG, statement please. I've answered every single one of your questions as honestly as I can, and it's about god damned time the people who post on this web board spreading false and grossly misleading information be held to some accountability.
Or you can just admit you were trolling and we can move on.
"If nearly a third of the population can't afford that,"
If that were true, you'd be right. Had you read my link, however, you'd realize that only 15-18% don't have insurance, not a third (and please, stop saying 30% is a third, it's not, and it's obvious hyperbole).
The point is, and was, and will continue to be, THE ORIGINAL POSTER GAVE TWO OPTIONS AND I REFUTED HIM WITH FACTS. If you want to discuss the fairness and effectiveness of the current healthcare system, do that. I won't be taking part.
"But the employer isn't paying out of the goodness of their hearts, you know"
No, they're paying to make sure you're well and can come to work. It's not altruism, but more of a symbiotic relationship.
"In other words, if the employer weren't paying that money direct to the insurer, all other things being equal, it'd be coming to you."
And because of economy of scale, employers can negotitate smaller premuims than individuals. As a result, YOU would pay more. In the current situation, the employer drives your costs down.
And be honest, why didn't acknowledge (again) that you overstated your position and misread your own link? Why are you in such a raging hurry to find some loophole to force your point through that you ignore EVERY SINGLE refutation and respond with a factually incorrect point?
"he is totally reliant on the generosity of his company for this to continue."
a rchives/income_wealth/002484.html
My insurance is compensation. Part of an intelligent job search is finding one that has compensation that satisfies you.
"as has already been stated, 30% of Americans are without health coverage"
Nobody stated that, and it's wrong. The number isn't 30%, it's around 15-18%.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/
"Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums"
The employer is paying that, not the individual.
THIS is what you should have looked at
"This year, workers on average contribute $558 of the $3,695 annual premium cost of single coverage and $2,661 of the $9,950 cost of premiums for family coverage."
2661 dollars for family coverage. 558 dollars for individaul coverage. Aroud 220 dollars a moth for a family.
And no, not even remotely near a mortgage.
"And is that fully comprehensive"
$500 deductible, maximum out of pocket per year is 2500. And yes, it's fully comprehensive, including mental health benefits, which is unusual for insurance.
"would it cover the total cost of care if you (or a loved one) had a serious, long-term illness?"
If they were on the plan, yes. They're not currently (no wife or kids) and adding them would about double my monthly cost. Maximum lifetime benefit is (I think) 5 million. And the institution I work for provides short and long term disability coverage with no cost to me.
HOWEVER, my insurance is very good. It is not indicative of the state of insurance for everyone.
Every two weeks, and that's low. My guess (and it's a guess mind you) is that 2 to three times that is about average.
Which places the cost of insurance in same ballpark as a (cheap) monthly car payment.
If that is enough to make you think people must mortgage themselves, fine we'll agree to disagree.