If you want a truly free country, that means that hospitals should be free to let kids die outside their emergency rooms. As soon as you are on board with that 'freedom', your arguments are at least logically consistent.
And I have no problem with that. I do not make a habit of forcing other people to work for me - you know, slavery. A hospital should have the right to demand some sort of payment for services rendered. And it just so happens I pay insurance to cover those services, if they exceed a set financial amount (my deductible). Of course, that agreement is now subject to the terms and conditions of a third party who knows nothing of my needs or medical history - but apparently is willing to demand I do things that simply waste money. And that is efficiency?
No, that quote is saying that their website was easier to implement and has less issues because it does only a small fraction of what HealthCare.gov does. They don't have to query all those sources, they don't have to handle magnitudes higher load volume, etc. So of course something that is far more simplistic than HealthCare.gov is likely to have far less issues, but that isn't really saying much.
The CGI/Government website may query all those sources, but apparently does nothing with the information. At least as far as verifying income, residency status, etc.
Oooo. They created a site that connects to a web service and lists stuff.
I suppose if we gave them a couple more weeks they will have verified income, immigration status, national security checks, and waded through every states muddled regulations for insurance.
It's not a portal. It is a commerce site for a very complicated widget.
Estimating your subsidy is simple math. Verifying your personal and financial information is a totally different issue.
And before they start handing out tax dollars as subsidies, they damned sure better verify the applicant's income.
If you're going to live by the concepts of a 200 year old document, then how about using interpretations that were contemporaneous to the concept? Better yet, how is ignoring the very clarifying words of the author a better approach?
And of course the SC has consistently allowed expansion of the Federal Government. As an arm of the Federal Government, the SC is yet another case of the fox guarding the hen house, albeit in fancily dressed black robes...
Why is it no longer affordable? Because the ACA forces the contract that I and my insurer had agreed upon to change to such a degree via required coverage that it no longer is economically viable? The root problem is that the ACA essentially forces me to pay for coverage I don't want, and provide services/coverage that my insurance company must charge more for.
As the GP said: "In a free country, "for my own good" is my decision, not yours." The ACA just tramples all over that concept.
The world's countries with highest population density are all amazingly wealthy, and have very low rates of starvation. Compare that to the countries leading in poverty who overwhelmingly have low population densities - no overpopulation issues. It's not overpopulation that's the issue - it's distribution of what the world provides. And that is almost always a political issue - it's best for those in control of the starving masses to KEEP them starving, and as such maintain control...
If they're netting $100 at the end of the month, the problem isn't the use of this CC provider or that one - it's a fundamental lack of understanding about pricing of product and cost controls. They are off a few orders of magnitude in terms of profitability to be a going, micro-restaurant business...
I pay for satellite service here for TV because there is no cable company locally. I live in a town of about 3000, 40 miles from anywhere. Likewise, only ONE internet provider here, and the lines are slow as hell and expensive. Why? Because there is no competition.
Maybe it's not a lack of competition, but a lack of market.
No, fanatical was what I wanted to use. It's fanatical on your part in an effort to force the concept of "Corps trump Governments".
And as far as the assets of NewsCorp, they pale in comparison of the US Federal Government. How many divisions does NewsCorp have? How many naval battlegroups? How much tax can it levy, and how much money can it borrow (even a trillion)?
Corporations can influence Government; so can individuals (see Lech Walesa, Nelson Mandela, and others). But Government ultimately wins in the war of power. Government can take everything you want, and you have no recourse - other than Government. Government can execute you, and your family has no recourse - other than Government. Government can (and has) nationalize - take over by fiat - corporations. In the battle of power, Government wins, hands down.
Yep. The facts are that the Federal Government offered to do the website exchange for the States. Some of the States took them up on the offer. The Federal Government completely blew it. And partisan hacks are blaming the States for the failure - a failure of the Federal Government to do what it said it would do.
Would that include States like Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Maine - all of which voted for President Obama? This isn't a temper tantrum as so many are attempting to say; rather by blaming the States for TAKING THE FEDS UP ON THEIR OFFER it's an attempted whitewash of the failure of the Administration.
Then the states shouldn't complain if it turns out to be crap. The had their chance, they passed, and now they get to reap the benefits. Many of those states are probably firmly in the 10th Amendment trench. Odd that they wouldn't want local control over such an important part of their local economy
OK. I get your point. Fed makes an offer. States take the Fed up. Feds botch the offer entirely. States don't complain - the people do. Now it's the States' fault. That's some interesting logic you have there!
The Feds made the offer - are you saying the Feds made it in bad faith, and have no responsibility to actually carry out their offer/bargain?
I'll let your fanatical "NewsCorp topples America" hypothesis stand on its own merits. Thank you for proving my point that Government trumps corporations, in terms of power.
Question: what is driving the current pause (16 years, 11 months so far) in global warming? Is it these very oscillations? Note that not a single IPCC model matches the current conditions; of course, most IPCC models are heavily driven by CO2 and significantly downplay the natural oscillations of our climate. Perhaps we should study the oscillations themselves to determine what IS "normal" and expected, so we can then identify what is man-made... You know, identify the background spectra before trying to isolate your signal.
This article contains actual measured temperatures, and show the pause. Your link shows nice, continuous upward curves. In other words - your refutation is not what you think it is.
It's a unique problem combined with poor assumptions on the part administration. Had the majority of states agreed to run their own exchanges, this problem wouldn't be so exaggerated. Instead, thirty five states opted to let the federal government run the show. The administration did not plan for this.
Which shows the naivete of the Administration. The original law made the offer. All 50 States could have decided to let the Feds do it; the law made the offer free-and-clear. The Administration should have been prepared for anywhere from 0 to 50 States needing to be in the Federal website - the fact it didn't shows inane amounts of political naivete and hubris.
NOTE: some red States set up their own Exchange site (like Kentucky), and some blue States failed to set one up (like Pennsylvania). This isn't a red/blue thing, but a "pie in the sky/wishful thinking Administration" thing.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want a truly free country, that means that hospitals should be free to let kids die outside their emergency rooms. As soon as you are on board with that 'freedom', your arguments are at least logically consistent.
And I have no problem with that. I do not make a habit of forcing other people to work for me - you know, slavery. A hospital should have the right to demand some sort of payment for services rendered. And it just so happens I pay insurance to cover those services, if they exceed a set financial amount (my deductible). Of course, that agreement is now subject to the terms and conditions of a third party who knows nothing of my needs or medical history - but apparently is willing to demand I do things that simply waste money. And that is efficiency?
Your source?
No, that quote is saying that their website was easier to implement and has less issues because it does only a small fraction of what HealthCare.gov does. They don't have to query all those sources, they don't have to handle magnitudes higher load volume, etc. So of course something that is far more simplistic than HealthCare.gov is likely to have far less issues, but that isn't really saying much.
The CGI/Government website may query all those sources, but apparently does nothing with the information. At least as far as verifying income, residency status, etc.
Oooo. They created a site that connects to a web service and lists stuff. I suppose if we gave them a couple more weeks they will have verified income, immigration status, national security checks, and waded through every states muddled regulations for insurance. It's not a portal. It is a commerce site for a very complicated widget.
The CGI/Government website doesn't verify any of those things, either.
Estimating your subsidy is simple math. Verifying your personal and financial information is a totally different issue. And before they start handing out tax dollars as subsidies, they damned sure better verify the applicant's income.
Interestingly enough, the Government's website doesn't verify income, either...
If you're going to live by the concepts of a 200 year old document, then how about using interpretations that were contemporaneous to the concept? Better yet, how is ignoring the very clarifying words of the author a better approach?
And of course the SC has consistently allowed expansion of the Federal Government. As an arm of the Federal Government, the SC is yet another case of the fox guarding the hen house, albeit in fancily dressed black robes...
Haven't seen a Walgreen's, Rite Aid, or CVS yet that requires proof of marriage before you buy condoms...
Why is it no longer affordable? Because the ACA forces the contract that I and my insurer had agreed upon to change to such a degree via required coverage that it no longer is economically viable? The root problem is that the ACA essentially forces me to pay for coverage I don't want, and provide services/coverage that my insurance company must charge more for.
As the GP said: "In a free country, "for my own good" is my decision, not yours." The ACA just tramples all over that concept.
The world's countries with highest population density are all amazingly wealthy, and have very low rates of starvation. Compare that to the countries leading in poverty who overwhelmingly have low population densities - no overpopulation issues. It's not overpopulation that's the issue - it's distribution of what the world provides. And that is almost always a political issue - it's best for those in control of the starving masses to KEEP them starving, and as such maintain control...
Just remember: vegetables aren't food. Vegetables are what food eats.
Over, Unger! UNGER! Not under...
If they're netting $100 at the end of the month, the problem isn't the use of this CC provider or that one - it's a fundamental lack of understanding about pricing of product and cost controls. They are off a few orders of magnitude in terms of profitability to be a going, micro-restaurant business...
Proof that pussy does run the world... ;)
You're overlooking the obvious benefit of the cat-powered car: if it ever rolls over, it will always land on its tires.
Is ANYTHING in NYC cheap?
Insults are you moron. Now get the fuck outta the way, and let the real men talk you limp-wristed panty boy...
I pay for satellite service here for TV because there is no cable company locally. I live in a town of about 3000, 40 miles from anywhere. Likewise, only ONE internet provider here, and the lines are slow as hell and expensive. Why? Because there is no competition.
Maybe it's not a lack of competition, but a lack of market.
No, fanatical was what I wanted to use. It's fanatical on your part in an effort to force the concept of "Corps trump Governments".
And as far as the assets of NewsCorp, they pale in comparison of the US Federal Government. How many divisions does NewsCorp have? How many naval battlegroups? How much tax can it levy, and how much money can it borrow (even a trillion)?
Corporations can influence Government; so can individuals (see Lech Walesa, Nelson Mandela, and others). But Government ultimately wins in the war of power. Government can take everything you want, and you have no recourse - other than Government. Government can execute you, and your family has no recourse - other than Government. Government can (and has) nationalize - take over by fiat - corporations. In the battle of power, Government wins, hands down.
Yep. The facts are that the Federal Government offered to do the website exchange for the States. Some of the States took them up on the offer. The Federal Government completely blew it. And partisan hacks are blaming the States for the failure - a failure of the Federal Government to do what it said it would do.
Would that include States like Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Maine - all of which voted for President Obama? This isn't a temper tantrum as so many are attempting to say; rather by blaming the States for TAKING THE FEDS UP ON THEIR OFFER it's an attempted whitewash of the failure of the Administration.
Then the states shouldn't complain if it turns out to be crap. The had their chance, they passed, and now they get to reap the benefits. Many of those states are probably firmly in the 10th Amendment trench. Odd that they wouldn't want local control over such an important part of their local economy
OK. I get your point. Fed makes an offer. States take the Fed up. Feds botch the offer entirely. States don't complain - the people do. Now it's the States' fault. That's some interesting logic you have there!
The Feds made the offer - are you saying the Feds made it in bad faith, and have no responsibility to actually carry out their offer/bargain?
I'll let your fanatical "NewsCorp topples America" hypothesis stand on its own merits. Thank you for proving my point that Government trumps corporations, in terms of power.
Question: what is driving the current pause (16 years, 11 months so far) in global warming? Is it these very oscillations? Note that not a single IPCC model matches the current conditions; of course, most IPCC models are heavily driven by CO2 and significantly downplay the natural oscillations of our climate. Perhaps we should study the oscillations themselves to determine what IS "normal" and expected, so we can then identify what is man-made... You know, identify the background spectra before trying to isolate your signal.
This article contains actual measured temperatures, and show the pause. Your link shows nice, continuous upward curves. In other words - your refutation is not what you think it is.
NOTE: point 1 is wrong; CGI was a no-bid award. Sole entity, awarded without a bid process.
It's a unique problem combined with poor assumptions on the part administration. Had the majority of states agreed to run their own exchanges, this problem wouldn't be so exaggerated. Instead, thirty five states opted to let the federal government run the show. The administration did not plan for this.
Which shows the naivete of the Administration. The original law made the offer. All 50 States could have decided to let the Feds do it; the law made the offer free-and-clear. The Administration should have been prepared for anywhere from 0 to 50 States needing to be in the Federal website - the fact it didn't shows inane amounts of political naivete and hubris.
NOTE: some red States set up their own Exchange site (like Kentucky), and some blue States failed to set one up (like Pennsylvania). This isn't a red/blue thing, but a "pie in the sky/wishful thinking Administration" thing.