Later, much later, I learned that her kid had cancer. If she had lost her job, that cancer becomes a preexisting condition and her kid would have died.
She would just get another job and her kid's cancer would be covered and would not be a preexisting condition due to HIPAA.
Ramrodded through the 1990s Republican plan, in fact. Because the 2010 Republicans would rather die than work with Democrats, even if it means repudiating their own ideas.
ObamaCare is not something that the GOP wants, nor is it something that the GOP ever wanted. If it were something that the GOP wanted, it would have been implemented when George W. Bush was president.
ObamaCare was based loosely on a Heritage paper that was released as an alternative to HillaryCare, not as a Conservative policy goal. Ever notice how the only people calling ObamaCare a Republican plan are Democrats?
The old health care paradigm was broken. It was based on the idea that the majority of people went to work for a single employer and stayed there for life, so that they didn't have to deal with the "pre-existing condition" gotcha.
Apparently you missed the whole HIPAA thing? You could jump employers all you wanted and not worry about preexisting conditions as long as you maintained continuous coverage. I think you might have been allowed to have a short gap, but I'm too lazy to look it up.
It assumed that employment was more or less continuous, instead of months, and even years between jobs when something medically crucial might happen but no employer was there to provide insurance.
That's what SSDI+Medicare is for. If you become so disabled that you can't work, you get SSDI. If you're on SSDI for a period of time (I think it's a year or something), then you qualify for Medicare. It's not like sick people get kicked to the curb if they don't have a job.
I call bullshit. You had a "full-time consultancy" but couldn't afford a few hundred bucks a month for health care? Right.
I priced a plan out for my family and it was about $1000/mo. Fortunately, my wife still has a legacy plan from her work for about $300/mo. Not sure what will do when her plan becomes illegal, though.
So you think you might just float off the planet one day?
No.
Every time we throw something in the air, it falls down (assuming aerodynamics don't affect it significantly). Are you going to say now that I'm wrong about this?
I suppose it depends on how hard you throw that object. If you could throw it at near the speed of light, then yes, I'm telling you that you are wrong.
The problem is that these are not the weaknesses that they want to discuss, at least not completely.
Actually, I've heard the Cambrian explosion used as "scientific" evidence for "Let There Be Animals".
Of course, the "explosion" part of the Cambrian explosion was, what, tens of thousands of years or something? Some time period longer than a day, at any rate. But I just thought I'd pass that little nugget along.
I always have to laugh at this. "Gravity" is only settled in the classical mechanics (i.e. Newtonian) sense of the word. As the fine article points out, Einstein improved upon classical mechanics with his theory of General Relativity, and Einstein's work is still being improved upon to this day.
So, as it turns out, "gravity" is not settled at all and our understanding of it remains highly incomplete.
As an Atheist, I'm more than willing to accept there is a god (or gods) if any rational proof can be exhibited (I've yet to see it).
I'm not going to tell you what to believe, but what proof do you have of The Big Bang? And what was around prior to The Big Bang? What matter/energy Big Banged? (laws of conservation of matter/energy should be respected, no?)
Shouldn't you apply the same standard to science that you do to the bible?
As for me personally, I don't put a lot of stock in the literal word of the bible (i.e. universe was created in 7 days, like 6000 years ago... Not buyin' that). But listening to cosmologists sounds a lot like listening to preachers, to my ears anyway. It doesn't take long for the cosmologist to arrive at "our human brains can't comprehend this". Fascinating research, though!
This happens because unlike the telephone game, men and women of the jews were required to memorized the scrolls that made up the torah. When someone recited portions of it and got something wrong, they were corrected by the others who knew the correct versions. Almost all people in the villages participated in this so the stories are reasonable the same as they always were.
I think that there is a little confusion here between the Written Torah and the Oral Torah (in modern times, both are written down).
The Written Torah that was discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls was found to be nearly identical to the modern day Written Torah. The reason for this is that there is only one method by which a Torah can be copied, and it involves a person who is specifically trained in Torah copying copying the Torah letter by letter to be exactly the same as the source. The entire process was designed to reduce human error, and that's why even after thousands of years, the Torah remains unchanged.
The Oral Law, on the other hand, was originally transferred from generation to generation orally, and was only written down when it became clear that the Oral Law would be lost if it wasn't. (Persecution by the Romans made Jewish learning very risky.) As you'd expect, there is not the level of precision in the transmission of the Oral Law as there was in the Written Law. In fact, there are even two versions of the Talmud.
I, too, noticed that Verizon didn't have any type of retentions department. A long while ago, I called to cancel Verizon Wireless, and they basically advised me not to let the door hit me on the way out.
Actively sabotaging child education because you cannot let go of your goat-herding traditions of fear in the desert is WRONG.
If Yesodey Hatorah Senior Girls School is trying to sabotage its pupils education, they're certainly doing a shitty job of it.
From that link:
Pupils at the Yesodey Hatorah Senior Girls School in Stamford Hill, north London, were on average five terms ahead of 14-year-olds in the rest of the country in maths, English and science.
(Emphasis mine)
Seems they must be doing something right, even if I can't agree with the actions described in TFA, assuming that they are true.
Because science is about doubting, learning and knowing, religion is about faith and believe. They're mutually exclusive.
I can't speak for other religions, but since the article is about Judaism, I can say that within Judaism specifically, doubting, questioning, and debating are essential components of a Jewish education. In fact, the entire Talmud is basically the arguments and debates of religious scholars.
Maybe they should also teach them that 2+2=7 and that The Earth is flat. And feed them on nothing but kitkats. [...] Last time I checked we have child protection to take children away from clueless parents.
I don't know where you live, but in the US, teaching incorrect facts to your children is nowhere near grounds for removal of the children from the parents' care and dumping them on the foster care system. And given the state of the foster care system, I'd rather see a kid learn some goofy math than be subject to "the system".
It's impractical for banks to mail checks to customers under Check 21. Most checks aren't physically transferred from bank to bank anymore. Images are transferred instead, and the payments are settled electronically.
Paper checks should be phased out here like they were in the rest of the world, in my opinion. They are insecure, expensive to clear, and error-prone.
People who like having paper records of transactions.
I'm not sure what's to like about paper records, which are tedious to keep and prone to errors, but you can always write on paper that you transferred $800 to your husband electronically, just like you would write in your check register.
For what it's worth, I'll suggest to you the system that my wife and I used when we first got married and hadn't yet combined our finances. We each had individual checking accounts where we deposited our paychecks and paid for individual expenses, and we also maintained a joint checking account, from which we paid the rent/mortgage, utilities, food, and whatever else we agreed would be "joint" expenses. Then, each month, we'd each electronically transfer our half of the money into the joint account to cover the joint bills, and from that account, we'd pay the bills. All records were electronic.
This is all proven technology, by the way. It was proven back when we did this, and that would be 1999. All records were electronic and we both had transparency into what was going on in the joint account, who contributed what and what was paid out of it, all automatically. I imagine that this is probably easier today than it was 15 years ago.
Hope this helps save you both some time and effort and errors!
You can't carry a scooter with you into the office, you have to find a place to park it/store it.
Where I live, you can park a scooter of up to 50cc in any bike rack, and there's a bike rack at my office. Hell, you can even park it legally on the sidewalk as long as it doesn't obstruct pedestrian traffic.
The Citibike is a rental bike you drop off when you get to your end point and you take this off and carry it with you.
We also have a system like Citibike, and it's a pain in the ass. If the drop-off rack is full, you have to go find another one. If the pick-up rack is empty, you have to find another one. Not so convenient.
I think it depends on the woman and her assertiveness. My wife is not the type of person to get stuck like that, but maybe some women just prefer to go to work, get paid, and then do other things that are more important to them than work.
I can't say that I disagree with that perspective.
Much more relevant would be an examination of why women are more likely to have this lack of commitment,
Maybe some women just would rather focus on the children?
I don't really know. My wife isn't overly-maternal. She's a good mom and all, but she went right back to work after her maternity leave was up. I took more time off than she did. But anyway, some women really would rather be at home with the babies than at work with people who act like babies.
I couldn't figure out how to get Dogecoin working either.
I'll admit that I don't keep on top of every new cryptocurrency, but I am fairly certain that Dogecoin is intended to be something of an inside joke. It's probably not worth taking it too seriously.
Econ majors at my school only took 'Calc for business majors' and non-calculus based stats.
I took AP calc in high school, so I got credit for regular calc, but really, business calc+econ stats is plenty of math to still considered be a functioning adult, no? We'd be in a lot better shape right now if most of the country actually understood their mortgage and credit card statements.
Sociology/psych majors got way with math 6+6 and 'science' courses with no math beyond arithmetic.
That's not necessarily all bad. There ought to be a minimum amount of science and math that we expect a college graduate to understand, and I agree with you that our current state is that it's probably not enough, but I also don't think that non-majors should have to take the same courses that majors take.
I saw a lot of non-econ majors get slaughtered by econ 101/102, and really, that's a shame, because more people ought to understand basic economics. Why can't the econ department offer a good personal finance/small entrepreneurship course? I bet it'd be popular, and that's a good thing. I took a few music courses for non-majors in college, and I learned a lot. Would I get creamed by an intro music theory course? Yup. But better that I should have a basic knowledge than no knowledge.
Short story long, I think that there is a middle ground in there somewhere between Rocks for Jocks and Geology 101, and that we haven't quite found yet.
The real problem is the whole student loan system. Since most people are paying for college with unlimited-balance, government-guaranteed loans, colleges can charge whatever the hell they want and they know that everyone can afford it and they always get paid. Why does the cost of tuition rise so much faster than inflation? Because colleges suffer no consequences for raising tuition.
If you took away the unlimited aspect or the government-guarantee aspect, you'd see tuitions stabilize right quick. If Uncle Sam (or I guess Aunt Sallie, in this case) said, "Colleges, go ahead and charge whatever the hell you want, but we're only giving each student $15k/yr in loans, indexed to inflation," you'd see colleges implementing some cost controls. Likewise, if Sallie Mae said, "Colleges, we pay you when the student pays us, so better make things affordable, hmm?" same thing would happen.
But no, we have a bubble like the real estate bubble because everybody's buying with other people's money, so nobody cares what it costs.
I think that the whole thing is a solution searching for a problem. If you go to college, supposedly you make more money, no? And if you make more money, you pay more tax. Just like it's always been. Yippee.
How about broadening the humanities with just one college level math or science course?
I was an econ major and I had to take a few science courses, one of which had to be a lab science course. I don't remember if there was a math breadth requirement because econ requires calculus and statistics, so I would have met a basic math breadth requirement, anyway.
I enjoyed my science courses, by the way. One was on weather and climate, and the other was a food chemistry class. I forget if I had any others, but those were the most memorable.
Slashdot Mirror
Later, much later, I learned that her kid had cancer. If she had lost her job, that cancer becomes a preexisting condition and her kid would have died.
She would just get another job and her kid's cancer would be covered and would not be a preexisting condition due to HIPAA.
Ramrodded through the 1990s Republican plan, in fact. Because the 2010 Republicans would rather die than work with Democrats, even if it means repudiating their own ideas.
ObamaCare is not something that the GOP wants, nor is it something that the GOP ever wanted. If it were something that the GOP wanted, it would have been implemented when George W. Bush was president.
ObamaCare was based loosely on a Heritage paper that was released as an alternative to HillaryCare, not as a Conservative policy goal. Ever notice how the only people calling ObamaCare a Republican plan are Democrats?
The old health care paradigm was broken. It was based on the idea that the majority of people went to work for a single employer and stayed there for life, so that they didn't have to deal with the "pre-existing condition" gotcha.
Apparently you missed the whole HIPAA thing? You could jump employers all you wanted and not worry about preexisting conditions as long as you maintained continuous coverage. I think you might have been allowed to have a short gap, but I'm too lazy to look it up.
It assumed that employment was more or less continuous, instead of months, and even years between jobs when something medically crucial might happen but no employer was there to provide insurance.
That's what SSDI+Medicare is for. If you become so disabled that you can't work, you get SSDI. If you're on SSDI for a period of time (I think it's a year or something), then you qualify for Medicare. It's not like sick people get kicked to the curb if they don't have a job.
I call bullshit. You had a "full-time consultancy" but couldn't afford a few hundred bucks a month for health care? Right.
I priced a plan out for my family and it was about $1000/mo. Fortunately, my wife still has a legacy plan from her work for about $300/mo. Not sure what will do when her plan becomes illegal, though.
So you think you might just float off the planet one day?
No.
Every time we throw something in the air, it falls down (assuming aerodynamics don't affect it significantly). Are you going to say now that I'm wrong about this?
I suppose it depends on how hard you throw that object. If you could throw it at near the speed of light, then yes, I'm telling you that you are wrong.
The problem is that these are not the weaknesses that they want to discuss, at least not completely.
Actually, I've heard the Cambrian explosion used as "scientific" evidence for "Let There Be Animals".
Of course, the "explosion" part of the Cambrian explosion was, what, tens of thousands of years or something? Some time period longer than a day, at any rate. But I just thought I'd pass that little nugget along.
For instance, gravity is pretty much "settled".
I always have to laugh at this. "Gravity" is only settled in the classical mechanics (i.e. Newtonian) sense of the word. As the fine article points out, Einstein improved upon classical mechanics with his theory of General Relativity, and Einstein's work is still being improved upon to this day.
So, as it turns out, "gravity" is not settled at all and our understanding of it remains highly incomplete.
It's a bad idea to try to write something you've only heard spoken. It frequently makes you look semi-literate and/or pretentious.
Oh, because correcting people's Latin spelling is the epitome of humility.
As an Atheist, I'm more than willing to accept there is a god (or gods) if any rational proof can be exhibited (I've yet to see it).
I'm not going to tell you what to believe, but what proof do you have of The Big Bang? And what was around prior to The Big Bang? What matter/energy Big Banged? (laws of conservation of matter/energy should be respected, no?)
Shouldn't you apply the same standard to science that you do to the bible?
As for me personally, I don't put a lot of stock in the literal word of the bible (i.e. universe was created in 7 days, like 6000 years ago... Not buyin' that). But listening to cosmologists sounds a lot like listening to preachers, to my ears anyway. It doesn't take long for the cosmologist to arrive at "our human brains can't comprehend this". Fascinating research, though!
This happens because unlike the telephone game, men and women of the jews were required to memorized the scrolls that made up the torah. When someone recited portions of it and got something wrong, they were corrected by the others who knew the correct versions. Almost all people in the villages participated in this so the stories are reasonable the same as they always were.
I think that there is a little confusion here between the Written Torah and the Oral Torah (in modern times, both are written down).
The Written Torah that was discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls was found to be nearly identical to the modern day Written Torah. The reason for this is that there is only one method by which a Torah can be copied, and it involves a person who is specifically trained in Torah copying copying the Torah letter by letter to be exactly the same as the source. The entire process was designed to reduce human error, and that's why even after thousands of years, the Torah remains unchanged.
The Oral Law, on the other hand, was originally transferred from generation to generation orally, and was only written down when it became clear that the Oral Law would be lost if it wasn't. (Persecution by the Romans made Jewish learning very risky.) As you'd expect, there is not the level of precision in the transmission of the Oral Law as there was in the Written Law. In fact, there are even two versions of the Talmud.
I, too, noticed that Verizon didn't have any type of retentions department. A long while ago, I called to cancel Verizon Wireless, and they basically advised me not to let the door hit me on the way out.
Oh well.
Actively sabotaging child education because you cannot let go of your goat-herding traditions of fear in the desert is WRONG.
If Yesodey Hatorah Senior Girls School is trying to sabotage its pupils education, they're certainly doing a shitty job of it.
From that link:
Pupils at the Yesodey Hatorah Senior Girls School in Stamford Hill, north London, were on average five terms ahead of 14-year-olds in the rest of the country in maths, English and science.
(Emphasis mine)
Seems they must be doing something right, even if I can't agree with the actions described in TFA, assuming that they are true.
Because science is about doubting, learning and knowing, religion is about faith and believe. They're mutually exclusive.
I can't speak for other religions, but since the article is about Judaism, I can say that within Judaism specifically, doubting, questioning, and debating are essential components of a Jewish education. In fact, the entire Talmud is basically the arguments and debates of religious scholars.
Maybe they should also teach them that 2+2=7 and that The Earth is flat. And feed them on nothing but kitkats. [...] Last time I checked we have child protection to take children away from clueless parents.
I don't know where you live, but in the US, teaching incorrect facts to your children is nowhere near grounds for removal of the children from the parents' care and dumping them on the foster care system. And given the state of the foster care system, I'd rather see a kid learn some goofy math than be subject to "the system".
Your bank still sends back your checks?
It's impractical for banks to mail checks to customers under Check 21. Most checks aren't physically transferred from bank to bank anymore. Images are transferred instead, and the payments are settled electronically.
Paper checks should be phased out here like they were in the rest of the world, in my opinion. They are insecure, expensive to clear, and error-prone.
People who like having paper records of transactions.
I'm not sure what's to like about paper records, which are tedious to keep and prone to errors, but you can always write on paper that you transferred $800 to your husband electronically, just like you would write in your check register.
For what it's worth, I'll suggest to you the system that my wife and I used when we first got married and hadn't yet combined our finances. We each had individual checking accounts where we deposited our paychecks and paid for individual expenses, and we also maintained a joint checking account, from which we paid the rent/mortgage, utilities, food, and whatever else we agreed would be "joint" expenses. Then, each month, we'd each electronically transfer our half of the money into the joint account to cover the joint bills, and from that account, we'd pay the bills. All records were electronic.
This is all proven technology, by the way. It was proven back when we did this, and that would be 1999. All records were electronic and we both had transparency into what was going on in the joint account, who contributed what and what was paid out of it, all automatically. I imagine that this is probably easier today than it was 15 years ago.
Hope this helps save you both some time and effort and errors!
You can't carry a scooter with you into the office, you have to find a place to park it/store it.
Where I live, you can park a scooter of up to 50cc in any bike rack, and there's a bike rack at my office. Hell, you can even park it legally on the sidewalk as long as it doesn't obstruct pedestrian traffic.
The Citibike is a rental bike you drop off when you get to your end point and you take this off and carry it with you.
We also have a system like Citibike, and it's a pain in the ass. If the drop-off rack is full, you have to go find another one. If the pick-up rack is empty, you have to find another one. Not so convenient.
I think it depends on the woman and her assertiveness. My wife is not the type of person to get stuck like that, but maybe some women just prefer to go to work, get paid, and then do other things that are more important to them than work.
I can't say that I disagree with that perspective.
Much more relevant would be an examination of why women are more likely to have this lack of commitment,
Maybe some women just would rather focus on the children?
I don't really know. My wife isn't overly-maternal. She's a good mom and all, but she went right back to work after her maternity leave was up. I took more time off than she did. But anyway, some women really would rather be at home with the babies than at work with people who act like babies.
I'm the wife in the situation. I just wrote my husband an $800 check for my cut of the mortgage and food last month. Problem?
Yes. Who the fuck uses checks in 2014?
I couldn't figure out how to get Dogecoin working either.
I'll admit that I don't keep on top of every new cryptocurrency, but I am fairly certain that Dogecoin is intended to be something of an inside joke. It's probably not worth taking it too seriously.
Econ majors at my school only took 'Calc for business majors' and non-calculus based stats.
I took AP calc in high school, so I got credit for regular calc, but really, business calc+econ stats is plenty of math to still considered be a functioning adult, no? We'd be in a lot better shape right now if most of the country actually understood their mortgage and credit card statements.
Sociology/psych majors got way with math 6+6 and 'science' courses with no math beyond arithmetic.
That's not necessarily all bad. There ought to be a minimum amount of science and math that we expect a college graduate to understand, and I agree with you that our current state is that it's probably not enough, but I also don't think that non-majors should have to take the same courses that majors take.
I saw a lot of non-econ majors get slaughtered by econ 101/102, and really, that's a shame, because more people ought to understand basic economics. Why can't the econ department offer a good personal finance/small entrepreneurship course? I bet it'd be popular, and that's a good thing. I took a few music courses for non-majors in college, and I learned a lot. Would I get creamed by an intro music theory course? Yup. But better that I should have a basic knowledge than no knowledge.
Short story long, I think that there is a middle ground in there somewhere between Rocks for Jocks and Geology 101, and that we haven't quite found yet.
The real problem is the whole student loan system. Since most people are paying for college with unlimited-balance, government-guaranteed loans, colleges can charge whatever the hell they want and they know that everyone can afford it and they always get paid. Why does the cost of tuition rise so much faster than inflation? Because colleges suffer no consequences for raising tuition.
If you took away the unlimited aspect or the government-guarantee aspect, you'd see tuitions stabilize right quick. If Uncle Sam (or I guess Aunt Sallie, in this case) said, "Colleges, go ahead and charge whatever the hell you want, but we're only giving each student $15k/yr in loans, indexed to inflation," you'd see colleges implementing some cost controls. Likewise, if Sallie Mae said, "Colleges, we pay you when the student pays us, so better make things affordable, hmm?" same thing would happen.
But no, we have a bubble like the real estate bubble because everybody's buying with other people's money, so nobody cares what it costs.
I think that the whole thing is a solution searching for a problem. If you go to college, supposedly you make more money, no? And if you make more money, you pay more tax. Just like it's always been. Yippee.
How about broadening the humanities with just one college level math or science course?
I was an econ major and I had to take a few science courses, one of which had to be a lab science course. I don't remember if there was a math breadth requirement because econ requires calculus and statistics, so I would have met a basic math breadth requirement, anyway.
I enjoyed my science courses, by the way. One was on weather and climate, and the other was a food chemistry class. I forget if I had any others, but those were the most memorable.
I basically hate upstart, so bring it on, systemd.