As with most stories on Slashdot these days, it's bullshit meant to make you scared and angry.

They're not trying to shut down porn -- what possible motive could they even have for that? They're trying to stop disreputable businesses from effectively robbing people a few nickels at a time. If innocent companies are getting caught in the crossfire, then the DOJ needs to do its job better. But quit hyperventilating. This is not some evil government plot to wipe out all of the fireworks stores and dating services in the country.

Can we get some editors to remove this crap? It's just a stupid marketing gimmick -- "What, you haven't heard of [PRODUCT_NAME]? You must be living under a rock! Everyone who's anyone knows about [PRODUCT_NAME]!"

We won't know the exact delta, but we'll have a much better idea. According to the article you linked, the difference between the old and new questions was about 2% in the total uninsured rate. If the upcoming Census report shows the uninsured numbers dropping by less than that, then that would be evidence that Obamacare was ineffective.

They have general ideas, not exact numbers. What more could you expect? The numbers will gain some precision after the Census releases its report later this year, but even then it's based on polling, so it won't be exactly right.

The CBO's current estimate is that Obamacare has reduced the net number of uninsured persons by 12 million just this year, and is on track to get another 14 million insured within a couple more years. I would have preferred single payer, but Obamacare is a LOT better than what we had before, and it's the best we could have gotten in the face of Republican obstruction.

You can call it "complete and utter crap" all day, but we all know that that's just because you want it to fail. You already admitted you're a libertarian -- you're philosophically opposed to the very thing that Obamacare sets out to accomplish.

While that is true, there was also an equally large advertising push trying to convince people not to enroll. That's something that Twitter and Facebook never had to confront.

Wait, I think you're confused.

"Regulation" in this case would be the FCC instituting net neutrality, so that the ISPs have to treat all comers equally. E.g., Comcast can't speed up Hulu at the expense of some small start-up video streaming site.

The big businesses want to kill net neutrality because that will let them crush any new start-ups, and ensure that they maintain control of what we watch for generations to come. Sites like Netflix never would have gotten off the ground without net neutrality.

The big businesses are trying to get rid of regulations, and you've twisted it around to say that we need to ...get rid of regulations. Either you're confused, or just some corporate bootlicker.

Were you expecting him to fab his own chips? Maybe he should grow his own silicon wafers while he's at it. Although, if he really wants to make a DIY phone, he must first invent the universe.

The point of a class action suit is to punish the transgressor. No one victim is harmed enough for the suit to be worthwhile, but society still has an interest in dissuading future bad behavior. The suits are often long and complicated. If you don't pay the lawyers well, then you won't get good lawyers working for the class. Meanwhile, the corporation WILL have good lawyers.

Insistence that lawyers should make less money from class actions may be well-intentioned, but the result would just be corporations having (even more) freedom to fuck people over.

The Democrats tried to pass net neutrality into law through an act of Congress, so that we wouldn't need to rely on the FCC-commissioner-of-the-moment. The Republicans blocked it. Obama then implemented a reduced version of net neutrality through execute order. The courts struck that down. The Democrats tried again to pass net neutrality through Congress. The Republicans again blocked it. Now net neutrality is dead and gone, and the Republicans are claiming its the Democrats' fault.

I wish I could say this is unbelievably dishonest, but it's actually quite standard these days.

Great, go tell that to the people who lost a hand. I'm sure it will make them feel better.

Hurr, stupid idiots, having emotion! Why don't they just stop feeling things!?

The latest CBO report shows that the law is on track to reduce the total number of uninsured people by 12 million this year. Page 8 of the PDF.

And if you check page 14, you'll see that that estimate was based on just enrolling 6 million people in the exchanges this year. The actual number is 8 million.

But keep lying. Maybe if you repeat it enough, it'll turn true!

That sunset clause is the ONLY reason Obama was able to get rid of even a portion of the tax cuts. The whole thing was about to expire, and he was able to force the Republicans to accept some tax increases since the alternative was much larger increases. If it hadn't been for that sunset clause, the Bush tax cuts would have lasted another 50 years.

Even assuming that you get your million dollars forty years before you plan to retire, you would need to pull in returns of more than 18% per year to hit a billion.

No one can do that reliably. It's luck.

A majority of Republicans voted for it as well. The real question is who added this particular provision, and are they still in office? I'm not sure how to dig up that crucial bit of info.