Learn to read, chief.

Specifically, * equivalently - stacking multiple flow control branches to simulate the singular GOTO is not the same.

Also true is that any sane attempt to calculate the color of a pixel is not embarrassingly parallel...

...never the less, GPU's prove that the problem being solved is indeed embarrassingly parallel.

Your problem is that you know just enough to fuck up the basics.

..and as a matter of fact, C has GOTO.

I'm not sure than any language exists that can truly* replace GOTO through the use of other flow control sugars.

* equivalently - stacking multiple flow control branches to simulate the singular GOTO is not the same.

The government doesnt have the right to do so. The fact that it sometimes (more and more frequently these days) does things that it doesnt have a right to do is not an excuse.

There is a process where the federal government can be granted new rights. This happens only when the States approve a modification to the constitution.

Hobby Lobby denies neither, proving that you are one of those hyper-reactionary liberals that doesnt know what went down. The employees of Hobby Lobby continue to have the liberty to consume drugs such as Plan B. What they dont have is the liberty to force their employer to pay for their Plan B.

Lots of things arent part of an employees compensation package. Even such necessities as food and shelter, but somehow in the liberal mind Plan B is so much more important than food and shelter that employers must pay for it specifically.

Shows us where the liberal priorities lie... the murder of what they have unscientifically dehumanized is top priority. I guess if the liberty of the unborn human isnt important, than why should anybody elses liberty be important.

..or how many accident happen because "fuck it! I'm insured!"

How many tailgaters would continue to tailgate if it was as simple as slamming on the breaks to ruin them financially...

I think you are missing the forest for the trees.

There is no issue with risk pools being fine-grained. The issue is that low-risk (and even no-risk) things are included.

Are you at "risk" of a yearly physical?

The point of insurance is supposed to be that if something unlikely and expensive happens to you, that you arent out the cost of that unlikely and expensive thing. There is value in knowing that you will not have to sell or lose your house if something unlikely and expensive happens to you, enough value in it that a middle man can also profit. Its win-win in these cases.

Its not win-win when you have to pay that middle mans cut for non-risky things like that yearly physical. This is true when the middle man is an insurance company, but it is also true when that middle man is a government or some powerful government-corporate hybrid entity that can force you into giving them a cut.

In the case of auto-insurance, if you own your vehicle then you are only forced to get insurance for unlikely and expensive things, and only when those things can happen to other people while you are driving. Routine maintenance simply is not mandated because it used to be that people were smart enough to know what insurance was for and wouldn't let the government pull that sort of shit.

Translation: Everyone pays more because you eat too many ice cream cones.

Thats not how it works.

Increasing the number of insured people is meaningless to the premiums needed unless the amount of risk associated with the "new" policies is as-a-matter-of-fact less than the amount of risk associated with the "old" policies. Now if thats true AND both "new" and "old" are in the same pool, only THEN would the cost of policies change.

What you have done is taken an argument from another situation (perhaps the liberal justification for getting everyone on health insurance), and then misapplied it to this one. The reason you misapplied it is because you never understood it to begin with.

Whats worse is even if you understood the argument, you probably still wouldnt understand the injustice of it (which is that less risky people are forced to subsidize more risky people if you force them into the same risk pool.)

Yeah.. I know.. understanding the money is hard, which is why you don't.

...says the national socialist.

Which only has equivalents to goto and gosub.... you were saying?

I rest my case.

Yes, just like when the government first started messing around with health insurance (tax exempt if the employer pays for it, large employers must pay for it, etc..) it was just a slippery that the government would eventually mandate that every person had health insurance.

So here we are.... using the "just a slippery slope" argument again?

You think that they get funding from poor people?

Doesnt matter what the motives are...what will it actually be used for?

Planned Parenthood chipping up as many poor people as they can, perhaps?