>In the long run, if you strike out at others without cause, it will likely happen to you.
George Bush seems to be living a very nice and comfortable life. Kim Jong * have all lead comfortable lives of great power, with the older two dying of old age.
Nah. You just talked about subsidies. You said: "They're not going to help here, because our situation is exactly what the law calls for. If you're making more than $60k, you don't GET subsidies, you have to GIVE subsidies to other people (like you)."
Exactly. If you don't qualify for subsidies, then there IS NO CHEAPER MAGIC SOLUTION than those that the regulated insurance companies in the state advertise. They don't have the option of having secret cheaper-than-the-exchange plans. So if you call a hotline and complain that your new insurance plan is too expensive, their ONLY OPTION is to try to find a way to qualify you for a plan that somebody else is forced to help you buy. Otherwise, the price is what the price is.
Especially the one that pointed out that it was those very same insurers that you implicitly praise that raised their rates to where they are now.
For which they had no choice. They are required by law to suddenly provide a range of coverage that was not previously built into their pricing. If you were suddenly told that you had to provide a bunch of new services or else, would you just eat the loss, or raise your prices in order to maintain your business? Insurance companies work on smaller margins than companies in many, many other industries. Remove that margin, and they are out of business. Now, that may be what the ACA backers secretly want, but in the meantime, you raise your prices to deal with the fact that your government has just substantially raised your costs.
They *knew* that they had just a few years before those rates became government controlled
They've always been government controlled. Every state in the union has an insurance regulating body to which those companies must turn for approval in order to change rates. And each of those scenarios plays out in something of a vacuum, because laws prevent insurance companies from providing services across state lines. The government has been entirely in control of this stuff for decades (as if you didn't know that!).
In civilized parts of the world, that would be considered collusion and price fixing.
No, it's known as state regulation. The companies who have a very innovative way to deliver the same (government approved) class of services with less overhead MAY be able to offer a lower price if they can survive doing so. But there's generally very, very little latitude in the cost/price recipe before the insurer is on intolerably thin ice.
evitaleR si emiT
Pro Tip: Turn your keyboard around.
Explain this systemd for me please. I'm still pissing around with distros from 2008 until a recemt netrunner install specifically for the ease of use (its bulletproof stable on my hardware).
Can you reallly not just compile the init crap back in?
Didn't you know, there was a mistake and they kept it running as an inside joke.
It is not the justice system, it is the "just us" system.
Nah, it doesn't circumvent the need for a warrant, it circumvents the need for a third party who would/might ask for a warrant before processing and handing the information over.
A huge difference if you ask me.
" I said it was a branch of philosophy and it is."
no, it is not. There is a philosophy of science,. but science isn't a branch of philosophy.
In fact, in the modern era, philosophers have done more harm the good to science.
And nearly every question regard modern science the philosophers bring up are outdated, moot, or not answerable by the nature of the question.
I to can quote wikipedia:
"Philosophy of science explores the foundations, methods, implications, and purpose of science."
Note: It in NO WAY determines what science is or is not.
So, yeah you can have people not smart enough to actual do science talk about science, but they have no real impact and just confuse the lay person.
As a note: Philosophy was my first major.
I have yet to find any creditable explanation to why all the sudden the oceans are a sink and not before. I mean seriously, if something didn't all the sudden cause it to soak up heat, then all previous temp records would have been impacted by it too making the suggestion of the oceans being a sink for the current warming (or lack thereof) somewhat moot.
But say that out loud and you will
hmm.. I'm convinced more than ever now.
I'm willing to guess that this type of situation is a lot of the science that went into the discovery the article is bragging about.
Oh BTW, been there too. Except for some reason, someone always has some fireworks and throws them in the fire because they got damp or something and we usually ended up losing at least one tent. It was safer to sleep half naked with the ticks than bundled up in a tent with shit that would keep burning- it would appear.
>Causing pain to others is bad because the response I get is likely to cause me discomfort.
Politicians and CEOs and lawyers and cops do it all the time and it seems to work out quite well for them.
75 may be an arbitrary number, but if you consider the 70-80 range, it's not arbitrary at all. It's set by the limitations of human biology and, yes, environmental circumstances.
Now if medicine advanced to the point where most people could live a healthy life up to 100, then you'd have a point. But there's no indication we are near that point. In fact, the average life expectancy in the developed world has actually been decreasing over the past 10-20 years. Diseases that start to flare up around the 65-75 age range like cancer are extremely difficult to fight and progress has been incredibly slow. No rational person in 2014 should set a high probability of being able to live well and feel great at 100.
Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"
