Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (Score 1) 578

by JimFive (#46485929) Attached to: White House: Get ACA Insurance Coverage, Launch Start-Ups
First: 240/mo is pretty close to 3K/yr so the premiums are about the same. 3K deductible seems pretty high, but in the individual market is probably fairly normal. You might note that there are certain things (annual wellness visit, etc) that are covered even before the deductible is met.

As for "Why not remove so many of the minimums...(...I don't need prenatal coverage)" The answer is: The exchanges are an attempt to bring the benefits of group rating as enjoyed by employer sponsored insurance to the individual market. Those benefits include preexisting condition coverage and overall lower premiums. The cost of those benefits is that everyone in the group gets the same coverage. So, while you, personally, may not need prenatal coverage, people in your group that are helping to keep your insurance rates more stable and (hopefully) lower than they otherwise would be will need that coverage. Likewise, coverage of contraception keeps rates lower because pregnancy is expensive.

Now, are there going to be people for whom the new system is worse than the old one? Sure. And if you're one of them it kind of sucks. But the expectation is that the people who are harmed will have enough options to be able to deal with that harm while those who are being helped did not have any options without the implementation of this law.

Comment: Re: riiiight (Score 1) 361

by JimFive (#46294595) Attached to: Killing Net Neutrality Could Be Good For You

why can't a provider pay for a similar "bigger pipe" TO the ISP?

Well they could, but the provider doesn't have a pipe to the ISP, the provider has a pipe to their own ISP (Let's call it BackBone) and the consumer ISP also has a pipe to BackBone. The provider and the consumer ISP are both paying for their own pipe and the Customer is is paying the consumer ISP for access to that pipe. In this diagram there is no business relationship between e.g. NetFlix and Comcast and any effort by Comcast to get NetFlix to pay is basically extortion (nice user base you got there, be a pity if something happened to it). It might also be fraud as the Comcast customers are paying for a connection to the broader internet, not just those entities that Comcast "likes".

If NetFlix wants a faster pipe to Comcast customers they could certainly negotiate with Comcast to by a direct connection into the Comcast network and cut out BackBone.

None of this is meant to imply that Comcast can't do traffic shaping on their network, but that shaping should be part of improving the customer experience, not blackmailing content providers.

Comment: Re:You have no idea... (Score 1) 425

by JimFive (#45663319) Attached to: US Treasury Completes Bailout of General Motors

more and more people will realize they don't need to own a car when they can just as easily rent one on demand just by pulling out a smartphone

And then they realize that everyone needs cars at the same time. Rush hour doesn't go away just because cars are autonomous.

Autonomous rental cars are going to need to be cleaned, or at least inspected, after every use because no one wants a car that smells like someone else's cigarettes--or vomit.

There are reasons that owning a car is cheaper than renting a car for most people. Those reasons don't disappear with autonomous cars. The cost discrepancy might go down, but if I have to rent a car to and from work every day and to the store once a week and on the weekends to visit the parents or go to the beach, I might as well buy a car.

What autonomous cars might do is decrease the need for every household to have 2 or more cars.

Comment: Re:Siri doesn't have free will (Score 1) 401

by JimFive (#45201503) Attached to: Physicist Unveils a 'Turing Test' For Free Will

If we had no free will we would have no need for Governments, armies, laws, etc.. The people in power positions would simply change reality so that we did their bidding without any manipulations.

No, they wouldn't because they wouldn't have free will either. If we have no free will then the world that we see is exactly the world that would exist because this is what we have in that deterministic universe. You can never say "If we had no free will then <something would be different>". If the world is deterministic then this is the world that is determined.

Comment: Re:Remember all those times Bush blocked... (Score 1) 352

by JimFive (#45034767) Attached to: German NSA Critic Denied Entry To the US

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the whole FREEDOM thing pertain to the citizens specifically?

Ok, you're wrong. The mentions of citizen in the constitution revolve around jurisdiction of the courts and eligibility for office. The Bill of Rights doesn't mention citizens at all and the mentions of citizens in the remaining amendments are related to voting rights. Even the 14th amendment says

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [emphasis added]

Which makes it clear that the word person is not limited to citizens. In addition, as others have mentioned, the constitution enumerates (an incomplete list of) rights but does not grant them.

Comment: Re: What do you mean by "can"? (Score 1) 259

by JimFive (#44821993) Attached to: How To Foil NSA Sabotage: Use a Dead Man's Switch
Nothing. When is the last time that protests actually caused a policy shift in the US? 1776? Protests in the 1930's didn't, protests over Vietnam, Occupy? Nothing. The civil rights protests of the 1960's is the only thing that comes to mind and I'm not sure about those.

Comment: Re:One limit per insured (Score 1) 637

by JimFive (#44566743) Attached to: Medical Costs Bankrupt Patients; It's the Computer's Fault
As I understand it, the actual problem is with group plans in which different aspects of insurance are managed by different entities, e.g. your medical insurance is Blue Cross, your dental is Delta, and your prescriptions are Caremark. The ACA says the individual annual out of pocket maximum is ~$6000, however, Blue Cross, Spectera and Aetna don't know how much the member has paid the other companies because they don't talk to each other. The problem isn't actually technical so much as bureaucratic.

Comment: Re:Well (Score 1) 510

by JimFive (#44449013) Attached to: SF Airport Officials Make Citizen Arrests of Internet Rideshare Drivers

Now these new companies are coming in and saying essentially, "The rules don't apply to us because we're special.

I think it is important to emphasize this. And also to recognize that these are NOT "ride-sharing services", they are taxis. Ride Sharing would not have dedicated drivers taking people places, it would have people going places offering space in a car.

Comment: Re:return (Score 1) 1073

by JimFive (#44132315) Attached to: Supreme Court Overturns Defense of Marriage Act

Why don't we just get the govt (state and feds) OUT of the marriage business?
Marriage is a religious thing.

Well, no, marriage has been about property rights and inheritance for a lot longer than it has been religious.

And IMHO, why should someone get a tax break if they are married or in some type of civil union?

Because along with the benefits of marriage come the responsibilities of marriage. You are agreeing to support the other person for, ideally, the rest of your lives. You are easing the burden on society and society rewards that by giving you a tax break.

By the way, the tax break for being married really only occurs when one person makes a decent amount of money and the other person earns very little. In that case, you are (basically) taxed as if you each made the average which generally puts you into a lower tax bracket. If you both make the same amount of money, or both make a lot of money (even if disparate) then their is no benefit and sometimes a increase in taxes (due to deduction limits) over begin single.

Comment: Re:Let me be the first to say... (Score 1) 273

by JimFive (#43876721) Attached to: Hospital Resorts To Cameras To Ensure Employees Wash Hands

You go to Patient-A's room. You wash your hands. After dealing with the patient, you wash your hands again when you leave.
You go to Patient-B's room. You wash your hands. Even when you don't do anything, you have to wash your hands again when you leave.
You go to Patient-C's room. Again, you wash your hands before and after you leave.

I just wanted to expand on this a little bit. You enter A's room, wash hands, deal with patient, wash hands to prevent contaminating the door handle with whatever you just picked up from A.
You enter B's room, wash hands to wash off whatever was on the door handle of the last two doors you went through etc...

Instead of washing hands, a lot of nurses would just use a glove instead. Wear a new glove into a patient's room, and then throw the glove away when they leave.

Policy at our local hospital is to wash hands whenever you remove gloves so this wouldn't really help.


"If John Madden steps outside on February 2, looks down, and doesn't see his feet, we'll have 6 more weeks of Pro football." -- Chuck Newcombe