As a Libertarian, I am going to have to side with the republicans on this one. The ACA is complete and utter crap. The fact that the backend of the website doesn't work is just the tip of the iceberg. But by all means, go ahead and continue to follow your elites and their welfare state agenda.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
blink... blink... wow. there really are people in the world who think like this?
Supply and Demand my friend. If you want rent prices to go down, you need to flood the market with more housing, not less. Only an idiot would think that limiting the increase of available houses while the population is growing would reduce the cost of said houses. But then I notice that you post as AC and I am probably poking a troll.
If you can't afford to live in the Bay Area, then don't. You can always find a good place much cheaper if you just expand your scope a bit. So you may have to add 45 minutes to your commute everyday. The idea is to build your wealth over time and not demand instant gratification.
The insurance companies were happy to jump at an opportunity to raise their rates and get new customers. If the law was removed, I'm sure they would just complain about losing customers and raise rates even more.
Not going to argue against that point. I have often heard that the ACA was merely a means to destroy the current system and usher in a single payer system. There may be some truth to that.
If you got a plan on the exchanges for half of your regular insurance cost, then your statement "So now they're covered and not leaning on the taxpayers for it." is false. The simple fact that you have subsidised insurance, means exactly that you are leaning on the taxpayers for it.
Like most numbers that come out of government, it takes a bit of creative license. Both major parties have mastered this deception. The real question is... Are we better off now that this law is in place? To which I have to think, probably not.
Fez likes them big, Fez likes them small, Fez likes them all.
After Bush had already stated that you're either with "us" (meaning him) or you're with the terrorists and the American public were still bleating like sheep.
Way to take it out of context and put your own spin on it. Bush was addressing foreign nations at that point in his speech. The "us" he was referring to, was the majority of Americans who supported some sort of retaliation for 9/11. But by all means, go ahead and tout your revisionist history.
The creation of the electoral college had nothing to do with large distances or travel time. It had everything to do with giving the lower population areas a voice. If we went with just the popular vote, candidates would end up only campaigning in a handful of high population cities. I once saw an extreme example, but quite apropos. Imagine somebody campaigning on the idea all our problems would be solved by nuking Montana. That candidate would only have to convince enough people in the top 5-10 population centers to win enough votes to do so. Can you at least see that the people in Montana might have a problem with that? I am always open minded about replacing the electoral college, but unless an idea comes across that gives low population centers a voice, it probably is not a good idea.
Personally, I am still waiting for the year Linux will take off...
Seeing how his using #2 in your list is exactly what he was doing... the reason for excluding major crime areas in your comparison, is for the very reason that they have the strictest gun laws on the books and don't fit the general populace of the rest of the US. Now if you want to include those data points, then reduce your data points to individual counties instead of entire countries. When you do that, you will find that areas with strict gun laws do, in fact have higher crime rates and those with liberal gun policies have much lower rates.
It really isn't all that hard to comprehend... an armed society is a polite society. Those who wish not to be polite, quickly find themselves removed from that society. While on the opposite hand, criminals will always choose the path of least resistance when conducting a crime.
There is a difference here still. One voluntarily signs a loan that requires full coverage insurance. You could always save your money and buy the vehicle out right, but for the convenience of using someone else's money, the lender requires it. This is much different from the ACA which is a straight up tax on people to redistribute the cost of those who could not afford or would not normally get insurance.
Sorry to inform you, but the Axiom is just a utopian pipe dream from a movie.
Bill Whittle put up a video recently talking about this very problem. The entire US Constitution is approximately 4400 words. The ACA is upwards of 20,000 pages, and still growing.
I guess the US Navy are now considered idiots.