Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Pilot's licenses should be required (Score 1) 38

The FAA's current '333' waivers DO require actual pilots licenses and registered aircraft.

It's definitely necessary for someone flying a 3-pound plastic quadcopter 25 feet off the ground to take a look at whether or not some gutters need to be cleaned out ... to hold a pilots license, get a tail number for that 3-pound toy copter, coordinate with the local tower, and of course file a flight plan. Should probably be required to know Morse code, too, just in case. You can't be too careful. This should also apply to people who fly kites and weather balloons, and those who race pigeons.

Comment Re:headline is misleading (Score 1) 502

It seemed like the majority was in favor of it at the time

No, more than half the country, even in the face of the lies being told, were vocally against the law while it was being written and rammed through in a purely partisan process. The only way they even got the bill passed was against opposition from WITHIN the democrat party, by offering all sorts of quid pro quo inducements to barely get it passed on technical maneuvering between the two houses of congress.

and even more people are in favor of it now

No, even more people are polled as saying they dislike it, and now two-thirds of even the people who are having their new services paid for or largely subsidized by other people say they are disappointed with the results.

Why not try to make it better rather than worse?

You mean, change the law? Obama has said he will veto ANY attempt to change the law. Of course, he has decided that he can personally change any aspect of it that he feels the need to for political expediency, through executive order. But the law can't be changed legislatively until two thirds of the representatives have heard enough pain from their constituents that they're willing to put together changes that will get past Obama's promised veto. Or, we elect someone into that position who won't block legislative will in that regard.

Comment Re:headline is misleading (Score 1) 502

What I am saying is that unless the doctor doesn't take *any* kind of insurance, then you should be able to get the kind of insurance that the doctor accepts,

No, you're STILL not getting it. If the doctor takes three kinds of insurance, but the new law makes the plans offered by one of those brands (which we used) no longer allowed, then that plan is no longer allowed. If the provider of that plan says that it can no longer offer a produce that meets the new law's requirements while keeping it affordable enough to attract customers and profitable enough for them to even stay in business, then that plan goes away. It's gone, along with the services of that doctor.

Or, if your doctor used to take plans A and B, but because the law now requires carriers to provide so much more coverage to so many more people that one of those companies can no longer afford to make those plans available at a livable price, then you're done with that doctor - because you have to buy from the least expensive option, plan C . The new coverage requirements price the insurance out of reach, and this price that doctor out of reach if you can only afford plan C, which your doctor finds impossible to afford to accept unless they want to lose money on every service they provide when paid by that plan.

So the doctor that you've always been able to afford before is no longer available - not because the doctor charges more, but because the cost of the insurance that doctor will accept has quadrupled under Obamacare, and many people can no longer afford what they used to afford. I'm not sure why you're foggy on this. It's simple math: the government says that you, as a customer, must suddenly begin to subsidize billions of dollars in new entitlement spending, and that prices you out of certain markets - one of which includes your long time doctor. Simple as that - you can no longer keep your doctor, despite the lies to the contrary.

Obama's "lies" got lots of people healthcare they wouldn't otherwise have.

And took away health care from millions of people. And it would already have taken it away from millions and millions more, except he decided to unilaterally ignore enforcement of a plain-language provision in the law that would have forced employer-provided plans to subject their customers to the same things that already effected millions that lost their existing insurance under the law. With an unconstitutional stroke of a pen, he directed the executive branch to ignore the basic requirements of the law he championed, but only long enough to slow down how it impacts election results for his party. So, not only bald faced lies about the nature of the law in order to get it passed, but craven modifications to its impact based on election calendars and pressure from his party to avoid more bloodletting while they're trying to regain power to more of this sort of thing.

Comment Re:Talking points? (Score 1) 502

And let's all be honest here, she's only evil to you because she is on the democrat ticket.

No. I don't like her because she's got a history of lying her ass off to protect her political future (smearing and persecuting people who dared to point out her husband's inexcusably abusive behavior, for example - especially the women she pretends to champion), including pre-emptively making use of a private email server in her house specifically to be able to hide her correspondence from the oversight it would normally receive, and then cherry picking (years after leaving office!) the stuff that she grudgingly turned over (as header-stripped printed output) in order to be able to claim she was transparent. Everything about her bearing and her words on that and many other subjects conveys the story of a deliberate, purposeful liar on a sustained power trip that has netted her millions and millions of dollars through leverage of her public office while in office.

No, this isn't about her being a Democrat (though that's another thing to dislike - given that platform's full throated embrace of Nanny State sensibilities, racist identity politics, etc) - it's about her being a genuinely loathsome, untrustworthy, vindictive, and ethically slippery person at the personal, professional, and political levels. The reason so many democrats are backing Bernie isn't because they genuinely understand or embrace his loopy socialist world view - it's because he at least comes across as an honest human being. Hillary comes across (and has been repeatedly shown to actually BE) a regular and persistent liar.

Comment Re:headline is misleading (Score 1) 502

So you are describing a scenario where your existing doctor no longer accepts insurance? I'm not sure why you can't get the insurance your preferred doctor accepts.

Still backwards. It's as much about whether the insurer wants to include that doctor's practice as it is about whether that doctor wants to make the (substantial) investment in tying themselves, contractually and logistically, with a given insurer. In most cases, it's the insurer deliberately choosing to work only with a network of doctors and facilities that is limited in size, in order to allow them to manage expenses so they don't go broke taking on the legally mandated huge new collection of people who will cost them more than they will ever pay.

I don't know if you fall into this category or not (I won;t presume to know), but a lot of people just don't want Obamacare to succeed because they don't like Obama.

But you're not asking yourself WHY they don't like Obama. It's because they don't like what he stands for and preaches, ideologically. Some people don't like the concept of the Nanny State's top-heavy, bureaucratic swamp being in charge of more and more of their lives. They don't want their own health care options, which they've been just fine with for years and years, to suddenly start to look more like the disaster the is the VA medical establishment, or the train wreck that is medicare. And since they don't like the politician who says that pushing things that direction is his actual goal, of course they don't support his aspirations, and thus him.

I just don't get the animosity directed toward Obama

Because in the case being discussed, he KNEW that over half the country was actively disliking the prospects of the new law, and that was before they even fully understood what a mess it was. So he knew that in order to get it rammed through in a 100% partisan process, even with a 100% only-his-party-voting-for-it, he had to consciously, deliberately, and repeatedly lie about the most basic features and provisions of the law... and has had to since consciously, deliberately, and unilaterally (unconstitutionally) change and ignore aspects of the law in the name of political appeasement for those in his own party who've realized how ugly it really is. You wonder why people don't like him? It's because people don't like someone who looks them in the eye for months straight and simply lies to them, repeatedly and deliberately. The question isn't why people dislike that, it's how can anyone say they DO?

Comment Re:shooter should have talked to owner first (Score 1) 508

If it occurs entirely on my property, then I reserve that right.

Think about it. Let's say that somebody who's lost pulls their car into your driveway. You don't think they're polite enough when they ask for directions, so you shoot out their windshield with a shotgun. It's on your property, right? No. You're going to jail.

Comment Re:headline is misleading (Score 1) 502

I don't doubt this is the case. I suspect there are some doctors that retired simply to spite obamacare.

No, you're not understanding what happened. The new law made lots of insurance policies no longer allowed. For example: if you're a married couple 80 years old, you still have to carry, by law, insurance that includes full maternity care. So a lot of existing insurance simply evaporated. People who lost those insurance plans lost their health insurance. They then had to go find a way to buy new insurance - usually at much higher prices, often from a different carrier ... which wouldn't do business with the doctor you used to use.

This isn't a matter of the doctors retiring. This is about the law forcing people to buy very expensive new health insurance from a new provider that - because of all of the heavy new requirements of what and who they must now cover - greatly reduce the number of doctors they'll work with. And so people lost access to their familiar doctors, despite Obama's promise that no such thing would happen - remember, he said nobody would have to leave their plans (a lie).

Comment Re: Tiny black holes (Score 1) 147

Which is exactly why I said what I said. There are people who show up here to scold people about holding onto (or exploring) some of the more exotic physics frameworks and compare that to being a True Believer (in the traditional religious sense). These are NOT the same things.

Comment Re:headline is misleading (Score 2) 502

He said that because people were worried that the doctor the currently had would suddenly be unavailable to them when the law kicked in. This is exactly what happened, to a lot of people. It happened to our family. The insurance policy with which we were perfectly happy evaporated because the law considered it unacceptable (the new law requires that we buy insurance that covers, among other things, maternity care ... which is super handy now that we're in our 50's). The new plans from which could choose did not include the doctor we're happy with, and precluded the use of two of the nearest (and best) hospitals. Our premiums went from roughly $250 a month to over $500, and our deductible went from $2,500 to $12,000.

Each of these things was predicted with great clarity by not only the people opposed to the law's passing, but also by the people who WROTE the law. But in front of cameras, Obama lied about each and every point of it, repeatedly, and deliberately. If he had been honest, and if he'd talked Pelosi and Reid into also being honest about the consequences of the law (instead of the "You'll have to pass it to see what's in it" explanation she provided), it would never have passed. Democrats talked into voting for it have since said they wouldn't have voted for it if they'd understood the huge new costs, taxes, and service limitations that it puts on middle class families.

You know, and Obama knew, EXACTLY what "you can keep your doctor" meant when he said it - he was trying to tamp down the very vocal concerns that exactly what has happened would in fact happen. He knew it was going to, but he lied about it anyway. What I don't understand is why you're trying to spin it for him. What do you gain by attempting to back up the deception?

Comment Re:headline is misleading (Score 2) 502

the first iteration


What does it matter if there is some future change to the law (not counting the illegal unilateral changes made by the president by selectively choosing whether to follow the statute's specific requirements once he realized it wasn't politically expedient). If you've already lost your insurance plan, or you've had to give up your doctor, and can no longer use the convenient nearby hospital because of the law's impact (all things that we were promised wouldn't happen, which the law's partisan authors knew WOULD happen, and about which the president repeatedly and deliberately lied), then that damage is already done. Not that it matters. Even if you can afford one of the new plans, the deductibles are hugely higher - making the effective premiums even higher than their new, higher stated values.

So for many, many people the "affordable" care act has: blown away existing insurance plans, removed choices of doctors and hospitals, doubled and sometimes tripled premiums, and in many cases quadrupled deductibles. All of which was well known in advance, and was proactively lied about, repeatedly, by Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. Republicans also knew it was coming, which is why NOT ONE of them voted for that monstrosity of a law.

Comment Re:Talking points? (Score 0) 502

How is that off topic? The entire thread is about some hand-waving "priorities" she'll have as president. Which has absolutely nothing to do with which compromises she's willing to make the legislative branch when it comes to things like tax credits or other regulatory/funding matters. Pointing out how disingenuous she's been on pretty much every other issues she's ever mentioned is NOT off topic. It points out exactly how to think about anything and everything she says during her limited, poll-tested public remarks.

Comment Re:headline is misleading (Score 4, Insightful) 502

Also, this is a campaign promise.

You've already fallen for it! It's NOT a campaign promise. It's an aspiration. A "priority." The president can no more wave her hands and make such a thing happen than he or she can wave his or her hands and make healthcare get cheaper. Now THAT was a campaign promise ("You can keep your doctor. Period. You can keep your plan. Period. The average household will save $2,500 year on health insurance, and it will start costing about what a mobile phone does.") See the difference?

You cannot have a science without measurement. -- R. W. Hamming