This sounds like an awful massive case of "hey, not my responsibility!" justifications.

Hey, only the fucked parts of this rollout are fucked and we aren't going to count those, so shit ain't fucked.

No, you're right. The best solution is to keep dumping a metric-fuck-ton of cash into the medical industry, via a layer of insurance that people don't treat like insurance, then distribute the expense of even paying for *that* to the rest of society.

The more you distance the insured from the medical costs and the more you reduce their individual bearing of the cost and offload it to the rest of society, the less reason there is for the medical industry to ever address the absurd costs.

If all you're doing is shifting around the obligation to pay among different sources, then YOU ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING TO PROVIDE LOW COST HEALTH CARE. The health care remains the same expense. You just spread the cost around. I mean, if you're fine with forcing every individual to participate in granting a sort of "welfare check" to the medical industry, then by all means . . . but I'd rather see the medical industry and insurance treated like car insurance. When it is, everyone will be able to pay their own way, just like car insurance.

I love when you hear people bitch and moan about how the federal government ought to impose more federal laws on every state to do things *they* want to see done. They are often the people most celebrating the changing marijuana laws in some states. You know, the laws that exist because of the structure of our government which allows states to operate independently and determine their own laws without regard to the federal government?

Hypocrites.

You might need to clarify your statement. Are you implying that the state government in Oregon is less shitty than the federal government?

Becuase, I can assure you, that doesn't hold water to any actual Oregonian.

I don't see how that matters. They spent $300m on building and advertising the program. Who cares how much of that was spent on printing pamphlets and how much was spent on shitty little jingles from the cello project hipsters to entice people to enroll? It's the same amount of money for the same purpose/program, any way you slice it and in a state of 3.9m, they've only had 44 web sign ups.

You're kidding, right?

I know a number of people who likely would have benefited from this program, took a look at what it was going to cost them and how extraordinarily high the deductibles were, and said "nope" and intend to continue without coverage. Even if they have to pay the $100-ish per year penalty for not having a plan.

They specifically say all internet traffic.

Hey, right. That's a good point.

Something like 66% of traffic was supposed to be Netflix and Youtube.
And 35% is supposed to be bit torrent.
And 61% is bots.
Something isn't adding up, here.

Also, they seem confused. They talk about "traffic", but then they talk about "hitting the website". Traffic is the data transfer, not a "visit".

Traffic is data.

We were just told that Netflix and Youtube account for something like 66% of all traffic. Now we're told bots account for 61% of all traffic. Guess that means there is a tremendous amount of overlap, there, where bots are watching Youtube and Netflix.

Your comment makes no sense, without government there is no 'cut' that goes to it and there is no such concept as 'laundering' in the first place. What is not free is when government gets involved, otherwise it is in fact free, free as in individual freedom from government abuse (theft and murder).

Well, it is blatantly obvious which issue YOU think they should be more concerned about. I think it is just as blatantly obvious which issue they actually ARE more concerned about. That's the issue that has a direct visible impact on their daily lives. The NSA "outrage" isn't costing them money out of pocket every month and isn't forcing them to select less comprehensive insurance plans to protect themselves and their families.

As for "unconstitutional", many people still think Obamacare is an obvious, direct example of that. Yet you claim that nobody should be talking about that issue.

So you fail to see the hypocrisy of calling someone who doesn't talk about exactly what you want him to talk and only what you want him to talk about about a totalitarian.

I think you are a perfect example of why those talk show hosts you denounce don't express your viewpoints and your viewpoints alone on-air. If any of them made the asinine claim that someone who wasn't outraged by the NSA activities was committing treason their audience would vanish. I, for one, don't listen to Michael Savage because of his strident tone and arrogant attitude, and you, sir, are well beyond Michael Savage in both.

Wrong, people make money, not governments. People should expect freedoms, not regulations when they make money and transfer it among themselves. The only reason government uses violence to regulate money is because gov't is Mafia and it wants its cut.

If someone is smart enough to build a GPS controlled igniter that can set off a small thermite charge in their computer, then they are smart enough to realize that it's dangerous and have no excuse if they end up burning down their house.