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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

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).

×

Comment: Re: Oh, please. (Score 1) 586

by fyngyrz (#49150635) Attached to: Republicans Back Down, FCC To Enforce Net Neutrality Rules

I would want a policy that only covers major issues with a high deductible.

I'm interested to learn that you think you can tell the future. However, since I know you can't, I will simply point out that you don't understand the actual reason for insurance, a not uncommon failing among the young who have little relevant experience with disaster. This isn't betting, where you "win" if you can guess your disease. It's not supposed to be like a slot machine. This is about risk amelioration.

...if all the young healthy families did that...

... then there would be a lot of really nasty surprises for those "young and healthy families."

See, insurance isn't about what your condition is now. Insurance is about what your condition may become. So, when kid #2 develops a lymphatic tumor under their arm, instead of "parents tried to cheap out because they had a young and healthy family and now kid #2 can't get medical care", it is "off to a cancer specialist you go, #2, because we cared enough to see to it your risks were addressed."

Comment: Re:Oh, please. (Score 1) 586

by fyngyrz (#49150521) Attached to: Republicans Back Down, FCC To Enforce Net Neutrality Rules

Funny how those who got services/money/product from the ACA legislation are happy about??

Yes, it's really strange that those who needed healthcare are glad they were finally able to get it, isn't it? Weird! Gosh! Huh! How in the world??? (cough)

And the huge fucking mountain of folks that now enjoy $5k deductibles or insurance they did not need or want are not happy about it?

There are various deductibles. You choose the one you want. If you choose a 5k deductible, you're responsible for that choice. As far as insurance that's "not needed" goes, we don't know what we need because we have no way to tell what the future brings. The only way to determine what we probably or may need is via statistics. I trust the actuaries more than I trust my own judgement. Because I'm just that smart.

Are YOU getting other peoples money?

To directly answer your question, no, thus far and at the moment, I have not and am not. I've eroded my deductible a bit, probably won't work my way through it by the end of the year, barring unseen problems. Didn't last year, either. But of course I might very much benefit from "other people's money" at some point in the future.

That said, everyone in any insurance pool anywhere, ever, who makes a claim, is "getting other people's money." That's how insurance works. Similar for taxes. We all pay in, and in the case of the ACA, those who get the subsidies get the advantage of the payout. We do that when the loads are too great and/or too random for individuals to bear: infrastructure, military, healthcare (finally!), fire services, etc.

Why the fucking hell should my doctors have to be in some "POOL" anyway?

Well, for that, you want to look to your insurance company -- not the ACA. You can get plans where the doctor doesn't have to be in a network. The ones where they do use in-network doctors are generally less expensive though, so that may effectively be your answer. But it isn't the ACA that mandates pools. It's the insurance companies, and it's always been the insurance companies.

If you prefer to pay for other peoples medical care, great. Can you help me pay for mine?

If you're in my pool, then yes, I can and do help pay for yours. Again: That's how insurance works. If I'm not paying for you in the pool (different state, or different pool) even so I'm paying for other people's there -- and I have no problem with that. Likewise, in your state, in your pool, other people are paying for you. To the extent that my federal taxes (quite significant) are paying for your subsidy, I'm happy to do that as well. It's sure oodles better than thinking about what I'm paying for WRT various other government programs.

$1400/month with a $1500 yearly deductible for each family member.

The ACA requires that insurance costs are specifically limited for low-income individuals and families and there are tax credits. If you want me on your side here, you'd have to demonstrate that your income was low and your insurance costs were high and that the ACA didn't arrange for a circumstance to reasonably ameliorate your costs. Can you do that? I'd be very interested to learn the details, short of personally identifying data.

So yeah, you are happy about getting my money, and I am an asshole for providing it to you. thanks man.

Insurance is the way that congress decided this was going to operate. Given that, yeah, I'm happy to put the related money into insurance and into taxes as it lets me know that you and yours will be covered if that's needed. I'm sorry you don't feel the same way. I am pleased, however, that your feelings, as you expressed above, do not get to determine if other people get adequate healthcare.

Comment: Re:Net metering is little more than theft (Score 1) 354

by Firethorn (#49149899) Attached to: The Groups Behind Making Distributed Solar Power Harder To Adopt

You simply don't get it: I'm not objecting to setting a price, I'm objecting to who sets it. You want corrupt politicians and lobbyists to set the price and simply cannot conceive of any alternative.

No, you haven't suggested an alternative. I already said it's not the politicians and lobbyists who are setting the values, but bureaucrats and analysts. You ignored that.

I have suggested an alternative, you are simply too locked into your dirigisme mindset to even perceive it when someone states it clearly: the market should set the price for pollution by privatizing environmental resources.

Okay, build a coherent plan and/or example of how your system will work. Because it's sounding a bit like you're proposing to sell the air to private concerns. I think I'd rather see your actual view on a solution/plan before I speculate further.

get out of your goddamn ochlocratic and proto-fascist economic mindset in which government forces a single policy on everybody "for the good of society".

Get out of your ivory tower. The government 'forces a single policy on everybody' more or less because it's a blunt instrument and exceptions tend to lead to more corruption and waste than keeping it simple. For all that government is bad, it's the least bad solution for the problem that we've found. 'proto-fascist' means you either are completely misunderstanding me, deliberately or not, or don't realize what fascist means. I had to look up ochlocratic, and that's not something I have to commonly do, and my response to that, given that I read the first paragraph of the wiki on it, is that again, you're off somewhere attacking a strawman.

I'll repeat: We ALREADY have a government agency with power over industry, and people, in the name of protecting the environment. In the name of preventing stuff like rivers that are dead and regularly catch fire, rain that dissolves stone along with other things that cause harm to health like drastically increasing the incidents of lung cancer, not to mention other illnesses, we created the EPA.

I'm not talking about some drastic reform like the creation of the EPA was. I'm talking about reforming the EPA in ways that I believe will actually INCREASE freedom, REDUCE regulation, encourage lowering pollution more(via eliminating grandfathering), while encouraging new construction because the EPA isn't setting ridiculous rules about pollution.

Just because something isn't perfect shouldn't prevent us from doing it in the ultimately vain hope something better will come along. I happen to believe that my scheme would be beneficial.

Or are you so convinced that corrupt politicians are so evil that they would value human lives at something ridiculously low like $100k each? Because by my research, so long as they hit somewhere between $5M and $10M, it wouldn't make much difference.

In a free country, people make individual choices, and free markets aggregate those choices into overall policy. That is how "we" should maximize quality of life while minimizing pollution.

Okay, how do you propose to work this? I decide to heat my home using an open coal fire. The smoke can be seen for miles, everybody is hacking, but it's my decision, right? How do you impose the cost of everybody else's sickness on my decision?

Or are you saying that the public will simply boycott an industry that's polluting?

Comment: Genius. (Score 2) 105

by hey! (#49149869) Attached to: Lenovo Saying Goodbye To Bloatware

CEO: This Superfish incident has put our credibility in the toilet. Even corporate customers are looking askance at us now, and we didn't put it on their computers. Suggestions?

Executive 1: Lay low until it blows over.

Executive 2: Hire a new PR firm.

Executive 3: Start a social media campaign.

Genius executive: Maybe we should promise not to do stuff like that anymore.

Comment: Re:Oh, please. (Score 1) 586

by fyngyrz (#49149851) Attached to: Republicans Back Down, FCC To Enforce Net Neutrality Rules

You're assuming that the government is better at deciding what coverage you need than you are.

They didn't do all that badly. Not surprising, as it wasn't "the government", it was a group of medical and insurance professionals using statistics to determine what the needs generally encompass which congress (not Obama) incorporated into the final law. But you keep rolling with those "the government" and "Obama lied!" memes, they still sound good to the information-poor. And of course they fixed some of the other problems, like making care for pre-existing conditions practical, limiting insurance company profits, and seeing to it that family coverage was a bit more about family and a bit less about "how soon can we shuck the kids off the policies." Single payer would, of course, have been much, much better. That's what Obama wanted, btw -- the ACA is wholly a product of congress. The only sense that it is "Obama's" is in that he wanted to see people get medical care, and congress managed to get some care, to some people, and he accepted the compromise rather than walk away with nothing.

When you want to rant about "your decisions", you should really consider the reality, which was the insurance company deciding for you what would be covered. Oh, you had a migrane headache? Then we'll just slap a rider on your policy that we won't cover anything to do with your neurological system or your circulatory system, how's that for "making your own decisions"? You don't want "the government" making decisions for you, but you're perfectly ok with the for-profit insurance company limiting your care. That doesn't make you a smart insurance consumer. That makes you a tin-plated idiot.

The honest way of saying it is that many people couldn't keep their desired coverage because the government decided it wasn't good enough for them.

The honest way of saying it is if you weren't covered to the ACA minimums, your insurance sucked. There's no putting lipstick on that pig, pal. Now, as to why your insurance sucked, that could be any number of reasons -- but it still boils down to one thing: you needed better coverage. You may not admit it, you may want to gamble with your health and the health of others, but that's why we mandate some things, because people often make really bad choices for themselves, and in this case, as your health impacts others, just as your education does, a minimum has been set. Don't like it? Tough. Doesn't mean it's a bad idea. Just means you don't like it. Wanna change it? Go to congress -- the people who are responsible for it.

Uhh, no, if they aren't in the group of providers that your new insurance company accepts, you don't get to see him anymore. Well, you can, but you pay out of pocket full price.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. First of all, your doctor can apply to the insurance company. Second of all, you can determine which doctors are already in which groups two ways: One, by looking on the insurance company lists, two, by simply asking your doctor (or the office staff, more likely.) You can certainly end up in a situation you don't want by failing to approach this in a reasonable manner, but it's almost certainly to be on you, not the system. I ran into this specific problem -- doctor not in the specific insurance pool I wanted to use -- and it took all of two weeks to fix that, something I sussed out and took care of before I committed to the group. You can probably still fix it, for that matter.

Further, even if you did get to keep your doctor, your waiting time to see him is undoubtedly going to be much longer.

Oh, stuff and nonsense. Out of 310 million citizens, there were about 50 million uninsured. The ACA added about 10 million to the 260 million insured, thereby increasing the load on the system by a "whopping" 3.8%. This did not result in a 33% increase in your appointment times. Something else may well have, but it sure as heck wasn't the load presented by the ACA's action. Now, if we talk about the fuckery the republicans have caused by rejecting the medicare expansion, now that has screwed things up so badly that a number of hospitals have had to close, and so the republicans may have been responsible for a big increase, depending on your area (some states didn't let the republicans screw them in this particular manner.)

My doctor doesn't decide what providers are authorized under my insurance, the insurance company does. It takes a lot more than a doctor asking "pretty please make my practice part of your plan" to get it done.

No. It doesn't. It's butt-simple paperwork. I was in the same situation, and I am well aware of what it takes. And of course it's very likely you could have found out what pools your doctor was already in first and gone with one of those. Assuming they were in some pool, which, if you were already using them with some kind of insurance, they were.

to ignore the large number of people who it didn't work out for and claim that the system is working is pretty selfish. To use your personal situation as proof that Obama didn't lie about ACA issues is just ridiculous.

The thing is, that's all straw man nonsense. I've done neither. I've simply pointed out how the system works, and mentioned my experience -- I pointed to the process, not my experience, to assert that the system isn't nearly as dysfunctional as the right wingers want to paint it. You, in turn, have recited a case of failure (one which almost certainly is entirely your own fault.) They said you can keep your doctor. You say you didn't keep your doctor. That does not, in ANY way, prove that you could not have kept your doctor. I faced exactly the same situation as you did: the insurance I wanted did not have my doctor in the pool. I spoke up, prodded her office manager a couple times, and that was all it took on my part -- now she's with the program. Failing that, I could have simply gone with the insurance that already had her listed, which wouldn't have been the end of the world either. Bottom line, you want to keep your doctor, ask them what insurance they take and get on that insurance, or get them to join the specific pool you want. It's not difficult. Anyone who says it is is simply spreading FUD.

Back to the "Obama lied" bullshit meme: Obama wanted single payer. Congress -- basically the republicans -- turned the whole thing into a payday for the insurance companies. Once that was done, things got a lot more complicated. To turn around and say that Obama is responsible for the complications is a load of right wing horseshit -- agitprop and no more than that. He signed what congress presented him with, and he tried hard to be a spokesperson for what resulted. The intent was good, and yeah, actually, the results haven't been too bad, other than the republicans -- not Obama -- hammering those who would have been covered by the medicare expansion.

For the tiny fraction of people who rant about (and for whom you are ranting) who "lost their insurance", the ACA makes it an absolute certainty that they can get NEW insurance, because they cannot (any longer) be denied (as they could have been previously for any number of reasons. And what about those people before the ACA, who couldn't get insurance at all? What about them? Why aren't you ranting on their behalf? They don't matter? That would be you ranting that my lady, who had the AUDACITY to have breast cancer, should just be kicked to the curb and left uninsurable for any future cancer, in fact for just about anything.

Now, the whole "My premium went up (some huge amount) and I'm PLUMB RUINT!" thing: The ACA mandates that your insurance premium cannot exceed a fairly low percentage of your income unless you intentionally opt for a higher than required coverage plan. That's what the subsidies are for. It also makes sure you can get a plan. If you are so ideologically opposed that you can't, or won't, get a plan, then there are tax penalties, which (a) are pretty light, and (b) 90% of the "I don't have a plan" people don't have to pay at all because of the numerous reasonable exemptions, and (c) aren't actually required to be directly paid anyway, instead, they're taken out of future tax refunds, and (d) nothing else happens at all except, as per usual, you can go to the ER and they'll (probably) stabilize you and refer you to a doctor or a clinic, which you, bless your objectionable little heart, will then almost certainly have to pay for.

Fact: The 900+ page ACA is not the product of an executive order: It's a product of congress. If you have problems with the parts where you might have to be proactive and lift your own little finger, call your congressperson, don't rant about Obama. If you are ineligible because your income is low and your state refused the medicare expansion, call out your state representatives. Not Obama, and for that matter, not congress. (You might want to say a few choice words about SCOTUS, though.) If you don't like the minimum limits set for your insurance, again, that was congress, don't point the finger at Obama.

Between not understanding how the ACA works, not understanding how lawmaking works, and a goodly dose of "I hate that Obama guy because black | democrat | funnyname | iamabirther | whatever", it's a 100% safe bet that anyone ranting about Obama in relation to the ACA has no idea what the heck they are talking about.

Is the ACA perfect? Hell no. Did anyone say it was perfect? Hell no! Is the way to make it better to rant about Obama? HELL NO! Aim your vitriol at congress. Even if it's as misinformed as your post, at least you'd have the right target for once: Congress.

Comment: Re:That is okay (Score 1) 239

Yet you seem more than willing to kick any of the people trying to climb out of the hole they were born in in the teeth to make sure they never get ion an equal footing with you.

Actually, that's not true at all. I don't go out of my way to keep anyone down, and encourage anyone that actually puts forth effort and works hard to succeed.

But I don't think anyone or any group should have or get special consideration, or have the bar lowered for them just because they are of a certain group, sex or religion, or had a hard start in life.

It is pure results at the end.

I don't believe in quotas, or special helping funds for anyone out of the gov. coffers, that just isn't supposed to be the governments job.

Comment: I heard the news in the car today. (Score 5, Interesting) 299

by hey! (#49148919) Attached to: Leonard Nimoy Dies At 83

It'll be one of those moments I'll remember, like coming into work and being told about the Challenger disaster, or turning on the car radio and hearing the hushed voices of the announcers on 9/11. Like so many people I feel a connection to this wonderful man.

Of course he did more than play Spock; and in the early post-TOS years he was famously ambivalent about his association with the role. But he did something special with that role. It's easy in the fog of nostalgia to forget that man TOS scripts weren't all that great (although some of them were). The character of Spock might have become just an obscure bit of pop culture trivia; instead Nimoy turned Spock into a character that I feel sure actors in our grandchildren's generation will want to play and make their mark upon.

What Nimoy brought to that role is a dignity and authenticity, possibly rooted in his "alien" experience as the child of Ukrainian Jewish immigrants. In less sensitive hands the part might have been a joke, but I think what many of us took away from Nimoy's performance was something that became deeply influential in our world views. Nimoy's Spock taught us that there was something admirable in being different even when that is hard for others to understand; that winning the respect of others is just as rewarding as popularity. The world needs its oddballs and misfits, not to conform, but to be the very best version of themselves they can be. Authenticity is integrity.

It's customary to say things in remembrances like "you will be missed", but that falls short. Leonard Nimoy, you will live on in the lives of all us you have touched.

Comment: Re:I just must be drunk. (Score 1) 86

by TheCarp (#49148305) Attached to: Fighting Scams Targeting the Elderly With Old-School Tech

> Think about it as being along the lines of the "just say no" campaign

Yes, I did, that was a moronic campaign too. Just like the "just say no" campaign, its entirely useless slogan by people who don't understand a problem and who have no desire to actually help anything, they just want an excuse to say "A solution exists, so go fuck yourself and leave me alone"

Comment: Re:That is okay (Score 1) 239

You say it would be fair for them to make $35/h

That is waaaay too much for unskilled workers. Pushing boxes around is on the same level as flipping burgers. No wonder things are getting so expensive. We're paying far too much for unskilled labor.

If you've not tried to make something better of your life with education and life skills...then well, you get what you deserve.

What's next, I have to pay someone $40/hr to mow my fucking lawn?

Comment: Re:That is okay (Score 1) 239

Sure, not everyone started off on the same footing, boo hoo...life is unfair.

BULLETIN: Live has always been unfair. I'm not 6'11", I can't play basketball and make millions of dollars.

Everyone is dealt some cards to start with, some start from the back, but if they work and learn to value an education..they can succeed, and many do.

But just because life is tough...you don't pull the playing field down to the lowest common denominator so that everyone can be "equal".

While I do like to give to charity and I try to help out my friends and family as best I can, I am NOT my brothers keeper. It is not upon me to make sure they can make a living or whatever, especially if they are stupid, and/or lazy.

I won't stand in anyone's way, but I certainly don't feel I need to go out of my way to help.

No...someone who picks up fucking garbage on the side of the road != someone who designs CPUs.

The world does now and always has needed its ditch diggers. If you fsck up your life so bad that that's all you can do? Well, you made your bed, now,sleep in it.

Comment: Re:I Have Plans Now (Score 1) 191

by cayenne8 (#49147399) Attached to: Harrison Ford To Return In Blade Runner Sequel
You know....I've just never really "gotten" this movie. Perhaps I need to watch it again, I hear there are different versions of it out now, that maybe give you more insight to the story.

But of the times I've seen it way in the past, it just never really hit me as that good of a movie.

I know I was disappointed as a kid when it came out originally in theaters, I was expecting something like Star Wars and it wasn't that.

I saw it a few years after that and to me, really...it was just kinda boring. It seemed just dreary and I wasn't even that impressed with the SPFX.

Then again, since then, I've become a Phillip K. Dick fan and I like other adaptations of his stuff, so maybe I need to go back and try to watch this again with new eyes.

Can someone recommend the definitive version to watch out of what I believe are 3x of them out there? Which one and why?

Comment: Re:WTF with the /. Interface?!?!? (Score 0, Offtopic) 66

by cayenne8 (#49147351) Attached to: Banned Weight-loss Drug Could Combat Liver Disease, Diabetes
Ok, I'd heard about BETA but never had seen it before.

So, is this beta or just something worse till beta comes?

JFC....why does someone have to change something JUST For the sake of change. What was wrong with they way /. has looked for the past years?

It is now a PITA to go see what comments are threaded onto my comments...whereas it was quite easy to see and tell when new ones came onto your part of the thread in response to you.

I just discovered the Soylent News thing....maybe that will indeed be the new slashdot.

This is very disappointing. Not everyone views everything through the small fucking screen of a cell phone.

Comment: WTF with the /. Interface?!?!? (Score -1, Offtopic) 66

by cayenne8 (#49147295) Attached to: Banned Weight-loss Drug Could Combat Liver Disease, Diabetes
Wow...WFT did Slashdot do to the freaking forum?!?!

I couldn't figure how to post to the thread with no previous comments (where was the reply button?)

I'm looking at my comments in my section, but can't figure now how to find my comments to see the ratings, etc?

What the hell did they do to the interface? It looks like it is now only for cell phones? Sheesh....

This sucks.

Gotta see if I can find a way to revert to old look, if they left that in...

Brain off-line, please wait.

Working...