Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Not really needed anymore. (Score 1) 255

Wrong. Statistical analysis can point to racism but doesn't always and doesn't have to. Equal oppertunity does not mean equal outcome. There are many more mariages for instance that are not mixed race than there are that are mixed race. This doesn't mean a majority of married people are racist.

Comment: Re:False dilemma (Score 1) 431

by sumdumass (#46810511) Attached to: Oklahoma Moves To Discourage Solar and Wind Power

Not only do you need it to grow, you need the company (innvestment) to be honest and forthcoming about the risks. This report like many other was more than likely exploring risks and informing share holders.

In other words, it seems as if the utility being ethical in its fudiciary duties is being used to attemp to make them appear evil.

Comment: Re:oh, sorry (Score 1) 80

by sumdumass (#46803525) Attached to: Preventative Treatment For Heartbleed On Healthcare.gov

You might as well just give it up. All you arr doing id regurgitsting the same yhing differrnt ways. You think it is fine that i am compelled to lose my money and freedom for the financial security of some third party because you might use that third party and it might cost you slightly more if i didn't.

I believe that is a crock of crap and that just like anything else in a free country, you arent penalized and lose your freedom until you actuslly do something wrong. I doubt i will ever agree your concept is good.

Comment: Re:Sick Society (Score 0) 250

by sumdumass (#46802639) Attached to: L.A. Science Teacher Suspended Over Student Science Fair Projects

No, it is anti gun just as i said it. There are people who think the second amendment to thr constituton is out of touch and knowing they cannot muster enough suppot to amend the constitution, they are activly subverting it. This is one of those attemps and ypu can see other posts in this thread that illistrate that.

You see, unlike magnets, guns cannot easily be banned because of that very old document- as long as people ate not afraid of guns. As soon as they are, they tend to side with getting rid of those scary things. So even though guns are made for kids and the government cannot ban them, they can place age restrictions on purchasing them.

This is about guns- not science.

Comment: Re:Sick Society (Score -1, Flamebait) 250

by sumdumass (#46801729) Attached to: L.A. Science Teacher Suspended Over Student Science Fair Projects

Give up. This is not about science, it is about tje progressive anti-gun stance. Any resemblence to science is ancillary to the point. Any previous simularities that might resemble precedence is irrelevant. It simply doesn't follow the modern libersl fear of guns in a world of zero tolorance where pointing a finger in the right way or eating a pop tart the wrong way will get a kid suspended. We simply cannot have young people growing up not afraid of guns so they will support gun control ehen they can vote.

Comment: Re:oh, sorry (Score 1) 80

by sumdumass (#46799295) Attached to: Preventative Treatment For Heartbleed On Healthcare.gov

What happens if you have no insurance for 20 years, and never get sick. Then you sign up for insurance and pay your bills for 5 years. Then you get sick. What is the fine, and what happens if the person doesn't have the money to pay it at this point?

Do you even understand this question? What happens if I purchase insurance for 2 months and get sick. It doesn't matter, I purchased the insurance just the same as if I purchased it 20 years ago.

However, for whatever reason the government choosing your insurance policy turned people off, so instead we have a tax that people without insurance have to pay. The problem is that the tax is way too low, so for those who are young and healthy it just makes sense to pay the tax.

The problem is the tax is a penalty with no due process administrated by the one organization in the government that can make your life a living hell if you attempt to object to it. Nowhere in the law is the penalty called a tax either. The Obama administration actually argued it wasn't a tax when people took the mandate to court and one justice on the supreme court declared it a tax so it would be constitutional. But all that ignores that the tax is a punitive tax- it is applicable only if you fail to do something. All other federal income taxes are based and you get deductions or exemptions for doing something. This entire premise that the government can call a penalty a tax and continue to administer it as a penalty is an affront to freedom and everything in the bill of rights not to mention the US constitution. Start with the 9th amendment and then look at the others like the right to due process, the right to a jury trial, the right to freedom of religion.

This is INSURANCE. The whole point of insurance is that you don't know when you'll need it, so you pay money now so that in the event you need it you know you'll have it. I "waste" money on fire insurance every month. My house will probably never burn down, and thus I'll probably never get anything back. However, if my house does burn down, then I get a new house for very little money.

And some people do not and will not need it. Why are they forced to pay for it when they do not want to? Why are normal law abiding citizens being told they are no longer free and must do as the government says and purchase something from a third party when they do nothing wrong? You can waste your money all day long, why must you insist I waste mine too? What happens when some gun nut tea party gets elected and declares that anyone who doesn't own a gun has to pay a $2000 a year penalty?

The only way to allow people to not buy health insurance is if we as a society refuse to provide care for them when they get sick unless they can pay the full bill themselves. If we were all sociopaths that system would work just fine, and people WOULD buy insurance because they would understand the consequences if they didn't.

lol.. so the last 200+ years of this country didn't happen and everything starts right now because you though of something you pretend is the only possible logic?

They would call 911 with chest pains, the call center would be set up to do an automatic insurance/credit check, and the guy on the phone would tell them that if they'd like an ambulance they need to get somebody else to provide a credit card number if the credit check isn't good. That isn't the society most voters want to live in.

And that happens every day in the previous 200+ years of our country's existence? Am I right or are you making things up in order to justify your worldview?

And such issues don't cost that much money to treat or are incredibly rare, which is why regular insurance plans don't cost that little. What was your plan if you got diabetes or kidney failure? Is that when you sign up for the $110/month plan and stick everybody else with the bills since you didn't pay the $80/month they paid for the previous 20 years when you weren't sick?

How is signing up for a more expensive plan sticking everyone else with the bill? There is your logic flaw, if I purchase insurance, they do actuary studies and quote my prices based on my factors. It has nothing to do with you paying my expenses. Insurance is not some bank you put money into in order to get billions out later when you need medical care and that billions will disappear if someone else gets sick. I think someone has fooled you or something.

You have a very nice local hospital. Most would have given you a steep discount and charged you only $50. However, no insurance company would pay the $95 - there is a good chance they might not even pay the $22 (though as I said you got a decent deal). Usually the hospital cash discounts are actually more expensive than what the insurance company pays, because the insurance company can basically shut the hospital down if they don't like the rate. I don't have a bill that just covers A1C, but a bill I recently paid included a $71 (list price) A1C test in a set of tests that cost $286 total, and the cost to me and the insurance was $47. That is pretty typical - insurance companies only pay 20% of the list price for most things. When the hospital cuts 60% off the bill for a cash customer they love to go on about the deal they got, even though they paid twice what most people pay.

And you would be wrong there too. Hospitals inflate their costs to the consumer severely for several reasons. Those reasons all resolve back to the government being involved in the first place. The first problem starts with the HMO act of 64 or 68. It set up and established where medicare and medicaid payments would be payed out on a regional average of costs per procedure instead of the actual billed costs. The country was divided into 5 economic sectors and an average cost was developed and hospitals that took medicare and medicaid (which is more than half their business) had to take the average as payment in full. Congress did this to address that unexpected costs of medicare and shortly after, the started paying only a percentage of the averaged costs in order to try and save more money. Medical facilities started increasing their prices in order to raise the average costs up and insurance companies cried so congress exempted discounts to costs from the averaging and took the actual charged costs into account. This allows the hospitals and other medical facilities to jack the costs up while keeping insurance providers happy because they could give them steep discounts. But then another incentive kicked in which is taxes. If the medical facility gives a certain amount of charitable write offs each year, they get a tax break. So the inflated amounts count towards this when they write off bad debt for non-payment. This is why when you offer to pay cash, you get their corporate discount, a cash discount and an early payment discount which I am told is standard to all customers who pay before 30 days.

You're missing the point of insurance. You're not paying for your current medical condition. You're paying for when you do (or don't) get diabetes, or kidney disease, or cancer.

I'm not missing the point at all. I'm saying do not penalize someone when they have not done anything wrong. Don't make freedom illegal either.

I pay more than your health insurance bills every year for fire insurance on my house (a rather modest one at that). I spend $0 on repairs caused by fire. Sounds like I'm getting ripped off! Except, if my house burns down when I'm age 55 I won't be homeless for the rest of my life, or dependent on my fellow taxpayers for welfare or charity.

Most likely you are paying that because you had to barrow money to purchase the house. Either way it doesn't matter because for what ever reason it is what you chose to do with your money. I didn't demand you purchase fire insurance, I didn't demand you buy the house. What makes you think you can demand I spend my money a certain way when I cost you nothing, have no loans with or without conditions from you nor do I really care about you in any way? Why are you so greedy that you think if I don't have insurance there might be a chance I might not be able to cover my own treatment and you might have to pay slightly more for coverage so I must without ever indicating I couldn't provide for myself, spend my money the way you want me to? That's pretty selfish of you isn't it?

Not buying insurance IS the thing they actually did wrong. An involuntary action can't be right or wrong - it just "is." So, getting sick can't be the thing that somebody does wrong. The time to pay for illness is BEFORE you're sick, not after.

Not buying insurance can never be the wrong. The entire you have to spend your money a certain way is what is wrong. People get sick and pay for themselves all the time. People will continue to get sick and pay for it themselves even after this freedom hating law is fully in place. That is because the deductibles are so outrageous in some cases, it will surpass most people's medical needs.

Plus, lots of people may go through live for 70 years and never get sick, and then get hit by a truck and die on the scene. The way insurance works is that they pay for it all their life and never get a dime. Then some other poor kid gets leukemia at the age of 6 and the insurance company pays $20k/yr on medical bills for the next 40 years. It all works out, since the insurance costs are based on statistics. However, it doesn't work out when people only want insurance when they "need" it.

lol.. then penalize only those without that need it.

Would it make sense for me to not pay for fire insurance for 20 years, then have a fire, and have society come along and spend $150k building me a new home, and then try to fine me for it?

OF course it wouldn't. Society doesn't rebuild your home, your insurance would. Society other then some people purchasing policies at their own discretion has nothing to do with you having insurance or not or the outcome of a fire outside of paying for fire fighting that we do through taxes whether you had insurance or not.

What happens if I don't have $150k, or even the total of 20 years worth of premiums? Plus, the insurance company is out more than 20 years worth of premiums - they're out the premiums from all the other people who didn't pay and whose houses didn't burn down (but which they apparently have to repair anyway).What's your point. If they offer insurance and you just built your house and only payed the insurance for 2 months, you would be in the same boat. It's a risk the insurance company takes when it offers coverage and they employ actuaries that mitigate that risk. They are surprisingly good at it too.

Insurance premiums are based on most people paying and never collecting for most types of insurance. If you only charge people who do collect, then you'll have to charge them a LOT more.

Who said anything about charging only people who collect from insurance? 85% of the population had coverage before the ACA became law, we were only talking about needing to get around 45 million people covered or 15% of the population who either couldn't afford health insurance or didn't want it. What in this world makes you think that those 85% or 270 some million people would all the sudden cancel their insurance when they didn't cancel it before the law mandated it?

You are working from a lot of assumptions that don't seem to fit with reality.

Comment: Re:I wish "you" would drop dead (Score 1, Insightful) 155

by sumdumass (#46799041) Attached to: New 'Google' For the Dark Web Makes Buying Dope and Guns Easy

Who said anything about Italy being in Germany? Did you get confused when I didn't spell it out for you?

But if you really do think I was talking about Hitler with the trains, you can check this out and suck on it.

Section B4 of the Gestapo dealt exclusively with the "Jewish question" and came under the permanent control of Adolf Eichmann. This energetic and efficient organizer would keep the trains running on time from all over Europe to Nazi death camps located in occupied Poland during the Final Solution of the Jewish question.

Comment: Re:Let's fix that sillyness (Score 1) 348

by sumdumass (#46799009) Attached to: VA Supreme Court: Michael Mann Needn't Turn Over All His Email

I'm not sure English is your first language or that you know what a question really is, but by all means, what was your question again as it is never obvious from your posts. It seems as if you always have these conversations with yourself and impose them on others not realizing they only existed in your mind. I find it extremely off that you are somehow fascinated with having them with me when I'm not even there to respond to them. Is there something about you that I should know?

Comment: Re:Irrelevant... (Score 4, Insightful) 199

by sumdumass (#46798907) Attached to: Obama Delays Decision On Keystone Pipeline Yet Again

What you fail to realize is that most of them could care less if the oil companies get rich or not. They are more concerned with controlling you and getting your vote. The evil oil companies is just a windmill for you to tilt at while they cheer you on claiming to do something about it while you gladly vote for them.

Comment: Re:When things were done because they are hard... (Score 2) 33

by sumdumass (#46798673) Attached to: RIP, NASA Moon Landing Engineer John C. Houbolt

Your boyhood joy was an illusion. We never went to the moon for the sake of knowledge, it was to prove our industrial might to the world- to prove that capitalism was better then the soviet communism. Knowledge was a product of that and we capitalized on it quite well too. This is the reason China, India and other countries are shooting for the stars too.

The space race was not about gaining knowledge which is why it stopped for a period of time.

Comment: Re:oh, sorry (Score 1) 80

by sumdumass (#46798589) Attached to: Preventative Treatment For Heartbleed On Healthcare.gov

And before you go all authoritarianism on me, you can't have it both ways. Either you have to allow insurance companies to deny pre-existing conditions, or you have to force people to buy insurance. If you don't do either then people wait until they're sick to buy insurance, and then insurance companies go out of business. Socialist healthcare systems like in Europe do the second one by basically buying insurance for everybody through tax receipts (I didn't say that the insured had to directly pay the premium).

Such shallow thinking. How about forcing a penalty after needing treatment without insurance or the ability to pay it? I mean should we force everyone to pay a speeding ticket once or twice a year because we know they might speed but not get caught? It goes completely against the grains of judicial logic in the US. You do not need to force insurance purchased or allow preexisting condition exclusions. You can simply penalize the people who do not have coverage when they need it and also do not have the ability to pay for their treatment. You can also mandate as part of that penalty that they maintain coverage for a certain period of time.

The thing is, the people who say they don't want/need insurance are more than happy to sign up for it once they get an expensive medical condition, so what they usually really want is to have the benefits of insurance without actually paying for it.

What people want is to not pay for something until they need it. They don't want to buy new tires for their car until their old ones need replaced, They do not want to buy another gallon of milk until the other is almost empty. Can you blame them for not wanting to be forced into buying something they do not need at the moment?

The thing is, the insurance available to those people who do not want it, is more or less the same as not having insurance for all practical purposes. I had a Health Savings Account and a catastrophic plan. The catastrophic insurance cost me $5 a week or $20 a month and covered any major medical like a broken bone, cancer, heart attach and so on. Everything else was out of pocket which you will find that medical bills are dramatically cheaper when you are paying cash or cash equivalent at the time of service. That's where the HSA came in handy, the $95 Hemoglobin A1c with fasting glucose levels out the door cost me $22 total when paying cash at the local hospital. Outside of getting that checked for a physical, I don't spend much more than $1.5-2k a year in medical with many years being less that $1000. Now I have to purchase insurance that costs $110 a month and carries a $3000 deductible. So I'm out $90 a month plus out of pocket expenses. I have read that in some areas, it is even worse with $5-8k deductibles and higher monthly costs.

But yes, we can have preexisting condition coverage and not mandatory insurance if we treated it just like we treat every other crime and not penalize someone until they actually do something wrong.

Comment: Re:How's your Russian? (Score 0) 389

by sumdumass (#46798463) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Hungry Students, How Common?

The problem is that those in charge in the EU will sit on their collective hands and do absolutely nothing until any problem has become so massive that they are dependent on US military assistance in order to hope to survive.

This was true with WWI and WWII, they sat and watched while Russia invaded Georgia, and now after promising to protect Ukraine if it gave up it's nuclear arsenal, they are sitting and watching Russia toy with it too. Well, siting and watching is cutting it a little thin, they had "words" for them and I think the current commander in chief used his inside voice while not allow some people from Russia to go outside for recess.

You are right, it is not a sound strategy. But it will be reality as history has shown us. It will be a reality as Europe doesn't invest much in their military compared to potential threats. Russia likely has more rusted out equipment that can be put into use than all of Europe combined has available if you leave the US out of the equation. I think right now the EU has about 1.5 million active troops with about 400,000 being capable of immediate deployment where Russia is sitting on about 2 million reserve troops and 1.1 million active duty troops. Of that, roughly 700,000 are ready for immediate deployment.

Of course the US is winding down it's military- or so some of our leaders claim. So this sitting around naval gazing while Russia rapes the fields and pillages the women of European countries might be even worse of a strategy of any of them expects the US to bail them out again.

You can not get anything worthwhile done without raising a sweat. -- The First Law Of Thermodynamics

Working...