I agree, The Market would handle this handily. I mean, those people could just pack up and move on, right? There are plenty of other jobs in 'merica? The Free Market operates properly when there are viable alternatives. Given the skillset required for this job, the jobs they'd qualify for are already taken. Sure, they could get educated, but that's a different story altogether where the market is also failing people.

The Free Market works when people have a choice. Doesn't seem like a lot of choice out there these days.

Are you poor? What are you doing squandering your life away working hard and having nothing? You, too could have it all. More and more people each day are making their way to the good life. All you have to do is slide into poverty! Hell, if its so great, why aren't you trying it, instead of badmouthing those freeloaders on the internet?

Really? It's a pretty popular business model to run a municipal exchange just like a for-profit does, just without the profit part.

Honestly, I have a hard time buying the line that its everyone riding off someone else's dime. If the system worked and people like you actually worked to a sensible solution instead of decrying any progress as the second coming of Karl Marx, we'd probably be a lot further along.

Sorry, bro. We spent all of our cash on bombs, bribes, and bullets. :T

I have to disagree with that. It's possible to set up a single payer system that everyone pays into as we do with insurance. The good part about that is government isn't on the take and marking up the rates due to artificial inflation. If they were, they would have to answer to the citizens, and not the stockholders. The great thing about this is you don't have to enslave anyone, because everyone will be working on the same system that's employed in the private healthcare industry, which isn't slavery now. Switching providers from Met Life to Fed Health shouldn't be that big of an ordeal.

IMO, the real problem people have is the FUD being spewed by the healthcare industry because they stand to lose a lot of profits. They might even be fighting for their very existence, but I don't think they're entitled to exist when they fleece their customers, collude with competition, and refuse to employ price control. Why try to act right and serve customers better when it's easier to scare people with talk about "death panels", "enslavement" and "communism". Hell, it might cost a bit to lobby, but it's cheaper than changing how you do business.

So, in your infinite wisdom, what is the root cause of this vigilantism? Do you think they have no just cause? Especially after knowing this company is not above paying off officials to get out of trouble and avoid scrutiny, how can you believe this is going to be handled above board and professionally?

That's not memorization, that's math... Unless you haven't learned basic math, but have decided to memorize the "hard" ones.

Maybe times have changed since I was a kid, but saving money to spend it on something I actually wanted, rather than putting gas in the car or paying for a power bill.

Just like you need money to make money, you need insurance to get affordable insurance?

Roughly 25% equates to average? We shouldn't let facts get in the way of your slander though. Sure, it's a lot of people. No, it's not the average.

Wait, this is the senate... Isn't it supposed to be hard?

How was the integrity of your IFF system? Did you check to ensure your cables were properly shielded? Or did your plane receive shielded cables when the system was installed? Typically, shielding the wires removes any erroneous indications from outside radiation.

Who says they're picking our good and bad guys for us? Just because Iran's not on my BFF list doesn't mean Anon is speaking for me. Maybe the people involved are there voluntarily, which means they are complicit in the selection of a target. If that were not the case, there wouldn't be a story in the first place.

But I can't say this isn't even a little bit entertaining. Maybe they'll declare a jihad on computers next?

Let me be the first to say: Huh? Seriously, make the distinction here. They're both bad. One you can fight, because you know it's coming. The other one is like the frog in the frying pan. The bad you can see coming, you can fight... which makes it less bad.

I'm having a hard time understanding how it's a bad thing. The proposal should get voter approval in the municipality to be serviced. It shouldn't be run as a government agency, but more of a service to customers. The stipulation of the program not being able to offer services below cost doesn't even seem to be a bad idea. Where is the story here?