Meh, it has a near total penetration rate and building a site in flash 10 is completely acceptable within the agency web development community. It's unfounded speculation to say all web development is moving away from flash. If anything, all web development is moving toward accessibility -- a very different thing to say.

Flash can not only be accessible, but also merged within a CMS seamlessly to allow straight content presentation vs the flash-powered version (for animation and seamless access to any other part of the site).

So, are you against all versions of Chrome, Safari, Opera and IE? Against all licenses that are not totally free? Against mp3s, pdfs, aacs, movs, avis, rtf, wmv, GIFs? Where do you draw the line. I should think the public ought to be given the choice whether they want to use something that has a basis in a proprietary technology.

Nice! Are you commander of the OSS-R army? I want to sign up and kick some of that bourgeoisie Adobe Flash butt!

I didn't mean to imply that the people going into politics don't have ideals, but politics is the art of control. It's not about helping people, it's about controlling people with force.

Modern day politics also gets to be about preparing and tagging on lots of frivolous legislature on to any act or bill.

:sigh: There are also going to be significant taxes to "cadillac" insurance plans, which are plans with luxuries like a dentist plan. I make 75k/year (below average in manhattan -- where i work) and am going to be expecting to pay 10% more next year AND pay higher premiums (which is in reality a form of taxation), and probably more every month as I can guarantee you insurance plans will go up in price but cannot say exactly when (they have much more liability under this "reform" so prices simply cannot go down).

Also, health insurance only makes an average of around 3% profit margin!! That is below standard corporate profit. I cannot stress enough that this is NOT a greedy, profitable industry (if you want that -- just look at pharma). If you want record gains -- again, just look at pharma. Last year was a very good year for them (BMS, Merck, Pfizer,Gilead Sciences, BI).

I can get so frustrated with the naivety of this kind of statement. Insurance rates are going up, this is a fact of basic arithmetic. If you don't believe me and don't want to go through the process of figuring out how cost will increase for the health insurance industry, just wait a year or two and witness how the government again blames private greed rather than its own poor reform, and passes even worse regulation (next time, it will probably be the introduction of national single-payer, and after that only the single-payer will be legal).

This bill is not only not "perfect," it is also compounding on the source of the problem. If you want true reform, please consider completely reformulating or starting over with health insurance regulations, so that competition is a given and it is not difficult to start a health insurance company. Then, there's the pharma industry to tackle (which is in high favor right now, for making recent steps toward "regulating itself" which resulted in the government giving them a break).

To conclude, just look at last year's most profitable industries. Pharma is near the top along with banking and oil, health insurance is the 86th most profitable industry coming in at about 3% profit margin. Government regulations are giving unfair advantage to pharma and crippling the health insurance industry (did you know it takes at least $400 million for a manufacturer to bring a new drug to market? It also takes twice as long as it used to. And guess what! We still get dangerous drugs.)

I think you may be confusing pharmaceutical industry with health care insurance industry... i quickly googled, and the first result linked to a blog about economic data: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/health-insurance-industry-ranks-86-by.html which is slightly above my previously-referenced figure (3.3) but nowhere near 20-30.

In contrast, the 3 main groups of the most profitable business are oil, banking and pharmaceuticals.

Yeah, my figures were fairly off (actually.. I think I confused it with how much we have been expanding our monetary base). The only solid source I could find was whitehouse.gov, according to them government spending was 3 trillion in 2007, but that's only everything on-budget, there are additional costs. The government is about 1/3 of our 12-trillion odd economy, so 4 trillion is likely.

There are two parts to your statement: who is spending and how its being spent.

Ideologically, the government is not spending on the people, it is spending on specific things in the name of the people who may or may not support this spending -- many individuals disagree with how funds are allocated and would want to do so differently (if it were up to the people, they could spend it on what they want to).

Secondly, there is still a large government operating cost... I can't find the exact figure right now, but it was recently estimated at around 35 billion a day..

There is also the implied factor that the government is self-preserving because it is made of individuals who treat it as if it were a business though it is not.

Right now, our government is an organization allocating less than a majority of all people's money (only 47% of people pay income tax) according to a small elite class in the name of all people, which wants to expand its power with no regard for budget, and is slowly increasing tax on all productive people. What could go wrong?

Unbacked? I'm just focusing on the fact of principle -- All the money of government comes from people. There is a huge overhead to government. When government gives a tiny amount back, everyone cheers at how kind the government is. Replace "government" with "monarchy" and you have an accurate description of how people acted under monarchy.

Republicans and Democrats are the same kind of bullshit, and I in no way was supporting Republicans. I read a good explanation, in that the Social Democratic left-wing has been pushing all reform since the late 50's -- conservatives really only "conserve" the beautiful works of these people. It's true -- modern Republicans are just modern Democrats 10-15 years behind, and are meant to support the structure where it is, while liberals go off building these beautiful social constructs which are to be adored.

Here are a number of points: Social Security, Medicare, and home owners (CLASS act) will have increased taxes through this bill (increased taxes amount to 480 billion of the bill). The remaining 500 billion of it is supposed to come from Medicare savings. This ought to be considered non-existent based on the track record of Medicare and the political inviability of cutting down 500 billion of Medicare.

Let's talk about the previous government attempts with healthcare: The original Medicare bill passed in 1965 was supposed to cost 12 billion in 1990, in reality it cost 111 billion (you can argue this is only 25% off if you adjust for inflation, but at that scale of debt it's unfeasible because the inflation rate was partially defined by the tragic costs of Medicare). In 1987 it was projected that Medicade would cost less than one billion in 1992, in reality it was 17 billion. In 1988, changes in the Medicare home benefit were project to cost 4 billion in 1993, in reality it was 10 billion.

As for insinuating about my reading habits, I would not consider economic theory, 16th century to modern political and legal writing, and the same time frame for philosophy to be either "radical literature" or "nothing at all."

I love evidence but you cannot base political theory on anecdote or interpretations of statistics, you must work off of some foundational principles to be successful. In today's world, legislation which will forever remain law is passed constantly and for frivolous, ephemeral reasons.

How do you figure? Some of these regulations mirror the auto insurance industry regulations. The logical outcome of forcing restrictions on companies, and who they must do business with is simply that their operating costs go up, and they charge more (right now, insurance makes 2-3% profit margin while pharmaceuticals make huge excesses of money off of lifestyle drugs).

Anyway, this reform bill has everything to do with politicians wanting more control over the system and nothing to do with actually lowering prices. Government is a legalized mob, practically by definition -- it's just that we as a people are willing to listen to it. If you are suggesting those who put this bill into play did so for any kind of altruistic reason -- consider the context of their political ambitions (no one goes into politics to help people, they go into politics to control people).

That would make perfect sense if the government had a set budget that it could never breach.. as it stands, it's in the interest of the government to never cut anyone off -- it gives them political control and votes from those who fear they could not be insured otherwise.

However, by removing the bottom line it turns the system into a ponzi scheme where everyone loses out (the money just isn't there). The government has the same issues with providing healthcare, but the deficits are masked and passed down in terms of inflation where they would instead lead to bankruptcy.

I resonate with your humanistic concerns, but believe that lowering prices by increasing natural competition (removing the regulations helping insurance companies establish monopolies) ought to be the immediate concern.

Yes, but there are plenty of poor "big insurance" choices right now. It is rare and an exception to find good coverage at a reasonable price. It is impossible to get individual insurance as good as that provided via an employer, because of government regulation. They are simply not allowed to provide it! What's more - I can't believe this is blamed on greed! Health insurance gets an average of 2-3% profit, which is below standard corporate profit. It is simply not a very profitable business, and its problems are not due to greed - they are lack of competition -- again, because of regulations which were meant to stabilize insurance according to insurance companies.

Compare the health insurance industry to the pharmaceutical industry. Vastly different -- pharma is among the most profitable (nearly as profitable as the oil industry is right now -- ). And is anyone cracking down on them? Nope. McCain and Obama have been helping them with healthcare funding under the pretense of reform -- in fact, one such deal in 2009 involved lower prices of drugs for government officials -- and the elderly, by the PhRMA.

As for the short-sighted executives -- I've seen no such thing in health insurance. How about Banking? Oh hell yes! And guess who got bailed out? Sure there's a lot of fuss about bonuses right now, but this is both after the fact and more bark than bite.

A source: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/04/health-care-reform-cost-estimates-what-is-the-track-record/ I don't know how you are calculating inflation (it is not a linear or simply process), because in this kind of case there will be many imperfections. The inflation rate itself was definitely influenced by debt incurred by Medicaid failures.

Recent polling does not show this kind of reform is wanted. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform .. I don't listen to partisan news radio, it is all trash.

Well, it would appear that it's good I did phrase it that way because it gave us both the chance to explore the situation more. I may have been overcompensating in that comment and as such was insensitive.. I'll have to reflect on that.

I read your link explaining one particular breakdown of the plan, and some parts of it certainly sound good. However.. no bill is all evil and there are definite provisions in the bill ("protections")which will further raise costs and further reduce the profits of a floundering industry. This I simply cannot support -- it is a pattern of corruption in our system itself exposing itself. Obama may have good intentions, but I cannot support mandates where a person has no choice! This will always encourage a high level of entropy in the system.

I don't mean to be offensive to you, but I see liberty dying-- there is only so much before the back will break. People like Étienne de La Boétie(1550), Thomas Hobbes(1650), Thomas Jefferson(1750), Mark Twain(1850), and Murray Rothbard(1950) have been struggling intellectually against the use of force and threats to mandate opinions and special interests. The concept of the "Nation State" has been around since around the 1600s... I truly think it has become both too dangerous and too inefficient to continue, and while I will not use force against it, I cannot support the falseness I see.

ETIENNE DE LA BOÉTIE: Tyrants would distribute largess, a bushel of wheat, a gallon of wine, and a sesterce: and then everybody would shamelessly cry, "Long live the King!" The fools did not realize that they were merely recovering a portion of their own property, and that their ruler could not have given them what they were receiving without having first taken it from them. DISCOURSE ON VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, ca. 1548 (Translated by Harry Kurz)

It's amazing to me how #2 tends to mean it's time to roll out a new bullshit regulation on top of an enormous stack of previous bullshit regulations.

"most due to the greedy practices of the health insurance industry" This is facetious - lobbyists for the health insurance industry have helped to foster the corporatist sentiment in American government. What we have now is the result of previous failures, which were instituted to reduce competition in that particular market (in the name of stability). The natural result of this is that prices have soared. The issue is not greedy companies, because frankly that would make them concerned about budgeting wisely -- the issue is that it's impossible to have a small business step in and offer insurance because of government regulations. If you want to blame someone: blame corrupt politicians who set up the industry for failure in order to step in and pick up the reins.

You see, this is the provided justification. There are many hidden provisions within the bill just increasing other important taxes. There is no smart budget cutting happening. There are increased social security taxes, medicare taxes, home care taxes (CLASS Act). There is an obvious lie associated with these, in that these taxes are supposed to be kept for their respective programs, whereas they are going to go toward paying for Obamacare. Forcing companies to hold on to people who are too expensive will make things more expensive. Do you really think it will drive costs down to mandate these things? Do you think the government will step in and magically create money? It's a sad reality that some people are too expensive to reasonably insure right now -- if the government picks up the tag, the costs are passed on to the taxpayer either as taxes or inflation.

The source of some people being so expensive comes down to a number of problems, also related to health care regulations. Every doctor is required to pay insanely expensive malpractice insurance (which doesn't even kick in until they pay $300,000 of their own money). The government-supported monopolies within healthcare are EXTREMELY bloated, and pass the cost on to their constituents - there was recently the media-exposed case of $1,200 surgical staplers which have become the standard fare.

The situation is like this: The prices are insane because the market is sick and distorted. The market is sick because of government regulations put in via health care lobbyists, which were intended to create stability within the market and help them by reducing competition from "untrustworthy" insurance companies. These regulations helped create the virtual collapse we're at now, of course the answer from the government is more government restrictions (which are already guaranteed to drive prices up further). Many politicians stand to gain great power through maneuvering like this because they have their own personal and electoral connections -- they can easily amend something like this once it exists. In fact, the upcoming "fix" to the bill being passed Sunday will decrease taxes and increase the coverage! Wtf?

Please, explain to me how it makes sense to have 10 years of taxes pay for 6 years of coverage. This is how it was actually budgeted -- and this is with fuzzy math like the nested provisions i listed!

The CBO report is blatantly wrong on two accounts: using their method for the decade after the first, we will be losing 100 billion+ yearly (they are relying on many successful budget cuts including a great amount from Medicare which has NEVER been able to cut their budget significantly). Secondly, they are trusting the figures provided (like the Medicare number) and not account for historically proven mis-budgeting. In the 60s, when Medicare was budgeted to be 12 billion in 1990, it came out to 110 billion, In 1988 When Medicaid was to be less than 1 billion in 1993, it was 17 billion.

Obama's false pretenses are that he is doing this for the good of the people. In fact, the majority of people do not want this. It will only benefit government expansion and set us up for further regulation (as seen by previous attempts -- there are very many but I provided you with at least some examples). This is about government-control, not about the good of the people.

see the need to place "good" and "bad" within the context of my first post to you. I assumed you would believe that there is such a thing as subjective truth -- when I meant "good" I meant good in the sense that honesty is good. When a person is in touch with their desires, this is good to me. It does not mean the desire is some objective good, it only means that there is honesty. If all people could be more honest and truly know what they want, I believe the world would be much, much better off. This is a personal choice however, and it is one that I have made for myself. I believe in exposing bullshit when I see it, and in supporting truth where I see it.

That said, the "good" in wanting this "bad" thing to fail is numerous: it supports my personal integrity, it helps me to gauge the political and social consciousness and it helps me to engage in conversations and arguments like this one :). I cannot explain my entire argument in every moment and in every comment I make, and some of them have more to do with expressing myself in the context of others.

Please, read the whole sentence. If a murder is out to kill someone, I want him to fail. If a mugger is out to steal money, I want him to fail. If a business is exploiting people to increase their profit margin, I want them to fail. If a politician is creating a flawed system under false pretenses which is going to waste taxpayer money, I want him to fail. If Obama is going to bankrupt our monetary base further, I want him to fail.

Do you see? It's GOOD to want bad things to fail. Because I want a thief to stop stealing, does not mean I think the thief is evil and must be put to death. Because someone does wrong, does not mean I think they are evil, but it most certainly means I do not support them!