OP here of that response. I didn't know
Ah, of course. The classic lefty response: no idea what to say about the reality of the situation, so avoid the substance at all costs, and act like a shrill, shrieking idiot and attack the messenger, instead. So typical.
But good to see that, no matter how angry you are that your party has totally been caught in broad daylight with a legislative mess that everyone else said was coming, that you actually agree about the points above. Which you have to, since they're real. You can now resume your ad hominem denial attack, like the child you are.
you can sign up over the damn phone if you want
Where the people on the other end of the phone write everything down, and then will wait until the web site is working, because they themselves will have to use that same system to interact with the system. And that doesn't get you a paid-for insurance policy. You still have to wait for a bill from the insurer. Regardless, you're not going to get off the phone with an accurate quote telling you what you, personally, will actually have to pay. Just age-related bracket prices.
the real win is in the law itself
You're confused. The law itself is an insane train wreck that is destroying people's current insurance, will jack up prices for everyone who actually pays, and will insure only a small number of the people it was theoretically supposed to cover. It kills jobs, raises the national debt, doesn't do anything to address the reasons that it's expensive to interact with a doctor's practice or hospital, and now introduces massive new vectors for fraud, identity theft, and worse. Plus it has all sorts of nice new features like taxes on your house when you go to sell it, or shiny new taxes on medical devices that will end up doing things like making a trip with your dog to the vet more expensive.
This, to you, is a "win?"
You must be one of those people who's going to be on the subsidized side of the equation, expecting someone else to work part of each day to pay for your visit to the podiatrist for that sore toe you got rock climbing.
You are a total moron. What do you think is going to prevent the wires from arcing when there's no insulator between them.
But why can't high-voltage lines be run underground?
Don't you think someone would have done it by now if it were feasible?
For a hint, go look at one sometime (or look up a photo of a HV tower). Look how much distance there is between the conductors. That much distance is needed to prevent arcing in the air between the conductors. Now, try to imagine the size of a tunnel that'd be needed to place those wires underground, with the same spacing between the wires, and also between the wires and the surrounding ground or tunnel walls. And no, coating the wires with an insulator isn't going to help much; air is already a pretty effective insulator; you could improve on it a little with something else, but not enough to make a huge difference in wire spacing (which is partly why they don't bother with insulation; it would add far too much expense for far too little improvement).
Finally, digging tunnels is really, really, really expensive. And tunnels can't cross fault lines; HV lines are used for longer distances, so this would be a real problem since when traversing long distances, you're bound to cross some fault lines.
So no, natural monopolies are NOT a myth at all. The road bit, which you admit, proves it all by itself.
How does that work out for high-voltage transmission lines? Or roads? It doesn't.
I'm surprised you libertarians haven't tried starting your own church yet; you already have a religion that makes about as much sense as Xenu and the Galactic Confederation and Teegeeack.
In places where rural electric coops already exist, then can certainly act for the good of all their customers (in the community) and redistribute stored energy, provide them energy (from the utilities they buy from) during dark periods, etc. What the previous poster was suggesting was creating new coops to directly compete with already-established utilities to do this. That won't work, for the reasons I stated: you can't have someone competing directly with a public utility monopoly. The rural coops only work for the reason you stated: the private companies didn't feel like running power lines, so someone set up a community-owned power company to do the same thing. In places where the private companies already have run power lines, you can't have someone else running more power lines parallel to theirs and competing with them. The local governments won't stand for it. The utility enjoys a monopoly because it's given that right by the government (at state and/or local levels), so that government isn't going to turn around and say that someone else (who's a non-profit, unlike the utility company) can now compete with them.
Considering how it treats homosexuals, I'd say it's a pretty crappy place.
The weather certainly isn't anything to get excited about either.
That's not a bad idea; that model works pretty well for the USPS. Utilities really shouldn't be for-profit entities.
That's a lot more than we can say about Slashdot.
They don't have to worry about hundreds or thousands of mini-Snowden/Mannings popping up; it only takes one or two to cause a huge shitstorm, so they have to be very worried about that. However, there's not likely to be than many Snowden/Mannings either, because the risk is so insanely high. Manning was caught and is now in a military prison for a very long time, and Snowden evaded capture by the skin of his teeth, and is now stuck in crappy Russia trying to make a new life (after living in warm and beautiful Hawaii, I hope he likes snow and cold). Given the high risk of capture and imprisonment, there aren't likely to be very many people willing to try this in the future, however as I pointed out, it only takes one to cause an international incident.
I wonder how history would have turned out differently had Guy Fawkes succeeded with his plot.
Teenagers don't question authority, by and large. They yell, throw tantrums, stomp their feet, and make a lot of noise, and then once that angst is out of their system, they promptly tend to get to doing whatever it is that the authorities have told them they should do to "get ahead".
Exactly. Teenages only rebel in small ways; they don't really think about things from a big-picture point-of-view. I remember going to middle school and high school in an upper-middle-class suburban area: all the kids at my schools were die-hard Republicans (this was back in the Reagan/GHWBush years, so this meant something slightly different back then). It wasn't until they went to college that many of them started changing their views radically.
There are, but they aren't compatible with all the wacky macros that companies have built on top of MS Office.
In a libertarian's ideal world, you'll only have one road to your house (since obviously, there's only room for one; it's kinda hard to have two roads joining up at one driveway), and you'll simply have to pay a toll to whoever owns that road. And since you have no choice, you'll have to pay whatever toll that person or company wants you to pay. But libertarians don't see the problem with this.
Digital circuits are made from analog parts. -- Don Vonada