Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Unrealistic for you, maybe (Score 1) 409

the pursuit of Happiness. missed that part "the pursuit of Happiness."....

The Feds are not responsible for your happiness, but they are there to help the states and keep law and order to provide an environment where you can pursue your happiness, and basically stay out of your way while you do it. This is different than the oppressive king they were declaring independence from.....

Also, the Declaration of Independence is not a governing document of the US Government. The US Constitution is, so, that's the one you need to be reading from....

Comment Re:Unrealistic for you, maybe (Score 0) 409

You're all hot to point out that the Constitution requires the government to provide for the common defense. But you seem to want to gloss right over the promote the general welfare part. Why is that, do you suppose?

See my other post in this thread about the General Welfare clause.

You have to take that as it was meant when means more of the welfare of the UNION of the states, and the ability of the Feds to lay taxation for that purpose. Defense is enumerated and the general welfare of the union was in large part for enumerated limited federal responsibilities for such things.

The union was to be kept strong, and then the states could then be responsible for the citizens in each state. If the states want to do healthcare, etc...sure feel free to do it.

But it doesn't mean "welfare" in the same way that people in this century try to translate it.

he ACA didn't give health care to anyone. It required the freeloaders who weren't buying insurance and driving the rest of our rates up to be adults and finally buy insurance. Maybe you didn't like the subsidies that the poor got, is that what your gripe was? Let me ask you, do you call yourself a Christian? Ask yourself, would Jesus have helped the poor? Should he have helped the poor? Would he have wanted you to help the poor? Is there a reason you don't think the poor should get help with buying the insurance they need? And want to buy?

There already is a safety net for the poor....Medicaid.

But for everyone else, I think we should all have more free HSA type pre-tax savings accounts for routine health needs, not tied to any insurance. If families budget for food, why not budget for routine health needs? Insurance should only be for catastrophic emergencies (hit by a bus, etc).

If this were the case, people would once again shop around for medicine and they did 40 years ago and prices would be lower.

Comment Re:Unrealistic for you, maybe (Score 2) 409

The problem is routine medical not subsidized is several hundred dollars a visit. Times a wife and two kids and you are talking about thousands annually.


I mean annual check up for family of 4..say at $200 each would be about $800. Now with kids if they get sick a couple times a year, add another $800, $1600 a year for routine health is too much to expect a family to save for?

And..if we did what I was saying and go back to where insurance is only major medical, catastrophic insurance, people would be shopping around for Dr.s and not have middle men HMO's and the like....medicine was MUCH cheaper for routine care 30-40 years ago, even if you count for inflation. It is all the insurance covers everything and HMO's that drove the prices up.

Right now, one of the things that is trending, is groups of doctors that cover full range of the human anatomy are banding together and selling shares in health club type pay x annually and you're covered for most of your health needs.

If this type thing were allowed to grow, it might solve a LOT of the problems for routine care.

Comment Re:Unrealistic for you, maybe (Score 0) 409

If "provide for the common defense" can be used to justify spending as much on the military as the next 10 countries combined then perhaps "promote the general Welfare" might be considered to include keeping the citizens of the country healthy.

Well, that provide for general welfare, has to be taken in the meaning of the day, not as "welfare" as we think of it today. Basically general welfare as used in the constitution was defined as the overall state of wellbeing of the nation as a whole.

This also was tied in with taxation, for the needs of the US to keep the union of the states strong, and to be able to fund the specific, limited enumerated responsibilities of the Fed. government.

It really didn't mean that the Feds were responsible for the health and happiness of the individual citizens, but for the health of the union, which then would lead to the states serving the needs of their citizens. In general that is...

Comment Re:Unrealistic for you, maybe (Score 0) 409

In the U.S. it's a particularly large one because as a country we've decided we want a huge military, whereas if we scaled that back we could provide better health coverage, even as unhealthy as we are as a population.

I whole heartedly agree with 99.99% of your post, but this part caught my eye.

The US Govt (at least on the Federal level) is mandated by the US Constitution to provide for defense...that is one of its few enumerated responsibilities and powers.

I don't really think it is anywhere in the constitution for the government (at least on the federal level) to provide healthcare for the citizens, at least not without a constitutional amendment.

Comment Re:Unrealistic for you, maybe (Score 1, Insightful) 409

They don't expect to live past 65, given the state of healthcare in this country.

Sheesh...quit whining.

People lived well past 65 in years past with less healthcare and tech than we have today.

Actually a LOT of health is up to the people themselves.

Eat right...exercise regularly, don't smoke....and only do fun chemicals in moderation if you must, and you'll be well on your way to a long healthy life, barring any catastrophic happenings, like getting hit by a bus.

THAT is actually what insurance is supposed to be, only for catastrophic, unexpected health occurrences. If you lived healthy, and if they would encourage HSA's and the like for the routine medical care you for catastrophic events would be MUCH cheaper, and most all health care prices would go down. We used to have a system like that when I was a kid, insurance then was called "Major Medical", and it wasn't sky high. Insurance is for accidents, not routine maintenance. Its that way for your car, it should be that way for you too.

Comment Re:It's pretty simple (Score 1, Troll) 247

Now, Energy Star isn't a safety standard, so it's not exactly critical, but it's still a great thing to have a common measuring stick for all to use.

While I'm generally in favor of having more information on product labels (especially food which I ingest), has anyone ever really used this Energy Star rating when choosing appliances?

I mean, I recently got a fridge. First thing I looked at was dimensions...what is the largest fridge I can get that will fit the space in my kitchen, and allow full access from the doors.

Next, I looked at those with ice maker and water access on the door.

I cook a lot, so I wanted to maximize my fridge space for food and hence, I opted for models that had ice makers in the door, rather than having the unit in the fridge taking up shelf space (french door with freezer below models).

With this I looked how the insides were cut up..opting for more shelf space vs too many drawers.

It happened to be a sale weekend (memorial day?) so I found my perfect model on sale delivered and installed for about $1K off normal regular price.

I've yet to see the "Energy Star" rating on this unit. I supposed it it were a coin flip between 2 units, I might give the Star rating a look and use it as a factor.

But if not that many people are using this and it would save 30% off a federal agency, then why keep it?

Comment Re:Choice (Score 1) 257

...but there's also more to life than self indulgence.


Like what?

I only have a short time on earth, I fully intend to make the best of it....I like to help others along the was as best I can, sure, but in the end, it is all about me.

You're born alone, you die alone.

You'd better make the best of it while you are here....

Comment Re: Cry me a river (Score 1) 257

I get the feeling you are young and still are surrounded by your friends from school. Once everyone pairs up, moves to jobs farther away and can't get together all the time like they used to, where do your friends come from? At a point in my life, not so long ago, most of my friends came into my life through work. Same age, same interests, same general goals.

Nope, not even close.

In in the way above 40 yrs old set.

I have college friends in New Orleans that I reconnected with, but I also stay in regular touch with friends from the states I did live throughout my life and schooling.

I tend to meet people as neighbors and through them. And in NOLA, there is the concept of the neighborhood bar. I tend to meet many friends, neighbors and women there.

I don't do social media, but I have plenty of friends in meatspace locally as well as visitors or my travelling about to see them.

Once you "pair up", that doesn't mean you have to give up your friends of your youth. I'm still in regular touch with my oldest friend I met when I was 11 and he was 12yrs. A lot of my friends close are 15-20years friends and we still regularly hang out.

I am quite nice and cordial to co-workers, but I never get close to them. Unless they are in my immediate group I don't even really notice them as that I am busy at work.

I'd never stay with a woman that made me get rid of my friends...after all, I've known and respected them for MUCH LONGER than I've been fucking know?

Slashdot Top Deals

You're using a keyboard! How quaint!