Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:The DNC overlords always get their way (Score 1) 644

"Then figure out a way to present yourself in a respectable manner."

Go fuck yourself.

How's that?

You haven't bothered to address my points directly, instead you complain about the GOP or dismiss things out of hand. Your point about interstate commerce is probably the only halfway legit point you made, except that it's logically flawed. In our mobile society, that would make everything the domain of the feds. If I see a doctor in my state using a plan that's only offered in my state, there's no federal interest, and thus interstate commerce cannot apply.

"Having some form of [auto] insurance, or an alternative, is mandated across the civilized world."

Not in New Hampshire, the last state that still tries to let its residents live free. Our state trusts that its residents will behave responsibly. It works.

"If you wanted that, you should have called your Congressman and told them to train another few thousand doctors and nurses."

Congressman don't typically teach medicine.

"What, you think I believe for a second that if Trump wanted to do something, that he'd let a mere technicality like the Constitution stop him?"

You're confusing the two parties. Obama tried to do things with executive orders that the courts struck down. They even cited his own speeches where he had said such orders wouldn't be legal.

"Give us a plan."


"Look, you can blather on and on about this threat to your liberty all you want, it'll just be tiresome."

Yes, the Constitution is a real problem, isn't it?

"That's untrue, in fact, being able to effect a new government is part of why we have elections and revolutions."

Right.. a violent revolt is just like changing insurers. You should download the updates to your talking points. Or not, I don't really care.

Comment Re:The DNC overlords always get their way (Score 1) 644

I'm not a republican, first off. Second, I point at the dems because this legislation was passed by the dems exclusively. Understand that. This only looks partisan because the dems had a hard time getting enough of their own people to vote for it, let alone anyone else.

"Why? Are you so adamantly opposed that you dictate to others that they must leave the country at your behest, rather than let them advocate their own interests?"

You clearly don't understand the role of government in the US. The Constitution defines a limited set of powers that the federal government has and leaves everything else to state and local governments. There is no power to regulate health insurance, to operate an exchange, or to punish people for not having health insurance. The feds exploited the right to levy an income tax, perverting it into a punishment for not having health insurance. The supreme court made a mockery of our laws by letting that happen. This is how our federal government bypasses all the restrictions it's supposed to be limited by. The take from the taxpayers and the states, and then only give some of it back if we capitulate. It's evil and corrupt.

I know that HSAs predate the AHA. It just amazes me that we were sold a monstrous piece of legislation that was supposed to improve access to health care and for so many that already had great coverage, they're now seeing their access disappear. Hopefully you're healthy and you don't have to experience it yourself, because it's a nightmare. It's a cruel thing to be managing your health and then have that ripped away by laws that were meant to make things better.

"Maybe instead of a corrupt oligarchy where citizens are deceived and mistreated by a bunch of con artists, we have a well-designed health care system that delivers care rather than wasting money on landscaping and lobby fountains."

Corporations and government are indistinguishable on this point, other than the exception I mentioned earlier.. you can choose to do business with other companies, you can't choose a new government.

"they've been deficient in providing alternatives"

Because that's not the role of government! Health care is between me and my doctor, and my insurer if I choose to have have one. Or at least that's how it should be. I'm not even required to have auto insurance, and that can potentially impact others. Do you not realize how this can be abused? Someone like Trump could mandate that all Americans must have a firearm. The supreme court has already allowed the use of income tax as a penalty, and has already allowed the feds to force us to buy things that we may not want. With most politicians owned by corporations, that's going to be abused eventually.

Comment Re:The DNC overlords always get their way (Score 1) 644

If "you can keep your plan" wasn't in the cards, than the President shouldn't have said it. This was a major selling point of the whole debacle, which he emphasized by ending it with "period". The legislation was so lengthy and so difficult to understand that people latched onto this as a major selling point and it failed to deliver, spectacularly so. Then he lied about it. "What I actually said was..", but we can all go to the many videos where he said it.

Yea, fine "death panel" is evocative. But that is what these panels were. It was a decision on how care was to be rationed for certain illnesses given a set of variables. That's a danger with single payer. If a hospital is built far away, that's not the same thing. You can move closer to it if you want. Single payer takes away your options.

Obama wasn't going to ban private insurance, he wouldn't have to. Single payer could undercut them using the taxpayer's own money and wait them out. That's why the GOP was against it. It was obvious. The feds wanted to take complete control. That is not the role of the federal government. You need consent of the governed and it was not there. A change that massive should require amending the Constitution and it should never be forced on us by a single party. The whole way this made it into law was disgusting, as was the gyrations the supreme court had to make to legitimize it. A part of our representative democracy died when this became law.

Subsidies? It's called corporate welfare. I thought you lefties were against it? The legislation was supposed to lower the cost of insurance, which hasn't materialized for most except for those getting subsidies. But subsidies don't lower the cost, it passes it on to someone else. I remember the White House press corp laughing at the press secretary when he said the whole thing would be revenue neutral. Even the press wasn't buying it.

If you want a public health system, move to Canada or the UK. We had the best system in the world, the best doctors, the best hospitals. A competitive system is far superior to a government run bureaucratic mess. As evil as people say the insurers are, I don't see it. Under what we had before, I could get the care and medicine needed to remain a functional member of the workforce. Now, I'm being pressured to make choices that would knock me out of the work force. Part of that being that a disaster plan and an empty health savings account won't accommodate the needs of people like me. I've paid into insurance for decades and now that I need it, the Democrats have ruined it. This was a free country where we were empowered to make our own choices, good or bad.

Comment Re:The DNC overlords always get their way (Score 1) 644

"If you like your plan, you can keep it. Period."

Death panels were never a literal thing. The government did have panels whose goal was to decide on what adequate levels of care would be for various illnesses. That would have tied into single payer if that had made it into law. It wasn't a death panel that would decide on each individual's future, but the decisions they made would certainly be form of deciding who lives and who dies. Remember Obama on the campaign trail stating that maybe the lady asking the question would get a pain pill to live with a condition rather than surgery to resolve it. That already existed to some extent with private insurers, but at least with them you could go with a different insurer or just pay out of pocket. You can't easily choose a new government.

We also don't know the full effect of the Affordable Healthcare Act. The dems have postponed many of the provisions time and time again because they would make it too difficult for dem candidates to win elections. That alone is quite damning. Next year is going to be eye opening. There are very large employers that are switching to disaster plans with health savings accounts which is great for young and healthy people but will be disastrous for people with preexisting conditions. Health funds work if you pay in when your healthy. If you're older and requiring continuing care your income is effectively cut by whatever the max annual out of pocket is for the disaster plan. This is all perfectly legal and it's disgraceful. The whole point was to improve our access to health care.

Comment Re:Is this available to the US also? (Score 1, Insightful) 360

How is Apple any better? They produce jobs in China. I think they started the whole "designed in America" thing so that people could somehow feel like they give a shit about the country they're headquartered in. If you think any global corporation cares about the little people, you're sorely mistaken.

Ironically, if Trump wins, we'll probably see more of this. If you can't import cheap labor, you can export the jobs.

Comment Re:that would be a Step-up (Score 1) 1010

There's not much I can say if you truly believe that the support for Trump is based on neo-Nazi principles. You've clearly lost touch with reality. This association you make between law and order and racism is ridiculous. The voters want our borders protected and our immigration laws enforced. To say that is somehow racist is to call our system of laws racist. We have people wait listed to immigrate here legally meanwhile we continuously have debates over but another amnesty for those that came here illegally. Hardly anyone talks about the people overseas that are waiting for permission to come here. It's disgraceful and it's prejudiced against immigrants who don't have a land connection to use to sneak in to the country. If the populace is unhappy with our immigration laws, let's talk about improving them, but the majority won't support using amnesty as a carrot to get to those talks. That's been down multiple times before and it leaves us in the exact same situation. A similar issue was a significant part of the Brexit that just happened in the EU. Even the Brits want control of their borders.

As for Iraq, he wasn't commending the Hussein regime, he was commending Hussein's approach on dealing with terrorists. Did you miss the part we he said Hussein was a bad guy? Even bad people get things right once in a while.

Dailykos and Aljazeera? You've confirmed my earlier point about being biased against Trump due to misrepresentations of an agenda driven media. You've picked two of the worst offenders.

Then you end calling Trump a con artist. What about Hillary? She just got a free pass for mishandling top secret information, violating FOIA, and lying to investigators. Any one of us would at the very least lose any security clearance we had. Yet for the entitled elite, she gets a free pass. The FBI even said there were serious violations (paraphrasing), yet no "serious" official would bring up a high level politician on charges. That's the FBI pointing our that there is a ruling class in the US which is absolutely forbidden by law. Our fore-fathers fought a revolution to escape that type of system.

Comment Re:I think this means Trump (Score 1) 1010

You could have said the same thing about the primaries. Success on the GOP side was inversely proportional to money spent. Trump even blew off one of the big debates and it had no impact on the final result. Polling showed there was no way Trump could win the nomination, yet he did. We're seeing something different with this election. The voters are pissed. Having an outsider get the nomination from one of the two parties is huge. This isn't a conventional contest. He faces a battle for sure, but I wouldn't call it until the end.

Comment Re:that would be a Step-up (Score 1) 1010

America has used torture during interrogations for a long time, perhaps back to the days of the colonies. It continued even under our current President. That's why we have black sites in foreign lands. It's an ugly side of reality that most people don't want to know about. We have doctors that swore an oath to do no harm that assisted instances of torture which shows that even our most educated citizens consider it either useful or necessary. I don't want to live in a world where torture happens but I also want to live. Trump could make the same promises that Obama failed to deliver on, but what's the point?

I'm not sure what you're getting at with suppression of the media. I know he had a conflict with one of Fox's talking heads at one point, but last I heard they're on speaking terms again.

I don't see anything that he's said or done that comes anywhere near the level of atrocity that the Nazis were responsible for. Do you seriously think the majority of the Republican voters are neo-Nazis? That's insane. They want border control and they want our existing immigration laws enforced while we consider ways to improve on them. No bait in switch with amnesty and broken promises. Reagan and others fell for that trick. A lot of people want defending our nation to take priority over coddling terrorists. That's not an extreme position either.

I think Trump won the nomination in part because of this type of rhetoric that's used against the political right in this country. Trump says what he thinks and doesn't let political correctness or opinion polls stand in his way. The same couldn't be set of the other party candidates. I don't think most of the media understands that nor do many of those on the political left.

He got a lot of heat for his comments when he visited Belgium because he pointed out a risk they were taking with their dense pockets of immigrants, yet after the heat died down, Belgium suffered a serious terror attack from terrorists who lived among those immigrants. That doesn't make him a Nazi, it makes him a candidate. He pointed out the elephant in the room and was right when lesser politicians would have said nothing for fear of appearing politically incorrect. Lives are at stake.

Comment Re:Suicide by politician (Score 1) 1010

It's a tricky thing. Say you have one weak liberal candidate and ten strong conservative candidates. The conservatives get 1/10 of the votes from conservative voters while the liberal candidate gets all of the votes from liberal voters. The weak candidate wins against ten strong candidates because we didn't political parties. Now we could have more parties, but I think what happens there is that we divvy up the two we have into buckets and what I just described still happens to some extent. How would someone choose which party's ballot to vote for during a primary? If anything, maybe we want to look at giving the people more say directly through electronic voting rather than to rely so heavily on representatives. But where our culture is at this point, perhaps that would be too dangerous.

Comment Re:that would be a Step-up (Score 1) 1010

There is nothing Nazi-esque about Trump's campaign unless your only news sources are those that are agenda driven. His views on the southern border? He wants to uphold the laws we already have. Illegal aliens are here illegally. That's not a new concept. Defending the borders and controlling immigration are among the few things that our federal government was intended to control. Same thing with muslim immigration. He wants a temporary restriction, which is the same exact thing France put in place after the theater and cafe attack. We know that terrorists can blend in with immigrants to get into western nations, and we know there's a problem with immigrants already in western nations turning on their host nations after they're here.

One opinion is we just accept that as a risk of living in a free society, but there's an equally popular opinion that we don't allow that risk into the country in the first place. That doesn't make Trump into Hitler. His talking points represent the views of a significant portion of the population. Uphold our laws, protect our people. We should be happy that we have candidates with such wildly different views because it shows that we still have some semblance of a functioning representative democracy. Referring to half the population as neo-Nazis achieves nothing. That's basically what the other Republican candidates tried to do and it backfired. The people want laws to have meaning and they want to know that the government is trying to keep them safe. It's better to address those wants rather than making more photoshops of Trump being Hitler.

Slashdot Top Deals

interlard - vt., to intersperse; diversify -- Webster's New World Dictionary Of The American Language