Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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: Lesson 1 (Score 1) 210

Right, why should men have to subsidize maternity care? Why should women have to subsidize prostate exams? hint: that's how insurance pools work.

So, the pool of people who are planning to have kids should pay for itself. There are millions of them. The pool of people who are biologically incapable of having kids are at zero risk of incurring that cost, and shouldn't pay for the risk of an occurrence that cannot happen. Women who cannot have children are not in the pool of women who will experience the cost giving birth. Are you foggy on that, somehow?

Sounds like you should have just gone with the "no coverage" option.

But you've just been explaining to me how affordable and reasonable and good it all is. Why the change of heart?

Comment Re: Lesson 1 (Score 1) 210

We have a plan for two people. Our state approved, ACA-mandated plan has a deductible of $13,100 - just for two people. Add children to that, and you're quickly much higher. That is NOT catastrophic insurance (on paper, anyway) - it's the Obamacare law that requires (say, in our case) people in their 50's to pay for full maternity insurance, drug treatment and mental health coverage whether we need or want it. There is zero chance of us having a baby now or in the future. Why are we required to buy coverage for that? Because the Democrats decided to charge a tax, and that's how they disguised it.

Our rates have gone up over 50% per year every year since the ACA went into effect. Up 70% for 2017, and government says they expect next year (2018) to see another increase of close to 90% again. That's how they get around the "out of pocket" limits - by hugely increasing the monthly premiums, which are VERY MUCH out of pocket, but which don't get you a dime of actual health care. And no, "preventative care" is not covered. You get things like simple blood tests one a year (for which you pay part of the visit, and the lab costs), but of course no treatment of any kind - preventative or otherwise - is ever included in that. The ONLY thing that would be completely covered without requiring the deductible, is child birth. How's that for hilarious.

Comment Re: Lesson 1 (Score 1) 210

Nope instead your insurance premiums will continue to cover other people's bills. You know, since that's how all insurance works.

But that's not how Obamacare works, at least not for millions of middle-class people who are self employed or run small businesses and actually have to write a check every month. Their premiums have gone up hundreds of percent, and many no longer have the cash to go visit the doctor ... but because a small family might have a deductible of $20,000 ... they get no healthcare unless it's catastrophic, and they're still wiped out. For millions of people who WERE buying insurance and able to write a check to the doctor, they no longer can. The ACA is the Healthcare Prevention Act, but it certainly does work as the Democrats intended - a massive new tax that distributes middle class income to other people to buy votes.

Comment Re:Tradeoffs (Score 1) 593

WTF?!? Russia is small!?!? It's the largest country in the world by far!

Sure, if you're looking at it from the childish perspective that acres of dirt (and snow) make up "a country." That's not what matters. Population, economic power, international trade, energy self-sufficiency, the ability to defend borders, and so on ... those are the things that make up a country, and contribute to how you measure whether or not one is large or small. Previously, the Russians made themselves (temporarily, in a short-lived illusion) "larger" by being willing to slaughter (or allow to die) untold millions of people and take over other countries as they built the creaky Soviet empire. They are now a "small" country in the scheme of things, which is why Putin is once again pushing into other territories.

Comment 13 times less? (Score 1) 165

What are we supposed to infer from this?

engineers in India's tech hub cost 13 times less than their Silicon Valley counterparts

So, the engineers in Silicon Valley cost less than somewhere else, but the ones in India are thirteen times MORE less expensive than the ones in SV? Or are we supposed to gather that the SV engineers cost something that we should all consider a good baseline, but that the Indian engineers cost roughly 8% of that amount?

Lazy writers, being lazy.

Comment Re:Yeah, real "terrifying" (Score 1) 195

Kitchen knife use case #1: Kill insufficiently Muslim heathens working for the oppressive British Government! (this use case was seen just the other day)

Kitchen knife use case #2: Make a sandwich. (this use case also seen just the other day)

Maybe you don't have the problem. But, for example, a city here in our state has been known to have a problem with "protesters" deciding that they're going to fix the problems with the culture in their local neighborhood by smashing the few remaining businesses in that neighborhood and burning the houses of the few little old ladies who haven't already decided they'd be safer living elsewhere as a homeless street person than in the middle of place like that.

The cops are too scared to even attempt to mitigate all of that violence and destruction unless they have function physical protection while trying to push a mob of looting arsonists away from the stores they're trying to destory. A tool that helps them to do that is a good thing. If somebody has a problem with the fact that a politician with the wrong idea about things might use such a tool to chase away people who aren't being violent and destructive, then they need to vote for different politicians. In the meantime, recognize the fact that there actually ARE violent, destructive herds of "protesters" who actually do get together to destroy and smash and steal things, and that it's absurd to tell a police officer to risk being, say, burned alive or having her head caved in to try to repel looters. A tool is a tool. There are always going to be outlandish or absurd use cases. If there is NO good use case (say... police batons with spikes on them?) then of course the tool is worth ridiculing. Giving cops a tool to protect themselves while preserving others' lives and property is a good thing. Misusing it is a bad thing, but that's true of cop cars and every other tool they've always had.

Comment Re:Take whoever came up with this (Score 0) 152

Well, you're just wrong. I've personally watched inventory shrinkage drop into the measurement noise with the introduction of technology-based tools that catch the people who steal - because other employees understand there are consequences.

Yes, it's a shame that throughout all of human history and in every level of society and income, some people like to steal stuff. Someone who is trying to make a living running a business and who has to make payroll every week and keep customers happy won't usually have a lot of luck changing human nature. Now, I know that you've personally solved these human nature problems in your own area, and no longer feel any need to lock your doors or in any way look after your personal safety, because you've fixed everybody that you might encounter or who might want your stuff.

Yes, people stealing things IS a problem. And taking measures to stop it from happening to you isn't irrational. Yes, more parents should raise kids that have some sort of moral compass and which are educated and motivated enough to go out and create things so that they can trade the fruit of their labors for the stuff they want, instead of stealing it. Your notion that it's wrong-headed to use convenient tools to help deal with the fact that there are lots of people out there who DO find it easier (or even, in some cases, more entertaining) to steal stuff than buy it - never mind, I realize that you're trolling. Silly me.

Comment Re:Take whoever came up with this (Score -1, Troll) 152

Give them a decent paycheck so they actually have something to lose if they get fired?

Yep, you've never actually worked in such an environment, have you? I've seen people making six figures who steal routinely $20 stuff from their employers. I've seen well paid general managers of grocery stores stealing steaks. I've seen IT directors who drive Teslas but who still pocket RAM sticks from the lab.

You'll understand when you start working.

Comment Re:Take whoever came up with this (Score 4, Insightful) 152

Here's an idea for you:

1) Start a retail business.

2) Get robbed by someone who walks in the front door. Or,

3) Have one of your employees attack another one. Or,

4) Have one of your employees get hooked on heroin and start to steal your inventory.

I'm guessing your solution to getting to the bottom of such things is to hire people to stand around watching everything so they can testify based on their recollections of events later, in a trial. Because you sure wouldn't want what happens on your own property with your own inventory with your the people you pay money to be there doing things to be recorded. Until you really, really do because real life is different when you start paying a fortune in insurance as part of running a business. Or find yourself in court. Or are running out of money because of inventory shrinkage, or have to know which of your very good employees is totally innocent of what one of your rotten employees has been setting them up to look guilty for.

But yeah, I can see why you'd advocate violence against a vendor offering a service you can choose to ignore if it's not useful to you.

Comment Re: Just repeal it (Score 1) 545

The people who "got" health insurance from the ACA, if they're not dirt poor, DID NOT GET HEALTH INSURANCE. They got miserably high premiums they can barely afford, and are left with so little cash each month that they can no longer afford to go see the doctor. And no, the insurance they're now paying a fortune for doesn't help with that, because a small family has a deductible pushing $20,000. So they are legally required to spend a couple thousand dollars a month on insurance they can't use, and have no cash left with which to buy the services of a doctor. Meanwhile, people who don't pay for anything "got insurance" and are being subsidized by the middle class people who effectively had their ability to see a doctor taken away.

The ACA is a terrible piece of law, and was meant by the Democrats to be just that from the beginning. And it's now imploding. I'm glad yesterday's vote got pulled. The current disaster remains under the ownership of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi.

Comment Re: It is just a decent thing to do (Score 1) 41

Don't want fraudulent items, make them in your own country.

You're either a (lame) troll, or utterly clueless about how quickly knock-offs are created based on nothing more than things like product photos on the designer's web site. All a knock-off company has to do is place an order for an item (and return it, later - free access!) in order to inspect it closely enough to make a sellable ripoff version. No, not every knock off (or even most of them) is made by scam artists at the factory making the original, and brand owners are increasingly able to police that since that practice became more prevalent over the last few years.

Comment Re:bloviated shit gibbon (Score 1, Informative) 536

while cutting Meals on Wheels

This is Fake News, which you know. So, the question is, why are you lying about it? It's something that's so easily debunked that you have to know anyone well-informed will know you're lying - so why do it? Which low-information audience are you taking to, and what do you think you're going to persuade them to do as they take onboard the false narrative you're trying to sell? Really - I'm curious. What's your purpose?

Slashdot Top Deals

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford

Working...