I heard Trump signed it. Complaining about lobbyists is hollow talk if your going to support a law supported by virtually no one except a special interest group.
Here’s another verification from NBC news, that a VPN will solve the issue:
And here is another interesting article:
P.S. The last article is purely for educational purposes only
Will, in order to counter Gabe’s objection, that you can’t trust commercial VPN services. This might be the answer, you have been waiting for
I found this interesting article on BBC today:
GOP Congressman on allowing your browsing history to be sold: “Nobody has to use the Internet”
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 … aker-says/
I see no more posts. Is posting now officially dead
I thought I would share, some Nerd computer tips.
First, if you have a home network, then set up a router. It provides a hardware firewall and additional protection. And set it up, to use one of these name servers. Which provides extra protection:
OpenDNS Norton Secure Connect
To reduce bandwidth, either use Opera or Google Chrome. They compress things. But you have to turn on the Data Saver feature, for Google Chrome.
For Android and IOS, it's in settings. And is called Data Saver For a PC, install the Data Saver extension. I also recommend HTTPS Everywhere - for security.
For speeding up the Mobile stuff, use one of these two methods.
Use the app Neopard, if you don't use secure websites (i.e. banking, etc.) Otherwise, use Opera Max. And turn on the feature privacy also.
Both use VPN connections. But Opera is more secure. But you have to keep turning it on and adding time.
Everything suggested here is free. Let’s dedicate a couple YouTube videos - to nerds.
So the GOP plan to make healthcare cheaper is to make it more expensive via out of pocket expenses. Sounds great for people with expensive needs to pay thousands of dollars a year out of pocket. statnews.com/2017/05/04/ahc … nce-plans/
I am sure many Trump fans here, would applaud the move. Since it’s saving the American taxpayers - “collectively” money.
We shall see!
I understand your frustration. How would you do it?
Well - just butting in here - we could simply take money from people who have it and give it to those that don’t. That seems fair. Not.
In any case, let’s wait to see what the Senate does before we get our IV’s in a knot.
Medicare for all with no (or very low) out of pocket expenses. -Or- the government require private insurance companies provide everyone insurance for the same price regardless of pre-existing conditions and set a very low annual out of pocket maximum.
It is fair with regard to a need whose cost of attainment varies drastically across the population. I guess you think it’s fair for someone to have thousands of dollars a year less than other people to enjoy on luxury – not based on sloth or having less talent than them – but because he has a certain expensive health condition?
I agree with Dave Here. Let’s see how the bill finally unfolds, in the Senate. I’m sure it will be changed a little bit - if not drastically.
My biggest objection is that the Republications were ignoring input, from big and established groups, like the AARP, AMA and hospital lobbyist groups.
For the record, the Republican plan doesn’t really effect me. Since I’m on a Medicare advantage plan. And I’m also big into alternative medicine (i.e. homeopathy), prayer and spiritual healing (i.e. Red Road, Native American healing and Bruno Gröning Circle of Friends).
On a more positive note - for us nerds - Guardians of the Galaxy (Vol 2) is now playing
And here’s a BBC story today entitled Five big consequences of Trumpcare win
A man I’ve learned to pay attention to said this:
"On “Special Report” tonight, Charles Krauthammer said Trump and Republican leaders may be celebrating the bill getting passed, but he believes the U.S. is now headed for a single-payer health care system.
Krauthammer said ObamaCare “failed at every level,” but it did change Americans’ expectations regarding health care.
“I would predict that in less than seven years, we’ll be in a single-payer system,” Krauthammer said, pointing out that Republicans aren’t even arguing for a free market system anymore.
“They have sort of accepted the fact that the electorate sees health care as not just any commodity, like purchasing a steak or a car,” Krauthammer explained. “It’s something now people have a sense the government ought to guarantee.”
He explained that there are only two options for the future of health care in the U.S. - a radically, individualist system where the market rules or single-payer - and the country is not going to ever go back to the former.
“The terms of debate are entirely on the grounds of the liberal argument that everybody ought to have it,” Krauthammer said. “Once that happens, you’re going to end up with a single-payer system.”
Well, I never heard of “single-payer” health care until I read your post, DaveB. Through an internet search, I learned that that is the system that we have here in Canada.
This system was introduced to Canada by Tommy Douglas, Baptist minister, Social Democratic politician, and member of the CCF Party (Co-operative Commonwealth Federation—a political party further to the left than it’s successor, the NDP Party or New Democrat Party). Tommy Douglas was the first leader of the NDP Party, and was premier of Saskatchewan from 1944-1961. You can read more about him here:
In Canada, no one goes broke from paying huge medical bills (except those who have to go to United States for special treatment that is unavailable in Canada. My brother-in-law would have been one of them, if he had not owned land that he sold in order to help him pay his U.S. medical debt). I’d doubtless be penniless and deeply in debt, if it weren’t for the Ontario Health Plan. (Health is within provincial jurisdiction, and there are similar plans in all the provinces). Ontario income tax requires me to contribute to its health plan, but I paid only $53.54 Canadian dollars for the entire year 2016, even though I’m a retired teacher with an adequate pension.
Perhaps you can understand why I lean toward socialism in matters relating to the needs of society. However, in moral matters (e.g. opposition to the practice of abortion), I am strongly conservative or “right wing”.
I can understand the leaning toward socialized medicine. In and of itself, it makes a kind of sense.
It CAN be - not necessarily, but possibly - a big step toward full socialist integration and organization of the society, and that slippery slope is my biggest concern.
I don’t know enough about Canada to speak with any authority, but I do live in the USA, and the far left totalitarians are in fact communists under different names - neo-liberal, progressive, what have you - that are enamored of the utopian vision that sounds so good, but has caused - well, the atrocity we call the 20th century - everywhere and everytime it has been tried.
Of course a ‘slippery slope’ argument does not prove necessity; perhaps we could stop at a one-payer medical system. It is interesting to note that Ayers’ Rules for Radicals - a communist manifesto - laid great stress on the first step in the overthrow of the government as - the health care system. Once that was in place, as a one-payer system, Ayers and others (and he taught this to Obama, we know) thought the battle was on its way to being won. The point being that the one-payer system is a POLITICAL tool, for Ayers et.al., it was not for the benefit of the people.
I have a lot of information on this.
DaveB, it’s fallacious to posit that if a group supported X, to support X means to support that group. You’re making a sort of guilt by association argument. Each policy should be weighed on its own merits, not whether or not it was part of some fringe group’s conspiracy.
I am not doing any of those things. Read the post - I did not claim that anything was necessary; I did claim certain things are possible.
Using ‘fringe group’ for any group you suspect is fallacious also.
I know you will argue more, and I am just going to ignore it. Let people make up their own minds.
It’s possible Republicans are reptilian shapeshifters plotting to remove oxygen from the Earth. I dare you to prove that it’s not.