Protocol417

I am what most people would consider "anti-gun", but I don't believe there's any reason to get overly paranoid about things. Millions of people safely enjoyed movies and that doesn't change because one insane person in Colorado decided to shoot up a theater. You are exactly as safe now as you were before.
Actually, you might be more safe. Statistically, violent crime is on the decline, and has been for a quite a while now. The reporting is just more frequent and sensational than it was before.

Unless she has very low income (or she has a really good lawyer) and she waited a while before filing, I'm guessing they'll exempt that debt from the bankruptcy and she'll end up paying it.

I am what most people would consider "anti-gun", but I don't believe there's any reason to get overly paranoid about things. Millions of people safely enjoyed movies and that doesn't change because one insane person in Colorado decided to shoot up a theater. You are exactly as safe now as you were before.
Actually, you might be more safe. Statistically, violent crime is on the decline, and has been for a quite a while now. The reporting is just more frequent and sensational than it was before.

Same here. That and knowing I can walk into a hospital and not have to mentally tick off what bills I'm going to have to avoid paying over the next several months while I'm sitting in the waiting room

I am what most people would consider "anti-gun", but I don't believe there's any reason to get overly paranoid about things. Millions of people safely enjoyed movies and that doesn't change because one insane person in Colorado decided to shoot up a theater. You are exactly as safe now as you were before.
Actually, you might be more safe. Statistically, violent crime is on the decline, and has been for a quite a while now. The reporting is just more frequent and sensational than it was before.

thank you, for explaining this without adding any rhetoric or insults..!!!

How much of that debt is caused by military spending? Defense spending tops 1 trillion a year.
How much of that debt is caused by the numbers of black men in prison for misdemeanours while white men commit those same crimes in much greater numbers, but are much more likely to get probation? At 60 billion a year in costs to house those prisoners, plus court costs for multiple appeals and public lawyers.
How much of that debt is caused by the insane War on Drugs? Two billion per year spent enforcing laws that don't make sense to have in the so-called Land of the Free. Not counting even MORE legal fees when these people appeal nonsensical convictions.
How much of that debt is caused by having more people in prison, by percentage, not total number, than any other nation? The list, btw, includes Iran, Russia, Cuba and other nations whose governments we criticize as totalitarian. When you have so many people not producing anything and living on a government dime, you're not just losing the money you spend on housing the inmates, you're also losing their potential incomes.
How much of that debt is caused by families defaulting on mortgages and other loans because the US does not have a living minimum wage and because families have to choose between shelter and medical care?
How much of that debt is caused by the fact that the largest growth in jobs since the recession has been in part time work?
How much of that debt is caused by the fact that US companies can take their manufacturing overseas to avoid having to have, you know, health and safety rules, robbing millions of Americans of their jobs?
How much of that debt is caused by the fact that, whenever possible, tax breaks are demanded for the rich who take jobs overseas?
The debt isn't being caused by the budget. The debt is being caused by a set of nonsensical cultural priorities and the fact that the US government has stopped fearing its people.
I would give nearly ANYTHING to be able to bring my fiancée to Canada rather than the other way around, but the one thing we're NOT willing to sacrifice is the PhD that she's partway done. The second she's done, we're doing everything in our power to get out of the US, because frankly? Without a major government procedure overhaul and an examination of cultural priorities, the country is circling the toilet and in 20 years, America being the 'Land of Opportunities' is going to be a legend that people marvel over, that a country so messed up and destroyed could have ever been so great as the movies and television of the day teaches us.

I am what most people would consider "anti-gun", but I don't believe there's any reason to get overly paranoid about things. Millions of people safely enjoyed movies and that doesn't change because one insane person in Colorado decided to shoot up a theater. You are exactly as safe now as you were before.
Actually, you might be more safe. Statistically, violent crime is on the decline, and has been for a quite a while now. The reporting is just more frequent and sensational than it was before.

Same here. That and knowing I can walk into a hospital and not have to mentally tick off what bills I'm going to have to avoid paying over the next several months while I'm sitting in the waiting room

I am what most people would consider "anti-gun", but I don't believe there's any reason to get overly paranoid about things. Millions of people safely enjoyed movies and that doesn't change because one insane person in Colorado decided to shoot up a theater. You are exactly as safe now as you were before.
Actually, you might be more safe. Statistically, violent crime is on the decline, and has been for a quite a while now. The reporting is just more frequent and sensational than it was before.

No surprise here. Danno is cheering on the racist mob in Moscow.

Again, you still have people who want to treat people differently based off of race, religion and sexual orientation. Without these laws to protect these groups of people they are screwed.
If you do not like the laws, get out and do something about it. March next to a black person who wants to be treated equally. Stand next to a Lesbian who wants to marry her lover. Stand next to a Muslim who doesn't want to be called an extremist when he is not.
Once you do these things and encourage others to do so as well, and we see conditions improve, then we can abolish these laws. But assuming you are a white male, these things are of no concern to you because you do not have to walk around with black skin, or a head scarf on everyday, you do not understand what it is like.

For the very rich, medical care in the US is attractive. The system is built for specialization. But that's like arguing that because a restaurant has glowing reviews for high-end cocktails that this means they'll be the best option for providing a very large group of people with affordable, nutritious meals. People might flock there for the alcohol but that doesn't mean the neighborhood won't go hungry.
The US ranks poorly in doctor saturation (exacerbated by pushing doctors away from primary care toward specialization because that's where the money is), available hospital beds, readmission rates, infant mortality, life expectancy, so on and so forth. For the average person, it's not a good system. Even with insurance, it's ridiculously expensive, and the for-profit system encourages pushing people through as quickly as possible. After living in the US my whole life, I was absolutely shocked how much time the doctor spent with me when I had to visit urgent care in London, and how much care she took to listen to me and make sure I was okay, physically and mentally, before I left. Yet if you believe the hype, it should've been the exact opposite. I should be getting amazing care in the US, and spending four weeks sitting in a waiting room in the UK, if all that was true.
I understand the hesitance over the website price tag. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. We spend twice as much on healthcare as other countries, so obviously government involvement does not automatically equal more wasteful spending. There is always, no matter who is in office, going to be things that need to be improved, but we can't improve them if the first response is "oh, there is one bullet point that doesn't work as well as it should, therefore the whole thing should be thrown out and we should go back to how we were without any changes".

Who wouldn't be happy about a convicted felon not getting a gun? Does that really have to be said? In that case, I'm happy that many people out there are alive, productive, satisfied with their lives, and law abiding (there, that should cover all the bases in the future in case my personal emotions over one individual case ever come into question again).
I don't remember anyone saying that a majority of gun show sales go without background checks. If memory serves, the complaint was simply that a loophole exists that allows a mechanism for people to obtain guns without said background check, and that loophole should be closed. This story doesn't say the loophole doesn't exist, it just says that the guy went to sellers who participate in background checks, one (!) of which turned him in.

Who wouldn't be happy about a convicted felon not getting a gun? Does that really have to be said? In that case, I'm happy that many people out there are alive, productive, satisfied with their lives, and law abiding (there, that should cover all the bases in the future in case my personal emotions over one individual case ever come into question again).
I don't remember anyone saying that a majority of gun show sales go without background checks. If memory serves, the complaint was simply that a loophole exists that allows a mechanism for people to obtain guns without said background check, and that loophole should be closed. This story doesn't say the loophole doesn't exist, it just says that the guy went to sellers who participate in background checks, one (!) of which turned him in.

That's what the courts are for, not the debt ceiling debate.
Congress makes laws based on representative democracy ("majority rules"). If those laws then "trample on the rights of [the minority]" and are challenged, the courts will (edit: hopefully) declare them unconstitutional.

Batman, this claim has been debunked for ages now.
Anyone (government employee or not) who currently has compliant insurance is ineligible to purchase their policy through the marketplace or receive subsidies.
Regarding Congress and their staff, not only are they not "exempt" from "Obamacare", they're actually kicked out of their current plan and forced to use the exchanges. The problem with this is that they would have had to pay full price for their policies, basically meaning they'd be taking a huge pay cut due to loss of employee benefits. As a solution to this, the government (their employer) will still pay for a portion of their policy (much as many people's employers do). This is the "exemption" people have been complaining about.
Regarding unions, there is a specific reason why they are against Obamacare, and it has to do with leverage. Many unions have spent a massive amount of time and energy negotiating contracts down to the sub-sub-sub-sub bullet point, including health care coverage, and those contracts last for years. The "exemption" regarding them is the "grandfathering in" of their policies (some of which are not compliant)... but only for one year, to give more time for contracts to be negotiated. So basically, they have to throw out all that work and start over, which they're not very happy about.
As a side note, they're also against it because they were denied their request to receive subsidies, which kind of flies in the face of the accusations that Obama is handing out special favors.
Then you have the "exemption" that is the one-year delay for employers with over 50 full-time employees. Who, I'm sure, are huge Obama supporters
(For the record, I don't agree with the delays for either large businesses or unions. They've had 3 years to get their sh*t together. But I hardly see it as some government conspiracy where "friends" come out rosier than "enemies".)

That's what the courts are for, not the debt ceiling debate.
Congress makes laws based on representative democracy ("majority rules"). If those laws then "trample on the rights of [the minority]" and are challenged, the courts will (edit: hopefully) declare them unconstitutional.

Batman, this claim has been debunked for ages now.
Anyone (government employee or not) who currently has compliant insurance is ineligible to purchase their policy through the marketplace or receive subsidies.
Regarding Congress and their staff, not only are they not "exempt" from "Obamacare", they're actually kicked out of their current plan and forced to use the exchanges. The problem with this is that they would have had to pay full price for their policies, basically meaning they'd be taking a huge pay cut due to loss of employee benefits. As a solution to this, the government (their employer) will still pay for a portion of their policy (much as many people's employers do). This is the "exemption" people have been complaining about.
Regarding unions, there is a specific reason why they are against Obamacare, and it has to do with leverage. Many unions have spent a massive amount of time and energy negotiating contracts down to the sub-sub-sub-sub bullet point, including health care coverage, and those contracts last for years. The "exemption" regarding them is the "grandfathering in" of their policies (some of which are not compliant)... but only for one year, to give more time for contracts to be negotiated. So basically, they have to throw out all that work and start over, which they're not very happy about.
As a side note, they're also against it because they were denied their request to receive subsidies, which kind of flies in the face of the accusations that Obama is handing out special favors.
Then you have the "exemption" that is the one-year delay for employers with over 50 full-time employees. Who, I'm sure, are huge Obama supporters
(For the record, I don't agree with the delays for either large businesses or unions. They've had 3 years to get their sh*t together. But I hardly see it as some government conspiracy where "friends" come out rosier than "enemies".)

There's one down.
Whoa, I think we're safe now.

That's what the courts are for, not the debt ceiling debate.
Congress makes laws based on representative democracy ("majority rules"). If those laws then "trample on the rights of [the minority]" and are challenged, the courts will (edit: hopefully) declare them unconstitutional.

Batman, this claim has been debunked for ages now.
Anyone (government employee or not) who currently has compliant insurance is ineligible to purchase their policy through the marketplace or receive subsidies.
Regarding Congress and their staff, not only are they not "exempt" from "Obamacare", they're actually kicked out of their current plan and forced to use the exchanges. The problem with this is that they would have had to pay full price for their policies, basically meaning they'd be taking a huge pay cut due to loss of employee benefits. As a solution to this, the government (their employer) will still pay for a portion of their policy (much as many people's employers do). This is the "exemption" people have been complaining about.
Regarding unions, there is a specific reason why they are against Obamacare, and it has to do with leverage. Many unions have spent a massive amount of time and energy negotiating contracts down to the sub-sub-sub-sub bullet point, including health care coverage, and those contracts last for years. The "exemption" regarding them is the "grandfathering in" of their policies (some of which are not compliant)... but only for one year, to give more time for contracts to be negotiated. So basically, they have to throw out all that work and start over, which they're not very happy about.
As a side note, they're also against it because they were denied their request to receive subsidies, which kind of flies in the face of the accusations that Obama is handing out special favors.
Then you have the "exemption" that is the one-year delay for employers with over 50 full-time employees. Who, I'm sure, are huge Obama supporters
(For the record, I don't agree with the delays for either large businesses or unions. They've had 3 years to get their sh*t together. But I hardly see it as some government conspiracy where "friends" come out rosier than "enemies".)

Democrats have been trying to do this for.... 20 years?
Obamacare was a compromise that Republicans would vote for.

For the very rich, medical care in the US is attractive. The system is built for specialization. But that's like arguing that because a restaurant has glowing reviews for high-end cocktails that this means they'll be the best option for providing a very large group of people with affordable, nutritious meals. People might flock there for the alcohol but that doesn't mean the neighborhood won't go hungry.
The US ranks poorly in doctor saturation (exacerbated by pushing doctors away from primary care toward specialization because that's where the money is), available hospital beds, readmission rates, infant mortality, life expectancy, so on and so forth. For the average person, it's not a good system. Even with insurance, it's ridiculously expensive, and the for-profit system encourages pushing people through as quickly as possible. After living in the US my whole life, I was absolutely shocked how much time the doctor spent with me when I had to visit urgent care in London, and how much care she took to listen to me and make sure I was okay, physically and mentally, before I left. Yet if you believe the hype, it should've been the exact opposite. I should be getting amazing care in the US, and spending four weeks sitting in a waiting room in the UK, if all that was true.
I understand the hesitance over the website price tag. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. We spend twice as much on healthcare as other countries, so obviously government involvement does not automatically equal more wasteful spending. There is always, no matter who is in office, going to be things that need to be improved, but we can't improve them if the first response is "oh, there is one bullet point that doesn't work as well as it should, therefore the whole thing should be thrown out and we should go back to how we were without any changes".

For the very rich, medical care in the US is attractive. The system is built for specialization. But that's like arguing that because a restaurant has glowing reviews for high-end cocktails that this means they'll be the best option for providing a very large group of people with affordable, nutritious meals. People might flock there for the alcohol but that doesn't mean the neighborhood won't go hungry.
The US ranks poorly in doctor saturation (exacerbated by pushing doctors away from primary care toward specialization because that's where the money is), available hospital beds, readmission rates, infant mortality, life expectancy, so on and so forth. For the average person, it's not a good system. Even with insurance, it's ridiculously expensive, and the for-profit system encourages pushing people through as quickly as possible. After living in the US my whole life, I was absolutely shocked how much time the doctor spent with me when I had to visit urgent care in London, and how much care she took to listen to me and make sure I was okay, physically and mentally, before I left. Yet if you believe the hype, it should've been the exact opposite. I should be getting amazing care in the US, and spending four weeks sitting in a waiting room in the UK, if all that was true.
I understand the hesitance over the website price tag. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. We spend twice as much on healthcare as other countries, so obviously government involvement does not automatically equal more wasteful spending. There is always, no matter who is in office, going to be things that need to be improved, but we can't improve them if the first response is "oh, there is one bullet point that doesn't work as well as it should, therefore the whole thing should be thrown out and we should go back to how we were without any changes".