Yes, but if I've fulfilled my contract I should be free to do what I want with my phone without fear of penalty. Plus I'm sure this new rule will lead to even more electronic waste.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
|
Yes, but if I've fulfilled my contract I should be free to do what I want with my phone without fear of penalty. Plus I'm sure this new rule will lead to even more electronic waste.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Or smarter buying habits.
Good luck with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I totally agree. Some 83 year old guy who likely has never owned a smartphone made that ruling.Quote:
Yes, but if I've fulfilled my contract I should be free to do what I want with my phone without fear of penalty.
Or industry lobbyist, there are a million of those suckers around.
Edit by user
There is absolutely no doubt. It's the only way that ruling makes any sense.Quote:
Or industry lobbyist, there are a million of those suckers around.
I'm sure the lobbyists wanted this, all the more reason why an unelected bureaucrat should not have the power to unilaterally issue such a ruling.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Meanwhile in Canada: Wireless fee, contract guidelines proposed by CRTC - Technology & Science - CBC News
Every once in a while we do things right. :)
Yep very needed reforn in most telco markets
Interesting, on the 9th of January Sarah Kliff tells us "why talk of non-existent Obamacare death panels won’t die" - then talks about death panels 9 days later.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I think you missed the point of the first column. I'm guessing because you didn't actually read it.
It's the other way around - you obviously didn't read your article, nor the other one I posted. :D
Dude, the obvious went right over your head. I feel sorry for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Don't, I'm a happy guy that took a day off to be with my kids on this storm day. We're having fun.Quote:
I feel sorry for you.
Tell me what you get from this excerpt:
Quote:
Nyhan had 948 survey participants read an article from 2009 about Palin’s statement on death panels. Some had favorable opinions of the former governor of Alaska; others did not. The respondents ran the gamut in their knowledge of current politics.
All read a story about Palin’s 2009 statement, which brought death panels into the mainstream debate. Some had this correction appended to the end of the story:
Nonpartisan health care experts have concluded that Palin is wrong. The bill in the House of Representatives would require Medicare to pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling sessions, but there is no panel in any of the health care bills in Congress that judges a person’s “level of productivity in society” to determine whether they are “worthy” of health care.
For Palin supporters and opponents alike, low-information voters’ belief in the death panels decreased after reading this correction.
But something different happened among high information voters. Those with cold feelings towards Palin acted like the low information voters, with their belief in death panels dropping.
For high information Palin supporters though, the correction backfired: They appeared more likely to believe in death panels after reading the appended information, and have less favorable opinions of the Affordable Care Act.
I feel exactly as before, it was irrelevant to my post other than the same writer explained why death panels won't die them discussed death panels... and why no one wants the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I should be able to round up 14 more people (besides myself) to serve on the Independent Payment Advisory Board.
No offense, but that's kind of scary. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I'll promise that half of us will be Republican (i.e. team of rivals). How's that?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Only if you promise to get nothing done.
What's scary is the government having the FINAL word on your right to live. Don't tell me the insurance company has that power... no it doesn't... If I was denied care from them ,I'd seek other options. With Obamacare ,I'd probably be forced to look overseas .
Perhaps that's the point, your bloated medical system has become too expensive,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
My insurance company doesn't say I can't have it, but just that they won't pay for it. Same will be with Obamacare.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I missed it as well. Could you tells us in your own words.
Did you read the column?Quote:
Post by Tuttyd;
I missed it as well. Could you tells us in your own words.
Government bureaucrats should not be making the health decisions that impact millions of Americans. End of story... or maybe you are happy with the government panel (the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force... a panel that reviews and makes recommendations for preventive services) that decided that women in their 40s should not have annual mammograms and older women should reduce the use of this screening device. That was clearly, and only, a cost cutting decision. What if it costs a couple more women's lives in the process ?The odds favored their decision because there were a few false positives that resulted in follow up testing .
What is this rumor I hear that Rhambo wants to dump Chi-town employees onto the state exchange to save the city the cost of the municipal union's over priced benefits ?
Nor should insurance companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
[QUOTE=speechlesstx;3383630]Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
I did. The point of the article seemed to be the unattractiveness of serving on the panel. Several reasons seemed to be outlined. Namely, low pay for qualifications. Suitably qualified people are more likely to go for other higher pay jobs. There was also the problem of the job being too political.
Unless you are referring to the social stigma attached to the job.
" The board has drawn heavy criticism since it became part of the health-care law, with detractors drawing fire from the Obama administration and the the act's other supporters for referring to the board as a "death panel" that would ration seniors' care"
The journalist responsible has come up with a pretty clumsy sentence in this instance.
[QUOTE=Tuttyd;3383649]I would only add that settling for second best is troubling for such a critical role. Who could have seen that coming?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
And in true lib fashion ;they are tripling the costs and destroying the best health care system in the world .Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
The best health care system in the world for those who can afford it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
When they specifically tax medical devices to pay for it that says a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Are we talking about the 'previous system' or the system in transition?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
And there was already a system in place for those who couldn't . What the Dems want is for our system to devolve to the lowest common denominator (except for Congress and the Prez. They are exempt) .Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Do you mean these people?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/07/21/gvl10721.html
Tom means all those other people, you know; the freeloaders he doesn't want to pay for. Tom hasn't quite got the concept of insurance being a pool
Had trouble with the American Medical Association link, but I think I fixed it up. Makes interesting reading.
I think all that demonstrates is the system is flawed, broken even, and of course it will be while ever insurers can pick the benefits they provideQuote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
The report was also in 2008 before all this new stuff got started but it shows the system was broken already.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:26 PM. |