04-20-15 12:12 AM
235 ... 78910
tools
  1. simu31's Avatar
    Lol yeah let's look at Europe to see that it works. Not. Are you kidding? Taxes so high the wealthy are leaving, government so broke they are stealing the people's money right out of their accounts. Really? It's coming here but it isn't here yet. Why? Because there are still too many of us throwing a fit.

    Posted via CB10
    Yeah, those horrible Europeans who think letting someone die because health insurance is only availble for the rich, or those not alread ill, is a bad thing

    Sorry, some of us don't believe in the Ayn Rand idea of society. Some of us don't think that life should be everyone for themselves.

    European taxes (depending upon the country, you know there are several, right?) pay for free health care which gives us longer life expectancy, better dental health, better cancer survival rates, etc..., pensions, disability benefits, paid maternity leave, child support (for some reason we think those little critters should have a good start to life), day care, long paid vacations, subsidised public transport....etc...

    The "wealthy" aren't going anywhere outside Europe, especially not to the US, where your own multinations are cheating their taxes by saying they're incorperated in Ireland, or the Netherlands... (yeah, Europe).

    There is only one example of a government leveraging individual's accounts, and that was in Greece, and if they'd bothered to pay their taxes in the first place, then there wouldn't have been a problem.

    We don't need to "see how that works", it already does!
    twiggyrj, Smitty13 and LoneStarRed like this.
    04-01-15 08:01 AM
  2. Shuswap's Avatar
    We were told social security would only be temporary too. Should I go on?
    Posted via CB10
    FDR made social security a contributory scheme, with payroll deductions, precisely so that people would feel entitled to the benefits and would not allow them to be taken away.

    So the administration responsible for social security never said it was to be temporary.
    Last edited by Shuswap; 04-01-15 at 06:26 PM.
    LoneStarRed likes this.
    04-01-15 10:40 AM
  3. DrBoomBotz's Avatar
    One of the political parties breaks down like this


    A coalition of the greedy and the stupid


    0.1% ensure government serves their agenda
    99.9% get to mind someone else's business preferrably with torches and pitchforks
    04-01-15 10:44 AM
  4. sleepngbear's Avatar
    Folks, the topic is Net Neutrality, not social security, socialized medicine, social distortion, or social diseases.

    Thanks.
    TGR1 likes this.
    04-01-15 11:30 AM
  5. Cynycl's Avatar
    From what I've read the topic is da evil guvamint
    MarsupilamiX likes this.
    04-02-15 11:50 AM
  6. asherN's Avatar
    OP, here's a real world experience of what you want. My company is in the business of hosting specialized software for our clients. My servers used to be in my offices. We had ISP-A. One of our large client also had ISP-A. Everything was great. We moved our operation to a datacenter. Used ISP-B. Well, those ISP were in a pissing contest over peering arrangements, related to the whole Netflix thing. All of a sudden, My client's response time to my servers tanked. We had to create a gateway for them to go through our office. So we still have to maintain a connection in that office, for that one client. That's what the lack of Net Neutrality does. Were it not for that connection, we would have lost the client, and put our business in serious financial risk. The bottom line of Net Neutrality is very simple. I pay may ISP for a certain speed. My client pays his ISP for a certain speed. Bits should be allowed to flow at full speed from A to B.

    It's non-ISPs that are ultimately affected by Net Neutrality. That's why government has to step in. Because the internet is an integral part of the economy, and it is too important to let businesses screw around with it un-checked.
    Smitty13 and TheScionicMan like this.
    04-05-15 12:25 PM
  7. LoneStarRed's Avatar
    The crux of the problem is that this government is so heavy handed and deceptive. Their "solutions" don't address the problem per say. They use the problems as a pretext to enact regulations which vastly over reach.

    " I do not think that word means what you think it means. "
    04-06-15 04:18 AM
  8. deadcowboy's Avatar
    The crux of the problem is that this government is so heavy handed and deceptive. Their "solutions" don't address the problem per say. They use the problems as a pretext to enact regulations which vastly over reach.

    " I do not think that word means what you think it means. "
    Net Neutrality is vitally important, however. And allowing cable companies to behave like crime families isn't ever going to help. I'm libertarian, but anti-competitive 'fixing' of the system is not okay. Purposely creating regional monopolies and artificially holding back businesses and customers while accepting billions in American tax-payer money is not okay. They are doing illegal things and need to be stopped.

    I'm all about letting the market take care of itself, but not if that includes anti-competitive dealings where it forces American business to stagnate or die.

    I don't want to be a Comcast customer, but I have no choice. Absolutely no choice. Broadband is a utility--a necessity--not a luxury anymore.

    Posted via CB10
    Smitty13 and mkelley65 like this.
    04-06-15 09:10 AM
  9. LoneStarRed's Avatar
    It would seem to be a " lesser of two evils" argument. The status quo has a lot of negatives. There are many legitimate issues which demand an authority to come in and rectify. Unfortunately, if that authority has a different agenda then it would be before if they do nothing.

    I have an idea. How about the authority go to the people and have the people submit the issue the which need to be duly addressed. And then the authority acknowledges the people's wishes and enacts changes congruent to those wishes. I know it's crazy but it would work.

    Or we can have changes which the people have no control over and are not transparent or representative of the people's wishes. Oh wait, that's exactly the situation we're in right now!

    " I do not think that word means what you think it means. "
    04-06-15 11:42 PM
  10. Xenolock's Avatar
    Net Neutrality is mostly about Netflix wanting everyone to subsidize their bandwidth usage, which is about 1/3 of all data packets in the U.S.

    From a Classic
    04-16-15 12:05 PM
  11. lnichols's Avatar
    Net Neutrality is mostly about Netflix wanting everyone to subsidize their bandwidth usage, which is about 1/3 of all data packets in the U.S.

    From a Classic
    Netflix pays for their bandwidth usage via their data center and ISP contracts. The users pay for their bandwidth from their ISP. The ISP's are just pissed that everyone that they are selling 50 Meg pipes to are using 10 to 20 Mbps of it constantly with Netflix. Everyone paid for the bandwidth they are using, both Netflix and the person watching it, the ISP just doesn't want to invest to make the network support people doing so much streaming of video.

    Posted via CB10
    04-16-15 09:03 PM
  12. slagman5's Avatar
    That statement will go down in history as another 'great lie'.

    Crooks the lot of them.
    Yes, because the politicians are less so...
    04-17-15 12:26 AM
  13. slagman5's Avatar
    It would seem to be a " lesser of two evils" argument. The status quo has a lot of negatives. There are many legitimate issues which demand an authority to come in and rectify. Unfortunately, if that authority has a different agenda then it would be before if they do nothing.

    I have an idea. How about the authority go to the people and have the people submit the issue the which need to be duly addressed. And then the authority acknowledges the people's wishes and enacts changes congruent to those wishes. I know it's crazy but it would work.

    Or we can have changes which the people have no control over and are not transparent or representative of the people's wishes. Oh wait, that's exactly the situation we're in right now!

    " I do not think that word means what you think it means. "
    Can't really trust big government with these kinds of things. I find it funny that the government will dangle the net neutrality on a hook in front of the people and the people will take the bait. Makes you wonder how if the problem was with a few big companies having too much power, how the solution is to hand it off to one even larger entity such as the government...

    I prefer a few big companies that can be sued than one big government that you cannot...
    crackberry_geek likes this.
    04-17-15 12:33 AM
  14. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    Can't really trust big government with these kinds of things. I find it funny that the government will dangle the net neutrality on a hook in front of the people and the people will take the bait. Makes you wonder how if the problem was with a few big companies having too much power, how the solution is to hand it off to one even larger entity such as the government...
    What are you talking about?

    The Net Neutrality concept/movement was created by the internet populous, that have been begging big government to step in for years. Big government is stepping in because we as a populous online have been constantly asking them to. There's no hook being dangled, no carrot on a stick. It's not some cockamamie scheme initiated by the government.
    mkelley65 and Smitty13 like this.
    04-17-15 10:31 AM
  15. slagman5's Avatar
    Yeah, those horrible Europeans who think letting someone die because health insurance is only availble for the rich, or those not alread ill, is a bad thing

    Sorry, some of us don't believe in the Ayn Rand idea of society. Some of us don't think that life should be everyone for themselves.

    European taxes (depending upon the country, you know there are several, right?) pay for free health care which gives us longer life expectancy, better dental health, better cancer survival rates, etc..., pensions, disability benefits, paid maternity leave, child support (for some reason we think those little critters should have a good start to life), day care, long paid vacations, subsidised public transport....etc...

    The "wealthy" aren't going anywhere outside Europe, especially not to the US, where your own multinations are cheating their taxes by saying they're incorperated in Ireland, or the Netherlands... (yeah, Europe).

    There is only one example of a government leveraging individual's accounts, and that was in Greece, and if they'd bothered to pay their taxes in the first place, then there wouldn't have been a problem.

    We don't need to "see how that works", it already does!
    I love this myth. It is, BY LAW, illegal for a health care facility to turn anyone away due to the inability to pay. This whole "let someone die" BS is what the uninformed or intentionally manipulative individuals like to keep repeating. Go do some research before spewing your crap out the wrong hole. Thanks.

    Posted without the aid of AutoCorrect with my physical keyboard via CB10
    04-17-15 11:49 AM
  16. slagman5's Avatar
    What are you talking about?

    The Net Neutrality concept/movement was created by the internet populous, that have been begging big government to step in for years. Big government is stepping in because we as a populous online have been constantly asking them to. There's no hook being dangled, no carrot on a stick. It's not some cockamamie scheme initiated by the government.
    The "populous" will ask all kinds of things. What the government chooses to pursue is up to the government and believe me, "helping" the people is the last thing on their minds when they decide what to go after. Basically they will weigh what will benefit them the most. If you don't realize that yet, then, well, sorry...

    Posted without the aid of AutoCorrect with my physical keyboard via CB10
    04-17-15 11:51 AM
  17. crackberry_geek's Avatar
    What are you talking about?

    The Net Neutrality concept/movement was created by the internet populous, that have been begging big government to step in for years. Big government is stepping in because we as a populous online have been constantly asking them to. There's no hook being dangled, no carrot on a stick. It's not some cockamamie scheme initiated by the government.
    Really?

    And that's why they kept the whole thing secret until mandating it?

    Wake up!

    Posted via CB10
    04-17-15 02:00 PM
  18. Smitty13's Avatar
    I love this myth. It is, BY LAW, illegal for a health care facility to turn anyone away due to the inability to pay. This whole "let someone die" BS is what the uninformed or intentionally manipulative individuals like to keep repeating. Go do some research before spewing your crap out the wrong hole. Thanks.

    Posted without the aid of AutoCorrect with my physical keyboard via CB10
    Hey, as someone who works in health care I thought I would chime in here:

    While it is indeed true that in the US someone who is need of immediate medical attention (E.g. A woman going into labour and experiences complications, a person who may die from injuries, etc.) cannot be turned away, I think the salient point here is twofold: 1.) While the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) ensures prompt medical treatment in the case of emergencies, this law does absolutely nothing in regard to patients' ability to pay bills for said medical treatment; 2.) The EMTALA is worded very explicitly to only include emergency situations. Those situations are very narrow in scope according to the EMTALA. For instances, if a patient is "stable" all duties required of the hospital under the EMTALA end. The wording is:

    A patient is defined as "stable," therefore ending a hospital's EMTALA obligations, if:
    • The patient is conscious, alert, and oriented.
    • The cause of all symptoms reported by the patient or representative, and all potentially life-threatening, limb-threatening, or organ-threatening symptoms discovered by hospital staff, has been ascertained to the best of the hospital's ability.
    • Any conditions that are immediately life-threatening, limb-threatening, or organ-threatening have been treated to the best of the hospital's ability to ensure the patient does not need further inpatient care.
    Additionally, under the EMTALA, once a patient has been stabilized (and if that patients does not have insurance) all duties for the hospital now end. This act does not cover any sort of followup care even in instances that resulted from emergency. Stable I find to be a misnomer in that, say someone came in with a severed limb from an accident; once that person becomes awake and oriented and all bleeding has been effectively stopped, a hospital does have a right to refuse any further care to uninsured patient. The risk of infection or aggravation to that injury is extremely high within the first week of that injury.

    Finally, due to the narrow wording of the EMTALA someone who goes to the ER with a persistent problem but is not deemed to have any "life threatening" symptoms, they can be turned away. Heck, they would not even make it to a doctor or nurse without insurance if they are deemed not to be a priority situation under the EMTALA. In this situation, yes, a person could very easily die because symptoms may be misinterpreted, go unreported, or they simply are not deemed to be under immediate medical duress.

    Believe me when I say it, the EMTALA is rife with loopholes that can and are used on a daily basis in American health care.

    Edit: My apologies to the Mods for straying so far off topic here; it seems as though this conversation has derailed from Net Neutrality to debates about governmental systems.
    Last edited by Smitty13; 04-17-15 at 02:04 PM. Reason: Additional writing
    simu31 likes this.
    04-17-15 02:02 PM
  19. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    Really?

    And that's why they kept the whole thing secret until mandating it?

    Wake up!
    Huh? Kept what secret? The topic of Net Neutrality has been front and center publicly for years now. Ideas for solutions have been suggested and debated for quite a long time. Nothing has been held secret, and current actions finally being taken didn't suddenly come out from nowhere to the surprise of anybody. It was all done very publicly.
    mkelley65 and barnfoot like this.
    04-17-15 02:45 PM
  20. slagman5's Avatar
    Hey, as someone who works in health care I thought I would chime in here:

    While it is indeed true that in the US someone who is need of immediate medical attention (E.g. A woman going into labour and experiences complications, a person who may die from injuries, etc.) cannot be turned away, I think the salient point here is twofold: 1.) While the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) ensures prompt medical treatment in the case of emergencies, this law does absolutely nothing in regard to patients' ability to pay bills for said medical treatment; 2.) The EMTALA is worded very explicitly to only include emergency situations. Those situations are very narrow in scope according to the EMTALA. For instances, if a patient is "stable" all duties required of the hospital under the EMTALA end. The wording is:



    Additionally, under the EMTALA, once a patient has been stabilized (and if that patients does not have insurance) all duties for the hospital now end. This act does not cover any sort of followup care even in instances that resulted from emergency. Stable I find to be a misnomer in that, say someone came in with a severed limb from an accident; once that person becomes awake and oriented and all bleeding has been effectively stopped, a hospital does have a right to refuse any further care to uninsured patient. The risk of infection or aggravation to that injury is extremely high within the first week of that injury.

    Finally, due to the narrow wording of the EMTALA someone who goes to the ER with a persistent problem but is not deemed to have any "life threatening" symptoms, they can be turned away. Heck, they would not even make it to a doctor or nurse without insurance if they are deemed not to be a priority situation under the EMTALA. In this situation, yes, a person could very easily die because symptoms may be misinterpreted, go unreported, or they simply are not deemed to be under immediate medical duress.

    Believe me when I say it, the EMTALA is rife with loopholes that can and are used on a daily basis in American health care.

    Edit: My apologies to the Mods for straying so far off topic here; it seems as though this conversation has derailed from Net Neutrality to debates about governmental systems.
    That's cool, I used to work in the medical field too, and am going back soon. And I don't know if it's in every medical facility, but we didn't turn anyone away. Emergency or not. They need treatment, we provided treatment. Whether they rack up bills, they worry about that on their own. Good thing medical bills do not impact your credit score...

    Posted without the aid of AutoCorrect with my physical keyboard via CB10
    04-17-15 04:30 PM
  21. Smitty13's Avatar
    That's cool, I used to work in the medical field too, and am going back soon. And I don't know if it's in every medical facility, but we didn't turn anyone away. Emergency or not. They need treatment, we provided treatment. Whether they rack up bills, they worry about that on their own. Good thing medical bills do not impact your credit score...

    Posted without the aid of AutoCorrect with my physical keyboard via CB10
    Hey, always good to see a fellow medical worker!

    For the most part it is in almost every hospital across the US. To make a very long story short, if the medical institution accepts Medicare patients, then they fall under this Act as well; so you are indeed correct in thinking it is essentially every medical facility.

    I think the majority of hospitals do offer the treatment regardless of the finer loopholes they could exploit; these reasons might range from wanting to avoid a lawsuit (which may end up costing more to them than just providing a treatment) to moral reasons which may be a policy of the institution. Suffice to say, and I am sure you can vouch for this being in it, the medical world can surely be a confusing place sometimes!
    04-17-15 07:18 PM
  22. slagman5's Avatar
    Hey, always good to see a fellow medical worker!

    For the most part it is in almost every hospital across the US. To make a very long story short, if the medical institution accepts Medicare patients, then they fall under this Act as well; so you are indeed correct in thinking it is essentially every medical facility.

    I think the majority of hospitals do offer the treatment regardless of the finer loopholes they could exploit; these reasons might range from wanting to avoid a lawsuit (which may end up costing more to them than just providing a treatment) to moral reasons which may be a policy of the institution. Suffice to say, and I am sure you can vouch for this being in it, the medical world can surely be a confusing place sometimes!
    There are a lot of problems with our healthcare and it really ticks me off that politicians from BOTH sides care more about lining the pockets of their donators than actually fixing the problem. Yes, neither side's "solution" to the problem will actually fix the problem... Don't get me started...

    Posted without the aid of AutoCorrect with my physical keyboard via CB10
    04-17-15 08:59 PM
  23. deadcowboy's Avatar
    Net Neutrality is mostly about Netflix wanting everyone to subsidize their bandwidth usage, which is about 1/3 of all data packets in the U.S.

    From a Classic
    This is one of the more uninformed opinions I've seen on CrackBerry.

    Running 10.2.Squircle
    Last edited by deadcowboy; 04-17-15 at 10:30 PM.
    04-17-15 09:20 PM
  24. crackberry_geek's Avatar
    This is one of the more uninformed opinions I've seen on CrackBerry.

    Running 10.2.Squircle
    In your opinion...

    Posted via CB10
    04-18-15 12:02 PM
  25. MarsupilamiX's Avatar
    Can't really trust big government with these kinds of things. I find it funny that the government will dangle the net neutrality on a hook in front of the people and the people will take the bait. Makes you wonder how if the problem was with a few big companies having too much power, how the solution is to hand it off to one even larger entity such as the government...

    I prefer a few big companies that can be sued than one big government that you cannot...
    Shouldn't there be a difference, between the government who should look after its citizens (more or less) and a private entity who doesn't give a **** about their customers/land they reside in/the environment/their workers, as long as they make money?

    I'll always take the government over an anonymous financial entity, that has no nationality, has no real accountability and only has profit as a goal.
    Why would anybody prefer an amoral organisation, that values profits over anything else, over the government that has a social responsibility towards the citizens? I honestly don't get it.

    But it's like the other people say, too much government in your life?
    I am sure that something like Somalia must be more to your liking.

    I also wonder...
    If you have too much government around you...
    Do you dislike laws? Are you more of an anarchist?
    04-18-15 05:06 PM
235 ... 78910

Similar Threads

  1. Pasting is a joke in BB10
    By trevorcroft in forum BlackBerry 10 OS
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 04-16-15, 11:53 PM
  2. Why isn't my Playbook is charging?
    By Veida Jane Mendoza in forum BlackBerry PlayBook
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-26-15, 12:32 PM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-25-15, 05:37 PM
  4. Where is the voicemail indicator on my BlackBerry Classic?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum BlackBerry Motion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-25-15, 12:06 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-25-15, 10:32 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD