From the HHS website:

"Under current law, health insurance companies can’t refuse to cover you or charge you more just because you have a “pre-existing condition” — that is, a health problem you had before the date that new health coverage starts.

These rules went into effect for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014."
https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/pre-existing-conditions/index.html

This is the crux of the ACA.

It's absolutely not illegal to raise the rates for pre-existing conditions and not to cover those pre-existing conditions in the policy. And it certainly is not illegal to increase the deductible for that pre-existing condition to a ridiculous number, rendering health care unaffordable anyway. — Thanatos Sand

They can't exclude based on preexisting condition nor vary the rates based upon preexisting condition. The rates were to be kept under control in theory by mandating everyone buy insurance, including those with no preexisting condition. The system has failed because many refuse to purchase insurance despite the mandate and because of spiraling health care costs.

You're way off, not only can most citizens not afford health insurance for themselves and their children at their present rates or without a huge deductible, many are either denied insurance for present conditions or are given rates way out of affordability for those conditions. — Thanatos Sand

It's currently illegal to sell a policy that excludes for preexisting conditions. The fact that you admit the Affordable Care Act is unaffordable acknowledges it should be repealed.

That the government can now force citizens to purchase services from private industry brings us one step closer to government totally ruling our lives. — Rich

There's no difference between the government taxing us to pay private companies to insure for health care and it taxing us to to pay private companies to build roads. The argument that Obamacare is an ineffective and destructive government expansion into private enterprise is consistent with conservative thought, but the validity of that argument is ultimately empirical, as opposed to your purely ideological statement. That is, to simply decry Obamacare as an unprecedented step down the slippery slope toward unamerican socialism without offering an empirical basis for its rejection, sounds like an empty rightist rant.

The fact that The Affordable Care Act isn't affordable and doesn't address spiraling health care costs is the reason to reject it. That one side will allow the law to exist as is for the purposes of protecting it and the other will allow it to exist because it can't agree to the best way to detonate it points out that neither side really cares what the law does as much as what it represents.

"What’s the difference between nonprofit and for-profit hospitals?

Hospital officials say there are only two major differences. For-profit hospitals pay property and income taxes while nonprofit hospitals don’t. And for-profit hospitals have avenues for raising capital that nonprofits don’t have. (The ability to access capital is important for hospitals looking to upgrade facilities or buy costly medical equipment or information technology systems.)

But critics of for-profit hospitals — including labor unions, consumer groups and some legislators — say there are other differences, too. They note that unlike nonprofit hospitals, for-profit hospitals have to answer to shareholders, who may not have the same interests as the local communities. Critics also warn that for-profit hospitals are more likely to stop offering money-losing services."

The full article: https://ctmirror.org/2014/04/25/how-different-are-for-profit-and-nonprofit-hospitals/

2. In 1980 there were still many non-profit hospitals and clinics, many operated by religious organizations (like Sisters of St. Joseph Carondolet or large denominations like the Methodists, Lutherans, or baptists). Most of these non-profits either closed or were sold to for-profit companies. What effect on cost might the departure of non-profits from health care had? — Bitter Crank

And now for some fact checking:

In 2003, 62% were non-profit, 20% for profit, and 18% government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_hospital

In 2010, 58% were non-profit, 21% government, and 20% for profit. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0ahUKEwi8_YvRlrvVAhXM1CYKHYwWACUQFghdMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nonprofithealthcare.org%2Fresources%2FBasicFacts-NonprofitHospitals.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEK6qKqi-gwE0__bMHEPL3aJqnYTQ

In 2017, 51% were non-profit, 19% for profit, and 30% government. http://www.aha.org/research/rc/stat-studies/fast-facts.shtml

The 2017 percentages I had to compute because it only gave raw numbers. Assuming it valid, the trend is not toward making nonprofits into profits, but into making profits into government run.

CBT will help with the conscious part of your problem - — CasKev

Perhaps, but the negative effects of cock and ball torture often outweigh the positives, so do be careful.

They make a special hammer for permanently deleting files.

I know what the FAT is. If you delete a file, you delete only the first letter of the name in the FAT, and the file you thought was deleted wasn't.

So the question becomes
Where the hell did you find that many Legos? — Sir2u

You can hide the FAT, but there's always some clever bastard who will find it and everything else you meant to discard.

Sneezism is the religious doctrine that holds that it was a sneeze that set off the stagnant dust form into a whirlwind that eventually evolved into ducks and cows, the two most primitive forms.

It is statistically almost impossible that a random group of matter happens to have zero net rotational inertial. — noAxioms

True, but in an infinite amount of time, it occurs an infinite number of times, and that's nothing to sneeze at, cloud or no cloud.

The difference is that the Earth was never inviolable. — Michael Ossipoff

The sun was never inviolable either. That's just your baseless assertion. I could just as baselessly declare the earth, mars, oxygen, my cat, or whatever inviolable. Your basis for not probing the sun is not based upon any scientific concern that we'll lose the sun, but it's based on some primitive sun worship theology that you can't understand why no one else will adopt.

The OP can be summarized as: I worship the sun, do you? Those who agree with you might then agree with you that there should be no sun probe. Of course, their might be some sun worshipers (I'll call them Appolloians) who think the sun can successfully take on all comers and they welcome the beat down the sun will dole out to challengers. That's my view by the way, but I'm part of the Neo-orthodox wing, 1962 reformation sect Appolloian, so I'm a bit different than commoner Appolloians.

I built the ladder out of Legos. So many Legos. So so many.

Is it really a cliff if it isn't high? — CasKev

Even if a cliff is high by definition, he didn't say he threw him off the highest part of the cliff. Like once I fell off a 1000 foot ladder, but thankfully I was on the first rung.

Except I didn't bring a gallery, so it's doubtful I'll ever find her lapel.

What did you say your address was again?

Well Wosret, I'll offer you some free therapy, because, you know, why not? People like to talk about themselves and they like to hear about themselves even more. You've shared a lot here, so, based upon that information, I'm going to offer you an evaluation and advice.

You describe your father as passive, dependent, irresponsible, but very kind. You describe your mother as manipulative, domineering, and unkind. In short, your father is non-paternal and your mother non-maternal. All of this explains your own gender confusion. I'm sure there's more to it, but I'm not a real psychologist, so I could be wrong, although I never am.

You, despite your self-loathing, are a shining star operating within the underclass. You are very smart, very perceptive, very conscientious, and very moral. You work hard and your main focus is others. Your conscientiousness and hard work have created stability for others, although few (if any) of these others share in your conscientiousness or have your work ethic. As the result of their lack of shared values, they cling to you and take advantage of the resources you provide them without them offering anything in return other than their presence. You treasure their presence, even though you realize that they heavily burden you. The reason you treasure their presence is because you gain comfort from giving to others and you equate loneliness to meaninglessness. You need people you love around you, even if those others do nothing to show you that they love you back, and even if they only burden you in all sorts of ways.

The rung of society where you have found yourself is harsh and unkind. Most in the trailer park where you live do not share in your values or have your intellect, nor do most of the people you work with roofing houses. I'm not being judgmental here, and there are plenty of good folks (like yourself) who have found themselves struggling, but many are there due to inability to go anywhere else. You've convinced yourself that you're one of them. You're not.

There are two possible solutions here: (1) come to terms with your oppressive environment and those you interact with through counseling and self-exploration, or (2) get the hell out of there. #1 isn't going to happen. #2, as I noted in a prior post, is achieved through going to college, getting a better job, and moving up the socioeconomic ladder. #2 is hard. #1 impossible.

That is to say, the problem is not with the person sitting in the chair. The problem is with the chair you're sitting in. You are uncomfortable not because your body and mind are weak. You are uncomfortable because you're sitting in a broken chair. Get a new chair. You'll be amazed how much better you'll feel once you do that.

I mean trunk, not boot. Also, it's hood, not bonnet if that ever comes up.

Hello? We didn't build and send those things.

Our role needn't extend to intrusively experiments on the Earth's energy source. — Michael Ossipoff

This feels trollish.

Hanover's definition of "stupid":

"Not in agreement with Hanover.' — Michael Ossipoff

Not really. My comment was insulting, sure, and I should have picked another word, but, really, you're arguing that we shouldn't send a probe to the sun because the sun is super special and should be spared earthly particles that are sent up to look at it? How is that a defensible position? It's not like we're spitting on God or something.

I get that what we say here is irrelevant in that no one would actually listen to us when deciding what to do, but I can think of few worse reasons to call off the sun probe than because it's a cosmic insult. Let's suppose Trump declared tomorrow there was not to be a sun probe because sun area is inviolable by man. That'd go down as a really stupid decision, right?

This discussion has devolved to repetition, and nothing other than repetition.

I suggest that we've all had our say.

Hasn't this discussion run its course and reached its conclusion? — Michael Ossipoff

You think you can just tell people you've heard enough and they'll be quiet for you? I think the conversation will organically end, like when people are tired of talking about it, not when someone else decides it's quiet time.

Alright, so follow me here because this is like really important. It's about emojis just so you know up front.

There are some cars that have a rounded truck. I'll show you:



Now, you might say "why come it's round like dat," assuming you talk like a hip 5 year old.

The answer is cuz in days of yore, all the old cars had tires attached to the back like so:



Now you see it sometimes on SUVs and Jeeps, but on normal cars, they just mimic what used to be there, sort of to remind you how things once were. There might be a day when people make new cars with round trucks and no one will know why. It will be lost to time.

Alright, so what does this have to do with emojis you ask? Well, I daresay that one day, likely soon, people will no longer talk to each other and make actual expressions, but everyone will just have blank faces. We'll send emojis back and forth to each other and we won't know why anymore.

I predict this will happen by Wednesday, maybe Thursday morning.

Thank you for following me on this . It was important.

Is there anything that's inviolable? — Michael Ossipoff

The basis of your objection to the probe is that the sun is sacred? You don't see this objection as stupid?

I'm not suggesting that there couldn't be an argument made against the probe, like it's an unnecessary expenditure of public funds when there are people in great need, but objecting on the basis of disrespect for a giant ball of energy isn't very persuasive. I'm sure the sun encounters far greater threats from random debris on a day to day basis (Icarus, for instance) without us having to worry about a tiny chunk of steel getting too close to it.

Hang a Uey.

I think everyone should get the same trophy regardless of where they finish in the race. In fact, I think everyone should get the same trophy regardless of whether they even show up for the race. Better yet, those who work to make themselves look great should not get a trophy at all because they're just trying to make me jealous. Screw them. Why would we they do that to me? That's mean as shit.

Think about it. If some crazy guy wants X, then I'd be a fool not to provide it, because I'd be dropping the opportunity to make money. That's why consumerism naturally and inevitably leads to leftism (transexual bathrooms, transexual surgeries, etc. etc.). — Agustino

Capitalism does lead to an increase in human rights, which is something the left does not generally want to accept. In fact, they incorrectly argue the opposite.

Your preoccupation with the gender dysphoric and to those with sexual appetites and norms varying from your own is odd and diverts otherwise meaningful conversations.

And for what it's worth, I absolutely don't see myself as a consumer. — Agustino

That you don't see yourself as a consumer doesn't mean you're not. It just means you're dysphoric.

Your attempt to assert that I am equivocal on the use of terms like "monopoly," "corporation," and so on isn't warranted because these terms can be used in a non-legal sense. — Thorongil

You are equivocal and vague in your usage of the terms, except perhaps by "corporation," you mean bogeyman.

I think the point of the article was not really to go back to the Bushmen's hunting-gathering life but how to overcome workaholism- the pervasive habit to "go to work". It is acknowledging that there are other modes of life that require less formal work and have been practiced in our early history. How do people get beyond this habitual thinking that may be simply cultural baggage rather than a rooted fact of life. — schopenhauer1

The "go to work" mentality does result in added stressors, but it also results in the very things we often take for granted, like medical care, roads, parks, and all sorts of other basic infrastructure. If we all limited our work to 15 hours a week, or even if we stopped incentivizing those folks who are incentivized by the acquisition of worldly goods, we would all have less. What we would have less of would not be limited to purely luxury items, but of many of the basic necessities and conveniences of modern life.

Like it or not, those folks out there killing themselves for riches are contributing to the public good through taxes at far greater rates than those who have taken a more relaxed approach to life. Your roads, your schools, you medical care, and much else is funded by those who lives you criticize.

And that was my point is pointing out the abject poverty that the bushmen live in, which is the result, in part, of their lack of work, and really, it's based upon a social structure that outlived its usefulness thousands of years ago.

No, actually that's not true. I despise large corporations (>$10 billion revenue) because of the unfair financial strength that they wield. The rest of us cannot compete with them, because we don't have the financial strength to bully people, the way they do. And no law can prevent brute strength, we already know that. — Agustino

As a competitor you're unhappy, but since we're a consumer driven society, we care only about cheaper products, which is exactly what we get. It's not that Wal-Mart has bullied me into buying their products. I buy them because they are cheaper.

No one likes companies that do disgraceful things, myself included. It seems you're trying to be overly technical when reading the terms I have employed in order to accuse me of being "hopelessly vague, equivocal, and ambiguous," when I think it was obvious the sense in which I used them. — Thorongil

Your objection was over the "leftist equivocation of the word," and it's clear that your use of the word includes even companies that aren't corporations and it doesn't exclude some companies that are corporations. My objection was over your equivocation, which it is. It's as I said it was: you don't like unscrupulous companies, large or small and regardless of corporate status. How is that at all an important claim? I don't like bad people either.

Which is what it is. Monopolistic corporate behemoths are antithetical to capitalism. Don't fall for the leftist equivocation on this word. — Thorongil

Your use of the word "corporate" is hopelessly vague, equivocal, and ambiguous. It's not all corporations that you don't like, just big ones, and it's not just big corporations you don't like, but just big businesses regardless of corporate status, and it's not all big business you don't like, just certain ones, namely the ones you don't like. It's also irrelevant to you whether the business is a monopoly. You don't like some even where there's competition.

That is, you doubtfully have any problem with the mom and pop restaurant down the street, despite that it's incorporated, although you might have a problem with the Dyson vacuum company and its $4.4 billion value, despite it being owned by single person, and you might dislike Wal-Mart, despite it not being a monopoly and having many competitors, and you might like your local power company, despite it being a monopoly and not having any competitors.

In short, what you don't like are those companies who do distasteful things, which has nothing to do with their corporate status and nothing to do with how many competitors it might have.

It's probably harder to be clinically depressed living in their society than for drones ensconced in cubicles in New York or Tokyo. — Thorongil

I think the concept of clinical depression is foreign to those whose focus is on survival. There are better ways to avoid first world problems than by moving to the third world where they have real problems.

Fifteen hours of work a week has its advantages, but then there's this:

"The bushmen’s diet and relaxed lifestyle have prevented most of the stress-related diseases of the western world. Bushmen health, in general, is not good though: 50% of children die before the age of 15; 20% die within their first year (mostly of gastrointestinal infections). Average life expectancy is about 45-50 years; respiratory infections and malaria are the major reasons for death in adults. Only 10% become older than 60 years."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjS4L6KpaLVAhUCPiYKHQefD3QQFggoMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kalahari-meerkats.com%2Ffileadmin%2Ffiles%2Fguides%2FBushmen_light.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGFCacDB8KshdirNU6bSduQDJ_k5Q

Monogamy, it seems, is increasingly being thought of as oppressive, destructive, irrational, and probably plenty of other adjectives I could think of. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

No it's not. That's post-modern nonsense that has few adherents outside the academic world.

I found her at the bottom of the cliff. I named her 69.

In the biography section, it asks you to state your "Favourite philosophers."

Can we Americanize (i.e. improve) this to read "Favorite philosophers"?

Beautiful friend, the end, of our elaborate plans, the end, no safety no surprise, the end.

This could be heaven or this could be hell.

I take comfort in knowing there will always be more to be said even when there is nothing really being said.

The alternative played out at the old PF, where we had a similar thread where nothing was being said all the way to the moment when literally nothing was said anymore.