Your Universal Remote Control Center
RemoteCentral.com
Custom Installers' Lounge Forum - View Post
Previous section Next section Previous page Next page Up level
Up level
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:

Login:
Pass:
 
 

Page 3 of 3
Topic:
Breaking: the FCC just released its plan to kill net neutrality
This thread has 41 replies. Displaying posts 31 through 42.
Post 31 made on Friday November 24, 2017 at 15:04
Mac Burks (39)
Elite Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2007
17,515
On November 24, 2017 at 09:45, highfigh said...
A lot of people have reversed the meaning of the words 'want' and 'need'- they say/believe they need something when that's far from reality.

Wants become needs in civilization. No one needed water brought into their homes. They just wanted it. Now people think they need it. We don't need roads...Humanity walked the globe before shoes were invented let alone the automobile.



Fee-based utilities like electric power, natural gas and water don't tell people how to use these and that's one difference- if someone like the PMRC (remember Tipper Gore's group that demanded labels for "objectionable content" in music?) is able to decide how people use the internet, it will be the end of its growth. Reasonable tiers for data use isn't the problem (for me), but intrusice control practices are IF they become common.

Labeling things with "GMO" or "Explicit Lyrics" is stupid and i understand it affects business by creating confusion and shouldn't be allowed but it doesn't stop me personally from buying whatever corn or CD i want. If Comcast wants to force me to click through a "yes i am 18 and want to see boobs" nag every time i went to see boobs...no big deal. Labeling music and corn and websites isn't the same thing as blocking someones access though.

Charging more for accounts that use more internet is about as American as dropping bombs in the middle east. Its pure capitalism...like Reagan Era capitalism not the oligarchy grind we find ourselves in now. How can any American be against this?

Blocking access to a service or site is the only thing that bothers me...ONLY because the ISP's have monopolies in most areas. If we actually had a choice (2 or more) this wouldn't be an issue for me either. I would just go with the company that lets me access what i want to access.

The ACA is misnamed on many levels- it's not affordable and it's not about guaranteeing health care- it's a way to make sure the insurance companies are paid for funding health care by forcing people to share the cost. The biggest problem with how insurance companies operate is due to their admin costs being higher than the payments they make. If we could all use something like an HSA (and if this practice had been used more in the past), I don't think the health insurance would have become the monster it is. Hospitals, clinics and doctors have discounted cash payments from people who were uninsured/high deductible patients for a long time, but it's easier for some to just hand over the insurance card and let someone else deal with the payment.

Affordable means something different to everyone. It's not affordable when compared to no insurance or junk insurance. It's very affordable vs coming up with $500k to deal with kidney or liver or kidney and liver failure.

The problem isn't that ACA is expensive. The problem is that it exists. Healthcare should be $100 a month per person. Who will pay for it? The guys writing checks for tanks and helicopters and caskets we ship to the middle east. Obviously that would mean we have to stop our endless wars...or at least ask the oil companies to pay their army instead of forcing tax payers to do it for them under the guise of freedom.
Avid Stamp Collector - I really love 39 Cent Stamps
Post 32 made on Friday November 24, 2017 at 19:19
tomciara
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2002
7,958
On November 24, 2017 at 15:04, Mac Burks (39) said...
Affordable means something different to everyone.
(blah)
The problem isn't that ACA is expensive.

What you forgot is that President Obama came before the American people, (you can find this on the Internet if you want to verify), and said specifically that your health care will be less than your cell phone bill.

So as the major proponent, that is what HE meant by affordable. The other side understands economics, and knew it was not possible. That has proven to be the case.

So I will affirm the fact that people need healthcare, and agree with you on many points, but don't go down the path of obscuring simple definitions like this.
There is no truth anymore. Only assertions. The internet world has no interest in truth, only vindication for preconceived assumptions.
Post 33 made on Saturday November 25, 2017 at 09:40
highfigh
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
September 2004
8,311
On November 24, 2017 at 15:04, Mac Burks (39) said...
Wants become needs in civilization. No one needed water brought into their homes. They just wanted it. Now people think they need it. We don't need roads...Humanity walked the globe before shoes were invented let alone the automobile.

Labeling things with "GMO" or "Explicit Lyrics" is stupid and i understand it affects business by creating confusion and shouldn't be allowed but it doesn't stop me personally from buying whatever corn or CD i want. If Comcast wants to force me to click through a "yes i am 18 and want to see boobs" nag every time i went to see boobs...no big deal. Labeling music and corn and websites isn't the same thing as blocking someones access though.

Charging more for accounts that use more internet is about as American as dropping bombs in the middle east. Its pure capitalism...like Reagan Era capitalism not the oligarchy grind we find ourselves in now. How can any American be against this?

Blocking access to a service or site is the only thing that bothers me...ONLY because the ISP's have monopolies in most areas. If we actually had a choice (2 or more) this wouldn't be an issue for me either. I would just go with the company that lets me access what i want to access.

Affordable means something different to everyone. It's not affordable when compared to no insurance or junk insurance. It's very affordable vs coming up with $500k to deal with kidney or liver or kidney and liver failure.

The problem isn't that ACA is expensive. The problem is that it exists. Healthcare should be $100 a month per person. Who will pay for it? The guys writing checks for tanks and helicopters and caskets we ship to the middle east. Obviously that would mean we have to stop our endless wars...or at least ask the oil companies to pay their army instead of forcing tax payers to do it for them under the guise of freedom.

Want vs need becomes 'Keeping Up With The Jones' ' very quickly. Does anyone need to erect the tallest building? Indoor plumbing is great- don't have to go out during Winter to chip ice off of a well pump or find that it's frozen solid. However, with progress comes needs- we didn't need roads until wheeled transportation became common.

I don't know what you're looking for on the internet, but if corn and nagging boobs does it for ya, carry on.

So, charging for quantity is pure capitalism? Do you sell one foot of cable for the same price as 1000 feet? No, of course not. You charge, based on your cost and if you don't charge for additional products and services, you lose money. The concept of saving personal income is EXACTLY the same as making a profit. There's nothing wrong with recovering your cost or even making a profit. More bandwidth costs more to provide for one user, or a million. Why is saving for retirement OK and corporate profit bad? Both are done as a way to save for the future. Well, without the shareholder aspect.

How can you pick a random number like $100/month? What is your basis for that? That would require ALL health care to cost less than that, if you want people who provide it to earn a living, build hospitals and buy supplies. The problem is the insurance industry- they charge doctors and hospitals for protection, they charge us so our health care will be partially paid for by their having collected a shitload of money so that "we can share in the cost" but what do they do with it? Do they ONLY spend what we paid? No, absolutely not! They pay big bonuses, build impressive headquarters, send their top agents on paid trips, etc. Let's audit them, if we want to see how much insurance SHOULD cost.

'Affordable' is relative, for sure but after posting yesterday, I did some number crunching on an insurance site- if someone needs no care and they're in the lowest income range used for the rates, they might pay about $165/month. That lowest range starts at $11K/year. I didn't look for subsidies but if they don't get any, a single person who can only afford that premium might end up paying more than they make for a year if they eat the deductible, co-pay and drug costs for an event or a recurring problem. That's not affordable.

As I wrote before, administrative costs are the single highest expense for the insurers- some kind of HSA and direct payment would reduce EVERYONE's costs. If they want to make it easier for poor people to be insured, I would bet that 1% of everyone's gross income would pay for it with ease. Personal income in the US came in at about $16 Trillion last year and health care cost about $3.2Trillion, up about 6% form the year before. Why did it rise so much? Because people spent more for their insurance! Health care expense will hit $10K/person this year, but what about those who spend almost nothing?

[Link: money.cnn.com]

I have never been a fan of the insurance industry- we're betting that we'll have an insurable event an they're betting against it. They usually win.

WRT the bold section- if we could resist paying the IRS when we disagree on what the government spends, they wouldn't have much choice, in theory. Even when most people pay their taxes, it hasn't stopped Congress from over-spending, so.....
My mechanic told me, "I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder."
Post 34 made on Saturday November 25, 2017 at 10:03
Mac Burks (39)
Elite Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2007
17,515
On November 25, 2017 at 09:40, highfigh said...
Want vs need becomes 'Keeping Up With The Jones' ' very quickly. Does anyone need to erect the tallest building? Indoor plumbing is great- don't have to go out during Winter to chip ice off of a well pump or find that it's frozen solid. However, with progress comes needs- we didn't need roads until wheeled transportation became common.

Living in a tall building is great. You can see much further than your front porch.

So does "great" = "need"? Trying to figure out where you are drawing the line. Seems to be moving.

I don't know what you're looking for on the internet, but if corn and nagging boobs does it for ya, carry on.

I will be thinking of you each time i put my cursor in the search hole.

So, charging for quantity is pure capitalism? Do you sell one foot of cable for the same price as 1000 feet? No, of course not. You charge, based on your cost and if you don't charge for additional products and services, you lose money. The concept of saving personal income is EXACTLY the same as making a profit. There's nothing wrong with recovering your cost or even making a profit. More bandwidth costs more to provide for one user, or a million. Why is saving for retirement OK and corporate profit bad? Both are done as a way to save for the future. Well, without the shareholder aspect.

Selling things for whatever you want is pure capitalism. "Charging based on cost" could include the fact that Comcast wants to double their CEOs salary this year.

How can you pick a random number like $100/month? What is your basis for that? That would require ALL health care to cost less than that, if you want people who provide it to earn a living, build hospitals and buy supplies. The problem is the insurance industry- they charge doctors and hospitals for protection, they charge us so our health care will be partially paid for by their having collected a shitload of money so that "we can share in the cost" but what do they do with it? Do they ONLY spend what we paid? No, absolutely not! They pay big bonuses, build impressive headquarters, send their top agents on paid trips, etc. Let's audit them, if we want to see how much insurance SHOULD cost.

I can pick $100 a month at random the same way the insurance company randomly decides to charge me $500 a month.

'Affordable' is relative, for sure but after posting yesterday, I did some number crunching on an insurance site- if someone needs no care and they're in the lowest income range used for the rates, they might pay about $165/month. That lowest range starts at $11K/year. I didn't look for subsidies but if they don't get any, a single person who can only afford that premium might end up paying more than they make for a year if they eat the deductible, co-pay and drug costs for an event or a recurring problem. That's not affordable.

It might seem that way until they actually need that insurance. My brother fought and lost the battle with liver disease for 3 years. Whole Foods Insurance covered (so far) 3/4 of a million dollars. Only a few hundred out of pocket expenses that would probably be covered if we took the time to submit the claim.

Which brings up another good point. Why am i paying $500 for insurance that doesn't cover me as well as my brothers insurance covered him? He paid a fraction of what i pay. More random numbers.

As I wrote before, administrative costs are the single highest expense for the insurers- some kind of HSA and direct payment would reduce EVERYONE's costs. If they want to make it easier for poor people to be insured, I would bet that 1% of everyone's gross income would pay for it with ease. Personal income in the US came in at about $16 Trillion last year and health care cost about $3.2Trillion, up about 6% form the year before. Why did it rise so much? Because people spent more for their insurance! Health care expense will hit $10K/person this year, but what about those who spend almost nothing?

Eliminate insurance companies. $100 a month per person. We can bankroll most of the poor people with the tax break we are planning to give the Waltons.




I have never been a fan of the insurance industry- we're betting that we'll have an insurable event an they're betting against it. They usually win.

WRT the bold section- if we could resist paying the IRS when we disagree on what the government spends, they wouldn't have much choice, in theory. Even when most people pay their taxes, it hasn't stopped Congress from over-spending, so.....
Avid Stamp Collector - I really love 39 Cent Stamps
Post 35 made on Saturday November 25, 2017 at 10:07
Mac Burks (39)
Elite Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2007
17,515
On November 24, 2017 at 19:19, tomciara said...
What you forgot is that President Obama came before the American people, (you can find this on the Internet if you want to verify), and said specifically that your health care will be less than your cell phone bill.

....and then...

The "law makers" started piling their bloat into the legislation.

Law makers lie. Trump said he would defeat ISIS in 30 days. Clinton said he didn't have sexual relations with Monica Lewinski. Bush sent thousands of Americans to kill 10's of thousands in Iraq because he had a hunch.

So as the major proponent, that is what HE meant by affordable. The other side understands economics, and knew it was not possible. That has proven to be the case.

The other side understands economics yet spent the last few decades waiting for trickle down to work.

So I will affirm the fact that people need healthcare, and agree with you on many points, but don't go down the path of obscuring simple definitions like this.

When you get your trickle down pay out you can chime in about how math works.
Avid Stamp Collector - I really love 39 Cent Stamps
Post 36 made on Saturday November 25, 2017 at 10:51
tomciara
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2002
7,958
If defining simple terms gets too dicey, move the discussion to whether politicians lie. I get it.
There is no truth anymore. Only assertions. The internet world has no interest in truth, only vindication for preconceived assumptions.
OP | Post 37 made on Saturday November 25, 2017 at 10:54
Ernie Gilman
Yes, That Ernie!
Joined:
Posts:
December 2001
30,104
On November 25, 2017 at 10:07, Mac Burks (39) said...
....and then...

The "law makers" started piling their bloat into the legislation.

Well, these two possibilities seem pretty obvious to me:

1. Obama was a savvy political operator, and be knew that this would happen and would bring about, as he put it, "fundamental change" to the nation.

Or

2. Obama was just a naive and ineffective "organizer" who did not realize that EVERYTHING proposed to become law would have to be reviewed, and if new enough, would likely be gutted by the opposition.
A good answer is easier with a clear question giving the make and model of everything.
"The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." -- G. “Bernie” Shaw
Post 38 made on Saturday November 25, 2017 at 11:18
buzz
Super Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2003
4,366
With respect to taxes and everything that taxes support, the selling point for whatever faction is yelling at the moment, is that #1 is paying less than the other guys who have weaker lobby support. The poor wants the rich to pay more and the rich would love a simple per capita flat tax.

With respect to health insurance, it should be treated similarly to a life Insurance annuity. One can buy-in inexpensively early in the process. The ACA attempts to do this with the mandate. Unfortunately, there is an important complication for health insurance because the payout is a moving target — life insurance has a fixed payout.
Post 39 made on Saturday November 25, 2017 at 12:26
highfigh
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
September 2004
8,311
On November 25, 2017 at 10:03, Mac Burks (39) said...
I can pick $100 a month at random the same way the insurance company randomly decides to charge me $500 a month.

You think insurance companies deal with random numbers? Don't bet on it- they have calculated the odds of our having a claim to a very fine degree and the insurance industry is hundreds of years old. The practice of shared risk began thousands of years ago.

They charge you $500/month because A) you or your employer chose that plan and B) the insurance company makes money if enough people don't file a major claim. They aren't in business to make friends.
My mechanic told me, "I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder."
Post 40 made on Tuesday June 26, 2018 at 08:48
thecapnredfish
Senior Member
Joined:
Posts:
February 2008
1,397
I’m going to say it is a good idea. For many reasons. Maybe I am wrong. The infrastructure the internet runs on must be maintained and serviced by someone. Television is also run along that same infrastructure. With so many cord cutters and younger people never signing up for tv, these companies must make up lost revenue to maintain this infrastructure and make a profit. Why should huge businesses make billions free of any charge to deliver it. That’s like amazon not having to pay Fedex, UPS or the USPS. Or Walmart trucks getting tax free fuel and three lanes of a highway all to themselves.
I suppose it we be more fair to charge heavy users like Netflix, but it’s easier to charge consumers.
Thoughts? Makes most of you mad at the thought of having to pay for something doesn’t it? Things change.
Post 41 made on Tuesday June 26, 2018 at 13:22
weddellkw
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
January 2013
186
On June 26, 2018 at 08:48, thecapnredfish said...
I’m going to say it is a good idea. For many reasons. Maybe I am wrong. The infrastructure the internet runs on must be maintained and serviced by someone. Television is also run along that same infrastructure. With so many cord cutters and younger people never signing up for tv, these companies must make up lost revenue to maintain this infrastructure and make a profit. Why should huge businesses make billions free of any charge to deliver it. That’s like amazon not having to pay Fedex, UPS or the USPS. Or Walmart trucks getting tax free fuel and three lanes of a highway all to themselves.
I suppose it we be more fair to charge heavy users like Netflix, but it’s easier to charge consumers.
Thoughts? Makes most of you mad at the thought of having to pay for something doesn’t it? Things change.

The ISPs are already massively profitable AND largely operate w/ gov-granted monopoly powers. Paid prioritization is just rent-seeking.

You pay Netflix/etc for the content. You pay your ISP for access to that content. Netflix/etc pay for their network service AND help the ISPs via peering or co-locating to localize content...everybody is getting paid (except the consumer).
[Link: openconnect.netflix.com]

Not sure how you do the mental gymnastics to think AT&T, Verizon, Comcast etc have the virtuous argument. They also argue they should be able to store records of all of your traffic and further monetize it. And call data-capped plans 'unlimited' with a straight face.

It doesn't really matter, w/ direction of recent federal anti-trust decisions, we'll all be paying a handful of monolithic corp's for everything anyway.
Post 42 made on Tuesday June 26, 2018 at 19:27
thecapnredfish
Senior Member
Joined:
Posts:
February 2008
1,397
Interesting link. Thank you
Page 3 of 3


Jump to


Protected Feature Before you can reply to a message...
You must first register for a Remote Central user account - it's fast and free! Or, if you already have an account, please login now.

Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.

Hosting Services by ipHouse