Trabisnikof posted:

What are you claiming here? That employers don't like having a lot of low hours employees?

Low wage employees are mostly disposable and its better to have a lot of them to cycle through rather than put your eggs in one basket.

Just because an employer blamed ACA for cutting hours doesn't mean that if their ACA obligations are reduced the employer will magically add hours back.

Shageletic posted:

According to the CBO report on ACA's economic impact, which I encourage all y'all to read: the law decreased the total amount of hours worked, on net, 1.5 to 2 percent. This is almost entirely because workers choose not to work to avoid taxes and gain benefits. Therefore this is will likely be a small decrease in labor participation and not a rise of unemployment. There has not been an increase in part time hours due to the law, and there has not been a wave of employers firing people because of the law.

Willa Rogers posted:

Good to hear that Obama can raise the overtime threshold, though. Do you reckon he plans to do so anytime soon?

Willa Rogers posted:

* Provide a federal safety net for those eligible for Medicaid, instead of leaving them in limbo and subject to state bureaucracy, as has occurred in California where those eligible for Medicaid had to wait up to 6 months for enrollment.

Swan Oat posted:

Senate passes TRIA reauthorization.

That's good right?

Ben Has Tiny Weenus posted:

Since we are talking healthcare right now, can someone answer a question for me?

I was having a conversation with a shockingly reasonable self proclaimed libertarian and he told me that since the ACA came into effect, his pretty good $100 a month health insurance now costs him $300 a month for the same coverage, and that one in a similar price range to his old plan has deductibles he wouldn't be able to afford and does almost nothing for him. I told him that the reason for that was likely twofold- one, because his old plan would likely drop him in a heartbeat if anything extreme happened to him, which is now illegal, and two, because we are in Mississippi and our lovely governor rejected the federal funding out of spite. Did I get this right, or is there more to it than that?

N. Senada posted:

Someone earlier made a good point about how groups are now being put in larger pool of people. It's likely your friend is/was low-risk but now has to help out people who are slightly more risky to cover. I say that with no real basis under than thinking I saw somebody say that earlier.

I would add that in addition to your other two points.

Ben Has Tiny Weenus posted:

Since we are talking healthcare right now, can someone answer a question for me?

I was having a conversation with a shockingly reasonable self proclaimed libertarian and he told me that since the ACA came into effect, his pretty good $100 a month health insurance now costs him $300 a month for the same coverage, and that one in a similar price range to his old plan has deductibles he wouldn't be able to afford and does almost nothing for him. I told him that the reason for that was likely twofold- one, because his old plan would likely drop him in a heartbeat if anything extreme happened to him, which is now illegal, and two, because we are in Mississippi and our lovely governor rejected the federal funding out of spite. Did I get this right, or is there more to it than that?

Joementum posted:

Quote of the day, "April brought another trauma to my knees which balked when I tried to rise from my lowly 14" commode. Again, I sat for hours awaiting Wade’s scheduled arrival; however his attempt to lift me was futile — when he pulled me up, he fell backwards and I fell on my knees again. Solution: We installed the tallest-available, 17 1/2" commode and a pull-up bar on my bathroom wall." ~ Alabama Democratic Party Chairwoman Nancy Worley, in her Christmas letter to fellow Democrats.

Boot and Rally posted:

Edit:

I was beaten:

Evil Fluffy posted:

How would things like the common carrier rating affect data caps?

Gounads posted:

Rejected Federal funding was just for medicaid, right? Probably doesn't apply.

Plans that used to cost $100 usually had a low lifetime cap, and a lot of people who had those plans had no idea there was a cap.

GreyPowerVan posted:

This is my state. I have to live here.

Stop it, I already hate it enough.

quote:

However frustrating the current state of race relations in the U.S., there is, according to various pundits and prognosticators, hope for the future: Millennials, they say, are the most tolerant, race-blind generation in human history. And when they grow up and constitute the bulk of the adult U.S. population, many of the problems that have plagued U.S. race-relations for centuries will simply melt away, relics of a less-enlightened past.

It’s a claim that shows up again and again. A 2010 Pew Research report trumpeted that more than two decades of research confirm that “the younger generation is more racially tolerant than their elders.” In the Chicago Tribune, Ted Gregory seized on this to declare millennials “the most tolerant generation in history.” David Burstein, the millennial author of Fast Future, said millennials are “more tolerant ... than any generation before them.” Hannah Seligson, also a millennial, sounded a similar note in the Daily Beast, writing that research “reveals that we’ve emerged as the most diverse, tolerant, pioneering, educated, and innovative generation in history.” And it’s not just the pundits: A poll from Reason-Rupe shows that in every age bracket, a majority of respondents say that "tolerant" describes millennials "very well."

Given that race-based gaps pertaining to employment opportunities, income, education, incarceration, and wealth are either persisting or growing, there’s a welcome sense that help is on the way in the form of a more racially enlightened populace.

The problem with these rosy sentiments is that they’re at least partly false. Those who claim that the rise of the millennials will usher in a new age of racial harmony are cherry-picking or misreading statistics. They’re doing so primarily in two ways: by lumping together all millennials when they report survey findings rather than breaking out white millennials views on racial issues, or by focusing narrowly on a small set of questions about explicit racial beliefs that don’t tell the full story. The fact of the matter is that millennials who are white — that is, members of the group that has always had the most regressive racial beliefs, and who will constitute a majority of U.S. voters for at least another couple of decades — are, on key questions involving race, no more open-minded than their parents. The only real difference, in fact, is that they think they are.

quote:

Younger (under-30) whites are just as likely as older ones to view whites as more intelligent and harder-working than African-Americans (among the older cohort, 64 percent felt this way, and among the younger cohort the number was 61 percent — not a statistically significant difference). “White millennials appear to be no less prejudiced than the rest of the white population,” Piston told Science of Us in an email, “at least using this dataset and this measure of prejudice.”

quote:

If white millennials were, in fact, significantly more racially tolerant than previous generations, it would show up in implicit association tests. And yet they do no better than many of their older counterparts. For example, a study of 2.5 million voluntary IAT tests from between July 2000 and May 2006 shows very little difference across age groups, with the exception of those 60 or older. Other age cutoffs show a similar result: With the exception of the elderly, who do exhibit significantly more racial animosity, there is little generational difference in implicit bias. What does divide old and young is differences in the accuracy of their self-evaluation of racial bias. While older people underestimate their bias by an average of .38 points on a four-point scale, the youngest two brackets under-report their bias by an average of .52 points on average. Younger people, in other words, are simply more deluded about their own beliefs.

FAUXTON posted:

Alabama Dems: Can't even get helped up after a poo poo.

Shageletic posted:

Back to the depressing news.

White Millenials are Just as Racist as their Parents

Evil Fluffy posted:

How would things like the common carrier rating affect data caps? Increased speeds is nice but if they can still just cap you and then start loving you hard for going over their limits due to streaming lots of TV the victory for us is somewhat diminished.

Joementum posted:

Quote of the day, "April brought another trauma to my knees which balked when I tried to rise from my lowly 14" commode. Again, I sat for hours awaiting Wade’s scheduled arrival; however his attempt to lift me was futile — when he pulled me up, he fell backwards and I fell on my knees again. Solution: We installed the tallest-available, 17 1/2" commode and a pull-up bar on my bathroom wall." ~ Alabama Democratic Party Chairwoman Nancy Worley, in her Christmas letter to fellow Democrats.

Joementum posted:

John McCain has introduced the Obamacare Opt-Out Act of 2015, which would allow you to check a box on your income tax forms nullifying a federal law.

nutranurse posted:

Shageletic posted:

Still constitute the majority of votes until 2050 or so.

Shageletic posted:

Still constitute the majority of votes until 2050 or so.

nutranurse posted:

I've said it time and time again, but the only way I can see America starting to broach race and equality issues with effective measures is to wait till we just outnumber whites in all the important states and cities, because you guys have had the last half century to do poo poo and spent it voting in the likes of Reagan.

quote:

Not unlike a mummy, the reanimated corpse of a bad bill that just doesn’t know when to stay dead is once again coming to the floor of a Congress near you this week. Tomorrow, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act — better known as CISPA — is once again going to be introduced before the House of Representatives.
The Hill confirmed the report that Maryland Representative Dutch Ruppersberger will (re- re-) introduce the bill tomorrow.
The new version is likely to be basically the same as the old, which “directs the federal government to conduct cybersecurity activities to provide shared situational awareness enabling integrated operational actions to protect, prevent, mitigate, respond to, and recover from cyber incidents.”
In other words, CISPA makes it easier for intelligence agencies to share everyone’s digital information amongst themselves, with the stated goal of preventing cyberterrorism and other hacks. But while security in the digital world is indeed rapidly proving to be at least as important as security in the physical world, the bill’s good intentions are matched by deep problems.
Specifically, lawmakers, advocates, and others have expressed concerns that as written, CISPA would allow the government to infringe (even more) on citizens’ privacy and would allow the government to demand access personal information, like emails and Internet history, without first getting search warrants or having to follow other legal procedures.
CISPA is one of those bills that just won’t stay dead. The first go at it came up for a vote in the spring of 2012. The legislation passed in the House in a 248-168 vote, but then didn’t make it in the Senate.
A year later, in 2013, CISPA came up yet again. The House once again supported it, voting 288-127 in favor, but the Senate didn’t even bother to give it a look, and there it died once more.
But with the new year comes a new Congress. Any old pending business was basically swept away when the 114th session of our august legislative body was sworn in on Tuesday, and now CISPA gets a chance to be resurrected and shamble once more before lawmakers.
Rep. Ruppersberger told The Hill, ““The reason I’m putting bill in now is I want to keep the momentum going on what’s happening out there in the world,” referring to the current zeitgeist around cybersecurity and internet espionage surrounding the Sony hack.
But Sony isn’t the only chatter flitting through the air. Revelations over the past two years about the depth and breadth of NSA snooping have given rise to a tide of talks about privacy rights.
That, too, might change some of the feeling behind CISPA this time around, even with a different party in charge of the Senate.

nutranurse posted:

I've said it time and time again, but the only way I can see America starting to broach race and equality issues with effective measures is to wait till we just outnumber whites in all the important states and cities, because you guys have had the last half century to do poo poo and spent it voting in the likes of Reagan.

Munkeymon posted:

You would hopefully have an uncapped competitor to switch to when your contract expires. It'd probably cost more or have different speed caps at peak hours, though, because those caps are there for a reason.

Amergin posted:

And Carter and Clinton and JFK and Obama...

RuanGacho posted:

That reason is making money, if you're talking about monthly caps for total download.

Shageletic posted:

Back to the depressing news.

Millenials are Just as Racist as their Parents

Nintendo Kid posted:

Yes companies want to make money in new capitalism shocker. (the incremental cost to the ISP of a gigabyte of transfer is under a penny, ISPs are a ridiculously high margin business).

Fried Chicken posted:

A candidate for the Mayor of London wear a boot on his head?

computer parts posted:

Yet mysteriously they all start voting in larger numbers after they reach the age of 30.

effectual posted:

I'm over 30 and vote, but not for dems because they don't represent me.