Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Public option is synonymous with single payer.



If the "common man" (i.e.: those not "smart enough" to agree with Mayo, and are therefore troglodyte plebes) aren't interested in the passage of a particular bit of legislation, it is more likely that they don't see the benefit in it that you do. If you're going to go on and on about "the top 1%" and our "corporate masters," you may as well start saying that we've all been mind-wiped by the Illuminati, Elvis and the Martians, High Lord Xenu, and/or the Five Jewish Bankers.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

I thought the internet was fine like it is.

This is fixing a problem that doesn't exist, and is only expanding government power. The internet is something that, atleast until now, has worked near flawlessly under the free market.

And besides, it's the FCC running this. The FCC can suck a nut.

Until we have an actual problem, and one instance of Comcast going "holy shit where is all our bandwidth!?" isn't one that wasn't corrected already, nothing needs to be done. If something ever needs to be done, it then needs to grant as little power as possible to the government to fix it.

IMO.

I wasn't aware that agovernment option competing with private interests was exactly the same as the government running the entire health care industry.



I'm really not going to talk about this with you. If you can't see that the health insurance companies spend tens of millions of dollars to fight UHC, then I really don't know what to say.

Here are some starting links where, instead of arguing the actual information, you'll argue where it's coming from instead.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health ... s_urg.html
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/newsrel ... h-congress

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

I find it humorous when conservatives throw around the "common man" title like it's some sort of rallying call and then bash others for using it to describe the same fucking people.

And you do realize that the FCC exempted Verizon and AT&T from their net neutrality rules, right? When you exempt people from your rules, guess what? They probably bribed you. They are, of course, corporations. So to call them our corporate masters isn't really going too far considering that it's a known fact that corporations have a bigger sway over politics than the politicians themselves.

Nice attempt at using exaggeration as a defense mechanism, though. Apparently, whenever you back a feral (roferal nonetheless) conservative into a corner, its only way out is to call you crazy/the Antichrist/evil/un-American.

GTFO this isn't net neutrality



source?

Well, in the net neutrality rules that were expected to pass, Verizon and AT&T were rumored to have been exempted.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/19/wireless-carriers-openly-considering-charging-per-service/

I'm not really sure what happened after that, as I've been busy farming heroics for the last four days. :3

That article doesn't even say AT&T/Verizon are going to be exempt at all. It says AT&T/Verizon are pushing to have a lot of the net neutrality rules people want to apply to broadband not apply to wireless (3G and stuff) for ALL wireless providers. There are some differences between wireless/wired in the net neutrality thing that passed, but I don't know the specifics.


What I don't understand is why they don't release the full text of what they're voting on before they actually vote on it. They still haven't released full details so everything is a bit sketch.

No, I wouldn't argue the source, because apparently what are the cool kids are doing now is this:



And since looking things up on the internet is obviously now an oddly ironic internet faux pas, I'm not even going to bother looking up any articles that explain why "public option" ends up being single-payer regardless of good intentions. I'll guarantee that more than a few of the articles I could find would probably describe how corporations are looking at how public option/single payer would be good for their bottom line since they'll be able to write health coverage off their list of costs when the government takes it over, since you're so interested in "corporate masters."

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

gtfo

It’s all pretty straight-forward imho.

Telecommunications companies used to be regulated as common carriers, so they couldn’t discriminate against any ISPs that wished to provide internet access to end users. Made sense since communication was a public necessity and the infrastructure was partly funded by taxpayer dollars. Somehow we lost that back in the 90’s to deregulation, but it was okay because you could choose any ISP you wanted because the telecorps had to provide the same service that they provided to their own ISP at the cost they charged their own ISP to any ISP that wanted to provide access.

Then a few years back we lost that too, opening the door for the telcos to leverage “their” infrastructure (which taxpayers helped fund) against their ISP “customers” and driving them out of business. If you don’t see it already, the end-game is a monopoly.

Fast forward to today and now all that’s left is packet control. You see packets have priority. Some packets say voip are tagged high priorty (lossless and low latency) while others say torrents are tagged low priority that way if you have a lot of traffic, the important stuff doesn’t get hosed. That’s excellent customer service.

When the telecorps decided maybe serious competitors to their cable programming like say Netflix, YouTube and Hulu and serious competitors to their phone service Vonage, Skype, etc could be more easily dealt with by charging them money to remain tagged as high priority on a per site basis. Meaning if Netflix and Google pay, but Hulu doesn’t, then they get the same speeds they have now, but Hulu traffic gets hosed…

This would subsidize the losses they were experiencing to their existing services and open an entirely new source of revenue where they don’t even need to provide new content or services.

A few smart folks went apeshit when they saw where this was headed and wanted to put the genie back in the bottle, or at least ensure this couldn’t happen by saying all packets (of the same type) must be treated equally (as they are currently) by law (which they aren't currently). There’d be no difference between mp4 traffic from Hulu and mp4 traffic from VerizonDirect.

We got to keep that for desktops, but we lost that for all our smartphones, ipads and any not yet created inventions that allow for mobile connectivity. Quick question where do you think the future lies, the desktop or mobil devices?

Now do you see the problem?

I like how you're trying to argue against definitions.

EDIT: I bet no matter how good of intentions people might have, some horses might become glue. Hence, with Jubbergun logic, the term "glue" is synonymous with "horse".

In other news, the Kentucky Derby has become much more boring, since it was cheaper to watch different brands of glue dry than it was to breed and train racing glues.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

The double-standards are so old.

nice google eturnal.

Because using google for a definition and then citing the site you took the definition from is the exact same as copy+pasting things you find from a google search and act like you knew them first hand.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]