Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | ChrisRR's commentslogin

Preferably not scanned at all

Oh this is a very loaded statement if I've ever seen one. What's your issue with the "demographic of your street" and what does it have to do with scanning your messages?

As a non-american this is the first I'm hearing of this. I would've thought if the majority of americans' health insurance had double overnight then there would've been massive uproar.

Can you explain what's happened?


The health insurance companies were given massive government subsidies to insure the previously (theoretically) uninsurable with no real provisions to cap rate hikes for anybody, and no alternative plan (public alternative that was originally part of the bill was killed). Large corporations received a captive market where people HAD to purchase health insurance (or pay a relatively onerous-at-the-time fine).

Insurance companies wrote for, edited, and lobbied around most of the bill as it was passed.

E: A fun downstream effect of it was that employer-provided insurance rates also went through the roof.


I wonder if this is a regional issue; didn't do anything of the sort for me and people I know in Massachusetts, but there the Affordable Care Act wasn't that different than the existing "Romneycare" state regulation. In cases where state regulation was much lesser I guess it likely had a bigger impact.


He's exaggerating. It wasn't literally overnight but over several years.


The ACA was intended to reduce the rate of rate increases, not reduce the cost overall. The proper comparison is to what the rates would have been without the ACA.

As usual, actual studies are all over the map on this. The white house said it was successful at that. NBER said it wasn't, but rates didn't double for a long time. We know rates of large increases went down for a few years, but small increases became nearly universal to compensate.


Why not both? If you're deciding where to go for lunch, it's very useful to have the menu online


As an embdded engineer I'm always disappointed at how much processing power and RAM is needed just to display websites with just images and text. The vast majority of them do not need javascript


This may be a stupid question, but what's the flaw? Surely transcribing audio requires a microphone?


What a weird post considering 5.0 is due to release today


I'm still not sure what's so impressive about the last 25 years of Windows and MacOS that means we need an absolute supercomputer by 2000 standard just to open a word document the same way we did back in Windows 2000


Didn’t Word used to be installed from 2 floppy disks? Now Calculator.app leaks 40 GB of memory. Software in this sorry state cannot be run on a supercomputer, it needs one of those theoretical ocean-boilers.


Word 4.0 for DOS from 1987, sure.


This is a false memory. The reason "splash screens" existed with little text banners updating you about the status of the program's initializers was because it took fucking forever to launch Word on a 90's PC.


> all of the information ever published in the history of the world

Why read that when you could watch 10 solid hours of clickbait?


I haven't read the article, but my presumption is that because china hold all the cards


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: