For Americans with a $150 family plan (with data) they may be paying $8.00 a month for this "fee", the cost is not minuscule. It is only minuscule for the Americans that are on one of these subsidized plan, as they don't have to pay the "fee" at all.
USF is 17.1% right now, so it's $25.65 on a $150 plan. Go ask supporters of this to tell you the rate. They'll probably all say less than 2%.
I don’t think for a second that Samsung's success came because they copied Apple. A lot of their success was because the other manufacturers weren't making any compelling devices. The other OEMs were making too many models and still making exclusive deals with certain carriers.
Are you kidding me? Their success ONLY came as a result of blatantly copying Apple, who was the obvious market leader in multi-touch phones.
Apple was not yet the market leader at that point. There was no hugely popular high end smartphone made by Samsung until the SGS 3 which was specifically designed to not look like the iPhone. Using your logic the SGS 6 should be a resounding success and early indicators point to the contrary.
Apple was not yet the market leader at that point. There was no hugely popular high end smartphone made by Samsung until the SGS 3 which was specifically designed to not look like the iPhone. Using your logic the SGS 6 should be a resounding success and early indicators point to the contrary.
There's really no reason for such specious arguments. This all came out in the trial under Judge Koh.
Apple was not yet the market leader at that point. There was no hugely popular high end smartphone made by Samsung until the SGS 3 which was specifically designed to not look like the iPhone. Using your logic the SGS 6 should be a resounding success and early indicators point to the contrary.
There's really no reason for such specious arguments. This all came out in the trial under Judge Koh.
And we all laughed at the abysmal actual sales numbers of Samsung's devices, or did you forget?
Here we are three years later keeping the term alive because some woman in Cleveland said it. Wow, are we pathetic or what?
Just curious, do you use the term “trickle down” in any fashion, disparaging or otherwise?
Why are you behaving as though terms don’t keep existing? Don’t try to marginalize this. It’ll be Obamacare, too, even long after it comes crashing down.
Originally Posted by MessagePad2100
Many of our countries problems can also be traced back to Bonzo Reagan.
You’re not the other guy, but maybe he’ll understand how terms stick around now.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
So who should get healthcare?
It makes sense that no one should be denied health care, but all should have to pay for it. None of this illegally forcible insurance malarkey.
You know, i just had a thought. The nazis had a really good idea on how to deal with this sort of thing. They banned usury (which makes sense), so any loans were simply repaid by a fixed amount above the amount desired. Why not do that with healthcare costs? A procedure costs $12,000 and you don’t have the money for it or insurance to cover it? Okay; pay us back a set amount of $15,000 at $250 a month.
It’s a great solution for both the interim and for after the actual problem is fixed–that being the costs of the services.
Only someone mentally ill looks at an industry and says, “Hey, everything’s too expensive (by my subjective view); instead of making changes to lower the prices so that more people can afford it when needed, why not just force everyone to have insurance to magically cover the higher costs?”
Originally Posted by jfc1138
Hey at least he didn't start a set of unpaid for multi-trillion dollar wars like some conservatives we could name eh?
He implemented the system by which those wars happened in the first place, so learn your history.
It would be nice if those Telco companies receiving this vast revenue were required to do more for universal broadband availability. I live only 4 miles from one of the two major freeways in California, but barely have phone service, let alone broadband. The notion of providing broadband access to all Americans should be FORCED on any of these large companies that want to do a merger or government approval for expansion. In a similar way that phone service was rolled out in the last century. The broadband companies won't do it unless they are forced. The larger ones including Comcast, AT&T, Charter, and the rest need to step up to a shared corporate responsibility in the country they have profited from.
It would be nice if those Telco companies receiving this vast revenue were required to do more for universal broadband availability. I live only 4 miles from one of the two major freeways in California, but barely have phone service, let alone broadband. The notion of providing broadband access to all Americans should be FORCED on any of these large companies that want to do a merger or government approval for expansion. In a similar way that phone service was rolled out in the last century. The broadband companies won't do it unless they are forced. The larger ones including Comcast, AT&T, Charter, and the rest need to step up to a shared corporate responsibility in the country they have profited from.
But this "fee" is not paid for by all the tax paying Americans from their federal income taxes. It is paid for by all the Americans with cell phones and data plans. And it's a percentage of the cost of their plans. For Americans with a $150 family plan (with data) they may be paying $8.00 a month for this "fee", the cost is not minuscule. It is only minuscule for the Americans that are on one of these subsidized plan, as they don't have to pay the "fee" at all.
What the Feds should do is mandate that all carrier service providers must provide low income Americans with an affordable plan and then give the carrier providers a tax break for maintaining such a plan. Then we would see these carrier providers competing to get as many low income people on these plans just to get the tax break for using up some of the extra bandwidth they have. But giving corporations a tax break, for any reason, is not part of the Liberal agenda. They think giving any tax breaks to corporations and the rich is the same as robbing from the poor.
Comments
Wilson was a progressive, and many of the current problems in this country can be traced back to him. So go ahead, tie it to him.
Hey at least he didn't start a set of unpaid for multi-trillion dollar wars like some conservatives we could name eh?
For Americans with a $150 family plan (with data) they may be paying $8.00 a month for this "fee", the cost is not minuscule. It is only minuscule for the Americans that are on one of these subsidized plan, as they don't have to pay the "fee" at all.
USF is 17.1% right now, so it's $25.65 on a $150 plan. Go ask supporters of this to tell you the rate. They'll probably all say less than 2%.
Apple was not yet the market leader at that point. There was no hugely popular high end smartphone made by Samsung until the SGS 3 which was specifically designed to not look like the iPhone. Using your logic the SGS 6 should be a resounding success and early indicators point to the contrary.
There's really no reason for such specious arguments. This all came out in the trial under Judge Koh.
And we all laughed at the abysmal actual sales numbers of Samsung's devices, or did you forget?
Just curious, do you use the term “trickle down” in any fashion, disparaging or otherwise?
Why are you behaving as though terms don’t keep existing? Don’t try to marginalize this. It’ll be Obamacare, too, even long after it comes crashing down.
Many of our countries problems can also be traced back to Bonzo Reagan.
You’re not the other guy, but maybe he’ll understand how terms stick around now.
It makes sense that no one should be denied health care, but all should have to pay for it. None of this illegally forcible insurance malarkey.
You know, i just had a thought. The nazis had a really good idea on how to deal with this sort of thing. They banned usury (which makes sense), so any loans were simply repaid by a fixed amount above the amount desired. Why not do that with healthcare costs? A procedure costs $12,000 and you don’t have the money for it or insurance to cover it? Okay; pay us back a set amount of $15,000 at $250 a month.
It’s a great solution for both the interim and for after the actual problem is fixed–that being the costs of the services.
Only someone mentally ill looks at an industry and says, “Hey, everything’s too expensive (by my subjective view); instead of making changes to lower the prices so that more people can afford it when needed, why not just force everyone to have insurance to magically cover the higher costs?”
He implemented the system by which those wars happened in the first place, so learn your history.
http://newnetworks.com/bookbrokenpromises/
But this "fee" is not paid for by all the tax paying Americans from their federal income taxes. It is paid for by all the Americans with cell phones and data plans. And it's a percentage of the cost of their plans. For Americans with a $150 family plan (with data) they may be paying $8.00 a month for this "fee", the cost is not minuscule. It is only minuscule for the Americans that are on one of these subsidized plan, as they don't have to pay the "fee" at all.
What the Feds should do is mandate that all carrier service providers must provide low income Americans with an affordable plan and then give the carrier providers a tax break for maintaining such a plan. Then we would see these carrier providers competing to get as many low income people on these plans just to get the tax break for using up some of the extra bandwidth they have. But giving corporations a tax break, for any reason, is not part of the Liberal agenda. They think giving any tax breaks to corporations and the rich is the same as robbing from the poor.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/kansass-failed-experiment/389874/