Sry... I'm new to CO. Your'e right... Amendment 69 failed (72% against or something?!?! who knows... I voted in favor).
The correct name is "Health First Colorado". I signed up the day I was hurt, they backdated the signup to the month prior. It took less than 15 minutes to become covered.
I've been working for 20+ years, with spats of insured or not-insured throughout... mostly uninsured. After I left my SF gig, I gave up my insurance & didn't get any more since I'd already had 6 months for the year.
I'm in colorado.. just to be clear, we definitely do not have any type of universal coverage here, and Health First Colorado is not open to everyone. It's just normal medicaid.
They didn't care if you signed up when you were injured because you would have qualified for it anyway... you just didn't complete the paperwork. You definitely cannot do this when you exceed the income limit for medicaid and have to get normal health insurance.
The ACA increased the limits to qualify for medicaid. I know there were a few states balking at increased medicaid costs.. but you could have gotten this in most states, including CA.
Just like someone with low IQ and GPA and born in the US is in, but someone with high IQ but not lucky enough to come out of a vagina in the US is out.
There are several floors that have "real" action. A couple of the options pits that are truly specialist and the CBOE VIX pits for instance come to mind.
But I don't think anyone believes those have more than a couple of years left in them.
If you actually read both links I provided, you might find them interesting. Also, why shouldn't I quote r/AskHistorians when discussing historical events?
r/AskHistorians has some of the highest quality research you're going to find on the internet, at least if you're not a history major yourself. The mods there are amazing, and the posts usually have sources you can look into yourself.
If you haven't browsed it before, I highly recommend looking into it.
Well at least one US president actually did nuke civilians, on purpose, twice, instead of merely talking about it. Another fire bombed them. And that's even before Vietnam, Laos, Iraq, or drone assassinations where any civilian can just be labeled as non-civilian by the government without much proof or oversight.
By what legal standard was it a crime? Keep in mind, that it has to be a standard that was at force at the time of the attack; and that the nuclear bombings were not even the deadliest air raids during the war.
"[Chief US prosecutor] Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg. I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas." - US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone [0]
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." - US Constitution Article 1 Section 9 [1]
"No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed." - United Nations Universal Declaration of human rights. Article 11 [2]
Is that a rhetorical question? Of course yes! More seriously, international tribunals always present a difficulty from the law standpoint. "Presidents" always arrange their country to not sign international treaties and dodge international penalties (e.g. Singapore has never signed treaties against torture). Of course Nuremberg and Tokyo trials could be viewed as a farce by exaggerating the doubts, but they're extremely widely legitimate. Legality without legitimacy also happens: The Hague tribunal is legal but its legitimacy is criticized because it only attacks African presidents. Being legal is the bonus that brings a mathematical proof to a decision, but being legitimate is even more important.
In a parallel fashion, WWII's Prisoners Of War (POWs) were renamed DEF by the US ("Disarmed Enemy Forces"), to dodge the Geneva convention about POWs, and some were badly treated (The Wikipedia page has a discussion on the numbers – see "Other Losses").
Yes. My point was that if atrocities against civilians in Hiroshima or Dresden were not crimes by gizmo686's logic above, then neither were Nazi atrocities, and Nuremberg and Tokyo trials were nothing but a fancy lynching.
Not quite. If the Allies prosecuted German pilots and their commanders for, say, strategic bombing of London - including civilian targets - then yes, it would have been a sham. But they weren't, precisely because the Allies did it too. So the atrocities people were prosecuted for at Nuremberg was stuff like shooting surrendered prisoners, or deliberately executing civilians in controlled areas.
Yes. However, I was merely applying gizmo686's criterion of a crime, "it has to be a standard that was at force at the time of the attack", to Nazis in similar fashion as (s)he applied it to Allies.
The way they did it was by claiming that the crimes didn't stem from any written law, but rather from an unwritten universal (for Europe, at least) custom. This is not actually all that far fetched - the notion of "customs of war" long predated any formal conventions etc.
That's ridiculous. The nazis eradicated a peaceful civilian population. The USA nuked cities where literally everyone was somehow engaged in a war against them, and who had started it in the first place.
Are you going to pretend that no civilians were killed during the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
If you don't, you have your crime. Killing civilians was pretty damn widely agreed upon on that it's not acceptable.
The US committed a war crime, and a crime against humanity. Accept it. It's not the first, and there are plenty others to follow.
How do we meaningfully say that something is internationally illegal? Or how do we say that a nation commits crimes? There is no international legislative body. The International Criminal Court isn't respected. When the ICC is disrespected, an international police force doesn't come to enforce the court's will. And by what basis is the ICC even the legitimate court of the international?
The notion that there are some "norms of civilized behavior" that go beyond states and their written laws is very old, dating back centuries and even millenia:
That's my Google Maps traffic experience pretty much daily. The section of the map that I actually need NOW is all of a sudden not rendering exactly when I need it, but hey here's traffic for the rest of the city.
"workers owning the means of production" is neither necessary nor sufficient for socialism.
The only people who advance this peculiar definition are members of the American left, presumably as a way to define themselves out of being "socialist"!
French Wikipedia has a better definition: the elimination of inequality and social classes.
> The word "socialism" covers a very diverse set of currents of thought and political movements, whose common purpose is to seek social and economic justice. The original goal of socialism is to achieve the social equality, or at least a reduction of inequalities and, particularly for Marxists, to establish a society without social classes.
I guess you could say "socialism" is a label and not a description.
It's unclear where you got the impression that collective ownership of the means of production is a definition of socialism invented by the American Left. The idea originates with Marx and Engels, the latter elaborating that it is both necessary and sufficient for the elimination of social classes:
"...said Marx, what we observe historically is that only one class of persons has always owned or monopolized the means of production throughout history. This condition of ownership over the means of production is the single most fundamental fact of the materialistic theory of history since it is this that leads to the division of society into economic classes." [Morrison, Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of Modern Social Thought, p. 44, paraphrasing Marx, The Germany Ideology, pp. 8-13.]
"...it was seen that all past history, with the exception of its primitive stages, was the history of class struggles; that these social classes warring with each other are always the products of the relations of production and exchange -- in a word, of the economic relations of their epoch; that therefore the economic structure of society always forms the real basis, from which, in the last analysis, the whole superstructure of legal and political institutions as well as of the religious, philosophical, and other ideas of a given historical period is to be explained." [Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, p. 72.]
"The proletariat seizes state power and to begin with transforms the means of production into state property. But it thus puts an end to itself as proletariat, it thus puts an end to all class differences and class antagonisms and thus also to the state as state." [Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, p. 93.]
tl;dr--In the analysis of Marx and Engels, ownership of the means of production is what divides economic classes; economic relations are the basis upon which are founded all social and political relations in society; in the struggle between those who own the means of production and those who do not, it is by the proletariat seizing the means of production that class differences are eliminated in society.
> French Wikipedia has a better definition: the elimination of inequality and social classes.
So "ownership of means of production" is simply the next step, an answer to an inevitable question that would arise from French Wikipedia's definition.
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/08/coloradocare-amendment-...