Its been a while since I've written about politics. Last time on May 23rd this year, and before that, November 5th last year. So this time: Health Insurance.

America is facing a massive problem. We currently have an industry that survives by making people pay to continue living. Now, I understand that medicine has costs, but if you do the math, the cost of health insurance, while better than paying yourself, is higher than it has to be to take care of people.

Because of the high cost of health insurance, people like me (poor college student) have trouble paying for it. I live with my parents, so their insurance covers me as long as I'm in school. Once I'm out, I'll be doing what I can to get my career started (I'm trying now, but the republican economy is worthless...I'll need to have my degree at this rate if I want to be hired).

From about.com:
“The most recent figures are from 2005, and indicate that the average individual’s job-based premiums were $3,991 that year, while families spent an average of $10,728.”

With our current system, I'd be looking at that $3,991 per year. Odds are, with low income starting out, student loans to pay, and obviously cost of living issues, I won't be able to afford that. Turns out that 10's of millions of Americans are with me there. Since when is being wealthy a prerequisite for life?

And for many people, it really does help them stay alive. I have some kind of chronic condition. We don't know what it is. I've been fairly sick for years. Once I'm out of school, there's the issue of getting my own insurance. I have a "pre-existing condition", though we don't know what it is. I won't be able to afford the grossly overstated prices that health insurance companies charge. Untreated, the conditions we're testing for could make me very sick, or even kill me if they continue to get worse.

The solution to the problem is a system that doesn't have this problem. Corporations, by law, must attempt to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. Health insurance companies are incorporated. Basically, using our lives to extort massive profits out of us is what they do to fulfill their legal obligations. The system itself doesn't work.

We need a system that does not have incentives or requirements that cause prices to go up more than costs. Government systems are the best answer, simply because the government is not for profit.

Now, I know what those stupid commercials keep saying. "If you go to Canada, you'll see that people have to wait a lot for medical procedures." Remember how I said I have a chronic condition? Well I waited two months to see a gastroenterologist. After that, I was told it would be about 6 months more before we could do the procedure that would check for a certain condition that this might be. This is in the USA. I know one person on DA (I forget who) waited a similar amount of time to see a dermatologist.

So what is it that makes Canada's system so bad? It can't be the wait, since we already have that. In fact, it seems like its not so bad.

The final issue with the system is funding. Once we establish that it is the best option to bring the government into the game, we have to figure out how to pay for everything. Obama's people have estimated that this will cost $1 trillion over 10 years, or $100 billion per year. That sure sounds like a lot. There's a big fight in Washington right now about how to fund this thing. The thing I have to wonder is....why?

Is it hard to do division when the numbers have 12 digits? Did everyone in congress fail math? Or maybe there's something I'm missing, because it seems very easy to fund this, assuming these estimates are accurate.

Lets do the math that other people haven't done. $100 billion per year is our starting point. Last July (2008), the US population was at 304,059,724 people. This includes children, but I will assume that parents pay for the children. Divide $100 billion by 304,059,724 people and you get $328.88 per person per year. Divide by 12 and you get $27.41 per month per person. Not so bad, eh?

So if each American paid $27.41 per month (and parents cover kids), then the system is 100% funded. There is one more issue we have to address. What I'm talking about is the issue of people who can not pay. That number ($27.41) can fund the system only if each American can pay. What we need to do is find a number that can fund it even if some can't pay.

Let's start with a nice round number. $50 per person per month. Its not bad, considering Americans pay, on average, $3,991 per year for individual coverage. That means $600 per person per year, compared with the number I just mentioned. Obviously, the cheaper one is the preferable option, when we're talking about people who can't afford the existing system. A lot more people would be able to pay into the system than what we currently have.

So what does that $50 a month do? If each American paid into the system at that rate, then each month, we'd take in $15,252,986,200. Now, if we believe the estimates the government has provided, then what we need each month is $8,361,687,034.84. What we need is only 54.82% of what we'd be taking in in this situation. What that means is that 45.18% of Americans could be completely unable to pay even a penny, and still the system would work. So a system like this could run even if 137 million people were unable to pay. If we also take into account people who can only pay some of that cost, the system is even more well taken care of.

Now, if I remember correctly, Obama said something recently about 2/3 of the cost of this system being covered by commitments by healthcare providers and drug companies to lower costs. I didn't even take that into account, and it already sounds affordable. If we take into account the massive savings that we get from eliminating corporate greed, the system gets easier and easier to fund.

At this point, we can massively increase what it costs and what we charge without coming close to what the insurance industry currently charges. This means that the estimates for the cost of the system could be tripled and yet we could still fund it at a better price than what insurance really charges.

So the only question left is....why aren't we there already?

(note: this applies to the United States and people in it. If you aren't, its still true. It just won't apply to wherever you are.)

I'm sure many people are well aware of the big deal that came along with Prop. 8 in California. What most of you are probably not aware of is the reason something like that could happen.

The point of a proposition is that the general public votes for (or against) some new law. While democracy is nice to some extent, this is a mistake.

We do not live in a democracy. Before I continue, I should probably be sure that gets said. We live in a republic. Its true. You don't pledge allegiance to democracy. "And to the republic..." Sure its a democratic republic, but its still a republic.

Whats the point?
Simple. In a democracy, people vote for stuff. In a republic, a select few make the decisions. In a democratic republic, the people vote for a select few, who make all the decisions.

But whats the point?
The point is the reason we have laws. Sure its nice to have order and such, but what is the real purpose of law? In general, a system ruled by the will of the general public will come to whatever order the masses desire as a result of being desired by the masses.

Laws exist in some cases to establish standards and order. But in other cases, the laws are there to protect the few from the many. Things like fair trial exist to make sure suspects are found guilty before being executed, even if most people in the "system" would rather just get their revenge, or what have you.

So if the laws sometimes serve the purpose of protecting the few from the many, then how on earth can we get "good" laws by asking the many? That system gives the many a way to make laws that let them do whatever they want to the few. A good system protects everybody.

---------------------------------------------------------------

So in California, there is no system protecting people from other people. And that is the problem with things like Prop. 8. The many chose to take rights away from the few.

So if we've established that Prop. 8 is wrong because of how it was made, then what can be said about the topic?

The problem with the issue is the definition of marriage. Some people would say that marriage is between a man and a woman always and only. Thing is, there is no legal definition anywhere (except our illegitimate proposition) that says such a thing. So where does this come from? Religion. It is strictly a religious definition.

By enacting Prop. 8, what California has done is forced a religious law on people, with the only basis being the religion itself. Murder is bad, regardless of religion. But marriage is between a man and a woman because of religion.

It in no way affects anybody who isn't directly involved, so it can't be a comparative rights issue (murder = your right to kill ends at my right to live, for example). So the only reason we can say marriage between anything other than a man and a woman is wrong is because some kind of morality says so. As I already mentioned, the only things we have for that come from religion.

So what is the legal version of marriage then?
The legal version of marriage exists mostly for financial purposes. We define people as legal entities (ie, citizens). Marriage is a process by which two entities can be treated as one for certain purposes (taxes, legal).

So how does gay marriage fit into that?
Gay marriage can work the same as regular marriage for any legal purpose.

-------------------------------------------

So we have two options. Option 1) allow gay marriage. This is the "better" option. It has no negative effects for anybody. It provides basic rights to people who were born a certain way (thats right, they were born that way).

Option 2) ban gay marriage. We're telling these people that they can't have those legal rights that apply to marriage. To be fair then, we must also stop providing any legal benefits to "normal" married couples.

And please don't even consider the whole "civil union" garbage. Separate but equal. Now, I can't begin to tell you how many people have said "...and don't give me that separate but equal stuff." That seems to be the bigot's get out of jail free card or something. But its true. Separate but equal is exactly what people are claiming by calling gay marriage "civil unions".

===========================================

So what can we get from all that?

1) Gay marriage is just as legitimate as "regular" marriage. Either we get both, or we get neither.

2) The California proposition system is completely illegitimate, and ruins the purpose of law.

This is copy pasted from a comment I made on [link]

It isn't about learning or whatever. It is about public display of intellectual property. It is about the law. So here it is::

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DA administration, what you're doing is in violation of federal law. By definition, the actions you describe constitute copyright infringement, and by actively choosing to allow it, DeviantArt becomes a willing accessory to the crime.

If DA is not willing to enforce the law proper, then I would suggest the administration here prepare for lawsuits, since all a person needs to do is pay the US Copyright Office to register their work in the first five years, and the crime can be pursued in court.

In the case of the person committing the act, it is a civil violation. In the case of deviantArt, however, since you guys make money by allowing people to submit things, it becomes a criminal act.

Here's what the FBI says(copy pasted from their website):

In the meantime, it is perfectly fine for anyone, without FBI approval, to use the following generic language on material protected under U.S. copyright law: "Warning: The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000."

Can DA afford to pay that fine for each violated work? Anything less than 5 years old may be registered with the US Copyright Office, and that registration can be used as [prima facie] evidence in a lawsuit.
Should I inform IC3 about this? (note: IC3 is the internet crime complaint center, and is a partnership between the FBI, the National White Collar Crime Center, and the Bureau of Justice Assistance) I suppose I haven't technically been violated, so I can't, but I can still report your policy, and I can still advise everybody who gets their work traced to do so as well.


I'm not much of an artist myself, but I promise you that if anybody traces anything from my page that I claim as my own, I will serve DA with a DMCA notice.

Also, keep in mind that only works made by US citizens must be registered to file suit. Under the Berne Convention, the US will usually recognize works from citizens of other countries even if they aren't registered, and even in the case of lawsuits.

Whats worse than the FBI thing is what the DMCA says about this::

In addition, it is a criminal offense to violate section 1201 or 1202 wilfully and
for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain. Under section 1204
penalties range up to a $500,000 fine or up to five years imprisonment for a first
offense, and up to a $1,000,000 fine or up to 10 years imprisonment for subsequent
offenses.

Section 1202::

(a) False Copyright Management Information.— No person shall knowingly and with the intent to induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement—
(1) provide copyright management information that is false, or
(2) distribute or import for distribution copyright management information that is false.

DA is enabling people to claim work as their own, when the intellectual property that backs up the work is not their own by allowing users to submit copied work.

# Normally Tolerated

• The reproduction obviously copies an existing work but possesses noticeable and substantial differences.
• The reproduction obviously copies an existing work but is noticeably deficient in quality.

This is a violation of the DMCA chapter 12, section 02. Moreover, this is something that DA is doing that is illegal right now, instead of only becoming illegal after someone infringes a work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I strongly urge all artists on DA who have their work traced, copied, stolen, or whatever else, in the case that it is not taken down, to consider registering the copyright with the US Copyright Office. If you do so in the first five years, you can file a complaint against DA, which can lead to major fines for allowing the theft to happen(ie not taking it down). Maybe that will convince them of the need for their policies to reflect the actual law?

Maybe we should start a non-profit that just collects donations to help poor artists to register their copyrights, and thereby provide the legal ground they need?

People may have noticed the link being thrown around where, if you click it, you suddenly have a problem where you can't view things and a bunch of comments are sent out as if you sent them.

-------

I believe the attack here is called [cross site] Request Forgery(very similar).

The attacker creates a link that you click on. That link goes to the attacker's page(or something). This page makes requests that are engineered to do something(in this case submit a comment). Normally, that wouldn't work, but since it runs in your browser and since you are logged in, it does work.

Making requests in POST format instead of in GET format does help some, but it is still possible. HTTP referrers help as well, but they can be spoofed.

The best thing to do is to have users avoid clicking the link. That said, its not very likely that that will work, and its bad practice as programmers to make that assumption.

The solution to XSRF attacks is to have more secure session tokens. Set it up so that the session token information is not only stored in a cookie(try hidden form fields). User submissions are only accepted if they have this hidden field. The attacker can't get the hidden field without getting a page from DA itself that has it. They can't get that page without being authenticated already(or at least it won't come down with the token).

So every time they go anywhere or do anything, we have to include that in the authentication.

-----------------

For now though, users.....don't click stupidly XD

So its finally time for something different. I wonder if we can mob the white house and just drag Bush out now instead of waiting for the changeover. XD

I'm glad that Obama won, especially considering the dirty politics that the republicans put out there at the last minute.

They sent a message around to cuban immigrants stating that Fidel Castro (along with Noriega and others) supported Obama.

Someone connected to them(not known who) sent text messages around stating that, because of long lines, Obama voters would have to be handled on wednesday instead. Its not known who was behind that one, probably because its voter fraud and that person could go to jail.

Then there were polling place problems....

"Jacintha Johnson, a senior at the historically African-American school, told CNN that she got in line at 7:30 a.m. and voted at 6 p.m. She said the precinct had only five voting booths to accommodate up to 3,000 people."

""We started the line at about 10:30 a.m., and we did not get done until 3:30 p.m.," said Jessica Edwards, who voted in Norfolk."

"Some voters in Georgia said they were turned away when informed somebody using their names had already cast ballots in early voting."

"In St. Louis, Missouri, Lisa Foreman said she went to vote in her precinct where improperly calibrated machines would only select Republican John McCain for president. She said workers there were trying to fix the problem."

"At least three cases of possible voter suppression at election sites around Virginia will be investigated by state police, according to Virginia election officials."

"Officials in Dona Ana County, New Mexico say they are having problems with absentee ballots. But it's unclear just how many voters may not see their vote count."

"At least three polling locations in Kansas City's 5th Ward have the wrong registration books, said Board of Elections director Shelley McThomas. She said cover jackets indicating ward, precinct and sequence numbers were mixed up when the books were assembled at the Board of Elections."

What does it take to do this right? These systems and rules and so on have been around for years. Why is voting made so difficult? How can they not solve these problems?

It is good to see Obama do so well in Florida though, despite things like those phone calls the republicans sent around.