It's 2017 and I still can't believe that...

[GaryV]

It seems like millimeters and grams are used for very small values, even in the United States.

Examples include pencil "lead" thicknesses (usually 0.7mm, but 0.5 and 0.9 also exist), and nutrition labels showing 2g fat, 10g sugar, etc.

Who cares about lead thickness?

You might care if you buy .9 mm and they don't fit into your .7 mm pencil.

[Scott5114]

With all due respect, this is just false.

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the United States government from using its spending power to create a national healthcare system. Read the rest of the Constitution, the government has an unambiguous authority to tax and spend.

With all due respect, read what I've been saying - that spending powers allow the federal government to encourage state governments to sign up to something that they themselves cannot do.

No court in the country is going to find a national health care system unconstitutional.

A specific system, sure, however there's a very narrow band of operation. That the 10th amendment cases against Obamacare were heard all the way up the court chain shows that there clearly is a constitutional tightrope - if it was clear cut, then the cases wouldn't be picked up by appeal courts and the lower courts' judgements sustained.

And that's ignoring the 1st amendment cases against the AHCA that won in the Supreme Court - it was unconstitutional in places (and if not repealed soon, will see other cases against it on these grounds).

Note that you're talking about the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, which is the formal name for Obamacare. AHCA is the American Health Care Act, the garbage bill passed by Paul Ryan & co. a few months ago that neither party is all that fond of.

Of course, if the Constitution gets in the way of providing healthcare, we could always just amend the damn thing a 28th time. For that to be viable a concrete plan would need to be proposed that is acceptable to the red states, though–we're not there yet.

If single-payer is to happen in this country, I think a good way of accomplishing it would be for a large, liberal state (by which I mean 'probably California') to take the first step and initiate it for their state only. If it works, other states could sign onto it by interstate compact. At that point, it would be a lesser push to roll it over into a federal program.

[I-39]

If single-payer is to happen in this country, I think a good way of accomplishing it would be for a large, liberal state (by which I mean 'probably California') to take the first step and initiate it for their state only. If it works, other states could sign onto it by interstate compact. At that point, it would be a lesser push to roll it over into a federal program.

^^

This is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when drafting the Constitution. Let the states govern themselves and become the "laboratories of democracy". States can experiment with laws/programs without having them affect the entire country.

The vast majority of the political problems we have today stem from the fact that the federal government has way too much power, without any meaningful checks. This enables them to enact all this "one-size-fits-all" legislation that costs a ton of $$$ and is very polarizing. This has been going on for about the last 100 years or so (since the enactment of the 16th and 17th amendments, the amendments that established the federal income tax and the direct election of senators respectively) and both parties have played a factor in expanding the federal government.

I'm not advocating a return to the pre-civil war days, but I truly believe the solution to our problems is less federal bureaucracy and having the states play a bigger role in formulating policy (so they can experiment with things such as single-payer health care, free college, tax cuts) and allow them to override the federal government in certain circumstances. 

[Roadgeekteen]

It seems like millimeters and grams are used for very small values, even in the United States.

Examples include pencil "lead" thicknesses (usually 0.7mm, but 0.5 and 0.9 also exist), and nutrition labels showing 2g fat, 10g sugar, etc.

Who cares about lead thickness?

Test reading machines can only read certain thickness of lead.

Should'nt there just be one thickness of lead then?

[The Nature Boy]

If single-payer is to happen in this country, I think a good way of accomplishing it would be for a large, liberal state (by which I mean 'probably California') to take the first step and initiate it for their state only. If it works, other states could sign onto it by interstate compact. At that point, it would be a lesser push to roll it over into a federal program.

^^

This is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when drafting the Constitution. Let the states govern themselves and become the "laboratories of democracy". States can experiment with laws/programs without having them affect the entire country.

The vast majority of the political problems we have today stem from the fact that the federal government has way too much power, without any meaningful checks. This enables them to enact all this "one-size-fits-all" legislation that costs a ton of $$$ and is very polarizing. This has been going on for about the last 100 years or so (since the enactment of the 16th and 17th amendments, the amendments that established the federal income tax and the direct election of senators respectively) and both parties have played a factor in expanding the federal government.

I'm not advocating a return to the pre-civil war days, but I truly believe the solution to our problems is less federal bureaucracy and having the states play a bigger role in formulating policy (so they can experiment with things such as single-payer health care, free college, tax cuts) and allow them to override the federal government in certain circumstances.

The Founding Fathers recognized the need for a strong central government when they discarded the Articles of Confederation and wrote the Constitution. If the Founding Fathers didn't want a federal government that did anything, they wouldn't have given them the right to regulate interstate commerce or construct post roads or any of the other powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers recognized a role for the federal government in maintaining the general welfare of the nation.

Given the limited revenue streams of a state government, it isn't feasible for 90% of states to experiment with something that expensive. The Founding Fathers recognized the limited abilities of state governments when it enumerated certain powers to the federal government (raising of a military, regulation of interstate commerce....etc.).

[hbelkins]

If single-payer is to happen in this country, I think a good way of accomplishing it would be for a large, liberal state (by which I mean 'probably California') to take the first step and initiate it for their state only. If it works, other states could sign onto it by interstate compact. At that point, it would be a lesser push to roll it over into a federal program.

Unless California secedes first.

And upon saying that...

It's 2017 and I still can't believe that people think they have a right to the goods produced and services rendered by others without appropriate compensation.

[ZLoth]

It's 2017, and yet checks are still used as a payment method.

And, to think, some people believe in a floating check.

[jp the roadgeek]

It's 2017, and yet checks are still used as a payment method.

And, to think, some people believe in a floating check.

See Page 1 Post 23

[Nanis]

I live next to one of the most dangerous roads in America according to AAA

[MNHighwayMan]

...this thread is still alive.

[cjk374]

It's 2017, and yet checks are still used as a payment method.

And, to think, some people believe in a floating check.

I never want this to change. I do not trust the internet to pay bills. I don't shop online...and don't plan to do so anytime soon. Automatic bill-pay involves granting access to my money to an outside 3rd party so they can take it when they are ready. No thank you. You will get my money when I know I have it to give.

Paying bills online when I have the money to give involves entering my personal information into the internet. Thanks, but no thanks. I am not going to make it easy for someone to steal my identity. I will continue to pay with paper checks, float them to have them arrive at their destinations right on my payday, and the world can kiss my ass.

*Damn I sound like an old man.

[Nanis]

It's 2017, and yet checks are still used as a payment method.

And, to think, some people believe in a floating check.

I never want this to change. I do not trust the internet to pay bills. I don't shop online...and don't plan to do so anytime soon. Automatic bill-pay involves granting access to my money to an outside 3rd party so they can take it when they are ready. No thank you. You will get my money when I know I have it to give.

Paying bills online when I have the money to give involves entering my personal information into the internet. Thanks, but no thanks. I am not going to make it easy for someone to steal my identity. I will continue to pay with paper checks, float them to have them arrive at their destinations right on my payday, and the world can kiss my ass.

*Damn I sound like an old man.

You could always use giftcards

[I-39]

If single-payer is to happen in this country, I think a good way of accomplishing it would be for a large, liberal state (by which I mean 'probably California') to take the first step and initiate it for their state only. If it works, other states could sign onto it by interstate compact. At that point, it would be a lesser push to roll it over into a federal program.

^^

This is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when drafting the Constitution. Let the states govern themselves and become the "laboratories of democracy". States can experiment with laws/programs without having them affect the entire country.

The vast majority of the political problems we have today stem from the fact that the federal government has way too much power, without any meaningful checks. This enables them to enact all this "one-size-fits-all" legislation that costs a ton of $$$ and is very polarizing. This has been going on for about the last 100 years or so (since the enactment of the 16th and 17th amendments, the amendments that established the federal income tax and the direct election of senators respectively) and both parties have played a factor in expanding the federal government.

I'm not advocating a return to the pre-civil war days, but I truly believe the solution to our problems is less federal bureaucracy and having the states play a bigger role in formulating policy (so they can experiment with things such as single-payer health care, free college, tax cuts) and allow them to override the federal government in certain circumstances.

The Founding Fathers recognized the need for a strong central government when they discarded the Articles of Confederation and wrote the Constitution. If the Founding Fathers didn't want a federal government that did anything, they wouldn't have given them the right to regulate interstate commerce or construct post roads or any of the other powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers recognized a role for the federal government in maintaining the general welfare of the nation.

Given the limited revenue streams of a state government, it isn't feasible for 90% of states to experiment with something that expensive. The Founding Fathers recognized the limited abilities of state governments when it enumerated certain powers to the federal government (raising of a military, regulation of interstate commerce....etc.).

The Founding Fathers did not intend for the federal government to grow to the size it is now and to micromanage everything. Indeed they wanted a stronger central government for better organization and unity between the states, but they would be appalled at what it has become. Notice they still put safeguards in place that gave states a check on federal power, such as the lack of an income tax and allowing state legislatures electing senators instead of via a popular vote (the way it should be). Both were eliminated by the 16th and 17th amendments respectively, which began the slow erosion of federalism.

It appears you missed the point of what I was saying. My point was there needs to be a better balance between state and federal government and one should not micromanage the other. Yes, federal law should still be supreme and there are times when they need to act to help the nation, but states need to have meaningful checks on federal power and have the ability to override the federal government if necessary (via an amendment to the Constitution that would allow 2/3rds of states to repeal/vacate any federal law/executive order/regulation/supreme court decision, etc, which even if that existed, would not be used very often as it would be very difficult for 2/3rds of the states to agree on something to repeal/vacate). We cannot continue to have all this "one-size-fits-all" legislation being passed out of Washington and we cannot rely on Congress for everything. States should have the flexibility to experiment with certain things (such as single payer health care, free college) without having it affect the rest of the nation.

[hbelkins]

It's 2017, and yet checks are still used as a payment method.

If the plumber comes to my house to fix a leak and wants payment right away, how else am I going to pay him if I don't have that much cash on me? And if, say, a co-worker in another location is taking up an order for T-shirts and I need to send her the money, how else do you suggest I do so if said co-worker doesn't have PayPal?

I never want this to change. I do not trust the internet to pay bills. I don't shop online...and don't plan to do so anytime soon. Automatic bill-pay involves granting access to my money to an outside 3rd party so they can take it when they are ready. No thank you. You will get my money when I know I have it to give.

Paying bills online when I have the money to give involves entering my personal information into the internet. Thanks, but no thanks. I am not going to make it easy for someone to steal my identity. I will continue to pay with paper checks, float them to have them arrive at their destinations right on my payday, and the world can kiss my ass.

I'm not that paranoid about identity theft. Your personal information is stored so many places anyway that if hackers are THAT determined, they'll get the info.

I pay a lot of bills online, but I have a couple for which that is not an option. If I look through my check register, I see a lot of debit card transactions and a lot of online bill payments, but there are a couple of recurring check payments that I make each month. One has to be mailed; the other can be placed in a drop box in my town.

Automatic payments are inflexible, especially when your payday isn't consistent. We're supposed to be paid on the 15th and 30th of each month, but that get moves around depending on weekends and holidays. And the state legislature has employed a budget-balancing trick the last few years that involves the last paycheck in June actually not arriving until July. This year, June 30 was on a Friday, so that paycheck was not delivered until Monday, July 3. That caused problems for anyone who had an automatic payment set to deduct on July 1. (In actuality, most people with direct deposit got their money on the 30th, but for those who still get paper checks, they could not get them until July 3.)

I like having control of when the money leaves my account, so I typically schedule online payments manually.

[hbelkins]

You could always use giftcards

Tow truck driver: "That will be $120 for the roadside service call."
Nanis: "Here, take these gift cards."
Tow truck driver: (smacks Nanis across the forehead with a tire tool) 

I'm sure cjk's electric company, water company, cable company, cell phone provider, etc., would be happy to have a Walmart or iTunes or Cracker Barrel gift card in payment for services rendered, instead of money.

[SP Cook]

Checks, money, etc.

Identity theft is 99% BS.  Fact is good old time legal protections such as the requirement for a signature and a notarized signature still work.  Really, you just need to be smart, if you have money you are not using, keep it in a separate account.  Your functioning monthly pay the bills checking account needs to have only a small cushion above what you will pay out.  Also you should check any account like a retirement or 401(k) every month just to make sure no one has gained access to it. 

The only time I write a check is something like a home repair man.  I pay all bills online.  My bank will, at no cost to me, generate a paper check and mail it to any vendor not sophisticated enough to take their electronic funds transfer.  There are two ways to pay online.  One is via every vendor's website, which is authorizing each to take money out of your account.  Nope.  The other is to have the vendor mail you a paper bill and then pay it via your bank's website.  This is the bet method.  Never allow anyone to withdraw from your account.  If, say, the water company screws up and says you used a gazillion gallons and owe $10s of 1000, they will, or at least try to, drain (no pun intended) your account.  Make them mail you a bill and if it seems wrong, you still have your money and can talk to them about it.  The only exception I make is to my car insurance, which gives me 5% off for letting it take money straight from my account.  This is a once every 6 months deal and they e-mail me twice beforehand.  (This is probably because my state forces car insurance companies do all sorts of certified mail if you are even one day late on a payment, so it saves them money._

Actually receiving a check is almost a burden to me.  The only checks I get are refunds of small amounts from like a deductible at the doctor.  It is a PITA to go to the bank to deposit a check for less than $10 or so.

However, the very rude people, IMHO, that write checks at retail checkouts.  Every bank I know of will give any customer a debit card, and most people can get a real credit card.  It is rude to make other wait. 

[MNHighwayMan]

It is a PITA to go to the bank to deposit a check for less than $10 or so.

My bank has an app for my phone that allows me to deposit checks by taking a picture of the front and back. It's really handy for cases like that–last time I got a check was for my birthday (from my grandparents, no less) and I didn't even have to get out of my chair to deposit it. You simply shred/destroy the check once it clears.

[jwolfer]

Even small businesses like handy men and food trucks can use the square.. Etc

I prefer 1 time payments online instead of automatic payments.  I had my previous employer who shorted me almost $900.. Automatic payment for gym and netflix were paid.. But i was charged 35 overdraft fees for each one.  So that 10 for netflix became 45.. BoA will gladly charge me a fee if to "help"

Its good to have a prepaid visa mastercard or amex to pay bills.. They dont have access to full checking account.. You putwhat is needed for bills in there. If its not available it declines

LGMS428

[jwolfer]

It's 2017, and yet checks are still used as a payment method.

And, to think, some people believe in a floating check.

I never want this to change. I do not trust the internet to pay bills. I don't shop online...and don't plan to do so anytime soon. Automatic bill-pay involves granting access to my money to an outside 3rd party so they can take it when they are ready. No thank you. You will get my money when I know I have it to give.

Paying bills online when I have the money to give involves entering my personal information into the internet. Thanks, but no thanks. I am not going to make it easy for someone to steal my identity. I will continue to pay with paper checks, float them to have them arrive at their destinations right on my payday, and the world can kiss my ass.

*Damn I sound like an old man.

Your check book could be stolen...

Most merchants convert personal checks to electronic payment anyway.

Or you can take out cash to pay bills.. Get held up at gun point and have everything stolen.. Last week in Orlando the news was saying to watch yourself leaving banks.. People were being followed after making withdrawals.. Thief would rob them at their next stop..


There are risks with everything

LGMS428

[ZLoth]

It's 2017, and yet checks are still used as a payment method.

If the plumber comes to my house to fix a leak and wants payment right away, how else am I going to pay him if I don't have that much cash on me? And if, say, a co-worker in another location is taking up an order for T-shirts and I need to send her the money, how else do you suggest I do so if said co-worker doesn't have PayPal?

Electronic transfer via PopMoney.

[ZLoth]

I will continue to pay with paper checks, float them to have them arrive at their destinations right on my payday, and the world can kiss my ass.

*Damn I sound like an old man.

Your checks include some personal identifiable information, including name and address in the top-left corner, and routing number and account number at the bottom. There are more insecure than entering in the account information online using an encrypted form.

[jeffandnicole]

I will continue to pay with paper checks, float them to have them arrive at their destinations right on my payday, and the world can kiss my ass.

*Damn I sound like an old man.

Your checks include some personal identifiable information, including name and address in the top-left corner, and routing number and account number at the bottom. There are more insecure than entering in the account information online using an encrypted form.

If someone came up with the idea of a check today, it would be thought of the world's dumbest scam.  It's like saying "Hey, let's create a piece of paper on which you'll put all of your personal identification.  Then, we'll put your bank account information on it. Then, when you need to use it, write an amount on there in such a way that someone could modify that amount, give it to someone you don't know, and let it pass by numerous people between the cashier and the bank. 

For added measure, not only is your banking account on it, but if you're paying a bill, write in the account number of the bill your paying too, so now the check contains the payee and that account number as well.

It is laughably the world's most unsecure document.  Trusted by millions.

[SP Cook]

My bank has an app for my phone that allows me to deposit checks by taking a picture of the front and back. It's really handy for cases like that—last time I got a check was for my birthday (from my grandparents, no less) and I didn't even have to get out of my chair to deposit it. You simply shred/destroy the check once it clears.

My bank has that, but they charge for it, so I pass on it.  Their newer ATMs can scan a check but their older ones require an envelope.  I have trouble remembering which outlet has which.  The only time I ever go to the actual inside of the bank is to get cash to take on a gambling trip, or to put something in the safety deposit box.  If someone could develop a cost free way for ordinary people to take cash to casinos, it would be a good thing.  I carry cash now, which is dumb, I know.  I used to use traveler's checks, but they look at you like you have an extra head when you ask about them now.  Casino credit, AKA markers, are for people above my level.

[hotdogPi]

I carry cash now, which is dumb, I know.

There's nothing wrong with carrying cash.

[MNHighwayMan]

My bank has that, but they charge for it, so I pass on it.

Odd, it's free with mine. Maybe time to find a different bank?