instruction:
Categorize the comment on the basis of insult. If the comment is insulting output Yes, otherwise output No.
question:
The best part of the ACA is that patients could not be denied for existing conditions. Previously, those patients with seriously expensive conditions were mostly paid through medicare and medicaid paid by the State and the Feds. Under ACA the really expensive patients got their insurance. The only difference is that the entire cost of their coverage is born by other ACA rate payers. 23,000 people, roughly 10% of insured people statewide, are paying the entire costs of our most expensive patients. This is a good bill and should be a priority.
answer:
No

question:
A root problem of how we deal with addiction is that we treat it as fundamentally criminal instead of medical. Sadly, maybe having a young, photogenic, non-minority woman as yet another victim of the 45 years-long War on Drugs™️ mentality will further bring attention to how backwards and counterproductive we are as a society and polity in dealing with addiction and treatment. This politically-motivated and special-interest perpetuated "effort" needs to end and the massive resources spent on this miserable boondoggle need to be invested in intelligent and enlightened preventive and medical solutions from the 21st Century. Of course, in addition to the private prison corporations, prison guard unions, governmental recipients of asset forfeiture, etc., the Mexican cartels and everyone else profiting on the black market side will be quite displeased with decriminalization. Take a look at how Portugal has been handling this since 2000. My condolences to the Green family.
answer:
Yes

question:
My big interest here is - at best, thriving - and at worst, sustainable, regional game populations.
Since pre-oil, Alaska guides have - rightfully - had a strong voice on the BOG - and they only were able to become guides through expensive and time-consuming "internship" hours. They occupied a near-insignificant niche in total wildlife-taking.

But then the State had only about 200-250,000 people, & there wasn't as nearly as much time & money for locals to be away from tasks of building and providing, to "play" at non-meat big game hunting. Game was primarily for food.
Now we have less game & thanks to our bountiful State & oil economy, more wealthy Alaskan sport hunters. Frankly, guided hunting economics & interests have served pretty well as a check against over-hunting. I disagree with MANY BOG decisions- most clearly regarding wolf-culling and I'd like a far stronger non-hunter BOG presence. But guides have been a boon to conservation, to F&G managers and to BOG data.
answer:
No