Independent Programmers' No-Win Scenario

snydeq writes "Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister writes about the no-win scenario facing today's independent programmers: 'In a knowledge economy, programmers rank among our most valuable workers, yet the current legal and regulatory climate makes a career as an independent software developer virtually a dead-end prospect.' Section 1706 of the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the hurdles and costs of obtaining health care for one's own family, a hostile legal climate in search of accountability for any defects in code — these harsh realities make it 'easy to see why software developers would give up on entrepreneurship. For many, the risks simply don't match the potential rewards. Better to keep their heads down, not rock the boat, and hope they can hang onto their jobs until retirement.' Great news for big software vendors, which will be 'ensured an endless supply of programmers desperate for the safe haven of a steady paycheck, predictable taxation, health benefits, and a shield from civil prosecution when their code turns up buggy. But where will the next Microsoft come from? A field that discourages self-reliance sends the message that the status quo is the highest goal.'"

Comments

yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[FudRucker]

its much better to work for some huge soulless corporate pig where everything you create is owned by the pig and all you get is a measly salary and the pig gets richer and fatter while you wonder if you have enough to retire on at 65

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[sopssa]

It's hard to do anything as a beginner.

Of course, but the thing here is that you can't necessary choose the better way either, so you have to go by that. Of course it's easy to yell about "working for soulless big company like EA" from the moms basement, but that's not how it goes in the real world.

But the amount of such things you need to care of in the US isn't even bad yet. In other countries there's so many things you need to take care of it really, really puts you off. You'll be spending a lot more time trying to figure out all the overhead things than getting any work done.

You would need to right away get some lawyer to tell you everything little minor detail in law, an accountant to make sure you fill the complicated taxes correctly, take care of payment processing, and pay large amount of money for irrelevant things like health care and so on. If the workless people don't have to pay for health care, why should a beginning entrepreneur do so if they don't like to?

In beginning you really need someone. If you're an games programmer, this means someone that can handle the distribution and paying your share of it. PopCap and such might be good for a beginner.

On the internet it might also mean starting your site with no financial incentives first and hope someone picks you up, or provides funding and other expertise.

But yourself alone, as a newbie with no money to invest with - no, it's too hard.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[s122604]

its much better to work for some huge soulless corporate pig where everything you create is owned by the pig and all you get is a measly salary and the pig gets richer and fatter while you wonder if you have enough to retire on at 65

When you have a wife a kid(s) depending on you, when health benefits for you/your wife/kids would cost 5 times as much (if they are available at all, if you have any kind of special needs, or pre-existing conditions, forget it) and half as good, then yeah, it does... The republicans like to burn sacrifices at the alter of "small business" and entrepreneurship, but they are full of it.. There are plenty of folks out there who have idea/dreams, who would go out on their own, but have to make the decision to stay in a job's that don't reveal their full potential, jobs they may even hate because of this..

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Type I diabetic - big corporate is basically the only option for me.

Startups and self-employment are not options, yay for preexisting conditions!

Good news is that I'm an EE, not a software guy. EEs get shit on somewhat less by big companies.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Grishnakh]

Republicans are liars. They're always posturing and claiming they're for small government, small business, etc., but it's all complete lies. They're really little different from the Democrats. They favor BIG business, and helping out already-rich people instead of providing a level playing field or doing anything at all to encourage entrepreneurship. The main difference between the Dems and the Reps is which BIG businesses they're allied with. With the Reps, it's oil, gas, and defense contractors; with the Dems, it's the RIAA, MPAA, etc. The other main difference is which special-interest groups they pander to: Reps pander to fundamentalist Christians, gun owners, and homophobes, while Dems pander to environmentalists, gun-banners, and minority groups. However, it should be noted that in their pandering, they talk a lot to these groups about how much they support them, but in reality, they don't actually do that much to help them when they're in power (Obama's environmental policies aren't really any different from Bush's, for instance). They're all a bunch of liars.

The best thing America could do later this year in the election is to vote out EVERY incumbent (except maybe Ron Paul; he's the only one who isn't a liar from what I can tell, even if I don't agree with him on everything). Of course, that's not going to happen; the people complain about Congress all the time, but they're really complaining about everyone else's Congressmen, not their own. When it comes time to vote out their own Congresscritter, they re-elect him. Of course, part of the problem here is that we don't have very many decent people running. For instance, my state, Arizona, has to elect a new Senator this year for McCain's seat. McCain is running for re-election of course, but lots of people (including myself) hate him for various reasons, such as selecting that twit Palin as his running mate. So another guy named JD Hayworth is challenging him for the Republican ticket, but that guy's even worse: he's a blowhard moron that was involved in a corruption scandal when he was a Representative, and was replaced by a Democrat in a Republican stronghold. Maybe we'll get lucky and a "blue dog" Democrat will run against these two morons and win, but it's unlikely as AZ is very hard for Democrats to get elected in, even if they're not the liberal type. Or who knows, maybe a Libertarian will run and get elected because everyone's so pissed that they don't want to vote for either of the two main parties. One can dream.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[cptdondo]

Yup. I had a successful small business that I sold a few years ago. I'd love to start a new business - I hate the current pointless grind I'm in - but I am, for all practical purposes, uninsurable.

My crime is that I am over 50, with numerous "pre-existing conditions" (read: I filed claims) and I have a wife and two small kids.

No insurance company will sell me health insurance for anything like reasonable rates. The last insurance policy I had cost about $15K/year and covered nearly nothing.

So instead of being part of the solution - the compnay I had employed 8 people - I am part of the problem, seeking a job that has good benefits and low demands.

Tell me again how not having universal health care is good for small business?

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Archangel Michael]

When you have a wife a kid(s) depending on you, when health benefits for you/your wife/kids would cost 5 times as much (if they are available at all, if you have any kind of special needs, or pre-existing conditions, forget it) and half as good, then yeah, it does

We don't treat health insurance like insurance. Insurance is for EMERGENCY and RARE EXPENSIVE claims.

I know of one doctor, who no longer takes insurance because taking insurance cost him too much. He now can offer a regular checkup for very inexpensive cost, and he makes more money in the process. He doesn't have to hire two full time clerks to battle against the insurance companies, saving him tons of money. He doesn't have to get paid less for some people than for others. He charges ONE price for everyone and is able to provide better care and service.

Insurance companies are nothing but middle men skimming BILLIONS (or trillions) out of heath care each year. Those BILLIONS (or trillions) would be better spent on HEALTH CARE than insurance (paper pushing), however nobody is willing to even address THAT issue.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Thinboy00]

Or who knows, maybe a Libertarian will run and get elected because everyone's so pissed that they don't want to vote for either of the two main parties. One can dream.

Did you mean Libertarian or libertarian? There's a difference.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[h4rr4r]

I would rather vote for an actual socialist before a so called libertarian. As far as I can tell that party is made up of nutbags and racist nutbags and homophobic racist nutbags.

We need a actual centrist party, that has not sold out to corporate interests.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Thinboy00]

Currently, health care is extremely expensive for small businesses compared to large businesses, going by price-per-head. Universal health care would be great if it were accompanied by a public option (If I understand you correctly, "universal health care" == "everyone is required to buy insurance" and "public option" == "you can buy insurance from the government and/or at subsidized rates". The trouble is the former is tyrannical without the latter, and the latter would create enormous deficit without the former since 20-somethings wouldn't buy insurance and thus the only people with insurance would be the sick, at which point insurance becomes merely a proxy for medical bills, and if you subsidize that, you lose money.).

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[h4rr4r]

Health Insurance does not cover rare and expensive issues, they pawn you off on medicare/medicaid for that.

We need to either go no insurance except for rare and expensive events or universal coverage. The current system has the high prices of the latter with the lack of coverage of the former.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Grishnakh]

Yes, I realize that, but at this point, either one would be a big improvement.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[nschubach]

Universal health care is not the problem! Having 30%+ of your paycheck taken out every month is. Even if you got half of that back a month you could spend that "income" money as you wanted instead of how Obama/Bush/et al. want. You'd easily be able to afford your own health care, possibly/preferably without needing insurance to do it.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[roman_mir]

Well, that should have been addressed with the 'public option' idea, after all, in many parts of the world government insurance has extremely low overhead, because they are not in this to make money (not supposed to be) and it is good for creating competition to the rest of the insurance firms.

You won't get your public option in the US though, O'Bama :) is now preparing for the new election campaign (he is now the president 'reelect'). So good luck with him, he never wanted the public option in the first place, cut deals with all of the insurance and drug manufacturers, did everything every single republican wanted from him, would not allow you to import cheap drugs from Canada or other countries, and now, in the reelection mode, where do you think he'll go for the new campaign donations? Insurance companies of-course. You're done, son.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Grishnakh]

I would rather vote for an actual socialist before a so called libertarian. As far as I can tell that party is made up of nutbags and racist nutbags and homophobic racist nutbags.

You're confusing the libertarians with the Republicans, especially their "Tea Party" wing under Sarah Palin. Libertarians are people who favor smaller government, an end to the War on Drugs, an end to unnecessary foreign wars and military bases overseas, etc.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[cptdondo]

You've never been sick or had a child, have you? Current individual health care premiums approach nearly 50% of the average family income, and one kid with a broken arm can drive you into bankrupcy.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[cptdondo]

Most of the rest of the civilzed world has universal health care, and none of the dire things you say have happened..... Maybe we (americans) can lay aside our arrogance for a moment and learn something from another country.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Thinboy00]

There's actually a sound economic basis for rising medical costs:
1) As time goes on, most industries tend to improve in efficiency. One result of this is increasing wages, measured in terms of purchasing power (i.e. real wages rather than nominal wages)
2) Some industries don't improve in efficiency as rapidly or at all. For instance, a checkup nowadays isn't much faster or cheaper than 50 years ago.
3) If real wages in one industry increase and real wages in another industry fail to increase, college students/graduates and anyone else who can choose which field to specialize in will gravitate towards the better paying field and away from the worse paying field. As a result, the worse paying field suffers from scarcity of workers and is forced to raise its real wages too, in order to attract more workers. In short, wages tend to rise and fall together due to the laws of supply and demand applied to the factor market.
4) This money has to come from somewhere, and ultimately most of the cost is passed along to the consumer, since the field is no more efficient than it used to be but wages are higher (in other fields the increasing wages are accommodated by the increasing efficiency).
Individuals may choose to work for less than average wages (e.g. your doctor), but the overall economic trend is to rising medical costs. The most obvious way to subvert this is to dramatically improve the efficiency of medical care and to ensure that efficiency continues to improve over time. Since most medical research is not geared towards efficiency, we can expect to be stuck in this rut for a long time. Of course, this doesn't just apply to health care. Colleges are similarly slow to improve in the efficiency department, and that's why college is getting more and more expensive. I didn't just make this up, by the way. This reasoning is basically the same as something I read in a first year economics textbook.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[rjstanford]

Check out Administaff. You need at least 5 people in the company (could be an affiliation of otherwise self-employed people), but you can get in on their corporate health plans at "normal" exorbitant pricing. Professional organizations (IEEE et al) can also be great sources of health plans.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

Universal health care != bad.
Universal health care managed by incompetent (or semi-competent) people = bad.

Ask physicians what they think about everybody going on Medicare/Medicaid-style plans. Almost every hospital and physician loses money to see/treat patients on government plans. It's big news in the medical economics world when somebody finds a way to break even on most of their Medicare/Medicaid patients.

I believe in universal health care. I do not believe our government could do as good as the broken system we have now if they took over right now. When Medicare/Medicaid are set up in a way that works, I'll be the first to jump on the universal bandwagon. I prefer to pay $900/mo for my family's health insurance now than to get Medicaid (though I would probably qualify).

There are ways to improve the system. Putting more of medicine in the government's hands is a bad idea until they show they can do better. (a similar argument can be made for insurance companies)

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Aeros]

but but..Rush Limbaugh has always said it's the Democrats who are ruining our country and smashing our dreams and that Obama is leading us down a path of destruction in which we have very little hope of recovering. What a piece of dung that idiot is.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[element-o.p.]

Mod parent up.

Here's my story...I had a kidney transplant 15 years ago. I work for someone else because I can't afford health insurance on my own, and if I were to pay out of my pocket for the anti-rejection medicines that the doctors tell me I will need for the rest of my life, I would spend roughly $12K per month. That's a serious chunk of change, and it assumes that I never have another medical problem of any kind.

However, $12K out-of-pocket is still better than losing 30% of my paycheck to Obamacare (yes, I make more than $40K per year). Looks like even for me, having no health care is better than what Obama is pitching, especially if it went to one of those flexible savings plans where your anticipated health costs for the year are pulled out pre-tax.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Aeros]

No we need an "American party". This partisan crap is getting as bad as all the nut-bag religions.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[gangien]

How does this crap get modded up? libertarians are racists and homophobes? i'm not really sure how to respond to that, other than to say, the ideal of libertarianism is pretty much against any sort of collectivist thought, so we're by definition about as un racist/homophobic as you can get.

And nutbags? what's so nutty about any of the libertarian positions? if you think about them for half a minute, and don't just knee jerk react to the views, i don't think you'd find they're nutty.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Aeros]

easily afford your own healthcare? I seriously doubt that..have you read anything on here or even tried to price your own? It's extremely expensive to get anything half decent and if you have a pre-existing condition your screwed!

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[nschubach]

A broken arm will cost you around $2500. Sure, something like open heart surgery is going to hurt, but a broken arm is hardly a bankruptcy worthy event.

If you paid more for it than that, then you/your insurance got ripped off.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[blueg3]

$12k a month is $144k a year. Are you saying you make $480k a year?

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Grishnakh]

He's partly right. The Democrats ARE ruining our country, and Obama IS leading us down a path of destruction.

The problem is that the Republicans (in Congress) are ALSO ruining the country, and if a Republican were in the White House, s/he would ALSO be leading us down a path of destruction.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[gangien]

and how is it you'll get great people to manage universal health care? Even if you get 1 guy in there for awhile, you'll have to replace him at somepoint. But it usually doesn't even last that long. You get a bunch of bureaucrats writing these bills, and then people are shocked when it sucks.

Socialism really does not work. At some point, we will really learn this.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[DuckDodgers]

Reasonable political dissent doesn't get much attention in the media. When most people read "libertarian", they think of someone who wants to dismantle the government entirely and improve things by becoming a bunch of warring anarchist tribes battling for resources. Just like most people think a "green" is someone who would rather see people starve to death than drive to work in a vehicle that runs on fossil fuels.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[canadian_right]

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing this article, and many of the responses are from the USA, the last developed western country without universal healthcare, and labour laws out of the 19th century.

I stay at my job with large soulless corp due to the fair pay and excellent benefits - not fear of lacking health care.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[TheSpoom]

Wait. Wait, wait, wait.

You state that a broken arm should cost around $2500, and you think that's reasonable? For a treatment that has been around for decades, possibly centuries?

What the hell are you smoking?

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Beardo the Bearded]

Public health care. I've had it for my whole life. I'm Canadian.

In BC (we're hosting the Olympics in case you don't own an Atlas) we have insurance covered by the Medical Services Plan. For a family, it costs about $120 every month. Everybody must pay it, with exceptions and pro-rating for those with low incomes (basically, under $35k a year and you don't pay.).

It covers your basic medical coverage. This is everything from surgery to bandages. I was born via c-section, as were my two kids. It cost me $0. My kids were hit by a car. It cost me $65 for the ambulance. I had heart palpitations a while back; I got a Holter, stress test, ECG, and bloodwork for $0. As for waitlists, I had chest pains and had an ECG within 15 minutes of arriving at a nearby clinic (and saw a doctor with whom I had no previous relationship.)

You can get extended coverage, available privately, which will cover dental, optical, massage, prescriptions, etc. Lots of jobs include this as a perk, and will often cover those MSP premiums.

If you don't have your "public option" then you simply don't have health care. Otherwise, insurance will only be available for healthy young adults. If I understand your constitution correctly, assassination is acceptable for those who would threaten that option. It is, technically, self-defence.

Your health companies are being very odd with this -- you can set the levels of basic care, and then let people buy extended coverage. We've got that up here. We just make sure you don't have to pick which finger has to get sewn back on or make you flash a CC before you see the OR.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[foo fighter]

We don't treat health insurance like insurance. Insurance is for EMERGENCY and RARE EXPENSIVE claims.

That is because health insurance is for humans, not things.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[AnotherUsername]

I know several Libertarians. I don't think they are nutty. No, I think they are bat-shit crazy. I have thought about it for well over half a minute, and I just can't wrap my head around the selfishness involved in a Libertarian position.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

(Obama's environmental policies aren't really any different from Bush's, for instance).

Woah, holy shit, have you not even read the news in the past year? Or the past eight years for that matter?

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

Now figure out how much your insurance company is spending on you and your family's health. It's probably $15K a year, averaged over the past several years. Figure $500 per ear infection, and you see where that's going pretty quickly. Fuck the lawyers. Fuck the lawyers. Fuck the lawyers. Yes, I figured this out when the GI doc said "I don't think this is the problem, but your widow will sue me if I don't do this procedure and you die.". There's anoter $3K from the insurance company for preventative medicine -- lawsuit prevention that is. And yes, the procedure was a complete waste of time and a violation ... I've been assraped by proxy to keep the lawyers happy.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Lunix Nutcase]

The best thing America could do later this year in the election is to vote out EVERY incumbent

And what is that really going to achieve? They themselves will just end up becoming incumbents and will end up as dirty and corrupted as the current lot. Or do you think they are magically going to be immune to being corrupted unlike every other politician in the history of human politics?

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Beardo the Bearded]

As a Canadian who pays under 20% of his pay to taxes, I have to wonder what you're talking about. Our household income is a little over $100k/year.

I realize that it's not really a fair comparison, since my degree was heavily subsidized by tax dollars. (About $1200 in tuition per semester, now about $2500 per semester.) I graduated as an Engineer with $0 in student loans. (My family doctor had $300 (three hundred dollars) in loans, but that was 40 years ago.)

In all fairness, you also have the most powerful military in the history of the solar system.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[gangien]

OK then, go. what's selfish about it.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Slashdot Parent]

A 9-person company should be able to get a decent group rate. Especially if most of your employees are young and healthy. And they probably would be, because it's not like a new, small business can afford someone with 20 years' experience. :)

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Grishnakh]

Tell me what Obama has changed.

1) Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: no change, in fact Obama sent 40,000 more troops to Afg.

2) War on Drugs: little change (Federal enforcement of marijuana laws slightly relaxed, but not entirely).

3) Giant bank bailouts: no change. Bush started them, Obama continued them. Then he bailed out the car companies in addition.

4) Guantanamo: no change.

5) Environmental policies: no change (they're still doing aerial killing of endangered wolves, for instance).

I guess I can think of one thing: Bush wanted NASA to go to Mars, and Obama wants to cut its budget instead. That doesn't sound like something that most Slashdotters would favor.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Slashdot Parent]

If you don't have your "public option" then you simply don't have health care.

Are you trying to tell me I don't currently have health care?

If I understand your constitution correctly, assassination is acceptable for those who would threaten that option. It is, technically, self-defence.

No, you do not understand our constitution correctly.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[nschubach]

I didn't say it was reasonable, but it's certainly affordable, and not something that would bankrupt a family. I got that number from 2003, and it included follow up therapy, so it may be more or less now.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Aeros]

I agree that both parties have their weaknesses and it is mainly due to over spending. But the part that really gets me is how much they bicker over the same thing even if one side would be fine if 'they' initiated the idea. But since the other side is moving on the idea they hate it. Its just really sad to see how our politicians (most, not all) have lost sight of what they are supposed to be doing...making this a better country.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

Having children is a choice, not a mandate. It's a choice that one ought to make knowing what the potential consequences are.

On what moral grounds can you claim the right to my labor in order to subsidize a choice for which you don't want to bear the financial responsibility?

If you made the choice to have a wife and children, and I made the choice not to, there is no reason for my premiums to be the same as yours.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Slashdot Parent]

You've never been sick or had a child, have you? Current individual health care premiums approach nearly 50% of the average family income, and one kid with a broken arm can drive you into bankrupcy.

Actually, you can do pretty will with a high deductible plan+HSA. Also, check for group rates from any professional organization you belong to, and/or your local chamber of commerce.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Grishnakh]

Corruption takes time. The new lot isn't going to be already entrenched and hooked up with various special interests and lobbyists just as soon as they take office. Voting them all out will wipe the slate clean. Obviously, it's not a permanent solution, but nothing is. Thomas Jefferson told us that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time"; it's simply not possible to have a government immune to corruption, but if you change out all the politicians every few years, you'll have much better results than keeping the same set of people in forever.

Note that I did NOT say "vote out every incumbent, and then in future elections vote to keep this new group of people in office until they die."

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[cayenne8]

"You would need to right away get some lawyer to tell you everything little minor detail in law, an accountant to make sure you fill the complicated taxes correctly, take care of payment processing, and pay large amount of money for irrelevant things like health care and so on."

Really...it is not that hard. Honestly.

You incorporate yourself, I went for the "S" corp thing in order to be able to save on SS and medicare taxation (per the law), and to write off as much as I could. It works. Yes, it pays to get an accountant. She showed me the forms to fill, when to fill them...etc.

Yes, there is a good bit of paperwork, and you do want to keep good records. But I find it IS worthwhile to do so that you can keep more of your hard earned dollar. And if you like to be in control of your destiny, it is all about that too. I figure out my bill rates to include enough to let me take about 3 - 4 weeks a year vacation / sick time. I opened up a high deductible medical insurance policy which allowed me to open a HSA (Health Savings Account) which I can load up to the max pre-tax and use to spend on routine medical expense. I mean, really...anyone remember when insurance used to be called 'hospitalization'? Insurance should only be for catastrophic emergencies.

And you don't have to stretch the truth to get good money and keep good money. If it weren't a good thing...there wouldn't be quite so many people out there doing the independent contractor thing. If you can get into it...do govt. contracting!! Long term contracts that you can do 1099 with for years at a time.

However, if you are completely risk adverse..well, maybe it isn't for you. But if you are completely risk adverse...you're gonna have lots of problems in life. If you can't risk money for stocks and all...your savings WILL lose value in the long run.

And I've heard it put forth...you never get rich working for someone else.

And while I won't ever get really rich, I do enjoy the independence when I'm doing my own thing. I cannot stand having to "earn" vacation hours with each paycheck...figuring if I have time to take off for this or that. When working 1099, I notify the customer I'm gonna be gone 'x' days and I just go. I've figured it into my long term bill rate..so, I'm not losing any money.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[nschubach]

I'm not saying if it's right or wrong, but if we cut our military budgets and let other countries fend for themselves, we might just even the field a bit, don't you think? I mean, the world complains about our military outreach, but they don't thank us for not having to maintain a lot of that cost themselves.

The US is more than 20% taxed... unless you are below "poverty" you are likely being taxed around 30%.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[nschubach]

I have, and it costs me less than $75/month. Here's a site that's easy enough to find your own rates: http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[cptdondo]

The anastheseologist will cost you $2,500. So will the OR itself. And the OR doc. And the X-Ray tech. And don't forget the guy who actually applies the cast. Each of whom is a separate entity, and bill you separately.

My kid's broken arm cost $7,500 for the ER visit, and another couple of grand for the cast work.

Almost $10K for something that should cost about $500 - the whole shebang took about an hour, so 5 professionals at $125/hr should work out to about $600.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Chirs]

Indeed...a typical broken arm requires setting (possibly under anaesthetic), a cast, and maybe another visit to remove the cast. Ideally some physiotherapy afterwards to rebuild the arm muscles.

That shouldn't cost $2500.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Cajun Hell]

As far as I can tell that party is made up of nutbags

I agree, but those nutbags may be the sanest of the bunch.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

...Have you not even read the news the past year?

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[cayenne8]

"everyone is required to buy insurance"

And that point alone, most likely will not cut the mustard. People are already gearing up for to have that provision, if it passes, to be struck down immediately, and likely it would when it goes to the SCOTUS.

The US Constitution has NO provisions in there for the federal govt. to FORCE a citizen to do anything like this. It is not within their limited (supposedly) enumerated powers to tell a citizen they have to buy anything or face a fine.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[sucitivel83]

oh jesus bloody christ... seriously? socialist? are you completely mad? if socialism worked, then we'd still have a U.S.S.R. -- and if we would stop implementing fundamentally idiotic socialist reforms to our capitalist society, that would be a start in the right god damned direction. i don't understand how so many people out there, hate the direction our government is going, and then blame capitalism, and pray for more government sponsored programs and interventions (that is the definition of socialism my friends)... are you completely stuck in the clouds? we may as well have called the past 2 or 3 decades in the United States the "Socialist Era" (for that matter you can go back even further to the late 19th / early 20th centuries) Oh, btw. libertarians would not likely be "nutbags, racist nutbags and homophobic racist nutbags" -- and they aren't a party (lo siento) -- its a term for a view that is socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[nschubach]

Bailed out? They practically bought GM! As much as I understand the idea of "buy American, give American's jobs", GM needed to be punished, not bought.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[travelperu007]

It's hard to do anything as a beginner.

Of course, but the thing here is that you can't necessary choose the better way either, so you have to go by that. Of course it's easy to yell about "working for soulless big company like EA" from the moms basement, but that's not how it goes in the real world.

But the amount of such things you need to care of in the US isn't even bad yet. In other countries there's so many things you need to take care of it really, really puts you off. You'll be spending a lot more time trying to figure out all the overhead things than getting any work done.

You would need to right away get some lawyer to tell you everything little minor detail in law, an accountant to make sure you fill the complicated taxes correctly, take care of payment processing, and pay large amount of money for irrelevant things like health care and so on. If the workless people don't have to pay for health care, why should a beginning entrepreneur do so if they don't like to?

In beginning you really need someone. If you're an games programmer, this means someone that can handle the distribution and paying your share of it. PopCap and such might be good for a beginner.

On the internet it might also mean starting your site with no financial incentives first and hope someone picks you up, or provides funding and other expertise.

But yourself alone, as a newbie with no money to invest with - no, it's too hard.

travel peru http://www.tierrainka.net/

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Grishnakh]

Again, WHAT is different? Or do you just like to ask people if they've read the news over and over?

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[cayenne8]

"The anastheseologist will cost you $2,500. So will the OR itself. And the OR doc. And the X-Ray tech. And don't forget the guy who actually applies the cast. Each of whom is a separate entity, and bill you separately."

Who goes to the freaking OR for a simple broken arm?!?!

I broke mine skateboarding years back...I went to the ER..the shot my arm up to numb it...they set it (read, Dr. pulled on either side to pull the bones into alignment)..xrayed it, the bone slipped, they set it again, then wrapped it up in a temporary cast to allow for swelling. Next day, I went to Dr. and they put on a real cast.

Certainly no anesthesiologist nor operating room needed for a simple broken arm???

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[cayenne8]

"Looks like even for me, having no health care is better than what Obama is pitching, especially if it went to one of those flexible savings plans where your anticipated health costs for the year are pulled out pre-tax."

Unfortunately, it appears the Obamacare bills actually try to decimate the HSA and FSA accounts.

I love them...I frankly think of insurance as something that you use in case of catastrophic occurance (kidney surgery for instance). But for routine medical stuff...I save for it just like I do any other routine life expenditure (power bill, auto/motorcycle insurance, etc).

Frankly, I wish they'd really open up the HSA (Health Savings Accounts) to make them easier for more people to get. I like them better since they are not "use it or lose it" by EOY. With these, you can load them up pre-tax...and they roll over year after year. Heck you can even use these funds in investments to grow even more if you wish, and if you have money in them at retirement...you get to convert the funds to retirement dollars.

I dunno why the govt doesn't actually promote this more...unless somehow, this healthcare debate is not really concerning things to help the individual....

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

I dare you to walk into your doctors office or clinic and bring with you a contract like this one here: Forms. They will laugh you out of the office. Their prices are so pumped up from Medicare /Medicaid largess they do not have to be concerned about the price - it is all a game to them. Every version of the 'Universal Healthcare' is basically an expansion of Medicare/Medicaid - meaning even more increase in cost or rationing or quality cutting. Try that form and see if you can get your clinic to sign off on it. It's the sort of thing as an independent you get asked all the time 'how much will that cost'? But you are not allowed to ask your health care people that question - you just are forced to take whatever they throw at you.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[element-o.p.]

Dang it...sed "s/year/month/g"

I was thinking $12K per year while trying to type $1K per month.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[nschubach]

You got ripped off... I take it this was on insurance (higher cost) and not out of pocket (MUCH cheaper)? For a simple fracture, the cost, including X-Rays, etc. can be as low as $700-1000. For very complex breaks that need special bracing, return visits, and the like... you'd be paying as much as you did.

Don't use your Insurance paperwork for your pricing. Those numbers are not actual out of pocket cost. Next time you are at your doctor, ask him/her how much the visit will cost if you pay it out of pocket. Most will be a lot cheaper... you may even reconsider having insurance pay for it. Every claim you make increases the cost for everybody.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. My wife and I (filing jointly in 2009) had and AGI of over $120K, and our tax rate for 2009 ended up being 16.9%

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[DJoffe]

Tell me again how not having universal health care is good for small business?

Um, no, fallacy of false choice - not having DECENT healthcare insurance services is what is detrimental - yet you posit that the only choices available are "universal healthcare" and crummy healthcare. Yeah you got crummy healthcare, but there are other reasons for that (e.g. lack of competition), most of which are probably fixable in other ways without having to create "universal" healthcare. You didn't need *universal* healthcare in your case, you just needed a decent option.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[stdarg]

and the latter would create enormous deficit without the former since 20-somethings wouldn't buy insurance and thus the only people with insurance would be the sick, at which point insurance becomes merely a proxy for medical bills, and if you subsidize that, you lose money

The thing missing from the national debate is that insurance IS a proxy for medical bills. All this shifting around of costs does is change the average bill, it doesn't reduce costs.

The funny thing about the democrat cry for the uninsured is that many uninsured can't afford the high cost of insurance. That means either they have very expensive needs or they are poor enough that they can't afford even average insurance. Well guess what, either way, they're not going to be contributing a net positive amount of cash for the system, i.e. they are going to be an additional burden for everybody else.

The only people who are going to help are the people who don't have insurance because they're healthy and don't need it. And it's just fundamentally unfair to FORCE those people to buy it. A public option that is funded through tax revenue is equivalent and just as despicable, although most people find forcing "the rich" (or as it generally turns out, the middle class and up) to pay isn't quite so despicable for some reason.

I really believe we need health care reform. I think pre-existing conditions are crap and everybody should have coverage, but we have to do it in a way that is affordable and sustainable. This is the key element that has been missing from the debates -- you just cannot get away from the reality that insurance is a proxy for medical cost, and we as a society cannot afford to keep spending so much. It doesn't matter how you divvy up the cost, the overall cost is too high. There has to be a serious discussion on lowering costs, NOT lowering AVERAGE cost. If costs were lowered, the health care accessibility problem would fix itself for the most part, and wouldn't be so painful to fix legislatively if it was still necessary.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Grishnakh]

Agreed. Besides, if American jobs are the concern, it would make more sense to bail out Japanese and European companies, since they have lots of factories here in the USA, whereas the "Big 3" have moved much of their manufacturing to Mexico.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[blueg3]

That's at least more logical, although hopefully you appreciate that you aren't (and won't be) paying 30% of your paycheck to government-run health care. (Currently, 20% of the Federal budget is Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP.)

But it certainly the case that insurance premiums and health care tax costs can be more expensive than even respectably expensive health costs.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

So the answer is a nationalist party?
Worked for Hitler!

-
Godwin FTW!

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[dgatwood]

So we put in Libertarians and they deregulate businesses massively. Now those same big businesses can abuse their monopoly powers to ensure small businesses have even less of a prayer than they do under the D&Rs. Hardly an improvement, IMHO. Even the third-parties like the Libertarians are very much pro-big-business. There are basically no political parties that aren't, with the possible exception of the Green party (and it's possible that I simply don't know enough about their platform to see the giant flaws in it, too).

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[hibiki_r]

Doctors aren't working for ANYWHERE near average wages: They are extremely well paid after residency. Compare their earnings to what a doctor makes in most of Europe: the difference over some parts of the EU is extremely wide.

The reason people don't become doctors has a lot to do with medical school costs that have little to do with those in Europe. That is why, when many European countries have 3.5 to 4 doctors per 1000 people, the US has under 2.5.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[nschubach]

I just calculated my paycheck right now: 30.98% taxes deducted (not including my benefits deductions.) That's money I could be using on a daily basis, or money I can be paying in monthly health care insurance. Figuring your taxes on how much mortgage interest/children you deducted doesn't apply to everyone. For someone that's single, with no children and no mortgage interest, medical payments, etc. to write off, I'd get nowhere near 17% annually.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[cayenne8]

"I stay at my job with large soulless corp due to the fair pay and excellent benefits - not fear of lacking health care. "

If it makes you happy up there...good for you.

Personally, I want my govt to make it EASIER for me to work for myself, make more $$..KEEP more of my own money and let me spend it the way "I" see fit.

If we could get all the bean counters and bureaucracy and all out of the way, medicine wouldn't be as $$ as it is today.

Let me have catastrophic 'insurance' for things that aren't routine, and expand things like HSA's so I can save pre-tax for my routine medical expenses.

I dunno how you do it in Canada...but in the US, if the federal govt gets involved in it, it becomes a very $$$$ mess with too much red tape to be useful.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[B4D BE4T]

This is a great example of why I think the current debate over US health care is focused on the wrong issue. The problem is not the cost of health care insurance, the problem is the cost of health care itself. Sure, there are many problems with health insurance, but the question we need to be asking is not "how do we pay for health care?" The question we need to be asking is "why is health care so expensive?"

It is ridiculous that simple things like diagnosing/curing a common disease or setting a broken bone cost as much as they do. It is even more ridiculous that these things are so expensive that we need insurance to pay for them. Bring the cost of health care down and we can save insurance for the uncommon stuff, which should bring the cost of insurance down as a result.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[HeckRuler]

compound fracture?

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Tharsman]

It's not THAT hard, if you actually want to be the next Microsoft, but that does not seem to be the issue here. You see, Microsoft was a group of people that did a product and then sold it to some one else, well, licensed it.

What most people want is to write code for a company without being employes on their own terms.

If you want to be the "next Microsoft" then you have to work in something you think will change the world in your spare time and then get ready to distribute it. There are enough online distribution channels these days for you not to be forced into signing up with a specific publisher. You just have to keep realistic goals for what you can do on your own.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[__aagmrb7289]

And yet, what's being proposed wouldn't really lower your rates. If you weren't able to get health insurance AT ALL, then it'd help. But it won't make it more affordable, if the problem is that it is too expensive. If it's possible to get health insurance, no matter how crappy or expensive, under the current proposal - you'll be REQUIRED to get it. Period. No further help. And add to that? You will be taxed on the income you use to pay for it. So, what's so good about the proposed "socialized medicine" again?

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Khyber]

"A broken arm will cost you around $2500.'

Depends on the break.

My broken leg required me to be turned into a half-terminator (a fair bit of my leg is now titanium) at the cost of nearly 110,000.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Khyber]

"Who goes to the freaking OR for a simple broken arm?!?!"

*sighs* Boy Scouts should be a requirement for every child growing up. See, you learn about things like simple fractures, compound fractures, and how to assess severity of the break.

Then people would have half a clue about why many breaks require a trip to the OR.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[dgatwood]

The only reason the U.S.S.R. collapsed is that the U.S. had enough of an advantage in terms of their economic output and ability to incur debt to spend them under the table. The "Cold War" bankrupted the U.S.S.R., not socialism. Were it not for the isolation and the need to spend insane amounts of money on military spending due to fear that the U.S. would rule the world, they would still be around today, and they would probably be doing at least as well as China is.

Also, libertarians are *not* always socially liberal and fiscally conservative. They claim to be, but they almost universally favor corporate deregulation. That's anything but fiscally conservative; in many industries, every attempt at deregulation has consistently resulted in monopolies and higher costs in the long run. There are many industries where the most fiscally conservative position is actually socialism.... Health care, power production, telecommunications, and most other essential services fall squarely into that category.

What we need most are not people with ideologies like "socialism" or "libertarianism" or "liberal" or "conservative". What we need most are people who have brains and can think for themselves---people who look at each problem with fresh eyes, analyze the problem, analyze the possible solutions, and try to figure out the option that provides the best balance between improving the situation, causing the least overall harm, and causing the least discriminatory harm to any single group. Unfortunately, those people are too busy fixing what the politicians wreck to actually run for office.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[dgatwood]

That's because their primary job is not to make the country better. Their primary job is to get reelected. This is why we need A. slightly longer terms (say eight years), B. term limits (one term, period), C. campaign spending limits, and D. a total ban on third-party campaign ads that mention candidates by name. That's the only way we'll ever fix this problem.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[cayenne8]

"compound fracture?"

I said simple broken arm...nothing in the original post led me to believe anything but that. Aren't most breaks simple non-compound bone breaks?

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[pydev]

"but it's all complete lies. They're really little different from the Democrats."

Republicans are quite different from Democrats: Democrats at least pay for big government through tax increases, Republicans just spend and leave it up to the next democratic president to figure out how to bring some fiscal responsibility back to government.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy there, fella. Your clarity is blinding me.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[petit_robert]

However, $12K out-of-pocket is still better than losing 30% of my paycheck to Obamacare I wonder where you got that 30% figure from? Here (Paris, France) Social Security is actually 15% of my paycheck, the other 15% going for retirement and unemployment benefits. It seems to me that you would have much to gain with such a system, which mutualizes costs. I suppose this inflated estimate of the cost of Social Security is the type of FUD that is spread by people who stand to lose a lot of money if they stop collecting insurance premiums. Yet health care in the US costs 14% of GNP, compared to 11% in Europe(*), where everybody has access to medical care, which is far from being the case in the US. (* : http://www.amis.monde-diplomatique.fr/article1040.html)

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Grishnakh]

In the past, that was more or less true. Now, however, Democrats don't raise taxes either. Obama's increased the deficit several times over what Bush spent it up to, and he's only been in office a little over a year. With Democrats in control of Congress, there's no signs they're going to raise taxes to pay for it.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[jonwil]

Given all the stories I see about how health insurance in the US sucks and how even if you have it you are highly unlikely to actually get much in the way of benefits back should you HAVE a serious illness or injury, why would having insurance be better than just putting the same amount of money in a high interest savings account and spending that money should you need it.

Or does having health insurance get you other benefits vs just saving the money and paying out of pocket?

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[cromar]

Thanks for not sharing any insight with us though :)

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay for economic logic!

(1) Monopoly ("single seller") is bad.
(2) Monopsony ("single buyer") is also bad.
(3) Monopoly PLUS monopsony is good, if the monopolist/monopsonist is the government, "brokering" healthcare.
(4) ?
(5) Profit! (which, in this case, is pronounced "die")

I see no flaws! Full Bolshevism ahead!

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

That's so true.

The thing that shocks the hell out of me is that Americans just don't seem to realize how deeply immoral it is to make money out of health care. What you're saying is "I invest in poor people dying". Universal health care isn't perfect, but it's far closer than any profit driven venture.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

We need a actual centrist party, that has not sold out to corporate interests

Quite possibly, "centrist" and "not sold out" are mutually exclusive properties.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[CohibaVancouver]

The only reason the U.S.S.R. collapsed is that the U.S. had enough of an advantage in terms of their economic output and ability to incur debt to spend them under the table

My friends who lived in the Soviet Union would disagree with you. Certainly this was a contributing factor, but was by no means "the only reason." They argue the Soviet Union collapsed because there was no motivation or reward for excellence and no environment for entrepreneurship. If you worked at Glorious State Rocket Factory #12 you were not rewarded through better salary or perks if you innovated. Compare this with the environment at Grumman where they were building the Apollo LEMs where innovation and engineering excellence were rewarded. This extended across the entire Soviet economy and was the reason the west, in your words, had an advantage in terms of "economic output."

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Blakey Rat]

The only way to pass legislation with a clause like that is to amend the Constitution to allow it. Unfortunately, the Constitution has become something of a holy book recently, no politicians have brought up amendment in decades. I mean, the whole point of the document is that it's "living", that is, as society changes it's supposed to change to keep up.

Any bill passed with this clause, but without amending the Constitution to allow it, will be struck down sooner or later. Even the most activist judge can't pretend that it's not unconstitutional.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[haruharaharu]

You forgot the part where the IRS is actively going after single person corps and slapping their clients with employment taxes on the rationale that the person is actually an employee. That sort of risk is hard to overcome when going for clients.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Mothinator]

Oh really? I have medicare taken out of my check every month.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS is why healthcare is so screwed up. The clinics are experts at scamming the insurance companies. Don't force everyone to buy insurance, regulate the out-of-control insurance claims, and regulate the insurance business itself so that competition can work. The aged voting body is so biased toward stuff like "you pay nothing" motorized wheelchairs, its ridiculous.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[haruharaharu]

1. the focus for the wars is shifting to Afghanistan with the idea of not turning Iraq into a total CF. This takes time.
2. No Pot prosecution is way better than the insanity of the last 20 years of drug war.
3. And what is the alternative? It sucks, but could you come up with something that should've been done instead?
4. There is the whole shifting some prisoners to actual stateside prisoners and not claiming that achmed the goatherder is a dangerous enemy combatant
5. A bit of a stretch.

Obama cut Nasa's budget a bit - imagine that. We're in the hangover from 15 years of binge drinking, economically speaking. Mars will still be there.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[nschubach]

Health care is so expensive because people use it for anything and everything. Think of it like this...

If you used your car insurance for everything dealing with your car (like we use health insurance for everything dealing with our body) you'd be able to claim routine maintenance bills on your car insurance like you claim doctor's visits and checkups. You'd be able to claim oil changes and tire replacements on your car insurance... people wouldn't care what the cost was because it's paid for. The tire companies and oil companies would slowly raise prices on their goods, mechanics would get more wages (because the customer doesn't care about the bottom line... they have monthly fees)

It would be the same situation with the car industry as it is with health care. It's even scarily similar in that health insurance and car insurance both have network providers.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[haruharaharu]

All the things you said pale before this fact: we spend more that the rest of the developed world and get less for it. We should be able to cut costs by 30% and cover everybody at a reasonable level. That would bring us in line with a place like canada. Sometimes I think about giving the finger to my homeland and just going there.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[element-o.p.]

I wonder where you got that 30% figure from?

Taken from the parent post. The way things currently exist in the U.S. (or at least where I work, anyway), I have 7.8% to Social Security, 1.8% to Medicare and just over 6.5% to a rather nice medical and dental plan, for a total deduction of just over 16%. Sounds pretty close to what you already have.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[s73v3r]

Nice site, but it doesn't help those of us that have pre-existing conditions. Currently it says that plans start at $50/month, but I wonder what that'll shoot up to once they get wind of my disorder.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the rest of the civilzed world has universal health care, and none of the dire things you say have happened....

Except that they have, in a sense. You can't waltz on into Germany or wherever and show up demanding free universal healthcare. They will boot you at customs because, get this, they can't afford to pay for someone who wants free unlimited care on demand.

Also, the euros aren't all blimps. Seriously. Their fat people are skinny Americans. Want to decrease the problems? Get the nation on a treadmill.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Khyber]

Can't share insight, I'm too busy telling kids to GTFO my lawn and forgetting where my Alzheimer's pills went.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[cayenne8]

This in actuallity...RAREly is happening... You have to be doing some pretty bad stuff..trying to to hide taxes and doing things wrong to get on that shit list....

If it were that bad...there wouldn't be as many people doing it as there are.

And if you're a sub to a sub or whatever to a government contract...well, how can you get hit as an employee if everything is contract based?

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[gangien]

You know, there's many problems with the other major implementations of universal health care.

Plenty of problems in canada, plenty of problems in UK.

Oh sweden has great medical care? swell, all seven million of them. That really doesn't compare to the 300 million in the US. Not to mention, these types of universal systems, work better in a more homogeneous environment. Which is generally the case when you look at the EU countries.

But really, their systems will end up costing them a lot more, and may at some point collapse entirely. It took communism in the soviet union 70 years to fully collapse. this stuff does not happen over night.

But besides all that. what is health care, it's a good/service. and what method best delivers goods and services? the free market. It delivers all those other things you rely on, cheaply and effectively. medical care is certainly not as essential to life, as food is, but you don't rely on universal healthcare for that.

Not to mention any federal healthcare is illegal. There is certainly no place in the constitution that allows for something like health care.

But don't worry everyone, socialized medical care is coming. and it will suck, and you'll then want more government control, and more. Thanks a lot.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[cayenne8]

There was an amendment to allow taxation, which this is.

They don't, however force you to take part in medicare, or fine you if you don't.

Truthfully...SS would be a better thing to bring up, not sure how they force you into that.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Grishnakh]

the focus for the wars is shifting to Afghanistan with the idea of not turning Iraq into a total CF. This takes time.

Wow, big change. How about winding the wars down instead? We're not accomplishing anything there.

No Pot prosecution is way better than the insanity of the last 20 years of drug war.

The DEA is still prosecuting for pot, just not quite as much as before. In fact, I've read it's now increasing.

And what is the alternative? It sucks, but could you come up with something that should've been done instead?

Let them die! WTF? GM did NOT need to be bailed out, it should have gone bankrupt. Same with AIG. At the very least, any company that took government money should have had strong government oversight, instead of just getting free money. Besides, what's the point of the FDIC if a failing bank just gets bailed out? Why isn't the government taking over these banks and breaking them up? There's tons of things that could have been done instead of just handing out blank checks.

There is the whole shifting some prisoners to actual stateside prisoners and not claiming that achmed the goatherder is a dangerous enemy combatant

Wow, big change.

A bit of a stretch.

I'm sorry, I haven't seen any significant difference in environmental policies between Bush and Obama whatsoever.

Obama cut Nasa's budget a bit - imagine that. We're in the hangover from 15 years of binge drinking, economically speaking.

So why are we still binge drinking, at a much higher rate than before? Nothing we're doing is going to fix the situation.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Nefarious Wheel]

To quote an old Husqvarna hare & hound racer some years back, "A downhill is just like a straightaway, only you can go faster."

Put anybody in front of a wheeled mass, headed downhill, and check their attitudes. The one who whoops at the speed gain is the one you want if you want to survive the run, not the one who covers their eyes and spends their nervous energy in total flinch-mode.

Your country is changing, fast. You want someone who admits to the speed and steers like hell. Honestly, from an outsider's perspective, you could have really screwed up badly in your last national election, and you didn't.

Ok, well, there's Biden, but even he's better than that eyes-connected-to-lime-jelly turkey strangler he ran against.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Boronx]

Obama has promised to reduce the deficit later, we'll see what happens, but the last thing you want to do is raise taxes and cut spending in the worst recession in 70 years.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Mothinator]

So, then single-payer health insurance will come as a tax.
That is how they will force everyone (who works) to pay into it.
They won't force you to USE medicare. You can always choose to go to a private hospital (as you can in Canada).

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Grishnakh]

Your country is changing, fast. You want someone who admits to the speed and steers like hell. Honestly, from an outsider's perspective, you could have really screwed up badly in your last national election, and you didn't.

What are you talking about? We DID screw up badly in our last election. We had a whole panel of candidates in two parties, and on each side, we managed to pick the absolute worst candidate possible, then we ran the two against each other. It's really a toss-up whether McCain would have been any worse than Obama, although if McCain died I'll admit we'd have been in serious trouble with Caribou Barbie in charge.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[shutdown -p now]

There are basically no political parties that aren't, with the possible exception of the Green party (and it's possible that I simply don't know enough about their platform to see the giant flaws in it, too).

I once went through the list of currently-active U.S. political parties, to see if there are any which I wouldn't consider either extreme economic liberal / social conservative, or extreme socialist. The only one I could sympathize with was the Modern Whig Party.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Insightfill]

Next time you are at your doctor, ask him/her how much the visit will cost if you pay it out of pocket.

Yeah, for the office visit, if it's a single doctor, and not a group practice, this may have a chance. But the minute you involve anyone else it disappears as an option.

My dad is self-employed. Dental insurance is a 'wash' - pays as much - if not more - than it costs and covers. He pays the dentist cash and gets a break. Oh - dentist is a friend of the family and owns the whole practice.

My wife went to a group practice general doctor a few months ago and needed a culture done for a possible infection. We have one of those new "High Deductible" plans - nothing is paid until you reach $2500/person (still costs me $330/month from my paycheck and my employer is kicking in another ~$600-1000/month). Before she hands the container with the sample to the nurse, she asks - " Hey, we pay for everything with the new plan - what does this cost?" Nobody knew. Took 20 minutes of running around and calls. Final answer: $800 for the sample.

Paying cash and getting a reasonable rate is only an option for small practices. If you have an encounter with a larger institution, you may get a break if you specifically ask for the "Blue Cross Rates". They sometimes come through and let you use that rate plan, as they'd rather get 100% of something rather than nothing and have to turn you over to collections.

My own three day stay in a hospital last year would have cost over 20K "out of network" (aka out of pocket), but 4K in-network, and one lab in the hospital insisted on being treated as out of network and charging for an uncovered procedure. That was another $800 out-of-pocket.

No other industry can work with such pricing. Any other business is expected to give you at least a ballpark pricing plan - even the damn cell phone companies. But: medical isn't one of them.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Grishnakh]

So why's he cutting spending on NASA?

Yes, actually you do want to cut spending in a recession. There's a lot of crap that the government wastes money on, and a recession is a good time to go through everything with a fine-tooth comb and get rid of things that aren't really needed or are wasteful. Obviously, some things you want to keep because killing them will cause more problems, and some programs are good for stimulating jobs, but what about things like Federal spending on marijuana enforcement? How's that helping the economy? Billions are spent not just on police for this, but on keeping people in prison. Wouldn't it make sense for those people to be working instead? Or how about all the money spent on welfare programs and disability cheats? That's still a huge part of the budget. Finally, how about downsizing the military? How is war in the middle east helping our economy? It isn't. Or what about bases in places like Japan and Spain? Do we really need those? No.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[shutdown -p now]

oh jesus bloody christ... seriously? socialist? are you completely mad? if socialism worked, then we'd still have a U.S.S.R.

USSR was a failure of totalitarian socialism, not socialism in general.

pray for more government sponsored programs and interventions (that is the definition of socialism my friends)

The definition of socialism is actually collective (via state in statist socialism, directly by community in anarcho-socialism) ownership of means of production. That's all there is to it. If a person can own factory or land for themselves, then it's not socialism - it's still capitalism (albeit possibly regulated).

Going by your definition, though, there are many successful "socialist" states - most of Europe, for example.

That's what I actually find funny about some of you pro-capitalist guys... you use the example of USSR to show why "socialism cannot work", but then give a definition of socialism that is much more broad than the specific stillborn variety that was practiced in USSR and its client states.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama really doesn't have a choice with Iraq and Afghanistan. If we pulled out tomorrow, it would start two new wars, not end two wars. Sure, we wouldn't be involved, but it would still be the USA at fault for causing them. You'd have civil war in Iraq, Turkey invading the Kurdish area of Iraq, Iran invading Southern Iraq, and the rest of Iraq fighting each other. In Afghanistan it would be the Taliban vs the Northern alliance all over again, except this time Pakistan has pissed off the Taliban, so when they win the Taliban will just start fighting Pakistan again.

What will be different is whether or not he starts any new wars. Yes, if you did read the news you would see the potential 2012 Republican Presidential candidates like Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and others saying that Obama is putting our nation at risk for not going to war with Iran. What do you think they would be doing if they were in power?

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[shutdown -p now]

Most of the rest of the civilzed world has universal health care, and none of the dire things you say have happened

Please read GP carefully. His "dire effects" are what happens when you have mandatory universal healthcare with no public option (i.e. you have to go and buy insurance from a private party), or when you have public healthcare which is non-mandatory (so you can opt-out and skip funding it). To my knowledge, there's no country which works like that today, and U.S. might just be the first one to get into that mess.

Universal and public healthcare works, of course. That's the point.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[piltdownman84]

My dental is like that. I have coverage through work, but only 66%. Its actually cheaper for me just to pay cash than the remaining third, as the all the dentists charge insurance almost five times as much as an individual. The small company I work for is looking at dropping our company dental and just having us claim through accounting for anything under x dollars.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[haruharaharu]

That's easy - they look at the fact that you work mostly for company X and work specific hours, etc, then declare that you are actually an employee, so the employer owes a bunch of taxes.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[turbidostato]

"if you actually want to be the next Microsoft"

If you actually want to be the next Microsoft, you'd better start with a grandparent being president of a national bank, a million dollars in your account, a mother in direct connection with IBM's board of directors and quite a bit of luck.

Not so much for a starting.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[turbidostato]

"if you think about them for half a minute, and don't just knee jerk react to the views, i don't think you'd find they're nutty."

Probably you are right. It's when you think about it five minutes or more when you find what a dumb idea it is.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Tharsman]

Well, if you ACTUALLY want to be the next Microsoft you should start by finding friends that are geniuses and stealing their ideas, but I think my point should had come across.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[mbkennel]

"If you worked at Glorious State Rocket Factory #12 you were not rewarded through better salary or perks if you innovated. " However, sufficiently brutal Leninist demotivation aversion was quite convincing, if stochastic.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

I would rather vote for an actual socialist before a so called libertarian. As far as I can tell that party is made up of nutbags and racist nutbags and homophobic racist nutbags.

GNNA?

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[msoftsucks]

They actually have modified the Constitution, they just don't call them amendments. The Patriot Act, DMCA and now ACTA are all designed to take away rights that the Constitution provides. Many sections of the Patriot Act violate the Constitution directly, yet in all the passing years, there hasn't been a successful challenge to it. Both the Dems and Reps have figured out that they can pass any onerous law without scrutiny by going down this road. Just look at whats going on with ACTA right now.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[markov23]

if you are an s-corp you need to have more than one client -- or the irs will eventually get annoyed. thats not that hard to do though - and this is what accountants are for -- to make sure you dont have issues like that. As someone who worked corporate and is independent now -- all of these reasons not to go independent are just fear talking. And the feeling that its safer inside of a corporation -- that is to put it bluntly - a lie you are telling yourself so you can sleep at night. the only barrier to working for yourself is getting over your fear, and getting your first client.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[ScrewMaster]

No we need an "American party". This partisan crap is getting as bad as all the nut-bag religions.

Not exactly. Like Lewis Black said, "The only thing stupider than a Republican, or a Democrat, is when these little pricks work together." That's why bipartisanship is good for the country. See, we already have more bad law than we could ever possibly use, so I prefer it when they waste time and energy arguing over some stupid bill rather than actually passing it.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[radtea]

My kid's broken arm cost $7,500 for the ER visit, and another couple of grand for the cast work.

One of my kids was thrown from a horse at the age of 10 or so. He was bleeding from one ear. I took him to emerg where he was seen in minutes. Busted eardrum. Doc cleaned it out, prescribed some kick-ass anti-biotic that's used for injuries in cases where there's a high chance of infection, and away we went

Cost of antibiotics: about $100.

Cost of seeing the doc: $0 (other than what I pay in taxes for health care).

Oh, yeah: I am Canadian. There's great peace of mind in a situation like that, knowing that whatever happens your child is going to get the best care available.

I've lived and worked in the States, and I wouldn't take your health care system for anything. My only major beef with the Canadian system is we have too many restrictions on private provision of medical services, and that is strictly a defensive move against the predatory health care industry to the south of us, which would move in, take over and fuck things up if we gave it the least bit of wiggle room.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[haruharaharu]

This isn't fear so much as a frank assessment of risk and an acknowledgment that 1099 isn't for me right now. In a year or so, the answer may be different.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[ScrewMaster]

they would still be around today, and they would probably be doing at least as well as China is.

Unlikely. The U.S.S.R never developed anywhere near the commercial economy that is required to truly support a major high-technology military. They were not (and still are not) willing to allow their people enough elbow room to actually create something for themselves. Matter of fact, I would venture to say that China is doing so well because they learned from the negative example offered by the Soviet Empire, and are not making the same mistakes. Good for them, not so good for us (or the Russians, for that matter.)

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[uncqual]

I suspect the (I believe unfounded) accusations of libertarians being racist/homophobic are that libertarians don't think a government should have any say in who one associates with, hires, promotes, or fires -- even if the only reason for these decisions is the other individual's race, religion, gender, sexual preferences, weight, height, eye color, or shirt color. This can be confusing for those that don't understand the difference between supporting the right of an individual to make a decisions vs. supporting all such decisions an individual might make.

For example, a libertarian would support the right to smoke dope -- even if they don't choose to do so themselves or even choose to refuse to associate with those who do so. This doesn't make the libertarian "pro drug".

I've never figured out why this is so hard for some liberals and conservatives to understand about libertarians.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[s122604]

Plenty of problems in canada, plenty of problems in UK.

Plenty of problems here in America too. Those countries you mention cover everyone, spend half as much (as a percentage of GDP, and since their GDP is less per capita even less than that), and their life expectancy, just as good...

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[gangien]

yeah, and what causes these problems we have in america? government intervention. These problems didn't exist 50 years ago. going to the doctor's was cheap, people didn't get turned down, it was a much better system.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[countertrolling]

...Glorious State Rocket Factory #12...

Didn't an explosion clear the way for a Glorious New Tracker Factory?

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[countertrolling]

Uh... Tractor?

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Ambiguous Puzuma]

$75/month? $508.04/month is the cheapest plan listed for me, other than a $158.41/month hospital-only plan. I'm a healthy non-smoking male in my late 20's.
The insurance companies have failed us.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Boronx]

On the grounds that a country that doesn't produce a lot of children is doomed to die.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[turbidostato]

"So, what's so good about the proposed "socialized medicine" again?"

* Europe has socialized medicine
* Europe pays less on healthcare than USA (11% vs 14% of GNP)
* In Europe you never go bankrupt because of long hospitalization or live-longed treatments
* Child mortality in Europe is lower than that of USA (while I didn't find the average value for the whole European Union, i.e. Spain, not one of the strongest countries on the region, 4.26 vs 6.9 per 1000 born)
* Europeans have higher hope of survival (79 vs 77.9 y.o.)

Draw your own conclusions.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[uncqual]

Certainly you wouldn't expect the doctors (anesthesiologist and the OR doc) to cost $125/hour? It's hard to find a software consultant to work for that -- and they don't even need a license or many years of additional expensive education and residency.

You also seem to have left out all the nursing staff (including one or two OR nurses).

You also need to factor in the facilities cost, payroll costs (including payroll taxes and, yes, health insurance for staff), and administrative costs. Also, don't forget, someone had to restock and clean the OR. Oh, and someone had to transcribe the medical record.

You also need to factor in the malpractice insurance. If this procedure had gone wrong somewhere and left your kid even slightly disabled, the doctor's/hospital's malpractice insurance would have had to pay thousands of dollars just to prepare to defend themselves, would probably end up paying out a "cost of defense" settlement of tens of thousands of dollars just because it would be cheaper than defending themselves, and if you found a sympathetic jury, the malpractice insurance might have to pay out hundreds of thousands (after all, your kid was an avid participant in $ACTIVITY which s/he can no longer excel at so their dreams of pursuing a professional career doing $ACTIVITY are now dashed).

Agreed that $10K sounds a little high, but $500 is absurdly low -- I wouldn't be surprised if that barely covered the sum total of all the malpractice insurance carried by those involved in your kid's care while caring for him/her.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[hrvatska]

Maybe things vary around the country, but around here everyone I know (5 people) that has tried to negotiate a price with a hospital or doctor has found the price to be substantially more than what the insurance company pays for the same service. My friends' and family's experience has been that when you say you can't afford the price the doctor sends you down to their finance office and they give you a little brochure from a company that will loan you the money for the procedure. I've always thought the doctor must be getting some sort of kick back from the finance company. My neighbor requires back surgery, and the only neurosurgery group in the area is not in plan for his insurance company. He's talked to them, and they will not negotiate a price. They charge what they charge, and that's that. When my daughter was six years old there was the possibility that she would require eye surgery. I checked with two local eye surgeons, and they both charged the same price for the procedure, and neither would negotiate. And none of the local hospitals would discuss price.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[B4D BE4T]

My point exactly. We need to bring the cost of health care down to a point where we don't need insurance to cover "maintenance costs."

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[hrvatska]

Universal care != socialism. There are a number of different models for achieving universal care across Europe. Everything from Britain's NHS to the system in place in Switzerland.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mistake was going to the ER for a broken arm. I mean honestly, it's common knowledge that ER's in the US screw you long and hard; I can't believe anyone goes to them for anything short of a life-threatening emergency anymore. I've had multiple broken bones and other injuries over the last decade, and I've gone to a regular doctor or orthopedic each time -- or an "Urgent Care" if it's after hours.

In either case, it's incredibly cheap compared to an ER visit, and much quicker. I have good insurance, so no matter what my co-pay is 15-30 bucks -- unless I go to the ER, then it's $100. However, I've gotten the full bills for those visits for curiosity's sake, and if I didn't have my insurance it'd have never been more than $500 for any of those visits (including casts, braces, time with specialists, x-rays, etc).

Basically, health care in the US sucks horribly. But that doesn't mean you need to just bend over and lube up.

Be smart about where you take yourself (or you family/friends/etc) when you (they) are sick/injured. If it's life-threatening, go to the ER. If they're not going to die, go to a doctor or specialist. If the ER's the only thing open, apply basic first aid and stabilize the injury until the doctor/specialist opens for business. If you don't know how to do that, call your doctor or specialist's office; often times they have an off-hours emergency line or outsourced nurse service that can provide helpful information over the phone.

So pretty much, it is possible to get by without getting shafted by the hospitals and healthcare system. But it involves some invested time, patience, and determination (Ever nursed a broken arm for 10 hours waiting for something other than the ER to open? It's pretty awesome.) If you'd rather just go to the ER, remember that you're paying out the ass for that convenience. And that you'll often wait quite a while to be seen if it's not a life-threatening injury/illness.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Haljo Gemel]

"Who goes to the freaking OR for a simple broken arm?!?!"

ummm me. I've broken mine half a dozen times and i just go straight to OR, get it xrayed and a cast slapped on it. Its never directly cost me a cent either. Of course I live in Australia and we have public health.

And by the way I went to boy scouts but i don't remember the class on how to diagnose a broken arm.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[R3d M3rcury]

A few years ago, my friend wiped out on her bicycle. She ended up with a collapsed lung and a couple of cracked ribs. Ended up spending 3 days in the hospital.

She had no health insurance.

She had two choices: Pay $20,000 over 10 years or pay $5,000 up front, right now. She payed the $5,000.

I asked about the reason for the disparity and was told that lots of people sign up for $20,000 and then skip out. After all, what's the hospital going to do? They can't repo. If they try to sue, the media will run a sob-story about this poor injured person. About all they can do is hurt their credit rating.

I was amused because a bill showed up a week or two later for an extra $1500. "Ah ha!" I thought, "now we'll see the, 'Oh! That didn't include...' even though we asked, repeatedly, whether this includes everything." She went in with the bill and the hospital said, "Oops! Our mistake! Never mind." and tossed the bill.

So never underestimate what cash on the barrelhead can accomplish.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

news.google.com

not foxnews.com

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[gangien]

socialism = government owned/controlled. if the federal government requires everyone to have healthcare that's socialized healthcare. not as hardcore as them running it, but some bad effects are still there.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[the_humeister]

You're basically subsidizing all the other people who end up at the ER without health insurance and who otherwise can't pay. We already have de facto socialized medicine in the USA.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[rycamor]

Actually, deregulation ALONG WITH removal of all protectionism, bailouts, juicy government contracts, favorable (targeted) legislation, etc. would go a long way toward evening the scales between small companies and large companies.

Big companies can always find a lawyer to help them through the regulation minefield, plus they can always pay off a congressman or two to make people look the other way.

Honestly, big companies love big government, and they love bureaucracy, because THAT is what ensures their continued existence. Do you really think the Big 3 auto makers would still be in existence today if they had to function in a competitive market?

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[cayenne8]

"So, then single-payer health insurance will come as a tax. That is how they will force everyone (who works) to pay into it. They won't force you to USE medicare. You can always choose to go to a private hospital (as you can in Canada)."

However, that is NOT how it is written in the current bills. They are written that you MUST buy and pay for insurance...and that will be thrown out as unconstional.

Currently you do pay medicare tax...but, that's not the issue.

As for me..I'm very much against it. I mean, the US track record on medicare/medicaid is NOT good so far. They have corrruption, it is way over budget...full of red tape...etc.

Frankly, before the US even thinks about trying to manage healthcare over everyone in the US, they should first try to get what they've been trying to do for decades right first, and THEN maybe more of us will listen.

So far, the federal programs I've seen don't fill me with confidence with them managing and directing my medical care that my very life depends on...especially in my later years.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[gangien]

I know right, the idea that people can decide for themselves what to do in their life, really nutty.

that people can do what they want with there body, and it's no business of the government. What nuttiness.

that free markets bring you the stuff you enjoy and need better than any socialized system could, and history has shown this time and time again.

STOP THE INSANITY!!!!!!!!!

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[uncqual]

even if you have it you are highly unlikely to actually get much in the way of benefits back should you HAVE a serious illness or injury

I think this is a serious misconception. Most Americans with insurance who experience a serious illnesses or injury find their medical care is well covered subject, of course, to their policy caps/deductibles. (There is, however, a serious problem with lack of portability of insurance and pre-existing conditions -- interestingly, COBRA deals with these somewhat effectively, why we don't first try placing similar rules on private insurance policies rather than going the whole "mandate" route perplexes me).

Of course, the media reports the exceptions far more often than the norm (much as the fact the sun came up in the east every morning for the past century is rarely reported but if it came up in the south tomorrow morning, that would be a well reported event).

It seems that most cases where people have difficulty getting their insurance companies to cover expenses (within policy coverage limits/deductibles of course) revolve around the question if a procedure is medically appropriate and necessary for the condition and/or is likely to be successful. These calls are, of course, subject to judgment. Insurance companies may try to avoid paying for things like organ transplants if they don't think they are likely to be successful (for example, see Nataline Sarkisyan). Or, they may deny a request to pay more to accelerate a transplant if they feel such acceleration is not necessary. However, these are the exception rather than the rule (for example, people with various forms of cancer which cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat under standardized diagnostic and treatment protocols find that their care is covered without argument by their insurance company).

It is true that sometimes the insurance company (or, HMO) will limit a policy holder's choice of provider (i.e., only providing full payment to "in network" providers), but the insured knows that before taking out the policy and these providers are licensed and regulated - they aren't unlicensed quacks in some third world nation.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[rycamor]

I know several Libertarians. I don't think they are nutty. No, I think they are bat-shit crazy. I have thought about it for well over half a minute, and I just can't wrap my head around the selfishness involved in a Libertarian position.

How true.

We're selfish because we don't want to take your money to support our needs or our pet social causes, and because we don't want to force you to be anything you don't want to be. I feel such a deep sense of shame washing over me right now...

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[drsmithy]

Tell me what Obama has changed.

I only have a rough idea of how the US system works, so I'm kind of curious - how many of those does the President even have the ability to "change" ? Are they not things that need to work through layers of politicians before they can be enacted as legislation ?

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Jurily]

In other countries there's so many things you need to take care of it really, really puts you off.

If you play by the rules in Hungary, as an entrepeneur you'll be spending 95%+ of your income on various taxes, health care, retirement plan, etc. You even have to pay a significant amount if you had no income whatsoever. And people wonder why tax evasion is a national sport here.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[bzipitidoo]

Did the Pirate Party exist when you last updated your list?

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Stiletto]

We don't treat health insurance like insurance. Insurance is for EMERGENCY and RARE EXPENSIVE claims.

Every trip to the doctor is expensive. That's why people need to use insurance for every trip to the doctor. And that's why every trip to the doctor is expensive.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Yert]

Thank you for the link. I've been thinking about reviving the Whigs... glad someone beat me to it.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[ajlisows]

dqatwood is spot on. I consider myself a "Libertarian" but I don't agree with all of their ideals. Nor do I agree with all Republican ideals. Nor do I agree with all Democratic Ideals. I have my own set of ideals that are based on the particular issue. I will not "toe the party line" on issues that I disagree with. I will not blindly vote Libertarian if I think there is a better candidate...which I will do frequently.

Libertarians are not the nut cases (although some certainly are). The nut cases are the people who vote a straight ticket each and every election no matter what. The nut cases are those who pound their chests about their party being totally awesome and the other party(ies) sucking. You are NOT doing yourself or this country a favor. You are doing a tremendous disservice. Educate yourself. Be an individual. If you thought Obama was the better candidate, you should have voted for him no matter what the others in your conservative church group said. If you thought Mccain was the better candidate, you should have voted for him no matter what the other hipster you hang with thought.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[BitterAndDrunk]

Also, libertarians are *not* always socially liberal and fiscally conservative. They claim to be, but they almost universally favor corporate deregulation. That's anything but fiscally conservative; in many industries, every attempt at deregulation has consistently resulted in monopolies and higher costs in the long run. There are many industries where the most fiscally conservative position is actually socialism.... Health care, power production, telecommunications, and most other essential services fall squarely into that category.

It's a weird line to walk. I initially responded with "yes, anything that's a public good" but how do you define a public good?

Insurance simply works better if everyone's involved with the same plan, mitigating risk collectively.

Education is great, as it results in a more flexible populace, and enables self-improvement.

Employment is great, because everyone should work for their food.

But telecommunications - it's sort of a public good but is it the government's job?

Education? Health care? (I lean towards yes on all three)

I think if they don't disallow competition, government solutions are fine. If they suck at it, then businesses can compete with them on service/cost and make a living. Socialism with a twist I guess.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

And so far, only one person has flown his plane into an IRS building.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[benjamindees]

You really haven't thought any of that through.

Ownership of a thing includes the right to destroy that thing. Eliminating private property and collectivizing the means of production makes everyone dependent upon those means for survival. Destroying the means of production would destroy the lives of everyone in the society. Collectivizing ownership of the means of production, and the right to destroy those means, gives each individual the right to destroy the entire society.

Suffice it to say, it's not a very good idea.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Mothinator]

I somewhat agree with you. I think the idea of making everyone buy health insurance is ludicrous. That is the "Let them eat cake!" attitude to fixing things.
The problem is not that there aren't enough people buying health insurance, it is that it is too expensive to afford.
To fix that we need to fix the way we practice medicine and the way health insurance companies operate.
Quite frankly, I have no beef with Medicare. I'm not old enough to participate, so i have no first hand experience, but it sounds like there is less red tape, corruption, and profiteering than most health insurance companies.
I would love to see a single-payer system set up that actually worked. I'd even be willing to settle for a public health insurance option, so long as it is not tied to employment.
However, I agree that none of the options on the table currently are very appealing and the thought of government mandating people purchase health insurance coverage is ridiculous and does not solve the true problem.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Gr8Apes]

You're wrong.

I think something between Virginia and England is correct. No 2 consecutive terms and a vote of confidence taken within 5 years. Combine those two, and the voters can yank the incompetent ass out, or allow them to serve the full term.

NO campaign funds. NONE. ZILCH. (Yes, capitals and all). PBS is a ready venue for candidates to push their message out, as are all TV/Radio channels in the US. (They all operate under charters one way or the other from the FCC, and one clause in there is about serving the public good, which is why you have public service announcements and things like the presidential addresses) This also eliminates the lobbyist and PACs. If not completely, then ban them outright.

Toss the Electoral College. Yesterday. It was a great idea before the invention of the telegraph. It's a little dated, like the buggy whip today.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[nomadic]

suspect the (I believe unfounded) accusations of libertarians being racist/homophobic are that libertarians don't think a government should have any say in who one associates with,

No, I suspect rather it's because some of the more prominent libertarian organizations have extremely unsavory connections with those kinds of groups.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Zan Lynx]

You should count the "corporate" taxes against yourself as well. Whenever you buy something from a corporation, 30% of that price is also taxes, and I don't think that 30% even includes all that they pay for their employees' social security.

By spreading the taxes out over all sorts of areas, the government has managed to obfuscate the actual taxes US citizens pay.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[canadian_right]

While the government of Canada is by no means perfect, it does manage to deliver universal healthcare for much less than the private sector in th USA does. There are no insurance corps skimming profit from every transaction. The government actually uses it bulk buying power to lower costs. As pretty much everything is covered there isn't much paper work, and due to the loser pays court system, not as many lawsuits.

There can be longer waits for elective surgery, and associated tests. If something is life threatening you get treatment right away.

The government does not pick your doctor. You do. The government does not pick your treatment, nor does your insurance company. Your doctor chooses your treatment. you can't be denied coverage due to a "pre-existing condition".

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

WRONG! If you follow the IRS guidelines strictly, you have no issues, so don't go spewing crap you know nothing about! Why, did you start a corp and not follow the procedures? Quit making generalizations. Or as /. says to copy Wikipedia, you statement requires [citation needed]...

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

Single term limits have issues, too. In post-single party states (e.g.,, Mexico) where that's been triedit led to officials spending the first third of their terms learning the job, the second third looting and embezzling, and the last third selling out for the next private sector job.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[theshowmecanuck]

Most Americans must like this status quo as they keep electing members of congress (senate and representatives) who most want to keep the status quo in terms of health insurance. Meanwhile the rest of the industrialized world does not have these kinds of worries. This whole article is a good argument on how the current IP laws and US health care system are impeding entrepreneurship by making it too difficult for people to branch out on their own. Being a good Christian country, the phrase "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap," should be meaningful.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[benjamindees]

The President, by himself, completely controls at least 3/5 in that list. And he can strongly influence the other two.

Instead of "changing" any of the failed policies of his predecessor, Mr. Obama has spent nearly all of his time adding to them.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Archangel Michael]

What if a doctor could see you for your average "I'm sick" visit for the same cost as filling a tank of gas. You say that is too expensive? Then your not that sick. Stay home, don't go to the Doctor.

The other problem with your particular view is that someone is paying for that insurance, if it isn't you, then it is your employer. How about paying you to buy your own insurance (no more group insurance) and you find what kind of coverage YOU want for yourself?

Perhaps you want to see a doctor like I mentioned above because you're like me, you don't get sick, you don't play high risk sports, and you're otherwise healthy? So you buy a high deductible policy, pay for expenses out of pocket and stick the rest in a health savings account.

But we don't have ANYTHING like that available right now. WHY??? Because of government interference and market manipulation. I don't think Obama can even know what is best for me, so why does he and other (D)s get to decide for me?

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[xclay]

Did anyone mention outsourcing yet? We have literally millions in India forging themselves to be the next in line for Infosys or for some outsourced programming job.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[bstempi]

"I mean, really...anyone remember when insurance used to be called 'hospitalization'? Insurance should only be for catastrophic emergencies.

For some of us, a doctor's visit becomes a catastrophic event. I only go to the doctor when something is wrong, which means that I almost always end up walking out of there with either a prescription for medication or further medical testing. Do you have any idea how much a CT costs? I got self-billed once...it was for >$10k. There was no emergency...health care just costs that much.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahaha!

The only reason!

I will put you some more reasons:

-Spending 98% engineers and resources on making weapons instead of cars/washing machines.

-Working harder, instead of smarted(doubling the work hours in the same project was considered 2xbetter, not 2xworse, read Gorvachev's Perestroika.

-Seeing their workforce as slaves. Hey, I had family there, you did something against the party and nobody, nobody will give you work(all companies being party's property).

-Not innovating, only coping others.

I'm sorry for trying to mess with your dream, but communism was a f*ck*d sh*t.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing about a public option health care that is attractive to me is that there won't be people profiteering off denying my claims. I'd rather pay a bureaucrat a semi decent wage and get more value for my money than a CEO of an insurance company who is going to pocket as much as he can out of available funds as well as do his fiduciary duty to maximize profits and deny claims. Healthcare should be the business of caring for health not the business of business.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[ImNotAtWork]

A broken arm will cost you around $2500. Sure, something like open heart surgery is going to hurt, but a broken arm is hardly a bankruptcy worthy event.

If you paid more for it than that, then you/your insurance got ripped off.

Tell that to the single mom working a secretary or as a waitress. Not everyone works in tech.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[ImNotAtWork]

After all, what's the hospital going to do? They can't repo. If they try to sue, the media will run a sob-story about this poor injured person.

They can't repo yet... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repo!_The_Genetic_Opera

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

you can buy part of the pig, when the pig gets fatter ... you can buy more

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Genda]

Sadly if our media is any measure at all, I believe our best and brightest are busy coming up with the better erection pill, and bigger and better economic models, to support people in betting, on the betting, on the betting, on the betting of whether or not the current bet's will make money.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[turbidostato]

"if you ACTUALLY want to be the next Microsoft you should start by finding friends that are geniuses"

That's implicit by the "a million dollars in your account", which is what will allow you to go to an elite private school first, then to Harvard (easier to make genious friends than being grown in a ghetto).

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a big world. Most civilised countries already do what you're writing off as impossible. Try looking past the end of your nose occasionally.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[gangien]

do you mind when people profit off your food purchases?

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[uncqual]

Interesting, but cites?

I have no doubt that some people of some fringe beliefs try to associate with libertarians (or, even Libertarians) for "relevance". However, this is little different than Progressives who try to, when convenient, associate themselves with "liberal" or, at the other extreme, with "socialist".

KKK will try to use "libertarianism" to support their view -- until they discover that for each of them, there are 1,000 libertarians (and 10 ACLU supporters who will actually put their balls on the line) chanting them down standing by protesting.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[ultranova]

And nutbags? what's so nutty about any of the libertarian positions? if you think about them for half a minute, and don't just knee jerk react to the views, i don't think you'd find they're nutty.

Libertarianism boils down to protecting property rights at any cost, and only them. If implemented, it would slant the playing field even more for the advantage of the rich against everyone else. I, for one, do not wish to re-enact Dark Ages with myself as a serf.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[ultranova]

Matter of fact, I would venture to say that China is doing so well because they learned from the negative example offered by the Soviet Empire, and are not making the same mistakes. Good for them, not so good for us (or the Russians, for that matter.)

Not so good for China either, if you really think about it: their success ensures that their less-than-benevolent government stays in power and keeps oppressing them for years to come.

Then again, Russia is not exactly a modern democracy either, and seems to be getting worse, so I guess Chinese are simply screwed, having missed the time in history dictatorship can get overturned...

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[master_p]

Indeed. I always wondered why people don't prefer the simple solutions...for example, why should there be a health care insurance system? if you are ill, visit the nearest doctor, pay, and that's it. If you have an accident, go to the nearest hospital, pay, done. If you have a very expensive disease, and you require an expensive treatment, for example, chemotherapy, get a loan from a special medical bank that lends money with a very low interest rate.

Same goes for taxation. We pay heaps of taxes, and we see no progress in any sector of social life. I am not talking only about America, but for other countries as well. Where does all this money go? a much better system would be to pay directly for the roads, schools, garbage collection, traffic lights, and all other systems and services provided by the state. And if we don't like something because it is corrupt, we stop paying. Voting with our wallet is the best system there is.

An even better approach would be to pay proportionally to profits. For example, if I make 100K$ a year, I should pay more for a visit to the dentist than a person making 50K$ a year.

As for truly poor people, that wouldn't be able to afford the aforementioned services but really need them, the cost should be covered by the rest of the wealthy citizens, or by social banks that loan money with very small interest rates.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[ultranova]

The definition of socialism is actually collective (via state in statist socialism, directly by community in anarcho-socialism) ownership of means of production. That's all there is to it. If a person can own factory or land for themselves, then it's not socialism - it's still capitalism (albeit possibly regulated).

More to the point, the idea of socialism/communism is that the workers, rather than owners, should get the fruits of their labour. If you work in a factory, you'll get a share of its profits; if you don't, you won't. Collectivist ownership is only a means towards this goal, necessary because a factory can't be run by a single person.

That's the truly ironic thing about socialism: taken to its logical conclusion, it's actually ultra-capitalism - everyone is an enterpreneur, working for themselves rather than a "boss".

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[ultranova]

This is why we need A. slightly longer terms (say eight years),

Thus making the position even more attractive to parasites.

B. term limits (one term, period),

So there's even less incentive to avoid doing evil, since it can't affect your chances of re-election.

C. campaign spending limits,

So the less wealthy are hampered even more by the need to hire a lawyer to ensure they're following these rules.

D. a total ban on third-party campaign ads that mention candidates by name.

So they'll hammer party loyalty home even harder.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Dominic]

We might have 'plenty of problems' in the UK, but costs of healthcare to a small business is not one of them. If I were to start a company tomorrow I'd pay precisely what I pay for healthcare as I do now (as a full time employee) - zero. Yes, I pay in my taxes, but that depends on my income. If I choose to pay myself a low salary I pay hardly any tax, but I am just as 'fully covered' as someone who is paid millions by a big corporate.

The US may not like 'socialised healthcare', but as far as starting businesses go, it seems to make everything considerably easier.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Chriscypher]

You got ripped off... I take it this was on insurance (higher cost) and not out of pocket (MUCH cheaper)? ... Don't use your Insurance paperwork for your pricing. Those numbers are not actual out of pocket cost. Next time you are at your doctor, ask him/her how much the visit will cost if you pay it out of pocket. Most will be a lot cheaper...

This is OPPOSITE of my experience. If I do not get my health unsurance network 'discounts', then my bill is much larger.

My best practice is to always provide my BCBS insurance card even if I know it is not covered so I get the discounted rate, then pay cash.

Also, it is near impossible to discuss costs at the Doctor's office. They look at you like you're from mars if you ask how much a procedure will cost, and they are unequipped to answer the question without getting someone from the billing office involved.

Perhaps my experience is due to Knoxville, TN being dominated by large hospital-owned practice groups. It's not possible (in my experience) to find a doctor in this town not part of one of the megacomglomerates.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[grep_rocks]

it is not just software developers - every technical carrer in the US is like this with IP issues, healthcare issues etc... everone is forced to work for a big corp which takes all the rewards while you pray you can retire

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Vasheron]

It also helps if someone has already developed the product you want to sell (QDOS), and is stupid enough to sell it to you for a measly 50K.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

the cost is high because many uninsured people get sick, get worked on, then do not pay the bill. the hospitals and doctors then are forced to lean on the paying customers/insurers and raise rates accordingly. You really think that x-ray tech is driving a porsche?

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[nomadic]

The Ludwig von Mises Institute connections to the League of the South and the Confederacy, and the Ron Paul report are what I'm thinking of.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

The excess cost of health care exists between you and the care giver(s).

The insurance companies.

The hospital overhead (non-care giving staff).

By the way, that fancy story about the cost being $10K for a broken arm? Well you pay $10K. The insurance company pays $300. So the hospitals keep finding ways to increase their billings to make up for the shortfall. They also figure your insurance will give you some sort of discount rate.

Universal health care isn't the best thing either because, guess what, there is overhead between you and the care giver.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[dontfearmebro]

9 years ago, when I was in the foreign student freshman orientation session, one of the first things that they talked about/warn to us is about how crazy expensive it is to get the medical care you need here in USA. He then talked about his experience and how he is still paying for his bills, even though he has a health insurance, and how he would be better off dead than paying the bills without health insurance.

And so after the orientation I asked why is it so expensive here than what it would cost me in my home country for say, when I broke my arm or something. He then ramble about how here you will get the BEST care with the BEST doctors (plural, because yes you need 5 different doctors to say you have a broken arm), BEST nurses (you need more than 1 nurse to attend you), BEST drugs (god forbid you to have 1 pain killers.. need moar!!), BEST ambulance.. the BEST of everything..

I stared at him as I was looking at a guy that just paid a full price sticker on a new car in the lot.. wow I thought.. here I am thinking people here would have some kind of COMMON SENSE (last time I checked USA is not a third world country) but nope..

Safe to say I never bought a health insurance here because by NOT paying a health insurance here I can buy 2-3 roundtrip tickets a year and still have money left for dental surgery, broken arms/legs, appendix surgery or what have you back home.. why? because we would settle to just have a GOOD ENOUGH health care that's subsidized by the goverment.

And no I kid you not. Have a friend shifted some bone on his arm, bought a ticket home, got it fixed, spend a week resting and goofin around, and pay them all less than i would if I have the procedure here.. pathetic & a joke.. that's all I can say about health care industry here.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I can think of one thing: Bush wanted NASA to go to Mars, and Obama wants to cut its budget instead. That doesn't sound like something that most Slashdotters would favor.

I'm a day late, but this is a load of crap. The Obama FY2011 budget request did not cut money for NASA. It cut a defunct program that had no chance of reaching its stated goals. Instead choosing to replace it with a vision that is sustainable and realistic. Any slashdotter that read the literature and is in fact a rocket engineer (IARE) would know that this is a vast improvement over Bush's unfunded 'vision'.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[dgatwood]

I mostly agree about the campaign funds for advertising except that I think the government should provide a fixed amount of funds for each campaign to use to buy advertising in the venue of its choice. Likewise, the government should pay a fixed budget for travel, etc. to any candidate who can get a certain number of signatures. If you don't have such a system, then only the independently wealthy can afford to run. The goal should be to eliminate the bias, not make it worse.

With regards to voting out the incumbents periodically rather than automatically voting in a replacement, that's an interesting idea. The problem is that it assumes the people are paying enough attention to their elected officials to vote out the duds. I'm not convinced that this is the case. Power attracts the corrupt and the corruptible, so after a few years, you're pretty much guaranteed that every legislator is in somebody's pocket.

It's not just about contributions and bribery. It's also about extortion. A big company will go to a Congress critter and say things like, "If this bill doesn't go my way, we'll be forced to pull X number of jobs from your district and you'll be blamed and recalled." Maybe this level of coercion takes time to build up to, but I'd think that a new person who has no chance of being reelected or recalled would still be in a better position to resist that sort of coercion. And you can survive pretty much anyone in an aggregated position like Congress for a few years.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[dgatwood]

Thus making the position even more attractive to parasites.

Thus making the position more attractive to people who aren't wealthy---people who can't afford to go looking for a job every two years. As it stands now, the House of Representatives is perfectly designed to ensure that only people who can afford to be jobless can ever take the job.

So there's even less incentive to avoid doing evil, since it can't affect your chances of re-election.

There's also less ability to be pressured by corporate interests because they can't hold reelection over your head. Most sane people don't need an incentive to avoid doing evil. Most people are fundamentally good until the allure of power corrupts their thinking.

So the less wealthy are hampered even more by the need to hire a lawyer to ensure they're following these rules.

Nah. You just make the spending limit simple. Each campaign can spend no more than $X on advertising, $Y on travel, and a handful of other simple, easy-to-understand categories, period. Cut and dry, no lawyer needed. The only reason lawyers might be needed is that lawyers are likely to write the law to make it so....

So they'll hammer party loyalty home even harder.

Yes, but remember that in the U.S., all you have to do to run as a Democrat is to say that you're a Democrat. With these changes, more people will be able to run, so the parties won't be nearly as homogeneous as they are now. And with a reasonable fixed spending limit, the parties won't have nearly the advantage they have now over independents.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[shutdown -p now]

They did, but they're effectively a single-issue party - which wouldn't be a bad thing, except that I do not believe that the issue they are about is the highest priority one today. And on other things, well... they don't have any economic platform at all, for example.

Also, while I mostly agree with their idea of copyright reform, I disagree that "personal" (P2P) sharing online should be legal regardless of the actual volume of distribution.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[shutdown -p now]

Ownership of a thing includes the right to destroy that thing.

No, not really, not even in capitalism. Have you ever heard of fractional property ownership?

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Stiletto]

What if a doctor could see you for your average "I'm sick" visit for the same cost as filling a tank of gas. You say that is too expensive?

What if pigs could fly?

In reality, an uninsured routine visit to the doctor can cost what, between $200-$500? A broken arm is in the thousands, and for anything more serious, the sky is the limit. Obama does not set doctors' prices, nor does the Department of Health, the ACLU, or the Illuminati. It's set by the good ol' free market. And the free market says that if I want to see a doctor in the USA, I'm going to have to shell out a ton of money. That's why we have to have insurance.

Sure, I'd love to live in a universe where the free market results in $30 check-ups and $100 to set a broken bone, but we don't live in that universe.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[dgatwood]

Actually, deregulation ALONG WITH removal of all protectionism, bailouts, juicy government contracts, favorable (targeted) legislation, etc. would go a long way toward evening the scales between small companies and large companies.

Keep telling yourself that. There's no way a town of 8,000 people can support two cable companies that both have to pay for the wire infrastructure. The incumbent will always kill the newcomer because the cost of buildout is more than you can hope to get back in years of operation even if you steal more than half of the households from the incumbent.

In many industries, it is simply not possible to "even the scales" because the industry is basically unprofitable unless it limits who it serves. That's why we have cellular infrastructure that only covers a small percentage of the country versus the government-built wire infrastructure that covers the entire country. Granted, the wireless industry isn't completely deregulated, but in practice, limited spectrum means that deregulating the availability of frequencies would result in companies stomping all over each other, producing an unusable experience for everyone.

And spectrum availability doesn't explain why only one company provides service in many areas; in most of those areas, it simply would not be profitable for a second company to enter the market. Even in areas where it would cost almost nothing to buy or lease a plot of land for a tower, there are often simply not enough customers for it to ever pay for itself.

Say $150k to build the tower. If there are only 100 potential customers in the served area, even if you stole every one of them and made 100% profit (no power costs, no cost of routing the calls, etc.), it would take 50 months (over 4 years) to turn a profit. When you figure that only 40 of those people have a cell phone, only 20 will defect, and only a 60% profit margin (guessing here), you're making a profit after 35 years. There are simply areas that will never be served with these services unless they are government-provided (which you'd probably call socialism).

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[dgatwood]

The reason for telecom (not talking about satcom, just wires and cellular type stuff) is that the infrastructure costs exceed the expected payout in many areas, so if you want anywhere near universal availability (at any price for the customer), the government is the only one that can feasibly provide it.

I like to use the words "basic needs" to cover these things. Without telephones or even the Internet, we as a country would be pretty screwed. Over time, the Internet is becoming more important to even such basics as education, much less being able to get and keep a job that doesn't involve asking whether the customer would like fries with that. At some point, it becomes just as basic a need as water or power. It's tricky determining when something crosses this line, mind you, but I think that for cellular phones and Internet service, it happened a while back. Even a lot of the homeless here in CA have PAYG cell phones.... I'd say that makes it a basic need.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[dgatwood]

-Spending 98% engineers and resources on making weapons instead of cars/washing machines.

Actually, I mentioned that. That was the core of my argument.

And say what you want about copying and not innovating, but that's true of any nascent economy. China is the same way right now to a large degree. Just a few decades back, Japan was that way. That doesn't mean the economy is going to fail. That means the economy is still in its infancy.

As for worker abuse, that's not a property of socialism. That's a property of a totalitarian regime. One can exist without the other, and it is likely that the U.S.S.R. would have moved away from that even without the "fall" of communism. I'm not saying that the U.S.S.R. would have remained completely closed to capitalism, nor that the totalitarian aspects of the regime would not have changed. I'm just saying that the state would likely still exist. Neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism is really all that palatable. Any successful society is inherently a blend of the two. The trick is finding a balance you can live with.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[dgatwood]

Election, erection... close enough for government work.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[CohibaVancouver]

Were I able to, I would mod you up, if, for no other reason than your excellent use of the word "stochastic."

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Gr8Apes]

It's not just about contributions and bribery. It's also about extortion. A big company will go to a Congress critter and say things like, "If this bill doesn't go my way, we'll be forced to pull X number of jobs from your district and you'll be blamed and recalled."

That particular bit becomes harder and harder to wield, since all the company has leverage with is jobs/no jobs at that point, or popular/unpopular projects. The latter can be regulated by localities, and the former... well, if they make the statement that representative so and so did it, well, that gets to be political "advertising" which isn't allowed.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Grishnakh]

Exactly. He's been blaming his predecessor for inheriting all these problems, but instead of really fixing them, he's only added to them.

And for the previous poster, Obama doesn't have control over everything, but he has a lot of influence, and his party (Democrats) is now in control of both Congress and the White House, so theoretically, if that party really wanted to do something, it should be trivial for them to get it done. But the Democrats can't even agree on anything enough to push their own agenda, so they whine and complain that the Republicans (who are a minority now) are somehow "obstructing" everything.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[sucitivel83]

I appreciate your explanation, my definitions might be half-baked in some ways, but "capitalism" and "regulation" in the same sentence is a paradox-- the whole point of capitalism is that a deregulated market can find its own way (invisible hand). I dunno if there is a truly "socialist" country in the world today (even china has rudimentary free markets in some sense), at the same rate there isn't a truly "capitalist" country either.

Socialism doesn't work for the same reasons regulation of the free market has never yielded beneficial change in the long run... there simply isn't a person, or group of people, a committee if you will that can accurately predict economic causes. When left to its own devices, a free market is self-regulating.

In all, I wouldn't call any country on this planet "successful" socialist or not... we're in a global crisis right now with very few if any indications of positive change happening soon... caused in my opinion by decades of socialist leaning around the world. The true capitalist countries have faltered recently only because of their adoption of socialist principles, which has in a sense put them on the level with other truly socialized countries. Otherwise all the capitalist countries would by pwning the fuck out of socialist countries right now.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[lamer01]

Amen brother. It's amazing to me how no one is addressing this issue. The people who have 'insurance' are too short sighted to see what would happen if they didn't have it anymore. The politicians don't give a rats ass since they have govt insurance.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[wkearney99]

OR != ER. Operating room versus Emergency Room. A compound fracture (like one that breaks the skin) is more than likely to require surgical attention, and that typically requires an OR. Simpler breaks are often set in the ER.

Here in the US basic first aid programs, often part of the US Boy Scouts programs, covers diagnosing the severity of injuries, including simple vs compound breaks.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[benjamindees]

Yeah, I've heard of shares. Have you heard of Lehman Brothers, Worldcom, GM, or any dozens of other examples of fractional property ownership that ended in failure? You want to do that to the entire economy? Or would you rather posit the quaint notion that, in your ideal socialist economy, no one would have the right to destroy the means of production?

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[rovolo]

One option you missed is requiring insurance providers to offer the same plan at the same price to everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions. Obviously it isn't the best solution, but that combined with the requirement to buy insurance (and subsidies if those who don't qualify for Medicaid are found to not be able to afford a decent plan) should provide insurance for all people.

Upside: maintains a market which many people think is necessary. Personally I would rather have a single-payer system like Medicare (I'm somewhat of an idealist) which could have much lower overhead (Medicare I've heard does a good job, though there's always the possibility of people screwing it up) than a market system. However, people are much more willing to undergo small change and at least on Slashdot the majority are suspicious of the government.

Note: Medicare is single-payer in that all seniors are covered by it. There are other options, but they're bought in addition to Medicare.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[dgatwood]

No, but when they make the announcement that they are laying of people because of [X bill] being passed, the unions typically take the ball from there and draw up lists of representatives who voted for the bill. It's amazing how easy it is for corporations to manipulate the unions, who then direct a large voting block, all without anything that would fall under the legal definition of advertising....

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[gangien]

why should businesses even be involved in employee's healthcare? Well, i can't speak for the UK but in the US it's because (shocker) the government. guess who gets tax breaks and who doesn't on insurance? Even if i could negotiate with my employer to give me a raise and not have any medical benefits, it would still cost me a lot more. thus it follows people get their insurance through their employer, thus tying them to their job. And, the fact that there are so many rules on medical insurance, it becomes incredibly hard to shop around for insurance, even if i want to do it as an individual.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[rovolo]

I disagree on the point that common things shouldn't be covered under insurance.

The reason is that if prevention cost money then people are more likely to take risks. For example, getting a cold isn't life threatening for most people and thus they are unlikely to get vaccinated. However if more of the population were to get vaccinated then the total incidence of colds would go down and help the people who are threatened by colds. If it's free to get a shot, then more people will consider getting a shot.

Granted it's more persuasive prevention than insurance, but lumping them together could bring down the total cost of healthcare

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[gangien]

Umm libertarianism boils down to people don't have a right to force you to do anything, and so long as you don't force others to do something, you can do whatever you please. It is absolutely the opposite of just about any sort of tyranny. Yes, libertarians generally want some small, limited government, so there is use of force in that regard, but it's pretty minor, and smaller than just about any other political paradigm i'm aware of.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[B4D BE4T]

The problem with this approach is that insurance (not just health insurance, but insurance in general) is not designed to handle relatively small payments that are known to occur on a regular basis. The purpose of insurance is to guard against very expensive problems that have a low risk of occurrence. The idea is that many people pay a relatively small premium and all of that money is pooled together to pay for the small subgroup of people that are unfortunate enough to run into the problem that the insurance policy guards against.

This model breaks down when the chance of the problem occurring is very high. In the case of regular viral vaccinations, the risk of occurrence is 100%. This means that your premium would have to be equal to the cost of your vaccination plus administrative costs for the insurance policy. So you're already paying more for your vaccination just by using insurance to pay for it.

If health care prices were brought down to a reasonable level, very simple procedures like vaccinations would probably cost about as much as the co-pay that most people are already paying to their health insurance company.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[shutdown -p now]

I appreciate your explanation, my definitions might be half-baked in some ways, but "capitalism" and "regulation" in the same sentence is a paradox-- the whole point of capitalism is that a deregulated market can find its own way (invisible hand).

Again, not really. What you describe is laissez-faire capitalism, which is merely a subset. Capitalism, in general, is defined by the right to own and trade private property, and specifically factors of production - namely land and capital (hence the name "capitalism").

I dunno if there is a truly "socialist" country in the world today (even china has rudimentary free markets in some sense), at the same rate there isn't a truly "capitalist" country either.

Generally agreed. As for specifics...

China is unabashedly capitalist, actually. It's also heavily regulated to reach certain goals set by the state, so the overall system is closest to fascism.

A "100% socialist" country today would probably be North Korea, at least if you discount tourist shops.

Socialism doesn't work for the same reasons regulation of the free market has never yielded beneficial change in the long run... there simply isn't a person, or group of people, a committee if you will that can accurately predict economic causes. When left to its own devices, a free market is self-regulating.

Socialism that was tried failed for other reasons. Most importantly, it failed because it was of a statist kind, and the state did not represent the interests of the people (i.e. it was not democratic). Consequently, people did not feel any responsibility towards meeting the set goals, because it was not their goals - the whole "they pretend that they pay us, and we pretend that we work" kind of thing. At that state, socialism essentially equals slavery.

Planning was also a problem, but again, not due to lack of prediction ability, but due to corruption in the system. A "bright idea" of some high-ranked party official would overrule any and all rational arguments raised by people qualified in the people; furthermore, because meddling with party career of your higher-up could be extremely damaging for your own, people would tend to keep it hush in the first place. That is the flaw of any large authoritarian system, capitalist or not.

The only time I can think of where the world did come close to actually seeing how a democratic and technocratic socialist system (which wouldn't have these problems, at least in theory - not that it couldn't have other problems) could work out was in Chile, but Pinochet messed that up, unfortunately. So it's still all purely hypothetical either way.

As for "regulation of the free market has never yielded beneficial change in the long run" - said regulation was introduced largely in response to the hugely detrimental effects of private monopolies that formed in largely unregulated market at the end of 19th century. The beneficial changes are many, and primarily have to do with business not dealing with people as cattle to be worked to death anymore. I guess that you wouldn't call that beneficial if your sole criteria is that elusive "market efficiency", though...

In all, I wouldn't call any country on this planet "successful" socialist or not... we're in a global crisis right now with very few if any indications of positive change happening soon... caused in my opinion by decades of socialist leaning around the world.

Ugh... I don't even know where to start here. The global consensus by a huge margin is that what got us into this mess was rapid deregulation of markets that started in 80s, especially so in U.S. Heck, even the people responsible (like Greenspun) said as much!

It's also immediately visible by who is affected worst. Compare U.S., and, say, Canada. You know that no banks were bailed out in Canada, because none went down in the first place? And guess why? Because banks in Ca

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[shutdown -p now]

Fractional property ownership is not equivalent to shares of public companies (though shares are part of it). Though I kinda suspected that you would not know that.

For example, I own 1/4 of a house - with my mother and my grandparents all owning 1/4 of it each, as well. There are no "shares" involved, nor any trade - heck, I cannot even sell my portion without agreement of other owners.

You want to do that to the entire economy?

I'm not a socialist (not under the proper definition of it, anyway), so it's not a question to me. My own political beliefs do not include collective ownership of means of production, though they do include economic regulation by the state (which Americans repeatedly and wrongly call "socialism").

Or would you rather posit the quaint notion that, in your ideal socialist economy, no one would have the right to destroy the means of production?

They would, of course, but only when supermajority agrees to do so.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Reservoir Penguin]

Ok, ok I'll be the next Google then.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[benjamindees]

Fractional property ownership is not equivalent to shares of public companies

Socialism and fractional property ownership is exactly like one big public company that everyone is forced to buy into. The only practical difference is that it's slightly more difficult to destroy real property than it is a public company.

They would, of course, but only when supermajority agrees to do so.

A "supermajority" that expropriates the property of the minority qualifies as totalitarianism, you know.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[shutdown -p now]

Socialism and fractional property ownership is exactly like one big public company that everyone is forced to buy into. The only practical difference is that it's slightly more difficult to destroy real property than it is a public company.

And there, you're actually correct. The other difference from public companies in capitalism - and it's a really huge one - is that, in democratic socialism, everyone has equal amount of shares. I hope it's obvious how it makes all the difference...

A "supermajority" that expropriates the property of the minority qualifies as totalitarianism, you know.

No, it doesn't, otherwise every single state on the planet is totalitarian (hint: eminent domain).

In any case, supermajority overruling minority exists in every democratic state, no exceptions. Either it can vote in the laws it wants, or if there is a constitution, it can amend it (the case of US), or if the constitution explicitly prohibits itself to be amended (Germany, Iran...), the supermajority can hang the politicians who wrote it on nearest tree, and proceed to rewrite it regardless. All of the above are, assuming, of course, the majority not happy with current state of affairs.

The only other option is when minority dictates to the majority - we call that "dictatorship". All other options (anarchism, libertarianism etc) are purely utopian - where there is a power vacuum, there will be competition to fill it in (we call that "civil war", normally), and the winner gets to be proclaimed the new monopolist on use of force to submit others to its will (i.e. a government).

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[benjamindees]

in democratic socialism, everyone has equal amount of shares. I hope it's obvious how it makes all the difference...

Yeah, the difference is that one is voluntary and the other is not. One enables individuals to expropriate the wealth and labor of others through reproduction and government force, while the other does not. Capitalism promotes responsible resource consumption, while socialism promotes overpopulation, resource exhaustion and societal collapse.

The only other option is when minority dictates to the majority

There are lots of options. Just because you can't fathom the option wherein no one dictates to anyone else doesn't mean it's "utopian".

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[rovolo]

I agree, paying for regular small things doesn't fit into the insurance model.

However, I think that it would be handy in terms of prevention. It would be like investing in the health of the person. Perhaps if I called it a subsidy rather than insurance, it would make more sense. It would raise the price of insurance by the amount you suggest, but only if the vaccine had no effects. If encouraging everybody to take the flu vaccine lowered the incidence of serious complications, then the total cost for health insurance might go down.

A similar example would be a policy that my car insurance company had. If new drivers took a class or kept a log while driving then their rates would go down. In that case they were lowering costs by trying to make people better drivers. In the case of health insurance, encouraging people to live more healthy or get vaccinated (for example) would lower the chance of serious complications.

Overhead is a problem though, and I don't know how much of a hassle it is. I'm young and thus haven't had to deal with health insurance at all. I would think that if a provider guaranteed that everyone they covered could get a vaccine, and had an efficient method for the vaccine distributer to check that it was covered (e.g. a credit card sort of deal) then I think that overhead could be minimal. I have no experience in this regard though, so overhead could mandate that small expenses shouldn't be paid for.

Summary: I was taking more about health care by subsidy rather than insurance.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[shentino]

That's the trouble with "voting the fuckers out"

Corporate interests cherry-pick which candidates they allow the media to give face-time to.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[shentino]

How about we have universal government health care, and fund it by taxing the crap out of high fat foods?

Or how about this?

Tax everyone by how much they weigh, but give them a tax credit based on how fit they are?

Seriously, every problem has a root somewhere, and I'd bet many, if not most, of america's health problems that are requiring such expensive coverage to begin with are by and large preventable with good sensible nutrition, exercise, and common sense stuff like that.

Eat your fruits and veggies, get some sunshine and exercise, and most of all, stop subsidizing companies like McDonalds that serve tasty but grossly unhealthy food.

Shop at a farmer's market every once in awhile, give some support to the lowly grower who is probably struggling against the subsidized-out-the-wazoo soybean/corn/cattle farms they have to compete with.

I for one have an orange farmer that comes around every so often with orchard fresh oranges. I buy POUNDS from him when I can. They are so fresh theystill have the leaves on them from being picked. And they are quite tasty.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[hrvatska]

socialism = government owned/controlled. if the federal government requires everyone to have healthcare that's socialized healthcare. not as hardcore as them running it, but some bad effects are still there.

All restaurants in most(maybe all) states are required to involuntarily adhere to health regulations. Is the restaurant industry in the US socialist? The list of economic/social activities in which all participants are required to operate under government regulation in the US is extensive. Based on your definition of socialist, broad swaths of the US economy are socialist. From your perspective are child labor laws socialist?

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[gangien]

yes. regulations are a form of socialism. aren't they? government control is socialism. regulations are government control. And yes our economy is heavily socialised with all the regulations. Child labor laws are as well, but i do think there's a role for state/local government to make laws regarding children.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[__aagmrb7289]

You lost my point, didn't you? Compare the European plan to the current plan being proposed before the Congress in the United States. Check your math. Try to understand why what you point out is absolutely irrelevant as an answer to my question.

Re:yeah. its much better to be p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be nice if there was some sort of non-profit group that independent software developers could join to get access to legal advice, accounting support, and so on specifically geared to this group. Risk aversion is not the deciding factor for me, it's legal savvy. There are plenty of people out there who can code but not run a business; Or more specifically, cannot manage the legal and tax issues that necessarily are involved with running a business.

Bagh!

[WrongSizeGlass]

I'm willing to take my chances being an independent. I do it every day of the year.

Re:Bagh!

[WrongSizeGlass]

BTW, this restricts independents from contracting work from brokers who are suppling talent to a client. It does not affect an independent who contracts with the client directly.

Re:Bagh!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is correct. The safe haven applies in direct consulting situations. 1706 only applies in certain three way arrangements, but not even all of those. See the examples in Rev. Rul. 87-41, 1987-1 C.B. 296, especially example number 3.

Re:Bagh!

[benjamindees]

You have it completely backwards. I award you no points. We are all dumber for having listened to it. And may god have mercy on your soul.

What are you talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't seen any shortage of software startups in the past 30 years..

Not Completely True

[mikes.song]

I do well building a reselling software. I make most of my money off something I built two years ago. Working as an independent programmer for someone else may suck, but working for yourself is the only way to go. Build it once, and get paid forever.

Re:Not Completely True

[jDeepbeep]

Build it once, and get paid forever.

You're more optimistic than I am. I read that and think, 'build it once, and support it forever.'

Re:Not Completely True

[bill_mcgonigle]

I read that and think, 'build it once, and support it forever.'

Raise your prices until it makes you happy or you can hire it out.

Re:Not Completely True

[mikes.song]

You're more optimistic than I am. I read that and think, 'build it once, and support it forever.'

My EULA says forever is 90 days.

Re:Not Completely True

[kiddygrinder]

Yeah, also make sure you're getting paid for supporting it tho.

Re:Not Completely True

[Anonymous Coward]

Hint: Phase 2 is 'charge for support'

Re:Not Completely True

[kirill.s]

The passive income perk that comes with being a independent software developer far outweighs the possible risks.
I have been selling my shareware back when I was at school/uni, have a job now, but am planning to go back to being independent in the near future - can't beat the motivation and pleasure of hard but fulfilling work for yourself.

Deploy offshore

[Anonymous Coward]

You can sell software to US, no problem.

Re:Deploy offshore

[Grishnakh]

I wonder if it'd be easier for independent software contractors to simply move to Canada, and then contract with US-based companies, doing work remotely?

Re:Deploy offshore

[sopssa]

If you're going to move somewhere for it, you might as well move to some cheaper country and where they don't require one-man online startup's to take health care or any other high expenses and complicated things.

Hell, you'd probably find a nice island somewhere and can code at your beach house (right after you've gone morning surfing and taking some sun). Not Hawaii though, that place is expensive.

Re:Deploy offshore

[Grishnakh]

As an American, I don't know much about Canada's healthcare system. I thought it was government-provided, so as long as you paid taxes, you got healthcare basically for free. That would be a big advantage over the US, where taxes for small (one-man) companies are very very high, and even worse, health insurance is extremely expensive for individuals.

Re:Deploy offshore

[Anonymous Coward]

We complain about long wait-times at hospitals, and waiting a year for hip replacement. But in essence, if you are supposed to be here (citizen, landed immigrant, etc.) you will be taken care of, even if you're homeless. And if you don't like the wait times and have the money - then you just go to the US to get the procedure done(just like one of our politician did recently).

Re:Deploy offshore

[Grishnakh]

We have long wait-times at hospitals too.

So if health care is free, then it seems like Canada would be a much better place for an independent consultant to live than the US. Sure, the taxes may be high, but they're high in the US too if you're self-employed (much much higher than for W-4 employees), and health insurance here is obscenely expensive if you don't work for a company.

Re:Deploy offshore

[tophermeyer]

Yes, but the stereotype is that the care that Canadian citizens receive comes slower and is of poorer quality than we expect in the US. In reality, I'm sure that most of that comes from Canadian Doctors recommending comparatively more conservative treatment methods, which keeps costs down, which ensures that healthcare is affordable enough for the state to provide.

One reason American healthcare is so expensive is because it is possible for providers to pursue extravagant and unnecessary procedures in order to draw profit from insurers, like commuting in an 18 seater SUV when a small compact car will do (Oblig. car analogy). This drives up insurance costs, which makes it harder to afford.

Re:Deploy offshore

[agbinfo]

Although, from what I know of US healthcase, I prefer Canada's quite a bit, we do pay for healthcare through our "higher" taxes. Also, you get healthcare even if you don't pay taxes :-)
In Quebec, there's also a medication coverage that is mandatory. You can get one personally or through the government but you need to have one.

Re:Deploy offshore

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, pay your 50% (or higher) tax rate and enjoy your "Free Healthcare".

I'm not trying to be snide but you're going to pay for it one way or the other - either directly to the providers, to an insurance company, or to the government. And, as you work your way down those three options quality goes down while cost goes up.

Re:Deploy offshore

[Grishnakh]

Again, I don't see how you would pay more money in Canada than in the USA. Have you looked into the self-employment tax rates here? They're obscenely expensive. There's probably little difference between your IRS taxes in the USA (as a self-employed consultant) and your taxes in Canada. Then, when you throw in just how much health insurance costs for an individual in the USA, and the apparent fact that it's free in Canada, I don't see how you'd do anything but save money by moving to Canada.

I don't have any hard numbers to back up my claim, but if anyone else here who knows more about this would like to chime in, feel free.

Re:Deploy offshore

[cayenne8]

"Sure, the taxes may be high, but they're high in the US too if you're self-employed (much much higher than for W-4 employees),"

I think you meant the W2 employee.

:)

But seriously, if you are a one man company, and find the taxes are higher that way, you aren't doing it right.

For instance, you incorporate as an "S" corp. This allows you to actually SAVE money on SS and medicare payroll taxes. For example, for easy number sake, say you bill out $100K. Out of that you pay yourself a 'reasonable salary' (as defined by the IRS) of say $40K. Now, you give yourself a W2 for the $40K..and you only pay SS and medicare on that $40K. The remaining $60K falls through to your personal taxes at the EOY..pretty much as a dividend from the company, and you only pay federal and state taxes on that portion. Now, if you keep good records you can lower that taxable amount by writing off gas mileage, equipment, education, books, cell phones....etc. You can write off tons of stuff. So, in this case..you can make a good deal, and actually save what effective rate you would pay in taxes over what making the same amount as a W2 employee makes.

Sure, you have to jump through hoops, keep records...but it is perfectly legal and there for you to take advantage of. It works best to have a CPA help you out, but hey..that fee can be written off too, and makes take time easy, nothing more than sending a CD from quickbooks in...and receiving forms to sign and mail in. That's it.

Re:Deploy offshore

[pablodiazgutierrez]

I live in California, pay about 35% taxes, and that doesn't cover the cost of health care. If I were to be a one man show, I'd need a loooot of money to break even.

Re:Deploy offshore

[Cassini2]

GM outsourced an entire R&D division to Canada about 10 years ago. They lowered the cost of real estate, took advantage of a lower Canadian dollar to have lower labour costs, and the health insurance costs were much less. Plus, Canada is close enough to America that they can be sent to Detroit or wherever in the U.S. they needed to go, whenever the situation required it.

If it works for the little guys, it works even better for the big guys ...

If I were the U.S., I would hire as many foreign IT workers as possible. They are not that many of the really good IT workers being graduated in the entire world. If you move all the workers to the U.S., then the U.S. maintains a lock on the global IT industry. It was a major mistake to bring H1B's in the U.S., and then send them back. Some of them went home, realized they could still contract with the American corporations, and created an entire outsourcing industry in India. It is a much better strategy to bring everyone to America, and make them want to stay here.

It is important for natural security to encourage highly skilled people to move to the America. Outsourcing to Canada because of health care is a bad idea.

Re:Deploy offshore

[Grishnakh]

It is a much better strategy to bring everyone to America, and make them want to stay here.

What makes you think they want to stay here? I've met tons of Indians whose whole goal in life is to work in a tech job, save up all their money, then go home and live like a king. Good for them, but that doesn't exactly help the American economy much. Them buying some cheap groceries here and living in tiny apartments isn't a net gain for the US.

Besides, who's going to hire all these IT workers if the government ships them over here at taxpayer expense? The IT industry isn't exactly screaming for more heads right now. In fact, there's a lot of places that will only hire you if you move to India to work, because they simply don't want to pay US salaries any more.

It is important for natural security to encourage highly skilled people to move to the America. Outsourcing to Canada because of health care is a bad idea.

Who should do the encouraging, in your opinion? Companies aren't going to do it. Should the government encourage it? What's the incentive?

Re:Deploy offshore

[PPH]

Backwards.

Sign on with a foreign firm and have them sell your services back to a US company. You don't have to move and, if you pick a firm in the correct country, they are a lot better at telling the IRS to f*ck off and leave their employees alone.

The whole point of Section 1706 was to eliminate independent contractors (engineers, architects as well as s/w developers) and force them to take refuge in US corporations. Its easier to keep a few big companies under the thumb of the IRS than a bunch of individual workers. And the companies like it because it puts intellectual property in the hands of the Microsofts instead of in garages, where Gates feared his next challenge would come from. But the plan backfired when foreign firms proved to be far more adept at managing technical employees than US firms. Its getting difficult to find an A&E firm that isn't a subsidiary of a French or German firm in my neighborhood.

Re:Deploy offshore

[agbinfo]

Taxes in Canada differ from province to province so it's hard to say how much one pays. There's also a sales tax to consider. With health care, in some provinces and depending on your condition, you may be better in Canada. I don't know.

But the thing is, Canada has a similar law. You cannot claim tax credits as if you were a small business unless you operate as one. You must be able to demonstrate this by showing that your hours are flexible; working for more than one employer; or through some other way. Let me know if you want to move to Canada and I'll look it up :-)

Still, I was able to claim tax credits easily when I was fully employed and doing other jobs on the side.

Re:Deploy offshore

[Grishnakh]

Backwards.

Sign on with a foreign firm and have them sell your services back to a US company. You don't have to move and,

Actually, I'm giving serious thought to moving in the next decade or so, possibly to Canada (Vancouver area). USA is going down the tubes, plus every time I've visited Vancouver, everyone there was so much friendlier and more civil than most of the places I've visited or lived in the USA. My current town (Phoenix) is getting especially bad. Additionally, everyone in that part of Canada speaks English. I can't say the same for the USA any more.

Why now?

[WinterSolstice]

This article is more than 10 years late... is this just because the dude crashed his plane into the IRS building?

Most programmers/IT people have long gotten around this by having multiple contracts and/or multiple employees. It's not really all that hard, and if your independent company only has one contract and one employee you're basically already working for them.

This does not in *any way* discourage the next Microsoft. Or the next Google or Facebook, BTW... obviously, since both came up after this law ;)

Re:Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

is this just because the dude crashed his plane into the IRS building?

yes

Re:Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it really "getting around" the law?
This seems to me more like "going with" the law to actually fulfill its intent.
If one claims to be an "entrepreneur" running a "consulting firm" then one has to actually act like an entrepreneur by soliciting business and hiring people.
This law is the government giving itself permission to tax one as one really is and not as one labels one's self to be.

Re:Why now?

[mjwalshe]

yes this is similar to the IR35 clamp down in the uk which rather unfairly went after IT contractors but left other self employed professionals and trades men untouched.

Re:Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. The law was created in part to address the fact that at the time, Microsoft was hiring so many "consultants" that nobody was paying any taxes.

Far from being onerous, I'm inclined to believe that Section 1706 is more of a good thing than a bad thing. How can someone NOT be an employee, when the entity they work for years on end sets their work hours, location, work products, and so on? If a "consultant" finds themselves in a situation like that, the only "destiny" they're controlling is whether or not they are going to pay for taxes and insurance. And history shows that when given a choice, people won't pay them. Hence the mandatory withholding that is required of employers.

I've worked 1099 for a decade, as a software consultant, and have been audited for a few things but never for my employment situation. There's no "trick" to making this possible, other than simply not looking like an employee: don't spend weeks at a time onsite, always be actively serving more than one client, have an identity outside of your role for the client, and so on.

That's all that Section 1706 is asking you to do: call yourself an employee when you really are one.

Joe Stack was a whiner, and his tantrums ultimately cost his own life plus the life of an innocent bystander. Let's not lose sight of the fact after he set fire to HIS house, he crashed HIS airplane into the IRS building. Yea, sounds like The Man was really keeping him down. Move along, nothing more to see here.

Re:Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally agree. If you have no imagination you're finished. It's not that hard. Starting out, maybe, but once you get going, my resume , even with one year contracts is now five pages long. There is no way in hell anyone can claim I am an employee and make it stick. Plus I am my own corp and follow the IRS rules and guidelines with my corporate accountant so no, it's no big deal - if you figured it out. You just have to figure all the steps out and quit listening to the self-defeating-FUD. Just like there is a difference between a good programmer and a bad programmer, there is a difference between getting it and not.

Ask Joe Stack

[megamerican]

Just ask Joe Stack about being an independent programmer.

Re:Ask Joe Stack

[BitZtream]

If you had read the article ... Joe Stack was mentioned and linked to in it ...

Re:Ask Joe Stack

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had read the article ...

You must be new here! Welcome!

Re:Ask Joe Stack

[h4rr4r]

He was a fucking tax cheat not an independent programmer.

Re:Ask Joe Stack

[Blakey Rat]

Who murdered a completely innocent Vietnam veteran.

I have no idea how it's so easy for people to forget that this guy is a terrorist and a murderer. I don't give a shit what tax laws he mentioned in his letter.

Re:Ask Joe Stack

[Anonymous Coward]

completely innocent Vietnam veteran

You have really drank the Kool-Aid, haven't you?

One person helps to kill millions of impoverished farmers in a wasteful imperialist war. Then he spends the rest of his life robbing his fellow countrymen in order to pay for that and other wasteful imperialist wars.

The other person spends his life building useful products that plainly improve work efficiency and quality and decrease the amount of work that others have to do, while refusing to pay taxes in support of wasteful imperialist wars. Then he murders the first person.

Neither of these people are innocent. But I sure as hell know which one I'd rather live next door to.

Re:Ask Joe Stack

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because when you just pay campaign bribes (err. donations) to congress to get yourself (and/or everyone you traded with) bailed out and then keep the money (goldmans?) as "profit" , thats not cheating..

Probably from universities...

[erikscott]

Let's see - SAS from NC State, Linux from U. Helsinki, X11 from MIT, kerberos from MIT, BSD from Berkeley, Maple from Waterloo (?). Matlab from U. of New Mexico. Firefox from Mozilla from Netscape from Mosaic from UIUC. I'd say pretty much any interesting software I can think of came from a university one way or another.

Re:Probably from universities...

[sopssa]

Other than the math software in your list aren't commercial software. Linux might pay for Linus now, but it surely didn't when he started developing it and that wasn't his intent.

Of course, if you're developing open source or free software with no commercial purpose, you don't need to take care of any of the things mentioned in TFA or summary. But for someone starting as independent programmer to make his living, things are different.

Re:Probably from universities...

[svtdragon]

I'm reminded of the quote I can't find a source for atm: "Apart from Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, the track record of nuclear is really pretty good." While true, those are some pretty big things to just gloss over.

In any case, it's entirely possible to have your own company based around open source--it just changes from a pay-for-development model to a pay-for-support model. Though I suspect if you start out working alone and support is your primary profit driver, your development would probably suffer. Then again, that might be why you'd try to build an OSS community around your product.

Oh well. Something to think about. But yes, as an indy developer, you're pretty much fucked.

Re:Probably from universities...

[turbidostato]

"it's entirely possible to have your own company based around open source--it just changes from a pay-for-development model to a pay-for-support model."

When this meme will disapear? The basic bussiness model for proprietary software is *not* pay-for-development, it's pay-per-licensing. And then, the basic model for libre software *is* pay-for-development. So, unless you bring with you enough power for marketing and lawyers, which is against the case for a "solo show", you surely have higher bets if you stick yourself on a 'pay-for-development' model which, as I already said, fits much better with libre than proprietary software.

Re:Probably from universities...

[Chrontius]

Chernobyl was a textbook case - they made every mistake in the textbook.

Three mile island was an object lesson in why American reactors have pressure vessels, unlike Soviet designs (read as: Chernobyl). It was also when we realized that you couldn't print out error codes for the operator on a line printer, have them look up the code, and take action; within seconds, there were hours worth of error codes queued at the printer. Not textbook at the time, but we changed the textbooks and nobody does that now.

Chinese designs beat them both at the moment; the experimental models can simply have the power to cooling systems cut, and you then watch the fission pile peter out instead of watching it burn through the floor.

Remember, kids: many things are not as simple as they sound.

Just SOP

[commodore64_love]

The corporations use bribes to buy politicians. The politicians write the laws the corporations wants. And the laws the corporations want are protective laws which discourage indepdent businesses (programmers or otherwise).

It doesn't matter whether we're talling about RIAA, Hollywood, Comcast, or Microsoft. It's all the same operating procedure.

Corporations should have their free speech rights taken away (lobbyists/bribes).
They have no more rights than a Tree or a rock.
They are not THINGS not people.

Re:Just SOP

[commodore64_love]

[correction]

They are THINGS not people. The Bill of Rights is for the People, not trees, rocks, or things.

Re:Just SOP

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly why they bought legislation to say they were people. However, that same 'assumed identity' is what makes it so you can sue a corporation just like you'd sue a person. Things would get really complex if you tried to split that up to say, 'They are like people this way, and not like people this way." It would involve some long-winded legal definition. Guess who pulls the strings of the people writing the definition. We'd end up in a worse position than we are now.

Re:Just SOP

[Jeng]

Another aspect to this.

When congress does projections to see how much money they will have available to spend they take into account how different taxes will provide revenue.

So some bill out there got funded by this stupid tax which will make it that much harder to remove.

It's not like we're talking about tax breaks for the rich, after all giving them tax breaks somehow provides more tax money.

It's pretty apparent that Congress failed math, either that or they hired the Enron accountants.

Re:Just SOP

[mujadaddy]

Corporations should have their free speech rights taken away (lobbyists/bribes). They have no more rights than a Tree or a rock. They are not THINGS not people. The Bill of Rights is for the People, not trees, rocks, or things.

Where's my '-1 Ignorant of the last 130 years of American History and Law?' I, of course, completely agree that it's ridiculous that we're in this situation, but the groundwork was laid long ago.

Re:Just SOP

[DJ Jones]

People make this argument about corporations vs. people all the time and it makes no sense. Where did this originate? Fox News? If you disallowed "corporate" campaign funding do you really think that would stop corporations from buying politicians? The CEO of a major corporation could just as easily donate funds under his own name with a little post-it note asking for laws that help his corporation. How does that solve anything?

Public campaign funding is the underlying issue, not corporations acting as persons.

Re:Just SOP

[JoeMerchant]

The problem is organization - corporations have it, independents don't. If the independents could organize and lobby, their numbers and voting / contribution power would swamp the corporate interests, even today. Alas, independents are independent - and who has time and money to waste on a (presently) losing game? Even most corporations don't, but enough of them do to slant things in their direction.

The rancher / farmer's lobby is a good example of people with time on their hands to bend the ears of their legislators - when's the last time a big land holder paid big property taxes?

Re:Just SOP

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry cowboy, the law exists to protect programmers from corporations. Of course the corporations would love to have more independent contractors and fewer employees. No health insurance. No bennies. No payroll taxes. Just programmers who are working as individuals for a single client, who have to report to cubicles at 9 AM, who type away at company-provided workstations, elbow-to-elbow with company employees. For the company, that's ideal. For the programmer, that's not independence -- that's an illusion.

Re:Just SOP

[s73v3r]

He would have to do it using his own funds, instead of the company's funds, for one. And he would be speaking on his behalf, not claiming to speak on behalf of everyone who works or invests in that company.

Re:Just SOP

[westlake]

The corporations use bribes to buy politicians. The politicians write the laws the corporations wants. And the laws the corporations want are protective laws which discourage independent businesses (programmers or otherwise). It doesn't matter whether we're talling about RIAA, Hollywood, Comcast, or Microsoft. It's all the same operating procedure. Corporations should have their free speech rights taken away (lobbyists/bribes). They have no more rights than a Tree or a rock. They are not THINGS not people.

Limited liability meant that you did not have to go to the king or pope or landed aristocrat for funding. The royal "We" who could not be sued or the man so rich and powerful that no mere commercial failure could ever break him.

Such men had free speech.

They were the government - and they could be bribed.

The modern business corporation represents the interests and efforts of a great many people. In union there is strength - and voice.

Microsoft employs 40,000 people in the Puget Sound region.

It owns or leases 15 million square feet of office space - and it helped drive the median family income in Redmond to $97,000 a year - and the median value of a single family residence in Redmond to $496,000.

This is what the lobbyist takes to a politician - and it is more effective than any bribe. [FWIW the number of Congressmen tried for bribery since 1905 is no more than 12 or so. List of Public Corruption Cases

The FSF is also a corporation. It lobbies - it campaigns.

With an adolescent ineptness, to be sure. Think "Windows 7 Sins"

Without free speech rights, it would be even more confined and helpless.

Re:Just SOP

[drfreak]

THINGS might bet a bit harsh. I prefer to use the word "asset". Still able to be filed away forever or transferred at a moment's notice though. :)

Re:Just SOP

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations should have their free speech rights taken away (lobbyists/bribes).
They have no more rights than a Tree or a rock.
They are not THINGS not people.

Sure.

Of course, unions, non-profit groups, religious organizations, etc., will also have their right to free speech taken away, right? I mean, they're all different types of people associations, just like a corporation...

Re:Just SOP

[msoftsucks]

And has been actively dodging its responsibilities to the community it lives in and depends on. Just another big corporation crapping on the common man.

Re:Just SOP

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations also pay taxes, and that puts the whole "no taxation without representation" thing in play. That's also why churches don't pay taxes—because they aren't supposed to have representation in the political sphere.

If we did manage to take away the right of corporations to engage in the political sphere and to exercise rights of free speech, should we also continue to demand taxes of them? Not that most corporations with any grasp of tax law don't already manage to squirrel away assets into tax dodges and even incentives—there's plenty of iniquity in the ways in which many corporations (to commit the sin of vague generalization) have historically failed to render their responsibility to the public while continuing to exert considerable influence over the public, and dodging taxes is certainly only one of them. That's a point that ought to be conceded, and I gladly do in the full confidence that the corporate system has allowed and even encourages egregious abuses of the reciprocal relationship of private entities to the public commonwealth. It doesn't follow, however, that the public, in reining in this iniquity, should fail to consider equity and justice in reestablishing the balance of that relationship. If we continue to expect corporations to pay taxes to support the public, they should also have some sort of voice; the challenge is to find a way of reducing that voice to a reasonable level, not to silence it utterly.

A corporation is not a human being; that too I concede. They are, however, powerful forces within society that can bring and have brought a great deal of material and intellectual advancement that makes the life of all citizens better; the computer by which you are reading this is but one example of a product of an economic system that was built on the idea of the corporation. Corporations are theoretically not the only possible organizational structures that can bring together enough human beings to develop and produce advancements, but in practice they have proven invaluable in building a better world, even while they also have done many evils; in both respects, however, they have an impact on the community just as does a human being. Pretending that we can ignore corporations and their desires, that we cna silence their voices while still feeling their impact, because they aren't human beings, doesn't bring us to a system of government that is in harmony with the facts of the world. Instead, we need to find a way of allowing them to have a voice but also allowing human citizens to have an equal voice as well, and of restraining the power of the corporate voice so that it cannot override the consensus of the people.

Of the two forms of influence you've cited, lobbyists and bribes, the latter is recognized as morally repugnant by the institutions of our government and is already declared a crime. Better enforcement is needed; the government must be more closely watched, both from within and from without. Lobbyists can be more tightly regulated too, and should be; penalties should be imposed on those who defraud the public with lies and distortions. It doesn't take a revolution to make these things better; it takes a citizenry willing to stand up for equity and ready to refuse to put up with corruption.

Re:Just SOP

[turbidostato]

"He would have to do it using his own funds, instead of the company's funds, for one. And he would be speaking on his behalf, not claiming to speak on behalf of everyone who works or invests in that company."

Which in turn would mean that CEOs would end up being payed even more than now (with a provisio about the percentage they should deviate for lobbying), and that those with a stronger connection network would be more required (wait! that's already the case).

Re:Just SOP

[the_humeister]

I don't know about that. Corporations are not just things, they are collections of people. A corporation is nothing without people. Look at the first amendment to the USA constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since a corporation is an assembly of people, does it not follow that they are allowed to petition the government?

Re:Just SOP

[Fjandr]

A corporation is a legal entity, not an assembly of people. It is a creation of the state to transfer liability from people to an artificial person. It is required to operate in a manner specified by the state. A corporation can, in fact, exist apart from anyone else, though it would be largely irrelevant to do so.

A corporation can be forcibly dissolved. Can you really say that an entity that owes its very existence to the state somehow has implicit rights?

Re:Just SOP

[commodore64_love]

>>>he CEO of a major corporation could just as easily donate funds under his own name with a little post-it note asking for laws that help his corporation.

Yes he could, but he'd only be donating his own money, not raiding his emmployees' paychecks for cash and giving it away. Also we have laws that limit how much a person can give ($4000 last I checked) whereas no such law exists for a corporation. So the CEO really wouldn't have much power overall.

And most importantly, corporations would be blocked from hiring lobbyists, due to not having free speech rights. They wouldn't be able to hijack our healthcare like they are doing now with the Obamacare bill.

>>>Where did this originate? Fox News?

Hardly - they are probusiness. Try the Progressive Party and Greens. Also Thomas Jefferson said corporations threatened to destroy democracy by becoming more powerful than the People's government. Any power concentrated in the hands of a few, whether its a government or a board of directors, is dangerous to human liberty.

Re:Just SOP

[commodore64_love]

>>>I don't know about that. Corporations are not just things, they are collections of people

Yes, but even if the Corporations lose their right to free speech (no donations/lobbyists), the people inside the corporation still retain their rights. While Comcast might be silenced from lobbying, if the Comcast employees want to speak-out and say "Comcast is great" they still can.

And as for assembling, the Right refers to *voluntary* assembling. There's nothing voluntary about a job, since you either have the right to show up, or the right to be fired and possibly go years without finding another job. (Like I'm doing right now.) Working for a corporation is very similar to working for a Lord of a manor - you exercise your rights; you get kicked out. Or you keep silent and keep your position. It's not true freedom.

Anyway taking away Comcast's right to lobby doesn't affect the rights of the People inside the organization. They can still lobby if they so desire.

Why just programmers?

[Hijacked Public]

Apart from "News for Nerds", the long ago abandonded mission statement, why limit this to programmers? Most all other occupations face the same challenges and pitfalls.

You can be grdauated from mechanic's school and either go to work for someone else's garage and enjoy the benefits of that position, or start your own and accept the attendant risks.

Re:Why just programmers?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Most all other occupations face the same challenges and pitfalls.

No. The U.S. Congress passed a law that specifically targets programmers. Quoting a previous slashdot article: "Section 1706 of the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Under the law, certain classes of workers, including anyone who engages as a "computer programmer, systems analyst, or other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work," are considered de facto employees for tax purposes, regardless of whether they claim to operate their own businesses as independent contractors. The IRS can impose significant tax penalties on companies who hire such workers as contractors rather than full employees, a fact that can make it extremely difficult for self-employed programmers to find work."

An engineer can be independent designer, and yet still find work with someone like Lockheed.
A programmer who is an independent will not be hired, due to Lockheed being afraid of the IRS punishment.

Re:Why just programmers?

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't quote the section completely, it applies to any person who provides technical services:

This section shall not apply in the case of an individual who pursuant to an arrangement between the taxpayer and another person, provides services for such other person as an engineer, designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work.

If you go into a company's office according to their work schedule, use their equipment, etc. you are a de facto employee whether you're a programmer or an aerospace engineer. If you set your own hours, use your own equipment, etc., you're independent.

Re:Why just programmers?

[fwr]

Actually, it is my understanding that the law removes special exemptions that certain people had that allowed them to basically work for one company full-time, for very long periods, but still claim they were a contractor. You can't have it both ways. Either you are a contractor and do a bunch of short term jobs for a bunch of different companies, or you are a permanent employee of one company. See the other Slashdot article. It's just a scam.

Re:Why just programmers?

[cruachan]

We have a similar thing in the UK, but it was designed to tackle the well know scenario where a company would staff their programming pool with 'independent' contractors hired via an agency (thereby both the company and the contractor paying less tax). The contractors worked in the company's office full time, on the company's equipment, with their times and work allocation directly allocated by the company - to all intensive purposes they were employees, and to be honest I think the tightening of the law was perfectly reasonable.

To get around the problem is relatively straightforward if you're a genuine independent developer. Owning your own equipment and working from your own office usually suffices, with other good indicators being you have several contracts and managing your own time.

Re:Why just programmers?

[geekoid]

It doesn't mkae it more difficult. You start your own company and sell you software a solution to an issue companies have.
As far as 'contracting' at sight, it's all a bunch of bullshit. Every company treats 'contractors' just like regular employees and consistant violate the tenants that seperate an employee and a contractor.

When 'contracting' for a company, try doing the following and let me know how it works out for you:
1) Get a specific task as the contract
2) Renegotiate the contract if there is a scope change
3) Come and go when ever you want
4) work out of the office
5) hire someone else to do the work for you.

There are more, but those are the very basic thing that dictate whether or are a contractor, or just an onsite employee used to dodge taxes and healthcare costs

And yes, for many years I was a independent software engineer. Finding work was never an issue. I went to the dark side because I can't afford health care and the associated risks.

Re:Why just programmers?

[BitZtream]

There are many laws targeting many different segments of the population/workforce in specific ways in an effort to get certain things to happen.

Other occupations have different legal challenges, but the more 'professional' a service is, in general the more controlled it is.

Programming has traditionally had no control what so ever. Little by little its getting these things, its still an fledgling industry. Interestingly, the laws pointed out aren't new.

A programmer who is an independent will not be hired, due to Lockheed being afraid of the IRS punishment.

What are you talking about? No, the laws that are 'the problem' specifically make it hard for joe the programmer to NOT work for Lockhead, in order to make it easier for Lockheed to beat him out. I get that you didn't read the article, but did you read the summary?

This is just an article about a douche bag (and he is) just realizing that programming is no different than any other industry anymore and he wants to whine about it and use it as a page impressions battle cry.

Re:Why just programmers?

[dangitman]

An engineer can be independent designer, and yet still find work with someone like Lockheed. A programmer who is an independent will not be hired, due to Lockheed being afraid of the IRS punishment.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. If you're working for Lockheed, you're hardly an "independent programmer," are you? The term usually refers to people who are creating their own products and running their own business - not just to somebody working on a contract as opposed to regular employment.

Re:Why just programmers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow... good thing the company that hired me as an independent contractor for a year didn't know about this. Or may be they did and didn't care; they were a start-up after all. :-)

For the record, they wanted me to come on full-time, but only if I moved on-site. I wanted to stay were I was and work remotely. It was nice being able to set my own hours, and just not bill them for hours I didn't work. Billing was annoying and health care was a bitch, but hey... I knew that before I started. :-)

Re:Why just programmers?

[Anonymous Coward]

to all intensive purposes

It's "to all intents and purposes", geeze! You Brits were supposed to know how to speak American!

Re:Why just programmers?

[Anonymous Coward]

You were on track to make a point, and then you said this:
An engineer can be independent designer, and yet still find work with someone like Lockheed.
A programmer who is an independent will not be hired, due to Lockheed being afraid of the IRS punishment.

However, if you actually read 1706, it says this:
"This section shall not apply in the case of an individual who pursuant to an arrangement between the taxpayer and another person, provides services for such other person as an engineer, designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work."

Re:Why just programmers?

[benjamindees]

the more 'professional' a service is, in general the more controlled it is.

Once again you blather about something of which you have no clue.

The other 'professions' that are regulated are done so solely due to their impact on public health: plumbers, doctors, electricians, even hairdressers. If you install a septic tank that's too small, people can get sick. If you incorrectly ground an appliance, people can die. If you cut hair without cleaning your equipment, diseases can spread. (I'm not kidding, this is the reason)

If you work as a plumber for industry, you aren't regulated. If you work as an electrician in industry, you aren't regulated. In most states, if you do plumbing or electrical work on your own house, you aren't regulated. Only when you offer services to the public that potentially could cause them harm are you required to be licensed and regulated.

So, no, regulation has nothing to do with how 'professional' you are but with your ability to directly impact human health. The most 'professional' profession of all, college professors, are completely unregulated.

Re:Why just programmers?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Actually this IRS regulation has it good and bad points.

For a while there in the 80s, corporations were refusing to hire computer programmers as employees. They did this to get out of paying SSI and their portion of the employee taxes. It was pretty much ridiculous, and despite being "contract labor" with wages that weren't really that good considering the SE tax that was due, these corporations insisted on dictating working hours and other rules associated with being an employee.

This law stop that stupidity.

Re:Why just programmers?

[MacWiz]

Someone seems to have said something earlier, in another branch of the discussion, that will resemble this.

If you create a stand-alone application that could be sold to numerous companies for the same purpose (an inventory database, payroll processing, etc.), then to your clients, you're a vendor supplying a product, not an independent programmer.

Occasionally, one of your clients may request custom software for which a software solution has not yet been developed to suit their needs. You (or an employee) could create the software as a beta version which dealt with the client's specific needs. It will be followed by a public version that performs the same basic function, with any bizarre specs that developed in the course of the beta version dealt with in a generic manner, allowing more user control.

And you would like to thank Company X for their generous donations to create this software solution. Their sponsorship and extensive testing efforts lets us now offer every _______ user the opportunity to take advantage of this helpful _______ tool.

Re:Why just programmers?

[commodore64_love]

>>>That doesn't make a lot of sense. If you're working for Lockheed, you're hardly an "independent programmer," are you? The term usually refers to people who are creating their own products and running their own business - not just to somebody working on a contract as opposed to regular employment.
>>>

Missing the point.

As a hardware engineer and can be BOTH an employee of Lockheed AND have my own independent business on the side designing handheld radios or whatever.

As a programmer I must choose one or the other. I cannot do both, due to the IRS penalties imposed by Congress on both me & my employer (Lockheed).

Next Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Next Microsoft won't appear, that business model is not working that well anymore. Programmers that view their profession as nothing more than a job are not the type that innovate or try something like entrepreneurship. The other type of programmers will still want to make something new or just to work on something where their view counts, that's why I expect the open-source community to grow even larger.

Re:Next Microsoft?

[RobDude]

I'm not an MS hater or anything; but it really seems like it was more a case of being in the right place at the right time, more than anything else.

You actually see this in a lot of dramatic changes in industry. Something new comes along and people who are in a good position to take advantage of it, do, and quickly grow into large, rich companies. Those companies make it very, very, very difficult for someone new to come along and do the same thing.

It happened with Computers, but also with the telephone, the automobile, oil companies, trains, etc.

Re:Next Microsoft?

[haruharaharu]

No, that's just how it started. MS' chief advantage was that they didn't make too many mistakes in the 80s/early 90s while IBM and WP screwed up a LOT. Remember WP 6.0, where it had its own printer drivers?

Other than healthcare

[FlyingBishop]

Health care is the only problem. Fix that and you're good. The BS about contracting is just that, BS. If you're making any kind of money as a programming contractor, you can afford to hire someone to handle your taxes (or you're intelligent enough to handle them yourself, and freelancing means you ought to have the free time.)

Um, sorry, no, you're an idiot.

[Anonymous Coward]

As an independent tech worker today who runs his own company developing my own software products. I have health insurance, and I'm not worried about this clause of the tax law which *strictly* governs consulting with third parties and has nothing to do with your typical tech startup. Your premise that entrepreneurship is in any way damaged by this clause is utterly and totally *wrong*. There MAY be a small minority of independent contractors who, because they work an *extensive* amount of hours for *one* customer the tax law is saying "Sorry, no, you're an employee not a contractor." But the VAST majority of entrepreneurial-minded independent PROGRAMMERS are NOT impacted by this law, and I wish you folks would stop spreading FUD about it.

And no, Joe Stack was not some kind of anti-IRS hero... he was a tax cheat who blamed everyone else for his problems.

Re:Um, sorry, no, you're an idiot.

[mswhippingboy]

Um, idiots should not throw stones from their glass houses.
You're an independent software developer, not an independent contractor that develops software.
There are different types of independent developers, but maybe you can't see that with your tunnel vision.
ANY "independent" contractor that works for and by himself (i.e. does not have employees) gets hit by this. Most of the contracts I've seen are for 6-12 months and unless you can afford to hop around the country looking for work every 6 months, chances are you can't afford NOT to extend your contract with a happy customer that wants to continue your services.
I've been there and I had to work 80+ hours a week (sometimes more) just to keep more than one contract going at a time so I wouldn't either be out of work until the next contract, or accused of being an employee by the IRS.
What f&cking business is it of the IRS if I'm an employee or self-employed. Either way they get their damn money.

Re:Um, sorry, no, you're an idiot.

[turbidostato]

"You're an independent software developer, not an independent contractor that develops software."

The point being that if you work on a company's premises, on its hours, on its free and labour days, on its dress code, on its rules... you are an employee by fact, no matter what the signed paper said. The law just makes that fact clear.

Re:Um, sorry, no, you're an idiot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the law doesn't make any of it clear. You could work from home in your underwear and still be considered an employee if you only have one client for a span of several months.

And that's the way that the IRS completely fucks over independent contractors: uncertainty and arbitrary enforcement. Same as everything else.

Yep, I've lost hope.

[GarryFre]

When I started working as a programmer some 15 years ago I had an AA degree in computer science. I learned on my own and wrote some pretty fantastic code. My first job was to write a multithreading app and I did well. Now I'm out of work and I can't get a job doing stuff that I could do in my sleep because I don't have a BA and I'm 54 years of age. I can't get a job, in a month or two I'll be homeless. I have pneumonia and I can't even afford to go to the doctor, stinking california denied my medical aid because I didn't state whether i was PREGNANT or not!!! Recently I decided my only hope is to go into business myself and now i read about this situation. Not a day goes by that I don't think about suicide and can only manage to get to sleep by pretending I'm dying. How pathetic I know but that's the way it is. Its over for me.

Re:Yep, I've lost hope.

[Anonymous Coward]

At this point, I suggest you lie on your resume.

Re:Yep, I've lost hope.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know exactly what you're going through because it is the same for me. California turned me down for help basically because I'm not an illegal nor pregnant. However some advice for you on the medical issues. I saw my doctor today and explained I faced job hiring discrimination, could not get any work, had no health insurance and limited money and was sleeping on a friend's couch. He told me that I could apply to Palo Alto Medical Foundation and request "I need to apply for financial hardship" to cover doctor visits and some lab work. If you have pneumonia, first try going to an ER for it, they cannot refuse to treat you. If that is not viable, try the above approach either with PAMF if you're near them or another health care organization accessible to you. We need to fight against incompetent and corrupt legislators who are doing us harm, and we need to stop excessive use of foreign labor over hiring of Americans. It has to stop before we all are homeless. Oh, and I wish Joe had flown a plane into the Indian agencies in Silicon Valley who refuse to accept Americans applying for contract jobs. Discriminatory bastards, I have so many stories about their fraud to bring in H1-Bs.

Re:Yep, I've lost hope.

[RobDude]

Find a small to mid-sized company and just lie on your resume about your degrees.

Re:Yep, I've lost hope.

[Anonymous Coward]

However some advice for you on the medical issues. I saw my doctor today and explained I faced job hiring discrimination, could not get any work, had no health insurance and limited money and was sleeping on a friend's couch. He told me that I could apply to Palo Alto Medical Foundation and request "I need to apply for financial hardship" to cover doctor visits and some lab work. If you have pneumonia, first try going to an ER for it, they cannot refuse to treat you. If that is not viable, try the above approach either with PAMF if you're near them or another health care organization accessible to you.

In his case it's probably a good idea.

For someone who actually has a chance at getting back on the treadmill and going back to work, once you've got treatment on your medical record, you're basically uninsurable. There's plenty of examples in the media of people getting their cancer claims denied because of their acne, and so on. I'm sure the insurance company can come up with a perfectly cromulent explanation of how his pneumonia caused whatever else he's got so they'll scream "preexisting condition!" every chance they get.

Re:Yep, I've lost hope.

[Dominic]

And your fellow countrymen are fighting the 'evil' universal healthcare that would cover you at no cost. I bet that makes you happy. This sort of thing is another example of why the system in the US is broken.

Re:Yep, I've lost hope.

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you thought about going to Canada? I'm stuck in a similar situation, and I'm saving money to head to a decent country. I just lost my job and I'm loosing my place (I think I have 2 weeks left). I have a family and I can't just "give up". Things are difficult, but I have seen that a bunch of people are hiring and I've had some interesting interviews so far. I'm crossing my fingers. I have my AA too, and I haven't found it to always be a problem (depends on the company). Last place I worked at, my manager was a college drop out -- he is doing alright.

Re: medical - go to the ER. If they won't treat you, go to another one and tell them that you don't remember your name or where you are (I remember something about them unable to refuse helping you if you said that) -- no guarantees - just an idea. The way I see it, if you have to lie to stay alive - go for it.

Don't give up. Things are difficult now, but people are hiring. I just came across this today: http://twitter.com/positions.html

Another thing to consider is applying *everywhere*, don't just look in your state -- look in others (even in Canada). I'm not sure how hard it would be to get a Visa to work there (not even sure you need one).

Good luck, I know that you will find something.

Re:Yep, I've lost hope.

[Donkey Kong Cluster]

If you have enough money to come to Brazil, you can come here and get a good job on TI. It is far from a US wage, but you can have your life with your wife, kids and everything (surely not an american life standard either). About your health, here we have a public health system that can take care of you. It is not good comparing to UK, but your salary would pay up for a private one anyone if don't like it.

I can't understand why someone would pay US$7500,00 for a broken arm if they can pay US$2000,00 to go to Brazil, get medical treatment (with that value, either public or private) and come back on time for your work. Oh, you could have long time vacations here with such amount of money also.

I have a friend in america that came to my city once. He got an infection in his foot and had medical attention for free just showing his passport. His fathers is a doctor in US.

The sky is falling? *looks up*

[TiggertheMad]

I don't know that things are that grim, several very large or prominent companies in the market today began as small start ups. Sure, there is some risk there, and not everyone will grow to the size of Google, but The arguments that are mentioned (liability, volatility) apply to any sort of independent venture. I don't see developers as having a particularly hard time. In fact, considering the nature of their product, the cheapness of the tools and software for writing code, and the relative ease of finding willing investors compared to starting up a conventional goods manafacturing business, and I would have to say that being a indy dev is pretty darned easy.

Re:The sky is falling? *looks up*

[mswhippingboy]

Oh right. As long as you don't mind working for $20/hr, even with 30 years of experience.

Lets see. I can make $20/hr as a independent (along with all the stress and uphill battles), or $65/hr as a corporate pig-dog.

Let me ask my wife which she would prefer I do.

Get real.

..only in USA

[Anonymous Coward]

As an independent programmer in Europe, I'm not worried about any of those issues.

Re:..only in USA

[Cassini2]

I've noticed the number of software startups coming from Europe is increasing.

I think the U.S. is a better place to grow a company. Europe is a better place to grow a new idea (unless it involves manufacturing.)

The next Microsoft?

[Angst Badger]

But where will the next Microsoft come from?

Nowhere, hopefully.

In all seriousness, this is typical of the point of view that only large, publicly-owned companies matter and that consumers are just a resource to be harvested by investors in the stock market. Personally, I care a lot less about where the next near-monopoly comes from than where the next generation of quality software comes from. And since it's generally not coming from the existing large corporations, TFA is at least correct in saying that the disincentives to independent development are a bad thing. But this is primarily a bad thing for consumers; there are always plenty of opportunities for the investors, though any given industry -- such as software -- may not be a hot deal at any given time.

Re:The next Microsoft?

[sockonafish]

Bill Gates would have no worry about health insurance, he attended the most elite private schools in the Seattle metro area on his parent's dime, and came from a lineage of lawyers and bank executives.

Entrepreneurs like Gates are not taking the risk that they end up living on the streets with untreated cancer in the event that their businesses fail.

More news at 11

[BitZtream]

Yes, working in a group makes it easier than working by yourself.

Thats why companies exist, they can be more productive and efficient than a single person if they properly pool resources and talents.

Accountability in code defects? Lawsuits? Are you fucking kidding me? What universe do you live in where this is happening? Certainly not the one with Microsoft or Toyota in it.

Hold on to their jobs until retirement? Yes, the industry is no longer a fledgling industry. Yes businesses are getting better at figuring out who is actually useful as a programmer and who just happened to pass some courses at the college they went to. The article confuses the industry coming of age and realizing how useless most of the people who claim to be in it are and people not being able to hold on to a job.

People get fired because they are less valuable than something/someone else that can replace them or the need for them has simply went away. Yes companies try to cycle through low cost employees as a way to cut costs, but they end up moving so slowly after a short period of time that they disappear quickly and account for a small percentage of the workforce.

Reality:

Working independently and competing against people who work in groups is generally hard. Doing it as a programmer is no different than doing it as a plumber, with one exception. The plumber isn't so retarded as to expect it to be any different nor do they have the sense of entitlement to think that it should be different for them.

Plenty of people DO go it alone. Happens constantly all the time. The company I work for actually works with more self employed people than companies.

Its not impossible, it just takes effort and is harder than working for a company with shared resources. Yes there are some silly laws aimed at software developers working on their own, but there are also some silly laws aimed at plumbers working alone. God, slashdot would just keel over dead if governments started requiring developers to be licensed and show they are qualified to do so like MANY MANY other professions.

I have a better question:

Why is it IT people in general feel that they are somehow different than everyone else in the world? Are they really so ignorant and socially dysfunctional to not realize that they are no different than any other part of society in any way? Is this ignorance or a form a geek elitism, thinking that we geeks can't possibly be expected to suffer under the same working conditions of the rest of the pathetic planet of idiots?

Re:More news at 11

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they really so ignorant and socially dysfunctional...

well, uh, I am...

Re:More news at 11

[asc99c]

Well said. I think a lot of people forget all the things that go into making a piece of software than pure programming, and pretty much everything in the article is just describing some of the things in that list. Personally, I didn't even think it was all that comprehensive.

I've thought about going it alone myself, because when it comes down to coding stuff, I'm pretty self suffficient now. It's still very useful to be able to easily go and ask an AIX or Oracle expert when I don't know stuff, but I can mostly figure it out myself. Unfortunately, I'm not enough of a salesperson, and not a people-person in general. And to be honest I'm just not that interested in the business side. I'd be bored senseless dealing with that side of things.

The other difference with plumbers and many similar occupations is that self employed plumbers get a lot of business from individuals. On a person-to-person basis, a whole load of overhead of dealing with companies tends to just disappear; other than a one page overview and a receipt, there's almost no paperwork for my new bathroom. But individuals don't have that much use for custom software, so as an independant developer you're not really in the same type of business as an independant plumber anyway.

Re:More news at 11

[dangitman]

Why is it IT people in general feel that they are somehow different than everyone else in the world?

Because they are precious snowflakes who melt easily. Of course, they are also Howard Roark style rugged individualists who oppose conformity and government intervention, unless that government intervention helps them - then they are back to being precious snowflakes again.

Re:More news at 11

[Angst Badger]

Why is it IT people in general feel that they are somehow different than everyone else in the world? Are they really so ignorant and socially dysfunctional to not realize that they are no different than any other part of society in any way? Is this ignorance or a form a geek elitism, thinking that we geeks can't possibly be expected to suffer under the same working conditions of the rest of the pathetic planet of idiots?

Translation: I'm doing okay, so fuck the rest of you because you plainly suck.

There's at least one of these in every thread on employment issues. Why they get marked Insightful is a mystery to me.

Re:More news at 11

[Anonymous Coward]

Word. I needed that as I was suffering from lifelong geek elitism. Pinch... no, still am.

When half these idiots can program and or understand these simple machines then maybe I will consider myself worthy of being treated like an idiot.

I do not work in the industry by choice. I develop for myself and my clients and just the thrill of it. You really want to get off and feel like your better than these idiots? Create something. Make something.

Re:More news at 11

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live the vast majority of plumbers are independant small companies of one or two employees. What advantage do plumbers gain from working in large companies. Workign on their own can also allow them to be working, at least part of the time, in a cash economy... which may or may not be declared to the appropriate authorities.

Then you go on to talk about requrint licensing... that would be fine by me if it was a. pratical b. did anythign useful... how many unlicensed plumbers are there? Im not from the US but I suspect there are no specific tax laws targeted at plumbers... and if you think plumbers(and electricians) don't have a sense of entitlement I suspect you don't know many.

Re:More news at 11

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that so much to ask? To be treated differently? We've been fucked our entire lives? Why SHOULDN'T we be entitled to some fucking differentiation now? Something for the better perhaps!

Re:More news at 11

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they are the truth and you do suck. Plainly.

Re:More news at 11

[zamfield]

Licensing professionals is another method large corporate / old wealth interest use to limit competition. The original industrialists, like Ford and Carnegie do not want independent producers to compete with them. It happened to every tradesperson since the mid 1800s. Requirements for professional licensing cuts the supply of labor, raises the market prices for those still participating and increases the demand for those skills and products. With the market primed, a corporation with near unlimited capital and fully limited liability comes in with mass produced and cost minimized solutions that undercut any professionals left in the market. The result is few if any licensed professionals remain sole proprietors or partners for long. Eventually they take the work at the nearby factory for less money, paying more for "professional" services like doctors and accountants (death and taxes). Those company benefits come out of their wages and most of their annual raises will go towards maintaining their health insurance.

Take the early Mini / Personal Computer days for programmers. Very little off the shelf software existed. Business had little choice but to hire free-lance programmers to write custom software. Most needed to keep these programmers on retainer in order to make quick alterations of code to meet new market conditions and all were worried about long term support. The independent programmer could have made a career at one or two firms just as a lawyer or accountant might today if they have large clients.

But in order for off the shelf software to have a serious market in large enterprises, the independent programmer would have to go. So they get the "professional" treatment just like all other tradespeople have received. Certifications are issued and packaged software professionals are the replacement for highly skilled and familiar free-lance custom designers. Business adjusts to an inferior product and less competent labor in order to perpetuate the idea that bigger is better and a piece of paper is more important that practical know-how. Everyone is expected to get back in line, the wild frontier is now closed to the general public, come back in fifty years for the grand opening of the hacker museum were we celebrate how much better it now that nanny Micro-Mac-Bm provides all our "trusted" information needs with new titillating models coming next month.

Re:More news at 11

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the fuck modded you 'insightful'?

Re:More news at 11

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for those of us who can generate more code by ourselves than a team of 20 people.

Re:More news at 11

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it IT people in general feel that they are somehow different than everyone else in the world? Are they really so ignorant and socially dysfunctional to not realize that they are no different than any other part of society in any way? Is this ignorance or a form a geek elitism, thinking that we geeks can't possibly be expected to suffer under the same working conditions of the rest of the pathetic planet of idiots?

So what if we were not 'entitled' then. Could doctors and car mechanics just go and take over our jobs easily?

We feel entitled because we are running at the front of a wave as important as the 1600's Enlightenment, making sure that giant networks running phone communications, television networks, INFORMATION itself that is necessary for the world to continue to run down its post-industrial tracks.

We feel entitled because it is a fair exchange for torment from endless overtime without proper compensation (which lawyers, writers, secretaries and most other workers would laugh at when we explain the choice to work long hours is ruining our social live). Because the long hours of phone support on problems that a sane person would not treat over the phone demands some kind of 'virtual' compensation. Because the sense of accomplishment when you've solved a hard or little explored problem is just like any scientist's.

Because many IT jobs requires that we are available 24/7/365, like emergency room doctors... and I'm sure you could argue that their level of entitlement would be just as 'justified' because of long work hours. The only difference is we don't waste a whole decade to earn the medical degree and government certification.

The day that our jobs become more more commonplace (pretty near, actually) or that the bar of all other trades is raised so high that EVERYONE is treated like us, then you could say that the entitlement would be equal, and thus not unique to our kind. I am talking about giving everyone our 'responsibility' / ill treatment burden. This need to start by creating a world where management is sharing their on-call / Blackberry assignment duty to all non-IT employees down to the doorman and front desk secretary at megacorp. Give them access cards so they can be made to work from home if some manager's ass itches when we are on vacation. And also add to this that we can't retire at age 40, but the industry informally erases us if we're just 'OK.' Even sport stars get by a bit more easily.

We can start there. Until then, since the world is unfair, and only IT workers can do IT workers jobs... a sense of entitlement is our way of saying 'thank us for our hard, long unrewarded work'

socialized medicine...

[Sleepy]

It's funny how all the big-business fat cats claim that "socialized healthcare" is bad for SMALL business, when yeah... lack of affordable self insurance is the PRIMARY reason many dreamers never give their nagging small business idea a go...

Re:socialized medicine...

[bnenning]

The problem is that health insurance is mostly tied to employers. There are both "capitalist" and "socialist" solutions to that. A capitalist solution is to make people responsible for their own insurance, with subsidies for those who either can't afford it or are uninsurable due to preexisting conditions. And treat it as actual insurance that only covers large expenses, so you get rid of the pointless paperwork for routine treatments. Of course, this would require us to abandon our bizarre mindset that nobody should directly pay for medical care.

That's the approach we take for food, which unlike medical care is a constant necessity for everyone. Poor people get subsidies, but the government doesn't own or micromanage farms or grocery stores.

Re:socialized medicine...

[rochberg]

That's the approach we take for food, which unlike medical care is a constant necessity for everyone. Poor people get subsidies, but the government doesn't own or micromanage farms or grocery stores.

You've obviously never heard of agricultural subsidies. The U.S. government pays $16 billion per year (a large chunk goes to corporations like Monsanto) to make food cheaper. So, no, the government's approach to food is not capitalist. They are helping you pay for it...just without your knowledge.

Re:socialized medicine...

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. government pays $16 billion per year (a large chunk goes to corporations like Monsanto) to make food cheaper.

From your link WHICH YOU CLEARLY DID NOT FUCKING READ: "US corn ethanol subsidies are between $5.5 Billion and $7.3 Billion per year, and US ethanol producers are protected from imports of cheaper Brazilian ethanol by a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff." Having a high tariff on imports does not make food cheaper for me. Requiring that 10% of my gas be ethanol (which lowers MY fuel economy by 10% or more) does not make food cheaper. In fact, it makes both gas and food more expensive. Just because Farmer Joe is getting a back rub from Uncle Sam, that does not mean my grocery bill is lower.

Re:socialized medicine...

[Qzukk]

or are uninsurable due to preexisting conditions. And treat it as actual insurance that only covers large expenses

The large expenses are usually what makes people uninsurable. See, "actual insurance" works because if your house burns down you take the money and get a new house. If you do this often the insurance company charges you more. If your TV gets stolen you take the money and buy a new TV, if this happens often the insurance company charges you more. If your car gets wrecked, you take the money and get a new car, if this happens often the insurance company charges you more.

If your body gets wrecked, well, you're just fucked. You can't get a new body, the best you can hope for is that your insurance company will pay to keep you alive, at least until they come up with a reason to drop you, usually by charging you more and more until you can't afford it, or just waiting until you can't work anymore and lose your job and benefits.

There are only two ways I can think of to make health insurance work:
1) Insurance companies can get off their fat lardasses and do something to reduce the cost of healthcare. If they didn't have to pay so much, then we wouldn't have to pay them so much. Maybe WellPoint should take a piece of that $2.7 Billion profit and invest in cheaper drugs.
2) Ditch the employers and sell health insurance like life insurance. Buy in young and healthy and your rate is fixed for the term of the plan (say, 50 years from 20 to 70 then you go on Medicare, or maybe buy an extension if you're healthy enough?). There is absolutely ZERO reason for $3M of health insurance (most policies' lifetime maximum, the vast majority of patients will not hit this before they get to Medicare age) to cost more than $3M of life insurance.

Re:socialized medicine...

[Anonymous Coward]

the solution isn't socialized medicine though, the solution is to fix the system we have.

Re:socialized medicine...

[QuoteMstr]

which lowers MY fuel economy by 10% or more

Bullshit. You could replace that fraction with water and it would only reduce your fuel economy by 10% at the most -- since that's all you're taking out. Since alcohol *does* actually contain energy (albeit a bit less than gasoline), you're actually losing more like 2-3% fuel economy versus using pure gasoline. But you can't compare the ethanol to pure gasoline: the ethanol replaces MTBE, which took up space and lowered fuel efficiency too. Plus, ethanol doesn't pollute our drinking water.

All in all, ethanol in gasoline is a big win. I bet you oppose water fluoridation too.

Re:socialized medicine...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait... Isn't there's a contradiction right there in your post: a large of $16bn goes to Monsanto so I take it that Monsanto helps make food cheaper?

Re:socialized medicine...

[Anonymous Coward]

Come to Massachusetts, you can check the premiums at "https://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/" just remember to use a MA zip code like 01507 when it asks for your zip code

Re:socialized medicine...

[bnenning]

You've obviously never heard of agricultural subsidies

I have, and they suck. But even if all $16 billion went directly to lowering food costs (I expect most of it is just pocketed by rent-seeking corporations), that's around $50 per American, which is a tiny fraction of what we spend ourselves.

Re:socialized medicine...

[dkf]

Plus, ethanol doesn't pollute our drinking water.

But does water pollute your drinking ethanol?

Re:socialized medicine...

[Dominic]

As someone outside the US, I constantly find it amazing that this isn't stated more often by people campaigning for universal healthcare. All of the arguments from the right can be used right back at them! As almost every other country in the world proves, universal healthcare is cheaper (from a GDP perspective, and usually a personal one). Couple this with the fact that it encourages small businesses and the 'American dream' and you'd have thought that any half-decent politician couldn't fail to convince people.

The way this works is sort of obvious when you view the market. The US system favours large corporates, while something like we have in Europe favours startups and individuals. Just look at how many UK startups get bought by large US corporates. Even our larger companies aren't safe (like Cadbury getting bought by Kraft), simply because large US companies are so powerful thanks to very loose requirements in the US. It could be argued that having large, rich corporations is a good thing. However, I think I prefer to live somewhere where I can strike-out on my own with very little risk (certainly with no healthcare costs or worries) and perhaps, maybe, get rich when some big US giant buys me out.

Re:socialized medicine...

[Anonymous Coward]

"which lowers MY fuel economy by 10% or more"

Bullshit. You could replace that fraction with water and it would only reduce your fuel economy by 10% at the most -- since that's all you're taking out. Since alcohol *does* actually contain energy (albeit a bit less than gasoline), you're actually losing more like 2-3% fuel economy versus using pure gasoline.

I do not and did not deny the energy content of that 10% ethanol. You may be slow so I will repeat: I do not and did not deny the energy content of that 10% ethanol. The scope of my comment is fuel economy, MPGs, in a highway context. In the ethanol states, I am about 29-31 MPG traveling 60-70 mph on flat roads. Traveling through more mountainous non-ethanol states, I am about 33-35 MPG traveling 60-80 mph going faster as well as up and down hills and mountains much of the journey. My fuel is expensed, every gas receipt has milage readings from my odometer (total and trip) and I calculate the MPG on every gas purchase. I suspect a different engine would get different results and that this could be as simply as an easily remedied tuning problem. Don't know and don't care enough to attempt the redesign of a paid-for, 6-year old semi-efficient sedan. What engineering school did you attend where they taught you energy content of fuel would translate 1:1 to MPG? I have a PhD in Chemical Engineering - what are your creds? Full disclosure, there are only about 8 data points traveling out of state (5 ethanol, 3 non-ethanol). It is not an unknown phenomenon:

However, one aspect of ethanol has not previously been considered. That is that it very likely increases the nation's consumption of fossil fuel. But, you say, the very purpose of using ethanol is to reduce our dependence on imported petroleum. Well, I'm not a rocket scientist, but I am a mechanical engineer with 32 years of work experience in the automotive industry and another 12 in energy distribution. I have been a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers for 52 years. Using my background and my own experience, I will show that a given trip, say, one that would require 100 gallons of unadulterated gasoline would require more fossil fuel if the trip were made with a 10 percent ethanol blend (E10).

Consider: Based on data from the EPA, a gallon of ethanol contains about 76,100 Btu, while a typical gallon of gasoline has 114,000 Btu. Crunching the numbers shows that E10 has about 3.3 percent less energy than 100 percent gasoline and thus could be expected to decrease fuel mileage by that percentage. If the only degradation in gas mileage with E10 were 3.3 percent, you would not be reading this article. However, I have been fortunate to find a local source of 100 percent gasoline near my home. I have made a careful comparison of mileage with E10 vs. that with pure gasoline. It is well known that gas mileage varies depending on whether the driving is highway or local. So in order to make a valid comparison, I have taken advantage of the trip computer in my 2008 Nissan Rogue and recorded the average speed (mph) for every tank full of fuel. (See chart below.) For the (tank average) speed range of 27 to 53 MPH, using pure gasoline gave me an average of 7.8 percent better mileage than E101. I know this is anecdotal, but others who fill up at the same station report similar savings with the ethanol-free fuel.

Yes, I can ignore the boondongle of MTBE as well. Why do you post non-anonymously? Is it a desire to immortalize your stupidity?

Re:socialized medicine...

[QuoteMstr]

I have a PhD in Chemical Engineering

You're full of it. If you had such a degree, you would be acquainted with the old notion that an anecdote does not constitute evidence. Your experiment was not performed under controlled conditions. You did not account for possible sources of error. You did not perform a sufficient number of iterations.

Really, if you were a scientist (or even an engineer), you would understand how to conduct a proper study.

Re:socialized medicine...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're full of it. If you had such a degree, you would be acquainted with the old notion that an anecdote does not constitute evidence. Your experiment was not performed under controlled conditions. You did not account for possible sources of error. You did not perform a sufficient number of iterations.

Really, if you were a scientist (or even an engineer), you would understand how to conduct a proper study.

How much money would you like to wager on the issue? $10,000 minimum to a disinterested third party and I will arrange for a transcript to be sent. It was not experiment although I did reference someone who has attempted the same. Anecdotes are indeed evidence. They are not the data sufficient to support an issue to the FDA but they can be used to suggest further avenues of study. I am surprised you would need to put so many words in my mouth.

I don't need a controlled experiment to experience poor performance of 10% ethanol and note its results. More so, my degree was referenced in context to the ludicrous notion that MPG would relate 1:1 to energy content (in the same vehicle) using different grades and mixtures of fuel.

the status quo

[Univac_1004]

"...sends the message that the status quo is the highest goal."

What a non-surprise.

It's the guys who own the status quo that are sending the message.

Re:Bagh! - Good luck with that!

[mswhippingboy]

I was an independent contractor/developer for over 15 years and it was great. However, the dive in the economy and the items mentioned in the original post have squeezed things so much that large contracting organizations are swallowing up all the work and forcing independent contractors to roll over or hit the road. It doesn't matter what you know or how valuable to their clients. Decisions are made from the top of the organizations and middle management has little or no say about it.
I've been in software development for over 30 years and have always kept my skillset crisp and current. I've worked as W2 and 1099 over the years and I like 1099 much better (eg. no politics, focus on the task at hand rather than on corporate culture, more say in what and how I do things, etc.). However, unless corporations begin to operate like small companies (where the end product and customer satisfaction matters rather than maximizing share price at any cost), I don't see much hope for the future of independent developers. That is if making a good living matters. Granted, to some $$$ is secondary to enjoying what you do, but those of us with kids to: put through college, help with healthcare, supplement income due to the crappy job market, etc, it matters more than personal satisfaction.

Health care costs

[Stonefred]

"[...] the hurdles and costs of obtaining health care for one's own family [...]" Health care costs? Good thing every European is integrated in the public health care system of his/her country.

Re:Health care costs

[cdrguru]

Well, considering the wonderful nature of how the US government is run and how they are currently running the VA medical establishment, do you really think that is a good idea?

I'd say the VA is the prime example of a US government-run healthcare system. They are starved for budget funds, so everything is on hold perpetually. Patients are sitting in hallways because there are no rooms, people wait hours for simple things and months for anything more advanced. Basically, the VA has been a disaster since a little while after WW II and has gotten much, much worse since the 1980s.

Today if you are a veteran and eligible for free medical care you have to be utterly broke to subject yourself to that system - so you are going to pay out of your own pocket for care. Today, that is still an option in the US. Should we get "the public option" paying for care would likely no longer be available and everything else would disappear - real simple math there. No insurance company is going to be able to compete against a non-profit government-run organization, no matter how awful things are. Besides, the content will be mandated so there are few, if any, differences between different plans.

Re:Health care costs

[Stonefred]

Then I think it's even more important to develop the system further. It won't advance on its own rather get worse. That's certainly not something, that can be done in a few years, it's a progress that can take decades. But even that's better than persisting on the "old ways".

Just take a look at the scandinavian countries. They started to develop their social system more than 20 years ago. Now they got public health care and a working retirement plan without major problems in funding.

I started paying for my own private pension fund a few years ago, because the Austrian government seems uncapable of reforming ... well ... anything.

What a whiny load of crap.

[Low Ranked Craig]

Step 1. Form an LLC. It's not hard, you can do it yourself for under $100 in most cases

Step 2. Get an EIN number from the feds. Free and easy

Step 3. Open a checking account for your new LLC. might require a credit check.

Step 4. Get a decent accounting package.

Step 5. Keep track of EVERY business expense. Keep milage logs in your car. Keep receipts. What percentage of your utilities, etc are business related? Track it.

Step 6. If you think you need the additional coverage get E&O Insurance. It can be pricey, true. On the other hand if you LLC doesn't have a lot of hard assets, why worry?

Step 7. Get health coverage. We found insurance through a local trade group for $600 a month for my wife and I. Pay it out of the company, it's a write off.

Step 8. Work your ass off and enjoy the benefits of being able to write-off things you probably would have purchased anyway.

This should have been step 6 - get a good tax guy (or girl) to help you figure shit out.

Now get creative. Like to go to theme parks? Set up another LLC and create a website dedicated to reviewing them, talking about which ones have what etc. Now you get to write off trips to Six Flags and Cedar point as legitimate business research.

Life is far more enjoyable when you do what you want, when you want, for whom you want. All the accounting is a pain in the ass, yes, but not as big of a pain in the ass as working for Bill Lumberg the rest of your life.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[digitalhermit]

If it worked like that it would be awesome. But it doesn't.

Say you are an independent programmer with EIN in hand. You walk up to Acme Industrials and present your resume and EIN. They contract you because, dammit, you're really good. A few months go by. You're very good, and love the independence of contracting. So good, in fact, that Acme renews your contract. Life is good.

Tax season rolls around. The government says, "Hey Acme, your awesome programmer contractor is really an employee. You owe us 30% of his salary in withholding tax. You owe use unemployment taxes. You owe us social security taxes. You owe use these other fees. And you're late on paying for the past three years also. Pay or lube up."

Acme gets rid of the awesome contract programmer who is so damn good that he doesn't need an agency to find him work. Well, at least he didn't before.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[digitalsushi]

Step 9: Pray step 5 worked out cause you gonna get an audit

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[yumyum]

Like to go to theme parks? Set up another LLC and create a website dedicated to reviewing them, talking about which ones have what etc. Now you get to write off trips to Six Flags and Cedar point as legitimate business research.

That only works to a point right? According to the IRS you have to show some income at some point, not just a ton of expenses.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[Chris Mattern]

Oh, Lord. A tax attorney would laugh himself into a seizure over this. Write off going to theme parks because reviewing them is your business? Not unless you can show the taxman you made a profit at it in the recent past or have a reasonable expectation of doing so in the future. Incorporate yourself to allow you to calculate taxes on that basis? Yep, and be sued by the IRS for maintaining a phony corporation as a tax dodge, particularly if you have only one client, in which case they will claim you are an employee and must be taxed like one (they've done it before).

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[Low Ranked Craig]

You can only show 2 years of losses then you have to show a profit or it's reclassified as a hobby and your write offs are disallowed. I didn't say you need to lose money, btw.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[DaveGod]

Whilst agreeing with all your other points:

Now get creative. Like to go to theme parks? Set up another LLC and create a website dedicated to reviewing them, talking about which ones have what etc. Now you get to write off trips to Six Flags and Cedar point as legitimate business research.

I would be very surprised if the US does not have an equivalent to the UK "wholly and exclusively" rule. Secondly, there is the whole badges of a trade thing. Thirdly, more relevant to an LLC, is employee expenses and benefits. Also critical to an LLC is the accounting/legal concept of going concern.

Basically the tax man is going to argue there is a) no view to a profit therefore expenses are not deductible for tax (see revenue expenditure) and/or b) a substantial element of the expense is employee benefit and therefore counts as taxable income to you personally.

Sure, everybody knows someone who seems to be pulling stunts like these. Some of them aren't really: I did tax and VAT for a second hand car salesman who was like a comedy cartoon epitome of a tax evader - I suspect he utilised the image as a sales pitch - but was actually ultra clean. Some people actually are doing it then suddenly aren't after they get an inspection (with penalties and interest). Many people think they are being "a bit cheeky" with the expenses, though the accountant is probably adding back much of the non-deductible stuff in the tax comp.

And yeah, some are getting away with it. Some from being lucky with their gamble and never being inspected, and some because they are very good at it. Of course this is quite the risk and IMO not worth it. A good accountant should have you running quite tax efficient - through good business structure, some avoidance but not evasion (even paying yourself dividends through the LLC can be a great tax advantage compared to the same income as salary).

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[linuxrocks123]

As has been stated multiple times in this thread already, this is only a problem if you have exactly one client, in which case you really are an employee of the company and, for fairness's sake, should probably be treated that way for tax purposes. However, you can get around that problem even in that case if you organize as a partnership with at least one other person.

---linuxrocks123

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[Low Ranked Craig]

No. You misunderstand. I didn't say an illegitimate business. It is perfectly legitimate to create a business that reviews and then write off expenses related to that. I didn't say that the business needs to lose money. Here's a perfect example: www.miceage.com, and another: mouseplanet.com. Secondly, I don't know where the idea is that I have one client. I generally work for upwards of 15 to 20 clients in a given year. If you want to work for a single client for more than 6 months and they are you only client, then you are an employee. That's not what I do. I specifically and carefully only write off legitimate expenses, and we track everything. It's just that when you're in business for yourself, you have a lot more expenses then when you work for the man.

For example, we work out of our home. We need electricity, we need phone service, we need to travel to see clients, so we write off a portion of our utilities and capital expenditures on the house. We write off mileage to visit clients. We write off computer upgrades and components. I never said you have to cheat. I said you need to track everything and be creative. The key is to get paid for what you like to do.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[edmicman]

Adwords on the website would take care of that, right? Any little bit would count, and it would all be a loss writeoff anyway wouldn't it?

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[Low Ranked Craig]

Again, see my other responses in this thread. I did NOT say it needed to be illegitimate, and I did NOT say it needed to lose money. Again, here's an example: www.mouseplanet.com. This site is run by a husband and wife (or it was) and it turns a profit. Expenses related to collecting information is a legitimate deduction. Don't misinterpret what I was saying. I did not imply that you should cheat, or break the law. My primary point is that it is very possible, even in this economy, to do what you like to do and make a living at it. If people listened to the author of the article no one would ever start a company again...

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[Chris Mattern]

Have you been audited yet? Yours is the kind of tax return the IRS likes to select out for it. More than likely, you and the IRS are going to have differences of opinions as to what's deductable. They won't argue with your records, they'll just maintain that what they record is not in fact a deductable expense.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[gujo-odori]

That all depends; if Acme's contract is with the individual, yes, that might happen.

If Acme's contract is with SuperHotProgrammer, LLC, not so much. SuperHotProgrammer, LLC, is responsible for paying salary to, and withholding taxes from, its employees.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[Rob the Bold]

Step 7. Get health coverage. We found insurance through a local trade group for $600 a month for my wife and I. Pay it out of the company, it's a write off.

These are all good suggestions, and many people could benefit from them. But Step 7 can be the real stumbling block. Obviously not for you and your wife at $600 a month, but there are plenty of people who, through no fault of their own except perhaps original sin, just can't get affordable private insurance. Usually because one partner has a "serious" pre-existing health condition. It doesn't have to be life-threatening or crippling or even detectable by the average person looking at you. Just "expensive", as in maybe $100 of Rx/drugs per month or something like that. In that case, you may not be able to buy insurance on the open market for any price. This puts you in the unfortunate position of having to buy from your state's "high-risk" pool -- if your state has one. These can cost twice as much as the average private insurance plan, and there may be a waiting period or a wait-list to get in.

If we truly value the idea of more small business in the US, we'd try to reduce or eliminate this hurdle and mitigate the hassles of steps 5 and 6 as well. I'm not saying that a person can't work their way around this (like you have), I'm just saying that the fewer obstacles we put up, the more folks would take a chance on quitting Initech and hanging out their shingle.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[rjstanford]

Not the case, actually, which is why very few companies will actually contract with INDIVIDUALS any more. Any company working with an LLC or a C/S class corporation is automatically covered. Its impossible to hire a corporation, therefore they can't possibly treat you as an employee, so this situation never comes up.

Working as an independent on a 1099 basis is almost impossible. Hence step one, forming an LLC.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[BitZtream]

Now get creative. Like to go to theme parks? Set up another LLC and create a website dedicated to reviewing them, talking about which ones have what etc. Now you get to write off trips to Six Flags and Cedar point as legitimate business research.

Best idea ever posted to slashdot. Ever.

I've been itching to ride the Millennium again, no better review than the first for such an awesome ride ... summer is coming ... freaking awesome ... when does Cedar Point open on weekdays this year/when is the last week of school in Sandusky?! :)

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[rattaroaz]

Step 10: Fly plane into IRS building if audit occurs.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[CodeBuster]

IANAL, but as I understand it one has 5 years in the US to show a profit or the IRS will deem the business to have been "declared in bad faith" (i.e. as a tax dodge) and you will owe back taxes and penalties for any write offs or other tax benefits derived from the illegitimate "business". This can happen even if you honestly were trying but just couldn't get the business off the ground. This sometimes happens to people who try to turn a hobby into a business for tax purposes.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[Low Ranked Craig]

Well, we have a $5000 deductible for hospitalization and they pay 80% (I think, I'll have to look, might be 90%), and there is a cap at $10K, again, I'll need to look at the policy to get the exact numbers. The bottom line is out maximum out of pocket (not counting the premiums) is $10K in a year. That sounds like a lot, but realize we'd need to rack up $50,000 in bills to hit that, and regular office visits, etc are covered. I simply want protection from losing my home, so we opted for a higher deductible. We don't make enough money to have a lot of assets in the primary business, so I'm not to worried about E&O, that's one of the reasons to set up an LLC. As far as number 5 goes, this is just good business. You have to know what your expenses are, in order to know how much money you are making (or not).

One of the things to keep in mind is that as an LLC or a corporation you can generally qualify for group coverage, bypassing a lot of pre-existing conditions issues (I have one) that you would have with individual coverage, this is according to our insurance guy and how we got that price. My wife and I (actually, me, with my wife as a dependent) are employees of the company which pays for the insurance.

My overriding point is that if you are willing to do the research and put in the effort, being self employed is well worth the effort, but it is work and does require a lot of effort. I spend about 20% of my time running the business, 20% doing sales and proposals, 10% working on our website and marketing materials, and about 50% doing actual work. I work 60 to 70 hours a week, but my office is 30 ft. (10 meters?) from the bedroom, so I no longer have a 1.5 hour commute each day.

Well worth the effort.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[Low Ranked Craig]

Exactly. Look at this site: www.miceage.com. Lots of Amazon, and google ads. They get a crapload of traffic. I know these guys make a profit even with the expenses...

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[Low Ranked Craig]

We rely on the advice of a good tax guy that used to work for the IRS... So far so good... We only write off legitimate expenses and we follow the rules...

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[jollyreaper]

Now get creative. Like to go to theme parks? Set up another LLC and create a website dedicated to reviewing them, talking about which ones have what etc. Now you get to write off trips to Six Flags and Cedar point as legitimate business research.

Which step is "Watching it all come tumbling down when the IRS takes a dim light to your creativity?"

I worked for a small business guy who played tricks like this. His wife's trips to the lingerie store were called a business expense, clothing. They worked in construction services so unless she was giving lap dances to roofers, I don't think so.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused. You can write these expenses off, but if you are not making any money (as in your example of the theme park) then it's pointless. OR do you mean you can write it off on your personal income taxes (from your real job) since the LLC income is tacked onto your main income?

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't agree with your theme parks LLC but the rest of your list is relatively accurate.

The key to staying out of the IRS' spotlight is to make sure you report a profit every year, even if it is a small one. -- Pay your share of taxes.

Showing a loss as a sole-proprietor LLC is a really dumb thing to do. Do it twice and you mind as well go the IRS and ask for an audit.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then take it to a f*cking jury.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[GooberToo]

problem if you have exactly one client,

This is completely untrue. In these parts, those jobs have all but dried up. No one will touch you unless you go through a contracting company for exactly these reasons. As a result, if you want work you are no longer independent - you are a paid employee working for a contracting house.

Without a doubt, the IRS has killing many, many, many a small business.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[StormReaver]

If it worked like that it would be awesome. But it doesn't.

According to the materials referenced in the article, it's very easy to avoid the "not a contractor" IRS trap. The primary key to the solution, according to the linked articles, is to interact directly with the company for whom you're contracting. The big trap involves being paid through a third party and giving the client too much control and/or influence over the work process. There are a few minor secondary concerns, but the two I listed are the ones most harped on by the linked materials.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[mortonda]

No, the real trick is don't act like you are the employee of one company, ie, work for multiple clients and have multiple 1099 forms for the year. If you only submit one 1099 for the whole year, you look like an employee.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[maxume]

No one is claiming that you said that the business needed to be illegitimate or that it has to make a loss, they are all insinuating that the comment you made was over-simplified.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[tftp]

We only write off legitimate expenses and we follow the rules...

Then you are good ... as long as the tax man (federal or state) also follows the rules. And that is not always true. They may request so many hard to find documents to support your deduction that it's sometimes easier to remove the deduction (and pay the fine.)

For example (IANCPA,) you drove 1,000 miles to talk to a prospective client, and nothing came out of it. Prove it, or else the fuel and car mileage deductions are fraud. Can you prove that a year after the fact? Perhaps, but only if you are very organized and keep every single bit of paper. If you just got a phone call, jumped into the car and went there on a 3-day trip, you might be in trouble.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah! It's not even the fed that will get him, look closer at what your local state does. In Taxachusetts, the state definition of employee is MUCH more strict than the federal one. Oh, and if the Division of Labor and Training wins a suit against the "employer", it's not just a matter of paying all owed back employment taxes. The (generally small) company gets to pay TRIPLE PENALTIES! It's almost guaranteed the death of the company, and likely a financial death penalty for the owner. Might even carry over to responsible officers in such a company.

Ever hear of such a thing as a "business cycle"? Old companies get fat, lazy, deadwood-loaded and fail; young agile companies take their place? Not happening anymore in the good ol' USA.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

you sir, deserve a medal.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 7. Get health coverage. We found insurance through a local trade group for $600 a month for my wife and I. Pay it out of the company, it's a write off.

I followed every step up to here. Could not locate any means, no group, no carrier, no nothing. My wife has preexisting conditions, and the insurance companies would not cover her, not for any price.

This continued for two years. I billed 80 dollars an hour on 60 hour weeks for two years, and the LLC built up quite the bankroll. I had to end it, however, because my wife needs ( thankfully, not immediately ) surgery. I took a 40% pay cut to become a plain old employee, and now she has coverage. I'm grateful she does, and I'd make the same decision again, absent the ability to find coverage independently.

I'd sure like that money, though.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[rjstanford]

But that's the point - even if you only do consult to one company, you (the individual) are filing a W2 from your S-Corp (or whatever). Your corporation files whatever it wants - there's no worry that a corporation will be found to be an employee... yet, anyway.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay. So how the fuck am I supposed to have more than one client? My work is at the top of the field, extremely specialized. That's the reason it's valuable enough for me to be an independent contractor to begin with. The one client I have wants me to sign a non-compete. Otherwise, my work has no value to them if I go and sell it to their competitors. It's a catch-22.

I don't want to have to punch a clock and work 40 hours a week. My client can't afford to pay my hourly rate full time, only to have me sit around doing nothing most of the time or working on side projects. And breaking into another field in order to find more clients could take years. I don't want to have to put up with all the other little corporate bullshit that the average worker is subjected to: windowless cubicles, hours wasted commuting, oppressive unhealthy work environments. That would stifle the creativity and talents that allow me to work independently. I spend my energy and focus being at the top of my game, not worrying about corporate politics or getting to work exactly on time.

Likewise, I don't want any employees. I've considered hiring an ex-stripper just to hang out with. But it's quite a leap to go from supporting yourself to supporting yourself and an unproductive employee, all in a single year. And I certainly don't want anyone else fucking with my work. More programmers doesn't equal better code. And hiring adds a whole other layer of bullshit to have to deal with, that I don't want. I'm not a businessperson. I'm not a salesman. I'm not an accountant or HR manager or lawyer. I'm a fucking programmer and I have a right to earn a living working to my full potential, not wasting away in some corporate hell-hole or being ass-raped and prevented from working by the federal government.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

You said it perfect. I have owned/operated my own S-Corp for about 10 years and have basically followed all 8 steps exactly.

It does take a certain type of person to tell the B. Lumbergs of the world to shove it and break out on your own.

One day I realized that I was not put on this earth to make somebody else rich.

The first few years were tough, but once things got rolling it was the best career move I have ever made.

Re:What a whiny load of crap.

[R3d M3rcury]

Well, yes and no.

The reason--as was stated above--is that the contracting company is protected because they are a company. You're right in that a company contracting with an individual and doing 1099 can very well be hit with the "If it walks like an employee"-type of situations.

However, if you are a one man company and your company contracts with other companies, there is no issue about employees. My roomate worked for a staffing company which shoved her into a company. She was an employee of the staffing company, the staffing company got paid $X/hour for her work and she got paid % of $X/hour for her work. There is no problem here because the staffing company generated a W2 for her because she was an employee of the staffing company (even though she did all her work for someone else).

So they contract with GooberToo, LLC. They pay GooberToo, LLC, with checks payable to GooberToo, LLC. GooberToo, LLC, determines an hourly rate for their employee, Goober, and pays him that much. GooberToo, LLC, also pays the taxes for their employee, Goober.

So you're right in that nobody wants to hire a contract employee for just the reasons you describe. The solution is to stop being a contract employee and become a full-time employee of your own company.

Poor programmers...

[Anonymous Coward]

Another article about how programmers are somehow better than anyone else in the SERVICE industry. Here's a tip for you... Everyone working on their own or owner of a small company doing service work has the same responsibilities and various legal obligations as well. If a dude putting a new roof on your house causes your roof to collapse, it is his contractor license and insurance carrying ass that is liable for the damages, as is the landscape company that cuts into your underground power line or knocks a branch into your car or house, as is the low life plumber that is installing your gas hot water heater if your house explodes. Welcome to reality where your dreams and expectations were wrong, you are actually not untouchable and are replaceable by someone else in your field because the barrier to entry to join starts with nothing more than a computer, some software, and a desire.

Boy, talk about a slippery slope.

[CherniyVolk]

OK. If a country who decided, stupidly and unconventionally, to have Windows (any version) installed anywhere within the chain of firecontrol for nuclear weapons, or massive bio/chem weapons, and one accidentally launched or worse, didn't launch when needed. Microsoft needs to be held liable.

If a life support system, fails and it is found, beyond all doubt and as matter of fact, that the developer purposely put the bug in for shits and giggles. Yes, I would agree he is liable.

OK, everyone understands these extremes... but what about these?

If a software developer puts a back door sequence into a casino game machine, and they get out... I think he should be held liable.

The problem with liability, and why I think I would rather wait for case by case scenarios, as horrible as that may sound... wait for a nuclear disaster... the problem is the legal system and it's inaccessibility by laymen. The problem is, if you grant liability issues within the legal system for software development, how the hell are you to protect yourself from a lawyer who insists you knew of xyz bug that caused xyz damage? After all, you coded it, saw every line... perhaps you are a professional coder? It's the same things that plague reverse engineering, just because you saw the inside of a PS3, some lawyer in spite of all logic and rationale can make it sound like you have super human intelligence and vision like Superman to see into the chips and that the PS3 is such a simpleton device that merely viewing it once or twice somehow accounts for any and all success in reverse engineering a project like that. Which, *we* all know is bullshit.

And where does the liability train end? God forbid a lawyer actually understand any of this stuff, because it'll go from Microsoft, to the department, to the head engineer, to the underlying compiler, to the board of committee that governs the spec. Maybe no software designer accepts the liability, perhaps pass on the ball to those pesky hardware guys... the bug isn't a problem with software the software was just doing what the hardware allowed... now, square one, in a totally different ball field.

So they try to qualify it by "knowingly", but I just outlined the problem with this. These are ambiguous terms, nearly impossible to prove. Such concepts can result in long drawn out court battles, which due to no legal protection from the state, poor people can't afford. Which the whole thing will get abused by big business wishing to shut down an open source developer, or an upstart, or it's direct competition (we all remember Creative's use of legal battles to crush competition yes?).

Because of reliable prophecy of where this sort of stuff will result in, I'm willing to absolve any and all liability of even my worst enemy (Microsoft) should their software cause damage due to a bug. Besides, I don't know anyone who can write bug free code. I don't know anyone who can write a relatively useful, yet simple, program once and have no bugs, no gotchas without having to hit the backspace key at all. There is a great deal of trial and error in computer programming, there's a great deal of revisionism, bug fixing, updating and modification. Software development is as buggy as there are natural phenomena, it's as progressive and dynamic as nature itself. Attempting to hold someone liable is sheer stupidity.

Re:Boy, talk about a slippery slope.

[geekoid]

These liability issues have been solved in other industries. Not just solved, but solved in a way that ensure the people doing the engineering design have the power to do it correctly.

Apply that same liability to Software engineer you do for engineers that design Bridges and roads.

Re:Boy, talk about a slippery slope.

[dangitman]

OK. If a country who decided, stupidly and unconventionally, to have Windows (any version) installed anywhere within the chain of firecontrol for nuclear weapons, or massive bio/chem weapons, and one accidentally launched or worse, didn't launch when needed. Microsoft needs to be held liable.

Don't they specifically disclaim liability for such usage scenarios, saying that the software is not to be used in nuclear facilities, weapons control systems, etc? It's pretty standard to see that disclaimer in software licenses.

Re:Boy, talk about a slippery slope.

[moro_666]

I'm a software developer myself, professionally for about 10 years, a little more.
But when it comes down to a discussion of "bug free" programs, i totally disagree with the herd it seems.

You don't expect your doctor to make a bug while fixing you up. If they do, they are pretty screwed.
You don't expect your car maker to give you a buggy car (Toyota anyone ?). If they sell you a really bad car, they are really screwed.
You don't expect your mobile operator to give you a buggy phone.
You don't expect a cola bottle that has the drink but doesn't open properly, you don't want a cigarette lighter that burns your house down.
This list could pretty much continue forever...

Why do developers think that they are all sacred cows and not responsible for not planning & producing their product properly. There are about 10 more than bazillion good developers out there today. There's nothing holy about you if you optimize the code down to be 5% faster, but there is great holiness if you can provide algorithms that are way more bulletproof.

Why should anyone pay money for software that doesn't really do what it should ? I know that it's freaking expensive to write nearly perfect code, but as the expression goes "you get what you pay for". If you look at your "main enemy Microsoft", their windows is a burrito in the software world, it's a cheap deal, don't expect it to be a full blown lunch at a mighty restaurant.

If there are 3rd party items that make your product unstable, make sure the client understands it before he buys it (just like you tell people not to put their cat into the microwave ... , or not to use the microwave with the wrong electricity voltage line).

And as far as "independent developer" jam follows, do what the rest of the industry does.
1) work for someone else, until you have enough budget and a good idea
2) fork away your own company, and roll it.

Nobody really starts a car factory from zero and nobody builds a McJimmy's burger place into downtown from zero investment or out of the fun of an experiment. If you want to make money - it's a business, get on the train.

OK.

[geekoid]

I don't believe in the no win scenario.

Or to paraphrase:
The kobayashi maru is my bitch.

Worry less about winning, and more about doing.

As a side note, I know a lot of small business owners that can not grow there business because the cost of health care is too high.

Think about that next time someone talks about health care hurting business.

Re:OK.

[icebrain]

Employers shouldn't have anything to do with health care at all. Most people get stuck with their employer's chosen plan because everything else costs so much more in comparison. Give individuals the tax break on their premiums and prohibit employers from offering plans or subsidizing coverage unless said subsidies are provider- and plan-agnostic. And get rid of the "use-it-or-lose-it" stipulation of medical savings accounts; let people save up multiple years and even withdraw it (taxed) for non-medical purposes after a given time.

Oh, and tort reform, end pre-existing conditions, crack down on poor/malicious billing practices and wrongful dismissal of claims... shit, I could be here for hours...

Re:OK.

[geekoid]

Or, you know solve all that by having a public option. In fact, it could completely remove health care costs as an issue for employment.

Yes, use it or lose it needs to go away. It's stupid.

On tort reform: be careful what you ask for.
A) The 'sue everyone' isn't as wide spread as insurance companies would like you to believe
B) Who does the reform? I have yet to hear a proposal that doesn't hurt people who make less then 100K.

Re:OK.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know a lot of small business owners that can not grow there business because the cost of health care is too high.

Yeah, this is fucking hilarious.

I give two shits about rinky-dink small businesses that can't grow because they can't pack more expensive employees into their poorly-designed cubicle farms, and whose managers are too fucking stupid to come up with more efficient ways to work.

Meanwhile software programmers who can easily replace 3-5 employees each are prevented from doing so due to stupid laws.

It's going to be real sad in America 20 years from now, when India/China collectively reach the "information age" stage of development and we still haven't gotten our shit together.

Profession vs trade

[Colin Smith]

Lawyers. Legal protection.
Doctors. Legal protection.
Accountant. Legal protection.

What makes a typical profession a profession, is legal protection by the state. You can't just practice as a doctor on a whim, it is illegal to do so. It creates scarcity in the field, and therefore high prices.

Ironically, things normally thought of as trades; electricians, plumbers etc are in many countries increasingly being required to pass certifications and gain legal protection by the state, and are therefore becoming more professional and prices are going up.

Programming. Pretty much nothing required. Anyone can become a programmer on a whim and a "Learning Java" book. People contracting individual jobs like any other trade. It's pretty clear programming is a trade rather than a profession. Sorry, but these features of programming are going to continue to push prices down, not up, as the supply of programmers increases domestically or abroad.

If you want to reverse the trend you're going to have to create or join a professional body and lobby the state to make programming without a license, illegal. (using whatever criteria you think will sway the argument; dangerous, national security etc)
 

Re:Profession vs trade

[idontgno]

If you want to reverse the trend you're going to have to create or join a professional body and lobby the state to make programming without a license, illegal.

Within limits. I'm no plumber, and I certainly am not a member of the plumber's union and have never been through their apprenticeship programs (remember, many craft trades have their own training, certification, and "scarcity" systems), but it is most certainly legal to work on the plumbing of any property I own, as long as the scope of the work doesn't rise to the level of needing permits and inspections. And, in many municipalities, even if the work is that complex, I can do it myself if I'm willing to see to the permitting pass the inspections.

It's fair to say that "DIY" and "supported by public policy" are mutually exclusive. If you do it yourself, you go it yourself.

Re:Profession vs trade

[Anonymous Coward]

If you do it yourself, you go it yourself.

right, the problem is when going it yourself becomes artificially more difficult because others don't want you competing with them.

Bunch of FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't understand this sort of post.
I'm 26; I made 118k last year as an independent contractor. I get job offers all the time. Nobody is looking to out-source me, move me oversees, anything like that. Why? Because I'm good at what I do and easy to work with.
I doubt I'm going to see that change any time soon.

malpractice insurance

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see the liability issue as being much of a problem once it's established. Programmers will just end up buying some kind of insurance, similar to malpractice insurance. This will raise their costs, sure, but also will end up priced in to their products & services. In the big picture, poor quality and insecure software costs a fortune & is a huge financial drag, so I would bet that this would overall be good economics, even after the insurance companies siphon off a good share.

Because insurance will presumably cost more for careless developers and less for diligent ones, it gives an incentive for quality & security, where currently the only incentive is to get things done as quickly & cheaply as possible, and by extension to hire the cheapest and least skilled programmers you can get away with. This makes skilled programmers time worth more by making their insurance costs & their risks less.

I think it's a win for both programmers and software-users (which is everybody) and for the economy as a whole, and I think that the market will iron out all the details pretty quickly (and it's rare that I say something like that last bit.)

Re:malpractice insurance

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree completely. Realtors (all indepenent contractors, though not the most favored at the minute), pay for E&O (Errors and Omissions) insurance with every sale they make. It's not a lot (compared to say malpractice etc).
Honestly if you are working as an independent contractor and DON'T have -some- kind of liability insurance already regardless of any law, you are being foolish. If you are negligent with your code (forget to take out your debugging back-door password to module "X"), then you're liable as an independent contractor.
Now as an employee, not so much.

I don't really see the big deal in this article. Employee vs contractor have different pros/cons:

Health Insurance: Better as Employee
Tax Write-offs: Better as Contractor
Liability: Better a Employee
Employer Paperwork: Better as Contractor
Employee Paperwork: Better as Employee (arguable depending on how pendantic the employer's policies are)

There's nothing new that makes either choice 'prohibitive'.

Sure it can be done.

[mswhippingboy]

The point of TFA was not that it was impossible, just that the system's stacked against indies.
Maybe you like that.
As a former indy forced into submission, it pissed me off!

This just in: Another industry goes borg

[Gabrill]

Another cottage industry gets swallowed up by corporations who are able to spread risk and cost among a pool of workers and goods. Wal-mart all over again. Just ask the Mom & Pop stores for a good reference.

I can only conclude...

[Anonymous Coward]

Code produced by independent programmers must be more reliable.

Work for hire versus licensing

[Dan East]

This story specifically addresses work for hire and consulting scenarios. It totally neglects other methods of income, such as direct software sales and licensing. An individual developer can build up a portfolio of half a dozen apps for a specific platform (Windows, OSX, Windows Mobile, iPhone, Blackberry, etc) and do well financially.

Another reason to escape the USA

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Panama, the Bahamas, Canada. Citizenship can be had elsewhere. If I was starting a company tomorrow, I'd incorporate offshore, hire offshore and only make my software available via download or as a web app. The USA/IRS might try and tax me for domestic downloads. Good luck with that guys.

If the USA wants to make it difficult for independent software developers or other independent entrepreneurs to do business in the United States, I'm sure that those independents will be happy to oblige them - by taking their money, talents and ambition elsewhere.

Re:Another reason to escape the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh stop being fatalistic. Canada is more or less just as difficult as the US. Good luck finding well educated programmers in Panama and the Bahamas. Yes, I'm sure there are a few, but doubtfully as many as you would find in any major metropolitan area in the USA. Anyone who has lived on a tropical island knows that most of the smart people on the island leave to go to the mainland and the party people from the mainland come to live on the island. In Panama, you will probably have to set up some sort of agreement with the criminal gang that owns the turf your business is on too.

The USA is actually a great place to have a business. We always complain here on Slashdot that the government is working for the corporations and not the people, right?

Re:Another reason to escape the USA

[dangitman]

If I was starting a company tomorrow, I'd incorporate offshore, hire offshore and only make my software available via download or as a web app.

You are going to incur a lot of extra overheads running your business from a ship, and it won't be a very pleasant work environment. Also, how many decent programmers are you going to find on the high seas? I think most of them will be living on land.

Re:Another reason to escape the USA

[CodeBuster]

You do realize that it is basically impossible for US Citizens to escape the IRS right? Even if you live overseas, you still owe taxes. The only way to become completely free of the IRS is to renounce citizenship at an overseas embassy which cannot be done without proof of alternative foreign citizenship because you cannot became a "stateless" person in this way. The benefits of American citizenship heavily outweigh the costs in taxes for most of us, besides the fact that many of us were born in United States (i.e. it's our home country), so this is basically a non-starter.

Re:Another reason to escape the USA

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Arrrrr. Aye Matey, I wish this *was* a joke.
http://www.sea-code.com/

Re:Another reason to escape the USA

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Theoretically, very true.

Re:Another reason to escape the USA

[Dominic]

And what are the benefits of US citizenship compared to, say, gaining UK citizenship? You could then live and work anywhere in the EU, or hey, start a company in the EU country with the lowest taxes and contract in the US, paying your income into your EU account. Getting work permits for the US is easy as a UK national. As an additional benefit, you wouldn't have to pay for healthcare either.

Not saying that it's easy to change citizenship, but I know enough Americans that have. Just get a half-decent job here for a few years. Somone told me that you can't get joint US citizenship. That's a bit mad and it limits your options, but still...

Re:Another reason to escape the USA

[kchrist]

Dual citizenship has been allowed for Americans for a long time now, and it's fairly easy to do. Most countries will allow you to apply for citizenship after living there for a certain number of years -- the UK is 5 years, some EU countries want 7 or 10, Belgium is only 3. Gaining residency is a smaller problem if you're self-employed, as you'd be bringing money into the economy and paying local taxes while not taking a local job. Some countries are easier than others but people do it all the time.

You'll still have to pay US taxes though but only if you make over a certain amount of money (I don't remember what that level is currently) but I'm sure that's not too difficult to work around.

Outcompete lawyers

[Kim0]

Stuff like this is an attack on programmers from people with lawyer education.

We damaged or destroyed the music industry.
We could do that to lawyers and judges as well.
Considering their general low quality, they could in most cases be replaced with simple machine intelligence and data mining. Do this with open source and collaboration, and they will be displaced just like peopled stock exchanges.

Of course there will be a transition period, but when computer guided actors playing lawyers in court rooms win significantly more cases than real lawyers, and computers are better at judging than judges, people will treat them as the obsolete guild they are. The survivors will be lawyers that understands computing.

Kim0

Be Puma, not Nike

[Anonymous Coward]

Good independent companies take advantage of their small scale. If you make something for a niche market, or if you provide an extreme degree of personalization, you beat the big boys, because no megacorp cares about those markets--they're not profitable.

Or you can invent a disruptive technology for a pressing problem and develop it faster and better than existing companies (Google). More money, but more luck required.

maintaining monopoly

[roman_mir]

This is an obvious move by the large software manufacturers to keep their monopoly, that's how large corporations create unbearable situation for anyone who maybe able to compete, they create enormous barriers of entry.

Large corporations lobby the government to get what they want, be it bailout money, interest rate free money, laws that discourage competition, unfair advantage for taxation etc. It's the same old 'struggle of the classes', just moved to a slightly different plane - keeping your tools of production away from you, so that you would be forced to go work at the factory. Marx was wrong about what capitalism is, he mixed the term with mercantilism, but he was right in some principle things: those who have capital want to be the only ones with it, to make sure that it is so, they will do their darnest to be the only ones who have means of production so that the rest are forced to work for them and be paid a wage. Wage slaves.

I work as a contractor since 15th of January 2001, never looked back (worked in Toronto most of the time), the laws in Canada are better for this than in the US. US definitely sucks balls in this particular instance. Tomorrow maybe my last day with a company I worked with for 4.5 years, that's my longest contract yet.

Re:maintaining monopoly

[geekoid]

No, it was put in place because large employers(like MS) used the contracting umbrella to hire employees and dodge taxes and health care.

If you get a contract, and are actually a contractor, then you wont' have any problems.

Re:maintaining monopoly

[roman_mir]

Sure, that's what they do to sell it to the public. So called Weapons of Mass Delusion.

Re:maintaining monopoly

[Korin43]

Sounds about as helpful as those laws that don't allow kids to work ("For their own good"), minimum wage laws (because having no job is better than having a crappy one) or make sure that people can't live in shitty houses (because no house is better than a shitty house).

Re:maintaining monopoly

[ScrewMaster]

No, it was put in place because large employers(like MS) used the contracting umbrella to hire employees and dodge taxes and health care.

If you get a contract, and are actually a contractor, then you wont' have any problems.

It was put in place as a favor to IBM. The Congressman who originally submitted the bill tried to have it rescinded a year later, but failed. Seventy Congresspeople since (including Ted Kennedy) have since tried to repeal it, but haven't been able to muster the votes.

The next Microsoft?

[quickgold192]

That's like asking where the next Ford will come from, or the next Boeing. Microsoft, as well as IBM, Apple, Intel, etc, rode the wave of the blossoming computer/software industry. Now the industry is well-developed and saturated. The "next Microsoft" will be the company that gets lucky enough to find itself a part of the next big thing.

Kobayashi Maru

[DarthVain]

Just be careful when you change the programming as there is a slight chance you may get kicked out of Star Fleet...

Most valuable my ass

[rahvin112]

In a knowledge economy, programmers rank among our most valuable workers

Got a complex or what? Given the audience I'm probably gonna burn some Karma here but, There are a dozens of professions I would put before programmers, maybe even hundreds, as the most important professions in civilization, regardless of development level (Nomadic, Agrarian, Industrial, Information). Lets start with Doctors. I'd value my health far higher than a program to balance my checkbook. Next Nurses, as I value my health to have doctors, Nurses are a critical component to make that happen much more than a web browser. Next, Civil Engineers, as I value having a roof over my head (rather than living in cave), clean potable water in my pipes, sewage lines and treatment plants, roads to move myself and goods on and bridges to cross bodies of water and ravines much more than a value software for digital pictures. Next Mechanical Engineers, I'd value cars, planes, boats and machinery to make things, machines to move goods and people, machines to build things and simply to provide an industrial economy much more than a software of any kind. Next, pretty much the rest of the traditional engineering professions. Next Any military career, as I value the defenders that prevent others from taking my life, loved ones or lively hood much higher than software to play games.

I could go on, but I'd put software programmers near the bottom of the list as the most important professions in civilization. Anyone putting software developers near the top of most important professions frankly has a mental disease involving some sort of superiority complex. Personally I'd rank software developers right up there with Telephone Sanitizers, Hair dressers, salesmen, middle managers and Executives on the most important to civilization.

Re:Most valuable my ass

[MarcoAtWork]

let's see which ones of those professions depend on software nowadays:

- doctors/nurses/medical, think that MRI machine is mechanical? what about that CT scanner? or simply the gizmo that charts your BP/pulse?
- civil engineers: think they are still using drafting tables to come up with buildings? or hand-write calculations for those bridges?
- mechanical engineers: do you think that cars today are fully mechanical? airplanes?
- rest of traditional engineering: electrical engineers do again everything on paper?
- military: I am sure they'd love to go back to scouting parties instead of satellite imagery

unless you want society to roll back entirely to the 1930s/1940s I think you might want to reconsider putting software developers at the same level as telephone sanitizers...

Re:Most valuable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot teachers.

None of the important people you listed learn how to do their jobs through osmosis!

Re:Most valuable my ass

[rahvin112]

None of the examples you presented REQUIRE software they might use it, but they don't "depend" on it. NONE. Hell more than half of infrastructure you use every day was designed and built before software even existed. Software might increase productivity but it's not essential nor does that put it in the most valuable profession category. Hell more than half the New York Skyline was designed with slide rules, there are roads, aqueducts and sewers built during the Roman empire still in use in Europe. Hell, they went to the moon with slide rules. Software developers aren't essential to civilization. It's a modern profession that increases productivity at the expense of larger errors due to GIGO. We could shoot all the software developers into the SUN and there would be a hiccup as we relearned to do things the old way (as in the early 70's, not the 30's as you claim) but civilization isn't going to collapse without them.

Don't over inflate the value of software, it's a commodity that increases productivity and can make life better, but we got along just fine without it up until the mid 70's and we could do so again. Software development isn't a profession that makes civilization possible and as a result it's not even in the top 100 of most important professions. I swear the kids today just don't realize how far we got before computers even existed.

Re:Most valuable my ass

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I think you forgot what is arguably the most valuable profession of all, in any society. The food producers. Whether it is a farmer, a hunter, or a saavy tradesmen that brings food into your society, that is the cornerstone of your civilization. If you don't have some sort of food producer, little else matters. It's possible that doctors are on equal footing with food producers, or, at least, a very close second.

Re:Most valuable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't over inflate the value of medicine or civil engineering, it's a commodity that increases productivity and can make life better, but we got along just fine without it up until the mid 7070's B.C. and we could do so again.

There, fixed that for you. Now give me that overrated computer you used to post that.

Re:Most valuable my ass

[russotto]

None of the examples you presented REQUIRE software they might use it, but they don't "depend" on it.

Having worked in the field, I assure you that both MRI and CT (that's "Computed Tomography") require software. Unless you can do reconstruction algorithms in your head or with pencil and paper.

Further, computers and software are much older than the 70s; we did NOT go to the moon on slide rules: Apollo had computers.

Re:Most valuable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

By the same rationale, farmers are pretty darn important to. Clearly we all depend on each other nowadays.

Re:Most valuable my ass

[mjwalshe]

bollocks computers where invented to help crack crypto and shortend the war by a year

Re:Most valuable my ass

[Betaemacs]

How does this statement, "In a knowledge economy, programmers rank among our most valuable workers" have anything to do with the most important professions in civilization? If you conflate two very different concepts and then use it as an opportunity to bash programmers. That would seem to me at least to be trolling, instead it's insightful. Go figure.

Re:Most valuable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been a long time (in my country) since we had doctors who weren't taught by other doctors.

But programming is new, a century ago no-one did it (yes yes, Ada Lovelace, but that's more than a century and a dubious counter-example). Most of MY teachers are self-taught, some of them have languages or other technologies named after them because they invented a technique that is now ubiquitous.

So yes, most of these people (that is, programmers) did learn how to do their jobs (or they invented the job) without needing a teacher. They figured this stuff out from first principles, one or two got rich and famous from it (Hi Sir Tim) and many more became personally satisfied and well known in their field.

Re:Most valuable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

None of the examples you presented REQUIRE software they might use it, but they don't "depend" on it. NONE.

Bullshit. That BMW 325 you drive didn't have FEA done on the body by hand. Nor are those super fuel-efficient injector bodies or exhaust processors to minimize pollution driven mechanically.

Like it or not, almost *ALL* of the examples quoted depend on software. Eliminate the software, and you're back 100 years.

Re:Most valuable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

There are obvious limitations to doing things the "old way" and computer has been developed out of necessity, not just to increase productivity. Do you really think it is possible to launch a spacecraft out to space without computers? Maybe with millions of mathematicians calculating answers for complex equations simultaneously in complete harmony - one mis-calculation or a calculation too late could result in a complete disaster.

Our civilization has only been able to progress this far (and progressed quite explosively in the last few decades) because we have computers and the software to run them.

Other professions DO depend on software NOW. Unless you are saying that our civilization has not progressed in the past 30~40 years, claiming that "other professions did okay before without software so software is not essential" is nonsense.

Re:Most valuable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

A knowledge economy means, the society already has the crap you listed and it's a given.

Re:Most valuable my ass

[Black Gold Alchemist]

You forgot the real food produces. The truck drivers, oil refiners, ammonia producers, phosphate miners, all those people that are critical to the food production chain that aren't actually farmers. If we tried to farm without that stuff, society would starve.

Re:Most valuable my ass

[EdgeCreeper]

MOD PARENT UP!

GP seems to be arguing on respectability of a profession, which really is quite arbitrary. The person who digs stuff out of the ground, such as farmers and miners, are conspicuously absent from the GPs post, even though the people working in every profession he mentioned requires those things. Trying to rank professions is really quite silly and elitist, a competant person will almost always be more useful to society than an incompetent person in whatever other profession anyway.

Re:Most valuable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, if that isn't the most ignorant posting I have read in my life, I don't know what is. Thankfully in the future, software will allow you to become more intelligent without relying on your own lack of IQ. Or perhaps not, you sound like a disgruntled 80 year old whose job was replaced by a piece of software. Maybe we should go back even further and stop using the wheel as civilization did just fine without it. There may be a hiccup while everyone re-learns to walk and reconfigure society back to the way it was, but civilization isn't going to collapse without it. Come to think of it, Earth was just fine without us, let's go back to dinosaurs ruling the Earth.

-Paul

Re:Most valuable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy, are you stupid. They all depend on software, dumbfuck.

Move to Rapture?

[jayveekay]

You can escape the oppressive overland governments by moving to the city under the sea! Then you can be truly free.

Excellent article but it makes to much sense

[pacoder]

The suggestions for what to change at the end of the article make far to much sense for the government to ever seriously consider implementing them. Why would a bureaucrat want to simplify himself out of a job?

But where will the next Microsoft come from?

[Anonymous Coward]

Somewhere other than the United States, I'm thinking.

Remember in the 1990's when ITAR (now EAR) made domestic crypto development and export such a pain in the backside? Meanwhile, there was a ton of good symmetric and public key cryptography implementations of the very same algorithms available on a certain .fi FTP server in Finland.

The horse had already long left the barn and was now several fields over, but domestically, we were concerned that the barn door might get opened when the government wasn't approving. Craziness.

These types of laws are no different. Innovation will go where it is most free, and it will sell from there, and to those authors and countries will go the economic benefits.

I did that and still failed.

[Anonymous Coward]

I did that only with an S-Corp.

Here's what killed me: most corps only do business with a select group of firms (read as large consulting firms) and will not do business with a small company, especially a single guy corp. IBM is like that and so is just about every corp on the Fortune 1000. Which means you have to sub out to the large firms which they did less and less of the point where there was nothing. And when they did it, they took their 40% of the bill and gave you the crumbs. Yes, I knew folks who were able to beat the system but they were Electrical Engineers who did very very specialized hardware work.

Now, there's going to be folks who are going to say, well, don't go to the Fortune 1000 corporations, dumb-ass!!

The trouble, outside of that market, there is much less work and it's saturated with people like me. Take a gander at RentACoder, Guru.com, or any of those other web sites. Work that I used to be able to charge $2,000 for is now going for less than $100. Really. I'm not exaggerating.

This is the year that I completely give up on IT.

Re:I did that and still failed.

[hoggoth]

Contract programming is gone, and has been for at least 10 years. After you took that gander at RentACoder and Guru and saw that $2,000 jobs were going for $100, what did you do about it? Did you decide life is unfair and lower your prices to match guys in India and Russia?

Ten years ago I stopped doing contract programming work and switched to a specialty that is more lucrative and can't be outsourced. I'm doing fine.

Find a specialty and stop trying to compete in a field that is not viable anymore.

This is why I recommend against entering the field

[Maxo-Texas]

Spend $50k to $80k on a degree.

Get a job with required overtime, required holiday work, low status, poor dating prospects.

At least you used to have freedom, security, and high pay.

Now you've lost freedom (sarbanes oxley is horrific. at my company, a one line change requires review and approval by multiple people (including me as I'm a supervisor).

You lost your security since so many jobs are being offshored (at my company we are down about 35 people and up about 80ish indians onshore and probably another 150 indians offshore.).

And lately, you've lost the high pay. I have friends who only make about $58k a year. That's about $46k after taxes but let's say $48k. Interest on the college debts is $4k a year. How do they live?

Stay away from computing for corporations. It's a terrible job right now. Perhaps things will be better once the dollar falls enough or enough baby boomers retire.

Where's my plane?

[tjstork]

Gosh darn it, I'm just going for a little trip!

Nope.

[mpapet]

Insurance is for EMERGENCY and RARE EXPENSIVE claims.

Humans get these things called diseases. You may not have heard of them. But they are out there.

If instead, you worked from a world view something like, 'health insurance is for keeping workers productive and healthy.' I think you would begin to see things differently.

Until then, you should check into those human diseases and move out of your parent's basement.

Re:Nope.

[Azghoul]

Nice that you see us all as merely resources to be kept in good running order, as opposed to human beings.

You should also consider that, in our nice modern world us first-worlders live in, "diseases" are relatively rare things. And should be what insurance is for.

The sniffles don't fucking count.

Re:Nope.

[profplump]

I agree, people get diseases. There's an expected, average level of health care that will be required to treat such diseases and otherwise maintain good health.

But you're apparently still misunderstanding "insurance". Insurance should not cover such expenses.

Insurance should cover the unusual expense of say, being hit by a car, or contracting an particularly difficult-to-treat disease, or contracting significantly more diseases than your peers. But for normal health maintenance and occasional, normal diseases, "insurance" is not possible, because you're not paying for protection against possible risks, you're just setting up a lifelong payment plan for your normal medical expenses.

Instead you could pay that same amount of money into a savings account, and take it back out when you had medical expenses. That would save you the overhead of having to pay someone to manage your payment plan (private or government run, there's a cost to administering the program), and would free up your cash in case you had a more urgent, non-medical need. And you'd be able to buy absolutely whatever care you wanted, because it's your money to spend wherever and however you like. You could also take a portion of that savings and buy actual insurance to cover the case where you incur unusual, unexpected medical expenses where your normal savings are not sufficient. This sort of insurance would be much, much cheaper than the payment-plan "insurance" that most people have, because the insurer wouldn't be guaranteeing a payout to every single participant.

I'm not opposed to letting people setup private or government-run, cost-sharing/payment plans for their medical care. I just don't think I should be forced to pay into one. I am willing to support basic medical care for people who for the purposes of supporting public health (i.e. we don't want sick people spreading disease) and for the purpose of not condemning people who honestly can't afford healthcare to death from treatable accident or disease. And I'm willing to fund that sort of care to support public healthcare.

But "can't afford" is not the same as "willing/unable to budget correctly", and there should be some way to demonstrate that you both can afford and have budgeted for your own health care, without being forced to buy payment-plan "insurance". I'd also be willing to waive my right to publicly-funded healthcare as part of that deal, re-instanting that right only if I make all back payments to the public-funding system (sans my actual medical expenses) so long as there's some way to protect medical savings from bankruptcy proceedings -- I'm willing to take that risk as part of my choice not to pay into a prescribed payment-plan "insurance" system.

Re:Nope.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

But you're apparently still misunderstanding "insurance". Insurance should not cover such expenses. Insurance should cover the unusual expense of say, being hit by a car, or contracting an particularly difficult-to-treat disease, or contracting significantly more diseases than your peers. But for normal health maintenance and occasional, normal diseases, "insurance" is not possible, because you're not paying for protection against possible risks, you're just setting up a lifelong payment plan for your normal medical expenses.

I pointed this out in another post: that's just a claim people pull out of where the sun don't shine. Insurance is just paying a premium for risk transfer, period.

When health insurance covers your routine care, it's not just a "payment plan" for the actual cost of your care. It actually consists of overpaying for your routine care in exchange for protection against the healthcare costs of getting seriously sick. So a simple universal insurance scheme would be to simply charge everybody the average per-capita health care cost, so that healthy people pay the same in health care as the sick ones. It's a perfectly well structured form of insurance.

MOD PARENT UP

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Why is it IT people in general feel that they are somehow different than everyone else in the world?

Good question.

Prior to 1706, some software folks abused the crap out of their status as "independent contractors."

They liked to say they were ICs. They liked having their own little sham corporation through which they could write off all sorts of expenses that mere "employees" (Make sure you snort derisively when you spit out that foul word) couldn't. They even signed contracts with big companies that called them ICs and repeatedly pointed to those contracts to say "See!? I'm an IC! Both me and the only people I work for agree!"

Of course, that was all crap. They were employees. They worked for just one entity for long periods, didn't seek other revenue streams, changed the focus of their work for that entity whenever that entity needed them to, etc. Some of them even wore the corporate polo shirt. They were employees. Period.

The law was changed to put pressure on the employers to bring those people on board officially. The whole point was to make it more difficult for a single person to claim to be a corp when they're actually an employee.

The whining over this thing has been going on for a couple of decades, now. Well, if so many people hadn't abused their status, no, make that *lied about* their status for so long, it wouldn't have happened.

Normal people don't freely redefine the terms "independent contractor" and "employee" to whatever they want, whenever they want, whenever it profits them. Why so many people who spend their days writing code feel they should be free to get away with it is beyond me.

This happened to inventors too

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Inventors with patents used to make money, but corporations make the laws in this country and have for a long time, despite grade school propaganda to the contrary. The independent entrepreneur is always a threat to large entrenched interests and will always be suppressed as much as possible without making the peasants revolt.

Next Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where will the next Microsoft come from? I don't get it. Section 1706 deals with contractors and consultants who look, act, and quack like full time employees. The next Microsoft is unlikely to come from that pool, and they don't fit my pictures of entrepreneurs.

Now an entrepreneur with a home/garage business will still feel the problems of health care costs; but wasn't that true in the past as well? Most entrepreneurs all start by taking an incredibly risky step of becoming unemployed (ie, mortgaging the house). It has never been a safe option.

Incorporate

[DalDei]

Except for the health insurance part which is expensive, the rest is FUD. You get around these laws by incorporating, then you make yourself a W2 employee of your own corporation and invoice clients corp to corp. This totally gets around all this nonsense. Did it for 15 years, its quite easy. The REAL problem with independent programming is not the laws, its the business model and complexity of modern software. I learned a long time ago that it doesnt matter how good a programmer you are, at least 80% of the software business is marketing, sales, and other business related tasks. The days of whipping up your own title at home and trying to sell it are long gone.

More to the point, probably not from a contractor

[weston]

Nowhere, hopefully.

The question "Where will the next Microsoft come from?" is shorthand for "where will the next giant software innovator come from?" in the parlance of people who aren't familiar with the industry, which may or may not include the person who said it (he's probably aware that his audience is unfamiliar with the industry).

But I'm not sure that the next software innovator is really going to come from somebody doing independent contracting. The part that doesn't make sense to me is that most contractors I'm aware of sell the bulk of their time to clients rather than investing it in innovating/creating/selling a product.

Although I guess it's possible that once independent contractors smell a need, they've potentially go more flexibility to turn their attention towards building a product/service/business around that specifically.... but I'd guess the ability to get venture capital of one kind or another would be a stronger plus.

It Is Not Correctly Stated

[b4upoo]

A person who wishes to write a program and sell it is still in pretty good shape. It is only those that wish to contract to write portions of a program for others that are being unfairly treated.
                  As a matter of fact a person might well be on unemployment or even welfare while laboring at the next really big game or other piece of software that they intend to sell on their own. All they have to do is to be available or claim to be available and go to required interviews or make themselves available for a job if it should open up.
                I am not saying that people who wish to consult or write code for others are not being unfairly treated. That is another issue. But do keep in mind that most often independent contractor status is used to cheat workers, not to help them. Lack of basic benefits, lack of overtime pay, even lack of Workmans' Compensation coverage applies to independents. Worse yet most people who have agreed to work as independent contractors are not in fact independents and that can even be turned upon an employer. All acts of supervision must be absent. Providing a desk or a phone or a work place can be enough to give them employee status. That can mean that if there is an on the job injury that the employer will have to pay out of pocker for all medical and lost wages and tax issues may also revert to the employer.
 

Please

[Alkonaut]

Let me i18n the summary for you :)

"Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister writes about the no-win scenario facing today's independent programmers IN THE U.S.: 'In a knowledge economy, programmers rank among our most valuable workers, yet IN THE U.S. the current legal and regulatory climate makes a career as an independent software developer virtually a dead-end prospect.' Section 1706 of the U.S. 1986 Tax Reform Act, the hurdles and costs of obtaining health care for one's own family, a hostile U.S. legal climate in search of accountability for any defects in code -- these harsh realities make it 'easy to see why software developers would give up on entrepreneurship IN THE U.S. For many IN THE U.S., the risks simply don't match the potential rewards. Better to keep their heads down, not rock the boat, and hope they can hang onto their jobs until retirement.' Great news for big software vendors, which will be 'ensured an endless supply of programmers desperate for the safe haven of a steady paycheck, predictable taxation, health benefits, and a shield from civil prosecution when their code turns up buggy. But where will the next Microsoft come from? A field that discourages self-reliance sends the message that the status quo is the highest goal.'"

If you find yourself in a country where you face "malpractice settlements" as a software developer, or where the insurance of your family depends on your ability to write and sell software, I recommend that you don't.

hate to tell you but the blue dog democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

are close to being the worst of the bunch. They like the RIAA/MPAA *and* the oil/defense/pharma/insurance companies.

Did you look at the Sunlight Foundation video of the health care summit? Every time a senator or congressperson was on, they had an on-screen scroll of the person's biggest donors, and you could tell exactly what anyone was going to say by who their donors were. And guess what, blue dogs like Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman are completely up the butts of the insurance industry.

Re:hate to tell you but the blue dog democrats

[Grishnakh]

Joe Lieberman isn't a blue-dog, he's an independent. He endorsed McCain for pres in 2008, and isn't part of the Democratic party.

My understanding of the blue dogs is they're frequently in more "red" (like midwestern) states, and were mainly elected in 2006 because voters were so pissed at the Republicans. They're the reason the Democrats gave up on the gun-banning agenda lately; the blue-dogs refused to go along, because their constituents in those states don't want it.

Don't forget the FOSSies

[Anonymous Coward]

and let's not forget about the entire FOSS movement, which makes the entire software industry hostile toward small-project entrepreneurs. If you DO manage to come up with a good idea, some fat kid sitting in his mom's basement will simply steal all your good ideas and make a knock-off version just to "stick it to the man", aka an independent programmer trying to make a living.

Re:Don't forget the FOSSies

[pablodiazgutierrez]

On the contrary, thanks to the vast amount of free code around, it is now easier than ever to create something truly unique. Specialized markets are the way to go. The big guys will always have trouble there.

Centrist Party

[gd2shoe]

I don't know about your other accusations (sounds like trolling), but they do take some nutty positions.

We need a actual centrist party, that has not sold out to corporate interests.

Good luck with that. I agree with the sentiment, but there are a number of barriers. First, funding. Any third party is going to be beholden to some corporate interest (or unions, which shouldn't be just as socially harmful, but they typically are). Second, we really need two central parties, one slightly to the left and one slightly to the right. There will always be two major parties with plurality elections (and more so with the electoral college). If one of our parties was replaced with a centrist party, that would result in "compromise" being moved further to the left or to the right. The only people who want that are the extremest who are always wishing the other party would come closer to their ideologies.

My opinion, we need election reform before we can truly begin to address this very real problem. I'd be happy (happier, anyways) with just about anything else: IRV, Condorcet, or even Approval Voting.

no one told me I shouldn't be winning

[mt1955]

About this time last year I was working as the IT manager for a multinational manufacturer. The IT group was targeted for yet another round of cost-cutting; they gave me an hour to decide who would get a buy-out package and a shove out the door. I talked them into letting it be me, put the buy-out money in a rainy day account and started my own software company. I told my wife that if we weren't cash positive within 6 months I would give it up and start looking for a real job. Over the last 12 months we've made more than they were paying me in the "real job" and we've never actually had to fall back on the rainy-day account, in fact we've almost doubled it.

Starting my own company was not easy. I have to sell, communicate well, be easily accessible 7/24 and give my clients plenty of sound business reasons to keep coming back in between turning in top quality work on time. I'd have to work my a** off and most days are 12~16 hours long. I have still managed to take two vacation weeks since I started and we have a third week schedule for May... on vacations I do have to keep one eye on my email and be willing to get up a few hours early to handle anything that can't wait until we get back.

There are no sick days or personal days. Working for yourself means you both have all the time in the world and no time. Before when a stupid boss would make unreasonable demands or mistakes I just had to deal with it. When a client makes unreasonable demands I just charge more. They can be as unreasonable as they want $$$

To start your own company, software or otherwise;

- be prepared for long hours, don't let a client down even if it means pulling all-nighters until your not sure what day it is
- force yourself to learn the new things consistently, figure out where your clients need to be 6 months from now and learn or do whatever it takes to be there waiting for them
- find an accountant you trust to handle the tax laws
- find an attorney you trust to handle the legalese

I've never been happier in my career.

Re:no one told me I shouldn't be winning

[tommut]

...be easily accessible 7/24 ...

You only have to be accessible for 7 hours out of every 24 days?? I don't know, sounds pretty sweet to me....

Re:no one told me I shouldn't be winning

[markov23]

Welcome to the club brother. Best post I've read here about the reality of owning your own business. Its not easy, you work your ass off, and you pay some other professions to keep the govt away - but its the only way to live.

Re:This is why I recommend against entering the fi

[Anonymous Coward]

'And lately, you've lost the high pay. I have friends who only make about $58k a year. That's about $46k after taxes but let's say $48k. Interest on the college debts is $4k a year. How do they live?'
Nobody cares to ask a social worker this question, and their salaries are significantly less at the masters level.

Lets start a union. I will join

[cellurl]

So lets start a union. I am finally ready to join a software union. If you don't want to join, thats ok too.
If you are a union organizer, tell me what to do. gpscruiseNOSPAM@gmail.com
We need to get off our asses gentlemen.

53-year-old Andrew Joseph Stack III, we don't honor you, but we owe you.

Rgds,
jim pruett

This wrong idea needs to stop.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

We don't treat health insurance like insurance. Insurance is for EMERGENCY and RARE EXPENSIVE claims.

People keep saying that as if it was some sort of axiomatic thing, but no, insurance is simply risk transfer, and there's nothing about risk transfer that requires it to be applied only to emergency and rare/expensive claims. Claiming that we should stop covering routine care with health insurance because insurance is only for emergency and rare expensive puts the cart before the horse, because we should be judging if the health insurance is allowing people to manage risk effectively, not whether it fits some definition of "insurance" that you pulled out of your ass.

Health insurance is simply a scheme where a majority of people overpay for their health care so that a minority of people who get extraordinarily sick can underpay for theirs. The reason to want health insurance is that nobody really knows which of those two groups they will end up belonging to over the long run.

I know of one doctor, who no longer takes insurance because taking insurance cost him too much. He now can offer a regular checkup for very inexpensive cost, and he makes more money in the process. He doesn't have to hire two full time clerks to battle against the insurance companies, saving him tons of money. He doesn't have to get paid less for some people than for others. He charges ONE price for everyone and is able to provide better care and service.

The administrative overhead imposed by private market health insurance in the USA is a big problem, indeed.

However, your idea that regular checkups should not be paid out of insurance is wrong. Remember, again, the point of health insurance is that healthy people overpay for their healthcare so that the sick people can underpay. This means that if your proposal involves healthy people getting their healthcare at cost or at a small premium over cost, then your proposal is broken, because then there will be no actual money to cover the costs of the sick. Add to this the fact that early routine care reduces the risk that somebody will need really extraordinary care, and yes, you get a system where it makes total sense for you to overpay for your routine care in exchange for a guarantee that if you get extraordinarily sick you will underpay for your care.

Re:This wrong idea needs to stop.

[cayenne8]

:"However, your idea that regular checkups should not be paid out of insurance is wrong. Remember, again, the point of health insurance is that healthy people overpay for their healthcare so that the sick people can underpay"

But it simply doesn't work if everyone hits the insurance pot for every little thing. There are NO truly healthy people to overpay..if everyone is dipping into the pot for routine care. You just contradicted yourself.

If everyone pays for their own routine care..they stay healthy. Then, there is a large pool for even less people who need only in catastrophic cases. That's how it used to work back when it was called 'hospitalization'. And, back then...it was cheaper, more manageable for most people. If you could go back to that model, allow hospitalization insurance to be bought across state lines (and therefore introduce REAL competition) it would get cheaper and affordable to most people. If you are too poor for that, well that's what medicaid it for.

Re:This wrong idea needs to stop.

[profplump]

I agree that, fundamentally, insurance requires some people to pay more in premiums than they'll receive in benefits. But you're missing the massive overhead of covering routine expenses, versus the relative low overhead of covering only exceptional expenses. It's that overhead I want to avoid.

I also want to be able to choose my risk tolerance and weigh it against my lifestyle and personal health exposure. Forcing me to pay into a plan that covers routine expenses and that can't be canceled or capped means there's essentially no choice in level of risk, because *everything* is covered -- all I get to choose is my deductible, rather than finding a policy that has different period/lifetime maximums, different covered services, etc., that would be reflected in different price points.

Re:This wrong idea needs to stop.

[Svartalf]

The administrative overhead imposed by Medicare and the private market health insurance in the USA is a big problem, indeed.

FTFY.

The private market insurance companies tend to only pay out 20-30% over what Medicare pays out. Sometimes Medicare does amazing things. Other times, they'll deny things that just don't make any sense whatsoever. A procedure that legitimately costs somewhere around $1500-2000 can expect to get paid out something like $300-500 at best from Medicare in most cases.

Remember my earlier remark? The private insurance companies pay out only about 20-30% more than than on most items.

While I'm all for a public option, I can't envision it being a good thing with the way we're currently running the public option for the elderly and the indigent (Medicaid...).

Re:This wrong idea needs to stop.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

But it simply doesn't work if everyone hits the insurance pot for every little thing. There are NO truly healthy people to overpay..if everyone is dipping into the pot for routine care.

Define "works," however. It certainly works in the sense that the healthcare costs are averaged over all of the participants. Though presumably you mean to argue that providing easy access to insurance coverage for every little thing raises that average cost. My answer two that has two prongs:

1. Health care costs are extremely skewed. Check out the costs distribution graph a bit down this blog post: the bottom 50% of health care users amount for 3% of the health care costs. If you're worried about routine care costs, well, you're worrying about the wrong thing.
2. Spending more on the little things is likely to lead us to spend less on the big things. Routine care catches health problems earlier and makes them more affordable to treat over the long term.

Re:This wrong idea needs to stop.

[uncqual]

However, your idea that regular checkups should not be paid out of insurance is wrong.

Nothing (should) stop an insurance company from offering lower rates to those who agree to get regular checkups (at their own expense) if such checkups really help (note that for people who believe themselves to be healthy, there is debate about the cost effectiveness of annual checkups). Not much different than an auto insurance company giving a lower rate to those who have completed (at their own expense) a "safe driving" program. Paying for a periodic checkup is a completely predictable expense -- just like paying the electrical bill.

Re:This wrong idea needs to stop.

[PracticalM]

You are a bit behind the times. Private insurance is now paying less than medicare reimbursement on many E&M codes. See link http://www.physicianspractice.com/index/fuseaction/articles.details/articleID/1434.htm

Medicare used to be the floor but it's apparently becoming the ceiling now.

I have been telling my congress critters that a public option is important to me. I'd love to start my own business but I can't afford to pay for insurance for my family without getting it through an established company.

Re:This wrong idea needs to stop.

[Archangel Michael]

Yes, this is a problem. Inconsistent pricing models is a huge problem, and don't afford cost shopping for health care.

When someone who is uninsured goes to the hospital, and pays 5, 10 or 15 times what insurance pays for the very and exact same thing, then there is a huge problem.

The simple solution is same price for everyone, insured or not. Break a leg, need an xray, everyone pays exactly the same rate. Period.

That way, when it is time to pay the bills, we can see which hospital or doctor provides the best care for the best price and make informed decisions.

The next thing I would like to see, is more flexibility on care options. I'd like to see more nurses being able to see and treat people for minor things. Nurses today are as good or better educated than doctors of 50 years ago. Why aren't we treating them like it?

When someone has a cold, why can't a nurse take care of them without needing a doctor? Oh right, because doctors have the mystique of god about them.

There are some reforms that are quite obvious if we get past the old fashioned notions we tend to hold onto well past their prime.

Re:This is why I recommend against entering the fi

[mdm-adph]

$4k a year on interest for college debts? Jesus, it's called consolidation, use it. :p

Yeah, you'll be paying off the loans for the rest of your life, but seriously, at least I'm not eating just beans and rice every day.

Yup. Even an Austrian Economist might agree.

[weston]

It's *generally* in favor of the status quo, not just small business, but even large-investment startups.

A socialized insurance system covered by taxes falls generally more heavily (like any non-regressive tax) on economic winners. You'll probably pay as much or more on the back end once you're profitable. Plus, as you pointed out, you lose a barrier to market entry: your potential competitors don't have to come up with the funding to cover health care costs before they're profitable.

Innovators/Disruptors and other startups, on the other hand... even if your expected payoff on success is big, you're carrying a moderate to big risk of failure. Now, if you're an investor in such an enterprise, and you have a chance to essentially defray a significant payroll cost up front in return for more taxes taken out if you succeed... well, that's generally a favorable deal.

Socialized insurance favors entrepreneurship.

Which might be why even an Austrian School economist like Hayek would support the basic idea.

you miss his point

[Chirs]

The idea of "insurance" is to cover the cost of *unexpected* events that you cannot normally pay out of your pocket.

If you expect to need to pay for something, you're better off saving as much as possible and then paying for it out of pocket--that way you don't pay the profits of the insurance company.

Thus, you wouldn't normally make an insurance claim to replace a lost pencil--you just buy a new one. Most people can't just buy a new house if theirs burns down--this is where insurance comes in.

Re:you miss his point

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

The idea of "insurance" is to cover the cost of *unexpected* events that you cannot normally pay out of your pocket.

The problem is that sickness is very often not an "event," but rather, a chronic condition that might last indefinitely long.

At any rate, you're making this much too complicated by talking about "events." Think instead of the total amount of healthcare that is expended on a person over the course of their life. Now, picture the mean and distribution of that amount over the whole population. The distribution is very skewed, so that most people are well under the mean, and a small number of people have disproportionately high costs expended on them.

The risk that health insurance is supposed to protect you against isn't an "event," but rather, the state that you may end up in the high end of that distribution. One way to do that would be simply to make the whole population pay the mean amount over their whole lifetime, independently of how much healthcare is expended on them.

Thus, you wouldn't normally make an insurance claim to replace a lost pencil--you just buy a new one. Most people can't just buy a new house if theirs burns down--this is where insurance comes in.

There's another problem with this reasoning: replacing people's lost pencils has no effect on the rate at which their houses burn down. An insurer that gave you for free a $1 box of pencils would still have to pay $200,000 on your house if it burned down, so the pencils ended up costing it $1 extra over the house.

But health insurance is completely different from that, because giving people free routine healthcare today decreases the chances that they will need extraordinary care tomorrow. If your insurer gives you $100 of free routine care today, they just have to save $100 in later extraordinary care to break even. The logic that applies to the pencils and the house just can't be applied. It's a false analogy.

The main reason that in the USA we discuss measures that impose disincentives for routine care over and over is because the private insurers's business model is to not pay for extraordinary care, but rather, to kick out those patients. If the insurers can dodge the costs of extraordinary care, then they have no incentive to pay for people's routine care, and thus will seek to minimize it.

i disagree

[Dthief]

I think the recent legal climate (see past few weeks of slashdot) towards open-source, freeware, etc. has made it so anyone who come up with a clever program/idea is more likely to do well than would be expected.

Independant Programmers....

[hackus]

In THE United Fascist States of AMERICA programmers have these problems.

Which means no, intelligent people do have a choice who write software. Its called off shoring.

If the big guys can do it, so can the little guys, and too a much greater affect might I add.

So if your a company like Microsoft who has been blowing disinformation about not finding enough skilled labor like a lof of American companies do, surprise, you just might actually have that problem in the future and it might not actually be all lies.

If you are a talented programmer, move off shore: LOW medical expenses, LOW cost of living and virtually no legal issues.

People have to understand this whole thing is by design.

America is a fascist state, and now that all of government is controlled by unethical people in Wall Street and Banking, any competition to any other business the government favors is going to get whacked hard.

If I actually owned a business I would shut it down and move it off shore to the far east.

Good Luck Obama telling the Chinese how to run things. If you try you will get your arse kicked.

-Hack

the health insurance system is bad for ALL works!!

[Joe The Dragon]

the health insurance system is bad for ALL works!!

People have been lay offed as health costs are to high and places like to work people 39 hours a week just to get out having to pay for them. And other places like wallmart have carp care that does not cover much. Also people with job based group care have had the pre existing conditions thing on them do get out paying for any thing by saying stuff like acme and rape are pre existing conditions.

What Jefferson said...

[WinPimp2K]

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure

All we have to do is determine who is going to fill those roles...(It looks like Congress in general has been nominated for the role of tyrants)

Of course, old TJ also felt that armed rebellion was a good thing - something that should perhaps happen every 20 years or so. And he also felt that the Constitution should probably be changed at like intervals.
Since I personally am not trying out for the role of patriotic martyr, I'm going for voting against the incumbents first. Even though my rep and senators are supposed to be good guys, they have been there too long and the taint of DC is heavy upon em.

Re:What Jefferson said...

[Grishnakh]

Of course, old TJ also felt that armed rebellion was a good thing - something that should perhaps happen every 20 years or so. And he also felt that the Constitution should probably be changed at like intervals.

I think you mean "200", not 20.

Since I personally am not trying out for the role of patriotic martyr, I'm going for voting against the incumbents first.

I agree completely. That's why I'm advocating voting the bastards out.

But even if that doesn't work, I'm not interested in being a patriotic martyr either. For a revolution to work, you have to have a LOT of people who agree with you, and who also have the right idea about what kind of government to set up after the revolution. We don't have either of those in this country at this time. Our people are too uneducated and stupid.

Even though my rep and senators are supposed to be good guys, they have been there too long and the taint of DC is heavy upon em.

My Rep is OK, not great but OK, but my Senators are both horrible and I'd like to see them both go. But I'm sure my fellow voters will re-elect McCain (Kyl isn't up for re-election this year).

I'm glad you agree with me, stylistically...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have long been an advocate of the use of unqualified generalizations in expressed judgments. However, I disagree with you about the doctors. Because some of them occasionally do plastic surgery for people I don't like (as opposed to burn victims, whom I just don't hear about), I have nothing but contempt for the entire profession.

Had to say

[Hognoxious]

But where will the next Microsoft come from?

India?

Re:Had to say

[benjamindees]

No. It will come from the same place the last Microsoft came from: Harvard. Because only the already-wealthy have the means to jump through the ridiculous hoops set up by the American Corporatocracy in order to destroy the last shreds of merit-based social mobility in the US.

Re:Had to say

[Hognoxious]

I know most Indians are poor - many are very poor - but there's quite a few who aren't.

Re:This is why I recommend against entering the fi

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't mind that all the stuff you learned in school is useless.
Today, there's no such thing as a s/w development process (only in big slow corps) compared to 15yrs ago.

Web development or DB development has become the wild-west (IT orgs have turned process upside-down due to TCO/ROI requirements) since the big s/w vendors can now push out changes daily--they control your process.

Product owners are caring less about the software, more about time to market and window dressing (endless Beta releases).

System analysts are even more clueless on software development and the benefits of OOD/Functional, etc...

Development as a discipline, like electrical engineering or architecture, is either found in academia (those studying software engineering, not CS), or aerospace companies. Everyone else, it's being outsourced or back to cowboy coding--we're losing the predictability of completing a piece of s/w since everything is always in beta and iterative.

Raise you hands

[Anonymous Coward]

Raise your hands if this has happened to you. I thought not. The key here is that the amount of money being made vs the difficulty in collecting the taxes on it. They are trying to avoid tax cheating. Anyway, a company would never hire a programmer per se, they would be a "consultant" or an "engineer". They get around the limits of the categories. Likewise, you hire people who have day jobs. There are also lists that rank countries on how easy it is to do business or start a business and the US usually comes out on top. The bottom line is that there are the written rules and then there are the real world rules.

spellcheck

[Twisted64]

~altar alter = to change

Thats part of it

[pentalive]

Most of the estimates I have seen for the 30% or more include:

* State Income Taxes

* Sales Taxes

* Federal Income Taxes

* Sometimes even Fees like DMV/Car Registration

Did you calculate every dollar you earned but did not get to control how it was spent?

3% of people incur 97% of the costs.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

I agree that, fundamentally, insurance requires some people to pay more in premiums than they'll receive in benefits. But you're missing the massive overhead of covering routine expenses, versus the relative low overhead of covering only exceptional expenses. It's that overhead I want to avoid.

The routine stuff for healthy people is the cheap stuff, actually. Seriously, the bottom 50% of the population incurs 3% of the healthcare costs. The bottom 80% of the population accounts for 20% of the costs. If you kill off 25% of that in overheads, all you've saved overall is 5%.

If you really want to reduce costs, go after the stuff that's actually costly.

I also want to be able to choose my risk tolerance and weigh it against my lifestyle and personal health exposure.

Yeah. That's called adverse selection. Basically, you want to enroll in a plan that charges lower premiums because it doesn't admit sick people. Then if you get sick you'll act all surprised that when the plan kicks you out because it doesn't admit sick people.

The next Microsoft

[sictransitgloriacfa]

But where will the next Microsoft come from?

If you mean the next big abusive computer monopoly: Mountain View, California.

If you mean the next big game changer and innovator: somewhere outside the Benighted States of America, obviously.

Um, 50% of the people incur 97% of the costs.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

I messed up the subject line.

You don't need a big company for group insurance

[drew_eckhardt]

1. Professional organizations can offer affordable group plans to their members. One example is the Microsoft Alumni Network open to all former Microsoft employees. IIRC, their small business group plan was open to companies with 2 or more total employees which could be you and your spouse (paid to file your taxes or whatever).

2. Your single employee business can outsource its benefits to a PEO (Professional Employer Organization), some of which have no minimum company size.

Both options get you into large groups which therefore have relatively good rates for group plans, which is to say very expensive for young healthy people but relatively affordable for the rest of us.

Michael Moore's "Sicko"

[Anonymous Coward]

This story reminds me of that Michael Moore film "Sicko". He makes the point in that film that the American system seems to set people up for this sort of thing. Really expensive education means huge loans to repay, really expensive health care means you have to find a job with health benefits and that basically you better not rock the boat because if you lose your job your screwed. How do you guys put up with it? It seems like it's set up to totally favour the employer over there. I'm Australian, so partially socialized education when I got my degree, I had a debt when I finished but it was only about 20k. The liberals (~republicans) here are trying to bring about an american style system here so education costs are going up, recent grads are paying 30-40k loans . Partially socialized health system so I don't have to have a job to get medical care. Don't get me wrong, we still complain (who doesn't), but not after we compare it to what you Americans get.

So do the libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

I had my six months as a Ron Paul follower before I came back to the progressive netroots. There are certainly things to like, but there's a hell of a lot that is abhorrent not just to liberal attitudes, but to common humanity. These people are not people you want in leadership positions, and they largely do not want leadership - they can't imagine(or are too stupid to understand the implications of) living in the state they would create, they just want to make a statement. Everyone has that one summer in high school where you read Ayn Rand and It All Makes Sense. Most of the libertarians are either in that phase, are sophist nihilists, are paranoid schizophrenics, or are bigots who resent having to operate under the standards of conduct our society expects. Some are all four. The Reason crowd is the closest to my beliefs, but they maintain a dogmatic stance on economics that isn't tenable with reality - and refuse to give up or explore the full consequences of anarchist ideals.

Re:So do the libertarians

[Grishnakh]

Ron Paul would have been a great President. He would have vetoed everything, and the only things that would have gotten past would be things that Congress could muster up enough votes to override his veto on.

Anyway, RP is not a libertarian, though many claim he is. For instance, he's pro-life, which is definitely not a libertarian position.

What a whiny load of crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

By the way, digital, where is that TPS report you were supposed to hand in last Friday?

It's simple: Higher pay

[caywen]

Software is one of those industries that chews up and spits people out. What software engineers do is no less complex than what most other engineers do. We use the theory we studied, combine it with real world knowledge and experience, and produce product. The sucky engineers get weeded out as in any industry. Why, then, do so many competent engineers find it so hard to retire? $100k just doesn't go very far. We usually have no pension plan. Health care costs are already mentioned. And we face increasing (and unprovable) age discrimination as we hit our late 40's. Either you're a software engineering director by 55 or you're working at Best Buy.

Now, try living in the Bay Area or similar region where getting a decent house is $700k+. That makes your mortgage like $4,000/mo. You bring home like $10,000/mo. After state+federal+other takes 40+% of that, forget saving enough for retirement. Better hope your company gets acquired by Google by the time you turn 45.

I bristle at anyone who thinks software engineers are rich yuppies.

ah a hobby programmer was Re:Most valuable my ass

[mjwalshe]

well you might find that a mech, civil or ee wont do much with out using some computers - I once reverse engineered some code to help prove that the contractors my then employers (4th largest consulting engineers in the world) employed had fucked up and caused subsidence when building a bridge. Thats actually worth quite a bit. as it would have damaged our ability to bid for mega construction projects

And out in the middle east there some rather beautiful motorway bridges whose curves where to complex to draw by hand so I wrote a program to draw the required sections (and corrected the engineers math as well)

And what about the 750,000 I recovered for my employer by fixing the rubbish Accounts Receivable program the FD had brought

Have you ever developed professionally ?

Re: Dire things

[symbolic]

The most dire thing that will happen is that the industry CEOs will start having to cut their salaries and benefits. We can't have that now, can we? I mean, surely these guys are worth so much more than everyone else, aren't they? They do provide a commensurate degree of value for what they're paid, don't they? So to afford them any less than the lavish, overly-materialistic lifestyle to which they feel they are entitled would be unthinkable!

In other words, enterpreneurs take risks. DUH!

[alexmin]

It amazes me sometimes how salaried employees underestimate risk of losing their job. Many mistake word 'full-time' to mean 'permanent'. Business changes, so are needs for 'full-time employees'. Doing my second decade in software business, I've seen many times when full-time employees are let go but contractors stay. At least as a contractor I knew when I'm due to look for another gig and can plan accordingly, whereas full-time people are duped by management to the last possible moment to keep their morale up. Stop pretending that being a full-time cog in a corporate machine somehow guaranties life-time employment - it never did and never will.

You're not winning. You're losing horribly.

[jeko]

"and most days are 12~16 hours long"

Do you have kids? Do you plan to? You work 12-16 hour days constantly and they will end up pregnant addicts. NOTHING screws up your kids faster than parents who don't have time for them.

on vacations I do have to keep one eye on my email and be willing to get up a few hours early to handle anything

That's not a vacation.

There are no sick days.

You are one car accident away from bankruptcy.

When a client makes unreasonable demands I just charge more.

No, no you really don't. Been there, done that. Over time, clients expect you to constantly get cheaper. In time, you'll find yourself competing against third-world labor.

don't let a client down even if it means pulling all-nighters until your not sure what day it is

I see you have your cardiac arrest penciled in for next year. What does your doctor think about this plan?

I've never been happier in my career.

Been there. Done that. Talk to me about how you feel after three years of this.

Re:You're not winning. You're losing horribly.

[mt1955]

A local company was featured in this month's Chamber of Commerce magazine. Three brothers who co-own a small chain of eight doughnut shops described how their father started the business by working every day from 1:00am to 4pm and how tough financially it was at the beginning.

I am firmly convinced that if you look back far enough every US business in existence started out with some individual doing way more than just enough to get by, made personal sacrifices and was probably considered a loser by casual observers who had either never tried or had given up long ago.

Dissidents are better people

[Pennidren]

Yes, we should censor people that disagree with the idea that state of things is terrible. We would not want balanced discourse, would we? People content with the state of things are already not as loud as the gripers; now you are suggesting that they be silenced altogether? If so, you truly have found your place on slanted-dot. Actually with your low ID I guess you helped mold the place in your image.

And let's not start the whole "you are sheeple" argument; just because some have found their place in the world does not mean they are not as enlightened as you. Maybe you are just a malcontent.

Now get creative. Like to go to theme parks?

[jeko]

*BA HA HA HA* *Gasp* Oh God, stop it you're killing me! *BA HA HA HA HA*

Have you actually tried this? Did you enjoy the audit? Do the words "back taxes and penalties" haunt your dreams?

You do understand the IRS considers this tax fraud and aggresively looks for it, right? You got this idea from your copy of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" didn't you?

That's capitalism, baby

[daemonenwind]

You see, the basic formula is this:

risk = reward

If you don't want any risks in life, you can have the cozy job at the big corporation, where no one expects you to be anything better than mediocre. You can have subsidized health insurance, a steady income, and a sniff of a bonus from time to time. If you lose your job, the government will give you money for several months while you find something else.

However, if you want to put yourself out there and use the capital between your ears, yeah, there's a lot of risk. Your ability to afford anything - including the absolute basics - depends on your ability to market yourself and then do what you say you can do. You have to handle finances, research options and hustle. If your business fails, the government isn't going to come and bail you out - you're neither small nor large enough to give a damn about.
But you can do way, way better for yourself.

Some people thrive on this challenge.
And some others just want someone to handle it all for them.

Time was, the USA was where people around the world went when they wanted to handle the risk and get the reward.
Nowadays, though, the USA is full of people who feel entitled to everything the world has to offer, just because they were born here.

Re:That's capitalism, baby

[s122604]

It's not about being "cozy" ( I know a backhanded swinging dick type of insult when I hear one).. It's about providing for not only yourself, but your family. It's one thing to play the risk vs reward with your life, it's another to play it with someone else's... And don't kid yourself, when you try to go it on your own that is exactly what you are doing... One serious illness incurred without insurance (or with mediocre insurance) equals absolute financial oblivion at best, and death at worst

Re:That's capitalism, baby

[daemonenwind]

So I take it you're in favor of whatever it is you do for a living being fully controlled by the federal government, including what income you're allowed to have?

It's all well and good to say that those people over there have to render the services which are a product of years of education and experience, as well as tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. But what about you? What such effort are you going to donate to the collective?

At some point you have to realize that you're just robbing your neighbors by using the federal government as a weapon. After all, tax comes under penalty of "financial oblivion at best, and death at worst".

Knowledge economy? Pftttt

[Tablizer]

In a knowledge economy,

It's not a knowledge economy, but an influence economy. The knowledge economy is a fantasy. Besides, knowledge can be offshored fairly easily to low-wage countries, and thus cannot be America's comparative advantage, at least not by itself.
       

All over the map

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, this article is all over the map.
First of all, what kind of people are we talking about - what is an "independent programmer"? I can think of two kinds:
1. Independent contractors working for a company.
2. Programmers writing code on their own, for themselves, with an intent to sell it.
Most of the article seems to talk about #1, but then they ask "Where will the next Microsoft come from?", which hints at #2. Unless the author has some information we don't, companies like Microsoft and Google didn't hire a lot of independent contractors when they were small. The arrangements were probably mostly informal, as with most businesses in start-up mode.

At any rate, the author mentions a bunch of US specific regulations first, while mentioning in the second half of the article that these problems primarily affect Americans. That should be part of the title then. Many people like myself can read English, but don't live in the US or love everything to be US-centric, especially without disclosure. (I live in Japan).

It is mentioned that because of US laws, nobody will hire independent contractors? That is absolutely not true, I myself have worked as an independent contractor in the US (in around 2000, way after the law was passed), and I know plenty of other people who also do. If that's a problem, then you just self-incorporate - as many of the independent contractors I know do. It's not that big of a deal.

As for the legal code requirements... think about it "There are no bugs to my knowledge", etc. That's an easy thing to promise, since it's only "to the best of my knowledge". Very few organizations even request those sort of agreements, because it will be obvious to anyone who wants to keep their job they they need to deliver professional quality.

The poor health-care system of the US is mentioned - that is a big problem in the US, but one that isn't even remotely only related to IT.

right, it's a three legged stool

[BitterAndDrunk]

As described on NPR this morning. You need mandatory insurance, no pre-existing denials, and subsidies/public plan all at once.

That's a significant part of the reason why it's difficult to implement; you can't introduce it by incrementalism. It only works if it's all or nothing.

Machiavelli's instructive here:

“It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favour; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it. Thus it arises that on every opportunity for attacking the reformer, his opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others only defend him half-heartedly, so that between them he runs great danger."

How about post-existing condition coverage?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had homeowners insurance, and your house burnt down, it wouldn't matter if you stopped paying for that insurance the very next day, the restoration of your house would still be covered since the incident occurred when you were paying for coverage.

The real question is why doesn't health insurance work the same way? Were you covered when you became diabetic? Well then, if you want to find new insurance, your new insurance shouldn't have to care about your pre-existing condition because it is being payed for by your previous insurance since you were paying them when you became diabetic.

For some reason, health insurance companies get to have their cake and eat it too. Not only does the condition have to occur while you have coverage, but so do the treatments. It seems to me that a lot of the bullshit in health insurance would disappear if the insurance companies were allowed only one requirement or the other, and I think the one they would choose would be to cover any condition that begins when you have coverage for life, since requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is ridiculously absurd. ...but leave it to the government to suggest the completely absurd option.

Best solution:

[Hurricane78]

Move to another country.

There must be one with better conditions out there.

every 20 years or so

[WinPimp2K]

Yes, he really said every 20 years, I did not drop a zero.
But you have to remeber that TJ was a revolutionary fellow - and by current standards quite cruel and brutal. For example he advocated castration as the proper punishment for rape

Re:every 20 years or so

[Grishnakh]

That's not "cruel and brutal", that's a proper punishment for rape. What's your alternative? Put them in prison for a few years, let them out and let someone else get raped? I think the victims would disagree with you.

It's even worse for child molesters: they're impossible to cure, and have a ridiculously high recidivism rate. Castration is the only proper treatment.

Back then, people had different ideas of what was "cruel and unusual". Putting people in prison for decades was considered "cruel", and it is. So punishments were swift and severe, and then if you survived, you could go back to your regular life instead of rotting behind bars.

Re:every 20 years or so

[WinPimp2K]

As I said, "by current standards" TJ would be considered cruel and brutal.

Rape also has a different definition now than it did back then. I suspect we may both be "traditionalists" in the definition we use, but it is not the one the law uses.

Now it is "rape" whenever the female decides it was rape - and that includes changing her mind after the act. There was a very recent case where a man was released after 8 years in prison for rape. The accuser falsified her story because the friends whe went clubbing with were angry that she ditched them when she picked up the guy. What is the appropriate penalty for perjury in such a case?

Child molestation? Consider Traci Lords. Every X-rated movie she made (except the very last one) she made while she was a minor. So should every one of her "co-stars" be castrated? After all, not only would all of those sexual acts be rape, they would also count as child molestation. Back in that time frame (she started at age 15) she was one of the most famous of the adult stars and made a great many films. And further, trailers for her films wound up on other films - this caused a major headache for video stores at the time.

Re:every 20 years or so

[Grishnakh]

The law's definitions are completely fucked. If it's consensual, it's not rape, period. Doesn't matter if she's "underage". "Statutory rape" is a bunch of crap too. There's a big difference between sex with an 8-year-old and with a 17-year-old. As far as I'm concerned, it's only "child molestation" if the "child" is pre-pubescent. If they're past puberty, they're basically an adult. Just because society wants to treat them as children until some arbitrary age doesn't mean they really are.

Work to live....

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, well ,well.

So your work 12-16 hours a day and your account has doubled? H-e-l-l-o-o-o-o-o.

And if you worked 24 hours a day it may triple, but at what cost?

Whenever somebody shows pride in this kind of self destructive behaviour it is worth remembering we only live once.

As for the way you work, I simply don't get it, it sounds you are simply lousy at costing your work and at setting realisting expectations.

I started working independently and work only 40 hours a week (not a single minute more).

You can negotiate how you are going to work and walk away from unrealistic projects, you don't have to put up or shut up anymore, if you do you are doing something wrong.

Nuts

[unassimilatible]

What?!?!?! See what a US OB-GYN or Pediatrician makes in the US after taxes and malpractice insurance. You could make more selling shoes. You are nuts. Canada has a huge doctor shortage, and 1 in 10 Canadian doctors go to the US to practice. Limit what doctors can make, you'll limit the number abd quality of doctors.

It does kind of suck

[richtaur]

I did some freelance work for about $4k last Xmas and it ended up costing me $1,500 in taxes. That's higher than the tax on my salary. Plus getting insurance without the help from a corporation and its shared discount is unbelievably expensive.

Furthermore...

[benjamindees]

No, it doesn't, otherwise every single state on the planet is totalitarian (hint: eminent domain).

Ostensibly the United States, and any republican government, is restricted from exercising eminent domain without providing "just compensation". In practice of course this is not always the case.

supermajority overruling minority exists in every democratic state, no exceptions

You fail to distinguish between democratic control over public assets, as in any democratic republic, and democratic seizure of private property or democratic enslavement of minorities, both legitimately forms of tyranny.

Soooo...

[danwesnor]

...indie software developers are in the same boat as all the other small business owners? Whooda thunk?

That's what it says when you don't have insurance.

[zigfreed]

The insurance company, with their "negotiating", pays much, much less if it covers it. I.e. like that $10k "negotiated" to $600 with the other 8.4k magically disappearing. Negotiating health care like it's a used car is mad, but very businesslike.