Slashdot Mirror
Tech Titans Oracle, Red Hat and Google To Help Fix Healthcare.gov
wjcofkc writes "The United States Government has officially called in the calvary over the problems with Healthcare.gov. Tech titans Oracle, Red Hat and Google have been tapped to join the effort to fix the website that went live a month ago, only to quickly roll over and die. While a tech surge of engineers to fix such a complex problem is arguably not the greatest idea, if you're going to do so, you might as well bring in the big guns. The question is: can they make the end of November deadline?"
It would be awesome if one or all of them declined on principle.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Nobody. Obama and his cronies are un-touchable.
Karma: Bad
Unless, of course you suffer a catastrophic illness or injury.
I have enough to pay up to the worth of my life. After that it's a losing proposition. What if you need 1 million dollars per month to keep you alive? What about 10 million dollars? Where do you draw the line? Should the entire planet work for you? I guess not. I have enough to take care of what I need. If I run out of money, it's too much. Nobody lives forever, after all.
Few people can afford a $500K medical bill yet society has chosen not to let people die even if they can't afford medical treatment. What's your solution for treating expensive illnesses for the uninsured?
People who need insurance (unlike me) but cannot purchase one are on their own. The society does not owe them anything. You should be asking why those people cannot earn enough money. That would be a far more valid question. Focusing only on food and healthcare only creates a class of permanent dependents who demand from you but deliver nothing in return.
Let the seriously ill continue to be covered by hospitals and government?
Those monies come from working man's pockets, one way or another. The government has only what taxpayers give it. The hospital only has what other patients pay. If a hospital admits a non-paying patient, someone else will pay for his treatment. There are no miracles, and you will have to rob Peter to pay Paul. Healthcare always translates to labor of people - of those who drill for oil, of those who make drugs, of those who make tools, and of those who apply all that to your body. This work needs to be compensated, unless someone proposes that doctors should work for free, and receive all the tools for free from those chemists and steelmakers. There is no fair way for a poor patient to consume thousands of man-hours of highly skilled labor without incurring debt to those people.
Or just let them die (or euthanize them if they can afford to pay for the euthanasia).
Purely mathematically, if you want the medical profession to be sustainable (such as with a balanced budget) then you have to pay the doctors. Obamacare's method is to rob the young to give to the old. I do not approve that. The best option, IMO, was in use until now - societies of mutual insurance, where, if you wanted, you could join at the level that you can afford, and which would return you your own premiums (on average) when you need them. If you contribute little, you will get accordingly. It may pay for fixing a broken arm, but won't be enough to fix a broken heart. Too bad? Yes. But you haven't contributed enough toward the needs of the society, so the society has no reason to contribute toward your needs. Money is used as a measure of those needs that you fulfull. A pizza will cost you 15 tokens; but if you take a broom and clean the floor in pizzeria, the owner will pay you 15 tokens.
So, to answer your question: if an adult person hasn't contributed anything to the society when he had a chance... yes, he should die. He made his choice when he decided to not work. (*) He chose poorly.
(*) It is getting fuzzier today - some people cannot find jobs, even though they want them. A rationally thinking computer would sentence those people to death anyway because they are, clearly, extraneous on this planet. Humans are a little slower with pulling the trigger; but still, nobody is entitled to the labor of others just because he needs that labor to survive. Let's say, I don't want to spend my own money on food - will you be paying for my food? If you don't, I will die!!!1! Should I expect a check from you? No? Why so? Because I could find other income? But an otherwise sane homeless person, who needs healthcare, also has other options. He just chooses to not exercise them. Tens of thousands of illegals from Mexico are standing by the doors of Home Depot, waiting for someone to pick them up to do some manual work. It's a good example. There are many ditches to be dug, and many fence posts to be instal