I haven't gotten a chance to read the article but it seems to me that if he did simple gausian interpretation, you only plan for one eventuality. If you look at Kalman filters it's the simplest kind, and when it fails in Robotic localization, it fails hard because it never finds it's way back to what it should be. But this is all guess work on my part as I have to run to work. Like a bunny.
And I believe that, and the resulting condition, should be covered by your health insurance assuming you had it. Freak accidents and dealing with them is what health insurance is for.
General up keep of your personal health? People should already have enough vested interest to take care of themselves. If they don't care about themselves, why should I?
I think we both miss eachother's points. Your examples focus on individual choice and displacing the risk inherent in making good and bad choices. I just want to protect people from the random situation that is near unavoidable and unforeseeable. And further more I have no problem with you spending your own money in order to help people who have made bad decisions, and given certain circumstances I'm likely to chose to help as well. The problem is when this individual risk mitigation becomes compulsory, when neither you nor I have a choice in who we help and who we don't. Then I've lost all control of my influence on the situation and solution because the government has taken it out my hands where I had firm control.
That's a bit different. You are appointed a public defender in criminal cases in order to protect you from an over litigious government entity bankrupting you with legal fees on clearly bogus charges.
Your personal health has no direct dealing with the government in the nominal case unless you socialize health care.
So you are saying that since person A has a wife, we will call her person B. There is another individual in a state faraway, person C. So person C should have just as much vested interest in person A as person B does?
I'm telling you that I can take care of my own family because I'm a better judge of what should be done for my family than you are. Nor do I want to take care of your family because it's none of my business, for better or worse.
Except no one but me shares in the benefit of my own health unless I am a healthy slave able to work for anyone who feels they have a right to the benefits of my labor. You extrapolate that and Health Care should not be a collective ideal like public roads, libraries, and power lines.
And as long as we have socialized medicine of any kind, I believe every one must accept the fact that it will always be fucking expensive and inefficient.
So I don't see why we should do it in the first place. The churches and good samaritans used to take care of this stuff back when people weren't greedy bitches about it, and were thankful that someone was willing to help, but people think it's a right of existence instead of a helping hand, and fucked it up for future generations. Best way to ruin the milk is to kill the cow...
Some more grey area definition for you: is that chronic condition obesity, cancer, or cirrhosis of the liver? Was it Genetic or was it generally caused by you own choices?
Six year old kid with brain cancer? Unforseeable.
Forty-five year old wino with cirrhosis of the liver? You get no sympathy from me.
Heart disease? You live your whole life able to prevent this.
Burn victim needs pain medication for the rest of his life? Unforseeable consequence of the unforseeable accident, unless maybe your occupation was "Human Torch" or something or other in which case you should have been either covered by paying more premiums or saved it away yourself.
All of which is pretty common sense stuff that does not aim to hurt people, just make them responsible for their own health.
Still, shouldn't it be your personal responsibility to take care of early detection? I mean it is your own life not the HMO's after all. And if you are not into preventative like eating right, exercising and whatnot, you are indeed a higher risk to insure and should pay a higher premium in my opinion.
I see where you are coming from, but I still can't agree that people should eat food and drive cars that they can't afford. I don't to see how health care should be any different.
I think the whole problem there stems from how health insurance morphed to health care. If you want to go see a doctor every year, pay for it. If you get run over by a truck, that's what insurance is for. Insurance is for the unforseable, not the routine. The problem is the line that has to be drawn, and it becomes a pretty grey area, so it's ended up that the insurance company is expected to pay for everything, which of course drives up the cost.
Don't forget the part where public schools and corporate health-care start prescribing it to people to help them adjust to a socio-political system that robs them of their individual rights.
I think both are true, which is why I don't approve of big government. When government is large, I'm either ruled by the mob, or ruled by the large corporations. Either is an affront to my individual liberty.
What are you talking about? The Guys on Wall Street have none of my money. Zip-Zero. The government is the biggest drag on my financials because I recognized the inherent risk to my person at participating in that clap-trap or pseudo capitalism turned poker game. No one forced you to play on wall street and invest in companies that you had no first hand knowledge of.
There is nothing wrong with investing in local businesses that you believe will do well.
So this disease is nothing more than the cost meeting the supply and demand function of classical economics. Don't you think exploding prices is more an effect of inflation?
Back you Keynesianism, Back I say! Back to the hell that broth you!
Really do you want our corrupt government to decide more loosers and winners? I'd rather decide the loosers and winners with my dollars than having the government take them and decide for me. I know more about the companies I like than they do.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the things I learned in life is always strive to have the better weapon/technique and never use it as a first resort.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." -Benjamin Franklin
It's not rocket science...
... should read Beak of the Finch
I haven't gotten a chance to read the article but it seems to me that if he did simple gausian interpretation, you only plan for one eventuality. If you look at Kalman filters it's the simplest kind, and when it fails in Robotic localization, it fails hard because it never finds it's way back to what it should be. But this is all guess work on my part as I have to run to work. Like a bunny.
How long? Not long.
And I believe that, and the resulting condition, should be covered by your health insurance assuming you had it. Freak accidents and dealing with them is what health insurance is for.
General up keep of your personal health? People should already have enough vested interest to take care of themselves. If they don't care about themselves, why should I?
I think we both miss eachother's points. Your examples focus on individual choice and displacing the risk inherent in making good and bad choices. I just want to protect people from the random situation that is near unavoidable and unforeseeable. And further more I have no problem with you spending your own money in order to help people who have made bad decisions, and given certain circumstances I'm likely to chose to help as well. The problem is when this individual risk mitigation becomes compulsory, when neither you nor I have a choice in who we help and who we don't. Then I've lost all control of my influence on the situation and solution because the government has taken it out my hands where I had firm control.
That's a bit different. You are appointed a public defender in criminal cases in order to protect you from an over litigious government entity bankrupting you with legal fees on clearly bogus charges. Your personal health has no direct dealing with the government in the nominal case unless you socialize health care.
So you are saying that since person A has a wife, we will call her person B. There is another individual in a state faraway, person C. So person C should have just as much vested interest in person A as person B does?
I'm telling you that I can take care of my own family because I'm a better judge of what should be done for my family than you are. Nor do I want to take care of your family because it's none of my business, for better or worse.
Except no one but me shares in the benefit of my own health unless I am a healthy slave able to work for anyone who feels they have a right to the benefits of my labor.
You extrapolate that and Health Care should not be a collective ideal like public roads, libraries, and power lines.
And as long as we have socialized medicine of any kind, I believe every one must accept the fact that it will always be fucking expensive and inefficient.
So I don't see why we should do it in the first place. The churches and good samaritans used to take care of this stuff back when people weren't greedy bitches about it, and were thankful that someone was willing to help, but people think it's a right of existence instead of a helping hand, and fucked it up for future generations. Best way to ruin the milk is to kill the cow...
Some more grey area definition for you: is that chronic condition obesity, cancer, or cirrhosis of the liver? Was it Genetic or was it generally caused by you own choices?
Six year old kid with brain cancer? Unforseeable.
Forty-five year old wino with cirrhosis of the liver? You get no sympathy from me.
Heart disease? You live your whole life able to prevent this.
Burn victim needs pain medication for the rest of his life? Unforseeable consequence of the unforseeable accident, unless maybe your occupation was "Human Torch" or something or other in which case you should have been either covered by paying more premiums or saved it away yourself.
All of which is pretty common sense stuff that does not aim to hurt people, just make them responsible for their own health.
Still, shouldn't it be your personal responsibility to take care of early detection? I mean it is your own life not the HMO's after all. And if you are not into preventative like eating right, exercising and whatnot, you are indeed a higher risk to insure and should pay a higher premium in my opinion.
Not accept health care, yet I'm forced to pay for it? You are right! that's not government control so much as plain old thievery.
Don't forget the Hippocratic Oath.
I see where you are coming from, but I still can't agree that people should eat food and drive cars that they can't afford. I don't to see how health care should be any different.
I think the whole problem there stems from how health insurance morphed to health care. If you want to go see a doctor every year, pay for it. If you get run over by a truck, that's what insurance is for. Insurance is for the unforseable, not the routine. The problem is the line that has to be drawn, and it becomes a pretty grey area, so it's ended up that the insurance company is expected to pay for everything, which of course drives up the cost.
Wondered off on a tangent there... oops.
Don't forget the part where public schools and corporate health-care start prescribing it to people to help them adjust to a socio-political system that robs them of their individual rights.
I think both are true, which is why I don't approve of big government. When government is large, I'm either ruled by the mob, or ruled by the large corporations. Either is an affront to my individual liberty.
What are you talking about? The Guys on Wall Street have none of my money. Zip-Zero. The government is the biggest drag on my financials because I recognized the inherent risk to my person at participating in that clap-trap or pseudo capitalism turned poker game. No one forced you to play on wall street and invest in companies that you had no first hand knowledge of.
There is nothing wrong with investing in local businesses that you believe will do well.
Fixed that for you.
So this disease is nothing more than the cost meeting the supply and demand function of classical economics. Don't you think exploding prices is more an effect of inflation?
We doesn't the government just not take the money from joe six-pack in the first place? It's not like he would save the extra 10-15%.
I like to read books at the local coffee shop. $600 was a lot of coffee to drink in one day. I still can't sleep.
Back you Keynesianism, Back I say! Back to the hell that broth you!
Really do you want our corrupt government to decide more loosers and winners? I'd rather decide the loosers and winners with my dollars than having the government take them and decide for me. I know more about the companies I like than they do.