Yesterday at a Best Buy in Ohio a guy and his wife were looking at 42" Sony LCDs. There was a 1080P for $1899 and a 1080i for $1599. Guy asked the sales associate what the difference was.
Sales associate, I shit you not, said "The "P" is actually a newer product. It is 7 minor revisions later. We still carry the "i" because it's still very popular. The same thing happens with our wireless equipment, too. the "N" version is out, but most users are still buying the "G" Version"
I approached the guy after the sales associate left and said "listen, that guy has no clue what he's talking about. I is interlaced, P is progressive. On an "i" it's drawing 540 lines every frame, on a "p" it's drawing all 1080. Go with the "P" if you can afford the difference. It's worth it"
In the UK (and Canada, for that matter) nobody is running on a NATIONAL ticket. Neither Blair or Harper had to run a NATIONWIDE election. We could run fair, engaging campaigns in our congressional districts in 5 weeks. It would be easy enough. But an actual nationwide campaign, with the fundraising and infrastructure needed to reach any meaningful percentage of the population is going to take quite a bit longer than that.
Now, maybe your system is better. Maybe it's better that the majority party gets to pick the national leadership. Maybe. But I don't think so. And I think that any American that wants to look at how the Republican party organized itself over the course of its 12 year hegemony would agree with me. Would you really have wanted to see a President (or perhaps "Prime Minister") Newt Gingrich, or President Tom Delay? These are people that could never win a true Presidential election but they won the leadership contests within the GOP.
Personally, I think there's merit to having a true nationally-elected office. And I think it's worth the trade-off of the longer election season.
So, in a way, the "40x" number IS correct. Blair had to run in a single district. Assuming that district had fewer than 7.5MM residents, it is, indeed, 40x smaller than the 300MM people that US presidents have to campaign for.
I love the NetFlix WatchNow system. Yes, it's DRM protected, and Windows-Only, but I love it. I can't wait until they have a larger selection (they're adding new movies weekly). The system just works. It starts streaming almost instantly and the audio/video quality is sub-dvd but greater than VHS and greater than most Torrent movies.
I can't easily rip it. WHO CARES? At any time, I can log back on to Netflix, and WATCH IT AGAIN. FOR FREE. This notion that all DRM is the devil is just silly. NetFlix WatchNow costs me nothing. It was added to my account at no extra charge. Every month I get 30 free hours of WatchNow.
My laptop has Digital-Out for video and Audio. I set it on the tv, close the lid, hook it up to the stereo and television, and there it is. It's just a SMIDGEN more difficult than the VOD that comes thru my cable box.
Yes, but it offers MORE than a stethoscope. It's not as if this is just a $40,000 stethoscope. And it's not as if it would be difficult or impossible for the doctor to use BOTH tools on you, so your argument about losing functionality is bogus as well.
This is like saying that an MRI is unlikely to be adopted because the thing it replaces (x-ray machines) are so much cheaper.
Or that you shouldn't expect anyone to purchase a $10,000 car when they're 16+ because the thing that a car replaces (..a bike..) is $200.
I agree that in principle, a "non transferable license" is bullshit. But if you're willing to accept that, as you said, you "own a license to use a software package" as opposed to owning the software package itself, you have to accept the terms of that license.
I'd be more than happy to wait in line for 6 hours so I can take home a stunningly beautiful iGirl that doesn't give me any feedback no matter how much I touch her, doesn't break when dropped, doesn't scratch easily, is good for up to 8 hours of activity (as long as I turn her wireless off), goes to sleep at the touch of a button and comes with a 2 year warranty.
For sure. Sign me up.
Of course, I'll probably regret it when they come out with a model next year that's a little bit lighter, and a little bit thinner......but what the hell... I could always use a spare at the office.
OK, I didn't read more than 3 or 4 sentences of what you wrote. Go educate yourself about what you're trying to talk about. Really. It would produce amazing results in terms of you not looking like such a dumbass. Googling for "medicare advantage" (in quotes) yields 861,000 results.
Asking companies to pick up a loss? Do me a favor... Go research what the hell it is that you're talking about. Seriously. You apparently know nothing about Medicare Advantage, so go visit Google and educate yourself.
"Everyone they insure will be making claims and there is no room to wiggle around."
Seriously... WHAT are you talking about?
These people will be making no more or less claims than any other beneficiary that the company insures. These insurance companies are not getting paid by Medicare only when there is a claim. You miss the point ENTIRELY of this program. This is like school vouchers, only for health insurance.
Basically, at the beginning of the year, Medicare pays the insurance company $x.xx to insure that person for the year. It's like when my employer pays my premium to my insurance company to give me coverage for the month.
That person might not have any claims for the year. Or they might have a catastrophic claim. The same could be said about you or I. Even if the person has no claims, the private insurer keeps all the money Medicare gave them.
And the amount of money they're getting paid to take on each Medicare beneficiary is MORE than an average person in an average year costs Medicare. So, if the "free market" is more efficient than Government (which is your POV), and if the Private Insurer is getting paid to take any given Medicare beneficiary at a rate higher than that beneficiary is likely to cost Medicare for a given year, that insurance company should be able to make LOADS of profit, shouldn't they? I mean, if the Private company ran AT LEAST as efficient as Medicare itself, the fact that Medicare is paying 105% of the average costs should put 5% profits directly into the pocket of the private company. And believing, as you do, that Government insurance would inherently cost more/be less efficient than the free market, the Private company should be able to deliver services CHEAPER than Medicare can. So those efficiency gains should translate directly into more profit for the company.
Re-reading your posts, it seems to me that you misunderstood Medicare Advantage entirely. It seems to me that you assumed that Medicare was paying the private insurers per-claim, perhaps just to process the claims in Lieu of Medicare or something. That's not the case.
So really, it's not very impressive to be going toe-to-toe in a "debate" over something that you know very little about.
At the end of the day, Medicare Advantage flopped. It was really simple, actually. 10,000 Medicare beneficiaries subscribed to, say, Aetna. It cost Medicare, say $1,000,000 to insure 10,000 average people for a year. medicare paid Aetna $1,050,000 to insure them in lieu of Medicare. At the end of the year, Aetna was not able to insure these people as efficiently and cheaply as Medicare itself was able to do.
Yes, that's true: Medicare (aka the US Government) was MORE EFFICIENT than a Private Insurer (aka the Free Market).
This is a fact, bro, you don't have to take my word for it.
That little experiment is what proves your premise wrong:
"My point is only that it costs more and most people are better off placing the difference likely needed from increased taxes in order to implement the public medical coverage into a savings account."
The fact of the matter is that it WILL NOT COST MORE to an average citizen. It won't. This is for 3 reasons:
1. As demonstrated by Medicare Advantage, the Government is able to provide healthcare services more efficiently than the Private Sector 2. The government isn't making profits, investing in money-losing ventures (as all companies do at some point), and paying dividends to share holders. 3. We are ALREADY paying to provide medical services to the un- and under-insured at the state level because when people need medical help, they just SHOW UP at the hospital, and if they can't pay, the State pays for them.
All that would be required to provide Gov't healthcare w/o taking more
I'm not debating you. But you've distorted my words and my points. I'm going to fix that and move on. There is no way to communicate sensibly with people as stupid as you chose to be.
Very simply, you are fond of basing arguments off of broad assertions and use straw-men to support them. For example:
1. ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS revolve around this "not being free." You say time and again that "People who think it will be free if some entity pays for it" NOBODY THINKS THAT. NOBODY ON HERE HAS SAID ANYTHING OF THE SORT. PERIOD. This is a fact: you can go thru and read these posts. It's a FACT taht nobody is expecting healthcare to magically be free if only the Gov't would pick up the tab. My god, are you so stupid to actually believe your argument, or are you just so stupid you think that we'll buy in to your mischaracterization?
2. Instead of looking at easily available facts, you base your "learned" opinion, over and over again, on ANECDOTE. Your mom works in a "country" hospital and you're using that as some sort of basis for your opinion on national healthcare? Are you serious? Go crack a book, bro. It won't bite, I promise. I mean for chrissake, "my mommy works at the hospital?" My god man, are you 14?
3. You are COMPLETELY UNINFORMED about the Medicare Advantage program. Here's how it works right now: Medicare knows how much on average they're paying for a single beneficiary. Let's say it's $1000 a year, just for an example. Right now, Medicare is offering to pay a private insurer $1050 a year (105%) to insure a Medicare recipient. VERY FEW companies even agreed to accept Medicare patients and the ones that do have had to CUT SOME BENEFTS BELOW WHAT MEDICARE WAS OFFERING. That is, in very simple terms: It costs a private insurer (aka the freemarket) MORE to provide the same coverage as it does Medicare. This is a FACT, bro. This is verifiable. All of these numbers are PUBLISHED. Go look it up.
This is a perfect case: If the "Freemarket" was so much more efficient, they'd be able to provide Medicare-quality service CHEAPER than it costs Medicare to offer it. But they can't. They can't even MEET the costs of Medicare. It costs a private insurer MORE than it costs Medicare. So much for the "magic" of the marketplace....
4. Your little anecdote about your mom working in the hospital... You write that in retort to my point that the uninsured are STILL GOING TO THE HOSPITALS when they're ill. And we're ALREADY paying for that at the state level. It's ALREADY factored into our state taxes. We're ALREADY PAYING THE BILL to insure everybody. The only difference is that now we're paying 2, 3x as much for an emergency room visit than we would if we put these people on a gov't health plan and let them see a doctor in an office visit.
5. You CANNOT simply compare healthcare spending in America versus spending in Canada. It's not that simple. Even as a calculation of GDP. You failed to miss the most important part of what I wrote about this: American companies are uncompetive against foregin companies that don't have that same burden. How much more wealth would be in the pockets of American corporations, their investors, and their employees, if we allowed them to compete w/ Foreign companies on a level playing field?
In summary, your reply to my post is LAUGHABLE. Over and over you made it appear that you were addressing a point, but in reality took an entirely different tangent. You used anecdote and absurd assumptions like people think gov't healthcare would be "free."
You show a complete lack of understanding of the way healthcare and the freemarket currently work in this country. Your arguments are not well thought out and not well articulated.
If you're able to reply with FACTS and not more of this CHILDISH CONJECTURE, I may, perhaps be willing to have a discussion with you. But otherwise, this is it. My 2 posts on this subject speak for themselves and anybody reading this will clearly be able to see and verify the facts of what I've written. They stand on their own two feet very well. Yours, on the other hand, read more like a piece in The Onion...
Subsection A, Paragraph B clearly states that boat analogies must be used in lieu of car analogies on all Microsoft vs. OSS stories. We just don't have the technology to construct a metaphorical car powerful enough to overcome the figurative bullshit.
1. First of all, the countries you're talking about -- Canada, UK, etc -- have a SINGLE PROVIDER system. That is, there is a single provider of healthcare coverage, in the form of Gov't run hospitals and clinics, and you go to them if you want free care. (Yes, in the UK there are private clinics and hospitals, but only for those that can pay cash)
Nobody has EVER suggested that the US be a SINGLE PROVIDER system. The idea has always been a SINGLE PAYER system. That means private enterprise still is responsible for delivering services. The difference is at the "insurance" level. Some plans call for the elimination of insurance companies, with Medicare expanding to cover everybody. Other plans call for the existing insurance companies to stay in place, the only diff. being that instead of your employer paying the premiums, the government will pay them.
BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SINGLE PROVIDER AND SINGLE PAYER.
2. The history of employer-funded heathcare in this country is not exactly an idea endowed from our founding fathers. It's only been postwar--since the 1950s-- that the tax code was changed to reward companies for paying premiums. This made a LOT more sense in the days of career employment than it does today.
3. The GOP--during their 7 years of hegemony--had a great idea: Since the freemarket is supposed to bear fruits of efficiency, why don't they take the amount they're currently paying for some people on medicare, and, instead, give 95% of that amount to a private insurer, giving the citizen that would usually have Medicare actual private insurance that's paid for by the gov't at a rate cheaper than Medicare would otherwise pay.
Their idea was that if their theory held, the private companies could deliver services cheaper than Medicare itself can, which would allow them to expand this program to EVERYONE. Furthermore, they thought that it would be so efficient that they could even cover things that Meicare can't, like dentures and such.
Do you know what happened? Months into the program, they couldn't find hardly any insurers willing to insure these people at a cost of 95% of Medicare costs for that same person. So the congress upped it. First to 100%, then to more than 100%. That is, they were paying private insurers more to take care of a person that was previously on Medicarae than it was costing Medicare itself to take care of that person. Again, they felt that SURELY the freemaket would delvier, if only they gave it chance.
It didn't.
The Medicare Advantage program FLOPPED.
At the end of the day, the "Free Market" just couldn't deliver services cheaper than Medicare itself could.
4. The amount people pay for healthcare cannot be simply compared to Canada or anywhere else because so much of the cost is paid by employers. How much more competitive would our corporations be without this burden? Practically none of their overseas competitors carry those costs. How do you quantify that? How much more wealth would there be in the pockets of Ameircan employees and investors if our corporations were relieved of this singulary burden? How much higher would your wages be?
5. At the end of the day, we're ALREADY PAYING FOR EVERYONE TO GET HEALTHCARE. Anybody, no matter how destitute, can walk into your county general hospital and get care, and the bill is footed by the state. So you're ALREADY PAYING. Except, instead of treating the infection when it starts, at a cost of, say, $200, you're treating it after it's spread to the whole arm and requires an amputation at the cost of $10,000. Etc.
And no matter how much you dislike that fact, THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION. Because if you just stopped treating people that didn't have coverage, disease would fester. A true sub-class would emerge with ghettos full of truly sick people. It would be the 19th century all over again.
So let's ACKNOWLEDGE that we're ALREADY PAYING FOR THIS and let's focus on preventive care and early treatment that w
Okay, it seems to be far-stretched... but 50 years ago, would anyone have imagined that everywhere they go in New York City or in London that they're always on camera?
The basic requests that Google, ebay, etc made were:
1. Users can use any device to access the network 2. Users can run any software they'd like to run 3. The network interconnects with the internet 4. The network operators lease bandwidth to 3rd party companies
The draft proposal that the FCC chief published (and that AT&T just agreed with) protects the first 2 of those rules, but not the last 2.
The impetus for Google to front this money was the Telecoms lobbying the FCC with the argument that requiring openness will reduce the value of the spectrum and thus reduce the Governments take. By fronting this money, Google negates that argument. They'll only bid if these rules are established, and the Gov't will almost certainly make more money with Google bidding than with them sitting out.
Suddenly the FCC is left with very little reason to oppose openness. This, in my opinion, removes the political cover that he'd need. It's a game changer and a genius play by Google.
Because _I THOUGHT_ the joke was regarding the fact that it's a FREE SERVICE and a check for a FULL REFUND would literally not be worth the paper it's written on.
Since your belief is that misinformation should be modded down, then you should be petitioning moderators to knock YOUR post back to 1, shouldn't you?
The congress hasn't given a DIME to telcos to roll-out fiber. Some STATE governments have, but not federally. So if STATES want to regulate how their money is spent, fine, but the Feds should stay out of it unless they want to give a NATIONAL rebate to these companies.
And as for all this "The gov't paid to roll out copper." As far as I know, nobody has been paid taxpayer dollars to roll out copper since THE GREAT DEPRESSION. True, they did roll out some ridiculous amount--like 100,000 miles---but do you think those lines are still in use? (<snicker>maybe by bellsouth</snicker>).
The copper networks were opened up for competition in 1996 but that was a whole different world compared to today. In 1996, for 2-way communication, the copper network was the only game in town. That's just not the case today. Cellular, Wireless and Cable both now compete with the copper networks.
I look forward to your denouncement of your own post!
1. Public-Funded copper? Huh? The copper wasn't run with public money. It was run by Verizon and its corporate ancestors. It was, however, heavily regulated as public infrastructure, and rightly so, but that regulation didn't occur until well AFTER the hundreds of millions (billions?) spent running the stuff.
2. Monopoly pricing is not "always ridiculously high." You're wrong about that. It CAN BE, but it's not "always." Such a statement is silly to even try to make. You have to prove that every monopoly price-gouges for your statement to be correct. I only have to demonstrate a single one that doesn't to prove you wrong. Here you go: USPS. It's a public company, and it still has a monopoly on letter carrying. DHL/FedEx/Etc cannot compete in that segment. Here's another: Amtrak.
3. Your stupidity about this astounds me. It's just this simple: If we put copper-esque regs on Fiber at this point, NO FIBER WILL BE RUN. It would be a disservice to the shareholders of Verizon to spend BILLIONS to roll out fiber networks that its competitors can immediately use "against" them. This would be the stupidest move imaginable for a corporation. You either need a gov't subsidy to build the network, or you need to give Verizon say 5, 10 years to run the network exclusively to recoup their costs, much like the patent period on a new drug.
And about that -- I'm not a fan of the effects of pharma patents, but the same business case is true: For a company to invest that kind of $ it needs some incentive. I'm a fan of the John Edwards proposal to eliminate pharma patents and, in their place, give companies a cash reward for new drugs.
It's really simple, folks: If you want PRIVATE CORPORATIONS to develop for the PUBLIC DOMAIN, you need to either give them fair financial incentives. This can come in the form of exclusivity or a public "bounty" or whatever. But it's JUST NOT RIGHT to ask a PRIVATE ENTITY to spend its own money only to have their PRIVATE ASSETS socialized for the benefit of the people. This is EXACTLY THE SAME as the government forcing you to open your home to, say, quartered troops, or forcing you to feed any homeless people in your neighborhood or forcing you to let the poor couple down the street borrow your new car for a couple hours a week. A corporation is a private entity, just like you and your household. It's easy to demonize corporations--ESPECIALLY VERIZON--but you can't just make laws that apply to "bad" corps and not "good" corps.
As much as I understand that regulation is sometimes necessary to keep a level playing field, it's no myth that regulation is also a barrier to free markets and the general principle of Capitalism.
Which is why any heavy regulations of Fiber at this point in time would almost certainly have the effect of stunting growth of fiber networks. These companies are spending billions. To invest that kind of cash you need to see a tempting ROI, which just won't happen if you saddle it with regulations.
If we want Fiber networks to be public infrastructure, then we need to pay for it with public monies. Regulate it, fine, but give them gigantic tax incentives to actually run the stuff.
I'll probably be modded down, or have some slashdotter call me a faciest right winger who is trying to protect TheEnemy. I don't care. In all honesty I'm probably one of the biggest supporters of Liberalism and the democratic party you've ever spoken to. But I also have a BS in Economics and this is economics 101.
Actually, many historians agree that a Jesus of Nazereth did, indeed, exist. He's on roman tax rolls. You might remember that jesus was born in a manger because Mary and Joseph had to travel to Josephs hometown in order to be included in the first Roman census of the holy lands.
I filled out the web form at 5:30P after work. I grabbed my Cingular phone and left the house. Twenty Five minutes later I go to make a call - "SIM Not Registered" (or some such message). I was unable to stop back home and get my new phone--which was still charging anyway--and was without service the whole night.
T-Mobile does offer an attractive prepay plan. If you haven't looked at it, check out Alltel's plan as well. It's unique the way they do it.
I like Net10 because it uses the same network I was using (it uses Cingulars network) and it's always 10 cents a minute, no matter how big of a reload card you buy. The only downside is that it has no way to buy free nights & weekends. It also has a very attractive text message price of 5 cents a message. (Compare to Cingulars 15 cents and VZW's 25 cents)
I'd check it out, at least, if I were you. It's not a brand-name carrier, but it does have its advantages.
The only reason I brought it up is that I just did it. i ported my Cingular gophone number to Net10. Here was the process:
1. Buy a Net10 Phone. Put the SIM in. 2. Go to the Net10 website. Go to "Port Number" Enter in my number, my provider, my IMEI/SIM number from my new phone 3. Sumbit web form 4. Wait 30 minutes. 5. Use new phone.
Just that simple. Even I was surprised.
And if you're looking at prepaid plans: I had Verizon, Cingular, and now Net10. Net10 is the cheapest for me. It'll probably be the cheapest for you, too, unless you make MOST your calls in off-peak hours, in which you'd benefit from Cingular Pick Your Plan which included free nights & weekends.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but i just have to ask one more question:
Didn't you even read the Wiki article you linked to? The table at the top of the page showing the fractional banking scenario explains it pretty clearly. The last line of the table reads:
Action | Assets | Liabilites | Reserves Customer C deposits 49 paper dollars | IOUs worth $119 | $219 in interest-bearing deposits | 100 paper dollars
You see that? $219 in interest bearing deposits. That's how much was deposited as REAL MONEY into the bank.
Now, look at assets. If your "magic'd" theory was correct, assets would be > than deposits. They're not. The banks assets are $119 in IOUs and $100 in reserves. $219.
How is this not mind numbingly simple for you?
Yes, some of the "deposits" came from, for example, Customer-C who was loaned the money, technically speaking, from the deposit from Customer-A. But THAT DOESN'T MATTER because the ASSET that covers that $49 is the value of the IOU from Customer-C. Your problem just occured to me: You don't, for whatever reason, count promissory notes as assets. Well, they are. Now go run the math again and you'll be a lot more comfortable that voodoo magic isn't being performed at the local Bank of America...
Slashdot Mirror
Yesterday at a Best Buy in Ohio a guy and his wife were looking at 42" Sony LCDs. There was a 1080P for $1899 and a 1080i for $1599. Guy asked the sales associate what the difference was.
Sales associate, I shit you not, said "The "P" is actually a newer product. It is 7 minor revisions later. We still carry the "i" because it's still very popular. The same thing happens with our wireless equipment, too. the "N" version is out, but most users are still buying the "G" Version"
I approached the guy after the sales associate left and said "listen, that guy has no clue what he's talking about. I is interlaced, P is progressive. On an "i" it's drawing 540 lines every frame, on a "p" it's drawing all 1080. Go with the "P" if you can afford the difference. It's worth it"
In the UK (and Canada, for that matter) nobody is running on a NATIONAL ticket. Neither Blair or Harper had to run a NATIONWIDE election. We could run fair, engaging campaigns in our congressional districts in 5 weeks. It would be easy enough. But an actual nationwide campaign, with the fundraising and infrastructure needed to reach any meaningful percentage of the population is going to take quite a bit longer than that.
Now, maybe your system is better. Maybe it's better that the majority party gets to pick the national leadership. Maybe. But I don't think so. And I think that any American that wants to look at how the Republican party organized itself over the course of its 12 year hegemony would agree with me. Would you really have wanted to see a President (or perhaps "Prime Minister") Newt Gingrich, or President Tom Delay? These are people that could never win a true Presidential election but they won the leadership contests within the GOP.
Personally, I think there's merit to having a true nationally-elected office. And I think it's worth the trade-off of the longer election season.
So, in a way, the "40x" number IS correct. Blair had to run in a single district. Assuming that district had fewer than 7.5MM residents, it is, indeed, 40x smaller than the 300MM people that US presidents have to campaign for.
I love the NetFlix WatchNow system. Yes, it's DRM protected, and Windows-Only, but I love it. I can't wait until they have a larger selection (they're adding new movies weekly). The system just works. It starts streaming almost instantly and the audio/video quality is sub-dvd but greater than VHS and greater than most Torrent movies.
I can't easily rip it. WHO CARES? At any time, I can log back on to Netflix, and WATCH IT AGAIN. FOR FREE. This notion that all DRM is the devil is just silly. NetFlix WatchNow costs me nothing. It was added to my account at no extra charge. Every month I get 30 free hours of WatchNow.
My laptop has Digital-Out for video and Audio. I set it on the tv, close the lid, hook it up to the stereo and television, and there it is. It's just a SMIDGEN more difficult than the VOD that comes thru my cable box.
Yes, but it offers MORE than a stethoscope. It's not as if this is just a $40,000 stethoscope. And it's not as if it would be difficult or impossible for the doctor to use BOTH tools on you, so your argument about losing functionality is bogus as well.
This is like saying that an MRI is unlikely to be adopted because the thing it replaces (x-ray machines) are so much cheaper.
Or that you shouldn't expect anyone to purchase a $10,000 car when they're 16+ because the thing that a car replaces (..a bike..) is $200.
Unless you purchased a non-transferable license.
I agree that in principle, a "non transferable license" is bullshit. But if you're willing to accept that, as you said, you "own a license to use a software package" as opposed to owning the software package itself, you have to accept the terms of that license.
No, no.. I already have the dock adapter!
"I hope Apple never enters the sex industry"
...but what the hell... I could always use a spare at the office.
I disagree. Entirely.
I'd be more than happy to wait in line for 6 hours so I can take home a stunningly beautiful iGirl that doesn't give me any feedback no matter how much I touch her, doesn't break when dropped, doesn't scratch easily, is good for up to 8 hours of activity (as long as I turn her wireless off), goes to sleep at the touch of a button and comes with a 2 year warranty.
For sure. Sign me up.
Of course, I'll probably regret it when they come out with a model next year that's a little bit lighter, and a little bit thinner...
OK, I didn't read more than 3 or 4 sentences of what you wrote. Go educate yourself about what you're trying to talk about. Really. It would produce amazing results in terms of you not looking like such a dumbass. Googling for "medicare advantage" (in quotes) yields 861,000 results.
Asking companies to pick up a loss? Do me a favor... Go research what the hell it is that you're talking about. Seriously. You apparently know nothing about Medicare Advantage, so go visit Google and educate yourself.
"Everyone they insure will be making claims and there is no room to wiggle around."
Seriously... WHAT are you talking about?
These people will be making no more or less claims than any other beneficiary that the company insures. These insurance companies are not getting paid by Medicare only when there is a claim. You miss the point ENTIRELY of this program. This is like school vouchers, only for health insurance.
Basically, at the beginning of the year, Medicare pays the insurance company $x.xx to insure that person for the year. It's like when my employer pays my premium to my insurance company to give me coverage for the month.
That person might not have any claims for the year. Or they might have a catastrophic claim. The same could be said about you or I. Even if the person has no claims, the private insurer keeps all the money Medicare gave them.
And the amount of money they're getting paid to take on each Medicare beneficiary is MORE than an average person in an average year costs Medicare. So, if the "free market" is more efficient than Government (which is your POV), and if the Private Insurer is getting paid to take any given Medicare beneficiary at a rate higher than that beneficiary is likely to cost Medicare for a given year, that insurance company should be able to make LOADS of profit, shouldn't they? I mean, if the Private company ran AT LEAST as efficient as Medicare itself, the fact that Medicare is paying 105% of the average costs should put 5% profits directly into the pocket of the private company. And believing, as you do, that Government insurance would inherently cost more/be less efficient than the free market, the Private company should be able to deliver services CHEAPER than Medicare can. So those efficiency gains should translate directly into more profit for the company.
Re-reading your posts, it seems to me that you misunderstood Medicare Advantage entirely. It seems to me that you assumed that Medicare was paying the private insurers per-claim, perhaps just to process the claims in Lieu of Medicare or something. That's not the case.
So really, it's not very impressive to be going toe-to-toe in a "debate" over something that you know very little about.
At the end of the day, Medicare Advantage flopped. It was really simple, actually. 10,000 Medicare beneficiaries subscribed to, say, Aetna. It cost Medicare, say $1,000,000 to insure 10,000 average people for a year. medicare paid Aetna $1,050,000 to insure them in lieu of Medicare. At the end of the year, Aetna was not able to insure these people as efficiently and cheaply as Medicare itself was able to do.
Yes, that's true: Medicare (aka the US Government) was MORE EFFICIENT than a Private Insurer (aka the Free Market).
This is a fact, bro, you don't have to take my word for it.
That little experiment is what proves your premise wrong:
"My point is only that it costs more and most people are better off placing the difference likely needed from increased taxes in order to implement the public medical coverage into a savings account."
The fact of the matter is that it WILL NOT COST MORE to an average citizen. It won't. This is for 3 reasons:
1. As demonstrated by Medicare Advantage, the Government is able to provide healthcare services more efficiently than the Private Sector
2. The government isn't making profits, investing in money-losing ventures (as all companies do at some point), and paying dividends to share holders.
3. We are ALREADY paying to provide medical services to the un- and under-insured at the state level because when people need medical help, they just SHOW UP at the hospital, and if they can't pay, the State pays for them.
All that would be required to provide Gov't healthcare w/o taking more
I'm not debating you. But you've distorted my words and my points. I'm going to fix that and move on. There is no way to communicate sensibly with people as stupid as you chose to be.
Very simply, you are fond of basing arguments off of broad assertions and use straw-men to support them. For example:
1. ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS revolve around this "not being free." You say time and again that "People who think it will be free if some entity pays for it" NOBODY THINKS THAT. NOBODY ON HERE HAS SAID ANYTHING OF THE SORT. PERIOD. This is a fact: you can go thru and read these posts. It's a FACT taht nobody is expecting healthcare to magically be free if only the Gov't would pick up the tab. My god, are you so stupid to actually believe your argument, or are you just so stupid you think that we'll buy in to your mischaracterization?
2. Instead of looking at easily available facts, you base your "learned" opinion, over and over again, on ANECDOTE. Your mom works in a "country" hospital and you're using that as some sort of basis for your opinion on national healthcare? Are you serious? Go crack a book, bro. It won't bite, I promise. I mean for chrissake, "my mommy works at the hospital?" My god man, are you 14?
3. You are COMPLETELY UNINFORMED about the Medicare Advantage program. Here's how it works right now: Medicare knows how much on average they're paying for a single beneficiary. Let's say it's $1000 a year, just for an example. Right now, Medicare is offering to pay a private insurer $1050 a year (105%) to insure a Medicare recipient. VERY FEW companies even agreed to accept Medicare patients and the ones that do have had to CUT SOME BENEFTS BELOW WHAT MEDICARE WAS OFFERING. That is, in very simple terms: It costs a private insurer (aka the freemarket) MORE to provide the same coverage as it does Medicare. This is a FACT, bro. This is verifiable. All of these numbers are PUBLISHED. Go look it up.
This is a perfect case: If the "Freemarket" was so much more efficient, they'd be able to provide Medicare-quality service CHEAPER than it costs Medicare to offer it. But they can't. They can't even MEET the costs of Medicare. It costs a private insurer MORE than it costs Medicare. So much for the "magic" of the marketplace....
4. Your little anecdote about your mom working in the hospital... You write that in retort to my point that the uninsured are STILL GOING TO THE HOSPITALS when they're ill. And we're ALREADY paying for that at the state level. It's ALREADY factored into our state taxes. We're ALREADY PAYING THE BILL to insure everybody. The only difference is that now we're paying 2, 3x as much for an emergency room visit than we would if we put these people on a gov't health plan and let them see a doctor in an office visit.
5. You CANNOT simply compare healthcare spending in America versus spending in Canada. It's not that simple. Even as a calculation of GDP. You failed to miss the most important part of what I wrote about this: American companies are uncompetive against foregin companies that don't have that same burden. How much more wealth would be in the pockets of American corporations, their investors, and their employees, if we allowed them to compete w/ Foreign companies on a level playing field?
In summary, your reply to my post is LAUGHABLE. Over and over you made it appear that you were addressing a point, but in reality took an entirely different tangent. You used anecdote and absurd assumptions like people think gov't healthcare would be "free."
You show a complete lack of understanding of the way healthcare and the freemarket currently work in this country. Your arguments are not well thought out and not well articulated.
If you're able to reply with FACTS and not more of this CHILDISH CONJECTURE, I may, perhaps be willing to have a discussion with you. But otherwise, this is it. My 2 posts on this subject speak for themselves and anybody reading this will clearly be able to see and verify the facts of what I've written. They stand on their own two feet very well. Yours, on the other hand, read more like a piece in The Onion...
Subsection A, Paragraph B clearly states that boat analogies must be used in lieu of car analogies on all Microsoft vs. OSS stories. We just don't have the technology to construct a metaphorical car powerful enough to overcome the figurative bullshit.
Wow... so much stupidity.. so little time....
1. First of all, the countries you're talking about -- Canada, UK, etc -- have a SINGLE PROVIDER system. That is, there is a single provider of healthcare coverage, in the form of Gov't run hospitals and clinics, and you go to them if you want free care. (Yes, in the UK there are private clinics and hospitals, but only for those that can pay cash)
Nobody has EVER suggested that the US be a SINGLE PROVIDER system. The idea has always been a SINGLE PAYER system. That means private enterprise still is responsible for delivering services. The difference is at the "insurance" level. Some plans call for the elimination of insurance companies, with Medicare expanding to cover everybody. Other plans call for the existing insurance companies to stay in place, the only diff. being that instead of your employer paying the premiums, the government will pay them.
BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SINGLE PROVIDER AND SINGLE PAYER.
2. The history of employer-funded heathcare in this country is not exactly an idea endowed from our founding fathers. It's only been postwar--since the 1950s-- that the tax code was changed to reward companies for paying premiums. This made a LOT more sense in the days of career employment than it does today.
3. The GOP--during their 7 years of hegemony--had a great idea: Since the freemarket is supposed to bear fruits of efficiency, why don't they take the amount they're currently paying for some people on medicare, and, instead, give 95% of that amount to a private insurer, giving the citizen that would usually have Medicare actual private insurance that's paid for by the gov't at a rate cheaper than Medicare would otherwise pay.
Their idea was that if their theory held, the private companies could deliver services cheaper than Medicare itself can, which would allow them to expand this program to EVERYONE. Furthermore, they thought that it would be so efficient that they could even cover things that Meicare can't, like dentures and such.
Do you know what happened? Months into the program, they couldn't find hardly any insurers willing to insure these people at a cost of 95% of Medicare costs for that same person. So the congress upped it. First to 100%, then to more than 100%. That is, they were paying private insurers more to take care of a person that was previously on Medicarae than it was costing Medicare itself to take care of that person. Again, they felt that SURELY the freemaket would delvier, if only they gave it chance.
It didn't.
The Medicare Advantage program FLOPPED.
At the end of the day, the "Free Market" just couldn't deliver services cheaper than Medicare itself could.
4. The amount people pay for healthcare cannot be simply compared to Canada or anywhere else because so much of the cost is paid by employers. How much more competitive would our corporations be without this burden? Practically none of their overseas competitors carry those costs. How do you quantify that? How much more wealth would there be in the pockets of Ameircan employees and investors if our corporations were relieved of this singulary burden? How much higher would your wages be?
5. At the end of the day, we're ALREADY PAYING FOR EVERYONE TO GET HEALTHCARE. Anybody, no matter how destitute, can walk into your county general hospital and get care, and the bill is footed by the state. So you're ALREADY PAYING. Except, instead of treating the infection when it starts, at a cost of, say, $200, you're treating it after it's spread to the whole arm and requires an amputation at the cost of $10,000. Etc.
And no matter how much you dislike that fact, THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION. Because if you just stopped treating people that didn't have coverage, disease would fester. A true sub-class would emerge with ghettos full of truly sick people. It would be the 19th century all over again.
So let's ACKNOWLEDGE that we're ALREADY PAYING FOR THIS and let's focus on preventive care and early treatment that w
No need. That's already covered in the iTunes EULA.
You DID read the EULA, right?
Uhh... Yes....
The basic requests that Google, ebay, etc made were:
1. Users can use any device to access the network
2. Users can run any software they'd like to run
3. The network interconnects with the internet
4. The network operators lease bandwidth to 3rd party companies
The draft proposal that the FCC chief published (and that AT&T just agreed with) protects the first 2 of those rules, but not the last 2.
The impetus for Google to front this money was the Telecoms lobbying the FCC with the argument that requiring openness will reduce the value of the spectrum and thus reduce the Governments take. By fronting this money, Google negates that argument. They'll only bid if these rules are established, and the Gov't will almost certainly make more money with Google bidding than with them sitting out.
Suddenly the FCC is left with very little reason to oppose openness. This, in my opinion, removes the political cover that he'd need. It's a game changer and a genius play by Google.
Because _I THOUGHT_ the joke was regarding the fact that it's a FREE SERVICE and a check for a FULL REFUND would literally not be worth the paper it's written on.
Your post is late, under-delivered, and does nothing but copy those who've come before you.
Yep, you're certainly qualified to write about Vista!
Since your belief is that misinformation should be modded down, then you should be petitioning moderators to knock YOUR post back to 1, shouldn't you?
The congress hasn't given a DIME to telcos to roll-out fiber. Some STATE governments have, but not federally. So if STATES want to regulate how their money is spent, fine, but the Feds should stay out of it unless they want to give a NATIONAL rebate to these companies.
And as for all this "The gov't paid to roll out copper." As far as I know, nobody has been paid taxpayer dollars to roll out copper since THE GREAT DEPRESSION. True, they did roll out some ridiculous amount--like 100,000 miles---but do you think those lines are still in use? (<snicker>maybe by bellsouth</snicker>).
The copper networks were opened up for competition in 1996 but that was a whole different world compared to today. In 1996, for 2-way communication, the copper network was the only game in town. That's just not the case today. Cellular, Wireless and Cable both now compete with the copper networks.
I look forward to your denouncement of your own post!
Cheers!
1. Public-Funded copper? Huh? The copper wasn't run with public money. It was run by Verizon and its corporate ancestors. It was, however, heavily regulated as public infrastructure, and rightly so, but that regulation didn't occur until well AFTER the hundreds of millions (billions?) spent running the stuff.
2. Monopoly pricing is not "always ridiculously high." You're wrong about that. It CAN BE, but it's not "always." Such a statement is silly to even try to make. You have to prove that every monopoly price-gouges for your statement to be correct. I only have to demonstrate a single one that doesn't to prove you wrong. Here you go: USPS. It's a public company, and it still has a monopoly on letter carrying. DHL/FedEx/Etc cannot compete in that segment. Here's another: Amtrak.
3. Your stupidity about this astounds me. It's just this simple: If we put copper-esque regs on Fiber at this point, NO FIBER WILL BE RUN. It would be a disservice to the shareholders of Verizon to spend BILLIONS to roll out fiber networks that its competitors can immediately use "against" them. This would be the stupidest move imaginable for a corporation. You either need a gov't subsidy to build the network, or you need to give Verizon say 5, 10 years to run the network exclusively to recoup their costs, much like the patent period on a new drug.
And about that -- I'm not a fan of the effects of pharma patents, but the same business case is true: For a company to invest that kind of $ it needs some incentive. I'm a fan of the John Edwards proposal to eliminate pharma patents and, in their place, give companies a cash reward for new drugs.
It's really simple, folks: If you want PRIVATE CORPORATIONS to develop for the PUBLIC DOMAIN, you need to either give them fair financial incentives. This can come in the form of exclusivity or a public "bounty" or whatever. But it's JUST NOT RIGHT to ask a PRIVATE ENTITY to spend its own money only to have their PRIVATE ASSETS socialized for the benefit of the people. This is EXACTLY THE SAME as the government forcing you to open your home to, say, quartered troops, or forcing you to feed any homeless people in your neighborhood or forcing you to let the poor couple down the street borrow your new car for a couple hours a week. A corporation is a private entity, just like you and your household. It's easy to demonize corporations--ESPECIALLY VERIZON--but you can't just make laws that apply to "bad" corps and not "good" corps.
This is about private property rights.
As much as I understand that regulation is sometimes necessary to keep a level playing field, it's no myth that regulation is also a barrier to free markets and the general principle of Capitalism.
Which is why any heavy regulations of Fiber at this point in time would almost certainly have the effect of stunting growth of fiber networks. These companies are spending billions. To invest that kind of cash you need to see a tempting ROI, which just won't happen if you saddle it with regulations.
If we want Fiber networks to be public infrastructure, then we need to pay for it with public monies. Regulate it, fine, but give them gigantic tax incentives to actually run the stuff.
I'll probably be modded down, or have some slashdotter call me a faciest right winger who is trying to protect TheEnemy. I don't care. In all honesty I'm probably one of the biggest supporters of Liberalism and the democratic party you've ever spoken to. But I also have a BS in Economics and this is economics 101.
Mod me down, fine, but I'm right. He definitely did exist. But whether or not he's the son of god, well, that's a matter of faith.
Actually, many historians agree that a Jesus of Nazereth did, indeed, exist. He's on roman tax rolls. You might remember that jesus was born in a manger because Mary and Joseph had to travel to Josephs hometown in order to be included in the first Roman census of the holy lands.
Actually, it sucked for me!
I filled out the web form at 5:30P after work. I grabbed my Cingular phone and left the house. Twenty Five minutes later I go to make a call - "SIM Not Registered" (or some such message). I was unable to stop back home and get my new phone--which was still charging anyway--and was without service the whole night.
T-Mobile does offer an attractive prepay plan. If you haven't looked at it, check out Alltel's plan as well. It's unique the way they do it.
I like Net10 because it uses the same network I was using (it uses Cingulars network) and it's always 10 cents a minute, no matter how big of a reload card you buy. The only downside is that it has no way to buy free nights & weekends. It also has a very attractive text message price of 5 cents a message. (Compare to Cingulars 15 cents and VZW's 25 cents)
I'd check it out, at least, if I were you. It's not a brand-name carrier, but it does have its advantages.
The only reason I brought it up is that I just did it. i ported my Cingular gophone number to Net10. Here was the process:
1. Buy a Net10 Phone. Put the SIM in.
2. Go to the Net10 website. Go to "Port Number" Enter in my number, my provider, my IMEI/SIM number from my new phone
3. Sumbit web form
4. Wait 30 minutes.
5. Use new phone.
Just that simple. Even I was surprised.
And if you're looking at prepaid plans: I had Verizon, Cingular, and now Net10. Net10 is the cheapest for me. It'll probably be the cheapest for you, too, unless you make MOST your calls in off-peak hours, in which you'd benefit from Cingular Pick Your Plan which included free nights & weekends.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but i just have to ask one more question:
Didn't you even read the Wiki article you linked to? The table at the top of the page showing the fractional banking scenario explains it pretty clearly. The last line of the table reads:
Action | Assets | Liabilites | Reserves
Customer C deposits 49 paper dollars | IOUs worth $119 | $219 in interest-bearing deposits | 100 paper dollars
You see that? $219 in interest bearing deposits. That's how much was deposited as REAL MONEY into the bank.
Now, look at assets. If your "magic'd" theory was correct, assets would be > than deposits. They're not. The banks assets are $119 in IOUs and $100 in reserves. $219.
How is this not mind numbingly simple for you?
Yes, some of the "deposits" came from, for example, Customer-C who was loaned the money, technically speaking, from the deposit from Customer-A. But THAT DOESN'T MATTER because the ASSET that covers that $49 is the value of the IOU from Customer-C. Your problem just occured to me: You don't, for whatever reason, count promissory notes as assets. Well, they are. Now go run the math again and you'll be a lot more comfortable that voodoo magic isn't being performed at the local Bank of America...