$27,000 is pretty steep. If you could scale something down so you could say, dispose of household greenwaste through it and generate power to feed the grid for a few hours a week, you'd really be on to something. Though this is in a big part because I've always dreamed of having my trash go straight to an incinerator...
The staffers being forced onto the ACA is functionally equivalent to being employed by an employed who doesn't provide health insurance. Staffers do not earn the big bucks, so they would normally qualify for the subsidy as well.
Some teaper later realized it would be kind of bad if they ended up saving money on this and it all worked out ok, and that couldn't be, so clearly they had to special exemption all the staffers from the ACA subsidies they would be entitled to at any other employer.
In the process killing a whole bunch of people who were never given the chance to know better, and also endangering a whole bunch of other people who for whatever reason aren't as responsive to the vaccination.
"Everyone dies" isn't the solution any moral person should accept.
No, no one is forcing anyone. But they are giving them very bad advice.
You're also applying probabilities badly.
The probability of complications in a pregnancy might be very low. But what matters is the probability of negative outcomes once you have a complication.
Home birthing is already biased against problems because generally people are advised not to do it, people who are likely to have complications are strongly advised not to do it. But all that is ignoring the actual, pertinent issue: if something goes wrong what have you changed about the ability to respond to it?
The types of risks we don't worry about are the ones where if they are realized we can do very little about normally. Everything else, we take every step possible to manage how we'll react to a problem when it happens, not if it happens.
In Australia we tax cigarettes and alcohol steeply, and there's moves to tax high sugar products for exactly this reason.
Are you f*cking serious? Do you actually think that the obesity epidemic in Australia is going to be addressed by "taxing high sugar products"?
No I think it will bring in revenue which can be used to offset costs to the healthcare system incurred from obesity.
To your other point, you listed a whole bunch of enormously expensive procedures and then said "but who decides!?" Well apparently it was decided by your own personal finances, since your limited coverage definitely won't pay for any of those things - if it pays for anything at all, since the insurance company's first action when you make a claim is going to be to try and deny and drop you.
At what level of coverage? Does everybody get the latest stem cell therapy? Cancer treatments that have a 1:10 chance of working? Robotic replacement limbs? Who decides who gets what? Why should I be forced to pay for insurance that I neither want nor need? Why shouldn't you be forced to pay extra if you are obese or smoke?
In Australia we tax cigarettes and alcohol steeply, and there's moves to tax high sugar products for exactly this reason.
And you do realize that "who decides" is currently decided by your insurance company? Which, with a single payer system, will still exist but needs to offer a lot more service then they do currently to compete. In Australia, private insurers advertise on the basis of being able to cut your waiting time for an elective procedure, get a nicer hospital bed, or coverage for things which are assessed as untenable or unproven by the public system (our big blindspot is dental, and you can usually get a better selection of optics under coverage).
Funnily enough, if something severe happens to you though, you usually want to go into the public system anyway since the surgeons and doctors get more experience treating complicated cases then people who are solely private (also just more experience overall).
Of course the other thing is, notably, our public system does frequently pay for cutting-edge treatments for people who need them - the research is publicly funded, the patients have to be very specifically chosen, and usually viable candidates need to relocated to somewhere it can happen. The latest stem cell therapy isn't something you can usually buy anyway, and you specifically definitely can't afford it.
Chickenpox is rarely fatal, although it is generally more severe in adult males than in adult females or children. Non-immune pregnant women and those with a suppressed immune system are at highest risk of serious complications. Chickenpox is believed to be the cause of one third of stroke cases in children.[13] The most common late complication of chickenpox is shingles (herpes zoster), caused by reactivation of the varicella zoster virus decades after the initial episode of chickenpox.
Or to summarise, it's bad for some people. Particularly pregnant people, and people with immunodeficiency disorders (such as AIDS).
This will also include anyone who has an organ transplant (immunosuppressants for the rest of their life), or is presently being treated for cancer by virtually any means.
I think you will find that more people die from the preventable disease than die from the vaccine.
Depends on how you define "death" when there are no more cures developed anymore, and patients are left with only expensive treatments that are designed to be never-ending to ensure maximum profits.
Financial death can be sometimes worse than physical death. You may stop beating your Modern Medicine drum. No one gives a fuck when they can't afford to take advantage of it.
Yeah America should really get on and implement an Australian style public health system. Or...well pretty much anywhere in the modern world except America really. But I like our one.
Also because people in a position of power over others will use that power to also put them at risk - i.e. parents not vaccinating a child, as is the case here.
And then of course, because you can't trust anti-vaxxers to actually act sensibly - like say, not form groups and meet up with other anti-vaxxers.
Also because if a group of people does become unimmunized, they're unlikely to geographically dispersed such that herd immunity will be effective. In fact, schools and other social events concentrate vulnerable pretty easily contagious groups (like children) so you need a lot of dispersal in order for it to work. The recent case with the American megachurch is going to be the textbook example here.
It's also possible for immunized people to contract much less severe forms of a disease (you can still get measles if you're immunized - but it's a lot less severe). So an unimmunized person can contract a serious illness from someone who may not even realize what they have because it's scarcely symptomatic.
Which is all totally relevant when you're planning government policy and totally irrelevant when you find out you're in the less lucky percentiles where something could've been prevented.
No, when things happen in a hospital you are proximal to modern civilizations concentration of knowledge and applied technology which has made the single biggest difference to human health outcomes ever.
When you are not proximal, if something goes wrong, you're about 15 minutes away under ideal conditions. Too bad brain death can occur in 3 minutes.
And you're not including other factors - the hospital doesn't call the on-call ob-gyn's until they know there's a problem. Home births take an infrequent event (giving birth) and for no reason decide to bias the odds against the survival of the women and fetus.
If you have the vaccine you can still get the measles, but you get a milder form of it which does not have the same effects. I was vaccinated and did get a mild form in primary school.
Before the widespread use of a vaccine against measles, its incidence was so high that infection with measles was felt to be "as inevitable as death and taxes."[3] Today, the incidence of measles has fallen to less than 1% of people under the age of 30 in countries with routine childhood vaccination....
The benefit of measles vaccination in preventing illness, disability, and death has been well documented. The first 20 years of licensed measles vaccination in the U.S. prevented an estimated 52 million cases of the disease, 17,400 cases of mental retardation, and 5,200 deaths....
During 1999–2004, a strategy led by the World Health Organization and UNICEF led to improvements in measles vaccination coverage that averted an estimated 1.4 million measles deaths worldwide.
I like that your concerned enough to ask the question as though its unanswered, but not concerned enough to actually spend 2 minutes to lookup wikipedia.
I've also found how much it hurts depends entirely on how much the person holding the syringe controls lateral movement - for me, the actual puncture is exceptionally mild, but what starts to ramp up the pain is the needle being flexed side to side.
Some nurses for blood donation are good about this, others seem to think that once the needle is in they really don't need to pay too much attention while taping that long spool of flexible plastic tubing in place.
The Taliban in Pakistan aren't at the negotiating table trying to get the drone attacks stopped because it's ineffective. They're their because, if you're a Taliban leader, you never know when you're about to be killed by a drone strike - and that kind of takes the edge of all the perks of being a warlord when you get promoted while they're still looking for the last guys smoking boots.
Frankly, the idea that the US would be less hated if they showed up in person with soldiers to kill people is just propaganda from the other side. The US is hated because they're killing a bunch of civilians when they carry out drone strikes. They'd be just as hated if they did it with tanks or commandos.
Or you know, they run out of fuel after a day and shutdown.
We've been firing hundreds of autonomous robots to kill things for a long time now - they're called missiles. Sometimes we also drop them, then we call them smart bombs.
The benefit of SteamOS is, strictly speaking they should be able to ship it as a bootable DVD/Blu-Ray that loads the OS and game, or runs straight off a USB key.
You don't have to heat shield things. If you're just recovering raw material and you have a lot of it, you can just write-off the mass you lose on re-entry as a cost of recovery.
We've never been able to survive on our own in the advent of a catastrophe. If you were a subsistence farmer in Europe, and there was an extended drought your crops failed and you died. Extended winter? Your stores failed and you died. Had slightly impacted wisdom teeth? You got a massive dental infection and you died. A foreigner accidentally tracks a new species of weed onto your farm that's poisonous? You either have to kill it off aggressively, or experimentally eat it - and well, you died.
This is rugged individualism fiction of a uniquely American kind. Human history takes a dim view individualism and had a way of dealing with: you died.
The appeal of Facebook is usually that you can have not real interactions with family. In fact you can cleverly avoid having any at all. Feature, not a bug.
In talking to Americans, the thing you have to keep in mind is they have no concept of what "waiting times" means. They think of it like it is to them - you need heart surgery, but you don't have enough money, so instead you die.
Whereas to anyone from any other developed country, waiting times are about "elective" procedures (some argument over that definition), you always have the option to pay privately for immediate treatment, and are "long" precisely because anyone with an emergency or life-threatening condition gets rushed to the front of the queue.
Yeah it's a good thing the actual plans aren't due to be purchaseable for another 3 months. It's almost like they'll fix the bugs by then and this is mostly a huge beat up for people who, given their way, would've ensured this website never existed at all.
It's not constructive criticism when you're actually just opposed to the whole enterprise.
Unfortunately the only president on the Republican side they care to compare to anymore is fictionalized Reagan, and it's a little hard to compare policy ideas and implementation to a dead guy who was in office 4 decades ago when the internet wasn't invented in any serious way.
Slashdot Mirror
$27,000 is pretty steep. If you could scale something down so you could say, dispose of household greenwaste through it and generate power to feed the grid for a few hours a week, you'd really be on to something. Though this is in a big part because I've always dreamed of having my trash go straight to an incinerator...
The staffers being forced onto the ACA is functionally equivalent to being employed by an employed who doesn't provide health insurance. Staffers do not earn the big bucks, so they would normally qualify for the subsidy as well.
Some teaper later realized it would be kind of bad if they ended up saving money on this and it all worked out ok, and that couldn't be, so clearly they had to special exemption all the staffers from the ACA subsidies they would be entitled to at any other employer.
In the process killing a whole bunch of people who were never given the chance to know better, and also endangering a whole bunch of other people who for whatever reason aren't as responsive to the vaccination.
"Everyone dies" isn't the solution any moral person should accept.
No, no one is forcing anyone. But they are giving them very bad advice.
You're also applying probabilities badly.
The probability of complications in a pregnancy might be very low. But what matters is the probability of negative outcomes once you have a complication.
Home birthing is already biased against problems because generally people are advised not to do it, people who are likely to have complications are strongly advised not to do it. But all that is ignoring the actual, pertinent issue: if something goes wrong what have you changed about the ability to respond to it?
The types of risks we don't worry about are the ones where if they are realized we can do very little about normally. Everything else, we take every step possible to manage how we'll react to a problem when it happens, not if it happens.
Are you f*cking serious? Do you actually think that the obesity epidemic in Australia is going to be addressed by "taxing high sugar products"?
No I think it will bring in revenue which can be used to offset costs to the healthcare system incurred from obesity.
To your other point, you listed a whole bunch of enormously expensive procedures and then said "but who decides!?" Well apparently it was decided by your own personal finances, since your limited coverage definitely won't pay for any of those things - if it pays for anything at all, since the insurance company's first action when you make a claim is going to be to try and deny and drop you.
John Green (of Crash Course fame) did a pretty good video on this.
>
At what level of coverage? Does everybody get the latest stem cell therapy? Cancer treatments that have a 1:10 chance of working? Robotic replacement limbs? Who decides who gets what? Why should I be forced to pay for insurance that I neither want nor need? Why shouldn't you be forced to pay extra if you are obese or smoke?
In Australia we tax cigarettes and alcohol steeply, and there's moves to tax high sugar products for exactly this reason.
And you do realize that "who decides" is currently decided by your insurance company? Which, with a single payer system, will still exist but needs to offer a lot more service then they do currently to compete. In Australia, private insurers advertise on the basis of being able to cut your waiting time for an elective procedure, get a nicer hospital bed, or coverage for things which are assessed as untenable or unproven by the public system (our big blindspot is dental, and you can usually get a better selection of optics under coverage).
Funnily enough, if something severe happens to you though, you usually want to go into the public system anyway since the surgeons and doctors get more experience treating complicated cases then people who are solely private (also just more experience overall).
Of course the other thing is, notably, our public system does frequently pay for cutting-edge treatments for people who need them - the research is publicly funded, the patients have to be very specifically chosen, and usually viable candidates need to relocated to somewhere it can happen. The latest stem cell therapy isn't something you can usually buy anyway, and you specifically definitely can't afford it.
Quoth Wikipedia:
Chickenpox is rarely fatal, although it is generally more severe in adult males than in adult females or children. Non-immune pregnant women and those with a suppressed immune system are at highest risk of serious complications. Chickenpox is believed to be the cause of one third of stroke cases in children.[13] The most common late complication of chickenpox is shingles (herpes zoster), caused by reactivation of the varicella zoster virus decades after the initial episode of chickenpox.
Or to summarise, it's bad for some people. Particularly pregnant people, and people with immunodeficiency disorders (such as AIDS).
This will also include anyone who has an organ transplant (immunosuppressants for the rest of their life), or is presently being treated for cancer by virtually any means.
Yeah its a good thing that's the only way it spreads oh wai...
I think you will find that more people die from the preventable disease than die from the vaccine.
Depends on how you define "death" when there are no more cures developed anymore, and patients are left with only expensive treatments that are designed to be never-ending to ensure maximum profits.
Financial death can be sometimes worse than physical death. You may stop beating your Modern Medicine drum. No one gives a fuck when they can't afford to take advantage of it.
Yeah America should really get on and implement an Australian style public health system. Or...well pretty much anywhere in the modern world except America really. But I like our one.
Also because people in a position of power over others will use that power to also put them at risk - i.e. parents not vaccinating a child, as is the case here.
And then of course, because you can't trust anti-vaxxers to actually act sensibly - like say, not form groups and meet up with other anti-vaxxers.
Also because if a group of people does become unimmunized, they're unlikely to geographically dispersed such that herd immunity will be effective. In fact, schools and other social events concentrate vulnerable pretty easily contagious groups (like children) so you need a lot of dispersal in order for it to work. The recent case with the American megachurch is going to be the textbook example here.
It's also possible for immunized people to contract much less severe forms of a disease (you can still get measles if you're immunized - but it's a lot less severe). So an unimmunized person can contract a serious illness from someone who may not even realize what they have because it's scarcely symptomatic.
Which is all totally relevant when you're planning government policy and totally irrelevant when you find out you're in the less lucky percentiles where something could've been prevented.
No, when things happen in a hospital you are proximal to modern civilizations concentration of knowledge and applied technology which has made the single biggest difference to human health outcomes ever.
When you are not proximal, if something goes wrong, you're about 15 minutes away under ideal conditions. Too bad brain death can occur in 3 minutes.
And you're not including other factors - the hospital doesn't call the on-call ob-gyn's until they know there's a problem. Home births take an infrequent event (giving birth) and for no reason decide to bias the odds against the survival of the women and fetus.
If you have the vaccine you can still get the measles, but you get a milder form of it which does not have the same effects. I was vaccinated and did get a mild form in primary school.
Before the widespread use of a vaccine against measles, its incidence was so high that infection with measles was felt to be "as inevitable as death and taxes."[3] Today, the incidence of measles has fallen to less than 1% of people under the age of 30 in countries with routine childhood vaccination. ...
The benefit of measles vaccination in preventing illness, disability, and death has been well documented. The first 20 years of licensed measles vaccination in the U.S. prevented an estimated 52 million cases of the disease, 17,400 cases of mental retardation, and 5,200 deaths. ...
During 1999–2004, a strategy led by the World Health Organization and UNICEF led to improvements in measles vaccination coverage that averted an estimated 1.4 million measles deaths worldwide.
I like that your concerned enough to ask the question as though its unanswered, but not concerned enough to actually spend 2 minutes to lookup wikipedia.
I've also found how much it hurts depends entirely on how much the person holding the syringe controls lateral movement - for me, the actual puncture is exceptionally mild, but what starts to ramp up the pain is the needle being flexed side to side.
Some nurses for blood donation are good about this, others seem to think that once the needle is in they really don't need to pay too much attention while taping that long spool of flexible plastic tubing in place.
The Taliban in Pakistan aren't at the negotiating table trying to get the drone attacks stopped because it's ineffective. They're their because, if you're a Taliban leader, you never know when you're about to be killed by a drone strike - and that kind of takes the edge of all the perks of being a warlord when you get promoted while they're still looking for the last guys smoking boots.
Frankly, the idea that the US would be less hated if they showed up in person with soldiers to kill people is just propaganda from the other side. The US is hated because they're killing a bunch of civilians when they carry out drone strikes. They'd be just as hated if they did it with tanks or commandos.
Or you know, they run out of fuel after a day and shutdown.
We've been firing hundreds of autonomous robots to kill things for a long time now - they're called missiles. Sometimes we also drop them, then we call them smart bombs.
The benefit of SteamOS is, strictly speaking they should be able to ship it as a bootable DVD/Blu-Ray that loads the OS and game, or runs straight off a USB key.
You don't have to heat shield things. If you're just recovering raw material and you have a lot of it, you can just write-off the mass you lose on re-entry as a cost of recovery.
We've never been able to survive on our own in the advent of a catastrophe. If you were a subsistence farmer in Europe, and there was an extended drought your crops failed and you died. Extended winter? Your stores failed and you died. Had slightly impacted wisdom teeth? You got a massive dental infection and you died. A foreigner accidentally tracks a new species of weed onto your farm that's poisonous? You either have to kill it off aggressively, or experimentally eat it - and well, you died.
This is rugged individualism fiction of a uniquely American kind. Human history takes a dim view individualism and had a way of dealing with: you died.
The appeal of Facebook is usually that you can have not real interactions with family. In fact you can cleverly avoid having any at all. Feature, not a bug.
In talking to Americans, the thing you have to keep in mind is they have no concept of what "waiting times" means. They think of it like it is to them - you need heart surgery, but you don't have enough money, so instead you die.
Whereas to anyone from any other developed country, waiting times are about "elective" procedures (some argument over that definition), you always have the option to pay privately for immediate treatment, and are "long" precisely because anyone with an emergency or life-threatening condition gets rushed to the front of the queue.
Yeah it's a good thing the actual plans aren't due to be purchaseable for another 3 months. It's almost like they'll fix the bugs by then and this is mostly a huge beat up for people who, given their way, would've ensured this website never existed at all.
It's not constructive criticism when you're actually just opposed to the whole enterprise.
Unfortunately the only president on the Republican side they care to compare to anymore is fictionalized Reagan, and it's a little hard to compare policy ideas and implementation to a dead guy who was in office 4 decades ago when the internet wasn't invented in any serious way.