Except everyone understands that when they say "impossible" they mean "without rewriting the whole thing". Especially since straight after saying impossible they have some examples of how it could be done to show that it wasn't a simple "so compile it for XP" job.
But I agree it's silly to use the word "impossible" when you don't actually mean "impossible" - you just mean "too expensive to be feasible". Just like I shouldn't say it's "impossible for me to perform brain surgery" when really "it's too expensive and time consuming for me to drop everything and do 12 years of medical school in order to perform that brain surgery you want".
What percentage of those politicians are democrats? Given they have a majority in both houses, you would expect them to be getting >50% of the contributions even if the contributions were completely neutral...
Except that we aren't talking about some generic pension plan. We are talking about Social Security as implemented in the US.
A system in which on average a person's lifetime collections are higher than their lifetime contributions plus the investment gain from loaning that cash to the federal government. On average for current life expectancies. And of course holding some IOUs from the federal government really isn't the safe investment it once was (though it still pays returns like it is)...
Surely needs based would consider current income and wealth levels.
The current system in which people receive benefits no matter what is simply stupid (though it is how the scheme was marketed and presented).
People with million dollar incomes and assets collect their $2k each month while still working (a certain Republican presidential candidate for example) is indicative of broken system.
Sure if people actually contributed what they put in (plus investment returns) and the government didn't force the investment to be made int he form of loaning the money to the government to spend it might work...
The lien holder is enforcing a private contract, it's not a legal requirement. And I can avoid it by borrowing from them to buy the thing in the first place.
I have no problem with universal health care, I'm just from a non-retarded country and hence realize that "insurance" (that is fundamentally different from insurance) is a stupid way to go about it. And destined to do as well as fannie mae and freddie mac did for the american housing market.
Except it doesn't protect them. Since the only people who don't have health insurance are those who can't afford it, or are rich enough that they will payt their bills anyway (or are crazy, but that's a reasonably small group).
They still can't afford it, and making it illegal for them not to doesn't change that.
Hence either there will still be uninsured people, or insurance companies will be forced to insure those that can't pay enough to be a good insurance candidate and hence we'll all pay to bail out the insurance companies.
If you want universal health care, then implement universal health care. Forcing universal insurance is a different beast, a less efficient beast, and one that's doomed to fail because it is trying to use insurance to cover something that doesn't fit the model.
Now, I haven't looked at what they have passed (since it still has a way to go, so I'm not going to bother yet). But if it is like some of the proposals I heard then I'll be dropping my health insurance, and putting the $12,000 I pay each year to an insurance company in my pocket and paying the $3-4000 fine. Then if I get leukemia, I'll buy insurance then, since they can't refuse me for that preexisting condition and go back to paying the $12,000 a year when my bills far outweigh that.
So my health costs have just shifted more on society and less on me. And I have an incentive to not bother with the cheaper earlier intervention through check-ups and so on. What a great plan!
Which is completely irrelevant to the legally requiredness of auto insurance, which is the only thing I mentioned.
There are hundreds of other posts actually about health care and not whether the it's the same model as car insurance. Why not post your preformulated and irrelevant (to this post) rant as replies to one of them?
What does any of that have to do with the simple fact that legally required car insurance does not cover damages to yourself and your own property but instead covers damages to other people and other people's property.
And in that way is fundamentally distinct from making health insurance legally required?
Should we also make car insurance against theft legally required? After all if you can't get to work, you are doing to be someone elses problem.
It's irrelevant that good preventative and diagnostic health care pays for itself in the long term. Since you can do that without making paying huge gobs of money to health insurance companies a legal requirement. Basically every other country in the developed world manages to after all.
But that isn't what health insurance covers. If I get the flu and pass it to someone else, my health insurance does not pay for their health costs related to that.
That's precisely the situation that makes insurance an unsuitable scheme for health care.
Well, the way insurance is done in the US anyway. Paying a monthly premium and the insurance company pays for your health care costs for that month. If you must have an insurance model then it needs to be a life insurance like setup - you pay your monthly premiums and if you happen to get cancer the insurance pays out for your medical expenses related to that without requiring anymore payments. A lump sum payout essentially - though maybe done as medical expense payments over time.
And of course what happens when the insurer you chose goes bankrupt?
Insurance to cover basic health care is just a dumb model. No amount of tweaking is going to fix it.
Fire insurance has nothing to do with fire brigades (anymore anyway). It is insurance that will reimburse you for your lost possessions (both those in the building and the building itself), nothing at all to do with actually putting the fire out or stopping it spreading to the house next door.
If you make the rather large assumption that health care reforms is the only thing people considered when choosing whom to vote for.
Because no one has ever voted for someone because they agree with some of what they say they'll do but not all of it. Or voted for someone because they disagreed less with what they wanted to do than what the other guy wanted to do - even though they don't want either set of plans.
Do you not know what "most" means? DO you know what "insurance" means?
Of course you shouldn't be able to get insurance for a pre-existing condition. What sort of retard would let someone whose house was on fire buy fire insurance, or who was about to have the life support machine turned off buy life insurance?
Government provided health care for the public is fine and reasonable (though in the US there's that consitution thing which should be stopping the Federal Government from doing so - the states can of course) but why lie and call it "insurance". Is that trying to pretend it's "free market" and all that crap? If so it really isn't tricking anyone who actually cares about free markets...
I'm from a country with a working public health system (though I'm a US resident now). Rock up to a hospital, get treated, leave without receiving a bill. Rock up to the doctors, get treated, sometimes leave without getting a bill other times pay the bill and get reimbursed. If you want more/better/different health care then either be rich or buy health insurance.
I have no problem with a system like that, but it obviously isn't "health insurance" and calling it such means you are either a complete moron or trying to deceive me. And both cases are not the person whose ideas I'm going to take seriously.
that people spend $50 to buy a video game for their xbox?
Or spend $400 for a ticket to watch a UFC fight.
Or go to Vegas and spend money to play roulette.
He might (and I do) find the idea boring as all hell, but other people find it fun (maybe the activity itself, maybe the "beating" other people to something part, maybe the socialization that comes from a common activity, etc).
You don't want to implement your hardware acceleration differently, that's the whole point - the windows XP version would require more development effort and the benefits don't outweigh the costs.
Sure they could implement IE9 using only things available on XP, but clearly they want to use the new stuff.
Should they make IE 9 work on Windows 3.1 too? MS DOS 4.0?
Slashdot Mirror
Except if person A contributed some code and then at some other point person B cut-n-pasted that code into some other part of the code base.
Except everyone understands that when they say "impossible" they mean "without rewriting the whole thing". Especially since straight after saying impossible they have some examples of how it could be done to show that it wasn't a simple "so compile it for XP" job.
But I agree it's silly to use the word "impossible" when you don't actually mean "impossible" - you just mean "too expensive to be feasible". Just like I shouldn't say it's "impossible for me to perform brain surgery" when really "it's too expensive and time consuming for me to drop everything and do 12 years of medical school in order to perform that brain surgery you want".
What percentage of those politicians are democrats? Given they have a majority in both houses, you would expect them to be getting >50% of the contributions even if the contributions were completely neutral...
Except that we aren't talking about some generic pension plan. We are talking about Social Security as implemented in the US.
A system in which on average a person's lifetime collections are higher than their lifetime contributions plus the investment gain from loaning that cash to the federal government. On average for current life expectancies. And of course holding some IOUs from the federal government really isn't the safe investment it once was (though it still pays returns like it is)...
Why would lifetime earnings matter?
Surely needs based would consider current income and wealth levels.
The current system in which people receive benefits no matter what is simply stupid (though it is how the scheme was marketed and presented).
People with million dollar incomes and assets collect their $2k each month while still working (a certain Republican presidential candidate for example) is indicative of broken system.
Sure if people actually contributed what they put in (plus investment returns) and the government didn't force the investment to be made int he form of loaning the money to the government to spend it might work...
Sure a 2000 page novel is simple.
How do you fare against at a 2000 page diff against a 25000 page source document?
And written by committee with no consideration of ease of reading, in fact with the opposite consideration.
The lien holder is enforcing a private contract, it's not a legal requirement. And I can avoid it by borrowing from them to buy the thing in the first place.
I have no problem with universal health care, I'm just from a non-retarded country and hence realize that "insurance" (that is fundamentally different from insurance) is a stupid way to go about it. And destined to do as well as fannie mae and freddie mac did for the american housing market.
Except I already have health insurance, and parts of this plan actually create an incentive for me to cancel it and just pay the tiny fine.
Except it doesn't protect them. Since the only people who don't have health insurance are those who can't afford it, or are rich enough that they will payt their bills anyway (or are crazy, but that's a reasonably small group).
They still can't afford it, and making it illegal for them not to doesn't change that.
Hence either there will still be uninsured people, or insurance companies will be forced to insure those that can't pay enough to be a good insurance candidate and hence we'll all pay to bail out the insurance companies.
If you want universal health care, then implement universal health care. Forcing universal insurance is a different beast, a less efficient beast, and one that's doomed to fail because it is trying to use insurance to cover something that doesn't fit the model.
Now, I haven't looked at what they have passed (since it still has a way to go, so I'm not going to bother yet). But if it is like some of the proposals I heard then I'll be dropping my health insurance, and putting the $12,000 I pay each year to an insurance company in my pocket and paying the $3-4000 fine. Then if I get leukemia, I'll buy insurance then, since they can't refuse me for that preexisting condition and go back to paying the $12,000 a year when my bills far outweigh that.
So my health costs have just shifted more on society and less on me. And I have an incentive to not bother with the cheaper earlier intervention through check-ups and so on. What a great plan!
Which is completely irrelevant to the legally requiredness of auto insurance, which is the only thing I mentioned.
There are hundreds of other posts actually about health care and not whether the it's the same model as car insurance. Why not post your preformulated and irrelevant (to this post) rant as replies to one of them?
What does any of that have to do with the simple fact that legally required car insurance does not cover damages to yourself and your own property but instead covers damages to other people and other people's property.
And in that way is fundamentally distinct from making health insurance legally required?
Should we also make car insurance against theft legally required? After all if you can't get to work, you are doing to be someone elses problem.
It's irrelevant that good preventative and diagnostic health care pays for itself in the long term. Since you can do that without making paying huge gobs of money to health insurance companies a legal requirement. Basically every other country in the developed world manages to after all.
But that isn't what health insurance covers. If I get the flu and pass it to someone else, my health insurance does not pay for their health costs related to that.
That's precisely the situation that makes insurance an unsuitable scheme for health care.
Well, the way insurance is done in the US anyway. Paying a monthly premium and the insurance company pays for your health care costs for that month. If you must have an insurance model then it needs to be a life insurance like setup - you pay your monthly premiums and if you happen to get cancer the insurance pays out for your medical expenses related to that without requiring anymore payments. A lump sum payout essentially - though maybe done as medical expense payments over time.
And of course what happens when the insurer you chose goes bankrupt?
Insurance to cover basic health care is just a dumb model. No amount of tweaking is going to fix it.
Fire insurance has nothing to do with fire brigades (anymore anyway). It is insurance that will reimburse you for your lost possessions (both those in the building and the building itself), nothing at all to do with actually putting the fire out or stopping it spreading to the house next door.
If you make the rather large assumption that health care reforms is the only thing people considered when choosing whom to vote for.
Because no one has ever voted for someone because they agree with some of what they say they'll do but not all of it. Or voted for someone because they disagreed less with what they wanted to do than what the other guy wanted to do - even though they don't want either set of plans.
Do you not know what "most" means? DO you know what "insurance" means?
Of course you shouldn't be able to get insurance for a pre-existing condition. What sort of retard would let someone whose house was on fire buy fire insurance, or who was about to have the life support machine turned off buy life insurance?
Government provided health care for the public is fine and reasonable (though in the US there's that consitution thing which should be stopping the Federal Government from doing so - the states can of course) but why lie and call it "insurance". Is that trying to pretend it's "free market" and all that crap? If so it really isn't tricking anyone who actually cares about free markets...
I'm from a country with a working public health system (though I'm a US resident now). Rock up to a hospital, get treated, leave without receiving a bill. Rock up to the doctors, get treated, sometimes leave without getting a bill other times pay the bill and get reimbursed. If you want more/better/different health care then either be rich or buy health insurance.
I have no problem with a system like that, but it obviously isn't "health insurance" and calling it such means you are either a complete moron or trying to deceive me. And both cases are not the person whose ideas I'm going to take seriously.
Legally required car insurance is insurance for other people/property you injure/damage.
You are not required to insure your car against theft, you are not required to insure your car against the damage done to it when you crash it.
Health insurance is not for other people that you might harm in some way, it is for yourself. And hence is nothing like mandatory car insurance.
Ambulances cost money.
So you are saying they should have had bigger government?
You have a strange definition of portable.
The iPad is portable, sure it doesn't fit in your pocket. But it fits in your carry on, for example.
Why do people pay more for 55" TVs than they do for 26" TVs?
the government and IRS is exactly what "legal burden" is.
But if the legal burders of the early 2000s were too much for you, you aren't ever starting that business.
that people spend $50 to buy a video game for their xbox?
Or spend $400 for a ticket to watch a UFC fight.
Or go to Vegas and spend money to play roulette.
He might (and I do) find the idea boring as all hell, but other people find it fun (maybe the activity itself, maybe the "beating" other people to something part, maybe the socialization that comes from a common activity, etc).
You don't want to implement your hardware acceleration differently, that's the whole point - the windows XP version would require more development effort and the benefits don't outweigh the costs.
Sure they could implement IE9 using only things available on XP, but clearly they want to use the new stuff.
Should they make IE 9 work on Windows 3.1 too? MS DOS 4.0?
The owner of the "Saw Stop" patent will shortly be announcing that they will be license it to anyone for the low low royalties of $43,127 per saw.