They can put trace levels of mercury into vaccines
You're talking about thimerosal. They stopped using that in 1999. I'm not a big defender of big pharma, but for the record. What's interesting is that the FDA banned it from livestock vaccines before they stopped using it on humans.
Yup. A friend of mine needed some medications, taken on a regular basis. IIRC he had some limited insurance, but it didn't cover squat in medication. He ordered them online from a pharmacy in Canada. A legitimate outfit - had to show he had the prescriptions and whatnot. The meds were drop shipped from Switzerland and India, complete with funny foreign return addresses and stamps. He saved a bundle. There were the real McCoy too, not some brand X knockoff. Switzerland and India was where they were made.
Even better is doggy Prozac. Apparently they have Prozac for dogs - and it's the exact same stuff, from the same factory, but at a fraction of the price. This one is 2nd hand, from my neighbor the veterinarian, but she's not a BS artist. A coworker's wife had a Prozac Rx, so hubby writes an Rx for their dog, and she takes it.
Actually, the US runs a surplus in a lot of raw materials.
I'm sure that's true. I've no idea what our trade balance is in vanadium or ruthenium. The aggregate is not so good though.
Soon oil will be added to that list.
No, what everybody is celebrating is that our domestic production is now slightly higher than our imports. We still import almost half of what we use. That's a long way from a trade surplus.
US manufacturing is lean and growing, which is a lot better than what can be said of the rest of developed nations, including Germany.
That must explain the US trade deficit and the German surplus in manufactured goods.
Yup. But in charmingly short-sighted MBA think, all they know is what types of products have higher profit margins right now. Sell those off and for a while the companies finances will be better in the short term. What they don't realize is that sometimes those lower profit margin things give them an edge in the higher profit margin businesses, and create a barrier to entry for their competition. I don't know if that justifies the fabs, because the capital costs have become insane. There are some advantages to controlling the fab process, but unless you're as bleeding edge as Intel it may not matter that much. The merchant fabs usually aren't that far behind Intel.
Nevertheless the "sell off the low margin stuff, no matter what" simple-minded MBA mentality prevails. Do they really think IBM will continue doing great selling services and custom software? I understand they have a less than stellar reputation, and I'd guess they're living off the IBM name, their size and the inertia that goes with it, and perhaps in the case of government jobs, the fantasy that they're an American company. Since they've moved so much offshore, why not cut out the middleman and go directly to one of the Indian outfits? How long before customers wise up to that?
Hollerith wasn't involved in that - he died in 1929. Otherwise you're spot on. Hollerith worked on punch cards and tabulating machines, and his stuff was used in the 1890 US census. The Hollerith code bore his name though, and that's what was tattooed on death camp prisoners.
Manufacturing is very strong in America to the tune of about $2 Trillion per year
Golly, that's a lot of money! However, like most big numbers that people throw around to impress, that means little because it's not expressed as a percentage, or a balance, or something meaningful. The US has a large trade deficit in manufactured goods, and raw materials. It has a small surplus in services. Despite the promises of the last several decades, the surplus in services hasn't increased much. We're not going to run a surplus in raw materials. Ergo manufactured goods are where we need a surplus. I don't expect it to be in low margin, labor intensive stuff like cutting/sewing clothes. More sophisticated industries are where we shine, but the "let's move it to China" trend keeps moving up the food chain. Applied Materials solar R&D, jet engines, etc.
I am eagerly awaiting the day when Watson is capable enough to replace 93% of doctors and lawyers. What's good for the plebs is good for the elite, right?
Capable and will are two different things. Both of those groups have very good unions (oops, I meant professional organizations).
We've been told this whole time that fracking uses some toxic unknown substance that causes water to burn and makes children possessed by the devil.
Now it's water?
The anti-fracking crowd will just make anything up to fit their agenda and whip up public outrage, won't they?
We've been told this whole time that car batteries uses some toxic unknown substance that causes water to burn and makes children possessed by the devil.
Now you add water?
The anti-battery crowd will just make anything up to fit their agenda and whip up public outrage, won't they?
IT might seem heartless, but allowing people to fail has served the USA quite well over the last couple hundred years.
Nobody is talking about not letting people fail. What they're talking about is a safety net if they do. Just because you'll get medical care even if you fail, doesn't mean there are no consequences. I'd rather be middle class than poor. That's plenty of incentive.
They couldn't be different because if the serfs rose up, the aristocracy (who were also the military elites) would put on their armor, get on their horse, round up their other knight-buddies, and hack them all to bits.
That's a very crude and expensive way to deal with the issue. Of course it was resorted to on occasion, but if they'd had to do it all the time it would have been very expensive in many ways. Knights unavailable to fight wars (and leaving the kingdom open to invasion), too few live peasants to work the land, etc.
Far less expensive and far more effective to convince the serfs that the organization of society is legitimate, and even ordained (the Church promoted this idea). Why revolt when things are the way they're supposed to be? That's what kept the serfs down most of the time.
If it wasn't for the unconstitutional wage freeze, we wouldn't have been relying on employer-subsidized health care.
Please indicate precisely what part of the Constitution that violates.
On the bright side though, the Allies did win the war. As the Arsenal of Democracy, the US produced enough materiel to bury the Germans and the Japanese. We also avoided the sort of rampant inflation that caused great economic problems during and after the Civil War and WWI. But maybe we should have stuck to our principles instead. Do you speak any German or Japanese?
And I'm not convinced a UHC has been implemented properly anywhere around the world because of the lack of personal oversight by the "Will of the People".
That explains the great suffering of our northern neighbors. They've just been bought off by the bread and circuses of their entire healthcare sector being a much smaller %/GDP than ours, and that they never have to worry about not having coverage.
The USA was founded on different principles than what you have now? That's true. For example, in the early days of the Republic slavery was legal. What can I tell you, things change.
The people who would be most shocked at the idea that our principles, or more accurately the specifics of government, shouldn't change, would be the Founding Fathers themselves. They never claimed to have reached perfection. Imagine if the Republic had been founded on ideas from the early 16th century instead of the late 18th. Thank heaven the Founding Fathers weren't afraid to use newer ideas than that.
It'll help you deal with modern realities better than sitting on your ass
You missed the part where I said "you should deal with the reality of it".
Yes, we're moving back to the Gilded Age, whether you like it or not. There's absolutely nothing that can be done to change that.
If there's nothing that can be done to change it, then how come the first Gilded Age ended?
The worse thing that people can do is start believing that the new Gilded Age is anything but a bunch of political imposed shit. That makes you like a Medieval serf who just accepted that the lord's privileges were the way things are, and how could they ever be any different? The serfs at least had the excuse that they were ignorant of history - you don't.
Not for many years. They're simply an umbrella organization that sells a branded product. Many of the companies providing the insurance are for-profit. Moreover, the behavior of even some of the non-profits under the umbrella is questionable, because they're loosely regulated and/or the regulation isn't enforced. I mentioned that one of the reasons the German system works is that the insurers are very tightly regulated.
insurance was much cheaper when you were in your 20s, than it is for someone who is in their 20s today
Insurance for anybody was cheaper when I was in my 20's. The problem is medical costs increasing much faster than inflation for decades, not that I was lucky to have been born earlier than you.
It is the young who are getting screwed by Obamacare.
The young and healthy. But even that's not right. Everybody is getting screwed, or at least the problem isn't being addressed, by Obamacare, because it does so little to bring down costs to those in other countries.
The same group that is being screwed by social security (broke in 2033) and medicare (broke in 2024).
Social Security is going to go broke 19 years in the future, because it's always been going to go broke 19 years in the future. When the economy is bad the date pulls in a little (it was 2038 before the GFC), and then goes out again when the labor economy improves (since it's funded by payroll taxes). Even "going broke" is BS. If it "went broke" it would still be able to pay out greater than 2/3 of the benefits. That doesn't fit my definition of broke, as in no money.
As for Medicare, if it goes broke then we'll all go broke, because the big issue isn't Medicare itself, but rising health care costs. Medicare funding is no different in that respect than any other healthcare funding.
We could have tried to do something about the healthcare cost curve. "Universal coverage" was chosen as a goal instead, so healthcare costs will continue rising.
What makes you think that those goals are mutually exclusive? Every other developed country has universal care and pays at least 1/3 less than the US. It helps if you don't kiss the ass of the for-profit insurance and pharma companies. Why do you think their stock prices went up after Obamacare passed?
Previously, you got away with paying much less for your healthcare because you were NOT subsidizing the healthcare of older people.
Not true. Premiums paid by me, or on my behalf, were not a function of age. That's still true for most employer based plans. So obviously younger people were subsidizing older people.
your healthcare premiums would cost much more than 3x the healthcare of younger healthy people in a free market, because healthcare costs for older people are on average much more expensive
Do you have a cite that the ratio exceeds 3:1? Moreover, are you considering things strictly as a function of age, or are you also taking health and history into account? I'm in good health. I haven't been in a hospital since I was 18. BP, HDL/LDL, etc. are all fine. A history of long lived family with no debilitating diseases. The only medical care I get or need is checkups. Yet on the individual market I'd pay the same as somebody who has a host of expensive and debilitating diseases. I'm fine with that because I think everybody should be able to get coverage - even those that actually need treatment. But if basing premiums on health is no longer allowed, why is basing them on age allowed? Health is a bigger factor. Before the ACA people my age in good health could get individual coverage, but if you were 25 and had health issues, they wouldn't touch you at any price.
Slashdot Mirror
They can put trace levels of mercury into vaccines
You're talking about thimerosal. They stopped using that in 1999. I'm not a big defender of big pharma, but for the record. What's interesting is that the FDA banned it from livestock vaccines before they stopped using it on humans.
Yup. A friend of mine needed some medications, taken on a regular basis. IIRC he had some limited insurance, but it didn't cover squat in medication. He ordered them online from a pharmacy in Canada. A legitimate outfit - had to show he had the prescriptions and whatnot. The meds were drop shipped from Switzerland and India, complete with funny foreign return addresses and stamps. He saved a bundle. There were the real McCoy too, not some brand X knockoff. Switzerland and India was where they were made.
Even better is doggy Prozac. Apparently they have Prozac for dogs - and it's the exact same stuff, from the same factory, but at a fraction of the price. This one is 2nd hand, from my neighbor the veterinarian, but she's not a BS artist. A coworker's wife had a Prozac Rx, so hubby writes an Rx for their dog, and she takes it.
Actually, the US runs a surplus in a lot of raw materials.
I'm sure that's true. I've no idea what our trade balance is in vanadium or ruthenium. The aggregate is not so good though.
Soon oil will be added to that list.
No, what everybody is celebrating is that our domestic production is now slightly higher than our imports. We still import almost half of what we use. That's a long way from a trade surplus.
US manufacturing is lean and growing, which is a lot better than what can be said of the rest of developed nations, including Germany.
That must explain the US trade deficit and the German surplus in manufactured goods.
Yup. But in charmingly short-sighted MBA think, all they know is what types of products have higher profit margins right now. Sell those off and for a while the companies finances will be better in the short term. What they don't realize is that sometimes those lower profit margin things give them an edge in the higher profit margin businesses, and create a barrier to entry for their competition. I don't know if that justifies the fabs, because the capital costs have become insane. There are some advantages to controlling the fab process, but unless you're as bleeding edge as Intel it may not matter that much. The merchant fabs usually aren't that far behind Intel.
Nevertheless the "sell off the low margin stuff, no matter what" simple-minded MBA mentality prevails. Do they really think IBM will continue doing great selling services and custom software? I understand they have a less than stellar reputation, and I'd guess they're living off the IBM name, their size and the inertia that goes with it, and perhaps in the case of government jobs, the fantasy that they're an American company. Since they've moved so much offshore, why not cut out the middleman and go directly to one of the Indian outfits? How long before customers wise up to that?
IBM knew precisely what Hollerith was doing
Hollerith wasn't involved in that - he died in 1929. Otherwise you're spot on. Hollerith worked on punch cards and tabulating machines, and his stuff was used in the 1890 US census. The Hollerith code bore his name though, and that's what was tattooed on death camp prisoners.
Manufacturing is very strong in America to the tune of about $2 Trillion per year
Golly, that's a lot of money! However, like most big numbers that people throw around to impress, that means little because it's not expressed as a percentage, or a balance, or something meaningful. The US has a large trade deficit in manufactured goods, and raw materials. It has a small surplus in services. Despite the promises of the last several decades, the surplus in services hasn't increased much. We're not going to run a surplus in raw materials. Ergo manufactured goods are where we need a surplus. I don't expect it to be in low margin, labor intensive stuff like cutting/sewing clothes. More sophisticated industries are where we shine, but the "let's move it to China" trend keeps moving up the food chain. Applied Materials solar R&D, jet engines, etc.
I am eagerly awaiting the day when Watson is capable enough to replace 93% of doctors and lawyers. What's good for the plebs is good for the elite, right?
Capable and will are two different things. Both of those groups have very good unions (oops, I meant professional organizations).
Why is it "professional services" sounds so much like whore ?
Don't insult honest hard-working prostitutes.
IBM stands for International Business Machines.
Close, but it's now India Business Machines.
maybe IBM is getting into the Patent Trolling business?
They've been in that business for decades. I read one of the Sun founders talking about the shakedown they got from IBM around 30 years ago.
We've been told this whole time that fracking uses some toxic unknown substance that causes water to burn and makes children possessed by the devil.
Now it's water?
The anti-fracking crowd will just make anything up to fit their agenda and whip up public outrage, won't they?
We've been told this whole time that car batteries uses some toxic unknown substance that causes water to burn and makes children possessed by the devil.
Now you add water?
The anti-battery crowd will just make anything up to fit their agenda and whip up public outrage, won't they?
These areas are already under heavy stress and the fracking just adds to it even more.
And how does that stress compare to the stress caused by wasteful irrigation practices?
Maybe Hans Reiser can give him the name of his attorney.
With all due respect, "Large successful companies" don't do layoffs.
You're living in the past. It's done all the time to "trim costs".
IT might seem heartless, but allowing people to fail has served the USA quite well over the last couple hundred years.
Nobody is talking about not letting people fail. What they're talking about is a safety net if they do. Just because you'll get medical care even if you fail, doesn't mean there are no consequences. I'd rather be middle class than poor. That's plenty of incentive.
They couldn't be different because if the serfs rose up, the aristocracy (who were also the military elites) would put on their armor, get on their horse, round up their other knight-buddies, and hack them all to bits.
That's a very crude and expensive way to deal with the issue. Of course it was resorted to on occasion, but if they'd had to do it all the time it would have been very expensive in many ways. Knights unavailable to fight wars (and leaving the kingdom open to invasion), too few live peasants to work the land, etc.
Far less expensive and far more effective to convince the serfs that the organization of society is legitimate, and even ordained (the Church promoted this idea). Why revolt when things are the way they're supposed to be? That's what kept the serfs down most of the time.
TARP was chump change. Look at what the Federal Reserve did.
If it wasn't for the unconstitutional wage freeze, we wouldn't have been relying on employer-subsidized health care.
Please indicate precisely what part of the Constitution that violates.
On the bright side though, the Allies did win the war. As the Arsenal of Democracy, the US produced enough materiel to bury the Germans and the Japanese. We also avoided the sort of rampant inflation that caused great economic problems during and after the Civil War and WWI. But maybe we should have stuck to our principles instead. Do you speak any German or Japanese?
Yes, thank you. I should be more careful in conjugating my verbs.
It ain't the Sovs that present the biggest danger to Europe
Of course not. How much of a danger can a non-existent country pose?
And I'm not convinced a UHC has been implemented properly anywhere around the world because of the lack of personal oversight by the "Will of the People".
That explains the great suffering of our northern neighbors. They've just been bought off by the bread and circuses of their entire healthcare sector being a much smaller %/GDP than ours, and that they never have to worry about not having coverage.
The USA was founded on different principles than what you have now? That's true. For example, in the early days of the Republic slavery was legal. What can I tell you, things change.
The people who would be most shocked at the idea that our principles, or more accurately the specifics of government, shouldn't change, would be the Founding Fathers themselves. They never claimed to have reached perfection. Imagine if the Republic had been founded on ideas from the early 16th century instead of the late 18th. Thank heaven the Founding Fathers weren't afraid to use newer ideas than that.
It'll help you deal with modern realities better than sitting on your ass
You missed the part where I said "you should deal with the reality of it".
Yes, we're moving back to the Gilded Age, whether you like it or not. There's absolutely nothing that can be done to change that.
If there's nothing that can be done to change it, then how come the first Gilded Age ended?
The worse thing that people can do is start believing that the new Gilded Age is anything but a bunch of political imposed shit. That makes you like a Medieval serf who just accepted that the lord's privileges were the way things are, and how could they ever be any different? The serfs at least had the excuse that they were ignorant of history - you don't.
Ever heard of blue cross blue shield? Non profit.
Not for many years. They're simply an umbrella organization that sells a branded product. Many of the companies providing the insurance are for-profit. Moreover, the behavior of even some of the non-profits under the umbrella is questionable, because they're loosely regulated and/or the regulation isn't enforced. I mentioned that one of the reasons the German system works is that the insurers are very tightly regulated.
insurance was much cheaper when you were in your 20s, than it is for someone who is in their 20s today
Insurance for anybody was cheaper when I was in my 20's. The problem is medical costs increasing much faster than inflation for decades, not that I was lucky to have been born earlier than you.
It is the young who are getting screwed by Obamacare.
The young and healthy. But even that's not right. Everybody is getting screwed, or at least the problem isn't being addressed, by Obamacare, because it does so little to bring down costs to those in other countries.
The same group that is being screwed by social security (broke in 2033) and medicare (broke in 2024).
Social Security is going to go broke 19 years in the future, because it's always been going to go broke 19 years in the future. When the economy is bad the date pulls in a little (it was 2038 before the GFC), and then goes out again when the labor economy improves (since it's funded by payroll taxes). Even "going broke" is BS. If it "went broke" it would still be able to pay out greater than 2/3 of the benefits. That doesn't fit my definition of broke, as in no money.
As for Medicare, if it goes broke then we'll all go broke, because the big issue isn't Medicare itself, but rising health care costs. Medicare funding is no different in that respect than any other healthcare funding.
We could have tried to do something about the healthcare cost curve. "Universal coverage" was chosen as a goal instead, so healthcare costs will continue rising.
What makes you think that those goals are mutually exclusive? Every other developed country has universal care and pays at least 1/3 less than the US. It helps if you don't kiss the ass of the for-profit insurance and pharma companies. Why do you think their stock prices went up after Obamacare passed?
Previously, you got away with paying much less for your healthcare because you were NOT subsidizing the healthcare of older people.
Not true. Premiums paid by me, or on my behalf, were not a function of age. That's still true for most employer based plans. So obviously younger people were subsidizing older people.
your healthcare premiums would cost much more than 3x the healthcare of younger healthy people in a free market, because healthcare costs for older people are on average much more expensive
Do you have a cite that the ratio exceeds 3:1? Moreover, are you considering things strictly as a function of age, or are you also taking health and history into account? I'm in good health. I haven't been in a hospital since I was 18. BP, HDL/LDL, etc. are all fine. A history of long lived family with no debilitating diseases. The only medical care I get or need is checkups. Yet on the individual market I'd pay the same as somebody who has a host of expensive and debilitating diseases. I'm fine with that because I think everybody should be able to get coverage - even those that actually need treatment. But if basing premiums on health is no longer allowed, why is basing them on age allowed? Health is a bigger factor. Before the ACA people my age in good health could get individual coverage, but if you were 25 and had health issues, they wouldn't touch you at any price.