How in the world can anyone make out individual pixels at 1080p on a reasonable screen size without getting right up to the screen? It's physically impossible.
Why do people like you continue to insist the above is true.
You are completely and totally wrong.
*You* might not be able to see the pixels, but plenty of us can. I have a 60" 1080P HDTV that I sit about 10 feet away from, and I can see the pixels just fine.
4K will be a huge improvement, time will tell if that is enough, or if 8K will be required to finally get beyond pixels.
Yes, but if those people could just stay home and make more babies instead, you'd quickly end up with a population problem.
Yes, the world produces enough food and materials to feed everyone, but only if you can control the population.
Are you willing to accept government population controls and the requirement to obtain a licence to have a child, in return for free housing and food for everyone?
They don't care because so many people are shortsighted and only worried about paying next month's rent bill.
In fairness, that is a fair concern, long term concerns often are pushed aside for short term needs.
I've had this conversation with my wife many times. She is a smart, educated professional who has a good grasp of complex topics. Her reply to the whole NSA thing?
"Well, I hope they at least catch the bad people with it, there isn't anything I can do about it."
I suspect many people have a general uneasy feeling over it, but they aren't prepared to leave their jobs and start protesting 24/7 over it.
Yep. And that 20% doesn't include the overhead of medical clinic billing departments working to get money out of the insurer.
Yes, that is correct...
If I was forced to put a number on it, I'd say about 60% of the money spent on health care in the USA actually doesn't go to actual health care, it goes to overhead, billing, insurance, paperwork, etc.
Nothing much did happen, other than a minor government holiday, Obamacare launched to a mess...
oh yea...
Snowden told us all something that we already knew, so nothing changed there.
Those of us who care, already knew. Those who didn't know, didn't care, or didn't want to know, or are too busy watching American Idol or Honey Boo Boo or whatever.
We no longer have the option to revolt and take our leaders out back and hang them, the way it would have been done in the past.
The only real way to remove our current government would be if the military did it.
Which wouldn't be so bad, so long as they don't try to run it. Throw all the current leaders out, call for new elections in 6 months, it would be a start anyway.
I simply care more about freedom and ideals than safety.
That is your right...
The catch of course is that if someone decides to use nuclear weapons against us and we're unprepared and fail as a nation, then there won't be a whole lot of "freedom and ideals" left.
Freedom is good, but it requires that you remain free (and alive) to enjoy it. Rough men (and now women) stand ready to do violence on your behalf so that you may sleep well at night (and post on Slashdot!).
BTW, a different question for you... you say that you're ok with the US not being the world police. Who would you like to become the world police then?
In other words, I'm right and you just don't want to say so.:)
And then it'll be our problem.
And yet, it will then be too late to do anything about it. Be very careful what you wish you, you might just get it. Sticking your head in the sand is no solution, but it is effectively what you propose.
Such arguments won't convince me.
The problem is, no argument will convince you, your mind is made up and nothing is going to change it.
That's fine, but it doesn't make you right.
You already know of one instance where my standard of proof was met.
Most Americans, prior to Dec 7th, 1941, believed and spoke as you do, that Europe's problems weren't "our problems", let them sort it out...
It was only a matter of time before it spread. I personally don't like FDR as a President when it comes to domestic affairs, but he saw the threat coming from Germany.
However, he missed it completely when it came to Russia and Stalin. Winston Churchall tried in vain to explain the threat from the USSR to FDR but FDR was only interested in Germany.
Frankly, what probably should have happened was once Germany was beaten, rearming them and bringing them over to our side would have been a very smart move, push the Russians out of Europe where they really weren't welcome anyway.
It would have extended the war into 1946, but since we had the atomic bomb at the time, we could have gotten away with it then and saved ourselves 46 years of cold war.
Shortsightedness is a problem among humans, FDR had that problem, I believe you're suffering from it, but I doubt there is anything I can say to convince you otherwise.
If you look at the history of the world, going back 2 thousand years...
Someone has policed the world...
At one point it was the British, then it was the Spanish, then before that it was the Romans, way, way long ago it was the Greeks, then the Egyptians...
If we don't police the world, then someone else will step into that role.
Then they'll start telling us what to do.
That is part of what I mean by "long term consequences". You can't just ignore the world and expect to be left alone, someone will step into the power vacuum.
So you say that without proof someone will attack us at some point, you want nothing to do with it. I say the history of the world is proof enough.
It is unlikely anyone could ever meet your standard of proof, you probably want to see their attack plans in writing. But human nature says they will, sooner or later, if we turn a blind eye.
Again, this doesn't mean we should get involved in every little squabble and every little war, that would be stupid.
It does mean that from time to time, we need to step in. Iraq was stupid, Iran is not. North Korea is debateable...
For the record, we need a long term plan to remove nuclear weapons from Pakastain, which probably means getting India to give them up. Everyone else can probably keep them, France and the UK are no threat, China is a concern, but they aren't crazy. Russia is an interesting long term situation, Putin is no peace and freedom lover, but he isn't nuts either. But Russia hasn't seen any real progress towards a long term government since the USSR fell. You had Boris Yelson, now you have Putin, and that's about it.
Too personality based, needs more foundation in the rule of law, but they can still get there.
Pump and dump... MS and EA are far more likely to be here in 10 years, Redhat and Zynga might or might not be, but investors can move their stock price more via fluff news, so they focus there.
MS and EA are just cash machines, not very exciting.
You could equip every being in Africa with a generator, gas and the tools to create a new life with that much money,
Well no, you couldn't, but it would be a heck of a start.:)
The people in Africa largely need clean drinking water before they need anything else. And an education, and stable governments, and a bunch of other things.:)
If you think Israel's use of nuclear weapons is "their problem", then you perhaps you don't understand the situation. That would be a huge change in the world and a disaster for the economy of the world (which is based on oil, like it or not), to say nothing of making it "ok" to use them in a limited theater engagement.
It would lead to an increased likelihood that someone would use them against us some day, for the same reason's that Israel would give.
I'm sorry you think I'm an imbecile. I'm not calling you names, you might consider that thought. You aren't a fool, I just think you're misinformed or perhaps have a view of things that doesn't take into account long term consequences.
The US Government has plenty of fools in it, but they also have plenty of smart people who actually do know what they are doing. We didn't get to where we are by having fools run our country. For that, go look at Venezuela who really does have a fool at the helm.
:) It all comes back to health care because my wife is a doctor...
Regarding everyone living regardless of the expense, the sad truth is that health care must be rationed, it can't be 100% of the economy, nor can you keep taking from the haves to pay for it without it coming apart at some point.
Just to share the other view point...
My wife makes about $250K a year. Nice income, at first glance...
$100K comes off the top for insurance billing costs, malpractice insurance, and other overhead. That leaves $150K gross left to "take home".
Except that after taxes, her actual take home is about $8K.
Still nice, but then she has 15 more years of student loans to pay.
If you want to cut her reimbursement or tax her more to cover those who can't pay, at some point she won't want to do it anymore.
Lets say you take another 25% of her income away, and take home becomes $6K a month after taxes.
Meh, why be a doctor and do all that? She likes helping people be healthy, but she doesn't like all the headaches and nonsense that is involved.
So she leaves the profession and does something else.
Now you've lost her tax income, the 2 jobs she created, and we're all a little poorer.
So while I agree that people shouldn't just die in a ditch (and I mean when they get sick, not when they are well), on the flip side, if you have unlimited demand for health care and limited resources, what do you do?
While it is true that everyone deserves a chance to live, if it becomes unprofitable to work because taxes keep going up, then more and more people will just stop working, then the whole thing comes apart.
You are welcome to make a moral argument all you like. When you carry the biggest stick. Until then, no one has to listen.
All too often, people preach morals, but they fail to understand that in the history of the world, "might makes right" far more often than does a moral argument. I'm not suggesting that "might makes right" is *better* than a moral argument, I'm just saying that it means you neither have to listen, nor have to care, about the moral argument when your stick is the largest.
The United States exists today largely not because of the moral arguments made in the Declaration of Independence, but because France came to our aid (with money, weapons, and finally their fleet) and nearly went bankrupt helping us fight England.
The irony is that France thought she was using the US as a pawn to fight her enemy without getting her hands dirty, while at the same time we were using her.
Regarding Israel, keep in mind that she has nuclear weapons, you really don't want her solving this problem if at all possible. Israel is powerful, but her conventional forces are not great enough to fight Iran. The only option they really have is to use nuclear weapons.
That is not a box we want to allow anyone to open, if at all possible. (including ourselves, that box needs to stay closed)
Regarding Iran, we aren't even demanding anything crazy, we aren't asking for land, for them to change their government, for them to convert to another religion, for them to do anything... other than give up nuclear facilities. In return, we'll leave them the hell alone. We really aren't asking for much, all things considered. If we were evil, we could just invade, take the place over and make it the 51st state. If we were evil, we would have done that in Iraq, then made Iran the 52nd state.
We are not evil, we simply don't want people who are against our interests to have nuclear weapons.
Drop the pay and it will be hard for anyone to justify becoming a physician, even if it is their passion. I mean, how many people have a passion for art but aren't artists because they don't want to starve? Same deal: why would you want to go through all this and then make only 80k/year, when some software dev four years out of undergrad can do the same but without the debt and with a 9-to-5 job?
My wife makes about $250K a year, but after overhead and expenses related to insurance and all the various laws, she grosses about $150K. Taxes then come out, take home is about $8K a month.
Which sounds really nice, until you consider that she spent 10 years in college total (she has 3 degrees, one of which was not in this field), $250K total for all that, and she has about 15 years left to pay on that debt.
All to be ripped apart by some insurance paperwork flunky who questions her every move.
Health insurance is not health care, you might get everyone "insured", but that doesn't mean everyone will have a real doctor to go see. A PA and NP can be helpful and nice, and they serve their place, but they are no substitute for an MD who actually spent 8 years learning how to be one.
Theoretically more people having insurance means doctors(and clinics, hospitals, etc...) have an easier time getting paid, thus don't need to inflate their prices as much nor hire as much of a staff to do billing.
You would think so, but no... taking insurance is expensive, getting paid is a pain in the neck, the whole thing is a headache.
My wife has to have a billing person, who does nothing but insurance billing. Insurance billing has become and industry unto itself. There are companies you can hire, or you can hire a staffer to do it in-house, both have their pros and cons.
If insurance wasn't so hard to bill, my wife could cut her annual expenses by about $40K tomorrow. That is what it costs her to bill insurance companies each year. She makes $250K a year, but between medical malpractice insurance, insurance billing costs, and other paperwork (thanks HIPPA!), she spends about $100K a year in expenses, then taxes have to come out of what is left.
She could cut her rates by 1/3 and actually earn the same money, if she could cut the office staff required to comply with all the various insurance rules and laws that are in place. Each doctor requires an average of 2 staffers just to move paper around. That is insane.
The overhead is terrible and is why the United States spends so much for health care, but gets so little actual care, compared to other countries.
Side note: Keep in mind that even with the ACA, insurance companies are allowed to spend 20% on "overhead" (and profit). So there is another huge chunk of money that isn't going to actual care. Way too many layers and way too many people with fingers in the pot.
As long as we're being blunt, honest, and frank: Some people are stupid. Some people are broken. Some people are both stupid, and broken. Some people can't help themselves to the bathroom, let along help themselves toward increasing their cashflow.
That isn't very politically correct to say, but you're right, it is the truth. The question becomes, what do we as humanity do about it?
There are people in the world who would say, "forget about them, let them die in the ditch". Others would say, "do whatever it takes to help them and keep them housed and fed". Still others would say something in the middle of those two positions.
What is the "right" answer? I frankly have no idea... I know that my heart leads more toward the "feed and house" answer and my brain leads more toward the "die in a ditch" answer. Neither extreme is probably the right one, since the former is cruel and the latter could well bankrupt us.
Perhaps most broadly: If the definition of "wealth" is not limited to money, then I am very wealthy in my skills, abilities, and even in my unusual sense of frugality. And any wealth that is based solely on constantly-depreciating fiat currency, or even an investment based on that pales in comparison.
I tend to agree with you. My personal wealth is not what I own, but my ability to earn more money without having a job. I've owned my own business for a very long time now, with a few periods of working for someone else. But I've never actually worked for a full year in a row for someone else in my life.
I could lose everything tomorrow, pick myself back up, and go earn more. That is my wealth, that is my security. My ability to earn a living is the single most valuable thing I have.
That, and some investments in gold and silver, the US Dollar might or might not be worth something, but 10 pounds of gold and silver will always be worth something. It is a hedge against the US Government running the printing presses night and day forever.
Yes, that is why I said "puts you at risk of war".
As for trying to police the world, I tend to agree with you for the most part, but there are exceptions. The Nazis had to be stopped, no matter the cost. They were an evil that would have kept spreading until they became unstoppable. FDR saw that threat long before most Americans did, it wasn't until the US was attacked that everyone was ok with doing something about it.
On the flip side, we were swindled into the Vietnam War, that was just a local civil war that we should have stayed far away from.
So there are times we need to go overseas and get involved, and times we should let people settle their own issues.
Regarding Iran, I don't really care what they do, so long as they don't keep threatening Israel every 5 minutes.
Had I been in Geneva, I'd have simply made it plain to Iran that they could have everything they wanted, total sanctions lifting, full and open trade, and we'd leave them the hell alone, if only they give up the nuclear facilities and all enrichment. Simple, solved... their entire problems can be solved in 5 minutes if they only give up their nuclear ambitions, in return we'll do what we did with Cuba, guarantee to never invade, never support anyone else invading, and leave them the hell alone.
But the whole thing is that we feel threatened by them, and they threaten our interests. Since we have the bigger junk yard dog, we can, at the end of the day, enforce our way if we want to. So if they wish to continue to have a country, they can take the deal.
Otherwise, war is the only remaining solution, because if they turn that deal down, clearly they are going for a nuclear weapon, there is no other possible option if they turn down a complete removal of all sanctions and a return to open and free trade.
Why do we get to dictate that to them, when they signed the Nuclear NPT and are a sovereign nation? Because we said so and we have the bigger stick. It really is that simple.
Side note: South Africa used to have a nuclear weapons program, they gave it up, no one has bothered them since. North Korea could get the same deal in 5 minutes, give up the nukes, stop threatening South Korea with invasion, and we wouldn't care less about them.
First, allow me to recognize something: I believe I've come close to properly flaming you in the past, and you've always responded rationally. That is an honorable thing to do, and I just wanted to point out that I did notice.
Thank you, that is a kind thing to say...
I don't mind if people disagree with me, I don't mind if people think my ideas are crazy, weird, or just "out there". You can tell me this without resorting to name calling and belittlement, which too many people resort to.
I'll admit that in my youth, I did it myself and I once thought my own stuff didn't stink. Today, I'm much more aware that I'm not the sole source of good ideas in the world and I do not, in fact, know everything.
I've learned a lot of stuff reading this forum, some good, some bad, but in many cases I've read ideas and opinions that were foreign to me, but that made reasonable sense once I bothered to sit back and think about them.
Another issue, most people (myself included) have a hard time seeing the world from other than their own point of view. I am lucky enough to have done well for myself. Some of that is self-made luck, some of it is the luck of being born to wealthy parents who could send me to private school and fund my first businesses.
I am humbled when reminded that many people do not live in my world, and the problems and solutions that I personally see may not at all apply to them.
We should perhaps all walk a day in someone else's shoes before thinking of passing judgement, we might view it differently.
I do not compromise away rights I believe to be fundamental. I do not compromise on the TSA. I do not compromise on many things if I believe them to violate people's rights. It's called having principles.
Fair enough, which is why all of us are saying, "most of the time" you should be willing to compromise.
There are exceptions, slavery would be a good example where you really can't compromise much, you either have it or you don't.
Just keep in mind that to completely refuse to compromise puts you at risk of war, because generally when two sides won't find middle ground, that is the end result. Look at the USA and Iran, if we can't both find a way to meet in the middle over their nuclear program, it will end in war.
Compromise requires that both sides be interested in a solution, if one side puts their feet down and says, "I get my way or else", then the other side either has to be ok with it, or violence is the result.
Slashdot Mirror
How in the world can anyone make out individual pixels at 1080p on a reasonable screen size without getting right up to the screen? It's physically impossible.
Why do people like you continue to insist the above is true.
You are completely and totally wrong.
*You* might not be able to see the pixels, but plenty of us can. I have a 60" 1080P HDTV that I sit about 10 feet away from, and I can see the pixels just fine.
4K will be a huge improvement, time will tell if that is enough, or if 8K will be required to finally get beyond pixels.
The idea that information should be free is nice, but you'll end up with a very different world if you were to remove copyrights and patents.
You might like that world, or you might not. Hard to tell since you can only guess at what it would look like.
Yes, the world produces enough food and materials to feed everyone, but only if you can control the population.
Are you willing to accept government population controls and the requirement to obtain a licence to have a child, in return for free housing and food for everyone?
Supply isn't infinite, demand usually is.
In fairness, that is a fair concern, long term concerns often are pushed aside for short term needs.
I've had this conversation with my wife many times. She is a smart, educated professional who has a good grasp of complex topics. Her reply to the whole NSA thing?
"Well, I hope they at least catch the bad people with it, there isn't anything I can do about it."
I suspect many people have a general uneasy feeling over it, but they aren't prepared to leave their jobs and start protesting 24/7 over it.
Yep. And that 20% doesn't include the overhead of medical clinic billing departments working to get money out of the insurer.
Yes, that is correct...
If I was forced to put a number on it, I'd say about 60% of the money spent on health care in the USA actually doesn't go to actual health care, it goes to overhead, billing, insurance, paperwork, etc.
oh yea...
Snowden told us all something that we already knew, so nothing changed there.
Those of us who care, already knew. Those who didn't know, didn't care, or didn't want to know, or are too busy watching American Idol or Honey Boo Boo or whatever.
The only real way to remove our current government would be if the military did it.
Which wouldn't be so bad, so long as they don't try to run it. Throw all the current leaders out, call for new elections in 6 months, it would be a start anyway.
I simply care more about freedom and ideals than safety.
That is your right...
The catch of course is that if someone decides to use nuclear weapons against us and we're unprepared and fail as a nation, then there won't be a whole lot of "freedom and ideals" left.
Freedom is good, but it requires that you remain free (and alive) to enjoy it. Rough men (and now women) stand ready to do violence on your behalf so that you may sleep well at night (and post on Slashdot!).
BTW, a different question for you... you say that you're ok with the US not being the world police. Who would you like to become the world police then?
That's nice.
In other words, I'm right and you just don't want to say so. :)
And then it'll be our problem.
And yet, it will then be too late to do anything about it. Be very careful what you wish you, you might just get it. Sticking your head in the sand is no solution, but it is effectively what you propose.
Such arguments won't convince me.
The problem is, no argument will convince you, your mind is made up and nothing is going to change it.
That's fine, but it doesn't make you right.
You already know of one instance where my standard of proof was met.
Most Americans, prior to Dec 7th, 1941, believed and spoke as you do, that Europe's problems weren't "our problems", let them sort it out...
It was only a matter of time before it spread. I personally don't like FDR as a President when it comes to domestic affairs, but he saw the threat coming from Germany.
However, he missed it completely when it came to Russia and Stalin. Winston Churchall tried in vain to explain the threat from the USSR to FDR but FDR was only interested in Germany.
Frankly, what probably should have happened was once Germany was beaten, rearming them and bringing them over to our side would have been a very smart move, push the Russians out of Europe where they really weren't welcome anyway.
It would have extended the war into 1946, but since we had the atomic bomb at the time, we could have gotten away with it then and saved ourselves 46 years of cold war.
Shortsightedness is a problem among humans, FDR had that problem, I believe you're suffering from it, but I doubt there is anything I can say to convince you otherwise.
Someone has policed the world...
At one point it was the British, then it was the Spanish, then before that it was the Romans, way, way long ago it was the Greeks, then the Egyptians...
If we don't police the world, then someone else will step into that role.
Then they'll start telling us what to do.
That is part of what I mean by "long term consequences". You can't just ignore the world and expect to be left alone, someone will step into the power vacuum.
So you say that without proof someone will attack us at some point, you want nothing to do with it. I say the history of the world is proof enough.
It is unlikely anyone could ever meet your standard of proof, you probably want to see their attack plans in writing. But human nature says they will, sooner or later, if we turn a blind eye.
Again, this doesn't mean we should get involved in every little squabble and every little war, that would be stupid.
It does mean that from time to time, we need to step in. Iraq was stupid, Iran is not. North Korea is debateable...
For the record, we need a long term plan to remove nuclear weapons from Pakastain, which probably means getting India to give them up. Everyone else can probably keep them, France and the UK are no threat, China is a concern, but they aren't crazy. Russia is an interesting long term situation, Putin is no peace and freedom lover, but he isn't nuts either. But Russia hasn't seen any real progress towards a long term government since the USSR fell. You had Boris Yelson, now you have Putin, and that's about it.
Too personality based, needs more foundation in the rule of law, but they can still get there.
MS and EA are just cash machines, not very exciting.
There is making a profit, then there is greed, and sometimes greed blinds you and makes you do stupid things.
You could equip every being in Africa with a generator, gas and the tools to create a new life with that much money,
Well no, you couldn't, but it would be a heck of a start. :)
The people in Africa largely need clean drinking water before they need anything else. And an education, and stable governments, and a bunch of other things. :)
Pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered. $3 Billion Dollars is a lot of money, is holding out for $4 Billion worth the risk of getting nothing?
It would lead to an increased likelihood that someone would use them against us some day, for the same reason's that Israel would give.
I'm sorry you think I'm an imbecile. I'm not calling you names, you might consider that thought. You aren't a fool, I just think you're misinformed or perhaps have a view of things that doesn't take into account long term consequences.
The US Government has plenty of fools in it, but they also have plenty of smart people who actually do know what they are doing. We didn't get to where we are by having fools run our country. For that, go look at Venezuela who really does have a fool at the helm.
Except that after taxes, her actual take home is about $8K.
Ahh, that should have been:
Except that after taxes, her actual take home is about $8K per month ($100K per year).
Regarding everyone living regardless of the expense, the sad truth is that health care must be rationed, it can't be 100% of the economy, nor can you keep taking from the haves to pay for it without it coming apart at some point.
Just to share the other view point...
My wife makes about $250K a year. Nice income, at first glance...
$100K comes off the top for insurance billing costs, malpractice insurance, and other overhead. That leaves $150K gross left to "take home".
Except that after taxes, her actual take home is about $8K.
Still nice, but then she has 15 more years of student loans to pay.
If you want to cut her reimbursement or tax her more to cover those who can't pay, at some point she won't want to do it anymore.
Lets say you take another 25% of her income away, and take home becomes $6K a month after taxes.
Meh, why be a doctor and do all that? She likes helping people be healthy, but she doesn't like all the headaches and nonsense that is involved.
So she leaves the profession and does something else.
Now you've lost her tax income, the 2 jobs she created, and we're all a little poorer.
So while I agree that people shouldn't just die in a ditch (and I mean when they get sick, not when they are well), on the flip side, if you have unlimited demand for health care and limited resources, what do you do?
While it is true that everyone deserves a chance to live, if it becomes unprofitable to work because taxes keep going up, then more and more people will just stop working, then the whole thing comes apart.
Lots of questions and no easy answers.
All too often, people preach morals, but they fail to understand that in the history of the world, "might makes right" far more often than does a moral argument. I'm not suggesting that "might makes right" is *better* than a moral argument, I'm just saying that it means you neither have to listen, nor have to care, about the moral argument when your stick is the largest.
The United States exists today largely not because of the moral arguments made in the Declaration of Independence, but because France came to our aid (with money, weapons, and finally their fleet) and nearly went bankrupt helping us fight England.
The irony is that France thought she was using the US as a pawn to fight her enemy without getting her hands dirty, while at the same time we were using her.
Regarding Israel, keep in mind that she has nuclear weapons, you really don't want her solving this problem if at all possible. Israel is powerful, but her conventional forces are not great enough to fight Iran. The only option they really have is to use nuclear weapons.
That is not a box we want to allow anyone to open, if at all possible. (including ourselves, that box needs to stay closed)
Regarding Iran, we aren't even demanding anything crazy, we aren't asking for land, for them to change their government, for them to convert to another religion, for them to do anything... other than give up nuclear facilities. In return, we'll leave them the hell alone. We really aren't asking for much, all things considered. If we were evil, we could just invade, take the place over and make it the 51st state. If we were evil, we would have done that in Iraq, then made Iran the 52nd state.
We are not evil, we simply don't want people who are against our interests to have nuclear weapons.
Drop the pay and it will be hard for anyone to justify becoming a physician, even if it is their passion. I mean, how many people have a passion for art but aren't artists because they don't want to starve? Same deal: why would you want to go through all this and then make only 80k/year, when some software dev four years out of undergrad can do the same but without the debt and with a 9-to-5 job?
My wife makes about $250K a year, but after overhead and expenses related to insurance and all the various laws, she grosses about $150K. Taxes then come out, take home is about $8K a month.
Which sounds really nice, until you consider that she spent 10 years in college total (she has 3 degrees, one of which was not in this field), $250K total for all that, and she has about 15 years left to pay on that debt.
All to be ripped apart by some insurance paperwork flunky who questions her every move.
Health insurance is not health care, you might get everyone "insured", but that doesn't mean everyone will have a real doctor to go see. A PA and NP can be helpful and nice, and they serve their place, but they are no substitute for an MD who actually spent 8 years learning how to be one.
Theoretically more people having insurance means doctors(and clinics, hospitals, etc...) have an easier time getting paid, thus don't need to inflate their prices as much nor hire as much of a staff to do billing.
You would think so, but no... taking insurance is expensive, getting paid is a pain in the neck, the whole thing is a headache.
My wife has to have a billing person, who does nothing but insurance billing. Insurance billing has become and industry unto itself. There are companies you can hire, or you can hire a staffer to do it in-house, both have their pros and cons.
If insurance wasn't so hard to bill, my wife could cut her annual expenses by about $40K tomorrow. That is what it costs her to bill insurance companies each year. She makes $250K a year, but between medical malpractice insurance, insurance billing costs, and other paperwork (thanks HIPPA!), she spends about $100K a year in expenses, then taxes have to come out of what is left.
She could cut her rates by 1/3 and actually earn the same money, if she could cut the office staff required to comply with all the various insurance rules and laws that are in place. Each doctor requires an average of 2 staffers just to move paper around. That is insane.
The overhead is terrible and is why the United States spends so much for health care, but gets so little actual care, compared to other countries.
Side note: Keep in mind that even with the ACA, insurance companies are allowed to spend 20% on "overhead" (and profit). So there is another huge chunk of money that isn't going to actual care. Way too many layers and way too many people with fingers in the pot.
As long as we're being blunt, honest, and frank: Some people are stupid. Some people are broken. Some people are both stupid, and broken. Some people can't help themselves to the bathroom, let along help themselves toward increasing their cashflow.
That isn't very politically correct to say, but you're right, it is the truth. The question becomes, what do we as humanity do about it?
There are people in the world who would say, "forget about them, let them die in the ditch". Others would say, "do whatever it takes to help them and keep them housed and fed". Still others would say something in the middle of those two positions.
What is the "right" answer? I frankly have no idea... I know that my heart leads more toward the "feed and house" answer and my brain leads more toward the "die in a ditch" answer. Neither extreme is probably the right one, since the former is cruel and the latter could well bankrupt us.
Perhaps most broadly: If the definition of "wealth" is not limited to money, then I am very wealthy in my skills, abilities, and even in my unusual sense of frugality. And any wealth that is based solely on constantly-depreciating fiat currency, or even an investment based on that pales in comparison.
I tend to agree with you. My personal wealth is not what I own, but my ability to earn more money without having a job. I've owned my own business for a very long time now, with a few periods of working for someone else. But I've never actually worked for a full year in a row for someone else in my life.
I could lose everything tomorrow, pick myself back up, and go earn more. That is my wealth, that is my security. My ability to earn a living is the single most valuable thing I have.
That, and some investments in gold and silver, the US Dollar might or might not be worth something, but 10 pounds of gold and silver will always be worth something. It is a hedge against the US Government running the printing presses night and day forever.
As for trying to police the world, I tend to agree with you for the most part, but there are exceptions. The Nazis had to be stopped, no matter the cost. They were an evil that would have kept spreading until they became unstoppable. FDR saw that threat long before most Americans did, it wasn't until the US was attacked that everyone was ok with doing something about it.
On the flip side, we were swindled into the Vietnam War, that was just a local civil war that we should have stayed far away from.
So there are times we need to go overseas and get involved, and times we should let people settle their own issues.
Regarding Iran, I don't really care what they do, so long as they don't keep threatening Israel every 5 minutes.
Had I been in Geneva, I'd have simply made it plain to Iran that they could have everything they wanted, total sanctions lifting, full and open trade, and we'd leave them the hell alone, if only they give up the nuclear facilities and all enrichment. Simple, solved... their entire problems can be solved in 5 minutes if they only give up their nuclear ambitions, in return we'll do what we did with Cuba, guarantee to never invade, never support anyone else invading, and leave them the hell alone.
But the whole thing is that we feel threatened by them, and they threaten our interests. Since we have the bigger junk yard dog, we can, at the end of the day, enforce our way if we want to. So if they wish to continue to have a country, they can take the deal.
Otherwise, war is the only remaining solution, because if they turn that deal down, clearly they are going for a nuclear weapon, there is no other possible option if they turn down a complete removal of all sanctions and a return to open and free trade.
Why do we get to dictate that to them, when they signed the Nuclear NPT and are a sovereign nation? Because we said so and we have the bigger stick. It really is that simple.
Side note: South Africa used to have a nuclear weapons program, they gave it up, no one has bothered them since. North Korea could get the same deal in 5 minutes, give up the nukes, stop threatening South Korea with invasion, and we wouldn't care less about them.
First, allow me to recognize something: I believe I've come close to properly flaming you in the past, and you've always responded rationally. That is an honorable thing to do, and I just wanted to point out that I did notice.
Thank you, that is a kind thing to say...
I don't mind if people disagree with me, I don't mind if people think my ideas are crazy, weird, or just "out there". You can tell me this without resorting to name calling and belittlement, which too many people resort to.
I'll admit that in my youth, I did it myself and I once thought my own stuff didn't stink. Today, I'm much more aware that I'm not the sole source of good ideas in the world and I do not, in fact, know everything.
I've learned a lot of stuff reading this forum, some good, some bad, but in many cases I've read ideas and opinions that were foreign to me, but that made reasonable sense once I bothered to sit back and think about them.
Another issue, most people (myself included) have a hard time seeing the world from other than their own point of view. I am lucky enough to have done well for myself. Some of that is self-made luck, some of it is the luck of being born to wealthy parents who could send me to private school and fund my first businesses.
I am humbled when reminded that many people do not live in my world, and the problems and solutions that I personally see may not at all apply to them.
We should perhaps all walk a day in someone else's shoes before thinking of passing judgement, we might view it differently.
I do not compromise away rights I believe to be fundamental. I do not compromise on the TSA. I do not compromise on many things if I believe them to violate people's rights. It's called having principles.
Fair enough, which is why all of us are saying, "most of the time" you should be willing to compromise.
There are exceptions, slavery would be a good example where you really can't compromise much, you either have it or you don't.
Just keep in mind that to completely refuse to compromise puts you at risk of war, because generally when two sides won't find middle ground, that is the end result. Look at the USA and Iran, if we can't both find a way to meet in the middle over their nuclear program, it will end in war.
Compromise requires that both sides be interested in a solution, if one side puts their feet down and says, "I get my way or else", then the other side either has to be ok with it, or violence is the result.
I'm free to sell copies as if they were my own for a profit?
Without copyright law to protect you, contract law won't help you there, if I haven't signed your contract.