It is a good point that the healthcare market is different than other markets because there are times when you don't really have a choice (don't pay and die or don't die isn't a real choice). Then again, I've never actually heard of a case of someone being refused critical care because they couldn't pay. Also, don't confuse correlation with causation. Us having some semblance of a market and costs being higher doesn't mean that having some semblance of a market is causing costs to be higher. It could be government supported/protected monopolies/oligopolies fixing prices, artificially restricted supply due to regulations, or a surge in demand (such as from an obesity epidemic...).
I don't know if you can really attribute the longer life expectancy to better health care, I would point to our obesity epidemic first and foremost both for the "ineffectiveness" and cost of our healthcare system (which I would point fingers at the FDA and their BS food pyramid as a primary culprit). Obese people cost more and die earlier. Not to mention that the US fronts much of the R&D costs for drugs that other countries get to reap the benefits of.
I actually agree with most of what you said but you are arguing a different point. The point isn't that people will intentionally wasteful, the point is that people will not do ANY cost/benefit analysis if they don't have to pay for it. You could get name brand for $100 or generic for $10. If they do the same thing and you are paying, you will get the generic. If you are not paying, why not get the name brand because then you are 100% sure you are getting the real thing? If you have a non-serious injury (lets say a broken pinky toe) at 1 a.m. You could either go to the emergency room or take a few Advil, prop up your foot, and go to an urgent care center in the morning. If you don't have to pay for either option, you may go to the emergency room (where the costs are much higher).
Because we foot the bill for most of the R&D and other countries get to reap the benefits using generics that don't have to subsidize the enormous R&D costs.
I have an HDHP (shocker) and it saves me lots of money. My monthly premiums are much less plus I can pay for my expenses with a tax deductible account. Going to a specialist will cost me between $90 - $200 assuming I don't get any crazy tests/procedures which is what I save every month on the premium alone. When I'm really sick and need to see a doctor, I go. If I'm feeling so so I may wait and try to avoid the cost if it doesn't seem serious. When I go to a doctor sometimes I will opt not to get a test or take a medication because I don't think it's worth it. If you don't have to pay to get name brand, why bother getting generic. If you don't have to pay for meds, why not just get them? If you don't have to pay for an office visit, why not go "just in case"?
And when you don't directly have to pay for it (ie Medicare) then you don't care about the cost to benefit. This is why most people should really be on something along the lines of an HDHP and treat health insurance as insurance. When you spend your money on yourself you care about both the cost and the benefit. When you spend someone elses money on someone else (ie government spending) you have no incentive to care about cost or benefit.
The point is that it is labeled as science even when it isn't. People hold up findings and research claimed to be scientific as if they were science. Those findings and research were found and performed by people who are capable of mistakes, distortion, lies, and so on. People generally can't tell the difference between actual science and fake science sometimes published in scientific journals. A growing amount of bad science makes it more difficult to trust the current state of science. This stuff tends to sort itself out over time but puts recent developments more into question.
Actually, the opposite is really true. Studies have shown that women are generally better at one on one relationships and not typically as good at dealing with large groups and their dynamics. Men thrive more in the tribal, large group environments which is a large reason women typically don't do as well in the business world. Note the liberal uses of the word "typical". Here's a good podcast with references: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/11/baumeister_on_g.html
"men and women are the same in every way except the ways that women are better." Typical femnatzi logic that would get anyone tarred and feathered were the logic reversed. I'm sure some women make great bosses just like some men do. How about we stop caring about averages and about case by case basis? If a woman is a great boss, keep her! If a woman is a terrible boss, fire her! Same goes for men.
This is partially due to the Cost + Fixed Fee model which encourages companies to reinvent the wheel instead of developing and using stable, tested code bases. Spending more money grows your revenue and your company, being efficient and spending less money limits the growth potential of your company. The second major reason is they are married to outdated development practices like the Waterfall model and generally answering new/potentially better ideas with "No, that's not the way its done."
I hope you are never a manager, HR rep, or someone with authority because that is a terrible way to do things. You don't demote people to "give them a hint." If there behavior, whatever it is, is a problem you pull them aside and tell them the behavior is disruptive and not appropriate at work. If they continue, you fire them. As far as him not being the type of person you want to spend $$ on at NASA that is entirely dependent on his job performance, not his personal views on things.
It is more a lack of time and interest than intelligence. You could sit down with most people and make them experts on tax policy but it would take a while. That is time that most people do not want to spend, and rightly so. That is why pure Democracy is a bad idea. Democratic republics are much better because people don't need to spend time understanding all the issue, that is what elected officials are paid to do. Unfortunately, our crappy education system combined with a complete lack of interest makes most people have ZERO understanding of the consequences of decisions politicians make. People don't need a thorough understanding but they do need some understanding. Again, it isn't that people aren't "smart enough" it is that people aren't interested and when we sit them down and force them to learn things in school we teach them useless crap like pottery and 13 years of English instead of critical thinking skills.
I'm not opposed to any safety items, I'm opposed to being forced to use them. Yes, I am opposed to seat belts being required in cars and people being required to wear them (at least in California...not sure if that is State or Federal). I wore my seat belt before you could get a ticket for not wearing it. People somehow think that nothing happens unless the government requires it. If you are going to accept that someone can make you do good/smart things (like wearing your seat belt) then you must accept that someone can make you do bad/stupid things (like prevent your kid from eating a healthy meal so they can eat FDA approved healthy meals such as pizza because, you know, it is a vegetable). I would rather not be forced to do anything and make up my own mind.
I would only buy a car with most of those features with or without government regulations. I would not buy a car with a rear camera without government regulations. I know you need to wait for your mommy to hold your hand before you cross the street but I prefer to decide when and how I cross.
$200 is $200. Maybe I want to have a new video card instead of a useless camera on my car. Why do I have to buy one because you want one? How about if you want one, YOU buy one and leave me the hell alone.
I know people who have backup cameras and don't pay attention to them. My friends wife had the backup sensors AND the backup camera but she didn't wait the 5 seconds it takes to boot and show an image so she backed up into her friends car. You can't fix stupid. All this will do is provide guaranteed income to companies that produce rear view cameras and make cars less affordable. Get off my back government.
if you are rich then you don't care about getting tickets (up until you lose your license) and you can afford good lawyers to get you out of other runnins with the law which essentially makes them above the law. Funny, people with power tend to abuse it and people without power tend not to abuse it. Who would have imagined! Also...this article intermingles being moral with being lawful which are not the same thing.
I'm guessing he loved Windows ME and wants everyone to switch back to it? Oh wait, that was a giant steaming pile. I'd rather wait an initial load time and then have a useable program than have it trick me into acting like its loaded then have to wait after I click a button. If I know an application will take a while to load I start it then do something else. When I come back, the application is fully ready to go. Splash screens that block your desktop are certainly annoying...making all programs partially load is not the answer. As for "programmer convenience" over the user, he is clearly an idiot. Ask the customer, would you like to pay twice as much and have development take twice as long? Oh you don't? I guess we'll have to cut something then. Well...we can cut some important feature or we can get rid of the splash screen for you, which would you prefer? This guy needs more naps and less coffee.
Unless you are like me and have weak connections between your sinuses and your eustachian tubes. In that case, nasal irrigation can push the infection into your ears and causes ear infections. If you do use nasal irrigation I definitely recommend the more neti pot style where you let gravity do the work and don't squeeze a bottle yourself. It is easy to oversqueeze and spread the infection.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a good point that the healthcare market is different than other markets because there are times when you don't really have a choice (don't pay and die or don't die isn't a real choice). Then again, I've never actually heard of a case of someone being refused critical care because they couldn't pay. Also, don't confuse correlation with causation. Us having some semblance of a market and costs being higher doesn't mean that having some semblance of a market is causing costs to be higher. It could be government supported/protected monopolies/oligopolies fixing prices, artificially restricted supply due to regulations, or a surge in demand (such as from an obesity epidemic...).
I don't know if you can really attribute the longer life expectancy to better health care, I would point to our obesity epidemic first and foremost both for the "ineffectiveness" and cost of our healthcare system (which I would point fingers at the FDA and their BS food pyramid as a primary culprit). Obese people cost more and die earlier. Not to mention that the US fronts much of the R&D costs for drugs that other countries get to reap the benefits of.
I actually agree with most of what you said but you are arguing a different point. The point isn't that people will intentionally wasteful, the point is that people will not do ANY cost/benefit analysis if they don't have to pay for it. You could get name brand for $100 or generic for $10. If they do the same thing and you are paying, you will get the generic. If you are not paying, why not get the name brand because then you are 100% sure you are getting the real thing? If you have a non-serious injury (lets say a broken pinky toe) at 1 a.m. You could either go to the emergency room or take a few Advil, prop up your foot, and go to an urgent care center in the morning. If you don't have to pay for either option, you may go to the emergency room (where the costs are much higher).
Because we foot the bill for most of the R&D and other countries get to reap the benefits using generics that don't have to subsidize the enormous R&D costs.
I have an HDHP (shocker) and it saves me lots of money. My monthly premiums are much less plus I can pay for my expenses with a tax deductible account. Going to a specialist will cost me between $90 - $200 assuming I don't get any crazy tests/procedures which is what I save every month on the premium alone. When I'm really sick and need to see a doctor, I go. If I'm feeling so so I may wait and try to avoid the cost if it doesn't seem serious. When I go to a doctor sometimes I will opt not to get a test or take a medication because I don't think it's worth it. If you don't have to pay to get name brand, why bother getting generic. If you don't have to pay for meds, why not just get them? If you don't have to pay for an office visit, why not go "just in case"?
And when you don't directly have to pay for it (ie Medicare) then you don't care about the cost to benefit. This is why most people should really be on something along the lines of an HDHP and treat health insurance as insurance. When you spend your money on yourself you care about both the cost and the benefit. When you spend someone elses money on someone else (ie government spending) you have no incentive to care about cost or benefit.
The point is that it is labeled as science even when it isn't. People hold up findings and research claimed to be scientific as if they were science. Those findings and research were found and performed by people who are capable of mistakes, distortion, lies, and so on. People generally can't tell the difference between actual science and fake science sometimes published in scientific journals. A growing amount of bad science makes it more difficult to trust the current state of science. This stuff tends to sort itself out over time but puts recent developments more into question.
We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
Actually, the opposite is really true. Studies have shown that women are generally better at one on one relationships and not typically as good at dealing with large groups and their dynamics. Men thrive more in the tribal, large group environments which is a large reason women typically don't do as well in the business world. Note the liberal uses of the word "typical". Here's a good podcast with references: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/11/baumeister_on_g.html
"men and women are the same in every way except the ways that women are better." Typical femnatzi logic that would get anyone tarred and feathered were the logic reversed. I'm sure some women make great bosses just like some men do. How about we stop caring about averages and about case by case basis? If a woman is a great boss, keep her! If a woman is a terrible boss, fire her! Same goes for men.
This is partially due to the Cost + Fixed Fee model which encourages companies to reinvent the wheel instead of developing and using stable, tested code bases. Spending more money grows your revenue and your company, being efficient and spending less money limits the growth potential of your company. The second major reason is they are married to outdated development practices like the Waterfall model and generally answering new/potentially better ideas with "No, that's not the way its done."
If only we had such devices: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_generator
I hope you are never a manager, HR rep, or someone with authority because that is a terrible way to do things. You don't demote people to "give them a hint." If there behavior, whatever it is, is a problem you pull them aside and tell them the behavior is disruptive and not appropriate at work. If they continue, you fire them. As far as him not being the type of person you want to spend $$ on at NASA that is entirely dependent on his job performance, not his personal views on things.
we need a government agency to protect us from these dangerous meteorites! I'll write my congresswoman right away!
Damnit...meant to say Representative Democracy not Democratic Republic. What can I say, I went to public school.
It is more a lack of time and interest than intelligence. You could sit down with most people and make them experts on tax policy but it would take a while. That is time that most people do not want to spend, and rightly so. That is why pure Democracy is a bad idea. Democratic republics are much better because people don't need to spend time understanding all the issue, that is what elected officials are paid to do. Unfortunately, our crappy education system combined with a complete lack of interest makes most people have ZERO understanding of the consequences of decisions politicians make. People don't need a thorough understanding but they do need some understanding. Again, it isn't that people aren't "smart enough" it is that people aren't interested and when we sit them down and force them to learn things in school we teach them useless crap like pottery and 13 years of English instead of critical thinking skills.
I'm not opposed to any safety items, I'm opposed to being forced to use them. Yes, I am opposed to seat belts being required in cars and people being required to wear them (at least in California...not sure if that is State or Federal). I wore my seat belt before you could get a ticket for not wearing it. People somehow think that nothing happens unless the government requires it. If you are going to accept that someone can make you do good/smart things (like wearing your seat belt) then you must accept that someone can make you do bad/stupid things (like prevent your kid from eating a healthy meal so they can eat FDA approved healthy meals such as pizza because, you know, it is a vegetable). I would rather not be forced to do anything and make up my own mind.
I would only buy a car with most of those features with or without government regulations. I would not buy a car with a rear camera without government regulations. I know you need to wait for your mommy to hold your hand before you cross the street but I prefer to decide when and how I cross.
$200 is $200. Maybe I want to have a new video card instead of a useless camera on my car. Why do I have to buy one because you want one? How about if you want one, YOU buy one and leave me the hell alone.
I know people who have backup cameras and don't pay attention to them. My friends wife had the backup sensors AND the backup camera but she didn't wait the 5 seconds it takes to boot and show an image so she backed up into her friends car. You can't fix stupid. All this will do is provide guaranteed income to companies that produce rear view cameras and make cars less affordable. Get off my back government.
if you are rich then you don't care about getting tickets (up until you lose your license) and you can afford good lawyers to get you out of other runnins with the law which essentially makes them above the law. Funny, people with power tend to abuse it and people without power tend not to abuse it. Who would have imagined! Also...this article intermingles being moral with being lawful which are not the same thing.
I'm guessing he loved Windows ME and wants everyone to switch back to it? Oh wait, that was a giant steaming pile. I'd rather wait an initial load time and then have a useable program than have it trick me into acting like its loaded then have to wait after I click a button. If I know an application will take a while to load I start it then do something else. When I come back, the application is fully ready to go. Splash screens that block your desktop are certainly annoying...making all programs partially load is not the answer. As for "programmer convenience" over the user, he is clearly an idiot. Ask the customer, would you like to pay twice as much and have development take twice as long? Oh you don't? I guess we'll have to cut something then. Well...we can cut some important feature or we can get rid of the splash screen for you, which would you prefer? This guy needs more naps and less coffee.
Steve Jobs clarified that everyone was just holding the phone wrong. Correct and normal are not the same thing.
Unless you are like me and have weak connections between your sinuses and your eustachian tubes. In that case, nasal irrigation can push the infection into your ears and causes ear infections. If you do use nasal irrigation I definitely recommend the more neti pot style where you let gravity do the work and don't squeeze a bottle yourself. It is easy to oversqueeze and spread the infection.
What else is data good for? :P