I think the Khan Academy has a pretty good model. You can learn at your own pace at home and then get person to person (from teacher or fellow students) help the following day. Having the learning and exercises take place online lets teachers easily see how far each student got, how long they spent on each problem, etc. Having a really talented teacher prepare lectures online also helps alleviate the disparagement between education received by people with crappy teachers versus students who are blessed with good teachers.
Complete and unadulterated BS. Of course some of this exists but not in significantly different amounts than any other group. In a typical class of 30 comp sci students, there were typically 3 women. I never once witnessed them be patronized, degraded, or excluded for any reason. I've never worked with a female programmer so I can't speak from experience but I can't see why it would be any different working with one for a job versus working with one on a school project. I have never witnessed these "brogrammers" in the stereotypical male chauvinist fraternity sense either at school or in the work force.
I really wish everyone would get off of the whole equal outcome bandwagon and care about equal opportunity. If a woman applies to a job and gets denied because she is a woman, I care about that. If a woman applies to a comp sci school and should get in based on merits but doesn't because she is a woman, I care. If there are less women than men (or vise versa) in any field I don't care. I don't care about ratios of men, women, blacks, whites, gays, lesbians, liberals, conservatives, or any other group. I care about competent people getting jobs they deserve.
Nope. Seeing as you responded, that must mean you just aren't good at understanding analogies. Saying he kept the US out implies that the US would have gone in if he hadn't acted. Obama is the only one causing us to go in at all so you want me to congratulate him for keeping himself from doing something. That is kind of like thanking someone for choosing not to shoot you in the head while they chose to stab you in the foot. Yeah, it isn't a great analogy, I'll try to use cars next time.
While I realize that the GOP is adamant in its opposition of funding public [schools] -- [because of] the long-term [benefits] such a policy has toward global competitiveness -- surely, your coloring books depicting Jesus Riding Dinosaurs taught you that when citing primary sources, you should make sure that they support your argument?
Well, you might be able to say that it hasn't really mattered to them. Pretty much every President in the last 30+ years has screwed with them so I'm not sure how much it actually matters. I realize I am over simplifying and it does actually matter somewhat, I guess my point is more that it doesn't seem to matter as much as it should.
Soooo...if I had a gun and a knife...and I stabbed you in the foot, would you thank me for not shooting you in the head or would you still be upset about me stabbing you in the foot? Obama directly ordered any and all involvement we had in Libya. Yes, he could have done much, much more but him choosing not to do more doesn't mean he isn't responsible for what he did do. Again, despite any technicalities and political hackery you may bring up, he still has his hands deep in our pockets. He hasn't balanced the budget, he hasn't even proposed anything close to a balanced budget (the budget he proposed that got zero votes wasn't even balanced), and he has increased the deficit. Therefore, he has his hands deep in our pockets. Yes, yes, the Republicans and evil white people also have their hands deep in our pockets.
Obama himself has said the bailouts were necessary and has continued down those paths. Obama has continued both wars and has spent our $$ attacking other countries (ever heard of Libya?). However you want to play out the technicalities, he has his hands just as deep into our pockets as past presidents.
I agree with most of what you said but there is already a solution to handling high risk investments. Demand a high return. If the company can provide some evidence that the investment is lower risk (such as having a track record of success, submitting to regular external audits/reviews, etc.) then they don't have to offer as much compensation. I'm sure you will even see firms with the experience and the time to do some due diligence and suggest/handle crowd funding investments for a fee/%. People are finally being freed from stocks and real estate being their only investment options. There will certainly be more fraud and more people putting money where they can't afford to lose it but there will also be people who are more diversified and not losing all their hard earned savings to inflation and the whims of wall street.
There certainly will never be a true capitalist, communist, or really anything I can think of state. The whole point of the "good is not the enemy of perfect" paraphrase was to say that even if we can't reach a true capitalist system, we can get close enough to still reap the benefits. Not only can we get close enough, we are close enough in many markets. A non-trivial portion of the cost of entry in many markets is due to government regulations, subsidizing, and other forms of propping up monopolies. As long as it is possible for competition to enter a market (aka no government propped up monopolies), competition will always enter the market if the only players in the current market are drastically over charging and under performing. It's practically free money that investors won't pass up.
Hah. I was not commenting on the reasons behind the movement. I was commenting on what the movement actually accomplished. Those are two entirely separate issues. Much of the anger behind the movement is justified, they just didn't direct it in any productive or useful way. Sitting around in a park, talking, and smoking pot has never changed anything that I'm aware of. I doubt it ever will. Since they didn't accomplish anything, I don't see what historians would write down.
If a company tries to screw over their customers, their customers will go elsewhere. That is what keeps companies in check. When there are monopolies/oligopolies then there is no where for customers to turn and the invisible hand cannot function. Saying the invisible hand is a myth because it does not work in a market broken by government propped up oligopolies is like saying all cannons are incapable of firing because you tried to fire one that had wet powder. As I have said in other posts, you can either remove the profit or the governmental interference and we certainly need to do one or the other. Removing the governmental interference does not mean removing the government. It means stopping subsidies, breaking down barriers to entry into the market, enforcing contracts, and prosecuting fraud. Remember the words of someone you probably worship (Paul Krugman) that good is not the enemy of perfect. We currently do have good, functional capitalist systems that exist in the real world and we can make health care a part of it. Unfortunately, it is a pipe dream right now because people like you will just plug your ears, close your eyes, and vote for Obama because he offers more "free stuff."
My movement (Ron Paul Revolution) has elected officials to actual elected offices where they can actually change some things. My movement has actually proposed concrete plans of how to change our country for the better and is working to bring them to fruition. Members of my movement have still gone to work and directly contributed to society and the welfare of others instead of selfishly sitting in a park waving signs and smoking pot. I don't really see anything in your list worthy of historic note. Sure, feeding hungry and needy people is a good thing and I applaud that but that happens every day in pretty much every city in this country. People squatting, destroying property, and littering then refusing to leave and forcing police action is also nothing worth writing down. My movement has done plenty. Your movement has just been a drain on our society.
what actually did happen? I mean, besides hippies smoking pot in a public park instead of...wherever hippies normally smoke pot. I guess some people with iPhones and iPads got to sit in a public park with hippies instead of a coffee shop...protesting people with money...I still don't know if I would consider that worth noting...
I never said I had a $90 a month health plan. I also never said people on minimum wage could afford it. All I said was that my monthly premiums were much less (than typical PPO and especially HMO) which offsets the fact that I pay for everything (up to a high deductible). My HDHP monthly premium is between $80 and $100 cheaper than a typical PPO plan my company offers. Me having to pay for everything makes me care about my cost/benefit. If you still don't believe me, go to this website and fill out the form to get a quote: http://www.health--savings--accounts.com/blue-cross-blue-shield.htm. Mine range from roughly $80 - $160 a month. The purpose of this type of insurance is to protect you from catastrophic events that may require major surgery, multiple days in the ICU, and so on. That really is (or was and should be...) the purpose of insurance, to spread around the pain of catastrophic events so no one person gets totally screwed.
Considering I save ~$200 a month when you take lower premiums and tax deductions into account, yes I do. I go to a specialist far less than once a month.
Insurance companies doing "dumbshit" like not paying for any preventative care makes them less efficient and drives up their long term costs (presumably). That means they should be less competitive, less profitable, and need to charge higher premiums. More forward looking insurance companies should then be able to undercut the "dumbshit" ones via lower premiums, lower deductibles, smaller co-pays, etc.. Programs like Medicare have no incentives to be efficient, pay for preventative care, etc. so what would drive them to pay for the broken tooth other than them being "nice" people who don't like wasting tax payers money? Private insurance that doesn't pay for preventative care either means that it isn't as cost effective as people think or there isn't really any competition in the market. For example, what if 1 in 1000 broken teeth led to a valve replacement? That would mean fixing 1000 broken teeth would cost $1,000,000 whereas doing the one valve replacement would cost $100,000. To cover the added cost of fixing everyones teeth the premiums would have to go up and less people could afford the insurance.
I base it off whether the doctor says I need it or not. If the doctor says I need it, I will get it. Doctors prescribe things all the time that can help ease symptoms but aren't needed by any stretch.
For example, I had typical flu symptoms but they lasted for a few days longer than normal so I went to an Urgent Care center to see if there could be something more serious going on. The nurse (was not a doctor, could technically be something else though) asked if I wanted the strep test just to be sure after stating it was very unlikely to be strep. I have had strep throat several times and I knew that wasn't the case so I declined the test. I was then offered over the counter cough medicine, inhaler, etc. of which I didn't really need the cough medicine or inhaler, they would just ease my symptoms a bit.
Pretty much, government handouts/protection + profit motivation == rent seeking == bad mojo. This really gives two options. Either stop having the government give handouts/protection worth seeking or remove the profit motivation. I personally think we should do the former rather than the latter because it should yield a more efficient and beneficial system for everyone. On the other hand, people love "free" stuff and will probably never vote against it so it is tempting to say we should throw up our hands and let the government control and do everything for us. What we have right now is the worst possible mix of for profit and government meddling.
Let me see if I can summarize your argument: governments fund research outside the US and there are pharma companies outside the US so therefore our R&D costs are the same. Sorry, that isn't a very convincing argument. Having numbers on what US companies spend on R&D vs. other countries would settle this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_research says the US spend $93 billion in 2003 and Australia spent $1.7 billion in 2001. Germany has roughly 3 times the GDP of Australia so it would be reasonable to assume it would be more. That may not be the best comparison but it doesn't look hopeful for your case, I would welcome more relevant numbers proving me wrong.
Correlation does not imply causation. Our "for profit healthcare" isn't necessarily expensive because it is "for profit", there are many other differences between the US and other countries. Let me break it down for you: If health insurance companies and providers are able to exert this level of control, then the problem is that health insurance companies and providers are able to exert this level of control. That is essentially an oligopoly and the government is responsible for breaking those up to create an actual, competitive market. Claiming that markets don't work because a broken market doesn't work is like claiming it is impossible for cars to drive on the freeway because you saw a broken down car on the freeway. Your solution is to abolish cars. My solution is to fix the car.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the Khan Academy has a pretty good model. You can learn at your own pace at home and then get person to person (from teacher or fellow students) help the following day. Having the learning and exercises take place online lets teachers easily see how far each student got, how long they spent on each problem, etc. Having a really talented teacher prepare lectures online also helps alleviate the disparagement between education received by people with crappy teachers versus students who are blessed with good teachers.
I really wish everyone would get off of the whole equal outcome bandwagon and care about equal opportunity. If a woman applies to a job and gets denied because she is a woman, I care about that. If a woman applies to a comp sci school and should get in based on merits but doesn't because she is a woman, I care. If there are less women than men (or vise versa) in any field I don't care. I don't care about ratios of men, women, blacks, whites, gays, lesbians, liberals, conservatives, or any other group. I care about competent people getting jobs they deserve.
Nope. Seeing as you responded, that must mean you just aren't good at understanding analogies. Saying he kept the US out implies that the US would have gone in if he hadn't acted. Obama is the only one causing us to go in at all so you want me to congratulate him for keeping himself from doing something. That is kind of like thanking someone for choosing not to shoot you in the head while they chose to stab you in the foot. Yeah, it isn't a great analogy, I'll try to use cars next time.
While I realize that the GOP is adamant in its opposition of funding public [schools] -- [because of] the long-term [benefits] such a policy has toward global competitiveness -- surely, your coloring books depicting Jesus Riding Dinosaurs taught you that when citing primary sources, you should make sure that they support your argument?
Fixed that for you. ;)
Well, you might be able to say that it hasn't really mattered to them. Pretty much every President in the last 30+ years has screwed with them so I'm not sure how much it actually matters. I realize I am over simplifying and it does actually matter somewhat, I guess my point is more that it doesn't seem to matter as much as it should.
Soooo...if I had a gun and a knife...and I stabbed you in the foot, would you thank me for not shooting you in the head or would you still be upset about me stabbing you in the foot? Obama directly ordered any and all involvement we had in Libya. Yes, he could have done much, much more but him choosing not to do more doesn't mean he isn't responsible for what he did do. Again, despite any technicalities and political hackery you may bring up, he still has his hands deep in our pockets. He hasn't balanced the budget, he hasn't even proposed anything close to a balanced budget (the budget he proposed that got zero votes wasn't even balanced), and he has increased the deficit. Therefore, he has his hands deep in our pockets. Yes, yes, the Republicans and evil white people also have their hands deep in our pockets.
Obama himself has said the bailouts were necessary and has continued down those paths. Obama has continued both wars and has spent our $$ attacking other countries (ever heard of Libya?). However you want to play out the technicalities, he has his hands just as deep into our pockets as past presidents.
Yeah, doesn't he know that only white people can be racist? What an idiot.
Obama isn't white...
I agree with most of what you said but there is already a solution to handling high risk investments. Demand a high return. If the company can provide some evidence that the investment is lower risk (such as having a track record of success, submitting to regular external audits/reviews, etc.) then they don't have to offer as much compensation. I'm sure you will even see firms with the experience and the time to do some due diligence and suggest/handle crowd funding investments for a fee/%. People are finally being freed from stocks and real estate being their only investment options. There will certainly be more fraud and more people putting money where they can't afford to lose it but there will also be people who are more diversified and not losing all their hard earned savings to inflation and the whims of wall street.
It isn't the 5k Calories of HFCS he's ingesting each day that makes him fat, it's genetic.
There certainly will never be a true capitalist, communist, or really anything I can think of state. The whole point of the "good is not the enemy of perfect" paraphrase was to say that even if we can't reach a true capitalist system, we can get close enough to still reap the benefits. Not only can we get close enough, we are close enough in many markets. A non-trivial portion of the cost of entry in many markets is due to government regulations, subsidizing, and other forms of propping up monopolies. As long as it is possible for competition to enter a market (aka no government propped up monopolies), competition will always enter the market if the only players in the current market are drastically over charging and under performing. It's practically free money that investors won't pass up.
Hah. I was not commenting on the reasons behind the movement. I was commenting on what the movement actually accomplished. Those are two entirely separate issues. Much of the anger behind the movement is justified, they just didn't direct it in any productive or useful way. Sitting around in a park, talking, and smoking pot has never changed anything that I'm aware of. I doubt it ever will. Since they didn't accomplish anything, I don't see what historians would write down.
Where are mod points when you need them!
If a company tries to screw over their customers, their customers will go elsewhere. That is what keeps companies in check. When there are monopolies/oligopolies then there is no where for customers to turn and the invisible hand cannot function. Saying the invisible hand is a myth because it does not work in a market broken by government propped up oligopolies is like saying all cannons are incapable of firing because you tried to fire one that had wet powder. As I have said in other posts, you can either remove the profit or the governmental interference and we certainly need to do one or the other. Removing the governmental interference does not mean removing the government. It means stopping subsidies, breaking down barriers to entry into the market, enforcing contracts, and prosecuting fraud. Remember the words of someone you probably worship (Paul Krugman) that good is not the enemy of perfect. We currently do have good, functional capitalist systems that exist in the real world and we can make health care a part of it. Unfortunately, it is a pipe dream right now because people like you will just plug your ears, close your eyes, and vote for Obama because he offers more "free stuff."
My movement (Ron Paul Revolution) has elected officials to actual elected offices where they can actually change some things. My movement has actually proposed concrete plans of how to change our country for the better and is working to bring them to fruition. Members of my movement have still gone to work and directly contributed to society and the welfare of others instead of selfishly sitting in a park waving signs and smoking pot. I don't really see anything in your list worthy of historic note. Sure, feeding hungry and needy people is a good thing and I applaud that but that happens every day in pretty much every city in this country. People squatting, destroying property, and littering then refusing to leave and forcing police action is also nothing worth writing down. My movement has done plenty. Your movement has just been a drain on our society.
what actually did happen? I mean, besides hippies smoking pot in a public park instead of...wherever hippies normally smoke pot. I guess some people with iPhones and iPads got to sit in a public park with hippies instead of a coffee shop...protesting people with money...I still don't know if I would consider that worth noting...
I never said I had a $90 a month health plan. I also never said people on minimum wage could afford it. All I said was that my monthly premiums were much less (than typical PPO and especially HMO) which offsets the fact that I pay for everything (up to a high deductible). My HDHP monthly premium is between $80 and $100 cheaper than a typical PPO plan my company offers. Me having to pay for everything makes me care about my cost/benefit. If you still don't believe me, go to this website and fill out the form to get a quote: http://www.health--savings--accounts.com/blue-cross-blue-shield.htm. Mine range from roughly $80 - $160 a month. The purpose of this type of insurance is to protect you from catastrophic events that may require major surgery, multiple days in the ICU, and so on. That really is (or was and should be...) the purpose of insurance, to spread around the pain of catastrophic events so no one person gets totally screwed.
Considering I save ~$200 a month when you take lower premiums and tax deductions into account, yes I do. I go to a specialist far less than once a month.
Insurance companies doing "dumbshit" like not paying for any preventative care makes them less efficient and drives up their long term costs (presumably). That means they should be less competitive, less profitable, and need to charge higher premiums. More forward looking insurance companies should then be able to undercut the "dumbshit" ones via lower premiums, lower deductibles, smaller co-pays, etc.. Programs like Medicare have no incentives to be efficient, pay for preventative care, etc. so what would drive them to pay for the broken tooth other than them being "nice" people who don't like wasting tax payers money? Private insurance that doesn't pay for preventative care either means that it isn't as cost effective as people think or there isn't really any competition in the market. For example, what if 1 in 1000 broken teeth led to a valve replacement? That would mean fixing 1000 broken teeth would cost $1,000,000 whereas doing the one valve replacement would cost $100,000. To cover the added cost of fixing everyones teeth the premiums would have to go up and less people could afford the insurance.
I base it off whether the doctor says I need it or not. If the doctor says I need it, I will get it. Doctors prescribe things all the time that can help ease symptoms but aren't needed by any stretch.
For example, I had typical flu symptoms but they lasted for a few days longer than normal so I went to an Urgent Care center to see if there could be something more serious going on. The nurse (was not a doctor, could technically be something else though) asked if I wanted the strep test just to be sure after stating it was very unlikely to be strep. I have had strep throat several times and I knew that wasn't the case so I declined the test. I was then offered over the counter cough medicine, inhaler, etc. of which I didn't really need the cough medicine or inhaler, they would just ease my symptoms a bit.
Pretty much, government handouts/protection + profit motivation == rent seeking == bad mojo. This really gives two options. Either stop having the government give handouts/protection worth seeking or remove the profit motivation. I personally think we should do the former rather than the latter because it should yield a more efficient and beneficial system for everyone. On the other hand, people love "free" stuff and will probably never vote against it so it is tempting to say we should throw up our hands and let the government control and do everything for us. What we have right now is the worst possible mix of for profit and government meddling.
Let me see if I can summarize your argument: governments fund research outside the US and there are pharma companies outside the US so therefore our R&D costs are the same. Sorry, that isn't a very convincing argument. Having numbers on what US companies spend on R&D vs. other countries would settle this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_research says the US spend $93 billion in 2003 and Australia spent $1.7 billion in 2001. Germany has roughly 3 times the GDP of Australia so it would be reasonable to assume it would be more. That may not be the best comparison but it doesn't look hopeful for your case, I would welcome more relevant numbers proving me wrong.
Correlation does not imply causation. Our "for profit healthcare" isn't necessarily expensive because it is "for profit", there are many other differences between the US and other countries. Let me break it down for you: If health insurance companies and providers are able to exert this level of control, then the problem is that health insurance companies and providers are able to exert this level of control. That is essentially an oligopoly and the government is responsible for breaking those up to create an actual, competitive market. Claiming that markets don't work because a broken market doesn't work is like claiming it is impossible for cars to drive on the freeway because you saw a broken down car on the freeway. Your solution is to abolish cars. My solution is to fix the car.