Most societies make the same claim about the allowable circumstances for killing certain people. They may define the circumstances differently but almost all allow it in some form.
Personally, I won't be looking for the best value on my funeral. I really won't be caring if those I leave behind have a funeral or not. That is their business as I won't really be invited to attend.
Epic fail. Nothing in previous US law would have prevented her from choosing her providers, insurance or doctors. If you don't like the insurance your employer offers then get you have choices: 1) get a different employer, 2) don't participate in your employer's plan and fund it yourself, 3) get some supplemental coverage (that used to be an option but may have been done away with to create a crisis requiring Obamacare as the cure).
Obamacare added nothing to solve her problem. It still allows plans to have PPO networks. It says that if your employer offers coverage to the employee, that the employee and dependents are not eligible for subsidies on the exchanges. You can still go to the exhange you just don't get government assistance. The only thing that changed is that if you choose to not purchase insurance, the government can withdraw a penalty/fine/tax from your bank accounts. Again, the main thing that Obamacare does is to penalize you for not engaging in commerce with at least one corporation on a government approved list.
So you are saying that the real cost of introducing new medicines is not actually the greed of big pharma demanding payment but the government regulations that demand the trials. So, are the regulations worth the drag on the economy?
My opinion is that not having any regulation in this area would be bad but maybe we have more than is necessary.
I was simply pointing out that public (state-operated) universities are already involved in all kinds of research, pharma, genetics, etc. so we already have the system jandersen asked for. If you want to add that the problem didn't get solved, fine. The only way "having government do it" and "taking the commercial aspect out of it" will solve the problem is at the point that nobody ever gets paid for anything and never has to pay for anything like what people think was happening in Star Trek. Such people tend to not notice all the episodes where the Enterprise visits worlds that require and pay money for gambling and such so the crew withdraw some cash from their holdings. I always get amazed that supposedly smart people completely ignore the obvious. When you order food from the computer, the computer can automatically deduct the payment from your account. That already exists in the world today, yet we pretend the Star Trek computers could not handle it.
"not technically part of the government expenditures" which is why people, falsely, claim that Clinton left us with a surplus. We sort of had an excess of funds in the category we have to count, technically, and ignored the larger portion that we, technically, ignore.
Do you think they got rich by spending money they didn't need to. If they are rich enough to travel anywhere for healthcare, why would they come here if, by doing so, meant they were not buying themselves the best?
France arguing over immigrants suggests that not restricting immigrants could lead to a failure. Guess what? The US system allows non-legal immigrants unrestricted access even for non-life-threatening treatment.
Back during the initial "debate" on Obamacare, Wisconsin Public Radio had the minister responsible for Finland's health care system on as a guest to explain how it would solve all of our problems. You could hear the host (an ardent liberal) gasp when the minister suggested that the Finnish system would fail miserably in the US because the Finnish system does not cover tourists nor illegal (undocumented) immigrant. He pointed out that non-residents are required to show proof of insurance or purchase insurance upon entry and they are then entered into the system. He said that treatment does not happen if you are not in the system. I'm fairly certain that he was talking about non-life threatening treatment because he did state that simple broken bones would not be handled without being in the system.
We don't need large organizations to work out who is rich and who is poor, we kind of naturally work that out on our own. Stuff like that comes naturally to those who haven't been taught to rely on the government for everything.
Nothing is preventing state universities from doing the research and competing with the private companies that are doing similar or different research. The University of Wisconsin system generates a lot of revenue from monetizing all kinds of research.
Just because you can find a situation where negotiation may not be your best option does not mean it is impossible or cannot be done in other circumstances. Not every visit to the doctor is life-threatening. A torn ACL will kill nobody but getting it fixed will greatly enhance quality of life. And that procedure can be negotiated and comparison shopped.
You most certainly shouldn't simply trust the detectors and generators. You should separately verify that they are working properly by testing them against known samples (baselines and such). This does require trust at some level but by using baseline samples from separate vendors, you start gaining that trust.
Slashdot Mirror
"prevent errors in translation and copying" Nice, except the originals were mostly not written in Latin.
Most societies make the same claim about the allowable circumstances for killing certain people. They may define the circumstances differently but almost all allow it in some form.
So, geminidomino is claiming that it is ok to torture, steal, rape and murder as long as you wait until you are at least 7 years old?
If you have a heart attack, you will probably have another when you get the bill.
Personally, I won't be looking for the best value on my funeral. I really won't be caring if those I leave behind have a funeral or not. That is their business as I won't really be invited to attend.
Epic fail. Nothing in previous US law would have prevented her from choosing her providers, insurance or doctors. If you don't like the insurance your employer offers then get you have choices: 1) get a different employer, 2) don't participate in your employer's plan and fund it yourself, 3) get some supplemental coverage (that used to be an option but may have been done away with to create a crisis requiring Obamacare as the cure).
Obamacare added nothing to solve her problem. It still allows plans to have PPO networks. It says that if your employer offers coverage to the employee, that the employee and dependents are not eligible for subsidies on the exchanges. You can still go to the exhange you just don't get government assistance. The only thing that changed is that if you choose to not purchase insurance, the government can withdraw a penalty/fine/tax from your bank accounts. Again, the main thing that Obamacare does is to penalize you for not engaging in commerce with at least one corporation on a government approved list.
Only a dumbass would not find out what is included and what isn't before having surgery.
So you are saying that the real cost of introducing new medicines is not actually the greed of big pharma demanding payment but the government regulations that demand the trials. So, are the regulations worth the drag on the economy?
My opinion is that not having any regulation in this area would be bad but maybe we have more than is necessary.
I was simply pointing out that public (state-operated) universities are already involved in all kinds of research, pharma, genetics, etc. so we already have the system jandersen asked for. If you want to add that the problem didn't get solved, fine. The only way "having government do it" and "taking the commercial aspect out of it" will solve the problem is at the point that nobody ever gets paid for anything and never has to pay for anything like what people think was happening in Star Trek. Such people tend to not notice all the episodes where the Enterprise visits worlds that require and pay money for gambling and such so the crew withdraw some cash from their holdings. I always get amazed that supposedly smart people completely ignore the obvious. When you order food from the computer, the computer can automatically deduct the payment from your account. That already exists in the world today, yet we pretend the Star Trek computers could not handle it.
"not technically part of the government expenditures" which is why people, falsely, claim that Clinton left us with a surplus. We sort of had an excess of funds in the category we have to count, technically, and ignored the larger portion that we, technically, ignore.
If we had a surplus ten years ago, why did the debt never decrease? Oh yeah, because their was never a surplus.
Well yeah. We are subsidizing their costs.
Simply? How in the hell is 1200 pages simple.
The US is.
Do you think they got rich by spending money they didn't need to. If they are rich enough to travel anywhere for healthcare, why would they come here if, by doing so, meant they were not buying themselves the best?
France arguing over immigrants suggests that not restricting immigrants could lead to a failure. Guess what? The US system allows non-legal immigrants unrestricted access even for non-life-threatening treatment.
Back during the initial "debate" on Obamacare, Wisconsin Public Radio had the minister responsible for Finland's health care system on as a guest to explain how it would solve all of our problems. You could hear the host (an ardent liberal) gasp when the minister suggested that the Finnish system would fail miserably in the US because the Finnish system does not cover tourists nor illegal (undocumented) immigrant. He pointed out that non-residents are required to show proof of insurance or purchase insurance upon entry and they are then entered into the system. He said that treatment does not happen if you are not in the system. I'm fairly certain that he was talking about non-life threatening treatment because he did state that simple broken bones would not be handled without being in the system.
We don't need large organizations to work out who is rich and who is poor, we kind of naturally work that out on our own. Stuff like that comes naturally to those who haven't been taught to rely on the government for everything.
but we are so much smarter than those backwards Brits. We'll do it properly over here, they promise.
Nothing is preventing state universities from doing the research and competing with the private companies that are doing similar or different research. The University of Wisconsin system generates a lot of revenue from monetizing all kinds of research.
And neither can the US as long as you are willing to have your yet to be born great-great-grandchildren sign the loan papers for the money you spend.
large but not even the plurality
And you have never heard of anyone needing essential but non-emergency medical attention?
Just because you can find a situation where negotiation may not be your best option does not mean it is impossible or cannot be done in other circumstances. Not every visit to the doctor is life-threatening. A torn ACL will kill nobody but getting it fixed will greatly enhance quality of life. And that procedure can be negotiated and comparison shopped.
Did you just figure that out. Newsflash!!!! Government never provides anything for free. Someone, now or in the future, will pay for it.
You most certainly shouldn't simply trust the detectors and generators. You should separately verify that they are working properly by testing them against known samples (baselines and such). This does require trust at some level but by using baseline samples from separate vendors, you start gaining that trust.