You won't see accidents if nuclear plants are operated with a modicum of competency.
Yes you will because humans are involved. Even competent and well intentioned humans make mistakes. If a mistake can be made, eventually it will be made. Nuclear power plants are complicated and a lot of things can go wrong including some things (like natural disasters or wars) that are beyond the control of the people designing and building the plant. You can design a plant to withstand a 8.0 earthquake but what happens when an 8.5 earthquake hits? There is no way to adequately shield a nuke plant from a targeted bomb. We can plan for a lot and nuclear power plants can be operated with reasonable safety but the notion that we won't ever see accidents if plants are operated competently is demonstrably wrong.
They handle this by using the excess to pump water into a hydro dam, and using gas turbines to make up the shortfall during the peak.
Most places do not have sufficiently large hydro dams available to make this feasible. Most places just sell off the excess energy (incurring transmission losses along the way) to somewhere else where it is needed.
So do I. I just point out that if you are anti-nuke you are by default pro-fossil fuel. Those are the ONLY alternatives right now and that will not change in the next 20-40 years. Renewable energy (solar, wind etc) can mitigate the problem but cannot eliminate it. So that is their choice. Dispersed pollution and probable climate change from fossil fuels or relatively small quantities of extremely hazardous radioactive material. The geopolitics of either choice are pretty awful as well. Hold your nose and pick one because those are the only choices available.
Hey nuclear advocates, how about you fix the waste issue first, then we'll talk.
Hey fossil fuel advocates by default, how about you fix the waste issue first, then we'll talk.
Sincerely, everyone not working for an oil company
(Given present technology if you argue against nuclear power you are by default arguing for fossil fuels because that is the only available alternative for the foreseeable future even taking advances in renewable energy into account.)
Presumably most of those engineers would assume these technologies would be used to defend their friends/family/people they care about.
Most weapons are sold both domestically and internationally. The US has sold fighters and bombers, tanks and other weapons in dozens of countries, not all of them friendly and every engineer that worked on those weapons knows that. Some of them have been used to attack the US or its allies. If weapons platforms were developed solely for domestic consumption you *might* have a valid point but the simple fact is that they are not and pretty much never have been. While the weapons systems the develop might be used to protect their family/friends/etc they can never be entirely sure of that.
There's plenty of good music out there that's not attached to the RIAA.
True but that is unfortunately not the same thing as there being good music not attached to the RIAA that people are willing or able to financially support. Just because it is out there doesn't mean people know about it or that they are willing to spend money to support it even if they do know about it.
The article is FUD. Why? Because there is still demand for this service.
The fact that there is a demand for something doesn't mean that demand can be met economically. There is arguably a demand for moon rocks but that doesn't mean that a business can be developed within the current economic constraints that can harvest and deliver moon rocks and make a profit doing so. Maybe someday in the future but right now it isn't feasible. An extreme example maybe but it's not hard to find more terrestrial examples of the same thing. There are lots of things out there for which there is some demand but the technology, economics or regulations in practice make it impossible to form a profitable business.
Maybe streaming services will work as a business or maybe they won't. The fact that there is a demand out there is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a business to be developed that can profitably supply streaming services. The content has to be legally obtainable at a price point lower than the amount customers are willing and able to pay. So far that combination has proven to be difficult for a variety of reasons.
I disagree - I actually think it's more like craftsmanship.
You are solving a technical problem using applied science. It is instructing (effectively designing) a machine to solve a real world problem. That is what engineers do. The fact that the problem they are solving doesn't result in a tangible good (at least not directly) is irrelevant. Programming a computer IS a form of engineering. No, it isn't the same as civil, mechanical or industrial engineering. It is its own discipline with its own unique requirements. Calling it craftsmanship frankly demeans what is going on. Maybe if you are solving some trivial previously solved problem you could say that but that doesn't describe most real world professional programming.
I think the article you quoted is full of nonsense. Programming a computer is essentially configuring a set of transistors to solve a math problem. It's a manipulation of physics albeit indirectly in most cases. There are a number of abstraction layers but strip those away and that is what is fundamentally occurring. The engineering comes in solving the problem, not in the exact mechanics of how it occurs. That is no different than a mechanical engineering using CAD to design some part. Furthermore not all engineering is about physics. I'm an industrial engineer by training. I design processes and production systems. It is very much engineering and it doesn't directly result in a tangible good. My work is rather more abstract - very similar in fact to programming in many respects. The main difference is that I program using people and machines and statistics instead of transistors and formal logic and languages. But the outcome in both cases is a process to solve a problem.
Without the weapons industry we wouldn't have space exploration.
A wonderful example of the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because the military was instrumental in the development of the space industry, it does not logically follow that there is no way we would have space exploration without military backing. The space industry would look different of course but you cannot claim it wouldn't exist.
Short of WMD the issue is not as simple as the author suggests.
Really? Explain to me what purpose an M1 tank or an F22 fighter has besides killing people? What humanitarian purpose do land mines serve? Assault rifles? (target shooting? don't make me laugh) Hand grenades? Let's not pretend that the engineers working on these products have no idea what they will be used for. Plausible deniability does not apply to a lot of weapons.
There are many technologies where the line between ethical and not-so-much is fuzzy but you hardly have to go to WMDs to get there.
Strictly speaking coders are not engineers. We use that term colloquially but I definitely got the impression that the article was speaking primarily of PEs.
Strictly speaking coders are not engineers.
They may or may not have an engineering degree/license but what coders are doing is most assuredly engineering. I'm an industrial engineer by training but I also do work almost daily that could be described as electrical engineering and sometimes mechanical engineering. Just because you don't have a document hanging on the wall saying you are an engineer doesn't mean you aren't one in real life.
We use that term colloquially but I definitely got the impression that the article was speaking primarily of PEs.
There are relatively few PEs compared to the number of engineers out there. Having a PE license doesn't mean you are better at engineering than someone who doesn't have one. The the sort of engineering I do it would have been a complete waste of my time for me to go get a PE license. It simply isn't necessary for many engineers. A PE is only required in certain circumstances and primarily for liability and statutory reasons. (Though it must be said that people with PE licenses tend to be good engineers in my experience)
If I'm not mistaken, he went to them with a solution: hire one more guy.
That's not a solution because it didn't come with a Return On Investment analysis attached detailing the financial cost to the company and the expected return from the investment. I'm an engineer and I'm also a certified accountant. I went back to school to learn finance precisely because I didn't know how to make an economic argument for the resources I needed. If you want to make a case for an expenditure you need to justify it in dollar terms whenever possible. In this case the justification is in opportunity cost and productivity. You show how much the lack of a person is costing the company in lost productivity and what the return on investment and timeframe for that return might be.
Somebody buys a car like this, they should already know what it can do.
Except that the people who are the likely buyers for a car like that and the people that can drive it well are seldom the same people. Most people that buy a car like a Corvette really can't handle the car anywhere close to its limits, never mind a street legal race car like the Porsche. But you get lots of guys with more cash than brains.
That's just a stupid rule, as it would ban for example a mint condition Jaguar E-type which looks far nicer than any recent BMW or Mercedes. Even Enzo Ferrari called it "The most beautiful car ever made".
Yes it is a very stupid rule. Completely agree on that point. A classic car in good condition like the E-Type should fit in anywhere.
That said, personally I think the Jaguar E-Type is not an especially attractive vehicle and I don't feel its looks have aged particularly well. One of my neighbors had one (a hardtop) a few years back and I could never warm up to the styling. (personally I've never liked Jaguar's styling in general) In fact I feel the exact opposite from you regarding your comparison with recent BMW's and Mercedes - I find those to be much better looking. Just my personal taste of course and I have no problem with those who feel differently. For my money the best looking street-legal vehicle ever is the Ford GT - it has the most timeless look I've ever seen on a vehicle.
You are just fucking kidding, right? You get better care at our emergency rooms than in intensive care anywhere else.
The available facts do not support your argument. The US is paying way more money per capita than anyone else for worse outcomes than a large number of other countries. While there are areas where the US does lead the pack (particularly research and medical technology), the US does not have the best results for life expectancy, immunizations, or average cost of a hospital stay among other important categories. The data on outcomes simply does not support the assertion that the US has the best healthcare system because the US does not get the best results overall nor does it get the best results per dollar spent.
If efficiency is completely arbitrary, then the prices that high-frequency traders even out, which the post I was responding to hailed as the legitimate foundation of capitalism, are based on what?
Efficient market theory, at least in its strong forms, is a ideal world model that doesn't actually exist in the real world. It presumes rationality, correct interpretation of information (on average), uniform distribution of information and other things that don't really happen much of the time. However it is a useful model at times and does explain at least some of what is going on. Basically it is a description of price differences that arise due to the temporal lag in information distribution. High frequency trading is an attempt to explicitly profit from this gap by being first to notice and act on information disparities. Nothing wrong with that in principle since price corrections based on information are exactly how every market works and how one makes a profit trading. The thing that is scary about HFT is that it happens so fast that big problems can occur faster than the ability to take action to mitigate the problems.
Dealers profit from the general lack of liquidity.
There are numerous ways to profit from stock trading most of which are in no way solely dependent on liquidity. In fact without sufficient liquidity it is impossible to trade and thus one cannot make a profit. You can't buy or sell something if there is no liquidity. However there is only one way that I am aware of to make consistently above average profits and that is to have an informational advantage. That is to interpret the information better (a better model), be able to act on the information faster (HFT) or to have information not universally available (think insider trading).
Wouldn't it be better if a "public option" existed, which provided liquidity without a profit motive?
Like what exactly? I've got a masters degree in finance and I'm not aware of any such mechanism.
True but irrelevant. The point of having the code was so that the launch decision was not available to whoever happened to be in the hole with the missile. By setting the code to a predetermined number they effectively gave the decision regarding whether to start WWIII to some random guy out in the field. All it would have taken was one or two crazy or misinformed people.
No optimism needed. I pay our bill each month right now so I know to the penny what we currently pay and I have gotten quotes directly from Blue Cross and Priority Health for what coverage they will get next year. The full cost of the plan *will* be less than it is now (by about half for most) and their out of pocket will in most cases be equal or less as well. This is not supposition on my part. I'm merely reporting what our company has experienced.
Keep in mind that that insurance will also have to be purchased not just once, but for the rest of your employees' lives. Just because you might be right this year about a cost reduction, doesn't mean you'll be right in the years to come.
Just like it always has been. Do you have a point to make you can back up with some actual facts or are you just chicken little-ing?
Perhaps you don't understand what a better than platinum plan is. I buy individual insurance, I am not member of a group plan like your manufacturing company has.
I understand perfectly well thanks but since you don't know me I'll overlook the condescending remark. Frankly, if you claim to be getting a "better than platinum" plan for $165/month without being a member of a group and with a deductible under $3000 I'm going to call bullshit unless you can provide some actual evidence. Even for a healthy 20 year old you simply cannot get a non-group plan for that kind of cash that will actually cover anything unless it has a huge deductible. Prove me wrong. What specific plan do you have with what insurance company? What specifically does it cover and what is the deductible?
At least not in my case. I was paying $165 for a better than platinum level plan.
Were you paying the entire bill for that plan? Did you have a large deductible? Most people that get health insurance have a major portion of the tab picked up by their employer. They think they pay $165 or whatever their price is because they never see the actual full cost of the plan. I've spent a LOT of time looking at health insurance plans in recent years. I have NEVER seen anyone get a plan with that much in the way of features for that kind of price unless they were paying a huge deductible. I had a catastrophic coverage plan a few years ago that had a $5000 deductible but had pretty good coverage after that and the price was around $150/month. But that first $5000 was entirely on me.
I run a manufacturing company. We provide health insurance for our employees and have picked up 50% of the cost. Our group rate for a pretty good 80/20 HMO with a zero deductible (roughly equivalent to a gold plan) cost about $525 per employee per month. Net cost to our employees is around $260/month since the company pays half. The plans we've found under the new regulations for the Affordable Care Act will give similar coverage for about $200-300/month (varies with age but always a lot less than current cost) or almost a 40% reduction in total premium over what we pay now. Furthermore a lot of our employees will qualify for subsidies so the coverage will cost even less.
While this whole roll out has been a fiasco, at the end of the day the people who work for me are mostly going to end up with similar or better coverage for less money. Furthermore their coverage will not be tied to their employment with us which is LONG overdue. No one should EVER lose health coverage just because they lost a job.
Oh, and if you don't have a living will (and a will, for that matter) legally established, you're grossly irresponsible.
Exactly how is a child or someone who is legally incompetent (retarded, senile, coma etc) supposed to establish a living will? They are not legally allowed to do so. It's easy to be critical when you have all the options in front of you. Not everyone does. Living wills are a very good thing but they don't solve every problem and they aren't available to everyone.
Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
Suicide is a person killing themselves. The specific reason why does not matter - it is still suicide. The temporal status of the person's problem is irrelevant.
If he has never expressed a desire to die rather than go on living in pain, then it isn't anyone else's decision to end his life.
It becomes someone else's decision when he can no longer speak for himself. We decide to let people die all the time who have never expressed any thoughts on the matter. Talk to any hospice worker and they'll clue you in. I had an aunt who we had to place in hospice care and basically decide to let her die. They essentially drugged her up with opiates to keep her comfortable while she starved to death. It was the most merciful thing we could do for her that was legal. Fortunately we had a medical power of attorney through my mother but it very much was the family's decision to make. Happens every day all around the globe.
Furthermore there are many people who are unable to legally or physically express a desire to die. Children, the mentally incompetent, those who are incapacitated etc. Some people are never able to speak for themselves legally.
And as for the talk of torture, if he truly was as far gone as the article claims it's unlikely that he was actually experiencing any of that pain.
You have virtually NO information regarding specifics of the medical situation facing Mr. Adams father. For you to glibly declare that he wasn't experiencing any pain is insulting and arrogant and almost certainly incorrect. You weren't there and you don't know the details and I'm guessing you aren't a medical professional either. (if you are I hope you never treat me) Maybe he wasn't mentally there anymore but that doesn't mean he wasn't suffering or in pain.
If the person doesn't want it, they have the ability to create a living will (advance healthcare directive) and to designate someone with a durable power of attorney for healthcare.
That's not the same thing as having the right to pull the plug on someone. Furthermore many people are not able to create a living will. Children and those who are legally considered not competent or incapacitated (think coma) cannot authorize such a document. Furthermore while living wills and similar directives are a very good idea, they aren't appropriate for all circumstances and all people.
No need for $8000/month. A natural death can follow quickly, especially if your order says to give you no food or water.
I've had to watch close family die in exactly this manner through hospice. I wouldn't call it a quick death and it certainly isn't a particularly pleasant way to die. Basically the person is drugged up with opiates and they starve to death. I have nothing but respect for hospice and the service they provide but when the best they can do is let a person starve to death, that is to my mind needlessly cruel.
Slashdot Mirror
You won't see accidents if nuclear plants are operated with a modicum of competency.
Yes you will because humans are involved. Even competent and well intentioned humans make mistakes. If a mistake can be made, eventually it will be made. Nuclear power plants are complicated and a lot of things can go wrong including some things (like natural disasters or wars) that are beyond the control of the people designing and building the plant. You can design a plant to withstand a 8.0 earthquake but what happens when an 8.5 earthquake hits? There is no way to adequately shield a nuke plant from a targeted bomb. We can plan for a lot and nuclear power plants can be operated with reasonable safety but the notion that we won't ever see accidents if plants are operated competently is demonstrably wrong.
They handle this by using the excess to pump water into a hydro dam, and using gas turbines to make up the shortfall during the peak.
Most places do not have sufficiently large hydro dams available to make this feasible. Most places just sell off the excess energy (incurring transmission losses along the way) to somewhere else where it is needed.
I have a anit-nuke in my family.
So do I. I just point out that if you are anti-nuke you are by default pro-fossil fuel. Those are the ONLY alternatives right now and that will not change in the next 20-40 years. Renewable energy (solar, wind etc) can mitigate the problem but cannot eliminate it. So that is their choice. Dispersed pollution and probable climate change from fossil fuels or relatively small quantities of extremely hazardous radioactive material. The geopolitics of either choice are pretty awful as well. Hold your nose and pick one because those are the only choices available.
Hey nuclear advocates, how about you fix the waste issue first, then we'll talk.
Hey fossil fuel advocates by default, how about you fix the waste issue first, then we'll talk.
Sincerely, everyone not working for an oil company
(Given present technology if you argue against nuclear power you are by default arguing for fossil fuels because that is the only available alternative for the foreseeable future even taking advances in renewable energy into account.)
Presumably most of those engineers would assume these technologies would be used to defend their friends/family/people they care about.
Most weapons are sold both domestically and internationally. The US has sold fighters and bombers, tanks and other weapons in dozens of countries, not all of them friendly and every engineer that worked on those weapons knows that. Some of them have been used to attack the US or its allies. If weapons platforms were developed solely for domestic consumption you *might* have a valid point but the simple fact is that they are not and pretty much never have been. While the weapons systems the develop might be used to protect their family/friends/etc they can never be entirely sure of that.
There's plenty of good music out there that's not attached to the RIAA.
True but that is unfortunately not the same thing as there being good music not attached to the RIAA that people are willing or able to financially support. Just because it is out there doesn't mean people know about it or that they are willing to spend money to support it even if they do know about it.
The article is FUD. Why? Because there is still demand for this service.
The fact that there is a demand for something doesn't mean that demand can be met economically. There is arguably a demand for moon rocks but that doesn't mean that a business can be developed within the current economic constraints that can harvest and deliver moon rocks and make a profit doing so. Maybe someday in the future but right now it isn't feasible. An extreme example maybe but it's not hard to find more terrestrial examples of the same thing. There are lots of things out there for which there is some demand but the technology, economics or regulations in practice make it impossible to form a profitable business.
Maybe streaming services will work as a business or maybe they won't. The fact that there is a demand out there is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a business to be developed that can profitably supply streaming services. The content has to be legally obtainable at a price point lower than the amount customers are willing and able to pay. So far that combination has proven to be difficult for a variety of reasons.
I disagree - I actually think it's more like craftsmanship.
You are solving a technical problem using applied science. It is instructing (effectively designing) a machine to solve a real world problem. That is what engineers do. The fact that the problem they are solving doesn't result in a tangible good (at least not directly) is irrelevant. Programming a computer IS a form of engineering. No, it isn't the same as civil, mechanical or industrial engineering. It is its own discipline with its own unique requirements. Calling it craftsmanship frankly demeans what is going on. Maybe if you are solving some trivial previously solved problem you could say that but that doesn't describe most real world professional programming.
I think the article you quoted is full of nonsense. Programming a computer is essentially configuring a set of transistors to solve a math problem. It's a manipulation of physics albeit indirectly in most cases. There are a number of abstraction layers but strip those away and that is what is fundamentally occurring. The engineering comes in solving the problem, not in the exact mechanics of how it occurs. That is no different than a mechanical engineering using CAD to design some part. Furthermore not all engineering is about physics. I'm an industrial engineer by training. I design processes and production systems. It is very much engineering and it doesn't directly result in a tangible good. My work is rather more abstract - very similar in fact to programming in many respects. The main difference is that I program using people and machines and statistics instead of transistors and formal logic and languages. But the outcome in both cases is a process to solve a problem.
Without the weapons industry we wouldn't have space exploration.
A wonderful example of the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because the military was instrumental in the development of the space industry, it does not logically follow that there is no way we would have space exploration without military backing. The space industry would look different of course but you cannot claim it wouldn't exist.
Short of WMD the issue is not as simple as the author suggests.
Really? Explain to me what purpose an M1 tank or an F22 fighter has besides killing people? What humanitarian purpose do land mines serve? Assault rifles? (target shooting? don't make me laugh) Hand grenades? Let's not pretend that the engineers working on these products have no idea what they will be used for. Plausible deniability does not apply to a lot of weapons.
There are many technologies where the line between ethical and not-so-much is fuzzy but you hardly have to go to WMDs to get there.
Strictly speaking coders are not engineers. We use that term colloquially but I definitely got the impression that the article was speaking primarily of PEs.
Strictly speaking coders are not engineers.
They may or may not have an engineering degree/license but what coders are doing is most assuredly engineering. I'm an industrial engineer by training but I also do work almost daily that could be described as electrical engineering and sometimes mechanical engineering. Just because you don't have a document hanging on the wall saying you are an engineer doesn't mean you aren't one in real life.
We use that term colloquially but I definitely got the impression that the article was speaking primarily of PEs.
There are relatively few PEs compared to the number of engineers out there. Having a PE license doesn't mean you are better at engineering than someone who doesn't have one. The the sort of engineering I do it would have been a complete waste of my time for me to go get a PE license. It simply isn't necessary for many engineers. A PE is only required in certain circumstances and primarily for liability and statutory reasons. (Though it must be said that people with PE licenses tend to be good engineers in my experience)
If I'm not mistaken, he went to them with a solution: hire one more guy.
That's not a solution because it didn't come with a Return On Investment analysis attached detailing the financial cost to the company and the expected return from the investment. I'm an engineer and I'm also a certified accountant. I went back to school to learn finance precisely because I didn't know how to make an economic argument for the resources I needed. If you want to make a case for an expenditure you need to justify it in dollar terms whenever possible. In this case the justification is in opportunity cost and productivity. You show how much the lack of a person is costing the company in lost productivity and what the return on investment and timeframe for that return might be.
Somebody buys a car like this, they should already know what it can do.
Except that the people who are the likely buyers for a car like that and the people that can drive it well are seldom the same people. Most people that buy a car like a Corvette really can't handle the car anywhere close to its limits, never mind a street legal race car like the Porsche. But you get lots of guys with more cash than brains.
That's just a stupid rule, as it would ban for example a mint condition Jaguar E-type which looks far nicer than any recent BMW or Mercedes. Even Enzo Ferrari called it "The most beautiful car ever made".
Yes it is a very stupid rule. Completely agree on that point. A classic car in good condition like the E-Type should fit in anywhere.
That said, personally I think the Jaguar E-Type is not an especially attractive vehicle and I don't feel its looks have aged particularly well. One of my neighbors had one (a hardtop) a few years back and I could never warm up to the styling. (personally I've never liked Jaguar's styling in general) In fact I feel the exact opposite from you regarding your comparison with recent BMW's and Mercedes - I find those to be much better looking. Just my personal taste of course and I have no problem with those who feel differently. For my money the best looking street-legal vehicle ever is the Ford GT - it has the most timeless look I've ever seen on a vehicle.
You are just fucking kidding, right? You get better care at our emergency rooms than in intensive care anywhere else.
The available facts do not support your argument. The US is paying way more money per capita than anyone else for worse outcomes than a large number of other countries. While there are areas where the US does lead the pack (particularly research and medical technology), the US does not have the best results for life expectancy, immunizations, or average cost of a hospital stay among other important categories. The data on outcomes simply does not support the assertion that the US has the best healthcare system because the US does not get the best results overall nor does it get the best results per dollar spent.
If efficiency is completely arbitrary, then the prices that high-frequency traders even out, which the post I was responding to hailed as the legitimate foundation of capitalism, are based on what?
Efficient market theory, at least in its strong forms, is a ideal world model that doesn't actually exist in the real world. It presumes rationality, correct interpretation of information (on average), uniform distribution of information and other things that don't really happen much of the time. However it is a useful model at times and does explain at least some of what is going on. Basically it is a description of price differences that arise due to the temporal lag in information distribution. High frequency trading is an attempt to explicitly profit from this gap by being first to notice and act on information disparities. Nothing wrong with that in principle since price corrections based on information are exactly how every market works and how one makes a profit trading. The thing that is scary about HFT is that it happens so fast that big problems can occur faster than the ability to take action to mitigate the problems.
Dealers profit from the general lack of liquidity.
There are numerous ways to profit from stock trading most of which are in no way solely dependent on liquidity. In fact without sufficient liquidity it is impossible to trade and thus one cannot make a profit. You can't buy or sell something if there is no liquidity. However there is only one way that I am aware of to make consistently above average profits and that is to have an informational advantage. That is to interpret the information better (a better model), be able to act on the information faster (HFT) or to have information not universally available (think insider trading).
Wouldn't it be better if a "public option" existed, which provided liquidity without a profit motive?
Like what exactly? I've got a masters degree in finance and I'm not aware of any such mechanism.
It still required the two guys in the silos to turn their keys.
Great, so it takes just two crazy and/or misinformed people to start WWIII. Sounds like a terrific plan. What could possibly go wrong?
00000000 is just as random as any other code.
True but irrelevant. The point of having the code was so that the launch decision was not available to whoever happened to be in the hole with the missile. By setting the code to a predetermined number they effectively gave the decision regarding whether to start WWIII to some random guy out in the field. All it would have taken was one or two crazy or misinformed people.
Love that optimism.
No optimism needed. I pay our bill each month right now so I know to the penny what we currently pay and I have gotten quotes directly from Blue Cross and Priority Health for what coverage they will get next year. The full cost of the plan *will* be less than it is now (by about half for most) and their out of pocket will in most cases be equal or less as well. This is not supposition on my part. I'm merely reporting what our company has experienced.
Keep in mind that that insurance will also have to be purchased not just once, but for the rest of your employees' lives. Just because you might be right this year about a cost reduction, doesn't mean you'll be right in the years to come.
Just like it always has been. Do you have a point to make you can back up with some actual facts or are you just chicken little-ing?
Perhaps you don't understand what a better than platinum plan is. I buy individual insurance, I am not member of a group plan like your manufacturing company has.
I understand perfectly well thanks but since you don't know me I'll overlook the condescending remark. Frankly, if you claim to be getting a "better than platinum" plan for $165/month without being a member of a group and with a deductible under $3000 I'm going to call bullshit unless you can provide some actual evidence. Even for a healthy 20 year old you simply cannot get a non-group plan for that kind of cash that will actually cover anything unless it has a huge deductible. Prove me wrong. What specific plan do you have with what insurance company? What specifically does it cover and what is the deductible?
At least not in my case. I was paying $165 for a better than platinum level plan.
Were you paying the entire bill for that plan? Did you have a large deductible? Most people that get health insurance have a major portion of the tab picked up by their employer. They think they pay $165 or whatever their price is because they never see the actual full cost of the plan. I've spent a LOT of time looking at health insurance plans in recent years. I have NEVER seen anyone get a plan with that much in the way of features for that kind of price unless they were paying a huge deductible. I had a catastrophic coverage plan a few years ago that had a $5000 deductible but had pretty good coverage after that and the price was around $150/month. But that first $5000 was entirely on me.
I run a manufacturing company. We provide health insurance for our employees and have picked up 50% of the cost. Our group rate for a pretty good 80/20 HMO with a zero deductible (roughly equivalent to a gold plan) cost about $525 per employee per month. Net cost to our employees is around $260/month since the company pays half. The plans we've found under the new regulations for the Affordable Care Act will give similar coverage for about $200-300/month (varies with age but always a lot less than current cost) or almost a 40% reduction in total premium over what we pay now. Furthermore a lot of our employees will qualify for subsidies so the coverage will cost even less.
While this whole roll out has been a fiasco, at the end of the day the people who work for me are mostly going to end up with similar or better coverage for less money. Furthermore their coverage will not be tied to their employment with us which is LONG overdue. No one should EVER lose health coverage just because they lost a job.
Oh, and if you don't have a living will (and a will, for that matter) legally established, you're grossly irresponsible.
Exactly how is a child or someone who is legally incompetent (retarded, senile, coma etc) supposed to establish a living will? They are not legally allowed to do so. It's easy to be critical when you have all the options in front of you. Not everyone does. Living wills are a very good thing but they don't solve every problem and they aren't available to everyone.
Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
Suicide is a person killing themselves. The specific reason why does not matter - it is still suicide. The temporal status of the person's problem is irrelevant.
If he has never expressed a desire to die rather than go on living in pain, then it isn't anyone else's decision to end his life.
It becomes someone else's decision when he can no longer speak for himself. We decide to let people die all the time who have never expressed any thoughts on the matter. Talk to any hospice worker and they'll clue you in. I had an aunt who we had to place in hospice care and basically decide to let her die. They essentially drugged her up with opiates to keep her comfortable while she starved to death. It was the most merciful thing we could do for her that was legal. Fortunately we had a medical power of attorney through my mother but it very much was the family's decision to make. Happens every day all around the globe.
Furthermore there are many people who are unable to legally or physically express a desire to die. Children, the mentally incompetent, those who are incapacitated etc. Some people are never able to speak for themselves legally.
And as for the talk of torture, if he truly was as far gone as the article claims it's unlikely that he was actually experiencing any of that pain.
You have virtually NO information regarding specifics of the medical situation facing Mr. Adams father. For you to glibly declare that he wasn't experiencing any pain is insulting and arrogant and almost certainly incorrect. You weren't there and you don't know the details and I'm guessing you aren't a medical professional either. (if you are I hope you never treat me) Maybe he wasn't mentally there anymore but that doesn't mean he wasn't suffering or in pain.
If the person doesn't want it, they have the ability to create a living will (advance healthcare directive) and to designate someone with a durable power of attorney for healthcare.
That's not the same thing as having the right to pull the plug on someone. Furthermore many people are not able to create a living will. Children and those who are legally considered not competent or incapacitated (think coma) cannot authorize such a document. Furthermore while living wills and similar directives are a very good idea, they aren't appropriate for all circumstances and all people.
No need for $8000/month. A natural death can follow quickly, especially if your order says to give you no food or water.
I've had to watch close family die in exactly this manner through hospice. I wouldn't call it a quick death and it certainly isn't a particularly pleasant way to die. Basically the person is drugged up with opiates and they starve to death. I have nothing but respect for hospice and the service they provide but when the best they can do is let a person starve to death, that is to my mind needlessly cruel.