If the state is is providing crucial services such as policing and fire rescue, why is it so hard to classify healthcare as one of these essentials that modern society needs to function?
I've heard this argument a number of times, and I must congratulate you for not taking the analogy too far.
If my house catches on fire, you bet I'm indebted to society for providing a fire rescue service. And I really want to have a strong police force and justice system to mitigate theft from my home.
But neither of these replaces the homeowner's insurance that I carry! My insurance is then used to replace the lost items and repair the house -- that is not (under the current system) the government's responsibility.
So, we need to define "healthcare" and what it covers. Are we talking basic medical needs, emergency rooms, terminal patient care, or public-health (meaning vaccination programs and the like)? What should society pay for and what should I have to pay for myself?
Personally, I'm fine with a "government takeover" of healthcare to the extent that it benefits society. Vaccination of individuals benefit everybody! The government should sponsor wellness and nutrition programs, as well as regulate various aspects of the drug and insurance industries. I can even see a case for emergency care being guaranteed by the government (although that's where a few things break down).
But given the choice between insurance and the government backing my doctor's visits, I'm torn between two evils. Why should either be involved when I get a cold? And then there's multiple issues with more expensive treatments: either I suffer from an overly regulated government selection/scheduling process or from a repressive insurance company trying to deny claims and coverage! Is there no good solution here?
The forgotten aspect of this debate is a matter of responsibility: who is responsible for what cost and action?
The real test is what an operating system does with "bad code" -- does it gracefully fail or BSOD? What happens when a program cleans out all available memory?
There's another aspect, too: what programming style does it encourage? How about GUI style? How about peer-reviewed code? While not strictly part of the OS itself, the programming culture, development tools, and libraries are still connected to how software is written for the OS.
"Pre-owned" is a euphemism that car dealerships (and others) have used to avoid the "old and broken" reputation of that the term "used" carries. "Buy our certified pre-owned vehicles, instead of a used one from our competitors!" In other words, "used" == "broken" while "pre-owned" == "like-new".
So, while trying to create a system to discourage buying used games, they use a term designed to encourage it. Brilliant!
Slashdot Mirror
If the state is is providing crucial services such as policing and fire rescue, why is it so hard to classify healthcare as one of these essentials that modern society needs to function?
I've heard this argument a number of times, and I must congratulate you for not taking the analogy too far.
If my house catches on fire, you bet I'm indebted to society for providing a fire rescue service. And I really want to have a strong police force and justice system to mitigate theft from my home.
But neither of these replaces the homeowner's insurance that I carry! My insurance is then used to replace the lost items and repair the house -- that is not (under the current system) the government's responsibility.
So, we need to define "healthcare" and what it covers. Are we talking basic medical needs, emergency rooms, terminal patient care, or public-health (meaning vaccination programs and the like)? What should society pay for and what should I have to pay for myself?
Personally, I'm fine with a "government takeover" of healthcare to the extent that it benefits society. Vaccination of individuals benefit everybody! The government should sponsor wellness and nutrition programs, as well as regulate various aspects of the drug and insurance industries. I can even see a case for emergency care being guaranteed by the government (although that's where a few things break down).
But given the choice between insurance and the government backing my doctor's visits, I'm torn between two evils. Why should either be involved when I get a cold? And then there's multiple issues with more expensive treatments: either I suffer from an overly regulated government selection/scheduling process or from a repressive insurance company trying to deny claims and coverage! Is there no good solution here?
The forgotten aspect of this debate is a matter of responsibility: who is responsible for what cost and action?
Hear Hear!
The real test is what an operating system does with "bad code" -- does it gracefully fail or BSOD? What happens when a program cleans out all available memory?
There's another aspect, too: what programming style does it encourage? How about GUI style? How about peer-reviewed code? While not strictly part of the OS itself, the programming culture, development tools, and libraries are still connected to how software is written for the OS.
Sony is shooting itself in the foot here.
"Pre-owned" is a euphemism that car dealerships (and others) have used to avoid the "old and broken" reputation of that the term "used" carries. "Buy our certified pre-owned vehicles, instead of a used one from our competitors!" In other words, "used" == "broken" while "pre-owned" == "like-new".
So, while trying to create a system to discourage buying used games, they use a term designed to encourage it. Brilliant!