The companies are already regulated. I regulate facebook by not using it. I don't twitter. The blogs I join that require an address have me listed as "Bill Clinton, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC 20050" I don't do these things because I don't want the world knowing my business (not that the world would care).
If you choose to give them all your info and tell them all about what you like and where you go, then that is your business. But at what point do you start wondering "How do they pay their staff and keep the servers on?".
If you don't want them to do something nefarious with your info, don't give it to them. There is no need for some government entity to impose rules to protect you.
Right now, things are up in the air for them. They are scared that people are going to cancel cable and just go with downloaded content (Netflix, AppleTV, etc). They will probably open things up and let some other company develop the Set Top Box. Then when the feature set and business model stabilizes they will assert their monopolies and squeeze those companies out with their shoddy clones.
House insurance is probably required because he has a mortgage.
What is going to happen is that the insurance companies are going to wise up an either raise rates or require you to purchase fire services if they are available.
Works great until you have price discontinuities caused when a resource runs out before a suitable replacement is developed. Price, as the only measurement of value, distorts one's perceptions towards short term goals, and encourages deferring expensive endeavors that have no perceived value.
An example of this would be the I-35 bridge collapse. "We don't need to replace this decaying, 46 year old bridge, it's working fine!"
The market has its place, but there are times when you need to put it aside and do things a little differently.
It would be another step back from the "we-are-the-sole-reason-for-the-universe's-existence" mindset. Reducing humanities self-centered leanings leaves some more room for a "we-are-a-part-of-the-universe" attitude that tends to promote a more responsible approach to resource management.
I remember a while back someone made a "laser stylus" that would use an optical read head to measure the groove and produce the sound. No contact = no wear.
I have a VCR that still works (it was bought in 1993 when I was in college). I also still have my original Sony CD player bought in 1988 (not the size of a small TV) and it is still plays CDs from time to time. My Panasonic receiver and amp I bought in 1995 are still driving my 30 year old speakers. My appliances (washer, dryer, fridge, dishwasher) are all older than my 10 year old son, with only minor repairs here and there.
Granted, I don't use the CD player much because I have my computer hooked up to the stereo now. But why should I have to repurchase something just because some marketing droid figured that everyone will want to toss ProductX in 3 years. Most components of playing music (amp, speakers, etc) haven't changed much. Mowing the lawn and doing laundry have not changed much in 30+ years. Why should I buy a cheap machine, when I can pay twice as much and get a machine that lasts much, much longer? Appliances never break on Saturday morning right before you were heading off to Home Depot. They go out on Sunday night on the week that you need to work overtime in order to get the Super-Important project done on time.
I vote with my wallet for quality all the time. That is why I do not shop at Wal-mart. I have found that even the quality brands will have cheap-ass Walmart-only models that are far inferior to the other models that they sell. The problem is that people do not do their research and buy these inferior models and send the message to the retailers that "I like crap". This causes other retailers to do the same in order to compete. This makes the quality models much harder to find, and more importantly, the retailers never get the message because they are plenty busy selling crap to people who don't care.
The problem with the Wal-Mart philosophy is that up-front cost becomes the only measure of "value". Things like longevity and quality are not considered.
Caveat: The University of Florida had trouble reproducing the snow experiment. Water was confirmed to be wet and also found to be infested with large reptiles.
Energy from the wall can be one of several voltages. 120V or 240V for single phase or 440V for three phase power, all of which are available in your typical commercial building.
That is why individuals need to have more control over where the money goes. The best option would be to deposit the money (yours plus your employer's benefit) into a health savings account. You could get an insurance plan if you like, from any company you like, or you can just save your money for the future if you don't really need a lot of health care services now. Since the individual would have the choice and the money, the insurance companies and health providers would need to price their services accordingly, otherwise people will just deposit it and watch it grow.
The insurance companies would not be offering "volume discounts" since individuals, not the insurance companies, now spend the money. And individuals would have the option to deposit the company benefit into a health savings account and save their money for the future, if they are currently healthy.
Hospitals and providers wouldn't be able to jack up their rates and give deep discounts to the insurance companies, because most of the money would not be coming from the insurance companies. It would be coming from the individuals. So they would need to price their services accordingly.
Letting someone else, whom I have no control over, choose my health care plan does not work medically and it breaks the natural market. Buying health coverage should be more like buying car insurance, with the added twist that my company may pay a portion of the premium.
This also lets me choose the right plan for me, getting a minimal plan or none at all and saving for the future, or "buying up" to get a more comprehensive plan to fit my family's needs. The point is, the choice is mine, not my company's. They need to get out of that equation.
Actually, the rich just pay their bills because they can easily afford them. The insurance companies adjust their schemes to try to capture more of this money, which ends up squeezing us middle folks.
If I were king, I'd make everyone have a mandatory health savings account. Put some percentage of your income into it and purchase your healthcare from it. Get rid of the insurance companies, or at least relegate them to their original role - providing insurance for catastrophic events, not everyday things. Since the large companies write the checks, the entire health industry bills high amounts to try to collect as much as possible to make up for those who don't pay. Also get rid of the practice of employers choosing which company and plan your health care money goes to. Your company should be able to deposit your benefit into a company that you choose, not some troll in HR.
I think that this would restore individual choice to the health care market, which is what is currently missing. I think this would go a long way to solving many of the problems we have.
Slashdot Mirror
The companies are already regulated. I regulate facebook by not using it. I don't twitter. The blogs I join that require an address have me listed as "Bill Clinton, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC 20050" I don't do these things because I don't want the world knowing my business (not that the world would care).
If you choose to give them all your info and tell them all about what you like and where you go, then that is your business. But at what point do you start wondering "How do they pay their staff and keep the servers on?".
If you don't want them to do something nefarious with your info, don't give it to them. There is no need for some government entity to impose rules to protect you.
Right now, things are up in the air for them. They are scared that people are going to cancel cable and just go with downloaded content (Netflix, AppleTV, etc). They will probably open things up and let some other company develop the Set Top Box. Then when the feature set and business model stabilizes they will assert their monopolies and squeeze those companies out with their shoddy clones.
Except that the fine steak was dropped behind the counter and landed in a pile of rat crap, picking up some "exotic spices".
Hopefully you have the same water filtration scheme as the bottling companies.
Rights are things that you are free to do without interference.
Entitlements are things which must be provided to you by someone else.
All "rights" have limits, none are absolute.
House insurance is probably required because he has a mortgage.
What is going to happen is that the insurance companies are going to wise up an either raise rates or require you to purchase fire services if they are available.
This wasn't an Opt-Out, He failed to Opt-In. His choice. His consequences.
Health insurance is free^W^W paid for with taxes in Europe.
Fixed that for ya.
Health insurance is free^W^W paid for by taxes in Europe.
Fixed that for ya.
Works great until you have price discontinuities caused when a resource runs out before a suitable replacement is developed. Price, as the only measurement of value, distorts one's perceptions towards short term goals, and encourages deferring expensive endeavors that have no perceived value.
An example of this would be the I-35 bridge collapse. "We don't need to replace this decaying, 46 year old bridge, it's working fine!"
The market has its place, but there are times when you need to put it aside and do things a little differently.
It would be another step back from the "we-are-the-sole-reason-for-the-universe's-existence" mindset. Reducing humanities self-centered leanings leaves some more room for a "we-are-a-part-of-the-universe" attitude that tends to promote a more responsible approach to resource management.
I remember a while back someone made a "laser stylus" that would use an optical read head to measure the groove and produce the sound. No contact = no wear.
I have a VCR that still works (it was bought in 1993 when I was in college). I also still have my original Sony CD player bought in 1988 (not the size of a small TV) and it is still plays CDs from time to time. My Panasonic receiver and amp I bought in 1995 are still driving my 30 year old speakers. My appliances (washer, dryer, fridge, dishwasher) are all older than my 10 year old son, with only minor repairs here and there.
Granted, I don't use the CD player much because I have my computer hooked up to the stereo now. But why should I have to repurchase something just because some marketing droid figured that everyone will want to toss ProductX in 3 years. Most components of playing music (amp, speakers, etc) haven't changed much. Mowing the lawn and doing laundry have not changed much in 30+ years. Why should I buy a cheap machine, when I can pay twice as much and get a machine that lasts much, much longer? Appliances never break on Saturday morning right before you were heading off to Home Depot. They go out on Sunday night on the week that you need to work overtime in order to get the Super-Important project done on time.
I vote with my wallet for quality all the time. That is why I do not shop at Wal-mart. I have found that even the quality brands will have cheap-ass Walmart-only models that are far inferior to the other models that they sell. The problem is that people do not do their research and buy these inferior models and send the message to the retailers that "I like crap". This causes other retailers to do the same in order to compete. This makes the quality models much harder to find, and more importantly, the retailers never get the message because they are plenty busy selling crap to people who don't care.
The problem with the Wal-Mart philosophy is that up-front cost becomes the only measure of "value". Things like longevity and quality are not considered.
My Ken**** washer and dryer has given me about 11 years of service and I only had one $65 service call to fix a broken pressure sensor in the washer.
They can't do that with computers, why would tablets be any different?
Caveat: The University of Florida had trouble reproducing the snow experiment. Water was confirmed to be wet and also found to be infested with large reptiles.
You'll get the same groups on mars. The "stupidity" is a symptom. The disease is humanity.
According to H.R. - If you don't have 5 years of experience coding in HTML5, I'm afraid we don't have a position for you.
It is closer to the asteroid belt, where collision debris can provide more potential objects to capture.
Energy from the wall can be one of several voltages. 120V or 240V for single phase or 440V for three phase power, all of which are available in your typical commercial building.
He has to go work for the Microsoft product development group.
That is why individuals need to have more control over where the money goes. The best option would be to deposit the money (yours plus your employer's benefit) into a health savings account. You could get an insurance plan if you like, from any company you like, or you can just save your money for the future if you don't really need a lot of health care services now. Since the individual would have the choice and the money, the insurance companies and health providers would need to price their services accordingly, otherwise people will just deposit it and watch it grow.
The insurance companies would not be offering "volume discounts" since individuals, not the insurance companies, now spend the money. And individuals would have the option to deposit the company benefit into a health savings account and save their money for the future, if they are currently healthy.
Hospitals and providers wouldn't be able to jack up their rates and give deep discounts to the insurance companies, because most of the money would not be coming from the insurance companies. It would be coming from the individuals. So they would need to price their services accordingly.
Letting someone else, whom I have no control over, choose my health care plan does not work medically and it breaks the natural market. Buying health coverage should be more like buying car insurance, with the added twist that my company may pay a portion of the premium.
This also lets me choose the right plan for me, getting a minimal plan or none at all and saving for the future, or "buying up" to get a more comprehensive plan to fit my family's needs. The point is, the choice is mine, not my company's. They need to get out of that equation.
Actually, the rich just pay their bills because they can easily afford them. The insurance companies adjust their schemes to try to capture more of this money, which ends up squeezing us middle folks.
If I were king, I'd make everyone have a mandatory health savings account. Put some percentage of your income into it and purchase your healthcare from it. Get rid of the insurance companies, or at least relegate them to their original role - providing insurance for catastrophic events, not everyday things. Since the large companies write the checks, the entire health industry bills high amounts to try to collect as much as possible to make up for those who don't pay. Also get rid of the practice of employers choosing which company and plan your health care money goes to. Your company should be able to deposit your benefit into a company that you choose, not some troll in HR.
I think that this would restore individual choice to the health care market, which is what is currently missing. I think this would go a long way to solving many of the problems we have.