If I were him, I'd start spilling all the info I ever had on security for the state. No amount of money or threats would stop me.
I mean any and every item. I'd expose every stupid supervisory move that compromised security and my ability to protect the network. EVERYTHING would be exposed.
Nothing worse than people getting their panties all in a wad over a "talk" about a well publicized incident, of which all the bad guys already knew about.
There is only one thing these people understand, and that is how to look good. Ruin it for them.
What most people don't realize is that the cost of doing medicine in the US today isn't just the cost of doing medicine. It includes other costs for things like The Uninsured (still gets treatment), Legal (Malpractice), Defensive Medicine, Insurance Overhead, lack of competition, artificial scarcity of services.
I have three simple steps to fix this mess.
1) Tort Reform. Limit Pain and suffering so that it is no longer a "get rich quick" scheme. Punitive damages don't go to victim, but rather goes into a fund for medical care grants.
2) Pricing stabilization. No negotiated pricing for insurance companies. EVERYONE pays the same. Period. Negotiated pricing is nothing short of price fixing.
3) Make insurance cover emergency and substantial care only. Have high deductible and medical savings accounts.
Having more Nurse Practitioners and other skilled people doing routine care instead of doctors would also help lower costs.
And regulation never stopped them. We have plenty of regulations on banks, and take a look at their condition right now. Regulation didn't prevent the recent collapses.
And I'll bet you're going to simply suggest we haven't regulated them enough. Which is exactly how tyrants rule.
Okay, then you move to Canada, and don't come back when you have to wait years for that procedure you need.
What evidence do you have that it is better than anecdotal evidence and bias "surveys" that don't include the wait times and ignores the people coming to the US to get the care they need?
What evidence is there that the system in the US is broken at all? Does Canada border a third world nation, taking in Millions of illegal aliens a year?
Of course you ignore such, because even mentioning the invasion from the south is "racist" (never mind that it is true).
See, I can pull articles that support my position too. But if Canada is so much better than the US, why don't you see people crossing into Canada for health care, like you see people in Canada doing to the US.
This includes having Canada pay US to take some of its people into OUR hospitals!
actually have motivation to make simple task harder
This is only because of how Health Insurance is currently structured. If we had high deductible insurance that didn't cover any maintenance, but only covered rare and emergency situations, then we'd have much lower overall costs.
Insurance is a middle man that not only adds costs to the system, but skims money off the top of everything to boot. This doesn't make insurance companies evil, it just makes them less efficient.
Want to make the system less susceptible to fraud and abuse? Bring the costs closer to the person who is ultimately paying the bills, the health care consumer.
And now, the anecdotal case scenarios will be brought forward about how Grandma is eating dog food, and Tiny Tim needing help for his legs.
There are more than a "few" of us. It is really hard though, for the average person to counter the following argument in the face of anecdotal evidence.
"We must do something, this is something, we're doing it, therefore it is what needs to be done"
We don't need to do "something" especially when the something will make things worse, without ever being able to revoke it later, guaranteeing something worse that we can't fix later.
You missed my point. Completely. When I read X is better than Y, I expect it to be for the PRIMARY user of X and Y, not people tangentially associated.
If I read that a Car A is better than Car B, then read down further that the only thing being considered is how easy it is for a Mechanic to change sparkplugs, then the review is simply missing the point. My Lawnmower has very easy to change sparkplugs, but I wouldn't want to use it as a car.
Not only that, saying something is better for one class of people (developers) than another product that doesn't take into account all aspects useful for that class of people, doesn't make much sense either. In this case writing an app for Android is better for a developer how? IF it doesn't include generating revenue (selling) then it fails to even address one of the more basic criteria I would think is important to a great deal of developers.
The last thing I'd like to point out is that saying Java (or whatever) is better than C# (or whatever) is personal preference and may or may not actually be "better" for developing anything.
So the point I was making was more about the stupid "X is better than Y based on this very narrow viewpoint" article. Give me a narrow enough viewpoint and I'll show you that Dictators are better than Elected Officials.
Sorry you can't see the forest because of the trees.
Android not only competitive but in fact a better choice than the iPhone for many developers, largely due to its Java foundation.
Now I don't want an Android phone. I thought it would be good or better for me as a USER, not as a developer. Silly me.
Patronization
on
Window Pain
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Here's a solution, don't patronize any site that uses those types of advertisements. There is NOTHING on the site you can't get elsewhere with less crap. NOTHING.
I don't go to sites that have crap splashing all over my screen. I'll do without thank you very much. If a site expects me to use IE, I won't go. If a site wants to bombard me with flash for no reason other than to look...well flashy, then I won't go. If a site wants to use javascript to do all sorts of stupid stuff to "look pretty", then it isn't getting me to visit again.
If you go away, and don't return, and you find sites that give you what you want without all the crapware pieces then they will learn. As for idiots who don't understand, stupid should hurt.
Microsoft may or may not be entitled to the money. If they hold the patents, and are NOT enforcing the patents nor disclosing the infringing products, even though it has all the evidence it needs (source code to all things OSS), then it is "Extorting" because it is NOT entitled to the money.
It would be, if it disclosed what products were in fact infringing, and took remedial action. Because it hasn't it is only making veiled threats.
It destroys the marketplace for that product. It does not destroy the marketplace at all.
I don't have a problem with monopolies. REALLY, I don't. Problems are only opportunities in disguise. If all you see are problems, then you should be quiet and leave it to those of us with vision enough to see the opportunities be able to exploit them.
I dare say, that without Microsoft being a defacto monopoly, Linux couldn't exist. Microsoft is not a monopoly any longer, even though it may appear so, simply because Linux exists and IF Microsoft cannot offer value above "Windows" and "Office" people will simply move to Linux and OpenOffice.
And who knows what would have happened if we didn't break up Standard Oil 100 (or so) ago? We all might be running on ethanol or biodesiel, and not running up silly deficits to protect the middle east oil. Or perhaps we'd have something else we currently DO NOT HAVE because someone worked on a solution to a problem, because they see an opportunity.
Economics is amoral, and should be. The moment we step in and place "moral outrage" on economic issues we've lost the battle. Because now it becomes an issue of who's moral outrage do we employ? Mine? Yours? Muslim? Christian? Communist? Nazi?
You miss the point. If the first guy was selling flour at the MARKET price, there would be no scalper. Scalpers only make money when prices are artificially low, demand is high, and quantity is limited.
This is econ 101, basic supply/demand curve stuff, and the concept of maximizing profits. I realize that most illiterate dropouts and dope smokers don't have this basic concept down because they base their economics on things like "fairness" and "moral outrage".
If you don't like market pricing, I have a suggestion for you. How about I tell you how much you are worth and you can't earn any more than that. Who's sense of "fairness" do you want to employ, mine or yours? If it was up to me, and my moral outrage, we wouldn't be paying anyone in the Federal Government more than $25,000 year (including the president, congress and all federal employees). It isn't fair.
You protesting people who do the right thing for the wrong reasons? Do you cheer or protest people who do the wrong things for the right reason?
Or are you so noble that you can only cheer for people who do the right things for the right reasons? If so, you must be awfully lonely sitting on top that ivory tower.
Personally, I'd root the guy on to continue development of this product and change his reasoning later. Otherwise you'll end up with no development and another broke developer.
I've never heard of Iron, or that guy, but this is the second post on this thread that said the same thing about motivations. Now I'm going to download and install it, and tell all my friends about it. Who cares if he wants to make a buck? I sure don't.
(PS, Flash ads suck, please change that to something less intrusive)
Chaos Theory. Patterns in otherwise seemingly random outcomes. If you look at the details, for instance each snowflake, you'd come to the conclusion that each snowflake is unique (they are), however if you take a step back, you'll notice that the randomness of snowflakes becomes clear in that each snowflake conforms to a pattern that is apparent even as each snowflake is unique.
I know that this is a fairly poor explanation of chaos theory, so don't butcher me too much.
So, you'd rather them not be Green and waste money? And by "Penalty" you mean Government interference?
People like this have no idea of the consequences of their stupid insane policies. Here in California, we're losing Dairy Farms at an alarming rate, because of so-called "penalties" to raising cows.
Even Dairies that have tried to comply and work with the "Greenies" are folding, because the pound of flesh they demand never satiates them. There is always MORE that "needs" to be done. Green is never Green enough.
You think ANY of these people are (were) serving their constituents well? Sorry if the list above seems weighted towards the (D) side, because that is not my point, as I'm sure there are (R)s that have served just as long. Here's the list:
Some of those people are probably senile, and yet keep getting elected because of the pork they bring back home. I know Stom Thurman was completely clueless when he died. How are we, as country, served by such as these?
What if a doctor could see you for your average "I'm sick" visit for the same cost as filling a tank of gas. You say that is too expensive? Then your not that sick. Stay home, don't go to the Doctor.
The other problem with your particular view is that someone is paying for that insurance, if it isn't you, then it is your employer. How about paying you to buy your own insurance (no more group insurance) and you find what kind of coverage YOU want for yourself?
Perhaps you want to see a doctor like I mentioned above because you're like me, you don't get sick, you don't play high risk sports, and you're otherwise healthy? So you buy a high deductible policy, pay for expenses out of pocket and stick the rest in a health savings account.
But we don't have ANYTHING like that available right now. WHY??? Because of government interference and market manipulation. I don't think Obama can even know what is best for me, so why does he and other (D)s get to decide for me?
Yes, this is a problem. Inconsistent pricing models is a huge problem, and don't afford cost shopping for health care.
When someone who is uninsured goes to the hospital, and pays 5, 10 or 15 times what insurance pays for the very and exact same thing, then there is a huge problem.
The simple solution is same price for everyone, insured or not. Break a leg, need an xray, everyone pays exactly the same rate. Period.
That way, when it is time to pay the bills, we can see which hospital or doctor provides the best care for the best price and make informed decisions.
The next thing I would like to see, is more flexibility on care options. I'd like to see more nurses being able to see and treat people for minor things. Nurses today are as good or better educated than doctors of 50 years ago. Why aren't we treating them like it?
When someone has a cold, why can't a nurse take care of them without needing a doctor? Oh right, because doctors have the mystique of god about them.
There are some reforms that are quite obvious if we get past the old fashioned notions we tend to hold onto well past their prime.
When you have a wife a kid(s) depending on you, when health benefits for you/your wife/kids would cost 5 times as much (if they are available at all, if you have any kind of special needs, or pre-existing conditions, forget it) and half as good, then yeah, it does
We don't treat health insurance like insurance. Insurance is for EMERGENCY and RARE EXPENSIVE claims.
I know of one doctor, who no longer takes insurance because taking insurance cost him too much. He now can offer a regular checkup for very inexpensive cost, and he makes more money in the process. He doesn't have to hire two full time clerks to battle against the insurance companies, saving him tons of money. He doesn't have to get paid less for some people than for others. He charges ONE price for everyone and is able to provide better care and service.
Insurance companies are nothing but middle men skimming BILLIONS (or trillions) out of heath care each year. Those BILLIONS (or trillions) would be better spent on HEALTH CARE than insurance (paper pushing), however nobody is willing to even address THAT issue.
The problem then is that the people who wield the real power will be in unelected positions.
They already do. IRS, FBI, CIA, NSA, FDA....
And that is why I'm a Libertarian.
It will be the lifelong civil servants that control the government, and they will do but lip service to the elected officials.
They already do.
Personally, I don't think the problem can be corrected.
Only because you're a slave to the system that is currently in place, and not willing to take a REAL stand against it. If you're a (D) or (R) you're part of the same problem.
Who is better able to tell you what you need to do in your life, you or some government 'crat? Until you realize that when you want OTHERS to do things YOUR way, you're just contributing to the problem.
Our culture, especially our media culture, prevents it from happening.
That is not what prevents anything from happening. I guarantee you that if 100,000 people showed up with Rifles in hand something would be done. Problem is, that is considered "extreme" by too many people. But that is the REAL purpose of 2nd Amendment.
We're just to large to govern effectively with any kind of meaningful representation. 3,000,000 people per Senator (+/- greatly depending on state). 500k-600k per Member of the House?
That is part of the problem. REAL governance is local, but the idiots in Berkley and SF want their brand of wacky politics in Dallas, Omaha and St Louis, where it doesn't fly. Take a look at what is going on today in DC, we're trying to force a one size fits all solution to a problem that is really caused by the existing rules we have in place today. Changing those rules isn't going to fix the problem. Health Care is NOT a right. Access to health care is. You cannot mandate a Doctor to treat a person for nothing, without something breaking somewhere else. And the stupid (D) and (R)s can't dare make that case without someone crying "what about the children" (or equivalent).
The only way it'll get fixed is if we tear it all down (the whole shebang -- government, culture, infrastructure) and build it up again.
See my comment about 100k people showing up with rifles. The problem isn't the way it was designed, the problem is all the things people want that don't fit in with the original design. Tell me, where in the Constitution, does it give the Fed Gvmt the right to tell people what they have to buy (insurance)? What right does a New York or Chicago Lawyer have to tell a Rancher in Wyoming how to live?
Once size fits all.... doesn't.
And there's no way in hell anyone with half a brain would want to see that happen.
Why not. Better to live in Tyranny than risk dying for freedom? And now you know why tyranny succeeds in the first place. People vote tyrants into office all the time, and anybody thinking it can't or won't happen here are the ones with 1/2 a brain.
Slashdot Mirror
If I were him, I'd start spilling all the info I ever had on security for the state. No amount of money or threats would stop me.
I mean any and every item. I'd expose every stupid supervisory move that compromised security and my ability to protect the network. EVERYTHING would be exposed.
Nothing worse than people getting their panties all in a wad over a "talk" about a well publicized incident, of which all the bad guys already knew about.
There is only one thing these people understand, and that is how to look good. Ruin it for them.
It's not hard to suggest Synonyms and sound pompous.
I think "sound like an asshat" would be a superior choice.
Now I can run all my crapware, viruses, trojans, malware, and other dubious software bits at FULL SPEED! Yay
What most people don't realize is that the cost of doing medicine in the US today isn't just the cost of doing medicine. It includes other costs for things like The Uninsured (still gets treatment), Legal (Malpractice), Defensive Medicine, Insurance Overhead, lack of competition, artificial scarcity of services.
I have three simple steps to fix this mess.
1) Tort Reform. Limit Pain and suffering so that it is no longer a "get rich quick" scheme. Punitive damages don't go to victim, but rather goes into a fund for medical care grants.
2) Pricing stabilization. No negotiated pricing for insurance companies. EVERYONE pays the same. Period. Negotiated pricing is nothing short of price fixing.
3) Make insurance cover emergency and substantial care only. Have high deductible and medical savings accounts.
Having more Nurse Practitioners and other skilled people doing routine care instead of doctors would also help lower costs.
And regulation never stopped them. We have plenty of regulations on banks, and take a look at their condition right now. Regulation didn't prevent the recent collapses.
And I'll bet you're going to simply suggest we haven't regulated them enough. Which is exactly how tyrants rule.
That is ridiculous. Destroying private property is illegal, while Refusing to service someone is not. I don't know how you got modded Insightful.
Okay, then you move to Canada, and don't come back when you have to wait years for that procedure you need.
What evidence do you have that it is better than anecdotal evidence and bias "surveys" that don't include the wait times and ignores the people coming to the US to get the care they need?
What evidence is there that the system in the US is broken at all? Does Canada border a third world nation, taking in Millions of illegal aliens a year?
Of course you ignore such, because even mentioning the invasion from the south is "racist" (never mind that it is true).
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/12/canadas-health-informs-health-care-debate/
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/06/canadian.health.care.system/
http://www.lonelyconservative.com/2009/12/27/mark-steyn-obamacare-will-be-even-worse-than-europe-and-canada/
See, I can pull articles that support my position too. But if Canada is so much better than the US, why don't you see people crossing into Canada for health care, like you see people in Canada doing to the US.
This includes having Canada pay US to take some of its people into OUR hospitals!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1115892/
actually have motivation to make simple task harder
This is only because of how Health Insurance is currently structured. If we had high deductible insurance that didn't cover any maintenance, but only covered rare and emergency situations, then we'd have much lower overall costs.
Insurance is a middle man that not only adds costs to the system, but skims money off the top of everything to boot. This doesn't make insurance companies evil, it just makes them less efficient.
Want to make the system less susceptible to fraud and abuse? Bring the costs closer to the person who is ultimately paying the bills, the health care consumer.
And now, the anecdotal case scenarios will be brought forward about how Grandma is eating dog food, and Tiny Tim needing help for his legs.
There are more than a "few" of us. It is really hard though, for the average person to counter the following argument in the face of anecdotal evidence.
"We must do something, this is something, we're doing it, therefore it is what needs to be done"
We don't need to do "something" especially when the something will make things worse, without ever being able to revoke it later, guaranteeing something worse that we can't fix later.
You missed my point. Completely. When I read X is better than Y, I expect it to be for the PRIMARY user of X and Y, not people tangentially associated.
If I read that a Car A is better than Car B, then read down further that the only thing being considered is how easy it is for a Mechanic to change sparkplugs, then the review is simply missing the point. My Lawnmower has very easy to change sparkplugs, but I wouldn't want to use it as a car.
Not only that, saying something is better for one class of people (developers) than another product that doesn't take into account all aspects useful for that class of people, doesn't make much sense either. In this case writing an app for Android is better for a developer how? IF it doesn't include generating revenue (selling) then it fails to even address one of the more basic criteria I would think is important to a great deal of developers.
The last thing I'd like to point out is that saying Java (or whatever) is better than C# (or whatever) is personal preference and may or may not actually be "better" for developing anything.
So the point I was making was more about the stupid "X is better than Y based on this very narrow viewpoint" article. Give me a narrow enough viewpoint and I'll show you that Dictators are better than Elected Officials.
Sorry you can't see the forest because of the trees.
Android not only competitive but in fact a better choice than the iPhone for many developers, largely due to its Java foundation.
Now I don't want an Android phone. I thought it would be good or better for me as a USER, not as a developer. Silly me.
Here's a solution, don't patronize any site that uses those types of advertisements. There is NOTHING on the site you can't get elsewhere with less crap. NOTHING.
I don't go to sites that have crap splashing all over my screen. I'll do without thank you very much. If a site expects me to use IE, I won't go. If a site wants to bombard me with flash for no reason other than to look ...well flashy, then I won't go. If a site wants to use javascript to do all sorts of stupid stuff to "look pretty", then it isn't getting me to visit again.
If you go away, and don't return, and you find sites that give you what you want without all the crapware pieces then they will learn. As for idiots who don't understand, stupid should hurt.
Microsoft may or may not be entitled to the money. If they hold the patents, and are NOT enforcing the patents nor disclosing the infringing products, even though it has all the evidence it needs (source code to all things OSS), then it is "Extorting" because it is NOT entitled to the money.
It would be, if it disclosed what products were in fact infringing, and took remedial action. Because it hasn't it is only making veiled threats.
practice destroys the marketplace
It destroys the marketplace for that product. It does not destroy the marketplace at all.
I don't have a problem with monopolies. REALLY, I don't. Problems are only opportunities in disguise. If all you see are problems, then you should be quiet and leave it to those of us with vision enough to see the opportunities be able to exploit them.
I dare say, that without Microsoft being a defacto monopoly, Linux couldn't exist. Microsoft is not a monopoly any longer, even though it may appear so, simply because Linux exists and IF Microsoft cannot offer value above "Windows" and "Office" people will simply move to Linux and OpenOffice.
And who knows what would have happened if we didn't break up Standard Oil 100 (or so) ago? We all might be running on ethanol or biodesiel, and not running up silly deficits to protect the middle east oil. Or perhaps we'd have something else we currently DO NOT HAVE because someone worked on a solution to a problem, because they see an opportunity.
Economics is amoral, and should be. The moment we step in and place "moral outrage" on economic issues we've lost the battle. Because now it becomes an issue of who's moral outrage do we employ? Mine? Yours? Muslim? Christian? Communist? Nazi?
You miss the point. If the first guy was selling flour at the MARKET price, there would be no scalper. Scalpers only make money when prices are artificially low, demand is high, and quantity is limited.
This is econ 101, basic supply/demand curve stuff, and the concept of maximizing profits. I realize that most illiterate dropouts and dope smokers don't have this basic concept down because they base their economics on things like "fairness" and "moral outrage".
If you don't like market pricing, I have a suggestion for you. How about I tell you how much you are worth and you can't earn any more than that. Who's sense of "fairness" do you want to employ, mine or yours? If it was up to me, and my moral outrage, we wouldn't be paying anyone in the Federal Government more than $25,000 year (including the president, congress and all federal employees). It isn't fair.
You protesting people who do the right thing for the wrong reasons? Do you cheer or protest people who do the wrong things for the right reason?
Or are you so noble that you can only cheer for people who do the right things for the right reasons? If so, you must be awfully lonely sitting on top that ivory tower.
Personally, I'd root the guy on to continue development of this product and change his reasoning later. Otherwise you'll end up with no development and another broke developer.
I've never heard of Iron, or that guy, but this is the second post on this thread that said the same thing about motivations. Now I'm going to download and install it, and tell all my friends about it. Who cares if he wants to make a buck? I sure don't.
(PS, Flash ads suck, please change that to something less intrusive)
Chaos Theory. Patterns in otherwise seemingly random outcomes. If you look at the details, for instance each snowflake, you'd come to the conclusion that each snowflake is unique (they are), however if you take a step back, you'll notice that the randomness of snowflakes becomes clear in that each snowflake conforms to a pattern that is apparent even as each snowflake is unique.
I know that this is a fairly poor explanation of chaos theory, so don't butcher me too much.
You want us to believe you leave your parents basement voluntarily?
Yeah? Well just wait till they crank it up to eleven! You'll think that three isn't enough.
So, you'd rather them not be Green and waste money? And by "Penalty" you mean Government interference?
People like this have no idea of the consequences of their stupid insane policies. Here in California, we're losing Dairy Farms at an alarming rate, because of so-called "penalties" to raising cows.
Even Dairies that have tried to comply and work with the "Greenies" are folding, because the pound of flesh they demand never satiates them. There is always MORE that "needs" to be done. Green is never Green enough.
How many years did Ted Kennedy serve?
Robert Bird? Strom Thurman? Charlie Rangel
30, 40, 50 years?
You think ANY of these people are (were) serving their constituents well? Sorry if the list above seems weighted towards the (D) side, because that is not my point, as I'm sure there are (R)s that have served just as long. Here's the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_longevity_of_service
Some of those people are probably senile, and yet keep getting elected because of the pork they bring back home. I know Stom Thurman was completely clueless when he died. How are we, as country, served by such as these?
What if a doctor could see you for your average "I'm sick" visit for the same cost as filling a tank of gas. You say that is too expensive? Then your not that sick. Stay home, don't go to the Doctor.
The other problem with your particular view is that someone is paying for that insurance, if it isn't you, then it is your employer. How about paying you to buy your own insurance (no more group insurance) and you find what kind of coverage YOU want for yourself?
Perhaps you want to see a doctor like I mentioned above because you're like me, you don't get sick, you don't play high risk sports, and you're otherwise healthy? So you buy a high deductible policy, pay for expenses out of pocket and stick the rest in a health savings account.
But we don't have ANYTHING like that available right now. WHY??? Because of government interference and market manipulation. I don't think Obama can even know what is best for me, so why does he and other (D)s get to decide for me?
Yes, this is a problem. Inconsistent pricing models is a huge problem, and don't afford cost shopping for health care.
When someone who is uninsured goes to the hospital, and pays 5, 10 or 15 times what insurance pays for the very and exact same thing, then there is a huge problem.
The simple solution is same price for everyone, insured or not. Break a leg, need an xray, everyone pays exactly the same rate. Period.
That way, when it is time to pay the bills, we can see which hospital or doctor provides the best care for the best price and make informed decisions.
The next thing I would like to see, is more flexibility on care options. I'd like to see more nurses being able to see and treat people for minor things. Nurses today are as good or better educated than doctors of 50 years ago. Why aren't we treating them like it?
When someone has a cold, why can't a nurse take care of them without needing a doctor? Oh right, because doctors have the mystique of god about them.
There are some reforms that are quite obvious if we get past the old fashioned notions we tend to hold onto well past their prime.
When you have a wife a kid(s) depending on you, when health benefits for you/your wife/kids would cost 5 times as much (if they are available at all, if you have any kind of special needs, or pre-existing conditions, forget it) and half as good, then yeah, it does
We don't treat health insurance like insurance. Insurance is for EMERGENCY and RARE EXPENSIVE claims.
I know of one doctor, who no longer takes insurance because taking insurance cost him too much. He now can offer a regular checkup for very inexpensive cost, and he makes more money in the process. He doesn't have to hire two full time clerks to battle against the insurance companies, saving him tons of money. He doesn't have to get paid less for some people than for others. He charges ONE price for everyone and is able to provide better care and service.
Insurance companies are nothing but middle men skimming BILLIONS (or trillions) out of heath care each year. Those BILLIONS (or trillions) would be better spent on HEALTH CARE than insurance (paper pushing), however nobody is willing to even address THAT issue.
The problem then is that the people who wield the real power will be in unelected positions.
They already do. IRS, FBI, CIA, NSA, FDA ....
And that is why I'm a Libertarian.
It will be the lifelong civil servants that control the government, and they will do but lip service to the elected officials.
They already do.
Personally, I don't think the problem can be corrected.
Only because you're a slave to the system that is currently in place, and not willing to take a REAL stand against it. If you're a (D) or (R) you're part of the same problem.
Who is better able to tell you what you need to do in your life, you or some government 'crat? Until you realize that when you want OTHERS to do things YOUR way, you're just contributing to the problem.
Our culture, especially our media culture, prevents it from happening.
That is not what prevents anything from happening. I guarantee you that if 100,000 people showed up with Rifles in hand something would be done. Problem is, that is considered "extreme" by too many people. But that is the REAL purpose of 2nd Amendment.
We're just to large to govern effectively with any kind of meaningful representation. 3,000,000 people per Senator (+/- greatly depending on state). 500k-600k per Member of the House?
That is part of the problem. REAL governance is local, but the idiots in Berkley and SF want their brand of wacky politics in Dallas, Omaha and St Louis, where it doesn't fly. Take a look at what is going on today in DC, we're trying to force a one size fits all solution to a problem that is really caused by the existing rules we have in place today. Changing those rules isn't going to fix the problem. Health Care is NOT a right. Access to health care is. You cannot mandate a Doctor to treat a person for nothing, without something breaking somewhere else. And the stupid (D) and (R)s can't dare make that case without someone crying "what about the children" (or equivalent).
The only way it'll get fixed is if we tear it all down (the whole shebang -- government, culture, infrastructure) and build it up again.
See my comment about 100k people showing up with rifles. The problem isn't the way it was designed, the problem is all the things people want that don't fit in with the original design. Tell me, where in the Constitution, does it give the Fed Gvmt the right to tell people what they have to buy (insurance)? What right does a New York or Chicago Lawyer have to tell a Rancher in Wyoming how to live?
Once size fits all .... doesn't.
And there's no way in hell anyone with half a brain would want to see that happen.
Why not. Better to live in Tyranny than risk dying for freedom? And now you know why tyranny succeeds in the first place. People vote tyrants into office all the time, and anybody thinking it can't or won't happen here are the ones with 1/2 a brain.