But no plan is going to cover all drugs. And as you stated even the most expensive plan you have available won't fully cover non-generic drugs - and the problem described in this 'death panel' article was that there are certain (overly) expensive drugs for cancer patients which the NHS does not cover. So the situation is the same as with private insurance, except that with private insurance you have the option of getting even less coverage (while likely still paying more then).
And there is another thing - how many employers offer such a wide range of plans? Many won't offer you a choice, if they offer medical insurance at all. So you're stuck with whichever insurance company (and their policies) they choose to use.
Yes, with government running the shot the total cost of health care would likely go up - needing to provide treatment for everyone is expensive. But at the same time it would likely cost a lot less per person. Insurance companies can deliver health care for a low cost (since they have a lot of incentives to be efficient), but that low cost doesn't get passed on to the 'consumer', but is instead inflated to pad the company bottom line. And don't say that there is serious competition in the market - the bar to entry is way too high for an outsider to have any chance of upsetting the status quo.
I completely agree. But let's not confuse a warmer planet with one that is less hospitable to life. We are messing things for ourselves and many species currently alive. But we are also making it better for some of the other species.
But that takes money. And with all the austerity measures that are being demanded, healthcare is such a nice place to make cuts (unlike armies which are important!).
Isn't what you're describing the same as what happens when insurance companies determine what treatments they cover? Or do they just give the patient a blank check and let them pick their own experimental treatment?
Any communal system of paying for healthcare has to set limits on what is covered. Any patients that have the resources are always allowed to go and find other treatments, if they feel that the system isn't taking good enough care of them.
Government or insurance company, the results are similar in each case (except that insurance companies get to pay bonuses if they deny enough claims).
Would you rather have death panels appointed by the government or by the insurance industry?
In both cases they can decide not to pay for treatment you need to survive, but the private industry also has an incentive to let you die quickly - any money they save on treatments can then go to their bonuses.
And in both cases you have the option of paying for the procedure yourself, bypassing the panel.
Are we making earth less hospitable, or just less hospitable to the life that currently dominates? Sure the changes from global warming will cause humanity a great deal of trouble, but let's say humanity dies out but the increased temperatures stay in effect - wouldn't life just adapt to them eventually - it's just a few degrees.
It'd change that to No-one can use the material to make a profit without the consent of the author for, I don't know 20 years or so?
That way there would be an incentive to release compilations like 'greatest hits of X', reviving old works while rewarding both the author and the one doing the reviving. Of course people would be free to find or copy works on their own and those would be free.
But who would be harmed if copyright expired in this case? The photographer? He has no way of profiting from the photos, since no one even knows who took them. The only thing that copyright achieves in this case is to make us loose parts of our history, since we can't preserve them legally.
Well you have to consider that the leader was raised in a country where such propaganda is fairly standard. So he might not realize how ludicrous the claims are. And at the same time the population might also be fooled - not because they are stupid, but because they've been bombarded with such 'official statements' their entire lives.
It's kind of like religion - If you are raised in a culture where it's common to hear about virgin births and people rising from the dead then you won't be shocked when a person makes a claim that one of those things happened. So similar claims (like the before mentioned zombie appearing in a vision) will much more likely be accepted then in a culture without those 'background' myths.
People make money by exploiting the ecosystem - why not just take their income as the value per year? So add up the income of every fisherman, tourism worker,.... Then multiply it by the time it's going to take the ecosystem to recover - a few hundred years or so? (guessing here). And that should be the actual damages. The punitives can start from there.
No, not the death penalty, you need to murder people for that. Mass manslaughter is probably still just a life sentence. So put them in prison - have the people who were harmed take control of the company for 100 years or so. Then they can divert all of the profit the company makes to fix the damage the company did and at the same time deny any bonuses to the management.
Bonuses related to profit would just screw up things more. They'd do deals that give extreme profits now, but wreck the companies future. So they get a bonus, company profits plummet in the beginning of next year, they get fired and get their golden parachute. What more could they ask for?
And who exactly writes the new laws? And all the news laws are written in the 'usual' way, meaning that 99% of the population can't understand them (but are, of course, still supposed to follow them). And that does not even make the laws that are easy for lawyers to interpret - you still need judgements to establish what a law really means.
The whole system is designed to give jobs to lawyers. If engineers worked the same way you'd need expert help each time you wanted to start your car or turn on your TV.
But they also have a lot of assets - the problem is that these assets are in the form of debt from other parts of the government. It can easily continue to pay pensions and medicare for decades, but it will have to call in some of that debt to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying we should give control to Turkey then? They seem to be the only ones doing anything (little as it is).
But no plan is going to cover all drugs. And as you stated even the most expensive plan you have available won't fully cover non-generic drugs - and the problem described in this 'death panel' article was that there are certain (overly) expensive drugs for cancer patients which the NHS does not cover. So the situation is the same as with private insurance, except that with private insurance you have the option of getting even less coverage (while likely still paying more then).
And there is another thing - how many employers offer such a wide range of plans? Many won't offer you a choice, if they offer medical insurance at all. So you're stuck with whichever insurance company (and their policies) they choose to use.
You speciist!
Yes, with government running the shot the total cost of health care would likely go up - needing to provide treatment for everyone is expensive. But at the same time it would likely cost a lot less per person.
Insurance companies can deliver health care for a low cost (since they have a lot of incentives to be efficient), but that low cost doesn't get passed on to the 'consumer', but is instead inflated to pad the company bottom line. And don't say that there is serious competition in the market - the bar to entry is way too high for an outsider to have any chance of upsetting the status quo.
I completely agree. But let's not confuse a warmer planet with one that is less hospitable to life. We are messing things for ourselves and many species currently alive. But we are also making it better for some of the other species.
But that takes money. And with all the austerity measures that are being demanded, healthcare is such a nice place to make cuts (unlike armies which are important!).
Will there be less arable land, or will it just be located further north?
Isn't what you're describing the same as what happens when insurance companies determine what treatments they cover? Or do they just give the patient a blank check and let them pick their own experimental treatment?
Any communal system of paying for healthcare has to set limits on what is covered. Any patients that have the resources are always allowed to go and find other treatments, if they feel that the system isn't taking good enough care of them.
Government or insurance company, the results are similar in each case (except that insurance companies get to pay bonuses if they deny enough claims).
Would you rather have death panels appointed by the government or by the insurance industry?
In both cases they can decide not to pay for treatment you need to survive, but the private industry also has an incentive to let you die quickly - any money they save on treatments can then go to their bonuses.
And in both cases you have the option of paying for the procedure yourself, bypassing the panel.
My guess is that we can't extract nearly enough of it to have a noticeable effect on the Earth.
Are we making earth less hospitable, or just less hospitable to the life that currently dominates? Sure the changes from global warming will cause humanity a great deal of trouble, but let's say humanity dies out but the increased temperatures stay in effect - wouldn't life just adapt to them eventually - it's just a few degrees.
It'd change that to No-one can use the material to make a profit without the consent of the author for, I don't know 20 years or so?
That way there would be an incentive to release compilations like 'greatest hits of X', reviving old works while rewarding both the author and the one doing the reviving. Of course people would be free to find or copy works on their own and those would be free.
But who would be harmed if copyright expired in this case? The photographer? He has no way of profiting from the photos, since no one even knows who took them.
The only thing that copyright achieves in this case is to make us loose parts of our history, since we can't preserve them legally.
Yes, he's the guy collecting the patent fees.
Sure there was. But those that left for America were the guys the rest of the zealots fount to be too extreme.
Kind of like if the Taliban shunned a group of clerics for taking the Koran too literally, and those guys moved to Mars to worship in peace.
Well you have to consider that the leader was raised in a country where such propaganda is fairly standard. So he might not realize how ludicrous the claims are. And at the same time the population might also be fooled - not because they are stupid, but because they've been bombarded with such 'official statements' their entire lives.
It's kind of like religion - If you are raised in a culture where it's common to hear about virgin births and people rising from the dead then you won't be shocked when a person makes a claim that one of those things happened. So similar claims (like the before mentioned zombie appearing in a vision) will much more likely be accepted then in a culture without those 'background' myths.
A prostitute just rents her body, she doesn't sell it.
But is it just $50? You are paying $50 + the cost of a windows license for something that you could get for free.
People make money by exploiting the ecosystem - why not just take their income as the value per year? So add up the income of every fisherman, tourism worker,.... Then multiply it by the time it's going to take the ecosystem to recover - a few hundred years or so? (guessing here). And that should be the actual damages. The punitives can start from there.
No, not the death penalty, you need to murder people for that. Mass manslaughter is probably still just a life sentence. So put them in prison - have the people who were harmed take control of the company for 100 years or so. Then they can divert all of the profit the company makes to fix the damage the company did and at the same time deny any bonuses to the management.
OJ did his bribing in secret (at least at the criminal trial). This would let a person walk into court, plead guilty and pay the fine for murder.
Bonuses related to profit would just screw up things more. They'd do deals that give extreme profits now, but wreck the companies future. So they get a bonus, company profits plummet in the beginning of next year, they get fired and get their golden parachute. What more could they ask for?
And what if the media had DRM?
Can you remove it to make your excerpts?
And who exactly writes the new laws? And all the news laws are written in the 'usual' way, meaning that 99% of the population can't understand them (but are, of course, still supposed to follow them). And that does not even make the laws that are easy for lawyers to interpret - you still need judgements to establish what a law really means.
The whole system is designed to give jobs to lawyers. If engineers worked the same way you'd need expert help each time you wanted to start your car or turn on your TV.
But they also have a lot of assets - the problem is that these assets are in the form of debt from other parts of the government. It can easily continue to pay pensions and medicare for decades, but it will have to call in some of that debt to do it.