Can you actually pay the doctors at that clinic for service.
Well, if you'd scrolled down to the bottom, you'd see this:
Albertans also have the right to visit a physician or the private clinic of their choice. However, opted-out physicians and their patients are not eligible for reimbursement under the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan.
In other words, you can receive services from a private clinic, but you are responsible for the bill.
Yes, but if you did the same in Canada you and/or your doctor could be arrested for it. If somebody offered private insurance in Canada they would definitely be punished. If the system works so well, then why make it illegal not to use it?
Umm... it's not illegal, dumbass. As an example, private health clinics deliver a variety of services in Alberta.
See, apparently what you don't understand is that the Canada Health Act makes it illegal to *not* provide coverage to all Canadian citizens. However, that does not preclude private, for-profit clinics from existing.
So, who should get treatment first? Two patients, exactly the same disease, in exactly the same stage. One is a famous surgeon and the other is a mentally ill homeless person. Who should be treated first? What if you can treat only one? What now?
Well, in the current US situation, the answer is "whoever has more money". You're telling me that's the best possible solution?
In the end better health care is one of the motivators to be successful
Well, given the GDP of the EU, which is primarily composed of nations with socialized healthcare, not to mention the success of nations such as Canada and Japan, I'd say your argument has little basis in fact. As for France, it's problems are myriad, and only a simple mind would point the finger at "socialism", as if that was the single, root cause.
And as a counterpoint, individuals with poor health end up being a drag on society, as their illnesses reduce their productivity, and increase the chance they may be forced to avail themselves of what little social safety net is available in the US, creating costs borne by everyone in society.
But, you go on living with the delusion that "socialism is evil" and "the free market is perfect". Meanwhile, I'll be content knowing that, if I found myself in a car accident and in need of emergency surgery, the resulting costs wouldn't drive me into bankruptcy.
Yeah, you're right, there's absolutely no objective way to judge who needs treatment more. That kind of... what do you call it... "triage"... yeah, that's just impossible.
In short, you can't mandate access to a scarce resource without rationing.
Absolutely. And how does the US handle that rationing right now? Money. Call me a socialist, but I'd rather the rationing be based on, you know, who needs the resource more. Honestly, who gives a damn if someone is forced to wait 6 months for knee surgery, when the alternative is a blue collar worker being denied a heart transplant?
I think even the US DOJ would have a hard time turning a blind eye if MS suddenly cut off the big PC manufacturers while, at the same time, marketing it's own gear.
Of course it's not a bad idea - if you're the one collecting the checks.
Wow, you really don't know what the fuck you're talking about, do you? It's a good idea because otherwise artists wouldn't get played. No one but the big stations would be able to afford the legal costs of sorting out all the licensing deals, and big business would probably get preferential treatment because there's only a handful of large, mainstream labels to deal with, as opposed to the hundreds of small and indie labels out there.
Hell, even the EFF supports compulsory licensing schemes for some forms of media. It is by far the easiest, cheapest way to handle these sorts of large-scale licensing issues.
It's as simple as that! No...actually it's more like this. You must join to collect your money. Resistance...is useless.
Umm... so? It's free, for god sake. What's the big deal? All you're doing is saying "hello, I'm an artist, so if anyone plays my stuff, send me money". How *else* would this work?
Provided of course that the band in question actually wanted to get paid.
Then put a blanket disclaimer on your music (which must be distributed in some form) saying "free for broadcast, do what you want with it". Did you really not think of this yourself?
And yet, these are the exact same groups compulsory licensing are shutting down. Wow, what a surprise!
I see you didn't read my last paragraph. Why don't you go back and do that, then get back to me.
My point is that compulsory licensing, as a concept, is a good idea. Hell, how many people around here love allofmp3.com? You know why that's legal in Russia? Compulsory licensing. Now, it goes without saying that the CRB and SoundExchange are colluding to support the big labels, but that doesn't mean compulsory licensing is a bad idea. It just means that the US government has, yet again, been bought and paid for by corporations.
Kids used to get in little scuffles but now they go medieval on each other--perhaps I didn't make that very clear. I miss the days when a bully just was a bully. These days, bullies are homicidal maniacs.
You might consider that you're just remembering things wrong. Youth crime has been on a steady decline for quite some time now, and hit historic lows in the 90s. You might consider the possibility that, back when you were a kid, the truly violent youth crimes either weren't reported by the victims (embarrassment, fear, etc), or weren't hyped up by the media.
The music industry thinks they own ALL music. Not just the RIAA affiliated bands - all music, EVERYWHERE. My proof? SoundExchange.
Let me introduce you to a concept known as a compulsory license. It ain't SoundExchange that's deciding they should collect those royalties, it's the *government* deciding they should, and it's actually not a bad idea. And, at any point, artists can go and claim their royalties. They don't have to "join the borg", as you so cleverly put it. They can simply sign some forms and demand their cheque.
Further, you should understand that compulsory licensing is, in fact, generally speaking, a *really* good idea. It means that broadcasters can broadcast material without having to go to each and every artist to sign a licensing deal. It is, as it happens, *particularly* good for the small and independant artists, as radio stations would have a hell of a time tracking down and dealing with every random garage band they decided to play. Without compulsory licensing, I'd bet the vast bulk of college, independant, and web-based radio stations would shut down completely, thanks to the overhead of negotiating licensing deals.
The problem is that SoundExchange and the Copyright Royalty Board are *not* acting in the best interests of the artists or US citizens. Which is why you US citizens should be bitching to your congresscritters. But banning the compulsory licensing scheme is *not* the solution. The solution is fair, non-discriminatory royalty rates.
they would have no choice but to pack up and go home and try to get in the lawful way.
Yeah! Plus, then all the American poor would also be screwed and they could go... oh wait, they don't have anywhere to go. Oh well, who cares, they're poor.
Points taken--but I think you have some anger issues. I can see that my comments hit a nerve about your own experience.
Or maybe he's rightly outraged that you're trying to justify violence between fucking *children*, for christ sake. An adult beats the fuck out of a kid, he goes to jail. A kid beats the fuck out of another kid... and apparently that's fine? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Did he say that? No. He said it's still corrosive, and he's right. Just because physical abuse is arguably worse, doesn't make mental and emotional abuse OK.
Yeah, umm... there is a *massive* difference between "pussyfying" our kids, and tolerating abuse. If we don't accept abuse between adults, why the fuck should we accept it between our children??
You *do* realize that if Microsoft stopped dealing with Dell, that Dell would be crippled and die, right?
Except, of course, that Microsoft would be nuked into the ground on antitrust grounds. Or did you not know that leveraging a monopoly (in this case, operating systems) in order to force ones way into another market (PC sales) is very much illegal?
It's called a compulsory license, and it's a pretty well-understood legal structure. Interestingly, this is what makes allofmp3.com legal in Russia. The terms are just different.
The goal is to make it easier for broadcasters to secure rights to the material they're broadcasting, as they can choose to make use of the compulsory license, rather than negotiating a deal with each artist individually. This is, of course, assuming the fees are fair. And note, this doesn't preclude broadcasters from securing rights from the artists themselves... it's just a pain in the ass.
If they are collecting money for bands that aren't even affiliated with them, then they aren't giving these bands any money either, so basically they are just taking money
a) The bands are "affiliated" with them because the government chose SoundExchange as the arbiter of the royalties. Complain to the CRB if you don't like that.
b) The bands are free to secure their royalties from SoundExchange at any point. The CRB website has links to the necessary forms, IIRC.
However, if I sing "jingle bells" on air, will they now require that I pay them?
If the song is under valid copyright, yes, unless you've secured rights from the copyright holder directly.
What about the opening musical jingle to my radio talk show?
Presumably you've already secured rights.
What about if I'm a band and I let my fans stream my songs from my website for free?
Well, you own the copyright in that case, don't you? So you're free to do what you wish with the material.
In the end, compulsory licensing, as a concept is a very very good idea. Assuming reasonable royalties, it reduces overall costs for broadcasters, since they only end up dealing with a single entity.
The problem comes in when the CRB and SoundExchange agree to modify the rates in a fashion which is clearly discriminatory. In this case, it seems pretty clear that SE is acting in the interests of the entrenched music oligopoly. And the CRB has apparently chosen to kowtow to those same interests.
WTF are you talking about? That's a *completely* different situation. On the one hand, we have consumers protesting against an entrenched oligopoly who'll barely feel the effects of a boycott. On the other, we have an industry under attack, trying to raise consumer awareness so that said consumers they might contact their legislators and hopefully build up enough grassroots support to generate legislative relief.
'fraid not. SoundExchange can take money from any/all stations who play material for which the station hasn't negotiated a separate contract directly with the artists. The idea is that the artists can then retrieve their share directly from SoundExchange. This is referred to as a compulsory licensing scheme, and is intended to make the lives of broadcasters *easier*, since they don't have to go to each an every artists to negotiate a deal. The problems arise when the levies are used to club groups into submission through the use of disproportionately high, targeted fees (in this case, internet broadcasters being subject to a per-song-, rather than percentage-of-revenue-based scheme).
both thought it was INCREDIBLY obvious that they were advanced robots.
Congrats. Apparently you and your mother and smarter (and seemingly more arrogant) than most other people, who did *not* see it that way. But, hey, it's a lot easier to just say "all those people were morons", than to admit that perhaps the director just did a crappy job delivering his message. I mean, ffs, they made these "advanced mecha" look exactly like the damn aliens from Close Encounters! How is it they didn't *expect* people to make that mistake?
And it was not "inventing material". They were incredibly advanced compared to the boy. It was obvious he would never be part of their society. He was more like a zoo exhibit.
Umm, how was it *not* inventing material? Did the director state that the boy wouldn't "fit in"? No. Was it implied? Nope. You simply created a little bit of back story to help justify the plot. Yes, everyone does it. But the least you could do is admit it.
And for the record, Siddhartha Gautama's existence is probably one of the best historically supported of all the "religious" figures out there. It's almost a certainty he existed, though I'm sure rumours about him have been greatly exaggerated.:)
Allow me to rephrase. The character was allowed to achieve his dream of seeing his mother again. Yes, of course, it's sad, but it provides closure that, IMHO, is unnecessary.
Far more tragic and moving, to me, is having the robot, who believes he is a boy, eventually die chasing his dream. Something most humans are unwilling to do.
As for that post:
But even sadder than that is to let the viewer know that yes, he sat in the ocean for no less than 1000 yrs.
And dead the whole time. So? It's not like he sat there *conscious* for that whole time. There's nothing in the movie to indicate this is the case. Hell, he was *frozen*.
Even sadder than that is the fact that he is discovered and eventually "re-integrated" back into a "society", but that his fellow beings have evolved so much that he doesn't really belong (and never can).
Bah, this is just the blogger inventing material. There's nothing in the movie to suggest this actually happened.
Even sadder *than that* is that they can recreate his mother, but only for one day.
An arbitrary decision on the part of the writer and/or director. As far as the ending goes, this is actually one of the most annoying things about it... why one day? Why not one week? Or one month? Why not a thousand years? Why? Because one day is sadder... gotta tug on those heart strings!
BTW, one of my greatest pet peeves in movies: arbitrary plot decisions intended to do nothing more than evoke weeping sentimentality in the audience. Sad and tragic is the ending to Hamlet. The ending to A.I. just borders on irritating.
Even sadder *than that* is knowing that after 1000 years, he finally found his happiness, only to have it taken away within 24 hours.
Already address this above.
That is fucking tragic, and it appears it was lost on everyone but me.
No, tragic would be a robot boy, created by man, cast aside, left searching for his mother, only to eventually die chasing that dream. That's tragic. The ending they went with was just sad, IMHO.
It was also poorly executed... everyone here says "those dudes at the end were advanced mecha!", but the film gives no indication this is the case. And if I have to read the corresponding book, or directors commentary, or some other source material, to understand the message the movie was delivering, then the movie failed.
Ugh, too bad it was slow as hell. And I don't mean just a little slow. I mean, linger on the imagery of leaves floating on a river for 5 minutes slow. Honestly, it just left me tired and puzzled. And I tried oh so hard...
Slashdot Mirror
And if you're wanting specific links, you can find private clinics online. In particular, there are a number of private MRI clinics in Alberta, many of which have been in operation for a number of years.
Can you actually pay the doctors at that clinic for service.
Well, if you'd scrolled down to the bottom, you'd see this:
Albertans also have the right to visit a physician or the private clinic of their choice. However, opted-out physicians and their patients are not eligible for reimbursement under the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan.
In other words, you can receive services from a private clinic, but you are responsible for the bill.
Yes, but if you did the same in Canada you and/or your doctor could be arrested for it. If somebody offered private insurance in Canada they would definitely be punished. If the system works so well, then why make it illegal not to use it?
Umm... it's not illegal, dumbass. As an example, private health clinics deliver a variety of services in Alberta.
See, apparently what you don't understand is that the Canada Health Act makes it illegal to *not* provide coverage to all Canadian citizens. However, that does not preclude private, for-profit clinics from existing.
So, who should get treatment first? Two patients, exactly the same disease, in exactly the same stage. One is a famous surgeon and the other is a mentally ill homeless person. Who should be treated first? What if you can treat only one? What now?
Well, in the current US situation, the answer is "whoever has more money". You're telling me that's the best possible solution?
In the end better health care is one of the motivators to be successful
Well, given the GDP of the EU, which is primarily composed of nations with socialized healthcare, not to mention the success of nations such as Canada and Japan, I'd say your argument has little basis in fact. As for France, it's problems are myriad, and only a simple mind would point the finger at "socialism", as if that was the single, root cause.
And as a counterpoint, individuals with poor health end up being a drag on society, as their illnesses reduce their productivity, and increase the chance they may be forced to avail themselves of what little social safety net is available in the US, creating costs borne by everyone in society.
But, you go on living with the delusion that "socialism is evil" and "the free market is perfect". Meanwhile, I'll be content knowing that, if I found myself in a car accident and in need of emergency surgery, the resulting costs wouldn't drive me into bankruptcy.
Yeah, you're right, there's absolutely no objective way to judge who needs treatment more. That kind of... what do you call it... "triage"... yeah, that's just impossible.
In short, you can't mandate access to a scarce resource without rationing.
Absolutely. And how does the US handle that rationing right now? Money. Call me a socialist, but I'd rather the rationing be based on, you know, who needs the resource more. Honestly, who gives a damn if someone is forced to wait 6 months for knee surgery, when the alternative is a blue collar worker being denied a heart transplant?
I think even the US DOJ would have a hard time turning a blind eye if MS suddenly cut off the big PC manufacturers while, at the same time, marketing it's own gear.
Of course it's not a bad idea - if you're the one collecting the checks.
Wow, you really don't know what the fuck you're talking about, do you? It's a good idea because otherwise artists wouldn't get played. No one but the big stations would be able to afford the legal costs of sorting out all the licensing deals, and big business would probably get preferential treatment because there's only a handful of large, mainstream labels to deal with, as opposed to the hundreds of small and indie labels out there.
Hell, even the EFF supports compulsory licensing schemes for some forms of media. It is by far the easiest, cheapest way to handle these sorts of large-scale licensing issues.
It's as simple as that! No...actually it's more like this. You must join to collect your money. Resistance...is useless.
Umm... so? It's free, for god sake. What's the big deal? All you're doing is saying "hello, I'm an artist, so if anyone plays my stuff, send me money". How *else* would this work?
Provided of course that the band in question actually wanted to get paid.
Then put a blanket disclaimer on your music (which must be distributed in some form) saying "free for broadcast, do what you want with it". Did you really not think of this yourself?
And yet, these are the exact same groups compulsory licensing are shutting down. Wow, what a surprise!
I see you didn't read my last paragraph. Why don't you go back and do that, then get back to me.
My point is that compulsory licensing, as a concept, is a good idea. Hell, how many people around here love allofmp3.com? You know why that's legal in Russia? Compulsory licensing. Now, it goes without saying that the CRB and SoundExchange are colluding to support the big labels, but that doesn't mean compulsory licensing is a bad idea. It just means that the US government has, yet again, been bought and paid for by corporations.
Kids used to get in little scuffles but now they go medieval on each other--perhaps I didn't make that very clear. I miss the days when a bully just was a bully. These days, bullies are homicidal maniacs.
You might consider that you're just remembering things wrong. Youth crime has been on a steady decline for quite some time now, and hit historic lows in the 90s. You might consider the possibility that, back when you were a kid, the truly violent youth crimes either weren't reported by the victims (embarrassment, fear, etc), or weren't hyped up by the media.
The music industry thinks they own ALL music. Not just the RIAA affiliated bands - all music, EVERYWHERE. My proof? SoundExchange.
Let me introduce you to a concept known as a compulsory license. It ain't SoundExchange that's deciding they should collect those royalties, it's the *government* deciding they should, and it's actually not a bad idea. And, at any point, artists can go and claim their royalties. They don't have to "join the borg", as you so cleverly put it. They can simply sign some forms and demand their cheque.
Further, you should understand that compulsory licensing is, in fact, generally speaking, a *really* good idea. It means that broadcasters can broadcast material without having to go to each and every artist to sign a licensing deal. It is, as it happens, *particularly* good for the small and independant artists, as radio stations would have a hell of a time tracking down and dealing with every random garage band they decided to play. Without compulsory licensing, I'd bet the vast bulk of college, independant, and web-based radio stations would shut down completely, thanks to the overhead of negotiating licensing deals.
The problem is that SoundExchange and the Copyright Royalty Board are *not* acting in the best interests of the artists or US citizens. Which is why you US citizens should be bitching to your congresscritters. But banning the compulsory licensing scheme is *not* the solution. The solution is fair, non-discriminatory royalty rates.
they would have no choice but to pack up and go home and try to get in the lawful way.
Yeah! Plus, then all the American poor would also be screwed and they could go... oh wait, they don't have anywhere to go. Oh well, who cares, they're poor.
Points taken--but I think you have some anger issues. I can see that my comments hit a nerve about your own experience.
Or maybe he's rightly outraged that you're trying to justify violence between fucking *children*, for christ sake. An adult beats the fuck out of a kid, he goes to jail. A kid beats the fuck out of another kid... and apparently that's fine? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Did he say that? No. He said it's still corrosive, and he's right. Just because physical abuse is arguably worse, doesn't make mental and emotional abuse OK.
When did we start pussyfying our kids?
Yeah, umm... there is a *massive* difference between "pussyfying" our kids, and tolerating abuse. If we don't accept abuse between adults, why the fuck should we accept it between our children??
You *do* realize that if Microsoft stopped dealing with Dell, that Dell would be crippled and die, right?
Except, of course, that Microsoft would be nuked into the ground on antitrust grounds. Or did you not know that leveraging a monopoly (in this case, operating systems) in order to force ones way into another market (PC sales) is very much illegal?
How is this even legal?
It's called a compulsory license, and it's a pretty well-understood legal structure. Interestingly, this is what makes allofmp3.com legal in Russia. The terms are just different.
The goal is to make it easier for broadcasters to secure rights to the material they're broadcasting, as they can choose to make use of the compulsory license, rather than negotiating a deal with each artist individually. This is, of course, assuming the fees are fair. And note, this doesn't preclude broadcasters from securing rights from the artists themselves... it's just a pain in the ass.
If they are collecting money for bands that aren't even affiliated with them, then they aren't giving these bands any money either, so basically they are just taking money
a) The bands are "affiliated" with them because the government chose SoundExchange as the arbiter of the royalties. Complain to the CRB if you don't like that.
b) The bands are free to secure their royalties from SoundExchange at any point. The CRB website has links to the necessary forms, IIRC.
However, if I sing "jingle bells" on air, will they now require that I pay them?
If the song is under valid copyright, yes, unless you've secured rights from the copyright holder directly.
What about the opening musical jingle to my radio talk show?
Presumably you've already secured rights.
What about if I'm a band and I let my fans stream my songs from my website for free?
Well, you own the copyright in that case, don't you? So you're free to do what you wish with the material.
In the end, compulsory licensing, as a concept is a very very good idea. Assuming reasonable royalties, it reduces overall costs for broadcasters, since they only end up dealing with a single entity.
The problem comes in when the CRB and SoundExchange agree to modify the rates in a fashion which is clearly discriminatory. In this case, it seems pretty clear that SE is acting in the interests of the entrenched music oligopoly. And the CRB has apparently chosen to kowtow to those same interests.
WTF are you talking about? That's a *completely* different situation. On the one hand, we have consumers protesting against an entrenched oligopoly who'll barely feel the effects of a boycott. On the other, we have an industry under attack, trying to raise consumer awareness so that said consumers they might contact their legislators and hopefully build up enough grassroots support to generate legislative relief.
If it's problematic for the radio station to work out deals with every owner of every song, then how does SoundExchange do it?
By being appointed by the Copyright Royalty Board as the group who manages the levies. ie, they're selected by the government.
'fraid not. SoundExchange can take money from any/all stations who play material for which the station hasn't negotiated a separate contract directly with the artists. The idea is that the artists can then retrieve their share directly from SoundExchange. This is referred to as a compulsory licensing scheme, and is intended to make the lives of broadcasters *easier*, since they don't have to go to each an every artists to negotiate a deal. The problems arise when the levies are used to club groups into submission through the use of disproportionately high, targeted fees (in this case, internet broadcasters being subject to a per-song-, rather than percentage-of-revenue-based scheme).
both thought it was INCREDIBLY obvious that they were advanced robots.
Congrats. Apparently you and your mother and smarter (and seemingly more arrogant) than most other people, who did *not* see it that way. But, hey, it's a lot easier to just say "all those people were morons", than to admit that perhaps the director just did a crappy job delivering his message. I mean, ffs, they made these "advanced mecha" look exactly like the damn aliens from Close Encounters! How is it they didn't *expect* people to make that mistake?
And it was not "inventing material". They were incredibly advanced compared to the boy. It was obvious he would never be part of their society. He was more like a zoo exhibit.
Umm, how was it *not* inventing material? Did the director state that the boy wouldn't "fit in"? No. Was it implied? Nope. You simply created a little bit of back story to help justify the plot. Yes, everyone does it. But the least you could do is admit it.
And for the record, Siddhartha Gautama's existence is probably one of the best historically supported of all the "religious" figures out there. It's almost a certainty he existed, though I'm sure rumours about him have been greatly exaggerated. :)
The ending was NOT a happy ending!
Allow me to rephrase. The character was allowed to achieve his dream of seeing his mother again. Yes, of course, it's sad, but it provides closure that, IMHO, is unnecessary.
Far more tragic and moving, to me, is having the robot, who believes he is a boy, eventually die chasing his dream. Something most humans are unwilling to do.
As for that post:
But even sadder than that is to let the viewer know that yes, he sat in the ocean for no less than 1000 yrs.
And dead the whole time. So? It's not like he sat there *conscious* for that whole time. There's nothing in the movie to indicate this is the case. Hell, he was *frozen*.
Even sadder than that is the fact that he is discovered and eventually "re-integrated" back into a "society", but that his fellow beings have evolved so much that he doesn't really belong (and never can).
Bah, this is just the blogger inventing material. There's nothing in the movie to suggest this actually happened.
Even sadder *than that* is that they can recreate his mother, but only for one day.
An arbitrary decision on the part of the writer and/or director. As far as the ending goes, this is actually one of the most annoying things about it... why one day? Why not one week? Or one month? Why not a thousand years? Why? Because one day is sadder... gotta tug on those heart strings!
BTW, one of my greatest pet peeves in movies: arbitrary plot decisions intended to do nothing more than evoke weeping sentimentality in the audience. Sad and tragic is the ending to Hamlet. The ending to A.I. just borders on irritating.
Even sadder *than that* is knowing that after 1000 years, he finally found his happiness, only to have it taken away within 24 hours.
Already address this above.
That is fucking tragic, and it appears it was lost on everyone but me.
No, tragic would be a robot boy, created by man, cast aside, left searching for his mother, only to eventually die chasing that dream. That's tragic. The ending they went with was just sad, IMHO.
It was also poorly executed... everyone here says "those dudes at the end were advanced mecha!", but the film gives no indication this is the case. And if I have to read the corresponding book, or directors commentary, or some other source material, to understand the message the movie was delivering, then the movie failed.
Yeah, that's a great reason to go to the moon... so we can collect resources to power imaginary fusion plants.
Honestly, how does that *not* sound incredibly silly?
That's because the first one is a psychological suspense flick. The second is just an action/horror, with a really annoying child actress (NEWT!).
'course, I happen to like 'em both, but they're totally different movies (not unlike the difference between Terminator and Terminator 2).
Ugh, too bad it was slow as hell. And I don't mean just a little slow. I mean, linger on the imagery of leaves floating on a river for 5 minutes slow. Honestly, it just left me tired and puzzled. And I tried oh so hard...