While I think the current legislation is an incredibly misguided approach, I think health care should be universal. So I am not sure. Is it better to have universal health care that is implemented poorly and will cost more than it’s worth, or is it better to pass on this, until we can find someone who will do it right.
Universal Health Care:
My republican friends are probably screaming. "Oh my god, how can you even think about backing this socialist crap?!" Well, in my opinion, health is at least as important as education to society. We don't seem to have a problem with socialized education. Social programs are certainly not a foreign idea to our American Society and some of them work (arguably) quite well. Others, of course, are hopelessly broken.
I think everyone should have access to health care, just like everyone has access to education. I don’t think anyone should have to decide between getting treatment for a medical condition and eating or having a place to live. I think it’s sad and very telling that people, who live in places that do have universal healthcare, live longer healthier lives than Americans.
The main problem with the current legislation is that the primary concern does not seem to be providing healthcare, but rather protecting the business models of the AMA, the big insurance companies and the big drug companies. We can either have universal health coverage or we can continue to profit off of peoples health problems. We cannot do both.
The Free Market people are probably going nuts about this. “Private Enterprise will do a better job than the government. There will be no incentives for medical innovation. The government makes everything more complex and more expensive. What about my ability to control my medical care?” You may be right but I doubt it. Private enterprise can do a better job for fewer people, but the government can do an adequate job for everyone. You see this in the education system. The government does OK with education. If you want more than the standard, you have to pay out of your pocket. The government could create incentives, just like they have for military contractors. Private organizations (colleges, drug companies) could compete for money to experiment. Innovations that come from this would belong to the government. They could be managed for the benefit of everyone. If a company chooses to go it alone, and they have a huge success, the government could choose to reimburse them for their R&D and they would be guaranteed a reasonable profit. This would get rid of the $1000 a month prescriptions and the $25K test because someone owns a patent for a gene. Everything will be different if the government were to run it. There would be growing pains. But think of all the problems it would solve and all the money it would save. That’s right I said save. Medicaid and Medicare would go away. The prisoner healthcare problem would be gone. Healthcare for Veterans would be exactly the same as everyone else. These things would no longer be part of anyone’s budget problem. You control your medical care? Really? So you must be really, really rich. My medical care is controlled by my insurance company. I am not sure how this is any different than it being controlled by the government.
How do we pay for it?
Well part of it would be paid for by cost savings. If you remove the profit margins from healthcare a huge amount of the cost disappears. With a single payer plan, the government is able to take advantage of huge economies of scale. Throw in the money from Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran healthcare, and prisoner healthcare, we get a bit farther toward paying the bill. The rest would have to be made up in either taxes or employer contributions. Between healthcare premiums, deductibles, co-pays and out of pocket expenses, I will end up spending more than $12k in healthcare costs. My job is probably putting in another $6k. That is $4500/person in my house. That is obscene and I am sure that ther
Mod the parent up. (and not just because its Bruce) Companies should not be allowed to profit from people being sick or hurt. I understand that doctors have to make a living but sacrificing health care for share price is unethical at best and immoral at worst.
That sounds like useful information to me. If I need to leave a written message at a campsite, and I see a bunch of large foot prints, there is a better chance that the message I left will be read and understood. Given, of course, that the other variables are known, like what country, I am in and what language the local population speaks and reads.
" There are much more pressing environmental issues than global warming. People are starving. The ocean is a garbage can. In some cities, the air is toxic. In some countries, the ground is toxic. These are all provable and preventable. But, like all civilized endeavors, managing the environment is purely a problem of sustainable economics. In other words, the environment must be managed as a long term economic advantage. Any other method of management will lead to economic failure. Once the economy of a society fails, all other interests, beyond core survival, cease to be. "
My position is ( and it really has nothing to do with this topic or my original statement ) that the topics of global warming and economics and inextricably linked.
Economists are the Rheumatologists of the the math world. If you want to diagnose some strange condition, that every other Dr tells you is all in your head, and no one is able to diagnose, you go to a Rheumatologist.
The economist's job is to spot and analyze trends. Since global warming has everything to do with trend analysis, I think an economist is the perfect person to evaluate the data.
I am not sure this is management style thinking. This is "do what we are paying you to, and figure out something stupid on your own time." In other words. If the Cd is not required for Notes localization; then right now, I don't care why the CD is causing a problem. Pull the damn thing out and get your freakin' job done.
I think I get what you are saying and in some instances you are probably right. The real damage with libel and slander is the effect on what people think about the person being slandered. I am not sure it possible to regulate thought.
The "shouting fire is a theater" thing is not a Free Speech issue. You have every right to yell fire in a crowded theater. Especially if there is a fire. What you will get in trouble for is the results of your speech. Free speech is and should be absolute. But; you are responsible for the results of your speech and you always have been.
Courts enjoining speech in a lawsuit or criminal case: This is not a law against free speech (as in congress shall make no law.) It is a judge doing his job in a specific instance to ensure a fair trial.
An NDA is a contractual obligation. Again this is not a law against free speech.
Laws against disclosure (medical records and such) again do not violate the "Congress shall make no law" because they apply to commercial entities which are not protected by the constitution. The constitution applies to people. Yes, I know, some judges have ruled as if corporation are "persons." It is very convenient sometimes to think that way, but it is not a constitutional matter.
Libel and Slander are also not limitations on speech. If you are sued for one of those things you are being sued for the damage that you did to that person not the speech itself.
Any abridgment you can come up with a reason for is either bad law, bad application of law or not an abridgment.
ANY law that restricts the speech of an individual is unconstitutional by definition.
I would guess it is not enforceable. In order for a contract to be legal it requires both parties to get something, or give something up. What did you get for signing this? What did they give up? You already had your job. IANAL(E)ither.
Yes, I am sorry it wasn't clear. It was sarcasm. There are basically two interpretation of the constitution. The strong federal government view and the strong state government view. Both interpretations have been used at different times in our history. The strong state government people (my preferred interpretation) believe that the federal government should be weak and the states should act as the primary government of the people. The federal government is there to carry out the functions of nationhood (treaties, war and such), and to guarantee that some things are the same for all of the states. (Equal Protection, Due Process and such). The strong federal government people believe that the federal government can't do heir job without having supreme power. The problem is, concentrating power, while convenient, tends to be bad. Today we are a strong federal government society. The president also believes in a unitary executive. This basically means, the president believes his views, actions and interpretation of the constitution, as they apply to the day to day running of executive branch, are beyond review, by either congress of the judiciary. So a federal government with very little state authority, run by a person who thinks that what ever he does, by definition, is constitutional, sounds, to me, like a recipe for disaster.
I have worked customer service jobs too. My entire job revolved around getting rid of people on the phone. They key was not to give them anything they wanted. As soon as you give them what they want, you have spent the companies money. Yes CSRs are people. The are poorly paid and poorly motivated people, who get written up for being on the phone for too long with one person, or giving a customer too much. The only way to get something done is to get past them. They only way to get past them is to scream your freaking head off.
There are only two categories of tax payers. There are people who can fill out a 1040ez. These people can file on the phone or online for free. Then there are those that should hire a tax professional to do their taxes. I did my own taxes for years. I used Tax Cut and Turbo Tax. They are both fine product. But neither is a substitute for a knowledgeable, tax accountant. Notice I said accountant. Don't waste your money on someone who took a three day class. Yes, accountants aren't cheap. Mine cost me $160 to $180 a year. On average he saves me $1500. Yes, I think it is criminal that the tax code is so complex. But if you can't beat 'em, find someone who can.
I am not sure how you can patent something like this. It is the same thing they have been doing with buoys for 40+ years. I hit a buoy with my radar and it returns a morse code letter on my radar screen. I look on my chart and find the buoy with the right letter. I add that to direction and distance, and I now know where I am. "I have used GPS, I know GPS, Mister sonar thingy you are no GPS."
Also, I am just guessing here. Anyone who drives a sub, and doesn't know where they are, has bigger problems than someone hearing their ping.
I agree...But I think the "dropped the ball" comment might be a case of the Monday morning quarterback. It might be that they did not see it coming because they weren't looking for it. I think a little extra future vigilance would serve our safety much more than all of the encroachments on our privacy and potentially our liberty.
Slashdot Mirror
While I think the current legislation is an incredibly misguided approach, I think health care should be universal. So I am not sure. Is it better to have universal health care that is implemented poorly and will cost more than it’s worth, or is it better to pass on this, until we can find someone who will do it right.
Universal Health Care:
My republican friends are probably screaming. "Oh my god, how can you even think about backing this socialist crap?!" Well, in my opinion, health is at least as important as education to society. We don't seem to have a problem with socialized education. Social programs are certainly not a foreign idea to our American Society and some of them work (arguably) quite well. Others, of course, are hopelessly broken.
I think everyone should have access to health care, just like everyone has access to education. I don’t think anyone should have to decide between getting treatment for a medical condition and eating or having a place to live. I think it’s sad and very telling that people, who live in places that do have universal healthcare, live longer healthier lives than Americans.
The main problem with the current legislation is that the primary concern does not seem to be providing healthcare, but rather protecting the business models of the AMA, the big insurance companies and the big drug companies. We can either have universal health coverage or we can continue to profit off of peoples health problems. We cannot do both.
The Free Market people are probably going nuts about this. “Private Enterprise will do a better job than the government. There will be no incentives for medical innovation. The government makes everything more complex and more expensive. What about my ability to control my medical care?” You may be right but I doubt it.
Private enterprise can do a better job for fewer people, but the government can do an adequate job for everyone. You see this in the education system. The government does OK with education. If you want more than the standard, you have to pay out of your pocket.
The government could create incentives, just like they have for military contractors. Private organizations (colleges, drug companies) could compete for money to experiment. Innovations that come from this would belong to the government. They could be managed for the benefit of everyone. If a company chooses to go it alone, and they have a huge success, the government could choose to reimburse them for their R&D and they would be guaranteed a reasonable profit. This would get rid of the $1000 a month prescriptions and the $25K test because someone owns a patent for a gene.
Everything will be different if the government were to run it. There would be growing pains. But think of all the problems it would solve and all the money it would save. That’s right I said save. Medicaid and Medicare would go away. The prisoner healthcare problem would be gone. Healthcare for Veterans would be exactly the same as everyone else. These things would no longer be part of anyone’s budget problem.
You control your medical care? Really? So you must be really, really rich. My medical care is controlled by my insurance company. I am not sure how this is any different than it being controlled by the government.
How do we pay for it?
Well part of it would be paid for by cost savings. If you remove the profit margins from healthcare a huge amount of the cost disappears. With a single payer plan, the government is able to take advantage of huge economies of scale. Throw in the money from Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran healthcare, and prisoner healthcare, we get a bit farther toward paying the bill. The rest would have to be made up in either taxes or employer contributions. Between healthcare premiums, deductibles, co-pays and out of pocket expenses, I will end up spending more than $12k in healthcare costs. My job is probably putting in another $6k. That is $4500/person in my house. That is obscene and I am sure that ther
Mod the parent up. (and not just because its Bruce) Companies should not be allowed to profit from people being sick or hurt. I understand that doctors have to make a living but sacrificing health care for share price is unethical at best and immoral at worst.
I think you have economist confused with climatologists.
That sounds like useful information to me. If I need to leave a written message at a campsite, and I see a bunch of large foot prints, there is a better chance that the message I left will be read and understood. Given, of course, that the other variables are known, like what country, I am in and what language the local population speaks and reads.
I think that was some actor that said that.
Admittedly there is more to science than numbers, but numbers and the analysis of them are the foundation of science.
I am not sure which part you are disagreeing with. It sounds like we are on the same page.
Isn't all science about finding patterns in numbers, and even more importantly finding the exceptions to the patterns?
Excuse me for quoting myself:
" There are much more pressing environmental issues than global warming. People are starving. The ocean is a garbage can. In some cities, the air is toxic. In some countries, the ground is toxic. These are all provable and preventable. But, like all civilized endeavors, managing the environment is purely a problem of sustainable economics. In other words, the environment must be managed as a long term economic advantage. Any other method of management will lead to economic failure. Once the economy of a society fails, all other interests, beyond core survival, cease to be. "
My position is ( and it really has nothing to do with this topic or my original statement ) that the topics of global warming and economics and inextricably linked.
Economists are the Rheumatologists of the the math world. If you want to diagnose some strange condition, that every other Dr tells you is all in your head, and no one is able to diagnose, you go to a Rheumatologist.
The economist's job is to spot and analyze trends. Since global warming has everything to do with trend analysis, I think an economist is the perfect person to evaluate the data.
I am not sure this is management style thinking. This is "do what we are paying you to, and figure out something stupid on your own time." In other words. If the Cd is not required for Notes localization; then right now, I don't care why the CD is causing a problem. Pull the damn thing out and get your freakin' job done.
I think I get what you are saying and in some instances you are probably right. The real damage with libel and slander is the effect on what people think about the person being slandered. I am not sure it possible to regulate thought.
The "shouting fire is a theater" thing is not a Free Speech issue. You have every right to yell fire in a crowded theater. Especially if there is a fire. What you will get in trouble for is the results of your speech. Free speech is and should be absolute. But; you are responsible for the results of your speech and you always have been.
Courts enjoining speech in a lawsuit or criminal case: This is not a law against free speech (as in congress shall make no law.) It is a judge doing his job in a specific instance to ensure a fair trial.
An NDA is a contractual obligation. Again this is not a law against free speech.
Laws against disclosure (medical records and such) again do not violate the "Congress shall make no law" because they apply to commercial entities which are not protected by the constitution. The constitution applies to people. Yes, I know, some judges have ruled as if corporation are "persons." It is very convenient sometimes to think that way, but it is not a constitutional matter.
Libel and Slander are also not limitations on speech. If you are sued for one of those things you are being sued for the damage that you did to that person not the speech itself.
Any abridgment you can come up with a reason for is either bad law, bad application of law or not an abridgment.
ANY law that restricts the speech of an individual is unconstitutional by definition.
Wow!? Now that I have been schooled, I guess I will stop expressing my opinion. Please forgive me oh keeper of the slashdot conscience.
I would guess it is not enforceable. In order for a contract to be legal it requires both parties to get something, or give something up. What did you get for signing this? What did they give up? You already had your job. IANAL(E)ither.
I am disappointed. This article has been up for more than an hour. Where is the obligatory GOATSE reference?
Yes, I am sorry it wasn't clear. It was sarcasm. There are basically two interpretation of the constitution. The strong federal government view and the strong state government view. Both interpretations have been used at different times in our history.
The strong state government people (my preferred interpretation) believe that the federal government should be weak and the states should act as the primary government of the people. The federal government is there to carry out the functions of nationhood (treaties, war and such), and to guarantee that some things are the same for all of the states. (Equal Protection, Due Process and such). The strong federal government people believe that the federal government can't do heir job without having supreme power. The problem is, concentrating power, while convenient, tends to be bad. Today we are a strong federal government society. The president also believes in a unitary executive. This basically means, the president believes his views, actions and interpretation of the constitution, as they apply to the day to day running of executive branch, are beyond review, by either congress of the judiciary. So a federal government with very little state authority, run by a person who thinks that what ever he does, by definition, is constitutional, sounds, to me, like a recipe for disaster.
See, you just pegged the problem. The Constitution doesn't mention phone and internet. So what bush is doing must be legal.
It depends on what your definition of "is" is.
I have worked customer service jobs too. My entire job revolved around getting rid of people on the phone. They key was not to give them anything they wanted. As soon as you give them what they want, you have spent the companies money. Yes CSRs are people. The are poorly paid and poorly motivated people, who get written up for being on the phone for too long with one person, or giving a customer too much. The only way to get something done is to get past them. They only way to get past them is to scream your freaking head off.
I don't know, you should talk it over with your accountant.
There are only two categories of tax payers. There are people who can fill out a 1040ez. These people can file on the phone or online for free. Then there are those that should hire a tax professional to do their taxes. I did my own taxes for years. I used Tax Cut and Turbo Tax. They are both fine product. But neither is a substitute for a knowledgeable, tax accountant. Notice I said accountant. Don't waste your money on someone who took a three day class. Yes, accountants aren't cheap. Mine cost me $160 to $180 a year. On average he saves me $1500.
Yes, I think it is criminal that the tax code is so complex. But if you can't beat 'em, find someone who can.
I am not sure how you can patent something like this. It is the same thing they have been doing with buoys for 40+ years. I hit a buoy with my radar and it returns a morse code letter on my radar screen. I look on my chart and find the buoy with the right letter. I add that to direction and distance, and I now know where I am. "I have used GPS, I know GPS, Mister sonar thingy you are no GPS."
Also, I am just guessing here. Anyone who drives a sub, and doesn't know where they are, has bigger problems than someone hearing their ping.
That is certainly a possibility.
I agree...But I think the "dropped the ball" comment might be a case of the Monday morning quarterback. It might be that they did not see it coming because they weren't looking for it. I think a little extra future vigilance would serve our safety much more than all of the encroachments on our privacy and potentially our liberty.