Due to government's licensing-requirements, an immigrating doctor effectively has to go through Medical School again in the US — however accomplished and acclaimed he may be in his home country. I know some permanent residents who have done this (and one, who settled for becoming a nurse instead), but holders of temporary visas understandably would not.
No guarantee. A lot can be obtained from third-party sites, to which people login using their existing accounts. It is not only Slashdot, which allows you to login with your Yahoo! or Facebook credentials...
When you use this method on a web-site, you get a notice, that you authorize the site to "access your contacts" and some other information. This is easy for the sites to set up and they like it because they want to encourage people to comment — it increases "pageviews". The site itself may not be abusing this access (some operators may not even realize, they have it).
Unfortunately, not all sites are good at guarding it — this is how your entire Yahoo! addressbook, for example, may end up in the criminals' possession without them ever actually accessing your mailbox. Having such addressbooks, spammers can (and do!) generate customized spam in which you appear to be the sender for each of your contacts and which opens with the salutation you used to identify the contact. Such spams, obviously, have a far higher chances of being read by the victims — and the links in them are much more likely to be clicked.
I kind of wondered if more opiates, doled out in small doses & quantities, wasn't actually partly the answer.
Yep, this is, what treating the Population, rather than the Patient leads to. When the needs of the Collective trump those of the Individual...
probably saving a bunch of money and resources for people with treatable or more life-threatening conditions
How would you distinguish the two groups from each other? If the customer has already paid (for "insurance" — public or private) and expects to be treated for free, what other criteria is there to decide, whether he gets real treatment or opiates (and End of Life Counseling)? In some cases it may be obvious, but — and this can be concluded from your post — such clear-cut situations are a minority.
You still need to run those "expensive tests", you wanted to avoid. And you will avoid them with patients less equal than others... And if you do not, the "senior management" of the hospital will make you... In USSR patients were accustomed to having to bring "gifts" to doctors for routine visits and paying (with money or other favors) for more serious treatment — to get themselves more equal than the rest.
In a way, it's kind of a rationing of medical resources
Of course, it is. And it is unavoidable — even if the Collectivists of various stripes do not get it (or would not admit to). When you do not have enough of something — such as doctor's time, or particular medicine, or sneakers — for everybody, somebody will not get it — no matter, how you slice or dice it. Who will be left without (or with less) depends on how you decide, but scarcity makes rationing inevitable. You can have "death panels" deciding, who gets treated, or you can raise prices. The former approach may seem fair, but does nothing to alleviate the shortage and is so fertile to corruption, it is unacceptable. The latter, on the other hand, is objective and — by rewarding the service-providers and/or manufacturers more — helps lower the scarcity.
Sadly, with the current healthcare (and public schooling, BTW) setup in the US, paying for your own is only possible for the very rich — one is legally obligated to carry "health insurance" from one of the very few "approved" insurers, which all have a dim view of private clinics. So, anything one pays for such unapproved doctors is on top of their spending on collectivized healthcare.
Demanding that they be put at the front of the line because they couldn't shelter their kid from learning evil secular science and math.
I doubt "science and math" was, what these parents found objectionable, but that is not the point.
The point was, Obama Administration did fight to have them deported, while allowing hundreds of thousands of others — who came here not for any political reasons (whether you approve of them or not), but purely for economical ones. Came illegally, I might add. That it was done in the hope of further improving Democrats voting base is rather obvious. More honest (or simply less cautious?) Democrats are quite open about it.
The overwhelming fact about American general elections right now is that white male voters just aren't as powerful as they used to be.
Celebrate diversity, right? Democrats could not convince the electorate of their ideas, so they changed the electorate — by diluting it with a heavy dose of people from countries, where the government is the source of what little wealth there is.
Firearms have forever changed both warfare and personal security. You can say, bow and arrow had a similarly dramatic effect — Spartans captured by Athenians 2500 years ago complained bitterly, that reed (from which arrows were made) does not distinguish between the brave and the cowards. But arrows weren't useful against fortifications and bow was not a good short-range weapon.
Now, refrigerators have dramatically altered the way we buy and prepare food... I'd nominate them if only because they tend to be underappreciated these days.
Railroads, airlines, personal cars — not sure, if you can call them "gadgets". Telegraph and telephone — sure!
And then cellular phone, followed by "smart" phone. But I think, telephones were more revolutionary than these next stages.
'Governments Can Reduce Our Dignity To That Of Tagged Animals'
Of course, they can! And in some countries, they don't even bother with tagging. But try to call for reduction of government and empowering the individuals, and you'll be shouted and modded down in no time...
And he learned his lesson and has not done such a thing since 1992 — when Clinton was not even a President yet, BTW. Like I said, it is bad form and whoever tries it, gets burned — for good reason.
To be expected of a man who keeps replacing his wives with younger wives every few years
I'm triggered by your anti-Muslim bigotry! Safe-place, safe-space...
Chelsea Clinton wasn't "safe" during her fathers term, did you forget?
Maybe I forgot, or maybe I was too young and busy to notice such things. Why don't you cite something to refresh my memory? Some attack, that would make a young girl want to skip a year of college?
It's obvious that she's taking a year off only because it's a presidential election year. I'd want to avoid being part of a circus as well
America's princesses have Secret Service protection even after daddy leaves White House. And the children are not part of the "circus" — unless they place themselves there — it is considered very bad form to target them otherwise. Not thatDemocratshaven't, but a Democratic princess is safe.
What level of evidence would cause you to change your mind?
Change my mind on what? That today's Climate Science is a reliable scientific discipline? Easy — all you need is cite their past scientific statements making predictions, that have already materialized. To count:
Each citation must be clearly named (by you), for example: "In 10 years we will have 10% more rainfall".
Each citation must contain two links: the first link to the prediction being made, the second — to its confirmation within 80% of the predicted value(s) (if quantifiable).
The two links must themselves be at least several years apart — lauding a prediction after it materialized does not count. If a prediction was made before the Internet era, you can cite the earliest time it was posted online instead — the posting itself would have to be from several years prior to its materialization. (Without this rule, I can prove myself a genius — by writing down contradictory predictions today and only publishing successful ones tomorrow.)
The cited predictions need to be remotely useful — something like: "The temperature may rise or fall in 10 years" will not be accepted.
I've been posing this very reasonable challenge to various adherents of Climate Science for a while now — and all I got was abuse and downmoddings. Give it your best, if you wish — before I begin charging money for this...
Sadly, all this might mean is that Mr. Rich CEO hires a bunch of goons...
Sure, but he can always do that. In fact, they can even be armed goons — with licenses to carry, whereas their victim is unlikely to be.
adding guns to the mix doesn't equalize this rich vs poor conflict
Well, it will not equalize it completely, but it will reduce the disbalance. You only need 2-3 unarmed goons to overpower an unarmed victim. If you allow both sides to carry, the math changes — you'll now need more than 5, probably closer to 10 goons. And they know, some of them may very well "get it", which raises the stakes even higher.
And then, of course, the goons can already be armed — so letting the victim defend himself is a net win for equality.
The need for a special permission (license) from the government is what makes such vendors especially miserable — even those, who apply for and receive such licenses, are in constant fear of having them revoked. The Executive government can do that at a drop of a hat, without bothering with the occasionally obstreperous Judiciary — somehow selling what's yours to willing buyers is not a right in this country, you need permission.
Calling a buddy (or a politician, to whom you've donated) in the town-hall to lean on the objectionable vendor to "ask" him to move or have his license not renewed, is how this sort of harassment is normally achieved — announcing your plans on Facebook is, actually, refreshingly honest of this guy.
If that meant destroying some of their produce, or standing out there with signs to chase everyone away, Or just making them very uncomfortable
To fight against this sort of bullying, we need the "Stand you ground" laws — with the right to bear arms properly restored...
For several decades now such doom-sayers have been predicting disasters "soon" without a single one of them getting anywhere close. When the predicted time passes and anyone still has the attention span to ask: "Hey, was that wrong?" — the answer, if any, is: "We never said, it will happen, only that it could."
Basing public policy on these "predictions" is completely bogus. Geico's "promise" of "15 minutes could save you 15%" is as reliable — and more fun too.
has jack all to do with standard of living because
BS, of course it does. Or are you going to argue for some kind of "holistic" approach — whereby a poor Thai is "happier" than a rich New Yorker? Yeah, would be most convenient for you, because it would not be quantifiable...
GDP that's been adjusted for purchasing power parity [...] once you look at PPP, the countries you disdain so much look to be doing a whole lot better
Most of Europe is still well below the US on the PPP benchmark too — only two real European countries (Switzerland and Norway) exceed us. And they did in the list I posted too, so your "braindead statement" about "a whole lot better" is false.
And then comes the military spending — which Europeans can not afford — and the power of Capitalism becomes obvious.
braindead statement that "The further to the Left, the worse off the country."
There is no successful Socialist country — it is a poison. Where there is less of it — like in France — the country can still survive, though not as well. Where there is much of it — like in Venezuela — the country collapses. Where it evolves into its next logical level — Communism — mass murder begins to accompany the economic disaster (as may well happen in Venezuela soon).
Moron.
It certainly is unusually honest for a moron to admit being one by signing his drivels so...
See? All you had to do was to cite your reference with the original claim...
Oh, wait, the very title of your link says: "your-nhs-data-is-completely-anonymous-until-it-isnt"...
My point is that there are already publicly available databases in the U.S
And yet, the NHS data covers the entire nation, whereas the US databases (if they are, in fact, as detailed and dangerous to privacy as the NHS) cover only some of the patients.
Just another reason why "single payer" is such a wet dream of Statists...
Slashdot Mirror
Due to government's licensing-requirements, an immigrating doctor effectively has to go through Medical School again in the US — however accomplished and acclaimed he may be in his home country. I know some permanent residents who have done this (and one, who settled for becoming a nurse instead), but holders of temporary visas understandably would not.
No guarantee. A lot can be obtained from third-party sites, to which people login using their existing accounts. It is not only Slashdot, which allows you to login with your Yahoo! or Facebook credentials...
When you use this method on a web-site, you get a notice, that you authorize the site to "access your contacts" and some other information. This is easy for the sites to set up and they like it because they want to encourage people to comment — it increases "pageviews". The site itself may not be abusing this access (some operators may not even realize, they have it).
Unfortunately, not all sites are good at guarding it — this is how your entire Yahoo! addressbook, for example, may end up in the criminals' possession without them ever actually accessing your mailbox. Having such addressbooks, spammers can (and do!) generate customized spam in which you appear to be the sender for each of your contacts and which opens with the salutation you used to identify the contact. Such spams, obviously, have a far higher chances of being read by the victims — and the links in them are much more likely to be clicked.
Yep, this is, what treating the Population, rather than the Patient leads to. When the needs of the Collective trump those of the Individual...
How would you distinguish the two groups from each other? If the customer has already paid (for "insurance" — public or private) and expects to be treated for free, what other criteria is there to decide, whether he gets real treatment or opiates (and End of Life Counseling)? In some cases it may be obvious, but — and this can be concluded from your post — such clear-cut situations are a minority.
You still need to run those "expensive tests", you wanted to avoid. And you will avoid them with patients less equal than others... And if you do not, the "senior management" of the hospital will make you... In USSR patients were accustomed to having to bring "gifts" to doctors for routine visits and paying (with money or other favors) for more serious treatment — to get themselves more equal than the rest.
Of course, it is. And it is unavoidable — even if the Collectivists of various stripes do not get it (or would not admit to). When you do not have enough of something — such as doctor's time, or particular medicine, or sneakers — for everybody, somebody will not get it — no matter, how you slice or dice it. Who will be left without (or with less) depends on how you decide, but scarcity makes rationing inevitable. You can have "death panels" deciding, who gets treated, or you can raise prices. The former approach may seem fair, but does nothing to alleviate the shortage and is so fertile to corruption, it is unacceptable. The latter, on the other hand, is objective and — by rewarding the service-providers and/or manufacturers more — helps lower the scarcity.
Sadly, with the current healthcare (and public schooling, BTW) setup in the US, paying for your own is only possible for the very rich — one is legally obligated to carry "health insurance" from one of the very few "approved" insurers, which all have a dim view of private clinics. So, anything one pays for such unapproved doctors is on top of their spending on collectivized healthcare.
And riverat1 still can not satisfy the very simple rules of the challenge. Sad...
I doubt "science and math" was, what these parents found objectionable, but that is not the point.
The point was, Obama Administration did fight to have them deported, while allowing hundreds of thousands of others — who came here not for any political reasons (whether you approve of them or not), but purely for economical ones. Came illegally, I might add. That it was done in the hope of further improving Democrats voting base is rather obvious. More honest (or simply less cautious?) Democrats are quite open about it.
They went all the way to Supreme Court to have them deported — that's quite a fight.
(The family came from Germany, not Australia.) But they were persecuted in Germany — because they wanted to educate their children their own way.
Celebrate diversity, right? Democrats could not convince the electorate of their ideas, so they changed the electorate — by diluting it with a heavy dose of people from countries, where the government is the source of what little wealth there is.
They don't mind big government, and are happy to receive "free" help from it. The dilution is ongoing — while the same Administration fought tooth-and-nail to deport refugees from a rich country, who fled over homeschooling...
Firearms have forever changed both warfare and personal security. You can say, bow and arrow had a similarly dramatic effect — Spartans captured by Athenians 2500 years ago complained bitterly, that reed (from which arrows were made) does not distinguish between the brave and the cowards. But arrows weren't useful against fortifications and bow was not a good short-range weapon.
Now, refrigerators have dramatically altered the way we buy and prepare food... I'd nominate them if only because they tend to be underappreciated these days.
Railroads, airlines, personal cars — not sure, if you can call them "gadgets". Telegraph and telephone — sure!
And then cellular phone, followed by "smart" phone. But I think, telephones were more revolutionary than these next stages.
Of course, they can! And in some countries, they don't even bother with tagging . But try to call for reduction of government and empowering the individuals, and you'll be shouted and modded down in no time...
You gave precisely zero citations.
For the umpteenth time — each citation must contain two links. You are offering one — therefor your submission is unacceptable. Better luck next year.
Well she didn't skip college, but......
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2...
And he learned his lesson and has not done such a thing since 1992 — when Clinton was not even a President yet, BTW. Like I said, it is bad form and whoever tries it, gets burned — for good reason.
I'm triggered by your anti-Muslim bigotry! Safe-place, safe-space...
Maybe I forgot, or maybe I was too young and busy to notice such things. Why don't you cite something to refresh my memory? Some attack, that would make a young girl want to skip a year of college?
Please, include your citations in a follow-up under this post. Put up or shut up. Thank you!
America's princesses have Secret Service protection even after daddy leaves White House. And the children are not part of the "circus" — unless they place themselves there — it is considered very bad form to target them otherwise. Not that Democrats haven't, but a Democratic princess is safe.
In other words, your excuse for her is not.
Change my mind on what? That today's Climate Science is a reliable scientific discipline? Easy — all you need is cite their past scientific statements making predictions, that have already materialized. To count:
I've been posing this very reasonable challenge to various adherents of Climate Science for a while now — and all I got was abuse and downmoddings. Give it your best, if you wish — before I begin charging money for this...
Sure, but he can always do that. In fact, they can even be armed goons — with licenses to carry, whereas their victim is unlikely to be.
Well, it will not equalize it completely, but it will reduce the disbalance. You only need 2-3 unarmed goons to overpower an unarmed victim. If you allow both sides to carry, the math changes — you'll now need more than 5, probably closer to 10 goons. And they know, some of them may very well "get it", which raises the stakes even higher.
And then, of course, the goons can already be armed — so letting the victim defend himself is a net win for equality.
The need for a special permission (license) from the government is what makes such vendors especially miserable — even those, who apply for and receive such licenses, are in constant fear of having them revoked. The Executive government can do that at a drop of a hat, without bothering with the occasionally obstreperous Judiciary — somehow selling what's yours to willing buyers is not a right in this country, you need permission.
Calling a buddy (or a politician, to whom you've donated) in the town-hall to lean on the objectionable vendor to "ask" him to move or have his license not renewed, is how this sort of harassment is normally achieved — announcing your plans on Facebook is, actually, refreshingly honest of this guy.
To fight against this sort of bullying, we need the "Stand you ground" laws — with the right to bear arms properly restored...
The use of "could" makes the entire statement unfalsifiable and therefor non-scientific. We get these in popular press — /. included — about weekly.
For several decades now such doom-sayers have been predicting disasters "soon" without a single one of them getting anywhere close. When the predicted time passes and anyone still has the attention span to ask: "Hey, was that wrong?" — the answer, if any, is: "We never said, it will happen, only that it could."
Basing public policy on these "predictions" is completely bogus. Geico's "promise" of "15 minutes could save you 15%" is as reliable — and more fun too.
Leave it to New York Times to count other people's money...
If yours does not require much counting, at least, rejoice about ours — I recon, she'd pay at least $20 mln of that in taxes...
Oh, and the one important bit from TFA, that the write-up skipped:
So, maybe, the taxes will be less. But it may not be $55 mln either, if the stocks/options flop by the time restrictions expire...
BS, of course it does. Or are you going to argue for some kind of "holistic" approach — whereby a poor Thai is "happier" than a rich New Yorker? Yeah, would be most convenient for you, because it would not be quantifiable...
Most of Europe is still well below the US on the PPP benchmark too — only two real European countries (Switzerland and Norway) exceed us. And they did in the list I posted too, so your "braindead statement" about "a whole lot better" is false.
And then comes the military spending — which Europeans can not afford — and the power of Capitalism becomes obvious.
There is no successful Socialist country — it is a poison. Where there is less of it — like in France — the country can still survive, though not as well. Where there is much of it — like in Venezuela — the country collapses. Where it evolves into its next logical level — Communism — mass murder begins to accompany the economic disaster (as may well happen in Venezuela soon).
It certainly is unusually honest for a moron to admit being one by signing his drivels so...
See? All you had to do was to cite your reference with the original claim...
Oh, wait, the very title of your link says: "your-nhs-data-is-completely-anonymous-until-it-isnt"...
And yet, the NHS data covers the entire nation, whereas the US databases (if they are, in fact, as detailed and dangerous to privacy as the NHS) cover only some of the patients.
Just another reason why "single payer" is such a wet dream of Statists...
I don't know, I'm not a doctor. Are you?
Neither the writeup nor TFA mention "anonymized". Could you explain, where you got the information from?
Heinlein's I Will Fear No Evil, written in 1970, predicted a brain transplant for "early 21st century".
This — transplanting the entire head, rather than just the brain — is not quite it, but let's not quibble... Best of luck, pan Spiridonov.
Dodging the question confirms the affirmative answer. Thanks for playing.