Your address is verified when you receive the ballot, you can take your time looking up all the ballot measures in the voter's pamphlet, and it's convenient. It's as secure as an absentee ballot, and if you really wanted security, it's easier to get poll watchers from every campaign to one central location than to every precinct in the state.
You're proposing that everybody set aside $100 to cover their 10% chance at a $1000 disease. When it hits, the unlucky few end up $900 in the hole and the rest get $100 for free. Not so good.
The greatest good for the greatest number. 10% would pay more, but never more than they actually use or can afford, while 90% would pay less while still helping cover any shortfall. It's no more unfair than requiring people to purchase their own eyeglasses or braces if they can afford it while still covering it for those with low incomes.
That's the difference between a savings plan and an insurance plan. The latter rewards hiding activities that may drive up future costs ("Wait, did I forget the two packs of cigarettes ever day and the binge drinking?"), while the former catches such people sooner or later. Free riders are more of a threat to universal health care than greedy, healthy people with good genes.
However it is not possible with a free market, since that will charge customers whatever they still can pay and will let those that cannot pay die or live with problems that could be fixed.
It depends on what you call a free market. If you mean one in which people are free not to pay, and then later free to wander into the nearest emergency room, then you are correct. If instead you mean free to choose where you go and what you spend, it's pretty straightforward as long as you mandate a reasonable amount set aside per person in order to prevent the free rider problem.
For example, a simple method would be S.A.F.E. (Savings Accounts For Everything):
1. Figure out the amount of money a person is likely to require for healthcare throughout his life, including pre-existing conditions and genetic predispositions. Adjust this amount to reward good healthcare decisions (generic drugs, regular checkups) and punish bad ones (overweight, smoker, etc). 2. Figure out how much money a person can afford to set aside for healthcare. 3. Mandate contributions by law. If #2>#1, then the person should save as much money as necessary, either by payroll deductions or regular payment. If #1>#2, the person should set aside as much as he or she can afford. 4. Reimburse health care providers a set amount based on the drug, procedure, or treatment. A person could opt for a more expensive option, but they would have to pay the difference out of their own pocket. 5. The state should cover any shortfall in the account, but treat it as a loan with interest. If the person's financial situtation improves, they start paying off the debt. 6. If there is a surplus in the account, the state should pay a reasonable rate of interest into the account. 7. In addition to rewarding people for good healthcare decisions, people who do things like donate blood, sign themselves up as anatomical donors, or other activities that (potentially) improve the health of others should get a break on their withholdings. 8. If a person has saved an amount sufficient to cover healthcare costs and taxes (#11, below) for the rest of his life, he is no longer subject to automatic withholding unless the account has a future shortfall. 9. Parents are responsible for all healthcare costs for their children until they reach adulthood. 10. If a person dies with an account shortfall, the money to retire the debt will come out of the estate if possible. If there is a surplus, a portion (all?) of that surplus will go to one's heirs. 11. Since there will probably still be a shortfall over the entire system, a (possibly graduated) rate of taxation will also be imposed to cover it.
There are probably a few flaws in it, but it's fairer than most of the suggestions I see, and far less subject to abuse. I won't bother addressing your comments about how inhumane the U.S. is, because it isn't worth it to try to convince you otherwise.
Oh well, I've only fixed a couple of spelling and punctuation errors in articles, so I didn't know that. I've seen a few articles where the information is available via Google, but scattered all over. Maybe if they had a process where companies could submit information for review, some of the stubs could be expanded.
... to Wikipedia. Not for nefarious purposes, but because accurate information can be an important sales tool.
For example, awhile back I was in the market for planar ribbon loudspeakers. I wanted to see what the difference between kapton and mylar/polyester was. DuPont could have easily expanded the article, rather than have potential customers track down bits and pieces of information through Google.
Even if they were rather excessive in their praise for the product, it would at least give a starting point for others to add to, and of course they should be held accountable deleting things simply because they weren't complimentary.
Who is even dumb enough to make their purchases based on spam mail. I mean, surely everyone must know what spam is by now? How can one be so dense as to trust a completely random, badly worded, illarticulated e-mail full of spelling mistakes from someone you don't know to make informed decisions about what stock they should buy?
Maybe the government can advertise V14GR4 and C14L15 via spam, but actually supply birth control pills. In a couple of generations, the average intelligence of the planet would go *way* up.
Please try to size the punishment to the size of the crime.
I'd settle for ten seconds of jail time and a penny fine per spam. That would (very roughly) approximate treble damages for time wasted. A million spams would yield a 4 month sentence and a $10,000 fine.
Of course, if they sent a billion spams, they might as well get the death penalty, since they wouldn't be getting out in this lifetime.
Also, your American laws don't carry much power over other jurisdictions, and convincing others to share death penalty for something like this would be hard.
... and not CNN. I suppose if we had a respectable voter turn out, then big media might think we would find election fraud newsworthy. I guess the president just isn't as important as "American Idol".
ABC News also has the story, along with a picture of the defendents. I can't put my finger on it, but they don't appear to be stereotypical Bush operatives.
I agree. The US has the most frightening, provocative, dangerous and presumptuous military doctrine ever. Read for yourself and mod me flamebait afterwards.
How can I compare? Most military doctrines are secret or in languages I can't read.
We here farther east take American to mean someone from America (rather logically!). If we want to be specific, we say "north american" or even "yankee". Which I think is a perfect term for someone from USA.
People from the southern United States might have a bit of an argument with you, much like you would if we started calling people from your country "Stinkbunnies."
>>We Canadians take "American" to mean a citizen of the USA; not of Canada, Mexico, Brazil or Argentina.
You can take it any way you want, including up the ass, but American properly refers to any citizen of North, Central or South America.
Actually, in Spanish it is either americano or americana, and in Portuguese it is americano as well. Since this covers the vast majority of those south of the border (except for Belize, IIRC), and since Canadians don't care, we can call Americans "Americans," Canadians "Canadians," and everyone else Americanos.
Why exactly do you have a problem with that? I'm in favor of freedom of expression, but why should that extend to outright lies about objective facts? I half-wish more places would be willing to do this, about more subjects.
Who determines what is a lie, the government? What if the Administration said "Global warming is a myth, and anyone caught repeating it will be punished?" Or conversely, what about in Muslim countries, where they say "Mohammed is the true prophet of Allah, and anyone who is a prophet-denier will be punished"?
This isn't to say that there are no forms of prohibited speech -- I can't just say "My neighbor eats babies for breakfast" and not expect to be sued for defamation. However, in this case there is an actual person being harmed. Likewise, if I claimed my elderly Jewish neighbor was never in a concentration camp, but tattooed his own arm to gain sympathy, I might be defending myself against a slander charge. However, I can't imagine a class action suit against me if I started claiming a particular number of Jews died, since it would be very difficult to prove my words damaged anyone.
Finally, it's a cliche, but the solution to free speech is more free speech. Prohibiting something -- whether it is denying the holocaust or burning a flag -- merely tempts certain people into doing it anyway. Better to consistently, continually, and logically argue against such behavior, rather than legally prevent it, since prohibition damages society even more.
Because the Libertarians did personal liberties such a favor by backing the President's invasion of Iraq.
Source, please.
The reason I ask is, Ron Paul is probably the most Libertarian member of Congress (after all, he was the Libertarian candidate for President in 1988). To quote Wikipedia, "He voted against the Iraq War Resolution and continues to criticize the US presence in Iraq, and what he charges is the use of the war on terror to curtail civil liberties. He has also broken with his party by voting against the Patriot Act in 2001 and again in 2005."
Anyway, I'd like to compare the resume of the supposed Libertarian who supported the pre-emptive attack with Representative Paul's.
(Full disclosure: I find some of Paul's positions a bit nutty, like returning to the gold standard, but Libertarians do not have a monolithic viewpoint on every subject.)
Libertarians only stand for what Libertarians think of as "freedom", which is generally on the opposite side of common sense (like selling off the national parks, as one small example). It'd also be nice if the Libertarian party read the Ninth Amendment some time.
Perhaps you can read up on Geolibertarianism. Though theoretically you could build your dream home on the rim of the Grand Canyon, the land rent for it would be freakishly high.
Slashdot Mirror
Your address is verified when you receive the ballot, you can take your time looking up all the ballot measures in the voter's pamphlet, and it's convenient. It's as secure as an absentee ballot, and if you really wanted security, it's easier to get poll watchers from every campaign to one central location than to every precinct in the state.
Have you *seen* the lack of light pollution there?
Here is an interesting site which gives you some visualizations of voting methods. Take a look at IRV:
http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/
You're proposing that everybody set aside $100 to cover their 10% chance at a $1000 disease. When it hits, the unlucky few end up $900 in the hole and the rest get $100 for free. Not so good.
The greatest good for the greatest number. 10% would pay more, but never more than they actually use or can afford, while 90% would pay less while still helping cover any shortfall. It's no more unfair than requiring people to purchase their own eyeglasses or braces if they can afford it while still covering it for those with low incomes.
That's the difference between a savings plan and an insurance plan. The latter rewards hiding activities that may drive up future costs ("Wait, did I forget the two packs of cigarettes ever day and the binge drinking?"), while the former catches such people sooner or later. Free riders are more of a threat to universal health care than greedy, healthy people with good genes.
However it is not possible with a free market, since that will charge customers whatever they still can pay and will let those that cannot pay die or live with problems that could be fixed.
It depends on what you call a free market. If you mean one in which people are free not to pay, and then later free to wander into the nearest emergency room, then you are correct. If instead you mean free to choose where you go and what you spend, it's pretty straightforward as long as you mandate a reasonable amount set aside per person in order to prevent the free rider problem.
For example, a simple method would be S.A.F.E. (Savings Accounts For Everything):
1. Figure out the amount of money a person is likely to require for healthcare throughout his life, including pre-existing conditions and genetic predispositions. Adjust this amount to reward good healthcare decisions (generic drugs, regular checkups) and punish bad ones (overweight, smoker, etc).
2. Figure out how much money a person can afford to set aside for healthcare.
3. Mandate contributions by law. If #2>#1, then the person should save as much money as necessary, either by payroll deductions or regular payment. If #1>#2, the person should set aside as much as he or she can afford.
4. Reimburse health care providers a set amount based on the drug, procedure, or treatment. A person could opt for a more expensive option, but they would have to pay the difference out of their own pocket.
5. The state should cover any shortfall in the account, but treat it as a loan with interest. If the person's financial situtation improves, they start paying off the debt.
6. If there is a surplus in the account, the state should pay a reasonable rate of interest into the account.
7. In addition to rewarding people for good healthcare decisions, people who do things like donate blood, sign themselves up as anatomical donors, or other activities that (potentially) improve the health of others should get a break on their withholdings.
8. If a person has saved an amount sufficient to cover healthcare costs and taxes (#11, below) for the rest of his life, he is no longer subject to automatic withholding unless the account has a future shortfall.
9. Parents are responsible for all healthcare costs for their children until they reach adulthood.
10. If a person dies with an account shortfall, the money to retire the debt will come out of the estate if possible. If there is a surplus, a portion (all?) of that surplus will go to one's heirs.
11. Since there will probably still be a shortfall over the entire system, a (possibly graduated) rate of taxation will also be imposed to cover it.
There are probably a few flaws in it, but it's fairer than most of the suggestions I see, and far less subject to abuse. I won't bother addressing your comments about how inhumane the U.S. is, because it isn't worth it to try to convince you otherwise.
Perhaps it'll be like Moore's law. If the length doubles every 18 months, it'll less than half a century.
I guess this is further evidence that there are two things one cannot escape - death and taxes.
Yeah, but death only comes for you once.
The PC does what you tell it to.
Being registered as a lobbyist doesn't seem to have slowed Jack Abromoff down any.
Then what good would this law do?
Oh well, I've only fixed a couple of spelling and punctuation errors in articles, so I didn't know that. I've seen a few articles where the information is available via Google, but scattered all over. Maybe if they had a process where companies could submit information for review, some of the stubs could be expanded.
... to Wikipedia. Not for nefarious purposes, but because accurate information can be an important sales tool.
For example, awhile back I was in the market for planar ribbon loudspeakers. I wanted to see what the difference between kapton and mylar/polyester was. DuPont could have easily expanded the article, rather than have potential customers track down bits and pieces of information through Google.
Even if they were rather excessive in their praise for the product, it would at least give a starting point for others to add to, and of course they should be held accountable deleting things simply because they weren't complimentary.
Who is even dumb enough to make their purchases based on spam mail. I mean, surely everyone must know what spam is by now? How can one be so dense as to trust a completely random, badly worded, illarticulated e-mail full of spelling mistakes from someone you don't know to make informed decisions about what stock they should buy?
Maybe the government can advertise V14GR4 and C14L15 via spam, but actually supply birth control pills. In a couple of generations, the average intelligence of the planet would go *way* up.
Please try to size the punishment to the size of the crime.
I'd settle for ten seconds of jail time and a penny fine per spam. That would (very roughly) approximate treble damages for time wasted. A million spams would yield a 4 month sentence and a $10,000 fine.
Of course, if they sent a billion spams, they might as well get the death penalty, since they wouldn't be getting out in this lifetime.
Also, your American laws don't carry much power over other jurisdictions, and convincing others to share death penalty for something like this would be hard.
The reverse is also the case, of course.
... and not CNN. I suppose if we had a respectable voter turn out, then big media might think we would find election fraud newsworthy. I guess the president just isn't as important as "American Idol".
ABC News also has the story, along with a picture of the defendents. I can't put my finger on it, but they don't appear to be stereotypical Bush operatives.
>>Ten years after the amazing Philippe Kahn married a cell phone and a digital camera
And people say gay marriage is unnatural!
Well, marrying a cell phone with another cell phone is just silly.
Camera phones have such poor quality. Why don't you just buy a disposable one for a few bucks and save yourself some pain.
If only they'd put a crappy phone on a high-quality camera, I'd be set.
I agree. The US has the most frightening, provocative, dangerous and presumptuous military doctrine ever. Read for yourself and mod me flamebait afterwards.
How can I compare? Most military doctrines are secret or in languages I can't read.
...by saying "Actually, more like those little horsies that move in an 'L' shape."
1. Find a plant, animal, or mineral with it. /yes, I found the mysterious step 2.
2. Market it as a natural supplement.
3. Profit!
We here farther east take American to mean someone from America (rather logically!). If we want to be specific, we say "north american" or even "yankee". Which I think is a perfect term for someone from USA.
People from the southern United States might have a bit of an argument with you, much like you would if we started calling people from your country "Stinkbunnies."
>>We Canadians take "American" to mean a citizen of the USA; not of Canada, Mexico, Brazil or Argentina.
You can take it any way you want, including up the ass, but American properly refers to any citizen of North, Central or South America.
Actually, in Spanish it is either americano or americana, and in Portuguese it is americano as well. Since this covers the vast majority of those south of the border (except for Belize, IIRC), and since Canadians don't care, we can call Americans "Americans," Canadians "Canadians," and everyone else Americanos.
Why exactly do you have a problem with that? I'm in favor of freedom of expression, but why should that extend to outright lies about objective facts? I half-wish more places would be willing to do this, about more subjects.
Who determines what is a lie, the government? What if the Administration said "Global warming is a myth, and anyone caught repeating it will be punished?" Or conversely, what about in Muslim countries, where they say "Mohammed is the true prophet of Allah, and anyone who is a prophet-denier will be punished"?
This isn't to say that there are no forms of prohibited speech -- I can't just say "My neighbor eats babies for breakfast" and not expect to be sued for defamation. However, in this case there is an actual person being harmed. Likewise, if I claimed my elderly Jewish neighbor was never in a concentration camp, but tattooed his own arm to gain sympathy, I might be defending myself against a slander charge. However, I can't imagine a class action suit against me if I started claiming a particular number of Jews died, since it would be very difficult to prove my words damaged anyone.
Finally, it's a cliche, but the solution to free speech is more free speech. Prohibiting something -- whether it is denying the holocaust or burning a flag -- merely tempts certain people into doing it anyway. Better to consistently, continually, and logically argue against such behavior, rather than legally prevent it, since prohibition damages society even more.
Because the Libertarians did personal liberties such a favor by backing the President's invasion of Iraq.
Source, please.
The reason I ask is, Ron Paul is probably the most Libertarian member of Congress (after all, he was the Libertarian candidate for President in 1988). To quote Wikipedia, "He voted against the Iraq War Resolution and continues to criticize the US presence in Iraq, and what he charges is the use of the war on terror to curtail civil liberties. He has also broken with his party by voting against the Patriot Act in 2001 and again in 2005."
Anyway, I'd like to compare the resume of the supposed Libertarian who supported the pre-emptive attack with Representative Paul's.
(Full disclosure: I find some of Paul's positions a bit nutty, like returning to the gold standard, but Libertarians do not have a monolithic viewpoint on every subject.)
Libertarians only stand for what Libertarians think of as "freedom", which is generally on the opposite side of common sense (like selling off the national parks, as one small example). It'd also be nice if the Libertarian party read the Ninth Amendment some time.
Perhaps you can read up on Geolibertarianism. Though theoretically you could build your dream home on the rim of the Grand Canyon, the land rent for it would be freakishly high.
How about instead we place Sony and Apple in the same category?
No, because then you'd make fun of Apple, which is completely unacceptable.