Of course, you didn't answer the question of why someone born without a genetic disorder have to pay for something that is absolutely out of their control (i.e., other people's genetics).
I don't have a problem with you wanting universal health care, but information limiting insurance companies is not the way to do it.
The point of insurance is not to spread risk. The point of insurance is to mitigate the consequences of negative outcomes for the insured. Having car insurance doesn't spread the risk of having a car accident out among the insured, it mitigates the consequences for people who do have crashes.
Spreading risk by limiting decision making information is medical cost sharing (because the risk is not evenly distributed to begin with, when you limit information, you spread the cost to people who are not at risk).
Not really, biodiversity is probably more useful than additional land to reforest. Most of the United States has already had its old growth forest removed, reforestation can go on quite a while before we need to start cutting down old forests in order to plant trees.
Sure it works. If you gave me a contract that said you didn't have any obligation to pay, I would laugh in your face and not sign it. Using the Twitter service is pretty much the opposite of not signing a contract.
(they can't excuse themselves from actual legal obligations with the contract, but they aren't trying to, so it isn't a problem they have)
Bacteria will increase their mutation rate on all their own when they encounter a lack of resources. Irradiating them is just going to select for bacteria that are somewhat more resistant to radiation.
Corporate income taxes are stupid anyway. They treat the tax as a cost input, and whatever good they produce or service they provide is that much more expensive.
If you must tax the corporate income, look through the corporation and tax the income as personal income of an individual. This would be hideously difficult, so it might make sense to have some rules about what needs to be paid out as dividends and capital gains, and then tax those closer to regular income (the difference between whatever they are now and 35% isn't drastically altering investment levels).
Well of course you want to do whatever minimizes problems overall, but the point stands that from a public health perspective, a vaccine with small problems is much better than a disease with large problems. Life, averaged across society, would be much, much, much worse without vaccines.
Well, you initially said telcos and cable. I don't really see where this adds anything over DSL though, at least in areas where DSL makes financial sense (I don't get DSL because the lines are ancient and there aren't enough houses near mine to make an upgrade happen).
Slashdot Mirror
Your movie would be a lot less satisfying than Gattica.
Lets stop calling it insurance then.
Of course, you didn't answer the question of why someone born without a genetic disorder have to pay for something that is absolutely out of their control (i.e., other people's genetics).
I don't have a problem with you wanting universal health care, but information limiting insurance companies is not the way to do it.
The point of insurance is not to spread risk. The point of insurance is to mitigate the consequences of negative outcomes for the insured. Having car insurance doesn't spread the risk of having a car accident out among the insured, it mitigates the consequences for people who do have crashes.
Spreading risk by limiting decision making information is medical cost sharing (because the risk is not evenly distributed to begin with, when you limit information, you spread the cost to people who are not at risk).
I hate it when the cops come to my house because I haven't bought an Xbox yet.
I always just lie to them and tell them that my cousin stole it, it usually keeps them off my back for a couple of weeks.
The stewardesses turn on the loser light for dark glasses just like they do for sleep masks, they know, either way, that you can't see it.
Then you would just complain about how it was too expensive to fly...
Copyright and patents exist to encourage sharing, i.e., publication of the ideas.
I can perfectly well own (in the sense of control) an idea if I never let it out of my head, government intervention or not.
It'd only take like 4.5 inches of said water.
Sure, but you can't fight the weather (well, you can, that's what a shelter is, but not on large scales).
Not really, biodiversity is probably more useful than additional land to reforest. Most of the United States has already had its old growth forest removed, reforestation can go on quite a while before we need to start cutting down old forests in order to plant trees.
It's true, just not necessarily for human friendly values of balanced.
*Scratches head*
If you were aiming for that irony, beautiful. If you weren't, that's beautiful too.
Sure it works. If you gave me a contract that said you didn't have any obligation to pay, I would laugh in your face and not sign it. Using the Twitter service is pretty much the opposite of not signing a contract.
(they can't excuse themselves from actual legal obligations with the contract, but they aren't trying to, so it isn't a problem they have)
Bacteria will increase their mutation rate on all their own when they encounter a lack of resources. Irradiating them is just going to select for bacteria that are somewhat more resistant to radiation.
How does a post that starts with "corporate income taxes are stupid" get interpreted as anti-corporation? Twice.
The best argument would be that you have had plenty of time to learn otherwise.
Shouldn't you be dead?
I don't think it is really a good idea to treat the editors as a coherent group.
You obviously don't drink microbrews.
Corporate income taxes are stupid anyway. They treat the tax as a cost input, and whatever good they produce or service they provide is that much more expensive.
If you must tax the corporate income, look through the corporation and tax the income as personal income of an individual. This would be hideously difficult, so it might make sense to have some rules about what needs to be paid out as dividends and capital gains, and then tax those closer to regular income (the difference between whatever they are now and 35% isn't drastically altering investment levels).
Don't hurt yourself.
Well of course you want to do whatever minimizes problems overall, but the point stands that from a public health perspective, a vaccine with small problems is much better than a disease with large problems. Life, averaged across society, would be much, much, much worse without vaccines.
Well, you initially said telcos and cable. I don't really see where this adds anything over DSL though, at least in areas where DSL makes financial sense (I don't get DSL because the lines are ancient and there aren't enough houses near mine to make an upgrade happen).
The idea is to use phone lines in areas without cable...