Is it at least possible that we are confusing our understanding of the intent of the founding father's organizational skills with simply an impossible stretch of the "Health and Welfare" interpretation? When we invoke the intent of the founding fathers we must be careful to constrain context. I am uncertain this "least common denominator" approach (which frankly seems to have utterly failed) was really a part of the vocabulary of the day. It is quite a modern concept to regulate the many based on risks borne by the few. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but in those days the gov't wasn't really in the business of 3rd order eventualities or perceptions of responsibility...citizens generally understood they bore the risk/consequence of the beliefs/information to which they chose to adhere.
It's also a very personal decision when it is appropriate to defend against the reach of governmental, religious, scientific (institutional) authority...as these groups are so wont to reach. For the last few decades, anything short of complete surrender of responsibility for personal health is unerringly frowned upon and regulated...for the benefit of the uninformed?... or the benefit of the industry?... or the furtherance of authority?
Federal assumption of such responsibilities smacks of intrusion into personal domains (like scope creep). You might say that becoming a "child of the state" has drawbacks. The transaction cost of outsourcing every decision is possibly unsustainable. AND...as in this case...a new level of control takes a little getting used to...before everyone can get back to sleep.
AND...on the off-chance the BTC brand could be tied more closely to the impropriety and immorality of Silk Road. It is pretty clear the success of this potentially disruptive concept has gotten the attention of the potentially disrupted...so the smear campaign begins. Anything that threatens to unsettled the power structure will be challenged now...just look what happened with that internet thing...who could have known?
While it may have less than the full effect of legislation...I recall a reference to BTC having already been cleared for campaign finance.
Here are the links if you want to listen to the meetings (4hrs) to clear this up. My impression was the idea seemed to enliven the interest (and debate) from a politician's viewpoint.
11/18/2013 - http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/beyond-silk-road-potential-risks-threats-and-promises-of-virtual-currencies
11/19/2013 - 3:30-ish - http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Home.Home
Seemed fairly clear to me the statement of this Senator may be in oppositely indicative.
It is also clear that there is a lot of confusion in this arena...but I tend to believe a donation is still a donation...and that donations will not be suppressed.
Just my opinion...you be the judge.
That is a disappointing argument...do you enjoy your food more when the other guy is hungry? Seriously...think about it...deflection and transference are unproductive in this context. This is not OK...at the very least it is seriously impolite. We, as Americans, have no control over (or culpability for) what other countries do. Further, I have seen nothing indicating this scale of intrusion occurring elsewhere...or the capability (budget) to match our effort...it doesn't matter who started it (think kindergarten).
I have a hard time believing the depth and breadth of this is driven solely by defensive imperative...it feels overly intrusive...and smacks of improper economic incentive. The temptation to reap economic benefit (from stealing business secrets) is too great. We must establish either better boundaries or transparency...or we run the very real risk of becoming what we say we are fighting against.
We are creating (or perpetuating) a world wide breakdown of trust and integrity.
There has to be a better way...and I suspect it begins with respectful restraint.
Clearly we have raised advocacy to an art form (possibly in a baroque expression) when we incongruously discuss metrics and means... Are you implying elimination of the corporate income tax as a carrot to get something passed or alms for the starving?
This post is so full of double talk and half truth I almost don't have the energy to answer it...but it is the straight party line if I ever heard it.
First, you ask us to believe the average student loan debt matches the average salary...check your numbers...not saying it is wrong, just highly unlikely. I assume one of those is a typo.
Second, either your salary range is wrong or your hours a week are wrong. $156K gets you an 8 hr a day employee in every market I know of...otherwise the physician gets to bill independently for their work which earns them considerably more money.
Third, Are we talking a surgeon here? Send me all the surgeons you can find for that salary...I can get at least double that in a variety of places and they can keep their billing.
Fourth, as an employee, malpractice is commonly provided so it would not be a deduction from anything.
Fifth, everyone pays taxes.
Lastly, I don't mean to be disrespectful but this makes your parity argument complete bullshit. What could possess you to try to pass off this drivel?
This "typical" surgeon would have to be the dumbest guy on the planet to be unable to negotiate a better deal than this. If he needs some help have him contact me...seriously, please do. The "unscalable" physician shortage is alive and well here in the US. This guy could be underperforming by as much as an order of magnitude with a little common sense management.
Recently there were some posts placing “reasonable expectation of privacy” at the center of this debate. When you write your congressmen, be sure to include a sentence or two directly stating you DO, as a matter of fact, have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” for ALL electronic personal and business affairs. This convenient legal distinction drawn between papers and e-mail/phone conversations appears to deflect applicability of 4th amendment protections.
This distinction is a grotesque extension of a “laissez faire” concept...with the 3 letter agencies surreptitiously thrown in the mix. It ensures power, influence and capital rule the electronic waves. We would do well to remember the lessons of that era. One-up-manship guarantees the murderer wins out over the pickpocket. No one really wants to let the net degenerate to a dominion where treachery replaces innovation.
We must protect whatever integrity we have left...building it back will be a long process. That process begins by formally recognizing privacy and protecting against electronic invasion with some of those unreasonable punishments that we keep taking about. It seems to work pretty well for the USPS.
Really? This is little more than a weak rendition of the "death panel" ploy.
Do you actually believe someone you trust more (or have more control over) will magically be "in charge of your healthcare" if this current plan fails?
Would you prefer facing a corporate "death panel"?
This specious question could only be effective in the vacuum of uninformed debate.
This is the latest HIPAA regulatory effort (Jan 2013), it aggregates a long string of legislation and policy across several departments (Omnibus Rule).
I believe you will agree after reading it... this belongs in your general fund of knowledge.
And I think you will also agree this is quite serious...leading me to suggest a broad policy review...and broad educational effort.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-25/pdf/2013-01073.pdf
Quite long, but invaluable in your effort to end speculation...
Slashdot Mirror
Is it at least possible that we are confusing our understanding of the intent of the founding father's organizational skills with simply an impossible stretch of the "Health and Welfare" interpretation? When we invoke the intent of the founding fathers we must be careful to constrain context. I am uncertain this "least common denominator" approach (which frankly seems to have utterly failed) was really a part of the vocabulary of the day. It is quite a modern concept to regulate the many based on risks borne by the few. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but in those days the gov't wasn't really in the business of 3rd order eventualities or perceptions of responsibility...citizens generally understood they bore the risk/consequence of the beliefs/information to which they chose to adhere. It's also a very personal decision when it is appropriate to defend against the reach of governmental, religious, scientific (institutional) authority...as these groups are so wont to reach. For the last few decades, anything short of complete surrender of responsibility for personal health is unerringly frowned upon and regulated...for the benefit of the uninformed? ... or the benefit of the industry? ... or the furtherance of authority?
Federal assumption of such responsibilities smacks of intrusion into personal domains (like scope creep). You might say that becoming a "child of the state" has drawbacks. The transaction cost of outsourcing every decision is possibly unsustainable. AND...as in this case...a new level of control takes a little getting used to...before everyone can get back to sleep.
AND...on the off-chance the BTC brand could be tied more closely to the impropriety and immorality of Silk Road. It is pretty clear the success of this potentially disruptive concept has gotten the attention of the potentially disrupted...so the smear campaign begins. Anything that threatens to unsettled the power structure will be challenged now...just look what happened with that internet thing...who could have known?
While it may have less than the full effect of legislation...I recall a reference to BTC having already been cleared for campaign finance. Here are the links if you want to listen to the meetings (4hrs) to clear this up. My impression was the idea seemed to enliven the interest (and debate) from a politician's viewpoint. 11/18/2013 - http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/beyond-silk-road-potential-risks-threats-and-promises-of-virtual-currencies 11/19/2013 - 3:30-ish - http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Home.Home Seemed fairly clear to me the statement of this Senator may be in oppositely indicative. It is also clear that there is a lot of confusion in this arena...but I tend to believe a donation is still a donation...and that donations will not be suppressed. Just my opinion...you be the judge.
That is a disappointing argument...do you enjoy your food more when the other guy is hungry? Seriously...think about it...deflection and transference are unproductive in this context. This is not OK...at the very least it is seriously impolite. We, as Americans, have no control over (or culpability for) what other countries do. Further, I have seen nothing indicating this scale of intrusion occurring elsewhere...or the capability (budget) to match our effort...it doesn't matter who started it (think kindergarten). I have a hard time believing the depth and breadth of this is driven solely by defensive imperative...it feels overly intrusive...and smacks of improper economic incentive. The temptation to reap economic benefit (from stealing business secrets) is too great. We must establish either better boundaries or transparency...or we run the very real risk of becoming what we say we are fighting against. We are creating (or perpetuating) a world wide breakdown of trust and integrity. There has to be a better way...and I suspect it begins with respectful restraint.
Clearly we have raised advocacy to an art form (possibly in a baroque expression) when we incongruously discuss metrics and means... Are you implying elimination of the corporate income tax as a carrot to get something passed or alms for the starving?
This post is so full of double talk and half truth I almost don't have the energy to answer it...but it is the straight party line if I ever heard it. First, you ask us to believe the average student loan debt matches the average salary...check your numbers...not saying it is wrong, just highly unlikely. I assume one of those is a typo. Second, either your salary range is wrong or your hours a week are wrong. $156K gets you an 8 hr a day employee in every market I know of...otherwise the physician gets to bill independently for their work which earns them considerably more money. Third, Are we talking a surgeon here? Send me all the surgeons you can find for that salary...I can get at least double that in a variety of places and they can keep their billing. Fourth, as an employee, malpractice is commonly provided so it would not be a deduction from anything. Fifth, everyone pays taxes. Lastly, I don't mean to be disrespectful but this makes your parity argument complete bullshit. What could possess you to try to pass off this drivel? This "typical" surgeon would have to be the dumbest guy on the planet to be unable to negotiate a better deal than this. If he needs some help have him contact me...seriously, please do. The "unscalable" physician shortage is alive and well here in the US. This guy could be underperforming by as much as an order of magnitude with a little common sense management.
Recently there were some posts placing “reasonable expectation of privacy” at the center of this debate. When you write your congressmen, be sure to include a sentence or two directly stating you DO, as a matter of fact, have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” for ALL electronic personal and business affairs. This convenient legal distinction drawn between papers and e-mail/phone conversations appears to deflect applicability of 4th amendment protections. This distinction is a grotesque extension of a “laissez faire” concept...with the 3 letter agencies surreptitiously thrown in the mix. It ensures power, influence and capital rule the electronic waves. We would do well to remember the lessons of that era. One-up-manship guarantees the murderer wins out over the pickpocket. No one really wants to let the net degenerate to a dominion where treachery replaces innovation. We must protect whatever integrity we have left...building it back will be a long process. That process begins by formally recognizing privacy and protecting against electronic invasion with some of those unreasonable punishments that we keep taking about. It seems to work pretty well for the USPS.
Really? This is little more than a weak rendition of the "death panel" ploy. Do you actually believe someone you trust more (or have more control over) will magically be "in charge of your healthcare" if this current plan fails? Would you prefer facing a corporate "death panel"? This specious question could only be effective in the vacuum of uninformed debate.
This is the latest HIPAA regulatory effort (Jan 2013), it aggregates a long string of legislation and policy across several departments (Omnibus Rule). I believe you will agree after reading it ... this belongs in your general fund of knowledge.
And I think you will also agree this is quite serious...leading me to suggest a broad policy review...and broad educational effort.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-25/pdf/2013-01073.pdf
Quite long, but invaluable in your effort to end speculation...