The challenge with Medicare for All is that I do not want to be taxed into oblivion to pay for the enrichment of the medical industry
Then you'd really want Medicare for All. Because Medicare pays less than every private insurance company. Private insurance rates are "Medicare + x%" where x is negotiated....and always a positive number.
We don't need single payer. We need single provider.
The problem with this is it is ripe for sabotage by a political party that does not support it, and is using sabotage to push towards eliminating it. See: the VA in the US and recent problems with NHS in the UK. Those are entirely driven by one political party fucking with the funding of the single provider.
Single-payer provides a relief valve in that the providers can do whatever they want, they just get paid $x from the payer. That provides less room for deliberate fuckery.
Wage stagnation has NOT happened in countries with high rates of savings and investment.
You got the causality backwards there, chief.
Countries without wage stagnation have workers who can afford to save and invest more.
This is still "zero sum" thinking. It is only true if you assume that corporations don't grow, and new corporations don't form.
That doesn't change that there are other positions that are currently occupied.
Let's make a simple model. There are 100 high-level jobs that GenXers want, but are currently filled by Boomers. And we'll make 10 more of those jobs over the timeframe we're discussing.
If we go with your work-until-you-die model, there are 10 openings for GenXers. Let's say the grim reaper has been particularly unkind, and we'll bump that to 15.
If we go with the retire-before-you-die model, there are 110 openings for GenXers.
Let's say your rather odd economic theories are correct, and we don't create those 10 new jobs because of those retiring boomers. So now there are....100 openings for GenXers.
The fact that there are 10 new openings doesn't change that there are 100 filled positions.
In what state is sexual harassment something you don't get into trouble with the law for?
All of them. All that fuss is actually kinda important.
Precisely zero people in the government will care if someone is sexually harassed at a private business. Instead, "justice" requires paying for a pseduo-prosecution yourself.
At the end of the day, you're in deep shit and very likely out of a job
It's not nearly that guaranteed. It's heavily covered up, especially if you're not at the bottom of the org chart.
And suing your employer over anything, even if the employer is 100% in the wrong, will likely make it very difficult for you to find a job for the rest of your life.
Our error-correcting mechanisms are not perfect. Thus there is still a chance of mutation that can be passed on to children and then grandchildren. It's small, but it's still present.
And yet, strangely, before internet dating the workplace was the location where most couples met.
Never said it was impossible. I said it was a bad idea. Your statement also ignores that sexual harassment was also incredibly rampant in the workplace - not all the women in the secretarial pool were looking to fuck.
and yet we do see people confusing it
We see people who want to engage in a pattern of harassment confusing it. There are precisely zero people actually filing civil charges over one incident. But is sure sounds scary when you want to scream about SJWs.
The 'understanding' that's considerably less clear is when, and in what manner, is it OK to make a pass at a colleague?
Never.
No, seriously. It's work. It's not a bar. Don't do it. Even if you really, really wanna.
Also, your fear exemplified by this anecdote:
it's fine for a colleague you fancy to ask you out, but if a colleague you don't find attractive does so it's harassment
Is false. It has to be a pattern for it to be harassment. So if you stupidly cast aside the advice above and ask, and she says "No", then don't try and get a date again.
This is not difficult or confusing. Attempts to portray it as difficult or confusing are attempts to find a loophole or excuse shitty behavior.
The idea is a significant percentage of the people who start feeling like they have to vote due to peer pressure will find out about what they are voting on. Right now, paying no attention and not voting is socially acceptable. Make "not voting" no longer socially acceptable, and a good number of people will start paying enough attention to decide as well as any other average voter.
It's unknown at this point if this works, statistically. Anecdotally, people report they have gotten people to pay more attention to politics via peer pressure such as this.
The idea is to start building a habit, and applying pressure so that people feel they need to vote. Which results in them paying some attention to what they are voting on in subsequent elections.
It's plausible, but obviously unproven at this point.
Never should have been a total rollout. But there are multiple groups that deal with patient data.
All the various parts of the hospital communicate via patient charts. It is not possible to do a phased rollout. They have to all use the same system, or you have to integrate the new and old systems (and deal with that mountain of headaches if you foolishly do this).
The idea that only the doctors should have such godlike powers, and screw everyone else is hubris personified.
Making the doctor say "no" when "no" is the answer the vast majority of the time is shitty UI design.
Now, you may decide to do that anyway because this is medical and you want to avoid having the doctor say "whoops, I forgot to change the default", but then you're accepting shitty UI because the non-UI reasons are more important.
Alternatively, that field shouldn't actually be required. Which is why they skipped it on the paper forms.
Let's say it's something on an MRI form like "Do you want contrast?" and the answer is "no" 90% of the time. Better to default the entry to "no" than to make the doctor choose no almost every single time.
A better question is should this field actually be required? Doctors didn't fill it out on the paper forms because apparently it wasn't required - the MRIs still got done.
My read-between-the-lines is that the admins wanted the field required because 10% of the time the field is necessary, and the doctors want it optional because 90% of the time it isn't necessary.
Ok, less sarcastically, the situation is bad enough that something has to be done. I'm sure the US and overseas phone companies could come up with something that works if the alternative is no calls.
Not every immigrant family has an English-only policy at home, but I have interacted with enough people who grew up with that to conclude that it is not all that uncommon.
The vast majority of the time, the grandchildren of immigrants are only fluent in English. Even without an "English only at home" rule. They might be able to converse a bit in another language, similar to someone who learned that language in high school.
And while explaining this, keep in mind in the vast majority of cases the grandchildren of any non-English-speaking immigrants only speak English fluently.
For roughly the same cost and effort of your fuel truck, we can send up another probe with far better capabilities.
These probes are disposable and already way past their design life. There are a lot of other mechanical failures that have built up. And we don't build them tougher because that makes them heavier (and so would in-flight refueling).
By limiting what can go to members of the class, you limit what money can go to anything else.
So if you require 7/8ths go to the harmed class, that leaves only 1/8th for the lawyers. Which means fewer lawsuits. Which is why they're pushing this change.
Slashdot Mirror
They have consistently been divorced by their wives, including the mothers of their children, who are "seeking fulfillment"
Given the massive pile of misogyny you've attempted to disguise as a post, methinks your wife left you for something a bit less trite.
The challenge with Medicare for All is that I do not want to be taxed into oblivion to pay for the enrichment of the medical industry
Then you'd really want Medicare for All. Because Medicare pays less than every private insurance company. Private insurance rates are "Medicare + x%" where x is negotiated....and always a positive number.
We don't need single payer. We need single provider.
The problem with this is it is ripe for sabotage by a political party that does not support it, and is using sabotage to push towards eliminating it. See: the VA in the US and recent problems with NHS in the UK. Those are entirely driven by one political party fucking with the funding of the single provider.
Single-payer provides a relief valve in that the providers can do whatever they want, they just get paid $x from the payer. That provides less room for deliberate fuckery.
Wage stagnation has NOT happened in countries with high rates of savings and investment.
You got the causality backwards there, chief.
Countries without wage stagnation have workers who can afford to save and invest more.
This is still "zero sum" thinking. It is only true if you assume that corporations don't grow, and new corporations don't form.
That doesn't change that there are other positions that are currently occupied.
Let's make a simple model. There are 100 high-level jobs that GenXers want, but are currently filled by Boomers. And we'll make 10 more of those jobs over the timeframe we're discussing.
If we go with your work-until-you-die model, there are 10 openings for GenXers. Let's say the grim reaper has been particularly unkind, and we'll bump that to 15.
If we go with the retire-before-you-die model, there are 110 openings for GenXers.
Let's say your rather odd economic theories are correct, and we don't create those 10 new jobs because of those retiring boomers. So now there are....100 openings for GenXers.
The fact that there are 10 new openings doesn't change that there are 100 filled positions.
In what state is sexual harassment something you don't get into trouble with the law for?
All of them. All that fuss is actually kinda important.
Precisely zero people in the government will care if someone is sexually harassed at a private business. Instead, "justice" requires paying for a pseduo-prosecution yourself.
At the end of the day, you're in deep shit and very likely out of a job
It's not nearly that guaranteed. It's heavily covered up, especially if you're not at the bottom of the org chart.
And suing your employer over anything, even if the employer is 100% in the wrong, will likely make it very difficult for you to find a job for the rest of your life.
Our error-correcting mechanisms are not perfect. Thus there is still a chance of mutation that can be passed on to children and then grandchildren. It's small, but it's still present.
Run your business that way if you want, by should others have to run their business that way too?
If they don't want to go bankrupt paying legal fees and settlements, yeah.
Turns out starting a business is not the same as making a Tinder account.
And yet, strangely, before internet dating the workplace was the location where most couples met.
Never said it was impossible. I said it was a bad idea. Your statement also ignores that sexual harassment was also incredibly rampant in the workplace - not all the women in the secretarial pool were looking to fuck.
and yet we do see people confusing it
We see people who want to engage in a pattern of harassment confusing it. There are precisely zero people actually filing civil charges over one incident. But is sure sounds scary when you want to scream about SJWs.
The 'understanding' that's considerably less clear is when, and in what manner, is it OK to make a pass at a colleague?
Never.
No, seriously. It's work. It's not a bar. Don't do it. Even if you really, really wanna.
Also, your fear exemplified by this anecdote:
it's fine for a colleague you fancy to ask you out, but if a colleague you don't find attractive does so it's harassment
Is false. It has to be a pattern for it to be harassment. So if you stupidly cast aside the advice above and ask, and she says "No", then don't try and get a date again.
This is not difficult or confusing. Attempts to portray it as difficult or confusing are attempts to find a loophole or excuse shitty behavior.
In what state or country is sexual harassment not a crime?
All of them. Sexual Harassment (in the workplace) is a civil offense, not a crime. You can't go to jail for it.
The reason a company has to get involved is they don't want the civil liability caused by doing nothing about it.
Ya might wanna google "Natural Monopoly" before thinking you can deregulate your way out of the last mile problem.
I'm allergic to latex. Most people are not. So should the doctor just dismiss my allergy?
Do you need me to explain that "default" is not the same as "answer that can never be changed"?
The idea is a significant percentage of the people who start feeling like they have to vote due to peer pressure will find out about what they are voting on. Right now, paying no attention and not voting is socially acceptable. Make "not voting" no longer socially acceptable, and a good number of people will start paying enough attention to decide as well as any other average voter.
It's unknown at this point if this works, statistically. Anecdotally, people report they have gotten people to pay more attention to politics via peer pressure such as this.
The idea is to start building a habit, and applying pressure so that people feel they need to vote. Which results in them paying some attention to what they are voting on in subsequent elections.
It's plausible, but obviously unproven at this point.
A random sampling of a mere 10% of the population will give you the proportions to an acceptable level of accuracy.
Something like 50% of people vote, which means we have very high confidence as to what the correct proportions are.
The problem with your theory is that 50% is not a random sample. It is skewed older and more conservative.
Never should have been a total rollout. But there are multiple groups that deal with patient data.
All the various parts of the hospital communicate via patient charts. It is not possible to do a phased rollout. They have to all use the same system, or you have to integrate the new and old systems (and deal with that mountain of headaches if you foolishly do this).
The idea that only the doctors should have such godlike powers, and screw everyone else is hubris personified.
Making the doctor say "no" when "no" is the answer the vast majority of the time is shitty UI design.
Now, you may decide to do that anyway because this is medical and you want to avoid having the doctor say "whoops, I forgot to change the default", but then you're accepting shitty UI because the non-UI reasons are more important.
Alternatively, that field shouldn't actually be required. Which is why they skipped it on the paper forms.
Let's say it's something on an MRI form like "Do you want contrast?" and the answer is "no" 90% of the time. Better to default the entry to "no" than to make the doctor choose no almost every single time.
A better question is should this field actually be required? Doctors didn't fill it out on the paper forms because apparently it wasn't required - the MRIs still got done.
My read-between-the-lines is that the admins wanted the field required because 10% of the time the field is necessary, and the doctors want it optional because 90% of the time it isn't necessary.
And nothing of value was lost.
Ok, less sarcastically, the situation is bad enough that something has to be done. I'm sure the US and overseas phone companies could come up with something that works if the alternative is no calls.
The Trump administration supported the industry's case, asking the US Supreme Court to vacate the Obama-era ruling.
Reading past the headlines can be pretty tricky for some folks. But it turns out there's more information there.
Not every immigrant family has an English-only policy at home, but I have interacted with enough people who grew up with that to conclude that it is not all that uncommon.
The vast majority of the time, the grandchildren of immigrants are only fluent in English. Even without an "English only at home" rule. They might be able to converse a bit in another language, similar to someone who learned that language in high school.
And that is a problem.
Why?
And while explaining this, keep in mind in the vast majority of cases the grandchildren of any non-English-speaking immigrants only speak English fluently.
Can we wait until I've marketed my White Genocide Defense Kit(tm) to them first? Only 4 easy payments of $88.
For roughly the same cost and effort of your fuel truck, we can send up another probe with far better capabilities.
These probes are disposable and already way past their design life. There are a lot of other mechanical failures that have built up. And we don't build them tougher because that makes them heavier (and so would in-flight refueling).
One of my kids thought he was going to be a robot when he grew up
That's nice. It's not gender dysmorphia, so it's not at all relevant.
By limiting what can go to members of the class, you limit what money can go to anything else.
So if you require 7/8ths go to the harmed class, that leaves only 1/8th for the lawyers. Which means fewer lawsuits. Which is why they're pushing this change.