"So when some kid is dying of cancer, and he can't raise enough money for his chemotherapy, we should embrace that? The market has spoken. Little Timmy should die?"
I don't understand how robbery is preferable to natural death. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
"What if they criteria for picking and choosing who gets medical care is "rich people". Is that good policy?"
The pursuit of happiness (and medical care) should be protected. That's different from dropping medical care in someone's lap. If someone decides to pick and choose a tough career/lifestyle that can pay for the medical care he wants, don't punish him for that.
Hey, man it was. It's called: the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation, an amendment to the Constitution, etc. Other than FREE STUFF what else are you looking for?
You don't understand the drugs thing. DNA isn't making anyone do drugs. You can dump millions in rehab expenses on certain people and they will stay addicted to drugs.
I do feel sorry for those people, and I am willing to help them as a private citizen. But to ask the tax payers to write out a check and feel like they've done something is profoundly mistaken.
Picking and choosing isn't an ugly side effect of good policy. It is central to and inseparable from it. Don't quibble with freedom... embrace it!
The US government did make a decision, but *you* decided 'no longer being allowed to buy the insurance you don't agree with is a good thing'. You ought to own your opinions if you're going to bother having them.
People are losing their health insurance as a direct result of the ACA, because their old policies don't cover all this nonsense like drug counseling and stuff like that. I don't want to pay for drug counseling. If I'm going to make the effort to not do drugs, I don't want to have to pay for it. Some people, in fact, can't pay for it.
Ok, subtle, but perhaps true about what he was saying.
No way no how is Active Denial a "military weapon". The whole reason the military hatched that one up was to get better press. To be a military weapon it has to be able to damage something. Otherwise we're talking about super soakers.
Interesting, so you are equating the actions of an individual here with a corporation. At least you are playing fair in that respect.
Slave labor, to me, is half-freedom (you can buy from anywhere, but the suppliers coerce work out of their workers). If you are talking about very low pay, but the workers are free to leave, then they are choosing it over the alternative (which they are determining for themselves to be actually worse).
When the government of Fiji comes in and says the fishing companies have to pay for free health care and the companies relocate and everyone loses their jobs (true story) the workers are the ones who lose.
Slashdot Mirror
"So when some kid is dying of cancer, and he can't raise enough money for his chemotherapy, we should embrace that? The market has spoken. Little Timmy should die?"
I don't understand how robbery is preferable to natural death. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
"What if they criteria for picking and choosing who gets medical care is "rich people". Is that good policy?"
The pursuit of happiness (and medical care) should be protected. That's different from dropping medical care in someone's lap. If someone decides to pick and choose a tough career/lifestyle that can pay for the medical care he wants, don't punish him for that.
Hey, man it was. It's called: the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation, an amendment to the Constitution, etc. Other than FREE STUFF what else are you looking for?
You don't understand the drugs thing. DNA isn't making anyone do drugs. You can dump millions in rehab expenses on certain people and they will stay addicted to drugs.
... embrace it!
I do feel sorry for those people, and I am willing to help them as a private citizen. But to ask the tax payers to write out a check and feel like they've done something is profoundly mistaken.
Picking and choosing isn't an ugly side effect of good policy. It is central to and inseparable from it. Don't quibble with freedom
The US government did make a decision, but *you* decided 'no longer being allowed to buy the insurance you don't agree with is a good thing'. You ought to own your opinions if you're going to bother having them.
People are losing their health insurance as a direct result of the ACA, because their old policies don't cover all this nonsense like drug counseling and stuff like that. I don't want to pay for drug counseling. If I'm going to make the effort to not do drugs, I don't want to have to pay for it. Some people, in fact, can't pay for it.
"you are no longer allowed to buy inadequate insurance, which is a good thing"
But who are you to decide that for someone else?
You are taking away someone else's choice so they don't have coverage!
A toast to beliefs that bring comfort!
And a toast to comfort beyond understanding!
*klink*
#BlaisePascal
Sounds like Federal US borrowing policies ...
I don't get it.
You basically interpret 'If you like your doctor you can keep him'
To mean: '... when politicians haven't labeled the policy as a sham policy'.
But he was directly responding to fears the government would label people's health insurance policies as sham policies and take them away.
It sounds like you're saying Obama wasn't claiming anything at all.
So it's OK to depend on government propaganda ?
Saved from the corruption of the profit motive !
Ok, subtle, but perhaps true about what he was saying.
No way no how is Active Denial a "military weapon". The whole reason the military hatched that one up was to get better press. To be a military weapon it has to be able to damage something. Otherwise we're talking about super soakers.
Dazzlers are not military weapons either.
Why would the military not use conventional weapons on civilians and then change things just because they have directed energy weapons?
Or do you live in China?
Didn't the discovery of things like entanglement invalidate all Newtonian models?
In other words the article should be written from "no one's" point of view.
"All decisiveness inheres in subjectivity. To pursue objectivity is to be in error."
Objectivity is a disguise of someone else's opinion.
Wait ... are you talking about the time period where the US became a world superpower?
Or when US citizens gained cheap access to easily manufactured goods and became more affluent then their overseas counterparts?
Or what time period are you referring to?
You're saying if the US stops using drones, the Chinese will too?
...
History says this is a failing strategy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As long as software companies are required to put in back doors the internet won't be secure
+1 Wish I had a mod point.
Are you advocating for PETA? Or vampires? Or what exactly?
I like the way the summary mentions "female androids" like that's a real thing.
I guess the androids have XX chromosomes too.
Low population density means shared transportation is less economically beneficial.
When you start borrowing money you are really welcoming invaders onto your soil.
...
That's how it feels for me as a person with a mortgage anyway
I thought NATO was enacted to protect against invasions ...
OK, I admit. I did get the words mixed up.
Thank you for educating me.
Interesting, so you are equating the actions of an individual here with a corporation. At least you are playing fair in that respect.
Slave labor, to me, is half-freedom (you can buy from anywhere, but the suppliers coerce work out of their workers). If you are talking about very low pay, but the workers are free to leave, then they are choosing it over the alternative (which they are determining for themselves to be actually worse).
When the government of Fiji comes in and says the fishing companies have to pay for free health care and the companies relocate and everyone loses their jobs (true story) the workers are the ones who lose.
If a lot of people came over to my house, would it become public property?
I'm not sure I understand what this post is trying to say.