50 year old systems that are extremely fragile, are falling apart, are very difficult to get replacement parts for (because, the original manufacturers have LONG gone out of business), very few know how they work (let alone how to repair), have been hacked and reworked beyond recognition, and fail regularly.
of course, I do wonder.... why do they want to replace radar with GPS? Radar doesn't require an active participant on the other end. That, in and of itself, conveys certain benefits, not the least of which is not requiring much specification beyond not allowing air craft with the radar signature of small birds to be flying around.
Just my thoughts.
-Steve
Wrong type of radar, Steve. The "radar" used by ATC is not a military radar that sends out a powerful signal and measures what is bounced back to it. The ATC radar sends an signal that causes the airplane based transponder to send a response with it's transponder code and (possibly) the locally measured altitude. Transponders are finicky, and the associated altitude measuring equipment requires periodic calibration (meaning someone could be reporting the wrong altitude).
Replacing the current system IS about saving money. The current system has many parts that date back to the 70's or before, and the upkeep is a royal bitch. Added to that, it is cryptic, and very user hostile.
Besides, the RADAR they're talking about isn't the military radar that tracks incoming craft. The radar in question interrogates a radio on the airplane that then reports it's altitude. Very limited information, that depends on each of the airplane bound radio/altimeter systems to be calibrated correctly.
Why, if we substitute "government" in the brackets, must draconian laws accompany it? Even if we tone down the end-of-the-world rhetoric and instead talk about "regulation," why is it so horrible? Just because it's "the government" doing it? The people opposing public healthcare seem to have no problem with this "regulation" when it's a private company doing it. Why the double standard?
Because, the government gets to send big men to your house with big guns. I can tell an insurance company where to put their policy.
I'm building an experimental airplane with a non-traditional engine. Most insurance companies won't touch it. Some would, if I would switch ot a more traditional engine. One will cover me, at extremely high rates.
This is the way insurance works. Someone very good at math works up and actuarial table and says there is a X% chance that you will cost us $Y. We'll cover that liability for $Z/(time period).
With the government, it is "You will use bolt A source from supplier Y in the engine we prescribe." (Which is why GA aviation is stuck in 1950.) This is not posturing. It is reality. Ask any private pilot that has made a minor change to enhance their own safety.
I would ask for a reference, but the entire premise is stupid. Not a single person in all of history has ever died of not having insurance. Still, you might want to do some research to discover where that 45000 number came from. Quoting it doesn't do much for your credibility.
And now, you demonstrate what a simpleton you are. It isn't just some lone mechanic having to buy a new set of wrenches. It is about replacing trillions of dollars worth of machine tools...
This idiot doesn't understand a simple metaphor and calls me a simpleton. That's golden. Anyway, it shows the amazing arrogance of these idiots, that they completely neglect the fact that the entire rest of the world somehow managed to do it, a combined economy that is emphatically much larger than ours. But then, most of the rest of the world isn't so boneheaded that, when they see a much better idea, they deliberately run away from it. There are exceptions, of course--witness Myanmar--but then it's sheer lunacy to sit here declaring, "Yeah, we want to be like them!"
KingSkippus must have skipped history class. Get this buttwipe, Europe and most of the rest of the world had nothing close to the industrial base of the US when they developed the metric system. Then there were a couple of world wars that wiped out a good part of the industrial base they had.
Why is this important to health care? Because it points out cultural, physical and economic realities that you choose to ignore. I say I have perfectly good wrenches and an infrastructure in place to support them. You whine that I should throw out everything I have and move to your standard. IOW, you're a damn fool.
For some reason SOME people are ok with spending all of our money on military defense, but when it comes to spending it on health defense... certain people cry communism.
The reason is that the federal government contracted with the people to provide for a federal military when the country was created. We did not contract to have the federal government provide doctors. Yes, the military is a form of communism. We accept that as a necessary evil. It's a compromise with reality. The "need" for federal health care is just "compromised reality".
The only analysis I've seen done by the experts have been on comparing the actual cost of settlements from tort to the total cost of health care. That has consistently been in the 1.5%-2% range. The argument is that the true savings would be much greater. How many doctors would be willing to admit to an official type inquisitor that they are doing procedures based upon perceived liability vs actual need? Considering that many of these decisions do not have clear answers in the first place, how many tests would be committed to if not for the looming specter of a malpractice suit in the second place? How do the conflicting drivers of cost, need, liability, and who actually pays all play into the decision making? How do How would you even reliably measure such a thing?
It's because people here are stupid. They are so desperate to avoid any trappings of Socialism that they'd rather die because they can't get medical care than to let Big Evil Government help them out.
So, I'm stupid because I have a world view that I, not Obaman, own my body. Thank you, Mr. Sheep, but, yes, I would rather die than let "Big Evil Government" help me out. You see, in order to let BEG help me out, I will have to turn control of my life over to them...a fate worse than death.
The truth is that we desperately need a single-payer system, just like every industrialized country in the world that realized a long time ago that health care is a basic infrastructure need for a productive, thriving population.
Yes, because people are dropping dead left and right around me. It's a picture straight out of "Zombieland"
But the American people are collectively so scared, stupid, and easily swayed, even by outright lies ("Death panels! Federally funded abortion! Rampant costs! Elderly care cuts!") posted on bumper stickers, they they would literally show up with torches and pitchforks in Washington if Congress actually did what is right.
Only half of us are scared of that. The other half run screaming for their mothers if you whisper "Pay your own damn way" in their ears.
The funny thing to me is that these stupid people who are so quick to bash Socialism are usually fanboys of one of the most huge, expensive Socialist organizations in the entire world: the U.S. military.
When we set up this country, you know, with that silly "Constitution" and all, they enumerated some things that the government would be responsible for. Things that made sense. A federal military to protect the federation made sense. A federal bureaucracy to direct individual health care is nonsense in an American context.
Now, I'm not bashing the military, I have a lot of respect for it, Socialist as it is and everything. But it's just kind of funny how when George Bush sunk trillions of dollars into it, you didn't see these idiots showing up in Washington with caricatures of him as Hitler.
Ahem....http://semiskimmed.net/bushhitler.html...now you have.
But consider this. The U.S. is the only country, other than Myanmar, that still has not converted to the metric system. If this country is so stubborn and stupid as to not do things the right way just to spite those damn commies in Europe (and not have to buy a new set of wrenches), seriously, what hope do we ever have of really moving to a single-payer health care system?
And now, you demonstrate what a simpleton you are. It isn't just some lone mechanic having to buy a new set of wrenches. It is about replacing trillions of dollars worth of machine tools, trillions of dollars worth of machines, and trillions upon trillions of dollars worth of supporting infrastructure. You're willingness to slur others over your academic concept of replacing a massively entrenched system overnight with something that works better in your mind belies your inexperience and ignorance. Come back and talk to us when you grow up.
Re:This bill has nothing to do with health care.
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 1
No. Not if they're completely wrong.
"We thought the pill was going to cure your husband's snoring, but our preliminary numbers were off. Please accept these flowers as our condolence."
How has private industry done so far with american healthcare? Cost more, gets less.
What? Time travel back to 1980, and tell me how much it costs to get a hip replacement, if you can get one. All this talk about rising healthcare is smoke and mirrors that the Obama crowd is using to grab power. We have an aging population meeting an ever increasing capability to provide procedures. Of course the overall cost is going to go up, even though the per procedure cost is dropping. Hell, how much did Americans spend on Viagra ten years ago?
Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 1
In the case of government run health care the government loses money if people are sick. So they have an incentive to keep people well and only recommend useful medications.
So, what you're saying is that with government run health care, there will be an incentive for the government to order your life such that you stay healthy? Since they are footing the bill, they will have the right to determine what activities you may participate in, how often you exercise, and what you eat?
Links? Why bother, I'm sure there aren't any. I've read over and over again exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. I could dig up links for you but I'm too busy making money and paying ridiculously taxes to pay for the health care for you and all the other socialist bums on this site.
Bullshit!! You're posting to Slashdot. You're not doing anything productive.
You first have to define "frivolous". My job is software testing. The server crashes, and it is my job to look through the mess and figure out why.
Doctors have to look through a MUCH larger mess, with many more moving parts, and very little in the way of debuggers. The human metabolism is some of the worst spaghetti code ever written/developed (let's please not start that debate). I think "you knew or should have known that 80yr old Granny had contracted the South London Swahili gout" on her visit to Atlanta, GA is frivolous and should be thrown out, but a jury would award the family millions. (because, it's really the insurance companies that will be paying it)
What's wrong with people like you asking for an itemized bill and then raising a stink about the shoddy bookkeeping? What does the government need to be involved?
If people paid for their own rudimentary health care up front, like they pay for their own food, would there be doctors that searched for cheaper solutions?
Your idea of "the little guy" is progressive status envy masquerading as socialist baloney. Your whole post is about how much this fictional "little guy" has to pay vs how much he gets in return.
The thing you forget is that if the government is responsible for your healthcare, then they will get to claim authority over your health. It starts with fines for not wearing seat belts. Then they start dictating what foods you may eat. Eventually, there will be edicts dictating what you must wear each day according to how some bureaucrat reads the weather predictions.
Our ancestors got together and formed a government. They split governance into many separate entities according to what they saw as reasonable based on their experience and understanding of history. They then set down a structure to be followed and held elections to ratify the contract. This is the United States of American, and this is how the country was formed. It is all based on mutual agreement which is codified in a contract.
One of the key components of that contract is a limitation on the powers of the several governmental entities. Each iteration of concentration of power to the federal government is one iteration to many.
It upsets me that Fox and other conservatives concentrate so much on "how much money will I get vs how much will I have to spend." That's pointless and moves the debate to Nancy Pelosi's home turf. The question is, "How much power are we going to concentrate into the hands of the POTUS?" You can't confer responsibility without conferring authority.
Slashdot Mirror
50 year old systems that are extremely fragile, are falling apart, are very difficult to get replacement parts for (because, the original manufacturers have LONG gone out of business), very few know how they work (let alone how to repair), have been hacked and reworked beyond recognition, and fail regularly.
There, fixed that for ya'.
The actual transmission would be:
"American ABC12, traffic 2 o'clock"
Those "unlicensed" aircraft are covered by Part 103-B of the FAA regulations. They are coloquially known as 'ultralights'.
Yes. In the same way that I will become invisible if I turn off my transponder.
of course, I do wonder.... why do they want to replace radar with GPS? Radar doesn't require an active participant on the other end. That, in and of itself, conveys certain benefits, not the least of which is not requiring much specification beyond not allowing air craft with the radar signature of small birds to be flying around.
Just my thoughts.
-Steve
Wrong type of radar, Steve. The "radar" used by ATC is not a military radar that sends out a powerful signal and measures what is bounced back to it. The ATC radar sends an signal that causes the airplane based transponder to send a response with it's transponder code and (possibly) the locally measured altitude. Transponders are finicky, and the associated altitude measuring equipment requires periodic calibration (meaning someone could be reporting the wrong altitude).
You do realize that if your transponder goes, you're invisible to ATC "radar", right?
Replacing the current system IS about saving money. The current system has many parts that date back to the 70's or before, and the upkeep is a royal bitch. Added to that, it is cryptic, and very user hostile.
Besides, the RADAR they're talking about isn't the military radar that tracks incoming craft. The radar in question interrogates a radio on the airplane that then reports it's altitude. Very limited information, that depends on each of the airplane bound radio/altimeter systems to be calibrated correctly.
Why, if we substitute "government" in the brackets, must draconian laws accompany it? Even if we tone down the end-of-the-world rhetoric and instead talk about "regulation," why is it so horrible? Just because it's "the government" doing it? The people opposing public healthcare seem to have no problem with this "regulation" when it's a private company doing it. Why the double standard?
Because, the government gets to send big men to your house with big guns. I can tell an insurance company where to put their policy.
I'm building an experimental airplane with a non-traditional engine. Most insurance companies won't touch it. Some would, if I would switch ot a more traditional engine. One will cover me, at extremely high rates.
This is the way insurance works. Someone very good at math works up and actuarial table and says there is a X% chance that you will cost us $Y. We'll cover that liability for $Z/(time period).
With the government, it is "You will use bolt A source from supplier Y in the engine we prescribe." (Which is why GA aviation is stuck in 1950.) This is not posturing. It is reality. Ask any private pilot that has made a minor change to enhance their own safety.
I would ask for a reference, but the entire premise is stupid. Not a single person in all of history has ever died of not having insurance. Still, you might want to do some research to discover where that 45000 number came from. Quoting it doesn't do much for your credibility.
And now, you demonstrate what a simpleton you are. It isn't just some lone mechanic having to buy a new set of wrenches. It is about replacing trillions of dollars worth of machine tools...
This idiot doesn't understand a simple metaphor and calls me a simpleton. That's golden. Anyway, it shows the amazing arrogance of these idiots, that they completely neglect the fact that the entire rest of the world somehow managed to do it, a combined economy that is emphatically much larger than ours. But then, most of the rest of the world isn't so boneheaded that, when they see a much better idea, they deliberately run away from it. There are exceptions, of course--witness Myanmar--but then it's sheer lunacy to sit here declaring, "Yeah, we want to be like them!"
KingSkippus must have skipped history class. Get this buttwipe, Europe and most of the rest of the world had nothing close to the industrial base of the US when they developed the metric system. Then there were a couple of world wars that wiped out a good part of the industrial base they had.
Why is this important to health care? Because it points out cultural, physical and economic realities that you choose to ignore. I say I have perfectly good wrenches and an infrastructure in place to support them. You whine that I should throw out everything I have and move to your standard. IOW, you're a damn fool.
As a 43 year old Slashdotter, my answer to your second question is "yes".
For some reason SOME people are ok with spending all of our money on military defense, but when it comes to spending it on health defense... certain people cry communism.
The reason is that the federal government contracted with the people to provide for a federal military when the country was created. We did not contract to have the federal government provide doctors. Yes, the military is a form of communism. We accept that as a necessary evil. It's a compromise with reality. The "need" for federal health care is just "compromised reality".
How long have you had the tort reform? Consider also that it is NJ we're talking about.
The only analysis I've seen done by the experts have been on comparing the actual cost of settlements from tort to the total cost of health care. That has consistently been in the 1.5%-2% range. The argument is that the true savings would be much greater. How many doctors would be willing to admit to an official type inquisitor that they are doing procedures based upon perceived liability vs actual need? Considering that many of these decisions do not have clear answers in the first place, how many tests would be committed to if not for the looming specter of a malpractice suit in the second place? How do the conflicting drivers of cost, need, liability, and who actually pays all play into the decision making? How do How would you even reliably measure such a thing?
It's because people here are stupid. They are so desperate to avoid any trappings of Socialism that they'd rather die because they can't get medical care than to let Big Evil Government help them out.
So, I'm stupid because I have a world view that I, not Obaman, own my body. Thank you, Mr. Sheep, but, yes, I would rather die than let "Big Evil Government" help me out. You see, in order to let BEG help me out, I will have to turn control of my life over to them...a fate worse than death.
The truth is that we desperately need a single-payer system, just like every industrialized country in the world that realized a long time ago that health care is a basic infrastructure need for a productive, thriving population.
Yes, because people are dropping dead left and right around me. It's a picture straight out of "Zombieland"
But the American people are collectively so scared, stupid, and easily swayed, even by outright lies ("Death panels! Federally funded abortion! Rampant costs! Elderly care cuts!") posted on bumper stickers, they they would literally show up with torches and pitchforks in Washington if Congress actually did what is right.
Only half of us are scared of that. The other half run screaming for their mothers if you whisper "Pay your own damn way" in their ears.
The funny thing to me is that these stupid people who are so quick to bash Socialism are usually fanboys of one of the most huge, expensive Socialist organizations in the entire world: the U.S. military.
When we set up this country, you know, with that silly "Constitution" and all, they enumerated some things that the government would be responsible for. Things that made sense. A federal military to protect the federation made sense. A federal bureaucracy to direct individual health care is nonsense in an American context.
Now, I'm not bashing the military, I have a lot of respect for it, Socialist as it is and everything. But it's just kind of funny how when George Bush sunk trillions of dollars into it, you didn't see these idiots showing up in Washington with caricatures of him as Hitler.
Ahem....http://semiskimmed.net/bushhitler.html...now you have.
But consider this. The U.S. is the only country, other than Myanmar, that still has not converted to the metric system. If this country is so stubborn and stupid as to not do things the right way just to spite those damn commies in Europe (and not have to buy a new set of wrenches), seriously, what hope do we ever have of really moving to a single-payer health care system?
And now, you demonstrate what a simpleton you are. It isn't just some lone mechanic having to buy a new set of wrenches. It is about replacing trillions of dollars worth of machine tools, trillions of dollars worth of machines, and trillions upon trillions of dollars worth of supporting infrastructure. You're willingness to slur others over your academic concept of replacing a massively entrenched system overnight with something that works better in your mind belies your inexperience and ignorance. Come back and talk to us when you grow up.
No. Not if they're completely wrong.
"We thought the pill was going to cure your husband's snoring, but our preliminary numbers were off. Please accept these flowers as our condolence."
So, you're saying that only one portion of the cost incurred from out of control tort will save us an entire 2% all by itself?!!
I love how these studies conveniently choose to ignore the collateral cost (unnecessary procedures) imposed by lawsuits.
To bolster your point:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aGrKbfWkzTqc
How has private industry done so far with american healthcare? Cost more, gets less.
What? Time travel back to 1980, and tell me how much it costs to get a hip replacement, if you can get one. All this talk about rising healthcare is smoke and mirrors that the Obama crowd is using to grab power. We have an aging population meeting an ever increasing capability to provide procedures. Of course the overall cost is going to go up, even though the per procedure cost is dropping. Hell, how much did Americans spend on Viagra ten years ago?
In the case of government run health care the government loses money if people are sick. So they have an incentive to keep people well and only recommend useful medications.
So, what you're saying is that with government run health care, there will be an incentive for the government to order your life such that you stay healthy? Since they are footing the bill, they will have the right to determine what activities you may participate in, how often you exercise, and what you eat?
Links? Why bother, I'm sure there aren't any. I've read over and over again exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. I could dig up links for you but I'm too busy making money and paying ridiculously taxes to pay for the health care for you and all the other socialist bums on this site.
Bullshit!! You're posting to Slashdot. You're not doing anything productive.
You first have to define "frivolous". My job is software testing. The server crashes, and it is my job to look through the mess and figure out why.
Doctors have to look through a MUCH larger mess, with many more moving parts, and very little in the way of debuggers. The human metabolism is some of the worst spaghetti code ever written/developed (let's please not start that debate). I think "you knew or should have known that 80yr old Granny had contracted the South London Swahili gout" on her visit to Atlanta, GA is frivolous and should be thrown out, but a jury would award the family millions. (because, it's really the insurance companies that will be paying it)
What's wrong with people like you asking for an itemized bill and then raising a stink about the shoddy bookkeeping? What does the government need to be involved?
If people paid for their own rudimentary health care up front, like they pay for their own food, would there be doctors that searched for cheaper solutions?
Your idea of "the little guy" is progressive status envy masquerading as socialist baloney. Your whole post is about how much this fictional "little guy" has to pay vs how much he gets in return.
The thing you forget is that if the government is responsible for your healthcare, then they will get to claim authority over your health. It starts with fines for not wearing seat belts. Then they start dictating what foods you may eat. Eventually, there will be edicts dictating what you must wear each day according to how some bureaucrat reads the weather predictions.
Our ancestors got together and formed a government. They split governance into many separate entities according to what they saw as reasonable based on their experience and understanding of history. They then set down a structure to be followed and held elections to ratify the contract. This is the United States of American, and this is how the country was formed. It is all based on mutual agreement which is codified in a contract.
One of the key components of that contract is a limitation on the powers of the several governmental entities. Each iteration of concentration of power to the federal government is one iteration to many.
It upsets me that Fox and other conservatives concentrate so much on "how much money will I get vs how much will I have to spend." That's pointless and moves the debate to Nancy Pelosi's home turf. The question is, "How much power are we going to concentrate into the hands of the POTUS?" You can't confer responsibility without conferring authority.