Anything written by human beings is biased. You can't scrub the bias out of Wikipedia, ever. All you can do is minimize it, and I think Wikipedia does a good job at that.
Look at the "discussion" tab: when it comes to politically charged issues, the concept of bias is simply bombed, stabbed, nuked, and otherwise blown to smithereens. Neutrality is simply impossible.
So when I see people like you, uncomfortable with Wikipedia's "bias," I have to think that you are expecting the impossible. That you don't understand what it means for an issue to be contentious and emotional, and therefore impossible to scrub of bias.
You are somehow expecting Wikipedia to solve a problem no one can solve. So do you not have a Wikipedia entry on something like abortion or palestine? No, you have a page on those issues. And you will never satisfy everyone, and someone will always be screaming bias. C'est la vie. Get used to it.
Basically, you have to stop talking about Wikipedia's bias, it has none. The truth is, on some subjects, everyone has a bias, including you. And this shows on the Wikipedia entry, in what is written, or your reaction to it. Some issues are just deeply charged. So say something in the dicussion tab, or edit a Wikipedia entry. You can't do any better than that. This applies to all of life, not just Wikipedia: go out there and let your voice be heard. You can't passively sit back and expect Wikipedia, let alone ANY media source, to somehow be magically unbiased on issues which are deeply emotional and contentious.
Have your bullshit meter on at all times, and don't hold Wikipedia to impossible standards. That's the best it can ever get, with Wikipedia, and in life.
Both theoretical and practical physics are important. But I fear some theoretical physicists have become so disjointed form the practical side of things, they are engaging in nothing but science fiction. The self-reinforcing groupthink begins to build upon itself, some horrible academic paper generating force, a sociological phenomenon that bears no relation to what science is actually supposed to be.
Then we have something more akin to how religious organizations conduct the preservation, evangelization, and defense of their dogma.
This isn't physics anymore. Don't question string theory. It exists in a realm outside of reality, untestable, unprovable, unknowable. Except through the investment of faith in the academic movement that keeps the sacred thing alive.
anonymous is a movement. as such, it follows certain sociological rules. #1: in any movement, there is a small group of core fanatics, and a large group of one-offs and on-and-offs. same with wikipedia, or al qaeda, or drug gangs
now you could take out a portion of the core competency, and nothing will change. but if you tracked and profiled the core competency over time, and took them all out at once, you really would cripple the movement
however, since the "cause" of anonymous is so simplistic, others would quickly fill the void and anonymous would be back in action in no time. again, same with wikipedia or al qaeda or drug gangs
so scotland yard is only partially absurd, not completely absurd
the chance of being a victim of terrorism in the west is near zero, but look at all the free publicity terrorism gets and radical alterations to civilian standards of conduct in the west. all because some dimwitted loser fanatics put explosives in their underwear or shoes
likewise, these websites that are taken down are back up in no time and their is practically zero effect on the DDoSed entities actual bread and butter business. yet headlines all over scream about it like the internet was nuked
it's all about perception in the eyes of the general public. it's all about media headlines. in which cases, you're ADD-addled lulz seeking pimple faced teenagers made a real and genuine impact. not because they actually did something technically impressive, but because they made headlines
You mean their Austerlitz. Amazon is a battle lost, when a larger war is won (all the other sites they took down).
Now everyone notices that freedom of information on the Internet is something popular enough that spontaneous unpredictable forces can be marshalled against you if you oppose the concept of freedom of information. So it figures in decision making when it comes to siding with bullshit authoritarian and corporate pronouncements about certain information being "verboten" for public consumption.
Yes, Amazon is a target they should have never tried to face. Amazon's principal means of business is an Internet storefront. Therefore, their defenses are formidable. While Mastercard or the Swiss Post Office's Bank, with dinky shingles on the web, are easy targets. But these entities' principal means of business is not through a.com address, therefore, it makes no sense to turn their websites into bulwarks. And this remains true. Sure, their fortify their defenses, but they don't have the resources or inclination to develop really effective defenses against a DDoS. It's too expensive.
Yes, Anonymous can't take down Amazon, and it was silly to try. That observation applies to 1% of websites. The other 99% are vulnerable, and remain vulnerable to a DDoS attack. And the majority of websites therefor will remain the kind of targets that an an Anonymous phenomenon can take out again, any time they want to, as long as you don't piss them off by trying to control the free flow of information on the Internet, a cause I agree with, and any right thinking person should.
the man engages in ideological arguments that don't guarantee any financial return. he could take the money he earns and lead a much more lucrative life, not doing things like, for example, springing for assange's bail
look: you don't have to like michael moore, but you have to admit that he is a man of conscience, that what motivates him is belief, not greed. to say that someone like michael moore is really just motivated by money, when he clearly is a shining example of a person motivated by ideology, is just a lame weak ignorant smear on your part
every other serious country in the world has universal healthcare
and they live longer
and they pay less for their system
their systems are imperfect too. you can find plenty of problems with any nation's health care system. and yet, overall, their system is far better than ours in terms of cost, AND in terms of health
2 sick people get insurance, the 3 healthy don't. in one month, those 2 people use $2000 worth of coverage. so their insurance premiums are $1000 each a month to cover those costs. insurance is expensive, because the 2 sick people use it a lot
meanwhile, one of the healthy persons breaks his arm, he doesn't have the money to pay his bill, so he declares bankruptcy/ avoids the bill, and ruins his finances and credit rating. the hospital passes the $2000 broken arm treatment cost onto all 5 people via government taxes, so the hospital doesn't go bankrupt from these freeloaders. in other words, this system, which the usa has had for decades, is already universal socialist healthcare. just paid for in the most expensive and stupidest way possible
scenario B: same 5 people. 2 are sick, 3 are healthy
insurance is mandatory (or a $50K-$100K health emergency bond for the 0.01% of us that can afford that option)
2 sick people use insurance, the 3 healthy don't. in one month, those 2 people use $2000 worth of coverage. so the insurance premiums on all five are $400 each ($2000/5) a month to cover those costs. insurance is cheap, because the 2 people who use their insurance a lot are being subsidized by the premiums the healthy people are paying. in all societies, the young and healthy taking care of the old and sick is called morality
meanwhile, one of the healthy persons breaks his arm, but he has insurance. so his bill gets paid, and he enjoys a financially sound life. in other words, this system, which "evil socialist" countries have, is simply cheaper, and more moral, and healthier
and we haven't even talked about crisis care versus preventive care
and a society that would give you that choice is an irresponsible one. so why don't you argue for a fiscally responsible society, so you don't have to do that? why defend a broken system?
we are talking about what is right, and what is wrong. i can substitute "provable ability to pay for damages" rather than "requires car insurance" and my point is unchanged. but since most 22 year olds can't afford $50K-$100K health emergency saving accounts, for 99% of us, responsibility and accountability is about getting health insurance
if you don't have car insurance, or a bond, and you damage someone else's car, you are going to have to declare bankruptcy, if you are like most Americans living pay check to pay check. So obviously car insurance/ bond should be a mandate, no matter what the state/ federal law
And same with health insurance. Now you can wax and wane poetic about constitutionality all you want, but we are talking about simple fiscal common sense here. We have a broken system, simply because people like you talk about mandates this and that, constitutionality this and that, and the whole time, your health insurance is way to expensive, and substandard as compared to other industrial countries
the argument is about fiscal common sense. do you have an argument against mandatory health insurance in that regard? no? then shut up about the constitution, and do what is cheaper, and healthier
i don't think the constitution is valid argument against simple fiscal common sense, nor why you want to wield the constitution in this manner. if the founding fathers were alive today, they would roll their eyes at you and say "will you just shut up and do what makes fiscal sense? the document we wrote is a solid foundation, not a piece of holy scripture you have to be a fundamentalist about"
ok you win. i believe that people should have car insurance even if they don't have a car. by pointing out this is not true, you have completely destroyed my argument
this is like the 5th comment saying that car insurance is mandatory only if you have a car
obviously, that's what i meant, it is an unnecessary qualifier
why do people think they are saying something useful by pointing out the ridiculously obvious? i am writing a comment on a comment board, not a bulletproof legal document
the usa govt has an incentive to control costs. and it will, because it has to. its called PREVENTATIVE care. hepatitis screening, diabetes screening... rather than showing up in the emergency room with yellow eyes or rotting limbs. preventative care is much cheaper than crisis care, and only possible in a mandatory insurance environment (because people are free to go to the doctor without worrying about cost)
crisis care: the usa excels in that, at the highest prices, to make up for all of the freeloaders without insurance who just declare bankrupcty or avoid the bill. then the cost is passed from the hospital passes the bill onto the state and feds. so you ALREADY HAVE UNIVERSAL SOCIALIST HEALTHCARE IN THE USA FOR DECADES. you just pay for it in the most expensive convoluted way possible, and you encourage people to be irresponsible and destroy their finances
as soon as you accept that hospitals can't turn away the sick, regardless of ability to pay, mandatory insurance becomes an unavoidable conclusion. any other conclusion is simply much more expensive and unhealthier
furthermore, i would like you to be able to explain how system C is supposed to work when some people don't get insurance. the whole point in my comment is to show why health insurance should be mandatory, that if it is not mandatory, then you are going to get a broken system (since no society will turn people away at the hospital if they can't pay)
my central point to you is that if you do not have insurance, you are a freeloader. you will go to the hospital when you get sick, you will get a big bill, and you will declare bankruptcy. then society will have to pay for your care. only if you have insurance can you be free of freeloading status, since any of us can get sick in a major way at any time
it is about accountability and responsibility. that is why health insurance must be mandatory. it is not logically or morally possible for it to be any other way, or you get an expensive broken system, which is what the USA has
this is a comment board, not a bullet proof legal document
you should argue in good faith. which means you start with the assumption that i am trying to make a logically cohesive argument, and if i leave out the words "mandatory car insurance, for people who have cars" then maybe its because, as a comment board, i am writing in short hand, not legalese. its pretty obvious you don't need car insurance if you don't have a car. so by saying that it seems to be i think you should have car insurance, even if you don't have a car, you are really only insulting your own intelligence
furthermore, if you can have a $50-$100K health insurance saving account bond: i agree, you don't have to carry insurance. happy now? all 21 year olds out of college who might break their arms can afford that, right?
all i am asking is that you comment in good faith. you don't seem to be doing that. you are raising "concerns" that are not even flimsy, they are just smarmy and laughable, and you know it.
i won't insult you and assume you are an idiot, like you are doing with me, and i will assume you understand the concept of accountability and responsibility, and therefore why you need car insurance (if you have a car... or you can have a bond (rolls eyes)). therefore, if you understand that, ti should be well within your intellectual grasp to see health insurance should be mandatory to
if you disagree, try to make a coherent argument, rather some legalistic flimsy jackass waffle
There's a lot of FUD out there about health insurance. So here's the facts:
Country A: Health insurance is optional. So only the sick get health insurance. Their premiums are high, because they use their health insurance a lot. The young and uninsured meanwhile, a few of them need to go to the hospital too (broken arms, etc.: anyone can have a health emergency, even the very healthy). However, since the young and uninsured are usually poor, they can't afford the bills. They avoid them. Or declare bankruptcy. The hospital passes the unpaid bills onto the state and feds, and your tax dollars pay to keep the hospital from going bankrupt. Since no self-respecting society can turn away the sick, this already is universal healthcare, just paid for in the stupidest most expensive way possible. As well as destroying young people's credit and encouraging them to freeload and act irresponsibly.
Country B: Health insurance is mandatory. So everyone pays premiums. The premiums are low, because only a small percentage of the insured population actually use the insurance. The young need insurance because they can get sick too, and no, it is not wrong to be using some of the money of the young to treat the older and sick. This is called morality in most societies: you care for the elderly and sick in your society. Only in an immoral society are you encouraged to not care for your elders and your weak.
So why is the USA stuck in Country A status? Because insurance companies are making money hand over fist in the broken system, and don't want to lose their profits. They pay for FUD propaganda about government death panels, massive expense increases, etc., the naive and foolish believe the FUD, and the naive and foolish wind up supporting a system that hurts their health.
And then there is the criticism of quality of healthcare between country A and country B. And it is true: crisis care in country A is superior to crisis care in country B. Why? Because crisis care, like heart attacks, is expensive, therefore generating revenues. See, country A is all about making money, not taking care of your health. Meanwhile, country B actually delivers a genuine higher quality healthcare, at a lower cost, because the emphasis is on preventative care: making sure you get screened, diagnosed, and put on a diet/ pills so you don't even get that heart attack in the first place... but that approach doesn't make as much money, see? It has to be about making money, not taking care of you?
Look: car insurance is mandatory in the USA. If you understand the logic behind that, you understand why health insurance should be mandatory, and not some evil socialist plot to destroy America, blah blah blah, FUD and propaganda paid for by health corporations.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are confused that "100% non-biased factual information" is even possible.
Anything written by human beings is biased. You can't scrub the bias out of Wikipedia, ever. All you can do is minimize it, and I think Wikipedia does a good job at that.
Look at the "discussion" tab: when it comes to politically charged issues, the concept of bias is simply bombed, stabbed, nuked, and otherwise blown to smithereens. Neutrality is simply impossible.
So when I see people like you, uncomfortable with Wikipedia's "bias," I have to think that you are expecting the impossible. That you don't understand what it means for an issue to be contentious and emotional, and therefore impossible to scrub of bias.
You are somehow expecting Wikipedia to solve a problem no one can solve. So do you not have a Wikipedia entry on something like abortion or palestine? No, you have a page on those issues. And you will never satisfy everyone, and someone will always be screaming bias. C'est la vie. Get used to it.
Basically, you have to stop talking about Wikipedia's bias, it has none. The truth is, on some subjects, everyone has a bias, including you. And this shows on the Wikipedia entry, in what is written, or your reaction to it. Some issues are just deeply charged. So say something in the dicussion tab, or edit a Wikipedia entry. You can't do any better than that. This applies to all of life, not just Wikipedia: go out there and let your voice be heard. You can't passively sit back and expect Wikipedia, let alone ANY media source, to somehow be magically unbiased on issues which are deeply emotional and contentious.
Have your bullshit meter on at all times, and don't hold Wikipedia to impossible standards. That's the best it can ever get, with Wikipedia, and in life.
There is information.
Then there is commerce.
Whenever commerce touches information, information has a way of getting warped.
It's really as simple as that.
Both theoretical and practical physics are important. But I fear some theoretical physicists have become so disjointed form the practical side of things, they are engaging in nothing but science fiction. The self-reinforcing groupthink begins to build upon itself, some horrible academic paper generating force, a sociological phenomenon that bears no relation to what science is actually supposed to be.
Then we have something more akin to how religious organizations conduct the preservation, evangelization, and defense of their dogma.
This isn't physics anymore. Don't question string theory. It exists in a realm outside of reality, untestable, unprovable, unknowable. Except through the investment of faith in the academic movement that keeps the sacred thing alive.
anonymous is a movement. as such, it follows certain sociological rules. #1: in any movement, there is a small group of core fanatics, and a large group of one-offs and on-and-offs. same with wikipedia, or al qaeda, or drug gangs
now you could take out a portion of the core competency, and nothing will change. but if you tracked and profiled the core competency over time, and took them all out at once, you really would cripple the movement
however, since the "cause" of anonymous is so simplistic, others would quickly fill the void and anonymous would be back in action in no time. again, same with wikipedia or al qaeda or drug gangs
so scotland yard is only partially absurd, not completely absurd
you're missing the point
the chance of being a victim of terrorism in the west is near zero, but look at all the free publicity terrorism gets and radical alterations to civilian standards of conduct in the west. all because some dimwitted loser fanatics put explosives in their underwear or shoes
likewise, these websites that are taken down are back up in no time and their is practically zero effect on the DDoSed entities actual bread and butter business. yet headlines all over scream about it like the internet was nuked
it's all about perception in the eyes of the general public. it's all about media headlines. in which cases, you're ADD-addled lulz seeking pimple faced teenagers made a real and genuine impact. not because they actually did something technically impressive, but because they made headlines
You mean their Austerlitz. Amazon is a battle lost, when a larger war is won (all the other sites they took down).
Now everyone notices that freedom of information on the Internet is something popular enough that spontaneous unpredictable forces can be marshalled against you if you oppose the concept of freedom of information. So it figures in decision making when it comes to siding with bullshit authoritarian and corporate pronouncements about certain information being "verboten" for public consumption.
Yes, Amazon is a target they should have never tried to face. Amazon's principal means of business is an Internet storefront. Therefore, their defenses are formidable. While Mastercard or the Swiss Post Office's Bank, with dinky shingles on the web, are easy targets. But these entities' principal means of business is not through a .com address, therefore, it makes no sense to turn their websites into bulwarks. And this remains true. Sure, their fortify their defenses, but they don't have the resources or inclination to develop really effective defenses against a DDoS. It's too expensive.
Yes, Anonymous can't take down Amazon, and it was silly to try. That observation applies to 1% of websites. The other 99% are vulnerable, and remain vulnerable to a DDoS attack. And the majority of websites therefor will remain the kind of targets that an an Anonymous phenomenon can take out again, any time they want to, as long as you don't piss them off by trying to control the free flow of information on the Internet, a cause I agree with, and any right thinking person should.
the man engages in ideological arguments that don't guarantee any financial return. he could take the money he earns and lead a much more lucrative life, not doing things like, for example, springing for assange's bail
look: you don't have to like michael moore, but you have to admit that he is a man of conscience, that what motivates him is belief, not greed. to say that someone like michael moore is really just motivated by money, when he clearly is a shining example of a person motivated by ideology, is just a lame weak ignorant smear on your part
well there's the chromium-uranium-deuterium-osmium alloy too
CrUD-Os
that was voyager 6, not voyager 1
you have failed to show adequate mastery of geek trivia, major subsection: star trek arcana
bow your head in shame and leave the website
are you listening americans?
every other serious country in the world has universal healthcare
and they live longer
and they pay less for their system
their systems are imperfect too. you can find plenty of problems with any nation's health care system. and yet, overall, their system is far better than ours in terms of cost, AND in terms of health
are you listening americans?
do we get to see thunderdome in bartertown?
chromium 48 has a half life of 21.6 hours. so this laptop won't last very long
give google time to do 4 version revisions, to chromium 52. that version is a stable isotope, i mean operating system
wait, what?
okay, so some details:
scenario A: 5 people. 2 are sick, 3 are healthy
insurance is optional
2 sick people get insurance, the 3 healthy don't. in one month, those 2 people use $2000 worth of coverage. so their insurance premiums are $1000 each a month to cover those costs. insurance is expensive, because the 2 sick people use it a lot
meanwhile, one of the healthy persons breaks his arm, he doesn't have the money to pay his bill, so he declares bankruptcy/ avoids the bill, and ruins his finances and credit rating. the hospital passes the $2000 broken arm treatment cost onto all 5 people via government taxes, so the hospital doesn't go bankrupt from these freeloaders. in other words, this system, which the usa has had for decades, is already universal socialist healthcare. just paid for in the most expensive and stupidest way possible
scenario B: same 5 people. 2 are sick, 3 are healthy
insurance is mandatory (or a $50K-$100K health emergency bond for the 0.01% of us that can afford that option)
2 sick people use insurance, the 3 healthy don't. in one month, those 2 people use $2000 worth of coverage. so the insurance premiums on all five are $400 each ($2000/5) a month to cover those costs. insurance is cheap, because the 2 people who use their insurance a lot are being subsidized by the premiums the healthy people are paying. in all societies, the young and healthy taking care of the old and sick is called morality
meanwhile, one of the healthy persons breaks his arm, but he has insurance. so his bill gets paid, and he enjoys a financially sound life. in other words, this system, which "evil socialist" countries have, is simply cheaper, and more moral, and healthier
and we haven't even talked about crisis care versus preventive care
and a society that would give you that choice is an irresponsible one. so why don't you argue for a fiscally responsible society, so you don't have to do that? why defend a broken system?
we are talking about what is right, and what is wrong. i can substitute "provable ability to pay for damages" rather than "requires car insurance" and my point is unchanged. but since most 22 year olds can't afford $50K-$100K health emergency saving accounts, for 99% of us, responsibility and accountability is about getting health insurance
if you don't have car insurance, or a bond, and you damage someone else's car, you are going to have to declare bankruptcy, if you are like most Americans living pay check to pay check. So obviously car insurance/ bond should be a mandate, no matter what the state/ federal law
And same with health insurance. Now you can wax and wane poetic about constitutionality all you want, but we are talking about simple fiscal common sense here. We have a broken system, simply because people like you talk about mandates this and that, constitutionality this and that, and the whole time, your health insurance is way to expensive, and substandard as compared to other industrial countries
the argument is about fiscal common sense. do you have an argument against mandatory health insurance in that regard? no? then shut up about the constitution, and do what is cheaper, and healthier
i don't think the constitution is valid argument against simple fiscal common sense, nor why you want to wield the constitution in this manner. if the founding fathers were alive today, they would roll their eyes at you and say "will you just shut up and do what makes fiscal sense? the document we wrote is a solid foundation, not a piece of holy scripture you have to be a fundamentalist about"
ok you win. i believe that people should have car insurance even if they don't have a car. by pointing out this is not true, you have completely destroyed my argument
(rolls eyes)
this is like the 5th comment saying that car insurance is mandatory only if you have a car
obviously, that's what i meant, it is an unnecessary qualifier
why do people think they are saying something useful by pointing out the ridiculously obvious? i am writing a comment on a comment board, not a bulletproof legal document
please comment in good faith
the usa govt has an incentive to control costs. and it will, because it has to. its called PREVENTATIVE care. hepatitis screening, diabetes screening... rather than showing up in the emergency room with yellow eyes or rotting limbs. preventative care is much cheaper than crisis care, and only possible in a mandatory insurance environment (because people are free to go to the doctor without worrying about cost)
crisis care: the usa excels in that, at the highest prices, to make up for all of the freeloaders without insurance who just declare bankrupcty or avoid the bill. then the cost is passed from the hospital passes the bill onto the state and feds. so you ALREADY HAVE UNIVERSAL SOCIALIST HEALTHCARE IN THE USA FOR DECADES. you just pay for it in the most expensive convoluted way possible, and you encourage people to be irresponsible and destroy their finances
as soon as you accept that hospitals can't turn away the sick, regardless of ability to pay, mandatory insurance becomes an unavoidable conclusion. any other conclusion is simply much more expensive and unhealthier
car insurance is mandatory. really
furthermore, i would like you to be able to explain how system C is supposed to work when some people don't get insurance. the whole point in my comment is to show why health insurance should be mandatory, that if it is not mandatory, then you are going to get a broken system (since no society will turn people away at the hospital if they can't pay)
my central point to you is that if you do not have insurance, you are a freeloader. you will go to the hospital when you get sick, you will get a big bill, and you will declare bankruptcy. then society will have to pay for your care. only if you have insurance can you be free of freeloading status, since any of us can get sick in a major way at any time
it is about accountability and responsibility. that is why health insurance must be mandatory. it is not logically or morally possible for it to be any other way, or you get an expensive broken system, which is what the USA has
this is a comment board, not a bullet proof legal document
you should argue in good faith. which means you start with the assumption that i am trying to make a logically cohesive argument, and if i leave out the words "mandatory car insurance, for people who have cars" then maybe its because, as a comment board, i am writing in short hand, not legalese. its pretty obvious you don't need car insurance if you don't have a car. so by saying that it seems to be i think you should have car insurance, even if you don't have a car, you are really only insulting your own intelligence
furthermore, if you can have a $50-$100K health insurance saving account bond: i agree, you don't have to carry insurance. happy now? all 21 year olds out of college who might break their arms can afford that, right?
all i am asking is that you comment in good faith. you don't seem to be doing that. you are raising "concerns" that are not even flimsy, they are just smarmy and laughable, and you know it.
i won't insult you and assume you are an idiot, like you are doing with me, and i will assume you understand the concept of accountability and responsibility, and therefore why you need car insurance (if you have a car... or you can have a bond (rolls eyes)). therefore, if you understand that, ti should be well within your intellectual grasp to see health insurance should be mandatory to
if you disagree, try to make a coherent argument, rather some legalistic flimsy jackass waffle
obviously i meant mandatory if you have a car. try to comment in good faith please
There's a lot of FUD out there about health insurance. So here's the facts:
Country A: Health insurance is optional. So only the sick get health insurance. Their premiums are high, because they use their health insurance a lot. The young and uninsured meanwhile, a few of them need to go to the hospital too (broken arms, etc.: anyone can have a health emergency, even the very healthy). However, since the young and uninsured are usually poor, they can't afford the bills. They avoid them. Or declare bankruptcy. The hospital passes the unpaid bills onto the state and feds, and your tax dollars pay to keep the hospital from going bankrupt. Since no self-respecting society can turn away the sick, this already is universal healthcare, just paid for in the stupidest most expensive way possible. As well as destroying young people's credit and encouraging them to freeload and act irresponsibly.
Country B: Health insurance is mandatory. So everyone pays premiums. The premiums are low, because only a small percentage of the insured population actually use the insurance. The young need insurance because they can get sick too, and no, it is not wrong to be using some of the money of the young to treat the older and sick. This is called morality in most societies: you care for the elderly and sick in your society. Only in an immoral society are you encouraged to not care for your elders and your weak.
So why is the USA stuck in Country A status? Because insurance companies are making money hand over fist in the broken system, and don't want to lose their profits. They pay for FUD propaganda about government death panels, massive expense increases, etc., the naive and foolish believe the FUD, and the naive and foolish wind up supporting a system that hurts their health.
And then there is the criticism of quality of healthcare between country A and country B. And it is true: crisis care in country A is superior to crisis care in country B. Why? Because crisis care, like heart attacks, is expensive, therefore generating revenues. See, country A is all about making money, not taking care of your health. Meanwhile, country B actually delivers a genuine higher quality healthcare, at a lower cost, because the emphasis is on preventative care: making sure you get screened, diagnosed, and put on a diet/ pills so you don't even get that heart attack in the first place... but that approach doesn't make as much money, see? It has to be about making money, not taking care of you?
Look: car insurance is mandatory in the USA. If you understand the logic behind that, you understand why health insurance should be mandatory, and not some evil socialist plot to destroy America, blah blah blah, FUD and propaganda paid for by health corporations.
since women can't do this, just invite any hot female diabetics over for a round of personalized care, including injections of... insulin
"slight advantage"
LOL
you're funny