Free markets are not possible with health care. Free markets require:
1) The ability for all participants to enter, leave, or participate in the market as they choose.
2) Participants must have symmetrical knowledge of the goods and/or services being provided.
3) Barriers to entry in the market must be sufficiently low that true competitors can arise if existing providers don't meet demand.
4) All participants must be rational actors.
5) The same product or service must be available from multiple sources.
For the most part, the only choice a potential customer of health care has of they don't wish to participate in the market is to allow their health to deteriorate or to flat out die. They almost never have the same level of knowledge of their condition and its treatment as the provider. Barriers to entry are extremely costly, particularly when equipment and facilities are included in the equation. Patients and their families are rarely rational about their decision-making. And the level of care and treatment varies widely from location to location.
Free Markets have their places, and I believe that wherever possible, they should be utilized. But health care is simply not amenable to their benefits. It's a fool's errand to try to make it work on those principles.
Most people think that refusing to considering hiring people of a particular race, color, religion or creed, national origin or ancestry, sex, age, physical disability, sexual orientation, or veteran status is wrong, too. Thus their protected status (sexual orientation in some states, everything else federally).
My boss doesn't have the compelling ability to deprive me of liberty, or come at me with guns, and basically ruin my life. Other than that, you're right!
And who exactly do you think prevents your boss from having that ability if not the government?
Which is pretty much the point: power abhors a vacuum. Remove the government, and it WILL be replaced by warlords; make it weak, and it WILL be replaced by oligarchs - the historical record consistently bears this out. And neither warlords nor oligarchs give a crap about your liberty, or your life, or your happiness. At least we have a say in government. Good luck taking an oligarch to court, or filing a grievance against a warlord.
Will they also allow employees the time to actually take advantage of the benefit? Do only full-time employees qualify, or can part-timers take advantage as well?
Just like when an employer asks you to do something, there's an unspoken threat.
The bottom line is that the fundamental rule of nature is might makes right. We can either band together and form a government to be the mightiest, or we can leave a vacuum to be filled by warlords and oligarchs. The libertarian ideal of just settling every dispute in a neutral court still depends on the implicit threat that the loser must abide by the decision or else. There simply is no way to eliminate that type of "tyranny" without it being replaced by another, usually worse, form of tyranny.
Capital has become too concentrated, which means less diversity in how it is invested, and less tolerance for filling niche markets (if you're looking to invest hundreds of millions, a business needing an investment of a couple hundred thousand isn't even on your radar). And with stagnating wages, it becomes much harder for people who don't have capital to begin with to save enough to hang their own shingle.
Without those smaller businesses starting up, there's a lot less economic biodiversity, which results in further concentration of capital, and the loop begins anew.
Now you're getting into motive, not thought crime.
How is motive not thoughts before or during the act?
The important distinction though is that until you DID something no crime was done. Having a bad thought is not a crime, performing a "bad" action is.
Correct - not wanting to hire an older person is not an offense, nor is hiring a young person even though you don't mind hiring an older person. Taking the action of not hiring someone because they are older IS an offense. It's not the thought that is the offense, it's the thought and the action together.
By that line of reasoning, there should be no laws against libel or slander, or fraud, or or any distinction between first degree and second degree murder or manslaughter - anything where intent is a key element to the charge. Which is obviously ridiculous.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (the largest single non-Catholic denomination in the US) allows for the use of Birth Control, as does The United Methodist Church, The Presbyterian Church, and the Anglican/Episcopalian church.
They're... very against birth control. All of them.
When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen- seventeen, he may not have realized the full significance of what he was doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas. And Protestantism doesn't stop at the simple condom! Oh, no! I can wear French Ticklers if I want.
The output of non-Bitcoin industries are goods and services which can be used by consumers or other industries. What goods or services are produced by Bitcoin mining?
That assumes there's a threat in the first place. There absolutely was not in this case.
Dummy, if there wasn't a presumed threat in the first place...
That presumption is what I'm questioning. There should not be a presumption that anonymous calls are credible - the police should confirm the situation before taking lethal action. You're saying that the police followed procedure, which is not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that those procedures are insufficient, and that this case is proof.
Also, you might want to make sure you understand the point you're addressing before you call the person making it names. You might look like an asshole otherwise.
First they came for the dishwashers, but I was not a dishwasher, so I said nothing.
Then they came for the bus boys, but I was not a line cook, so I said nothing.
Then they came for the line cooks, but I was not a bus boy, so I said nothing.
Then they came for the servers, but I was not a server, so I said nothing.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.
Food bought in the grocery store is not fungible with a meal at a restaurant. Jobs and automation in the food industry is an entirely different ball of wax than jobs in food service.
Around here we're getting tax fatigue in the form of Property "School Equalization Fairness" Tax.
Otherwise known as the "Our schools are consistently in the top ten in the nation because we fund all of our schools and not just the ones in rich towns" tax.
The error of the physical place which is the state of Vermont paying for companies to DE-LOCALIZE their workforce is that they might succeed...
Sounds like someone who has no idea what Vermont, its people, and its businesses are all about. There is no more de-localized state in the country, nor is there a state with such a large percentage of local businesses owned by people whose values are as important as their profits. If this can work anywhere, it's Vermont.
Then again the pedestrian not wearing dark clothes or having reflectors on the bike while walking in front of a car at night would probably have helped more.
How would that have helped? The car detected her and didn't brake, and the "driver" wasn't looking and so couldn't brake.
One of those was a pure partisan power grab (DC 'voting').
Giving US citizens, who are taxed just like the rest of us, representation in congress is a partisan power grab? Get out of here with that crap. It's ridiculous that they haven't had representation since day one.
Slashdot Mirror
Free markets are not possible with health care. Free markets require:
1) The ability for all participants to enter, leave, or participate in the market as they choose.
2) Participants must have symmetrical knowledge of the goods and/or services being provided.
3) Barriers to entry in the market must be sufficiently low that true competitors can arise if existing providers don't meet demand.
4) All participants must be rational actors.
5) The same product or service must be available from multiple sources.
For the most part, the only choice a potential customer of health care has of they don't wish to participate in the market is to allow their health to deteriorate or to flat out die. They almost never have the same level of knowledge of their condition and its treatment as the provider. Barriers to entry are extremely costly, particularly when equipment and facilities are included in the equation. Patients and their families are rarely rational about their decision-making. And the level of care and treatment varies widely from location to location.
Free Markets have their places, and I believe that wherever possible, they should be utilized. But health care is simply not amenable to their benefits. It's a fool's errand to try to make it work on those principles.
At least he kept two-faced Hillary out of the White House.
Sure, the cancer is bad, but at least I didn't get the flu!
Most people think that refusing to considering hiring people of a particular race, color, religion or creed, national origin or ancestry, sex, age, physical disability, sexual orientation, or veteran status is wrong, too. Thus their protected status (sexual orientation in some states, everything else federally).
Great point.
My boss doesn't have the compelling ability to deprive me of liberty, or come at me with guns, and basically ruin my life. Other than that, you're right!
And who exactly do you think prevents your boss from having that ability if not the government?
Which is pretty much the point: power abhors a vacuum. Remove the government, and it WILL be replaced by warlords; make it weak, and it WILL be replaced by oligarchs - the historical record consistently bears this out. And neither warlords nor oligarchs give a crap about your liberty, or your life, or your happiness. At least we have a say in government. Good luck taking an oligarch to court, or filing a grievance against a warlord.
A better solution would be for those parents to not be parents until they are financially and educationally viable to support a family.
Any solution depends on time travel is not actually a solution.
Will they also allow employees the time to actually take advantage of the benefit? Do only full-time employees qualify, or can part-timers take advantage as well?
Just like when an employer asks you to do something, there's an unspoken threat.
The bottom line is that the fundamental rule of nature is might makes right. We can either band together and form a government to be the mightiest, or we can leave a vacuum to be filled by warlords and oligarchs. The libertarian ideal of just settling every dispute in a neutral court still depends on the implicit threat that the loser must abide by the decision or else. There simply is no way to eliminate that type of "tyranny" without it being replaced by another, usually worse, form of tyranny.
Capital has become too concentrated, which means less diversity in how it is invested, and less tolerance for filling niche markets (if you're looking to invest hundreds of millions, a business needing an investment of a couple hundred thousand isn't even on your radar). And with stagnating wages, it becomes much harder for people who don't have capital to begin with to save enough to hang their own shingle.
Without those smaller businesses starting up, there's a lot less economic biodiversity, which results in further concentration of capital, and the loop begins anew.
Now you're getting into motive, not thought crime.
How is motive not thoughts before or during the act?
The important distinction though is that until you DID something no crime was done. Having a bad thought is not a crime, performing a "bad" action is.
Correct - not wanting to hire an older person is not an offense, nor is hiring a young person even though you don't mind hiring an older person. Taking the action of not hiring someone because they are older IS an offense. It's not the thought that is the offense, it's the thought and the action together.
By that line of reasoning, there should be no laws against libel or slander, or fraud, or or any distinction between first degree and second degree murder or manslaughter - anything where intent is a key element to the charge. Which is obviously ridiculous.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (the largest single non-Catholic denomination in the US) allows for the use of Birth Control, as does The United Methodist Church, The Presbyterian Church, and the Anglican/Episcopalian church.
They're ... very against birth control. All of them.
When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen- seventeen, he may not have realized the full significance of what he was doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas. And Protestantism doesn't stop at the simple condom! Oh, no! I can wear French Ticklers if I want.
The output of non-Bitcoin industries are goods and services which can be used by consumers or other industries. What goods or services are produced by Bitcoin mining?
Industry? Doesn't industry require some sort of output of goods, services, or materials? I don't think waste heat counts ...
That assumes there's a threat in the first place. There absolutely was not in this case.
Dummy, if there wasn't a presumed threat in the first place ...
That presumption is what I'm questioning. There should not be a presumption that anonymous calls are credible - the police should confirm the situation before taking lethal action. You're saying that the police followed procedure, which is not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that those procedures are insufficient, and that this case is proof.
Also, you might want to make sure you understand the point you're addressing before you call the person making it names. You might look like an asshole otherwise.
Sounds great, except for the part where you think we're going to convince the people who own the robots to give us a cut.
First they came for the dishwashers, but I was not a dishwasher, so I said nothing.
Then they came for the bus boys, but I was not a line cook, so I said nothing.
Then they came for the line cooks, but I was not a bus boy, so I said nothing.
Then they came for the servers, but I was not a server, so I said nothing.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.
Food bought in the grocery store is not fungible with a meal at a restaurant. Jobs and automation in the food industry is an entirely different ball of wax than jobs in food service.
Around here we're getting tax fatigue in the form of Property "School Equalization Fairness" Tax.
Otherwise known as the "Our schools are consistently in the top ten in the nation because we fund all of our schools and not just the ones in rich towns" tax.
The error of the physical place which is the state of Vermont paying for companies to DE-LOCALIZE their workforce is that they might succeed...
Sounds like someone who has no idea what Vermont, its people, and its businesses are all about. There is no more de-localized state in the country, nor is there a state with such a large percentage of local businesses owned by people whose values are as important as their profits. If this can work anywhere, it's Vermont.
Shouldn't they determine that there actually is a threat before killing it?
They only cease to be a threat when they're immobilized.
That assumes there's a threat in the first place. There absolutely was not in this case.
Then again the pedestrian not wearing dark clothes or having reflectors on the bike while walking in front of a car at night would probably have helped more.
How would that have helped? The car detected her and didn't brake, and the "driver" wasn't looking and so couldn't brake.
Nah, that's Nantucket. Martha's Vineyard is the playground for the pretty rich.
One of those was a pure partisan power grab (DC 'voting').
Giving US citizens, who are taxed just like the rest of us, representation in congress is a partisan power grab? Get out of here with that crap. It's ridiculous that they haven't had representation since day one.