Perhaps they could do a sequel to the 2004 film, the tagline could go something like this: "Riddick, all the power in the universe can't nullify his copyrights...this time its personal".
They even allow you to remove your spectacles before they administer a beating and they always take a 15 minute break for afternoon tea; indeed, the whole process might almost be called, civilized.
I'd like to believe that such an outcome is beyond the realm of possibility, but the RIAA has links into the Obama administration through Biden, so such a swindle could indeed occur all kidding aside. One of the side effects of electing the Democrats this time around is granting the entertainment industry, with all of their special interests, enhanced access to the government pocketbook and the federal prosecutor. I wonder if any of the young college students who voted for Obama factored this into their decision. They may soon come to regret Obama's VP choice and his ties to the MAFIAA on a very personal level.
Would the settlement proceedings effect just this one instance, Capitol Records v. Thomas, or would the results be more wide reaching, perhaps setting a precedent for other cases pending around the country?
If the bank doesn't bother to send you a 1099-INT in the mail for your savings account interest, generally because it was less than $10 for the year, then you don't have to report that as interest or dividend income on your taxes. If they do send you the forms then you have to report it because the IRS is going to check what the banks reported against what you report. It would be more of a nuisance for the IRS and the banks to process paperwork on interest amounts of less than $10 than the tax collected is worth, so in those cases they generally don't waste their time.
Have you looked at a different insurance company? It seems that your coverage may not be meeting your needs. As for MRI, it is expensive, but that would be true to some extent no matter who was paying for it. I have a finger that is a bit crooked and a right knee that isn't the best from sports injuries in my younger days. Is it possible that an MRI and expensive surgery might have produced a somewhat better long term outcome in both of these situations, but is it reasonable to expect the government to pay for all or most of that? I guess that depends upon your point of view. I sympathize with your situation, truly I do, and I agree that the present system is screwed up (who doesn't agree on that one?), but would you have received a timely MRI for a non-life threatening wrist injury under government provided single payer healthcare or an HMO (where out of pocket costs are lower, but red tape abounds)? I think the answer is probably 'no'. Profession sports stars get MRIs on demand for non-life threatening injuries because millions of dollars are stake on their professional contracts. The rest of us either have to pay up or wait. The hospital bill is about par though. The last time I was in the ER it cost me $1800 and I had to make payments on a payment plan (that was before I got my current coverage). If you call them early and offer to make payments then most hospitals will be happy to extend you a payment plan of up to six months or so, interest free. However, I repeat my earlier assertion that you take another look at your insurance policy. I pay substantially less than that for a deductible that would have been entirely met by your hospital bill and I have "High Deductible" health plan with a health savings account. That would be my advice, for what it is worth but IANAD (I am not a doctor).
I hope for your sake that this never happens until you die; I hope for everyone else's that it happens much sooner, so that you can develop some compassion for your fellow humans.
Arguing for self-reliance and sufficiency from those who are able to provide for themselves does not mean that we libertarians have no compassion for our fellow man. Private charities provide many good and needed services here in the United States and Americans in general are among the most generous non-government givers in the world, donating more money privately than some governments do publicly. It is a common fallacy among the left that anyone who does not support socialism is a greedy, evil, and selfish person, but it just isn't true. I am as compassionate as the next man, but I do not suffer fools and I do insist that people accept responsibility for their own choices in life.
One always has to weigh carefully the pros and cons of any insurance coverage, and particularly health coverage, before deciding what to purchase, but bear in mind that high deductible health insurance is still insurance. This means that you still get the negotiated insurance rates on services, not the "no health insurance" prices, and the costs can still work out overall in your favor, even if you have to pay $1-2K per year out of pocket. To my knowledge, the only type of situation where the high deductible plan does NOT make sense is if you have regular ongoing expenses which fall just short of the deductible every year. People assume that these types of plans also don't make sense for ongoing chronic care, but that is not true because chronic care people still easily meet the deductible every year and then the insurance kicks in for 80% of costs up to a yearly maximum after which they pay 100% (generally the yearly maximum is 2-3 times your deductible amount). As I have said, you have to weigh your options, nobody knows more about your health situation than you, but HDHP can make sense for a broad range of needs, not just healthy people who never get sick.
Simply put, health insurance companies offer this type of coverage because people are willing to buy it.
They are willing to buy it because if their employer provides it then it is a tax-free benefit. Our present system has its roots in WWII where wage controls prevented companies from competing for workers based upon higher wages so they began offering "free health care" as an added incentive. The government eventually caught on and wanted to tax this new "benefit" as income, but by then workers had become accustomed to the benefit AND getting it tax free so the government was forced by popular demand to write that one into the books as a tax free benefit. People "choose" to buy this type of coverage because that is what employers offer and the tax code provides a perverse incentive against buying a personal policy with after tax dollars. The "choice" is not made in the absence of other non-health considerations (namely tax) so it is not an entirely free choice.
Watch the Frontline documentary "Sick Around the World" to get a better idea of how other countries operate and how our system can transform into one of them
I actually did watch that program a few months back and I did like parts of the Swiss system, but requiring everyone to buy insurance can backfire cost wise if it is not very carefully regulated and managed. For example, compare Massachusetts, which also mandates purchase of private insurance, with Switzerland and it is a disaster. The Swiss are known for good quality products and well managed financial and business affairs (i.e. watches, banks, and yes insurance). It may not be possible to exactly duplicate here in the United States the unique aspects that have made a small well run country like Switzerland more successful at providing good health care at efficient prices. I thought that the Taiwanese system also had some interesting ideas, although they also had problems (i.e. people "over-using" the subsidized basic insurance).
Perhaps you have heard the following joke: "In heaven the cooks are French, the police are British, the mechanics are German, the lovers are Italian, and everything is run by the Swiss...In hell the cooks are British, the police are German, the mechanics are French, the lovers are Swiss, and everything is run by the Italians"
So while I hear what you're saying, the idea the these little Urgent Care/Doc in a Box places are where to go is just ludicris.
They are not for every type of medical problem, that is true, but they can be a useful resource if you absolutely cannot wait to see your regular doctor for a referral the next day. If you don't like a particular urgent care clinic then don't go back, that is what the free market is for. Take your dollars and go elsewhere next time. There are good and bad urgent care clinics out there, but that is true of emergency rooms too. For example, there was an incident here in California where a woman dropped to the floor and died while waiting to receive care at an emergency room. I realize that this is an extreme example, but one should not assume that the ER is by definition higher quality care simply because it is "Emergency".
There will always be among us the truly destitute who absolutely cannot afford health care at any price under any system. These people are probably homeless and eating at soup kitchens too, but these are not the majority of middle class and even poor or low income Americans who *could* choose to save for reasonable health care expenses, but choose not to. It is true that I grew up in a privileged situation, but I have since worked hard for all that I have achieved in my life and I am by no means unique among the American people. However, some people simply have their priorities out of whack. You know the type, the low income single mother complaining about how she cannot afford her health care while she is yaking away on her $300 iPhone at her part time boyfriend who wears gold jewelry and $200 athletic shoes, but is unemployed. These people could easily choose to save some of their money for health care expenses but they chose not to because they would rather purchase consumer goods instead and have the taxpayer foot the bill for health care. There will always be the truly destitute among us, but many Americans who complain that they cannot afford even the most basic of health care costs, such as regular doctor visits, simply have their priorities misplaced.
The litigation issue is a problem, but it is really independent of the problem discussed above. However, even when litigation or fear thereof is factored into the costs, I do not believe that it can account for the whole of the current problems (although it certainly doesn't help). No, the biggest single factor must surely be the continued third party billing and payment or the disconnection of services patients receive from the prices that they pay (at least directly) for them. The late Nobel Laureate, Milton Friedman, was fond of saying that "No man spends another man's money as wisely or frugally as he spends his own." That, IMHO, is really at the heart of the high and escalating costs for health care here in the United States and the problem will not be adequately solved until we address the issue of third party payments and billing, preferably by reducing them in line with other types of insurance.
Just because I was talking about a particular aspect of health insurance, one that is common in America, doesn't mean that that is the only type available. You should not interpret the absence of a particular topic in health insurance in this thread as evidence that we don't know about it. I have a high deductible health plan with a health savings account myself (although my deductible is somewhat higher than 2k and I pay a bit less than you do per month every three months or quarterly). However, we are in the EXTREME minority of Americans with health care coverage. Most Americans, those who have coverage anyway, select family HMO plans through their employer with effectively much lower deductibles, although it is not an apples and apples comparison because the HMO plans are structured differently with no lifetime maximums in exchange for more constrained care and escalation choices and procedures.
The bottom line is that the cost of health care has skyrocketed compared to average income. It becomes less and less affordable and is becoming a greater and greater burden on the economy.
Care that in many cases wasn't available for most of the previous century. If you want 3d computer assisted MRIs and other fancy tests and cutting edge drugs to treat your condition or extend your lifespan then you are going to have to pay for them. I have no problem paying for basic health care and if people are stupid enough to go to the emergency room instead of calling their doctor or going to an urgent care clinic (the kind that are open all night and can do most things up to and including minor surgeries for reasonable prices) then they have nobody but themselves to blame. Emergency rooms are for life threatening emergencies most other needs can either wait until morning or you could go to urgent care clinic instead.
You must be fucking kidding me. It would be impossible for even the government to be less efficient than what we have today. Socialized systems in other western countries are far more efficient. We spend TWICE what England and Canada do per capita on health care.
In a manner of speaking you are right, government provided single payer health care is less expensive than the present US system (which almost nobody likes for different reasons). HOWEVER, the single payer system achieves these lower costs with some combination of higher taxes for everyone (taxing is a whole different topic, but suffice it to say that it never works to single out a single group and just tax them without effecting anything or anyone else in the economy) OR rationing of care or both. There is no free lunch, and costs can take on many forms not just money out of pocket. For example, there could be longer lines, or unavailable drugs (like those cancer drugs that NHS refused to pay for in England), or other general economic costs of higher taxes necessary to support the single payer government healthcare system. I would like to go in the opposite direction, towards private pay for everything except expensive life saving care which would be covered as private insurance covers many other risks in our lives. We both agree that the US health care system is broken, but that is not really a revelation nor is it particularly controversial. Everyone knows its broken. Your mistake was to assume that because I don't want government provided single payer health care that I was in favor of the status quo, as if there were only ever two choices: exactly what we have right now OR single payer.
Like everything else, 90% of them are worthless. Too bad you don't have time to shop around while you're in the middle of a heart attack.
Don't know where you have been going, but I suggest that you find a new primary care physician if you are so dissatisfied. The heat attack isn't what I am talking about. If you have a heart attack then the paramedics are probably going to send you to the emergency room anyway if they cannot get you s
A close personal friend of mine is acquainted with some Russian immigrants (legal, they are legit) who run a small grocery in an ethnic part of Los Angeles. I have met them in person over diner on a couple of occasions and most of my second hand knowledge comes from those conversations. They left during the 1998 Russian financial crises when Russia defaulted on its foreign debt and came to United States to live and make an honest living which was very difficult to do in Russia at that time. I still don't believe that Russia has changed as much since then as people in the west might think, but that is as much as I am willing to say, take that for what you will.
I have a health savings account and high deductible insurance plan. I pay out of pocket for all routine expenses such as doctor visits and prescriptions with the exception of one physical which I get free per year and of course high costs that exceed the deductible (i.e. I get run over by a bus and end up hospitalized for major surgery). I do not avoid routine care and my doctor loves seeing me because he knows that he will not have to bill insurance and wait six months for his money, I simply pay him out of the money which I have saved in my health savings account. Why would you avoid routine care when you have purposefully and diligently saved money ahead of time in a tax advantaged savings account specifically to pay for routine health care expenses? I think the answer is that you wouldn't. Now, is this plan for everyone? No, probably not everyone, but for many ordinary Americans this type of plan could work and work well, especially because it incentives people to seek out good quality routine medical care at reasonable prices since they are paying out of their own pocket.
The parent and grandparent are EXACTLY right. The problem with health insurance is that it pays a little bit on everything whereas every other type of insurance on the market: flood, earthquake, fire, auto, etc...is all designed to protect from unforeseen and large expenses that are infrequent or unlikely, but can be very expensive when they do happen. That is what insurance is all about. Do you insure your house against the cost of mowing the lawn? Do you, as the grandparent suggests, split the cost of an oil change or a fill up with your auto insurance company as a "co-pay"? Certainly not, so why then should health insurance be peculiar among all other types? Why can't people save enough money or alter their spending so that they can simply pay for routine care and expenses out of their own pocket as they do for other necessary things in their lives? IMHO, the burden is on the socialized medicine people to explain why health insurance is UNIQUE among all other types of insurance and cannot be left in the hands of private insurance and instead must be provided by the government making regular third-party (i.e. the worst and least efficient kind) payments on routine citizen needs. After all, if the government was or is so efficient at providing health care then why not have them provide other things too like cars, vacations, computers, designer clothing, and everything else that people want.
If people really want to learn about How To Cure Health Care then they should read the linked article.
I think that the people who pirate the most are people in the foreign developing countries, especially Brazil, where incomes are much lower, prices are the same or even higher than in the US, and the chance of getting caught is low. In a previous article here on Slashdot it was mentioned that in Brazil a Nintendo Wii game purchased legally would cost the equivalent of $250 US dollars or roughly the monthly salary of the average Brazillian. If you are living in a developing country and you have no money and nothing much to lose (because you probably already live in a slum) then of course you are going to pirate foreign films, music, and games; it just makes sense and that is where the real piracy is around the world (they probably download and do a lot of file sharing from Internet cafes too). However, you are probably right that the downloads are responsible more often than the illegal street vendor selling physical media from the back of a stall in the street markets.
if they were chasing down Russian mobsters selling knock-off CDs to fund their other illegal activities then I can see some of it
In Putin's Russia the complaints of an American business organization, and especially one concerned with copyright, are going to be ignored and probably not even politely ignored. I doubt the Russian mafia is heavily involved in software piracy, there simply isn't a lot of money in knockoff CDs compared to what their other more lucrative criminal enterprises, such as drugs, extortion/protection, and guns, bring in. If the are involved then it is probably lower level functionaries and associates. Either way, those people are effectively beyond the reach of US laws and they could give a crap about copyright infringement. Those ex-KGB/FSB and their former Spetsnaz enforcers make American organized criminals look like boyscouts. If you cross the Russian mafia or get in their way then they just kill you plain and simple (i.e. they "settle out of court"). The only people on the planet more violent than the Russian mob are probably Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The RIAA wouldn't dare go after such people, even if they could, because if they did and caused trouble then their executives and attorneys would become marked men when traveling abroad.
After all, I thought Slashdot users had an above average intelligence.
There is always someone more intelligent than us; the wiser ones among us know this implicitly but the fools know only that which they permit themselves to see, hear, and think.
Then allow them to recover sufficient damages and penalties in civil court.
This is only true if the target of the lawsuit has enough wealth to make it worthwhile for a lawyer to take the case on commission. How can the lawyer be sure that Anonymous Coward is actually a wealthy person who will pay a judgment? It could be that after spending time and money to track down the target it turns out that AC is some broke smart ass college student. However, comments that will be Googled can still be very damaging whether made by a wealthy individual or a broke college student. It may not be as much of an incentive for lawyers to take these cases on commission as one might think.
I know this because I edit the commercials out before watching
Could you maybe, you know on your last day before layoff or retirement, "forget" to edit the commercials back in. It feels good to break a rule know and again, wouldn't you agree?
Slashdot Mirror
Where is the banker who says "mea culpa"?
or in this case, "mea copula"?
no more than I "deserve" to be able to throw a Honda alternator in a Dodge.
There probably are some crafty Cuban mechanics who could make that work, but you would have to go to Cuba to find them.
There are five (5) templates for "frivolous lawsuit" available online, would you like to download and use a template instead?
Perhaps they could do a sequel to the 2004 film, the tagline could go something like this: "Riddick, all the power in the universe can't nullify his copyrights...this time its personal".
They even allow you to remove your spectacles before they administer a beating and they always take a 15 minute break for afternoon tea; indeed, the whole process might almost be called, civilized.
I'd like to believe that such an outcome is beyond the realm of possibility, but the RIAA has links into the Obama administration through Biden, so such a swindle could indeed occur all kidding aside. One of the side effects of electing the Democrats this time around is granting the entertainment industry, with all of their special interests, enhanced access to the government pocketbook and the federal prosecutor. I wonder if any of the young college students who voted for Obama factored this into their decision. They may soon come to regret Obama's VP choice and his ties to the MAFIAA on a very personal level.
Would the settlement proceedings effect just this one instance, Capitol Records v. Thomas, or would the results be more wide reaching, perhaps setting a precedent for other cases pending around the country?
If the bank doesn't bother to send you a 1099-INT in the mail for your savings account interest, generally because it was less than $10 for the year, then you don't have to report that as interest or dividend income on your taxes. If they do send you the forms then you have to report it because the IRS is going to check what the banks reported against what you report. It would be more of a nuisance for the IRS and the banks to process paperwork on interest amounts of less than $10 than the tax collected is worth, so in those cases they generally don't waste their time.
Amen. Your personal debts are your personal responsibility, not the companies'.
Have you looked at a different insurance company? It seems that your coverage may not be meeting your needs. As for MRI, it is expensive, but that would be true to some extent no matter who was paying for it. I have a finger that is a bit crooked and a right knee that isn't the best from sports injuries in my younger days. Is it possible that an MRI and expensive surgery might have produced a somewhat better long term outcome in both of these situations, but is it reasonable to expect the government to pay for all or most of that? I guess that depends upon your point of view. I sympathize with your situation, truly I do, and I agree that the present system is screwed up (who doesn't agree on that one?), but would you have received a timely MRI for a non-life threatening wrist injury under government provided single payer healthcare or an HMO (where out of pocket costs are lower, but red tape abounds)? I think the answer is probably 'no'. Profession sports stars get MRIs on demand for non-life threatening injuries because millions of dollars are stake on their professional contracts. The rest of us either have to pay up or wait. The hospital bill is about par though. The last time I was in the ER it cost me $1800 and I had to make payments on a payment plan (that was before I got my current coverage). If you call them early and offer to make payments then most hospitals will be happy to extend you a payment plan of up to six months or so, interest free. However, I repeat my earlier assertion that you take another look at your insurance policy. I pay substantially less than that for a deductible that would have been entirely met by your hospital bill and I have "High Deductible" health plan with a health savings account. That would be my advice, for what it is worth but IANAD (I am not a doctor).
I hope for your sake that this never happens until you die; I hope for everyone else's that it happens much sooner, so that you can develop some compassion for your fellow humans.
Arguing for self-reliance and sufficiency from those who are able to provide for themselves does not mean that we libertarians have no compassion for our fellow man. Private charities provide many good and needed services here in the United States and Americans in general are among the most generous non-government givers in the world, donating more money privately than some governments do publicly. It is a common fallacy among the left that anyone who does not support socialism is a greedy, evil, and selfish person, but it just isn't true. I am as compassionate as the next man, but I do not suffer fools and I do insist that people accept responsibility for their own choices in life.
One always has to weigh carefully the pros and cons of any insurance coverage, and particularly health coverage, before deciding what to purchase, but bear in mind that high deductible health insurance is still insurance. This means that you still get the negotiated insurance rates on services, not the "no health insurance" prices, and the costs can still work out overall in your favor, even if you have to pay $1-2K per year out of pocket. To my knowledge, the only type of situation where the high deductible plan does NOT make sense is if you have regular ongoing expenses which fall just short of the deductible every year. People assume that these types of plans also don't make sense for ongoing chronic care, but that is not true because chronic care people still easily meet the deductible every year and then the insurance kicks in for 80% of costs up to a yearly maximum after which they pay 100% (generally the yearly maximum is 2-3 times your deductible amount). As I have said, you have to weigh your options, nobody knows more about your health situation than you, but HDHP can make sense for a broad range of needs, not just healthy people who never get sick.
Simply put, health insurance companies offer this type of coverage because people are willing to buy it.
They are willing to buy it because if their employer provides it then it is a tax-free benefit. Our present system has its roots in WWII where wage controls prevented companies from competing for workers based upon higher wages so they began offering "free health care" as an added incentive. The government eventually caught on and wanted to tax this new "benefit" as income, but by then workers had become accustomed to the benefit AND getting it tax free so the government was forced by popular demand to write that one into the books as a tax free benefit. People "choose" to buy this type of coverage because that is what employers offer and the tax code provides a perverse incentive against buying a personal policy with after tax dollars. The "choice" is not made in the absence of other non-health considerations (namely tax) so it is not an entirely free choice.
Watch the Frontline documentary "Sick Around the World" to get a better idea of how other countries operate and how our system can transform into one of them
I actually did watch that program a few months back and I did like parts of the Swiss system, but requiring everyone to buy insurance can backfire cost wise if it is not very carefully regulated and managed. For example, compare Massachusetts, which also mandates purchase of private insurance, with Switzerland and it is a disaster. The Swiss are known for good quality products and well managed financial and business affairs (i.e. watches, banks, and yes insurance). It may not be possible to exactly duplicate here in the United States the unique aspects that have made a small well run country like Switzerland more successful at providing good health care at efficient prices. I thought that the Taiwanese system also had some interesting ideas, although they also had problems (i.e. people "over-using" the subsidized basic insurance).
Perhaps you have heard the following joke: "In heaven the cooks are French, the police are British, the mechanics are German, the lovers are Italian, and everything is run by the Swiss...In hell the cooks are British, the police are German, the mechanics are French, the lovers are Swiss, and everything is run by the Italians"
So while I hear what you're saying, the idea the these little Urgent Care/Doc in a Box places are where to go is just ludicris.
They are not for every type of medical problem, that is true, but they can be a useful resource if you absolutely cannot wait to see your regular doctor for a referral the next day. If you don't like a particular urgent care clinic then don't go back, that is what the free market is for. Take your dollars and go elsewhere next time. There are good and bad urgent care clinics out there, but that is true of emergency rooms too. For example, there was an incident here in California where a woman dropped to the floor and died while waiting to receive care at an emergency room. I realize that this is an extreme example, but one should not assume that the ER is by definition higher quality care simply because it is "Emergency".
There will always be among us the truly destitute who absolutely cannot afford health care at any price under any system. These people are probably homeless and eating at soup kitchens too, but these are not the majority of middle class and even poor or low income Americans who *could* choose to save for reasonable health care expenses, but choose not to. It is true that I grew up in a privileged situation, but I have since worked hard for all that I have achieved in my life and I am by no means unique among the American people. However, some people simply have their priorities out of whack. You know the type, the low income single mother complaining about how she cannot afford her health care while she is yaking away on her $300 iPhone at her part time boyfriend who wears gold jewelry and $200 athletic shoes, but is unemployed. These people could easily choose to save some of their money for health care expenses but they chose not to because they would rather purchase consumer goods instead and have the taxpayer foot the bill for health care. There will always be the truly destitute among us, but many Americans who complain that they cannot afford even the most basic of health care costs, such as regular doctor visits, simply have their priorities misplaced.
The litigation issue is a problem, but it is really independent of the problem discussed above. However, even when litigation or fear thereof is factored into the costs, I do not believe that it can account for the whole of the current problems (although it certainly doesn't help). No, the biggest single factor must surely be the continued third party billing and payment or the disconnection of services patients receive from the prices that they pay (at least directly) for them. The late Nobel Laureate, Milton Friedman, was fond of saying that "No man spends another man's money as wisely or frugally as he spends his own." That, IMHO, is really at the heart of the high and escalating costs for health care here in the United States and the problem will not be adequately solved until we address the issue of third party payments and billing, preferably by reducing them in line with other types of insurance.
The bottom line is that the cost of health care has skyrocketed compared to average income. It becomes less and less affordable and is becoming a greater and greater burden on the economy.
Care that in many cases wasn't available for most of the previous century. If you want 3d computer assisted MRIs and other fancy tests and cutting edge drugs to treat your condition or extend your lifespan then you are going to have to pay for them. I have no problem paying for basic health care and if people are stupid enough to go to the emergency room instead of calling their doctor or going to an urgent care clinic (the kind that are open all night and can do most things up to and including minor surgeries for reasonable prices) then they have nobody but themselves to blame. Emergency rooms are for life threatening emergencies most other needs can either wait until morning or you could go to urgent care clinic instead.
You must be fucking kidding me. It would be impossible for even the government to be less efficient than what we have today. Socialized systems in other western countries are far more efficient. We spend TWICE what England and Canada do per capita on health care.
In a manner of speaking you are right, government provided single payer health care is less expensive than the present US system (which almost nobody likes for different reasons). HOWEVER, the single payer system achieves these lower costs with some combination of higher taxes for everyone (taxing is a whole different topic, but suffice it to say that it never works to single out a single group and just tax them without effecting anything or anyone else in the economy) OR rationing of care or both. There is no free lunch, and costs can take on many forms not just money out of pocket. For example, there could be longer lines, or unavailable drugs (like those cancer drugs that NHS refused to pay for in England), or other general economic costs of higher taxes necessary to support the single payer government healthcare system. I would like to go in the opposite direction, towards private pay for everything except expensive life saving care which would be covered as private insurance covers many other risks in our lives. We both agree that the US health care system is broken, but that is not really a revelation nor is it particularly controversial. Everyone knows its broken. Your mistake was to assume that because I don't want government provided single payer health care that I was in favor of the status quo, as if there were only ever two choices: exactly what we have right now OR single payer.
Like everything else, 90% of them are worthless. Too bad you don't have time to shop around while you're in the middle of a heart attack.
Don't know where you have been going, but I suggest that you find a new primary care physician if you are so dissatisfied. The heat attack isn't what I am talking about. If you have a heart attack then the paramedics are probably going to send you to the emergency room anyway if they cannot get you s
A close personal friend of mine is acquainted with some Russian immigrants (legal, they are legit) who run a small grocery in an ethnic part of Los Angeles. I have met them in person over diner on a couple of occasions and most of my second hand knowledge comes from those conversations. They left during the 1998 Russian financial crises when Russia defaulted on its foreign debt and came to United States to live and make an honest living which was very difficult to do in Russia at that time. I still don't believe that Russia has changed as much since then as people in the west might think, but that is as much as I am willing to say, take that for what you will.
I have a health savings account and high deductible insurance plan. I pay out of pocket for all routine expenses such as doctor visits and prescriptions with the exception of one physical which I get free per year and of course high costs that exceed the deductible (i.e. I get run over by a bus and end up hospitalized for major surgery). I do not avoid routine care and my doctor loves seeing me because he knows that he will not have to bill insurance and wait six months for his money, I simply pay him out of the money which I have saved in my health savings account. Why would you avoid routine care when you have purposefully and diligently saved money ahead of time in a tax advantaged savings account specifically to pay for routine health care expenses? I think the answer is that you wouldn't. Now, is this plan for everyone? No, probably not everyone, but for many ordinary Americans this type of plan could work and work well, especially because it incentives people to seek out good quality routine medical care at reasonable prices since they are paying out of their own pocket.
MOD THIS THREAD UP PLEASE.
The parent and grandparent are EXACTLY right. The problem with health insurance is that it pays a little bit on everything whereas every other type of insurance on the market: flood, earthquake, fire, auto, etc...is all designed to protect from unforeseen and large expenses that are infrequent or unlikely, but can be very expensive when they do happen. That is what insurance is all about. Do you insure your house against the cost of mowing the lawn? Do you, as the grandparent suggests, split the cost of an oil change or a fill up with your auto insurance company as a "co-pay"? Certainly not, so why then should health insurance be peculiar among all other types? Why can't people save enough money or alter their spending so that they can simply pay for routine care and expenses out of their own pocket as they do for other necessary things in their lives? IMHO, the burden is on the socialized medicine people to explain why health insurance is UNIQUE among all other types of insurance and cannot be left in the hands of private insurance and instead must be provided by the government making regular third-party (i.e. the worst and least efficient kind) payments on routine citizen needs. After all, if the government was or is so efficient at providing health care then why not have them provide other things too like cars, vacations, computers, designer clothing, and everything else that people want.
If people really want to learn about How To Cure Health Care then they should read the linked article.
I think that the people who pirate the most are people in the foreign developing countries, especially Brazil, where incomes are much lower, prices are the same or even higher than in the US, and the chance of getting caught is low. In a previous article here on Slashdot it was mentioned that in Brazil a Nintendo Wii game purchased legally would cost the equivalent of $250 US dollars or roughly the monthly salary of the average Brazillian. If you are living in a developing country and you have no money and nothing much to lose (because you probably already live in a slum) then of course you are going to pirate foreign films, music, and games; it just makes sense and that is where the real piracy is around the world (they probably download and do a lot of file sharing from Internet cafes too). However, you are probably right that the downloads are responsible more often than the illegal street vendor selling physical media from the back of a stall in the street markets.
if they were chasing down Russian mobsters selling knock-off CDs to fund their other illegal activities then I can see some of it
In Putin's Russia the complaints of an American business organization, and especially one concerned with copyright, are going to be ignored and probably not even politely ignored. I doubt the Russian mafia is heavily involved in software piracy, there simply isn't a lot of money in knockoff CDs compared to what their other more lucrative criminal enterprises, such as drugs, extortion/protection, and guns, bring in. If the are involved then it is probably lower level functionaries and associates. Either way, those people are effectively beyond the reach of US laws and they could give a crap about copyright infringement. Those ex-KGB/FSB and their former Spetsnaz enforcers make American organized criminals look like boyscouts. If you cross the Russian mafia or get in their way then they just kill you plain and simple (i.e. they "settle out of court"). The only people on the planet more violent than the Russian mob are probably Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The RIAA wouldn't dare go after such people, even if they could, because if they did and caused trouble then their executives and attorneys would become marked men when traveling abroad.
After all, I thought Slashdot users had an above average intelligence.
There is always someone more intelligent than us; the wiser ones among us know this implicitly but the fools know only that which they permit themselves to see, hear, and think.
Then allow them to recover sufficient damages and penalties in civil court.
This is only true if the target of the lawsuit has enough wealth to make it worthwhile for a lawyer to take the case on commission. How can the lawyer be sure that Anonymous Coward is actually a wealthy person who will pay a judgment? It could be that after spending time and money to track down the target it turns out that AC is some broke smart ass college student. However, comments that will be Googled can still be very damaging whether made by a wealthy individual or a broke college student. It may not be as much of an incentive for lawyers to take these cases on commission as one might think.
I know this because I edit the commercials out before watching
Could you maybe, you know on your last day before layoff or retirement, "forget" to edit the commercials back in. It feels good to break a rule know and again, wouldn't you agree?