An alternate interpretation here: Europeans understand that the relationship between an employer and employee are inherently unequal. An employer without a particular worker can usually get along just fine for a while until a replacement is found. A worker without a particular job can often last only a few weeks without a paycheck. While a worker is working for an employer, they have to follow orders from the employer or expect to be fired.
Some of the effects of that relationship in the US:
* In any area with "at-will" employment (like most of the US) people regularly go in for work and discover they no longer have a job, while there's still an expectation that employees give at least 2 weeks notice before leaving a position.
* Employees are willing to put up with pay cuts, wage theft, unpaid overtime, workplace violence, sexual harassment, and other illegal activities by employers.
* Unions are a non-factor in most sectors of the economy, in large part because those trying to form unions tend to get fired. The employer will come up with alleged unrelated reasons for the firing to get around the labor laws that specifically say you can't do that.
* If you are fired, you're eligible for public assistance in the form of unemployment insurance, but if you quit, you are not.
If you're somebody who (like me) has a high-paying white-collar job and a couple years' expenses in the bank, it's much easier to stand up to your employer and treat it as a relationship between equals, because you can in fact leave when you want to with reasonable certainty that you'll be OK until you find another job. If you're like a majority of Americans and living on 0 or negative savings, then it's basically impossible to do so.
He decided to hold his speech in Gettysburg, site of one of the most stupid and bloody charges in military history (uphill across almost a mile of open ground, >50% casualties, and pretty much an entire division's officers wiped out). About the only thing I can think of is that he wanted his campaign to be another example of the Southern Cause, and his ultimate failure just be another step towards the Confederacy's ultimate victory or something.
So I'm among those who like about 60% of what Ron Paul stands for and am seriously worried about the other 40%. (For the record, I like about 30% of what Obama stands for and am seriously worried about 70%, and for Romney the split is closer to 5%/95% with the 5% varying from hour to hour.)
The parts I'm all for: drug legalization, bringing the troops home, restoring civil liberties, and cutting back on big military spending.
The parts I'm seriously concerned about: Returning to a gold standard, eliminating all social welfare programs, pretty much complete deregulation of economic transactions, and eliminating any restrictions on what the states can do within their borders. The reasons: A) Returning to any sort of metallic standard is basically decreeing 0% inflation. This sounds like a good thing for those with wealth trying to hang onto it, but most economists think somewhere around 2% inflation is actually closer to the ideal, and some argue that 4% is better. Current mainstream macroeconomics thinks that lower inflation generally yields higher unemployment, which was part of the argument of William Jennings Bryan's bimetalism campaign back in the 1890's.
B) Eliminating social welfare programs is just plain stupid, because those without jobs and without welfare will do what they need to do to eat. Private charities can't handle the case load (they're already overbooked), so that means that people will be turning to crime in increasing numbers with the goal of keeping a roof overhead and food on the table. Many of those people will get caught and thrown in prison, costing the government even more than welfare does.
C) Deregulation of business makes for unlevel economic transactions with all the advantage invariably going to the side with the largest supply of capital, legal advice, and market share. In other words, if you think software EULAs and cell phone contracts are one-sided now, you ain't seen nothing yet.
D) The basic problem I tend to have with "state's rights" arguments is that the rights in question have almost always been the right to oppress black people (southern politicians were using that exact phrase in 1860 and 1960 to mean precisely that). Which seems to be activity that Ron Paul at least in the past was a supporter of.
Well, for me, the interesting part is that they're using 21st century technology to focus all your attention on a set of documents written between 1200 BCE and 100 CE, even to the point of denying the science that makes the 21st century technology possible.
There isn't a president in history that's "created" a Job.
You're mostly right, except for this part. Any time a president pushes through a bill that boosts either direct or indirect federal hiring, he creates a job. For instance, when Franklin Roosevelt created the CCC, he most definitely created jobs. When Ronald Reagan put significant cash into missile defense, even though nothing worked it still created jobs.
Yeah, I was just thinking "Hurricane Katrina - we sure lost some good cell phones during that" (to paraphrase Jon Stewart talking about 9/11).
One of the first rules of what to do in a serious disaster is to not even think about saving your stuff, think about saving you and any other people you're up to helping out. If it will help you survive (e.g. water and food), then by all means take it, but otherwise ditch it.
This was intended as a joke about the massive flip-flopping that Mitt Romney has done (including holding 2 diametrically opposed positions within a 24 hour period). For instance, Romney 2012 is strongly opposed to Barack Obama's health care bill, which is basically exactly what Romney pushed through in Massachusetts as governor.
In my example, both models had acceleration due to gravity as a constant, determined to be that way from previous experiment or theory, and so the question was what that constant actually was.
And of course, Model B goes to pot as soon as you change the parameters of the test, dropping the ball 100 meters instead of 1000 meters, dropping a ball weighing something other than 0.5 kilos, etc. In the case of climate science, the model not only has to predict where things are now, it obviously has to predict many data points in between 1981 and now.
Alternately, and this seems to be the standard demanded by those who disagree that climate change is real, we could build a second planet Earth, place it in a clone of our solar system, and then try different levels of carbon emissions to see what happens. The obvious objection here is that such an experiment could not be carried out.
No, it's clearly not Mitt Romney: If it were, you'd see a post a bit further down with an impassioned defense of human rights and the value of questioning government in a democracy.
I'm not commenting on the climate one way or the other
Sure you are. You're argument in a nutshell, goes like this: 1. Premise: There were hundreds of predictions about what would happen to the climate over a 30 year period. 2. Premise: One prediction was demonstrably right. 3. Inference: because 99.9% of the predictions were wrong, the one that was right must be due to pure chance. 4. Final conclusion: I can safely ignore any other prediction about climate from anybody, because the only way it can be right is by pure chance.
Well, that's not how science works. The logic of science works more like this: 1. Premise: There were hundreds of predictions about what would happen to the climate over a 30 year period, each using different models and ideas to arrive at that prediction. 2. Premise: One prediction was demonstrably closer to right than the others. 3. Inference: The models and ideas that produced the correct prediction are closer to the truth than those that didn't correctly predict a result. 4. Final conclusion: When making the next prediction, start from using those models and ideas and you'll get pretty close to the right answer.
Here's a similar problem from physics: Model A: Acceleration due to Earth's gravity near the ground in a vacuum is ~10 m/s^2, so the ball should fall 100 meters in 4 seconds. Model B: Acceleration due to Earth's gravity near the ground in a vacuum is ~5 m/s^2, so the ball should fall 100 meters in ~5.8 seconds. Time for a ball to fall 100 is slightly over 4 seconds. Ergo, 10 m/s^2 is less wrong than 5 m/s^2.
In the words of Isaac Asimov, Model A is wrong, Model B is wrong, but if you think that Model A is as wrong as Model B, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.
It's a mistake to think of your relationship with a company as anything other than economic. For instance: Employee: You do work, they give you money. Either you or the employer can end the relationship at any time (well, in the US at least, the employer can at any time, whereas you are generally expected to work another 2 weeks), and the employer will probably not hesitate to do so if it's in their economic interest to do so.
Shareholder: You invest in the company and possibly vote on who you want on the board of directors, the company gives you money periodically as dividends or reinvests the profits so you can sell your stake for a higher price. Again, there's no emotional relationship in the least, and it's not totally uncommon for a CEO to rip off the company screwing the shareholders.
Customer: You give them money, they give you a product or service. Again, that's a 1-time economic deal, and they don't give a damn about you after you've given them money unless you're going to try to get the money back (demanding a refund, threatening a lawsuit, etc).
Supplier: They give you money, you give them a product or service. The only reason they might want to maintain a good relationship is if they want to have another round of trading.
Basically, once your particular economic transaction is over, the corporation doesn't give a rats behind about you. Which makes it absolutely stupid to love a corporation. That doesn't mean the people at that corporation are evil, just that they will do what's in their economic self-interest.
I love people, I love freedom and some other abstract concepts, but there's absolutely no way no how that I will give love to a corporation.
A corporation is a social and legal arrangement that exists to make money for its shareholders. It does this by producing 1 or more products, selling them to customers, and paying a portion of their sales to their employees as wages, another portion to the suppliers, and giving the remainder to their shareholders. That's it. It's a purely economic affair, and thus any dealings I have with a corporation are a purely economic relationship.
The one thing that united revolutionaries in 1972 in Iran was outing the shah.
1. The Iranian Revolution was in 1979, not 1972. Among other things, that would have meant Richard Nixon had to handle it rather than Jimmy Carter. 2. I'm assuming you mean "ousting", because there's no indication the Shah was gay.
Why do you think the mullahs, including the lovely ahmadinnerjacket, attacked the American embassy?
1. The United States was the primary supporter of the Shah, making their embassy a primary target. 2. Ahmadinajad did not attack the embassy, according to the CIA. He was involved in the organization that did so, but that doesn't mean he was behind it.
... the famous hostage crisis that carter so expertly handled.
A good guess as to why Carter was unable to negotiate the release of the hostages: Reagan's negotiators had cut a deal prior to the election that the Iranians would not release the hostages to Carter (helping Reagan win) in exchange for arms deals for use against Iraq (with the money from the sale going to fund the Nicaraguan Contras).
And your post says absolutely nothing about how the Egyptians, who's post-revolutionary government has no official role for a Supreme Leader or other clergy council, are similar to the Iranians. For instance, when Egyptian protesters broke into the Israeli embassy (protesting a border incursion by the IDF), the Egyptian military rescued the personnel, several Egyptian officials including the Prime Minister offered to resign, and the Israeli and Egyptian governments emphasized the need to restore good relations in the aftermath.
The only involvement the United States had with the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions: (1) Bradley Manning leaked documents through Wikileaks that thoroughly embarrassed the governments of those countries. (2) The Egyptian police (who supported the old government of Hosni Mubarak) was armed and trained by the United States.
Libya is a different story, because there the real issue (for NATO at least) was primarily the very significant Libyan oil reserves, and the various US and British oil companies wanted it nice and cheap while Qaddafi wanted to push the price up.
There's a significant difference between post-revolutionary Iran and post-revolutionary Egypt: Egyptian protesters were very very clear that the primary goal was democracy, and then they'd worry about who was voted into the government later. By contrast, the Iranian Revolution was all about restoring the secular power of Islam in Iran, with the booting out of the Shah a nice side effect. What that means is that if the Egyptians decided they didn't want the Muslim Brotherhood in charge any longer, they would likely just vote it out, and use protests again if they didn't leave after the vote.
And on this issue specifically, you should consider how similar these proposals are to the Comstock laws which used the USPS to try to prevent the distribution of "obscene, lewd, and/or lascivious" material.
That's nothing - if you want to do something really fun, try plugging the output of one amp into the input of another. (*note - keep a fire extinguisher handy)
Amazon to states: "There should be no Internet sales taxes created on the state level, because this deals with interstate commerce." Amazon to federal government: "The federal government shouldn't handle sales taxes, they should be handled on a state level. Plus, you wouldn't want to have to answer to the voters regarding a *tax increase*, would you?"
End result: No sales taxes on Amazon, which is almost definitely the outcome they want.
Here's the only way it can happen: 1. Senate ends up with no more than 40 Republicans. This is vital, because with at least 40 Republicans they can simply filibuster absolutely everything (which is been more-or-less exactly what they've been doing). 2. Obama is re-elected. (I don't like a lot of his policies, but he at least might put a stop to the travesty that is the current Supreme Court) 3. One of these justices drops dead: Scalia, Thomas, or Kennedy. (They will not resign while a Democrat is president)
The thing is, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts, and Alito all know this.
All I did was took OP's argument and took it into an offline context: The copied credit card numbers have been replaced by the copied car key, and the copied photograph could be any creative work. Hence why copying credit card numbers and copying an mp3 are not legally or morally equivalent.
Too simplistic. Force all hospitals and insurance companies into non-profit status and the execs will still demand claims be denied to maximize executive bonuses.
There's a solution to that which is no more difficult that forcing all hospitals and insurance companies to become non-profits: Include a provision that there are no bonuses given out, ever, in those kind of organizations, and set a cap on the total earnings of any individual from non-profits that take Medicare or Medicaid dollars in any form of somewhere around $300,000. $300K is a large enough chunk of change that it will plenty comfortable for those who want to help patients, while low enough to get the real jerks doing something else like banking.
Slashdot Mirror
An alternate interpretation here: Europeans understand that the relationship between an employer and employee are inherently unequal. An employer without a particular worker can usually get along just fine for a while until a replacement is found. A worker without a particular job can often last only a few weeks without a paycheck. While a worker is working for an employer, they have to follow orders from the employer or expect to be fired.
Some of the effects of that relationship in the US:
* In any area with "at-will" employment (like most of the US) people regularly go in for work and discover they no longer have a job, while there's still an expectation that employees give at least 2 weeks notice before leaving a position.
* Employees are willing to put up with pay cuts, wage theft, unpaid overtime, workplace violence, sexual harassment, and other illegal activities by employers.
* Unions are a non-factor in most sectors of the economy, in large part because those trying to form unions tend to get fired. The employer will come up with alleged unrelated reasons for the firing to get around the labor laws that specifically say you can't do that.
* If you are fired, you're eligible for public assistance in the form of unemployment insurance, but if you quit, you are not.
If you're somebody who (like me) has a high-paying white-collar job and a couple years' expenses in the bank, it's much easier to stand up to your employer and treat it as a relationship between equals, because you can in fact leave when you want to with reasonable certainty that you'll be OK until you find another job. If you're like a majority of Americans and living on 0 or negative savings, then it's basically impossible to do so.
He decided to hold his speech in Gettysburg, site of one of the most stupid and bloody charges in military history (uphill across almost a mile of open ground, >50% casualties, and pretty much an entire division's officers wiped out). About the only thing I can think of is that he wanted his campaign to be another example of the Southern Cause, and his ultimate failure just be another step towards the Confederacy's ultimate victory or something.
So I'm among those who like about 60% of what Ron Paul stands for and am seriously worried about the other 40%. (For the record, I like about 30% of what Obama stands for and am seriously worried about 70%, and for Romney the split is closer to 5%/95% with the 5% varying from hour to hour.)
The parts I'm all for: drug legalization, bringing the troops home, restoring civil liberties, and cutting back on big military spending.
The parts I'm seriously concerned about: Returning to a gold standard, eliminating all social welfare programs, pretty much complete deregulation of economic transactions, and eliminating any restrictions on what the states can do within their borders. The reasons:
A) Returning to any sort of metallic standard is basically decreeing 0% inflation. This sounds like a good thing for those with wealth trying to hang onto it, but most economists think somewhere around 2% inflation is actually closer to the ideal, and some argue that 4% is better. Current mainstream macroeconomics thinks that lower inflation generally yields higher unemployment, which was part of the argument of William Jennings Bryan's bimetalism campaign back in the 1890's.
B) Eliminating social welfare programs is just plain stupid, because those without jobs and without welfare will do what they need to do to eat. Private charities can't handle the case load (they're already overbooked), so that means that people will be turning to crime in increasing numbers with the goal of keeping a roof overhead and food on the table. Many of those people will get caught and thrown in prison, costing the government even more than welfare does.
C) Deregulation of business makes for unlevel economic transactions with all the advantage invariably going to the side with the largest supply of capital, legal advice, and market share. In other words, if you think software EULAs and cell phone contracts are one-sided now, you ain't seen nothing yet.
D) The basic problem I tend to have with "state's rights" arguments is that the rights in question have almost always been the right to oppress black people (southern politicians were using that exact phrase in 1860 and 1960 to mean precisely that). Which seems to be activity that Ron Paul at least in the past was a supporter of.
I'd have to think it has more of a "Fortress of Solitude" vibe to it.
I just have to say, back when I was doing a lot of hardware work, I would have happily launched 277 motherboards ... with a catapult.
Well, for me, the interesting part is that they're using 21st century technology to focus all your attention on a set of documents written between 1200 BCE and 100 CE, even to the point of denying the science that makes the 21st century technology possible.
There isn't a president in history that's "created" a Job.
You're mostly right, except for this part. Any time a president pushes through a bill that boosts either direct or indirect federal hiring, he creates a job. For instance, when Franklin Roosevelt created the CCC, he most definitely created jobs. When Ronald Reagan put significant cash into missile defense, even though nothing worked it still created jobs.
Yeah, I was just thinking "Hurricane Katrina - we sure lost some good cell phones during that" (to paraphrase Jon Stewart talking about 9/11).
One of the first rules of what to do in a serious disaster is to not even think about saving your stuff, think about saving you and any other people you're up to helping out. If it will help you survive (e.g. water and food), then by all means take it, but otherwise ditch it.
Whooosh!
This was intended as a joke about the massive flip-flopping that Mitt Romney has done (including holding 2 diametrically opposed positions within a 24 hour period). For instance, Romney 2012 is strongly opposed to Barack Obama's health care bill, which is basically exactly what Romney pushed through in Massachusetts as governor.
In my example, both models had acceleration due to gravity as a constant, determined to be that way from previous experiment or theory, and so the question was what that constant actually was.
And of course, Model B goes to pot as soon as you change the parameters of the test, dropping the ball 100 meters instead of 1000 meters, dropping a ball weighing something other than 0.5 kilos, etc. In the case of climate science, the model not only has to predict where things are now, it obviously has to predict many data points in between 1981 and now.
Alternately, and this seems to be the standard demanded by those who disagree that climate change is real, we could build a second planet Earth, place it in a clone of our solar system, and then try different levels of carbon emissions to see what happens. The obvious objection here is that such an experiment could not be carried out.
No, it's clearly not Mitt Romney: If it were, you'd see a post a bit further down with an impassioned defense of human rights and the value of questioning government in a democracy.
I'm not commenting on the climate one way or the other
Sure you are. You're argument in a nutshell, goes like this:
1. Premise: There were hundreds of predictions about what would happen to the climate over a 30 year period.
2. Premise: One prediction was demonstrably right.
3. Inference: because 99.9% of the predictions were wrong, the one that was right must be due to pure chance.
4. Final conclusion: I can safely ignore any other prediction about climate from anybody, because the only way it can be right is by pure chance.
Well, that's not how science works. The logic of science works more like this:
1. Premise: There were hundreds of predictions about what would happen to the climate over a 30 year period, each using different models and ideas to arrive at that prediction.
2. Premise: One prediction was demonstrably closer to right than the others.
3. Inference: The models and ideas that produced the correct prediction are closer to the truth than those that didn't correctly predict a result.
4. Final conclusion: When making the next prediction, start from using those models and ideas and you'll get pretty close to the right answer.
Here's a similar problem from physics:
Model A: Acceleration due to Earth's gravity near the ground in a vacuum is ~10 m/s^2, so the ball should fall 100 meters in 4 seconds.
Model B: Acceleration due to Earth's gravity near the ground in a vacuum is ~5 m/s^2, so the ball should fall 100 meters in ~5.8 seconds.
Time for a ball to fall 100 is slightly over 4 seconds. Ergo, 10 m/s^2 is less wrong than 5 m/s^2.
In the words of Isaac Asimov, Model A is wrong, Model B is wrong, but if you think that Model A is as wrong as Model B, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.
It's a mistake to think of your relationship with a company as anything other than economic. For instance:
Employee: You do work, they give you money. Either you or the employer can end the relationship at any time (well, in the US at least, the employer can at any time, whereas you are generally expected to work another 2 weeks), and the employer will probably not hesitate to do so if it's in their economic interest to do so.
Shareholder: You invest in the company and possibly vote on who you want on the board of directors, the company gives you money periodically as dividends or reinvests the profits so you can sell your stake for a higher price. Again, there's no emotional relationship in the least, and it's not totally uncommon for a CEO to rip off the company screwing the shareholders.
Customer: You give them money, they give you a product or service. Again, that's a 1-time economic deal, and they don't give a damn about you after you've given them money unless you're going to try to get the money back (demanding a refund, threatening a lawsuit, etc).
Supplier: They give you money, you give them a product or service. The only reason they might want to maintain a good relationship is if they want to have another round of trading.
Basically, once your particular economic transaction is over, the corporation doesn't give a rats behind about you. Which makes it absolutely stupid to love a corporation. That doesn't mean the people at that corporation are evil, just that they will do what's in their economic self-interest.
I love people, I love freedom and some other abstract concepts, but there's absolutely no way no how that I will give love to a corporation.
A corporation is a social and legal arrangement that exists to make money for its shareholders. It does this by producing 1 or more products, selling them to customers, and paying a portion of their sales to their employees as wages, another portion to the suppliers, and giving the remainder to their shareholders. That's it. It's a purely economic affair, and thus any dealings I have with a corporation are a purely economic relationship.
The one thing that united revolutionaries in 1972 in Iran was outing the shah.
1. The Iranian Revolution was in 1979, not 1972. Among other things, that would have meant Richard Nixon had to handle it rather than Jimmy Carter.
2. I'm assuming you mean "ousting", because there's no indication the Shah was gay.
Why do you think the mullahs, including the lovely ahmadinnerjacket, attacked the American embassy?
1. The United States was the primary supporter of the Shah, making their embassy a primary target.
2. Ahmadinajad did not attack the embassy, according to the CIA. He was involved in the organization that did so, but that doesn't mean he was behind it.
... the famous hostage crisis that carter so expertly handled.
A good guess as to why Carter was unable to negotiate the release of the hostages: Reagan's negotiators had cut a deal prior to the election that the Iranians would not release the hostages to Carter (helping Reagan win) in exchange for arms deals for use against Iraq (with the money from the sale going to fund the Nicaraguan Contras).
And your post says absolutely nothing about how the Egyptians, who's post-revolutionary government has no official role for a Supreme Leader or other clergy council, are similar to the Iranians. For instance, when Egyptian protesters broke into the Israeli embassy (protesting a border incursion by the IDF), the Egyptian military rescued the personnel, several Egyptian officials including the Prime Minister offered to resign, and the Israeli and Egyptian governments emphasized the need to restore good relations in the aftermath.
The only involvement the United States had with the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions:
(1) Bradley Manning leaked documents through Wikileaks that thoroughly embarrassed the governments of those countries.
(2) The Egyptian police (who supported the old government of Hosni Mubarak) was armed and trained by the United States.
Libya is a different story, because there the real issue (for NATO at least) was primarily the very significant Libyan oil reserves, and the various US and British oil companies wanted it nice and cheap while Qaddafi wanted to push the price up.
There's a significant difference between post-revolutionary Iran and post-revolutionary Egypt: Egyptian protesters were very very clear that the primary goal was democracy, and then they'd worry about who was voted into the government later. By contrast, the Iranian Revolution was all about restoring the secular power of Islam in Iran, with the booting out of the Shah a nice side effect. What that means is that if the Egyptians decided they didn't want the Muslim Brotherhood in charge any longer, they would likely just vote it out, and use protests again if they didn't leave after the vote.
And on this issue specifically, you should consider how similar these proposals are to the Comstock laws which used the USPS to try to prevent the distribution of "obscene, lewd, and/or lascivious" material.
That's nothing - if you want to do something really fun, try plugging the output of one amp into the input of another. (*note - keep a fire extinguisher handy)
Yeah, I'd go for something like "REST IN HIGH VOLUME!" followed by several hours of ears ringing like crazy.
The company can't cut your way to profitability, but the CEO can often profit handsomely, even if he leaves a trail of ruin behind him.
It reminds me of one of the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition: "Employees are the rungs on the ladder of success. Don't hesitate to step on them."
Amazon to states: "There should be no Internet sales taxes created on the state level, because this deals with interstate commerce."
Amazon to federal government: "The federal government shouldn't handle sales taxes, they should be handled on a state level. Plus, you wouldn't want to have to answer to the voters regarding a *tax increase*, would you?"
End result: No sales taxes on Amazon, which is almost definitely the outcome they want.
There is no fast way to fix the Supreme court.
Here's the only way it can happen:
1. Senate ends up with no more than 40 Republicans. This is vital, because with at least 40 Republicans they can simply filibuster absolutely everything (which is been more-or-less exactly what they've been doing).
2. Obama is re-elected. (I don't like a lot of his policies, but he at least might put a stop to the travesty that is the current Supreme Court)
3. One of these justices drops dead: Scalia, Thomas, or Kennedy. (They will not resign while a Democrat is president)
The thing is, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts, and Alito all know this.
This is how democracy dies ...
All I did was took OP's argument and took it into an offline context: The copied credit card numbers have been replaced by the copied car key, and the copied photograph could be any creative work. Hence why copying credit card numbers and copying an mp3 are not legally or morally equivalent.
Too simplistic. Force all hospitals and insurance companies into non-profit status and the execs will still demand claims be denied to maximize executive bonuses.
There's a solution to that which is no more difficult that forcing all hospitals and insurance companies to become non-profits: Include a provision that there are no bonuses given out, ever, in those kind of organizations, and set a cap on the total earnings of any individual from non-profits that take Medicare or Medicaid dollars in any form of somewhere around $300,000. $300K is a large enough chunk of change that it will plenty comfortable for those who want to help patients, while low enough to get the real jerks doing something else like banking.