While this whole roll out has been a fiasco, at the end of the day the people who work for me are mostly going to end up with similar or better coverage for less money.
Love that optimism. Unless you hire a lot of people with pre-existing medical conditions (there are businesses that do that by happenstance, such as campgrounds that require you to have your own RV - that's heavily weighted to an elderly population), I don't think that's going to be the case.
Keep in mind that that insurance will also have to be purchased not just once, but for the rest of your employees' lives. Just because you might be right this year about a cost reduction, doesn't mean you'll be right in the years to come. I think instead you will end up being very wrong.
Young, rich, healthy people pay more so that the old, the poor, and the sick can get affordable coverage.
We'll see whether that actually happens. I notice that a lot of the old, the poor, and the sick ended up on Medicare anyway.
Here's my take. Health care will decline in quality in the US while continuing to increase in cost. The simultaneous changes to Medicaid/Medicare and health insurance will make that happen. More and more people will be sloughed off to Medicare/Medicaid because the federal budget won't be able to afford the current load and still provide subsidies. And Medicare/Medicaid will continue to decline in quality because the federal government won't be able to afford current, much less past levels of service.
The only thing I'm uncertain of is timing. Will it happen fast or slow. I'm leaning to a bit on the slow side. It'll take a few years for people to figure out how to game the system.
Liquidity and all the other usual counter-reasons you hear, but fail to recognize.
High-speed trading is nothing but a mechanism for funneling money to the rich from everyone else.
Yea, right. Don't do market orders or stop loss orders. Just do limit orders. Now, you're immune to high frequency trading, because you aren't doing high frequency trading yourself.
anyone who doesn't get insurance is someone who thinks they don't need insurance. while those who get insurance really need it. so costs are spread amongst fewer people and they go up, if you respect the "freedom" of some freeloaders to be stupid and irresponsible
So who's being a "freeloader" here? Everyone. Classic tragedy of the commons. Create a public good, especially a poorly thought-out and regulated one, and you get people slitting each others' throats for a few dollars.
now forcing 50 year old to buy childbirth insurance does sound crazy so you fix that specific problem, you don't jettison the entire superior idea
Wake us up when you finally come up with that "superior" idea. Obamacare was chock full of stupid problems like the one you mention. And it'll take decades to weed them out. By then, Congress and the regulators in the Executive branch will have tossed a few more layers on.
That seems to work better than whatever you're trying here.
So the mentally ill person will destroy the plane with the Chucks of Liberty? Maybe they'll choose from one of the other tasteful, avant-garde means to strike terror into the hearts of the traveling public?
Let us keep in mind that even if your linked methods were truly dangerous, they aren't magically more dangerous in the hands of the mentally ill.
TL;DR: you're being an idiot on the internets. You have yet to even provide one shred of evidence or a bit of correlation for the claim that the mentally ill are somehow more dangerous on an airliner, much less dangerous enough that their presence should be regulated.
And you've blown past attempts by at least three different posters to provide you with some degree of face saving while digging that hole deeper. Just let go of this.
You're so used to living in a peaceful, lawful society you think it's the natural state of things rather than something that was won by ensuring Joe Beggar has options besides starving or mugging you.
I don't think the problem is that I am used to living in such a society, but that everyone else is so accustomed. Your sort of rationalization is what you get when you take freedom and a developed society for granted.
My view is that society needs a peaceful, lawful society more than they need freebies. When the entitlements threaten the viability of your ideals, maybe you'll change your tune.
maybe you're simply subconsciously assuming the opportunities inherent in frontier period America still exist today, and any disenfranchised person can simply go West and grab some land to farm.
Having actually grasped some of those opportunities, I have to say that you're pretty ignorant of what the US still has to offer.
I thought the UN had put a ban on any country claiming the moon as their territory.
And why is that supposed to be relevant? They're a powerless about stuff in space, unless someone with actual relevant power decides to enforce their rules.
I think the first country to establish a permanent settlement on the moon would have more claim over that territory.
I have been in academia for more than twenty years and can say without a doubt that being around experts in a field cannot be replaced.
What happens if you want to do something interesting in the field and can't afford to chill with experts for twenty years?
College can be life-changing. It can also be a very bad choice. A lot of people have dropped out with high debt and a weak, partial education. I know because I've done both (well, no high debt, but I have used up a lot of years that I could have been doing something else).
Good start, now go do some formal study and get a degree.
Credentialism rears its ugly head. College is not automatically the best choice.
There's too great a risk, with self-taught people, for them to only expose themselves to the ideas that are appealing to them.
Risk and great reward. After all, if you expose yourself only to ideas you're interested in, then you learn them because you are interested. I think enthusiasm is more important than variety. College can expose you to ideas outside of your experience which you can be enthusiastic with. But it also exposes you (with a considerable time and financial commitment) to stuff that won't be so interesting or relevant.
There's a whole spectrum of choices available to someone who wants to learn more about and do actual work in a subject. For example, there's plenty of online stuff available for virtually every subject. There are many forums where you can ask questions and discuss those subjects.
Your local library is a great resource for acquiring research. Via interlibrary loans, you can usually get access to any published research.
Often there are professional societies or non profits doing work in the area which accept laymen as members and participants.
Colleges and universities are a great source of knowledge, but you need not enroll (for the most part) for a degree in order to take advantage of them. Many seminars and lectures are open to the general public. You can selectively take courses in which you have an interest (sometimes, if you have good rapport with the department or the lecturer, you can just sit in on the class).
Or you can as Improv suggested, go for a degree. There are costs and risks involved which he regrettably ignores. You have to devote substantial time and money to getting a degree. And there is substantial risk that you don't complete the degree, especially, if you've never gone to college before and don't fully understand the expectations and distractions of college educations and lives.
Another problem is that some colleges and universities have a substantially anti-intellectual environment for religious, ideological, or hedonistic reasons. Do considerable research and shopping around before you settle on a college.
But having said that, you might find college to your liking. You might even find going on to advanced degrees to your liking as well. If you're on the fence as to whether you want to try for a degree, you might consider taking a course or two. Taking the occasional college course can help you decide. You might discover an aptitude or diligence that you didn't realize you had.
It's very noble to want to learn and to further educate yourself. But for the sake of the professionals in the field, I do encourage you to engage in your study and practice of this field in private.
I have a better idea. Completely ignore the above, terrible advise. While there is considerable value in doing your own work privately for a time, you need to communicate with others, if you want to improve your game. That means not just dumping code or whatever on the internet, but actually reading and listening to who else is already doing this sort of stuff. Keep in mind that most of your communication should be input - learning from others.
Months or years later, a disaster of some sort happens (a security breach, data loss, and so on), and a professional gets dragged in to try to solve the problems. This wastes the professional's time, which is often very expensive. It also angers them, because it's a problem that would have been unavoidable had the amateurs just kept to themselves.
Sounds like the "pro's" time isn't being wasted, if he's getting paid. And if you or anyone actually are "angry" over something this trivial, maybe you ought to find a different line of work.
So unless you're aiming to become a professional in this field, rather than just an amateur or a hobbyist
The only difference between a professional and an amateur/hobbyist is that the professional gets paid and tends to be a bit more knowledgeable. And that's the source of this friction between professional and amateur. The amateur is doing some of the professional's work for far cheaper. It's screwing with the professional's business model Keep that in mind when you read of professionals complaining about the amateurs.
Why should the EU have even the slightest say in the matter?
I should clarify this. As I say in a reply elsewhere, I don't mind that the EU creates standards. I mind when they force others to comply with those standards.
Launch and reentry are aerodynamically different problems.
The ICBM and the orbital rocket both have to launch. If that fails, one doesn't get to a reentry problem. And a reentering warhead can take both substantial heating and deceleration.
I find the greater good often isn't. There are two obvious reasons why: 1) conflict of interest (by the parties deciding what the greater good is), and 2) incompetent and ignorance (namely, that the parties deciding what the greater good is supposed to be, don't actually have a clue).
A race when an opponent has reached the finish line in friggin 1969?
Well, apparently a man on the moon is the second technological feat that is impossible today but achievable in the 70.
That second part is important. By doing so, China demonstrates that it can do one of the greatest feats that mankind has done to this point. If at the time, the US is incapable of duplicating that feat, then that's a bit of a propaganda advantage in China's favor.
The first one is packaging things in a way that can be opened easily. I could easily open a pack of c90 tapes one handed as a 10 years old, I couldn't do the same with CDRs at 25 using both hands, i can't unpack an SD card without some tool now. I guess lasers will be needed in 10 years.
Then you don't get the point of packaging. It does more things than merely protect from physical damage and deliver a product. It markets the product and it protects the product from theft. Merely, throwing a little electrostatic shrinkwrap on such things would work for the most part, but it'd be invisible on a retail shelf and walk out the door easily.
the space race was really about making ICBMs. sputnik intentionally looks like the nose cone of a missile.
It's worth noting that the nose cone of orbital-capable rockets would look like nose cones of ICBM missiles anyway, because they're solving the same problem - handling high atmospheric loading on the front of a rocket.
And if you're already making ICBM missiles (the R-7 being the first such and the basis for the Sputnik rocket), it makes sense to base an early orbital vehicle off that frame as well for economies of scale (US private industry did the same with the Atlas, Titan, and Delta series).
So Sputnik probably would have looked like an ICBM even if that wasn't the actual intent of the Soviet program.
But some are which is why we don't let most of them purchase or poses firearms. Well, when the laws are followed that is.
Why is that supposed to be relevant? Guns can be far more dangerous than a passenger in an airliner.
Interestingly, most legally drunk drivers are not a danger to others either.
There is a correlation between consumption of alcohol and risk of harm in accidents. Saying what you just did is in error. OTOH, where's the correlation between mental illness and risk of serious injury or death in airliner passengers?
The point of government is to provide overall coordination for the society.
Then why is so much of that government spending, entitlement spending? Coordination has nothing to do with pension funds, health care, or near permanent unemployment payouts.
Sadly, at some point people convinced themselves that a simple logistics optimization routine - free market - is all that's needed for that, thus making long-term planning of any kind impossible.
That's patently false. Nothing prevents you (and like minded people, should you wish to pool your resources) from planning as long term as you like.
Also, why you think that an effective, simple logistics routine somehow isn't sufficient for coordination? Long term thinking is actually rewarded, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
While this whole roll out has been a fiasco, at the end of the day the people who work for me are mostly going to end up with similar or better coverage for less money.
Love that optimism. Unless you hire a lot of people with pre-existing medical conditions (there are businesses that do that by happenstance, such as campgrounds that require you to have your own RV - that's heavily weighted to an elderly population), I don't think that's going to be the case.
Keep in mind that that insurance will also have to be purchased not just once, but for the rest of your employees' lives. Just because you might be right this year about a cost reduction, doesn't mean you'll be right in the years to come. I think instead you will end up being very wrong.
Young, rich, healthy people pay more so that the old, the poor, and the sick can get affordable coverage.
We'll see whether that actually happens. I notice that a lot of the old, the poor, and the sick ended up on Medicare anyway.
Here's my take. Health care will decline in quality in the US while continuing to increase in cost. The simultaneous changes to Medicaid/Medicare and health insurance will make that happen. More and more people will be sloughed off to Medicare/Medicaid because the federal budget won't be able to afford the current load and still provide subsidies. And Medicare/Medicaid will continue to decline in quality because the federal government won't be able to afford current, much less past levels of service.
The only thing I'm uncertain of is timing. Will it happen fast or slow. I'm leaning to a bit on the slow side. It'll take a few years for people to figure out how to game the system.
Parasites, producing nothing of value.
Liquidity and all the other usual counter-reasons you hear, but fail to recognize.
High-speed trading is nothing but a mechanism for funneling money to the rich from everyone else.
Yea, right. Don't do market orders or stop loss orders. Just do limit orders. Now, you're immune to high frequency trading, because you aren't doing high frequency trading yourself.
makes a difference to honest trading
But is this trading Truly Scottish? That's the real dilemma here!
I agree with the other replier. If the trading is legal, then it is honest.
I tried to help. I'm done with this.
anyone who doesn't get insurance is someone who thinks they don't need insurance. while those who get insurance really need it. so costs are spread amongst fewer people and they go up, if you respect the "freedom" of some freeloaders to be stupid and irresponsible
So who's being a "freeloader" here? Everyone. Classic tragedy of the commons. Create a public good, especially a poorly thought-out and regulated one, and you get people slitting each others' throats for a few dollars.
now forcing 50 year old to buy childbirth insurance does sound crazy so you fix that specific problem, you don't jettison the entire superior idea
Wake us up when you finally come up with that "superior" idea. Obamacare was chock full of stupid problems like the one you mention. And it'll take decades to weed them out. By then, Congress and the regulators in the Executive branch will have tossed a few more layers on.
Yes, because you said so..
That seems to work better than whatever you're trying here.
So the mentally ill person will destroy the plane with the Chucks of Liberty? Maybe they'll choose from one of the other tasteful, avant-garde means to strike terror into the hearts of the traveling public?
Let us keep in mind that even if your linked methods were truly dangerous, they aren't magically more dangerous in the hands of the mentally ill.
TL;DR: you're being an idiot on the internets. You have yet to even provide one shred of evidence or a bit of correlation for the claim that the mentally ill are somehow more dangerous on an airliner, much less dangerous enough that their presence should be regulated.
And you've blown past attempts by at least three different posters to provide you with some degree of face saving while digging that hole deeper. Just let go of this.
It is know that he took a really long time to complete a painting.
And that he specialized in painting interior scenes which would be more accessible to optical aid techniques.
I have to say that given how precise his paintings were, it's not a surprise that they took so long, with or without optical aids.
You're so used to living in a peaceful, lawful society you think it's the natural state of things rather than something that was won by ensuring Joe Beggar has options besides starving or mugging you.
I don't think the problem is that I am used to living in such a society, but that everyone else is so accustomed. Your sort of rationalization is what you get when you take freedom and a developed society for granted.
My view is that society needs a peaceful, lawful society more than they need freebies. When the entitlements threaten the viability of your ideals, maybe you'll change your tune.
maybe you're simply subconsciously assuming the opportunities inherent in frontier period America still exist today, and any disenfranchised person can simply go West and grab some land to farm.
Having actually grasped some of those opportunities, I have to say that you're pretty ignorant of what the US still has to offer.
I thought the UN had put a ban on any country claiming the moon as their territory.
And why is that supposed to be relevant? They're a powerless about stuff in space, unless someone with actual relevant power decides to enforce their rules.
I think the first country to establish a permanent settlement on the moon would have more claim over that territory.
Quite true. Possession is nine tenths of the law.
I have been in academia for more than twenty years and can say without a doubt that being around experts in a field cannot be replaced.
What happens if you want to do something interesting in the field and can't afford to chill with experts for twenty years?
College can be life-changing. It can also be a very bad choice. A lot of people have dropped out with high debt and a weak, partial education. I know because I've done both (well, no high debt, but I have used up a lot of years that I could have been doing something else).
Good start, now go do some formal study and get a degree.
Credentialism rears its ugly head. College is not automatically the best choice.
There's too great a risk, with self-taught people, for them to only expose themselves to the ideas that are appealing to them.
Risk and great reward. After all, if you expose yourself only to ideas you're interested in, then you learn them because you are interested. I think enthusiasm is more important than variety. College can expose you to ideas outside of your experience which you can be enthusiastic with. But it also exposes you (with a considerable time and financial commitment) to stuff that won't be so interesting or relevant.
There's a whole spectrum of choices available to someone who wants to learn more about and do actual work in a subject. For example, there's plenty of online stuff available for virtually every subject. There are many forums where you can ask questions and discuss those subjects.
Your local library is a great resource for acquiring research. Via interlibrary loans, you can usually get access to any published research.
Often there are professional societies or non profits doing work in the area which accept laymen as members and participants.
Colleges and universities are a great source of knowledge, but you need not enroll (for the most part) for a degree in order to take advantage of them. Many seminars and lectures are open to the general public. You can selectively take courses in which you have an interest (sometimes, if you have good rapport with the department or the lecturer, you can just sit in on the class).
Or you can as Improv suggested, go for a degree. There are costs and risks involved which he regrettably ignores. You have to devote substantial time and money to getting a degree. And there is substantial risk that you don't complete the degree, especially, if you've never gone to college before and don't fully understand the expectations and distractions of college educations and lives.
Another problem is that some colleges and universities have a substantially anti-intellectual environment for religious, ideological, or hedonistic reasons. Do considerable research and shopping around before you settle on a college.
But having said that, you might find college to your liking. You might even find going on to advanced degrees to your liking as well. If you're on the fence as to whether you want to try for a degree, you might consider taking a course or two. Taking the occasional college course can help you decide. You might discover an aptitude or diligence that you didn't realize you had.
It's very noble to want to learn and to further educate yourself. But for the sake of the professionals in the field, I do encourage you to engage in your study and practice of this field in private.
I have a better idea. Completely ignore the above, terrible advise. While there is considerable value in doing your own work privately for a time, you need to communicate with others, if you want to improve your game. That means not just dumping code or whatever on the internet, but actually reading and listening to who else is already doing this sort of stuff. Keep in mind that most of your communication should be input - learning from others.
Months or years later, a disaster of some sort happens (a security breach, data loss, and so on), and a professional gets dragged in to try to solve the problems. This wastes the professional's time, which is often very expensive. It also angers them, because it's a problem that would have been unavoidable had the amateurs just kept to themselves.
Sounds like the "pro's" time isn't being wasted, if he's getting paid. And if you or anyone actually are "angry" over something this trivial, maybe you ought to find a different line of work.
So unless you're aiming to become a professional in this field, rather than just an amateur or a hobbyist
The only difference between a professional and an amateur/hobbyist is that the professional gets paid and tends to be a bit more knowledgeable. And that's the source of this friction between professional and amateur. The amateur is doing some of the professional's work for far cheaper. It's screwing with the professional's business model Keep that in mind when you read of professionals complaining about the amateurs.
Why should the EU have even the slightest say in the matter?
I should clarify this. As I say in a reply elsewhere, I don't mind that the EU creates standards. I mind when they force others to comply with those standards.
Launch and reentry are aerodynamically different problems.
The ICBM and the orbital rocket both have to launch. If that fails, one doesn't get to a reentry problem. And a reentering warhead can take both substantial heating and deceleration.
I presume you also object to standards for connections to mains electricity?
I don't oppose standards. I don't even oppose standards created by governments. I oppose forcing others to comply with those standards.
Because that's an obvious either/or choice. You can't obviously do both space stuff and environmental improvement. The US showed that.
I find the greater good often isn't. There are two obvious reasons why: 1) conflict of interest (by the parties deciding what the greater good is), and 2) incompetent and ignorance (namely, that the parties deciding what the greater good is supposed to be, don't actually have a clue).
A race when an opponent has reached the finish line in friggin 1969?
Well, apparently a man on the moon is the second technological feat that is impossible today but achievable in the 70.
That second part is important. By doing so, China demonstrates that it can do one of the greatest feats that mankind has done to this point. If at the time, the US is incapable of duplicating that feat, then that's a bit of a propaganda advantage in China's favor.
The first one is packaging things in a way that can be opened easily. I could easily open a pack of c90 tapes one handed as a 10 years old, I couldn't do the same with CDRs at 25 using both hands, i can't unpack an SD card without some tool now. I guess lasers will be needed in 10 years.
Then you don't get the point of packaging. It does more things than merely protect from physical damage and deliver a product. It markets the product and it protects the product from theft. Merely, throwing a little electrostatic shrinkwrap on such things would work for the most part, but it'd be invisible on a retail shelf and walk out the door easily.
the space race was really about making ICBMs. sputnik intentionally looks like the nose cone of a missile.
It's worth noting that the nose cone of orbital-capable rockets would look like nose cones of ICBM missiles anyway, because they're solving the same problem - handling high atmospheric loading on the front of a rocket.
And if you're already making ICBM missiles (the R-7 being the first such and the basis for the Sputnik rocket), it makes sense to base an early orbital vehicle off that frame as well for economies of scale (US private industry did the same with the Atlas, Titan, and Delta series).
So Sputnik probably would have looked like an ICBM even if that wasn't the actual intent of the Soviet program.
considering that the Dutch government is actually angry about this
It's probably more a credit to the Dutch people than their government.
Maybe he's shocked that some number of "normal" people are paying attention?
But some are which is why we don't let most of them purchase or poses firearms. Well, when the laws are followed that is.
Why is that supposed to be relevant? Guns can be far more dangerous than a passenger in an airliner.
Interestingly, most legally drunk drivers are not a danger to others either.
There is a correlation between consumption of alcohol and risk of harm in accidents. Saying what you just did is in error. OTOH, where's the correlation between mental illness and risk of serious injury or death in airliner passengers?
The point of government is to provide overall coordination for the society.
Then why is so much of that government spending, entitlement spending? Coordination has nothing to do with pension funds, health care, or near permanent unemployment payouts.
Sadly, at some point people convinced themselves that a simple logistics optimization routine - free market - is all that's needed for that, thus making long-term planning of any kind impossible.
That's patently false. Nothing prevents you (and like minded people, should you wish to pool your resources) from planning as long term as you like.
Also, why you think that an effective, simple logistics routine somehow isn't sufficient for coordination? Long term thinking is actually rewarded, for example.
You are actually complaining about things like the rule that phones must be chargeable over mini USB?
Why shouldn't I? Why should the EU have even the slightest say in the matter?
Apple's refusal to do this properly is one of the reasons I have a different kind of phone, despite happily using their computers.
And there we go. Actions have consequences even in the absence of EU interference. You are applying incentive for Apple to change their ways.
Corporations would never do this without being forced.
So what? I see no reason to force the issue.