It's nice to have private supplements not because the universal one is bad, but because it's a two tier optimization problem.
You do bring up an excellent point. Many Americans are indeed also interested in a some sort of a mixed system as stated in the article.
Main reason why I'm not a fan of the universal healthcare in US is that the politicions will ruin it just like Social Security. And Medicare was supposed to take care of the poor and the eldery but it's doing a pretty shitty job of that.
If you are paying $300 to $600 dollar a month for health insurace, you're getting ripped off unless you are in bad health (in which case you'll be unsuitable for nursing) or have a large family.
Sorry, but if you site a poll, it's your job to site the source, not the reaser.
For example, I did some searching and did find that according to the Monreal Economic Institute, 51% of Canadian find it acceptable if the Goverment were to allow those who wish to pay for healtcare in the private sector to have speedier access to this type of care while still maintaining the current free and universal halthcare system. I'll even provide the link for you. The Report. Now if the universal healthcare is wonderful as you say it is, why is there a need for private sector care?
And I don't think that you are telling the whole truth with your figures either. According to this article some 62 percent support universal coverage, according to an October, 2003, Washington Post/ABC News Poll. But that's not their top concern. If it was their top concern, Kerry should be able to win by a landslide in the upcoming election. And more from the article...
Furthermore, when the drawbacks are pointed out, support for any alternative drops sharply. A separate 2003 Harvard School of Public Health poll of Massachusetts adults found that 82 percent of the public generally supports expanded Medicaid -- but only 55 percent like the idea when they're told taxes might rise to pay for it. Similarly, support for an employer mandate falls by more than half, from 76 percent to 35 percent, when respondents are told that the cost of insurance might force businesses to lay off workers.
It seems that people tend to like social problems only when they don't have to pay for it, either by increased taxes or risk of layoffs.
As a point of comparison the US spends about half its tax on the military. Australia spends about half its tax on welfare instead.
That also allows US to offer protection to certain royalites in middle east to get better oil prices (at least compared to the rest of the world) to meet the citizens' thrust for gas guzzling SUVs and trucks, not to mention that oil prices seem to have almost one-to-one relationship with the economy.
The US allows employers to get people to bid themselves into poverty.
If you RTFA, you'd know that they are NOT bidding for their base salary. They do have the freedom to bid or not to bid.
Australia doesn't. As a result it should surprise no-one that Australia has a vastly lower rate of poverty than the US and much fewer incredibly rich people.
I see it more like this way. Australia is more like professor who promises that his/her students will receive a grade of no lower then a D, but in return, the highest grade you can get is a B. US is more where you can earn an A, but you also have the risk of getting an F for class.
Why don't you lead the way by creating your own business that pays a basic minimum income, healthcare, subsidized housing to all your employees? If majority of people shares same belief as you, you shouldn't have problem finding investors, employees, and customers for your business.
You just took the words out of my mouth! I wish I had the mod points to mod you up.
Most millionaires own their own businesses. The one main difference between the rich and the poor is that the rich work for themselves and the poor work for other people.
One more thing to add, another reason why rich are rich is that they also watch what they spend more than the non-rich. For example, my brother-in-law's a sucessful businessman, yet he drives a 7 year old Toyota with 150K miles on it. It's still in good shape and while he can easier buy a nice expensive car, he told me that he'll drive this car until it dies, and will likely replace it with another used car. This is in contrast with many geeks who bought nice cars and houses during the boom before bothering to set up emergency funds and end up filing for bankruptcy during the bust.
A counter example come from my friend who's a loan officer. He has a client who has a household income of $500,000. Many slashdotters think that high income = being rich, but not in this case. They have $200,000 in credit card debt which they were paying close to 20% interest due to their shitty credit (history of late payments) and also have a Mercedies, BMW, and a high end SUV that they owe money on. They also own (well, mostly it's the bank that owns) a million dollar home, which also means extra high insurance, tax, and maintainence bills. They recently did a cash out refinancing to pay for their credit cards and cars, which pretty much wiped out any equity on their home, which also means that the mortage on the house is probably higher than the true market value. My friend told me that they really didn't change their spending habits, so they'll probably rack up their credit cards again and end up in worse shape.
And to the grandparent poster, I got out of school during the height of the bust and surely enough, I could find any job in IT. I got various odd part-time jobs and also did IT related contract jobs and keeping up with the field to keep my skills sharp. I finally got an IT job almost two years later, with a company that was impressed when I did some contract for them. Even though I work full time, I still do contract jobs now and then for small business that can't afford to hire full time IT staff. So instead of feeling sorry for yourself, go out there and start doing some contract work. This also means that you need to go out and sell yourself (e.i., let the small businesses near you know how going high-tech will help them) . I know that most geeks hate sales but it's a nice skill to learn, espically since you are pretty much doing a sales pitch on yourself whenever you go to an interview.
I went to the link off of the article using the Mozilla browser and the site never asked to check the license key, even when I started downloading SP2.
I'll say that it is a new PC when I present it to the customer, who is also me.
Heh, while there's some truth to your statement, I don't think that's what MS meant by it. Oh well, I also use OEM software on my mostly new computer and if MS have problem with that, they can kiss my ass.
It would be a modified OS to run only on the motherboard it was shipped with or intended for use with, and the motherboard is set up so that it would be adequate for budget users but not for high end enthusiasts.
That's an excellent idea! Nero already does something like this with their OEM versions shipped with CD/DVD writers.
Try directdeals.com for the OEM licenses. They go for about $120 there and they don't even force you to buy any hardware with it.
BTW, MS OEM products have a disclaimer in tune of "Distribution with new hardware only" so if you install their OEM products in anything other than a brand spanking new computers, you could still be considered as a pirate.
The Money magazine really doesn't cater to the rich as it's more like do it yourself financal help guide geared toward the middle class and is not a replacement for CPAs and tax lawyers those 2% would need. They also did an very nice interview with Kerry a couple of months ago, which wasn't enough to turn me in to a Kerry supporter but did get me more interested in is proposals.
That article also featured three folks from very different backgrounds, a very rich businessman who makes $2 million a year who's actually undecided, a retiree couple with assets of $1 million who's pro-Bush because Bush's tax cut enabled them to streach their retirement savings, and a single mom who's pro-Kerry as she believes that there should be a universal health care. I still believe that the article was balanced by presenting the both sides equally and I'd highly recommend that you take a look at it (don't let the title of the magazine decive you).
Your statements about Bush is no suprise as there's a reason why big businesses are Bush's biggest contributers, but Kerry's biggest contributers are law firms and legal services, which equally worries me as well.
Actually, I got that fact from the current issue of the Money magazine. I don't have that magazine with me so I can't give you the exact numbers off of it at this moment but you'll at least be able to check the facts out yourself. That article picked on both Bush and Kerry so I seemed pretty balanced.
Regardless, you're assuming the general public is much more sheepish than they actually are. Do you really believe that average joe user is going to put up with this? It's not like this is going to just happen unnoticed. It'll happen, and the public will through a huge shit fit.
Since the average Joe already have put up with copy protected software (and games) and music CDs so why would they stand up for this?
8. I have been retained by counsel for IBM in this lawsuit and am being compensated at a rate of $550 per hour.
20. These comparisons required on the order of 10 hours of computation time on a dual 3 GHz Xeon processor system with 2 GB of RAM. This is a high-end workstation routinely and easily available off the shelf from commercial vendors such as Dell.
At $550 per hour, I would've used something like a 386 processor with 8MB of RAM.
However for other reasons I can't bring myself to vote for a democrat, and especially a big-government democrat like Kerry.
Besides, while Bush's current tax policy can drive the US deeper debt, Kerry's proposed programs will more likely to cost more than increase revenue from undoing Bush's tax cuts, which means the no matter who's elected, the debt load will increase unless there's enough growth to cover them.
If you gross $10k a year, you shouldn't be paying much of taxes in the first place after the standard deduction, personal exmption, and tax credits for your tution. But you are right about Bush's tax cuts helping the higher income earners the most, though, espcially since deductions phase out after reaching certain income level.
Slashdot Mirror
It's nice to have private supplements not because the universal one is bad, but because it's a two tier optimization problem.
You do bring up an excellent point. Many Americans are indeed also interested in a some sort of a mixed system as stated in the article.
Main reason why I'm not a fan of the universal healthcare in US is that the politicions will ruin it just like Social Security. And Medicare was supposed to take care of the poor and the eldery but it's doing a pretty shitty job of that.
If you are paying $300 to $600 dollar a month for health insurace, you're getting ripped off unless you are in bad health (in which case you'll be unsuitable for nursing) or have a large family.
following complaints that current versions can be picked open with flimsy ballpoint pens...
Those Bic pens are also good for picking noses. How do I know? Mmmm... No comment?
Even if we did, the RIAA or some similar organization would find a way to define whatever we did as theft...
As Homer once said, it's funny because it's true.
Sorry, but if you site a poll, it's your job to site the source, not the reaser.
For example, I did some searching and did find that according to the Monreal Economic Institute, 51% of Canadian find it acceptable if the Goverment were to allow those who wish to pay for healtcare in the private sector to have speedier access to this type of care while still maintaining the current free and universal halthcare system. I'll even provide the link for you. The Report. Now if the universal healthcare is wonderful as you say it is, why is there a need for private sector care?
And I don't think that you are telling the whole truth with your figures either. According to this article some 62 percent support universal coverage, according to an October, 2003, Washington Post/ABC News Poll. But that's not their top concern. If it was their top concern, Kerry should be able to win by a landslide in the upcoming election. And more from the article...
Furthermore, when the drawbacks are pointed out, support for any alternative drops sharply. A separate 2003 Harvard School of Public Health poll of Massachusetts adults found that 82 percent of the public generally supports expanded Medicaid -- but only 55 percent like the idea when they're told taxes might rise to pay for it. Similarly, support for an employer mandate falls by more than half, from 76 percent to 35 percent, when respondents are told that the cost of insurance might force businesses to lay off workers.
It seems that people tend to like social problems only when they don't have to pay for it, either by increased taxes or risk of layoffs.
As a point of comparison the US spends about half its tax on the military. Australia spends about half its tax on welfare instead.
That also allows US to offer protection to certain royalites in middle east to get better oil prices (at least compared to the rest of the world) to meet the citizens' thrust for gas guzzling SUVs and trucks, not to mention that oil prices seem to have almost one-to-one relationship with the economy.
The US allows employers to get people to bid themselves into poverty.
If you RTFA, you'd know that they are NOT bidding for their base salary. They do have the freedom to bid or not to bid.
Australia doesn't. As a result it should surprise no-one that Australia has a vastly lower rate of poverty than the US and much fewer incredibly rich people.
I see it more like this way. Australia is more like professor who promises that his/her students will receive a grade of no lower then a D, but in return, the highest grade you can get is a B. US is more where you can earn an A, but you also have the risk of getting an F for class.
Why don't you lead the way by creating your own business that pays a basic minimum income, healthcare, subsidized housing to all your employees? If majority of people shares same belief as you, you shouldn't have problem finding investors, employees, and customers for your business.
And which un-biased poll did your figure come from?
You just took the words out of my mouth! I wish I had the mod points to mod you up.
Most millionaires own their own businesses. The one main difference between the rich and the poor is that the rich work for themselves and the poor work for other people.
One more thing to add, another reason why rich are rich is that they also watch what they spend more than the non-rich. For example, my brother-in-law's a sucessful businessman, yet he drives a 7 year old Toyota with 150K miles on it. It's still in good shape and while he can easier buy a nice expensive car, he told me that he'll drive this car until it dies, and will likely replace it with another used car. This is in contrast with many geeks who bought nice cars and houses during the boom before bothering to set up emergency funds and end up filing for bankruptcy during the bust.
A counter example come from my friend who's a loan officer. He has a client who has a household income of $500,000. Many slashdotters think that high income = being rich, but not in this case. They have $200,000 in credit card debt which they were paying close to 20% interest due to their shitty credit (history of late payments) and also have a Mercedies, BMW, and a high end SUV that they owe money on. They also own (well, mostly it's the bank that owns) a million dollar home, which also means extra high insurance, tax, and maintainence bills. They recently did a cash out refinancing to pay for their credit cards and cars, which pretty much wiped out any equity on their home, which also means that the mortage on the house is probably higher than the true market value. My friend told me that they really didn't change their spending habits, so they'll probably rack up their credit cards again and end up in worse shape.
And to the grandparent poster, I got out of school during the height of the bust and surely enough, I could find any job in IT. I got various odd part-time jobs and also did IT related contract jobs and keeping up with the field to keep my skills sharp. I finally got an IT job almost two years later, with a company that was impressed when I did some contract for them. Even though I work full time, I still do contract jobs now and then for small business that can't afford to hire full time IT staff. So instead of feeling sorry for yourself, go out there and start doing some contract work. This also means that you need to go out and sell yourself (e.i., let the small businesses near you know how going high-tech will help them) . I know that most geeks hate sales but it's a nice skill to learn, espically since you are pretty much doing a sales pitch on yourself whenever you go to an interview.
I went to the link off of the article using the Mozilla browser and the site never asked to check the license key, even when I started downloading SP2.
I'll say that it is a new PC when I present it to the customer, who is also me.
Heh, while there's some truth to your statement, I don't think that's what MS meant by it. Oh well, I also use OEM software on my mostly new computer and if MS have problem with that, they can kiss my ass.
Ok, I found the wording for MS Money 2004 OEM edition.
"For distribution with a new PC only. For product support, contact the manufacturer of your PC."
I believe MS has wording that is the same or similar to this one on all their OEM CDs.
I'm sorry, I should've said "new computer". At least that's what's printed on the OEM install CDs for the MS Office.
It would be a modified OS to run only on the motherboard it was shipped with or intended for use with, and the motherboard is set up so that it would be adequate for budget users but not for high end enthusiasts.
That's an excellent idea! Nero already does something like this with their OEM versions shipped with CD/DVD writers.
Microsoft doesn't care if you make fair-use backups of your Microsoft install media. In fact, you're often encouraged to do so
I'll have to give MS credit for that one, unlike those copy-protection Nazi gaming companies that geeks love.
If that were the case, Yugo would have been a huge success.
Yugo wasn't a huge success but Walmart is.
Try directdeals.com for the OEM licenses. They go for about $120 there and they don't even force you to buy any hardware with it.
BTW, MS OEM products have a disclaimer in tune of "Distribution with new hardware only" so if you install their OEM products in anything other than a brand spanking new computers, you could still be considered as a pirate.
You know it's just a joke, right?
The Money magazine really doesn't cater to the rich as it's more like do it yourself financal help guide geared toward the middle class and is not a replacement for CPAs and tax lawyers those 2% would need. They also did an very nice interview with Kerry a couple of months ago, which wasn't enough to turn me in to a Kerry supporter but did get me more interested in is proposals.
That article also featured three folks from very different backgrounds, a very rich businessman who makes $2 million a year who's actually undecided, a retiree couple with assets of $1 million who's pro-Bush because Bush's tax cut enabled them to streach their retirement savings, and a single mom who's pro-Kerry as she believes that there should be a universal health care. I still believe that the article was balanced by presenting the both sides equally and I'd highly recommend that you take a look at it (don't let the title of the magazine decive you).
Your statements about Bush is no suprise as there's a reason why big businesses are Bush's biggest contributers, but Kerry's biggest contributers are law firms and legal services, which equally worries me as well.
Actually, I got that fact from the current issue of the Money magazine. I don't have that magazine with me so I can't give you the exact numbers off of it at this moment but you'll at least be able to check the facts out yourself. That article picked on both Bush and Kerry so I seemed pretty balanced.
Regardless, you're assuming the general public is much more sheepish than they actually are. Do you really believe that average joe user is going to put up with this? It's not like this is going to just happen unnoticed. It'll happen, and the public will through a huge shit fit.
Since the average Joe already have put up with copy protected software (and games) and music CDs so why would they stand up for this?
What's this world coming to!!! Are they going to say that Microsoft isn't a kind and honest corporation next?
8. I have been retained by counsel for IBM in this lawsuit and am being compensated at a rate of $550 per hour.
20. These comparisons required on the order of 10 hours of computation time on a dual 3 GHz Xeon processor system with 2 GB of RAM. This is a high-end workstation routinely and easily available off the shelf from commercial vendors such as Dell.
At $550 per hour, I would've used something like a 386 processor with 8MB of RAM.
I think that you missed this part of this post...
However for other reasons I can't bring myself to vote for a democrat, and especially a big-government democrat like Kerry.
Besides, while Bush's current tax policy can drive the US deeper debt, Kerry's proposed programs will more likely to cost more than increase revenue from undoing Bush's tax cuts, which means the no matter who's elected, the debt load will increase unless there's enough growth to cover them.
If you gross $10k a year, you shouldn't be paying much of taxes in the first place after the standard deduction, personal exmption, and tax credits for your tution. But you are right about Bush's tax cuts helping the higher income earners the most, though, espcially since deductions phase out after reaching certain income level.