I have been forced to pay 32% more for almost the same plan because of ACA. Also, as far as I can remember, it was introduced as a way to ensure more people, not to make the insurance cheaper. The idea was that those who were paying for themselves now contribute to insuring those who don't pay for themselves. I could see a logic of that making the health plans cheaper, if I swallowed some LSD, but not without it. The most natural way to make the health insurance cheaper and more affordable would be to increase competition. However, competition and the private initiative are not what ACA is about.
No, it would not be working. Guaranteeing income without requiring anything useful in return would definitely skew the system of values and decrease the motivation to do anything useful. Why would I work if there are other people who would work for me? That would be a form of a slavery: most of the people who work for living would be forced to contribute to pay for a class of parasites who would not have to work for living. Of course, that would require a significant extension of the government bureaucracy, because someone would have to supervise such a "UBI program". Bureaucrats don't work for free, so people would have to pay for them, too. That would be a real road to serfdom, to quote the book title of a British Nobel-winning economist. And no, it wasn't John Maynard Keynes.
On the other hand, using dynamic SQL will push parsing through the roof and, in the era of smart, cost-based optimizers, parsing a SQL statement is a very expensive operation which will impose significant burden on the system. In other words, an application like that would slow down and unnecessarily tax even big database servers. Developers have a problem with stored procedures because there are no fancy Gooey tools that one can point and click and have a reasonably quick way of developing an app. Also, debugging a trigger or a stored procedure can be a real nightmare. Oracle moved in the right direction with making Java a stored procedure language, because there are many tools for developing things in Java and no additional learning curve is necessary. Now, if Oracle would only make a perl
interpreter, I would be a happy camper.
I'm a long term oracle DBA that has worked (and still works) for several large companies, and the general agreement is that business logic should be kept in the database, to ensure data consistency. Business logic can only be stored as a stored procedural object, because, by definition, business logic is procedure applied to data in order to conduct given business. Problem with holding the business logic in the application is that while applications have to access the data in the database, they may may have different understanding of business logic and thuc, very good chance of creating a mess. Putting the business logic in the database means that all the applications will have to use the database version of business lohgic.
Slashdot Mirror
I have been forced to pay 32% more for almost the same plan because of ACA. Also, as far as I can remember, it was introduced as a way to ensure more people, not to make the insurance cheaper. The idea was that those who were paying for themselves now contribute to insuring those who don't pay for themselves. I could see a logic of that making the health plans cheaper, if I swallowed some LSD, but not without it. The most natural way to make the health insurance cheaper and more affordable would be to increase competition. However, competition and the private initiative are not what ACA is about.
No, it would not be working. Guaranteeing income without requiring anything useful in return would definitely skew the system of values and decrease the motivation to do anything useful. Why would I work if there are other people who would work for me? That would be a form of a slavery: most of the people who work for living would be forced to contribute to pay for a class of parasites who would not have to work for living. Of course, that would require a significant extension of the government bureaucracy, because someone would have to supervise such a "UBI program". Bureaucrats don't work for free, so people would have to pay for them, too. That would be a real road to serfdom, to quote the book title of a British Nobel-winning economist. And no, it wasn't John Maynard Keynes.
On the other hand, using dynamic SQL will push parsing through the roof and, in the era of smart, cost-based optimizers, parsing a SQL statement is a very expensive operation which will impose significant burden on the system. In other words, an application like that would slow down and unnecessarily tax even big database servers. Developers have a problem with stored procedures because there are no fancy Gooey tools that one can point and click and have a reasonably quick way of developing an app. Also, debugging a trigger or a stored procedure can be a real nightmare. Oracle moved in the right direction with making Java a stored procedure language, because there are many tools for developing things in Java and no additional learning curve is necessary. Now, if Oracle would only make a perl interpreter, I would be a happy camper.
I'm a long term oracle DBA that has worked (and still works) for several large companies, and the general agreement is that business logic should be kept in the database, to ensure data consistency. Business logic can only be stored as a stored procedural object, because, by definition, business logic is procedure applied to data in order to conduct given business. Problem with holding the business logic in the application is that while applications have to access the data in the database, they may may have different understanding of business logic and thuc, very good chance of creating a mess. Putting the business logic in the database means that all the applications will have to use the database version of business lohgic.