The grandparent is not the problem. He is simply taking what is offered. If he didn't take the government assistance offered to help there would still be millions of others that did. The problem is that the assistance is available with no regard for priority or limits.
Movies at 24 frames per second have the advantage of showing an average of that 1/24th of a second. Doom at 24 fps will show consecutive clear frames, which looks jumpy. A movie will show the range of motion during each frame which blends into the next and makes it look much more realistic.
I'm sure that's under consideration. The left has regularly espoused the benefits of putting down grandma. Here's a very brief sample:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7Y0TOBuG4
(and Robert Reich represents mainstream Democrat ideology.)
They always promote rationing and taxes over increasing supply through efficiency.
People need to stop bitching about the length of this bill because it can easily be summed up in a tidy little package: "Break the backs of the middle class and shovel their money to the insurance companies that paid for the legislation."
If they were actually trying to make medicine affordable they would steer it towards a free market. Look at the price of free market veterinary medicine vs. people medicine.
Your version of results are wrong. If the current IPCC predictions are correct more people would still starve from sequestering resources for AGW prevention than AGW itself. There is also a trade off between lower emissions (traditional pollutants) and less CO2.
We're moving in the direction of socialized insurance more than socialized medicine. The difference is significant. BTW, do you think Canada and the UK have enough doctors?
I am in my thirties and have been sick for most of my life until a few months ago. My mother has MS and can't walk more than five feet. My friend has MD and goes to work every day. We all paid much more than our share of taxes. Please tell me why raising our taxes to give insurance to healthier people who choose not to work is just?
But your solution is going to take a country with a higher cancer survival rate and lower it. The same applies to other diseases that required expensive and innovative care.
But in a free market people can easily produce enough value to be able to buy what they need and much of what they want through voluntary transactions instead of force. US workers produce about $50/hour worked. The US government collects about $15/hour. Most of that for social services. Is there anyone who has worked the majority of their adult life who has come out ahead on government services? Force is bad. Free will is good.
http://www.bls.gov/
Mr. Troll, who is going to study their (the government's) ass off for years to be a slave? In ten years we're going to have half as many doctors. Then people will have a 'right to health care' but they just won't be able to get it.
Someone "under the finger" of multinational company is not compelled to buy from them. They can buy from someone else, wait for a lower price, or not buy at all. When the government provides a service you have no choice but to pay for it. If I'm sick and down to my last dollar I will still be compelled to "buy" government services I don't need through tax dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
You were lying about Walmart: http://walmartstores.com/careers/7750.aspx
The argument that the only choices are crime or SSI is possibly the most stupid one that's ever been made on the internet.
The grandparent is not the problem. He is simply taking what is offered. If he didn't take the government assistance offered to help there would still be millions of others that did. The problem is that the assistance is available with no regard for priority or limits.
So you think we just need an authoritarian government and after enough Stalin's, Mao's, and Hitler's we will eventually get a 'good guy?'
You're right. The only way to get greed out of the picture is to bring in the politicians...
Not too black! I don't want to get eaten by a grue.
No. (It will be synchronous because it's tethered but above normal geostationary altitude.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator
It has to be higher or the climber will pull it down.
I wish I had mod points to give you...
Movies at 24 frames per second have the advantage of showing an average of that 1/24th of a second. Doom at 24 fps will show consecutive clear frames, which looks jumpy. A movie will show the range of motion during each frame which blends into the next and makes it look much more realistic.
I'm sure that's under consideration. The left has regularly espoused the benefits of putting down grandma. Here's a very brief sample: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7Y0TOBuG4 (and Robert Reich represents mainstream Democrat ideology.) They always promote rationing and taxes over increasing supply through efficiency.
Legally binding agreements should be public if they expect the public to enforce them.
"Your honor, he cheated me!"
"What did he do?"
"I can't tell you! It's a secret!"
That's not to say that they can't require other information to be kept confidential.
People need to stop bitching about the length of this bill because it can easily be summed up in a tidy little package: "Break the backs of the middle class and shovel their money to the insurance companies that paid for the legislation."
If they were actually trying to make medicine affordable they would steer it towards a free market. Look at the price of free market veterinary medicine vs. people medicine.
They already rejected the idea because they couldn't figure out a way to make the voice quality on the camera any shittier than on the phones.
No, we're already getting people to burn food for fuel. Wake up.
Trying to review data and analysis is a dirty trick???
Your version of results are wrong. If the current IPCC predictions are correct more people would still starve from sequestering resources for AGW prevention than AGW itself. There is also a trade off between lower emissions (traditional pollutants) and less CO2.
We're moving in the direction of socialized insurance more than socialized medicine. The difference is significant. BTW, do you think Canada and the UK have enough doctors?
I am in my thirties and have been sick for most of my life until a few months ago. My mother has MS and can't walk more than five feet. My friend has MD and goes to work every day. We all paid much more than our share of taxes. Please tell me why raising our taxes to give insurance to healthier people who choose not to work is just?
But your solution is going to take a country with a higher cancer survival rate and lower it. The same applies to other diseases that required expensive and innovative care.
But in a free market people can easily produce enough value to be able to buy what they need and much of what they want through voluntary transactions instead of force. US workers produce about $50/hour worked. The US government collects about $15/hour. Most of that for social services. Is there anyone who has worked the majority of their adult life who has come out ahead on government services? Force is bad. Free will is good. http://www.bls.gov/
I guess you've never been robbed.
Socialized medicine may be bad but socialized insurance will be an order of magnitude worse in terms of care and expense.
Mr. Troll, who is going to study their (the government's) ass off for years to be a slave? In ten years we're going to have half as many doctors. Then people will have a 'right to health care' but they just won't be able to get it.
Someone "under the finger" of multinational company is not compelled to buy from them. They can buy from someone else, wait for a lower price, or not buy at all. When the government provides a service you have no choice but to pay for it. If I'm sick and down to my last dollar I will still be compelled to "buy" government services I don't need through tax dollars.