Stop acting like "5+ years experience" is Indian for "5 day training course", and maybe the jokes will stop.
Seriously. When I review resumes, I just don't even pay attention to that part anymore. It's pointless. I wish I could disqualify anyone I thought was lying, but that's hard to do when that would disqualify all the resumes on my desk.
Thanks for being a typical protectionist and not thinking beyond the 1st step. What do you think will happen when you enact a policy like you prescribe? Do you think MORE or LESS jobs will be sent offshore?
So you believe the H1-B visa holder should be removed from his/her position and you should be hired in place? I'm trying to figure out what you're actually saying here, and that's the only thing I can figure you're saying.
Most of my international coworker friends were educated in America and paid out-of-state tuition, whereas my tuition was highly subsidized by the Ohio taxpayers and generous scholarship donors.
You're missing the point. These people are employed currently in particular roles with particular knowledge. It's amazing that the same people here will laugh at management who take actions that imply that all resources are interchangeable and created equal and then will turn around and do the same damn thing when it comes to protectionist BS like this.
This logic is why universal health care is evil. You are 100% right that if the public is paying for health care, it should have standing to dictate lifestyle choices that lead to more expensive health care costs.
No way. And who are you kidding... who do you think will RUN these servers? The government? They will contract a private firm like it does for EVERYTHING ELSE. The government doesn't do anything itself but push papers.
The only thing you'd be getting from your suggesting is a huge price tag for the building of the infrastructure and then the yearly maintenance.
Don't be an idiot. They came out and said "we're going to use YouTube!" and someone didn't think it all the way through. Now, instead of reversing that decision and looking stupid in order to comply with the tracking cookie rule, they just decide to exempt YouTube.
This is just so they don't look silly.
To be frank, they should have leaned on YouTube to omit the tracking cookie when referring from whitehouse.gov; I bet they would have succeeded.
What if the government or insurance company loses the card?
> What if his in an emergency and happens not to walk with that card in the pocket?
Gee, I don't know. What do they do now?
> Also, these information is not relevant only when the patient is in front of a > doctor - sometimes, the case is reviewed by a board, or acessed for preventive > care... or for scientific research or juridical purposes.
Did I consent to my medical records being public or semi-public? I don't care what the purpose is. My medical information is private and no one has the right to that information unless I (not the government) gives it to them. Ok?
Red herring. It is a requirement to prevent unauthorized alterations to the record, no matter who stores the record. Additionally, no one I've seen has said anything about the patient even being able to read the record, let alone write to it. It's simply a question of who has responsibility for the record.
I know, I know. You believe individuals can't do anything without the government as a safety net.
> ax collection is done with or without the medicaid program and medicaid > imposes no additional cost for tax collection. Compliance costs are, in > fact, part of the administrative costs.
You would have to collect taxes for medicaid even if medicaid didn't exist? Don't think so. And the compliance costs I am talking about is the costs that businesses and individuals have to pay in order to comply with the medicaid-related tax code and the costs the government has to pay in order to enforce. I have a feeling you think these costs are trivial.
> Even if that was the case, so what? If it was true, it would be a positive > factor in favor of the efficiency of government-monopoly healthcare
Um, no. The question of "would a private solution be more efficient" is not answered if you leave these costs in.
> You are continuing to demonstrate that you don't know much about Medicaid.
Keep quoting whatever numbers make you feel the most comfortable with your personal ideology, but you are ignoring a number of costs you shouldn't be.
So, how long do we have to deal with people by default assuming that this politician isn't a politician? Seriously, this can get annoying real quick... and dangerous...
Keep watching the coverage of Blago and thank your lucky stars that your governor would never do anything like that.
The numbers you are quoting are false and they get quoted all over the place. You are not accounting for tax collection and compliance costs and you are not accounting for the effect that the government-created "monopolies" create economies of scale that distribute fixed costs over a much larger population. The only way to compare apples to apples is to take fixed costs OUT of the picture, or to alter the comparison such that each of the players has the same population of customers.
Even ignoring these problems, the 5% number still doesn't sound remotely right to me. If it's true, it must only be due to the high costs of the health care itself (ie, pushing paper to approve a $1 service is going to have a higher % overhead than pushing paper to approve a $100k service).
Slashdot Mirror
Stop acting like "5+ years experience" is Indian for "5 day training course", and maybe the jokes will stop.
Seriously. When I review resumes, I just don't even pay attention to that part anymore. It's pointless. I wish I could disqualify anyone I thought was lying, but that's hard to do when that would disqualify all the resumes on my desk.
Why do you think that is?
Thanks for being a typical protectionist and not thinking beyond the 1st step. What do you think will happen when you enact a policy like you prescribe? Do you think MORE or LESS jobs will be sent offshore?
So you believe the H1-B visa holder should be removed from his/her position and you should be hired in place? I'm trying to figure out what you're actually saying here, and that's the only thing I can figure you're saying.
Most of my international coworker friends were educated in America and paid out-of-state tuition, whereas my tuition was highly subsidized by the Ohio taxpayers and generous scholarship donors.
You're missing the point. These people are employed currently in particular roles with particular knowledge. It's amazing that the same people here will laugh at management who take actions that imply that all resources are interchangeable and created equal and then will turn around and do the same damn thing when it comes to protectionist BS like this.
What is likable about this?
I'm glad that Slashdot is finally pointing to more reputable news sources.
Yeah, getting government more involved in an industry generally increases its efficiency.
This logic is why universal health care is evil. You are 100% right that if the public is paying for health care, it should have standing to dictate lifestyle choices that lead to more expensive health care costs.
Thanks for repeating your previous comment and adding nothing new. Should I repeat mine as well?
No way. And who are you kidding... who do you think will RUN these servers? The government? They will contract a private firm like it does for EVERYTHING ELSE. The government doesn't do anything itself but push papers.
The only thing you'd be getting from your suggesting is a huge price tag for the building of the infrastructure and then the yearly maintenance.
Maybe you should try thinking before you write?
WHY does the rule apply to federal agencies? It's because I should be able to visit federal websites without being tracked.
Now I cannot do that on whitehouse.gov.
So why didn't they ask YouTube to omit the tracking cookie when referred from whitehouse.gov?
Don't be an idiot. They came out and said "we're going to use YouTube!" and someone didn't think it all the way through. Now, instead of reversing that decision and looking stupid in order to comply with the tracking cookie rule, they just decide to exempt YouTube.
This is just so they don't look silly.
To be frank, they should have leaned on YouTube to omit the tracking cookie when referring from whitehouse.gov; I bet they would have succeeded.
> What if the patient loses his/hers card?
What if the government or insurance company loses the card?
> What if his in an emergency and happens not to walk with that card in the pocket?
Gee, I don't know. What do they do now?
> Also, these information is not relevant only when the patient is in front of a
> doctor - sometimes, the case is reviewed by a board, or acessed for preventive
> care... or for scientific research or juridical purposes.
Did I consent to my medical records being public or semi-public? I don't care what the purpose is. My medical information is private and no one has the right to that information unless I (not the government) gives it to them. Ok?
Red herring. It is a requirement to prevent unauthorized alterations to the record, no matter who stores the record. Additionally, no one I've seen has said anything about the patient even being able to read the record, let alone write to it. It's simply a question of who has responsibility for the record.
I know, I know. You believe individuals can't do anything without the government as a safety net.
He didn't mention anything at all about the patient being able to read the record.
Just do the same thing the school did when they showed Bush's inauguration to all the students.
Oh...
> There are essentially no taxes collected "for medicaid".
I guess it's funded by magic fairies then if there's no tax code that supports it.
> The fact is that compliance costs are part of the administrative costs included
> in the statistics
You're still talking about MEDICAID compliance not tax compliance.
> ax collection is done with or without the medicaid program and medicaid
> imposes no additional cost for tax collection. Compliance costs are, in
> fact, part of the administrative costs.
You would have to collect taxes for medicaid even if medicaid didn't exist? Don't think so. And the compliance costs I am talking about is the costs that businesses and individuals have to pay in order to comply with the medicaid-related tax code and the costs the government has to pay in order to enforce. I have a feeling you think these costs are trivial.
> Even if that was the case, so what? If it was true, it would be a positive
> factor in favor of the efficiency of government-monopoly healthcare
Um, no. The question of "would a private solution be more efficient" is not answered if you leave these costs in.
> You are continuing to demonstrate that you don't know much about Medicaid.
Keep quoting whatever numbers make you feel the most comfortable with your personal ideology, but you are ignoring a number of costs you shouldn't be.
> Actually, according to Nimoy in "I am Spock", that wasn't a prosthetic, ...
> it was all Montalban.
> (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow, Slashdot. Less time modding. More time looking for girlfriend.
> stick his penis in the whole
I can't decide if that is a verbal error or a typo.
So, how long do we have to deal with people by default assuming that this politician isn't a politician? Seriously, this can get annoying real quick... and dangerous...
Keep watching the coverage of Blago and thank your lucky stars that your governor would never do anything like that.
Wake up, dude.
The numbers you are quoting are false and they get quoted all over the place. You are not accounting for tax collection and compliance costs and you are not accounting for the effect that the government-created "monopolies" create economies of scale that distribute fixed costs over a much larger population. The only way to compare apples to apples is to take fixed costs OUT of the picture, or to alter the comparison such that each of the players has the same population of customers.
Even ignoring these problems, the 5% number still doesn't sound remotely right to me. If it's true, it must only be due to the high costs of the health care itself (ie, pushing paper to approve a $1 service is going to have a higher % overhead than pushing paper to approve a $100k service).