But there might have always been an ozone hole (as long as there has been an Antarctic continent) and it wasn't until we looked for it that we saw it.
You obviously don't realize that there is a whole history to the debate of the ozone whole. Did you ever look it up? Nah... just throw out an unfounded charge. Why not? You're probably right anyway.
I mean, those scientists are really clueless ideologues, suffering from a liberal bias and all. For example, maybe the dinosaur bones were put in the earth's crust to make it LOOK like the earth is billions of years old, and really, it was created a few thousand years ago!!! That sounds smart, I must be a GENIUS.
The same people who said "addressing CFCs will destroy the economy" are the same people (the very same) who said "addressing acid rail will destroy the economy" are the same people (the very same) who say smoking isn't linked to cancer, are the same people who say "addressing climate change will destroy the economy". And these people call their detractors "alarmists", and themselves "skeptics". It is madness through and through.
Dear phantomfive, there is consensus that the we are running an uncontrolled experiment, the/could/ have dire consequences, more mild consequences, or no consequences. If you know anything about risk analysis, then you'd know that that is a serious alarm bell. However, I suspect when you read that you see the "no consequences" bit, and then leap to the conclusion that there's nothing to worry about.
Phantamfive, it is clear that you cannot read. He is saying that they are/true/ scientists; however, they will give their opinions on policy matters in a different context to error bars on climate sensitivity calculations. Got it? Probably not.
I worked as a consultant in a big consulting firm. The formula is simple: awesome sales team, lots of faceless and C-grade developers. The government got had by a good sales job. Bad developers take 10x as long, and induce 5x as many bugs. Adding more developers makes the problem worse. All the government needed to do was higher top talent. Maybe approach google or microsoft to build the website. Rolling out something like healthcare.gov requires top-tier talent. Sure the initial estimate will be bigger, but how can you compete with top-notch sales attack teams? The problem is endemic to the whole industry.
Police really are that stupid. (It is not corruption.) It's not just police, it is all of us. The prisons are full of innocent people who were put there by cops confident that they can "spot a liar". The cops assertion that he never puts guilty people behind bars is just an empirical farce. Read "Mistakes were made: but not by me" for an in-depth chapter on the problem with police, and talking to them. The whole book is a horror story of quotidian human stupidity. The cops should clean up their act, but that would entail admitting fault. Could you imagine the shame involved with confronting the actual human cost of wrong-headed hubris? Too much for almost anyone.
But a SPECIFIC offense ought to be treated the same in one place as another, don't you think?
Are you kidding? Do you always drive the speed limit? Do you always cross and sidewalks? Do you always give way to people on crossing the road. (As soon as the foot hits asphalt you are meant to stop.) In Queensland Australia, it is illegal to pass a person on the right side.
I would wager that as more of the leadership has stock and options in otherwise successful companies, the more risk averse they are and the more willing they are to resist innovation because it threatens what they have (or may soon get).
Interesting idea, but would like to point out that Jobs had almost all his wealth in apple stock. He was one of a kind, I suppose, believing in his hubris and leading the world along. So it worked for him.
But a bunch of know-it-all eggheads cannot have access to as much information as hundreds of millions of consumers all working independently and cooperatively.
There is an embedded assumption that the consumers have access to information and real choices. Markets work great then. The US system gives you neither, and a twisted set of incentive structures which make people pay more for less.
To be clear, government rules are a huge part of the problem in the US.
Be aware of the confirmation bias as well. The rest of the developed world has better healthcase outcomes for much less than the USA. They involve many decisions made be government bureaucrats. Yet for some reason, it works much better than the USA.
You might think that the mandate will not bring down health insurance costs. If costs come down (which would halt decades of relentless rises) then I'm sure you can find some politically palatable reason if you want to. But it could also be because health insurance companies have to limit administrative charges, and compete in a market place that provides better information to consumers. And the mandate.
Who knows what will really happen. I hope the USA gets its act together, but its no skin of my neck, since I'm outta here and back to civilization in a few years. If you haven't worked abroad in an OECD country, then you may not know what I mean.
There are some good things about the US system -- such as superior cancer treatment. The medical outcomes are only significant insofar as you have access to them. As a middle class person, I had much more access to superior medical outcomes in Australia and Canada, and will be moving back to Canada for that reason. (combined with the fact that tax+healthcare in the USA > tax in Canada.)
I know something about the problems of government in US healthcare. To me it is merely an indication that the USA doesn't know how to govern itself. Problems in Australia are a small fraction of the problem in the US, despite having a mixed public/private system. And in Australia, I definitely got/better/ healthcare from the public system because they were interested in making me better, and not "come back for more treatment". Which definitely happened a few times. In the public system in Australia, I received/treatment/, and there was no-nonsense.
My older friend has had a stroke and lost her speech and sensation/movement in half her body. That was 3 months ago. Fortunately she is in Canada and is receiving great care for $0. The treatment is daily no-nonsense, "this is what you need to do to get better", and she is so much better now it is amazing. And she continues to get care. And the total cost to society is a fraction of what the equivalent care would be in the USA.
Here in the USA my doctor said I should get an MRI for a fractured wrist. Okay, then what. The doctor clearly hadn't thought it through, and knew less about risk management. She was not getting any kick backs from anybody, but was just clueless to being a middle-class actor in the US healthcare system.
These are real-life illustrative examples that are buttressed by empirical data on heathcare systems world-wide. The US system is bloated, corrupt, hugely expensive, exploitative, and frankly dangerous at times. If the USA is ever going to have a good healthcare system, then they'll have to stop worrying about the evils of government, and start trying to do government better. That involves peeling back stupid regulations that prop up bad business practices, and it also involves
For one thing because we effectively subsides the rest of those systems
That is not true in the way you think it is. The healthcare industry (and drug companies) don't pay for R&D. The US government does through the university system. The drug companies do "research" but only to create markets and legal barriers and to figure out how to re-brand and face-lift their wares. It is a totally corrupt system.
For more information I recommend: The Truth About Drug Companies for the stomach churning details on what you are so wedded to defending.
The medical outcomes are marginally better but cultural factors result in a wash or worse.
The US lags the rest of the world in just about every health outcome:
Those highly paid doctors, US has only 2.4 per 1000 people. OECD average is 3.1
US as 2.6 hospital beds per 1000 people, OECD average is 3.4
Life expectancy is about 1 year less than the OECD average.
Infant mortality in the US is about as bad as some of the poorer Eastern European countries, and richer African countries. Well behind the rest of the OECD.
And for this, the US pays about twice the amount per capita on healthcare!
But I'm sure any government interference would make the situation worse. Look at the rest of the world!!!
it just forces you to a lowest-common-denominator pool if you can't afford it,
And it forces insurance companies to limit administrative costs to 20% (or give you a refund). And it forces insurance companies to compete for your business in a market place that makes it/much/ easier for consumers to see and compare.
No wonder the healthcare industry lobbied against it so hard.
It amazes me that libertarian health reformers -- while they have some good ideas -- are blind to the fact that "free" markets themselves have corruption and abuse. Government isn't an all-or-nothing affair. It is a question of whether the government solution has more or less corruption than the private solution. That is an empirical question, not an ideological debate. If the government solution has less corruption, then why prop up some corrupt plutocrat?
In Britain, doctors get paid for patients they have who do not visit. That's a financial incentive to keep people healthy. My health plan (in the US) gives free preventative services. I've lived in Australia and Canada, and they have vastly superior and cheaper healthcare systems than the US -- and that includes preventative services. But my US healthcare, whilst much more expensive, is vastly inferior to what I got in Australia (in particular)
Vista had fresh eye candy, but nuts-and-bolts problems. It sucked.
Vista had/huge/ under the hood changes. The changes were extremely important in improving the security and stability of windows. I'm not a M$ fan, but can see that they did release some cool technology.
Slashdot Mirror
But there might have always been an ozone hole (as long as there has been an Antarctic continent) and it wasn't until we looked for it that we saw it.
You obviously don't realize that there is a whole history to the debate of the ozone whole. Did you ever look it up? Nah... just throw out an unfounded charge. Why not? You're probably right anyway.
I mean, those scientists are really clueless ideologues, suffering from a liberal bias and all. For example, maybe the dinosaur bones were put in the earth's crust to make it LOOK like the earth is billions of years old, and really, it was created a few thousand years ago!!! That sounds smart, I must be a GENIUS.
The same people who said "addressing CFCs will destroy the economy" are the same people (the very same) who said "addressing acid rail will destroy the economy" are the same people (the very same) who say smoking isn't linked to cancer, are the same people who say "addressing climate change will destroy the economy". And these people call their detractors "alarmists", and themselves "skeptics". It is madness through and through.
Dear phantomfive, there is consensus that the we are running an uncontrolled experiment, the /could/ have dire consequences, more mild consequences, or no consequences. If you know anything about risk analysis, then you'd know that that is a serious alarm bell. However, I suspect when you read that you see the "no consequences" bit, and then leap to the conclusion that there's nothing to worry about.
Phantamfive, it is clear that you cannot read. He is saying that they are /true/ scientists; however, they will give their opinions on policy matters in a different context to error bars on climate sensitivity calculations. Got it? Probably not.
If you see no value in fancy technologies, then don't use them.
I worked as a consultant in a big consulting firm. The formula is simple: awesome sales team, lots of faceless and C-grade developers. The government got had by a good sales job. Bad developers take 10x as long, and induce 5x as many bugs. Adding more developers makes the problem worse. All the government needed to do was higher top talent. Maybe approach google or microsoft to build the website. Rolling out something like healthcare.gov requires top-tier talent. Sure the initial estimate will be bigger, but how can you compete with top-notch sales attack teams? The problem is endemic to the whole industry.
Police really are that stupid. (It is not corruption.) It's not just police, it is all of us. The prisons are full of innocent people who were put there by cops confident that they can "spot a liar". The cops assertion that he never puts guilty people behind bars is just an empirical farce. Read "Mistakes were made: but not by me" for an in-depth chapter on the problem with police, and talking to them. The whole book is a horror story of quotidian human stupidity. The cops should clean up their act, but that would entail admitting fault. Could you imagine the shame involved with confronting the actual human cost of wrong-headed hubris? Too much for almost anyone.
But a SPECIFIC offense ought to be treated the same in one place as another, don't you think?
Are you kidding? Do you always drive the speed limit? Do you always cross and sidewalks? Do you always give way to people on crossing the road. (As soon as the foot hits asphalt you are meant to stop.) In Queensland Australia, it is illegal to pass a person on the right side.
There is a difference between rule and law.
I wouldn't say obviously. In my experience, decision makers work in a web of trust, and are completely blind sided by little technical details.
I would wager that as more of the leadership has stock and options in otherwise successful companies, the more risk averse they are and the more willing they are to resist innovation because it threatens what they have (or may soon get).
Interesting idea, but would like to point out that Jobs had almost all his wealth in apple stock. He was one of a kind, I suppose, believing in his hubris and leading the world along. So it worked for him.
If Windows Phone had been a better product things might be different today.
AFAIK, the phones were great, but the competition was steep and the brand was poisoned.
But a bunch of know-it-all eggheads cannot have access to as much information as hundreds of millions of consumers all working independently and cooperatively.
There is an embedded assumption that the consumers have access to information and real choices. Markets work great then. The US system gives you neither, and a twisted set of incentive structures which make people pay more for less.
To be clear, government rules are a huge part of the problem in the US.
Be aware of the confirmation bias as well. The rest of the developed world has better healthcase outcomes for much less than the USA. They involve many decisions made be government bureaucrats. Yet for some reason, it works much better than the USA.
You might think that the mandate will not bring down health insurance costs. If costs come down (which would halt decades of relentless rises) then I'm sure you can find some politically palatable reason if you want to. But it could also be because health insurance companies have to limit administrative charges, and compete in a market place that provides better information to consumers. And the mandate.
Who knows what will really happen. I hope the USA gets its act together, but its no skin of my neck, since I'm outta here and back to civilization in a few years. If you haven't worked abroad in an OECD country, then you may not know what I mean.
Frogs do leap out of slowly warming water
Sorry to rain all over your simile.
There are some good things about the US system -- such as superior cancer treatment. The medical outcomes are only significant insofar as you have access to them. As a middle class person, I had much more access to superior medical outcomes in Australia and Canada, and will be moving back to Canada for that reason. (combined with the fact that tax+healthcare in the USA > tax in Canada.)
/better/ healthcare from the public system because they were interested in making me better, and not "come back for more treatment". Which definitely happened a few times. In the public system in Australia, I received /treatment/, and there was no-nonsense.
... wait for it ...
I know something about the problems of government in US healthcare. To me it is merely an indication that the USA doesn't know how to govern itself. Problems in Australia are a small fraction of the problem in the US, despite having a mixed public/private system. And in Australia, I definitely got
My older friend has had a stroke and lost her speech and sensation/movement in half her body. That was 3 months ago. Fortunately she is in Canada and is receiving great care for $0. The treatment is daily no-nonsense, "this is what you need to do to get better", and she is so much better now it is amazing. And she continues to get care. And the total cost to society is a fraction of what the equivalent care would be in the USA.
Here in the USA my doctor said I should get an MRI for a fractured wrist. Okay, then what. The doctor clearly hadn't thought it through, and knew less about risk management. She was not getting any kick backs from anybody, but was just clueless to being a middle-class actor in the US healthcare system.
These are real-life illustrative examples that are buttressed by empirical data on heathcare systems world-wide. The US system is bloated, corrupt, hugely expensive, exploitative, and frankly dangerous at times. If the USA is ever going to have a good healthcare system, then they'll have to stop worrying about the evils of government, and start trying to do government better. That involves peeling back stupid regulations that prop up bad business practices, and it also involves
GOVERNING.
For one thing because we effectively subsides the rest of those systems
That is not true in the way you think it is. The healthcare industry (and drug companies) don't pay for R&D. The US government does through the university system. The drug companies do "research" but only to create markets and legal barriers and to figure out how to re-brand and face-lift their wares. It is a totally corrupt system.
For more information I recommend: The Truth About Drug Companies for the stomach churning details on what you are so wedded to defending.
The government is supreme, and holds the power of life and death over you.
What are you talking about. You can totally sue the NHS for negligence. Get your head out of your paranoid ass, and smell what you are shoveling.
The medical outcomes are marginally better but cultural factors result in a wash or worse.
The US lags the rest of the world in just about every health outcome:
Those highly paid doctors, US has only 2.4 per 1000 people. OECD average is 3.1
US as 2.6 hospital beds per 1000 people, OECD average is 3.4
Life expectancy is about 1 year less than the OECD average.
Infant mortality in the US is about as bad as some of the poorer Eastern European countries, and richer African countries. Well behind the rest of the OECD.
And for this, the US pays about twice the amount per capita on healthcare!
But I'm sure any government interference would make the situation worse. Look at the rest of the world!!!
it just forces you to a lowest-common-denominator pool if you can't afford it,
And it forces insurance companies to limit administrative costs to 20% (or give you a refund). And it forces insurance companies to compete for your business in a market place that makes it /much/ easier for consumers to see and compare.
No wonder the healthcare industry lobbied against it so hard.
Add up what you pay in taxes. Now add what you pay in healthcare. The total is more than what Europeans/Australians/Canadians pay.
Hospital does the paperwork for all my insurance claims against the hospital
True, and they charge the insurance company through the nose for it too. Administrative costs as 11x less in Canada.
because of the so-called Affordable Healthcare Act I'll end up being a criminal
Haha... you'll just owe the government about $100. Not quite the same as a felon, but I suppose if you refuse to pay...
It amazes me that libertarian health reformers -- while they have some good ideas -- are blind to the fact that "free" markets themselves have corruption and abuse. Government isn't an all-or-nothing affair. It is a question of whether the government solution has more or less corruption than the private solution. That is an empirical question, not an ideological debate. If the government solution has less corruption, then why prop up some corrupt plutocrat?
In Britain, doctors get paid for patients they have who do not visit. That's a financial incentive to keep people healthy. My health plan (in the US) gives free preventative services. I've lived in Australia and Canada, and they have vastly superior and cheaper healthcare systems than the US -- and that includes preventative services. But my US healthcare, whilst much more expensive, is vastly inferior to what I got in Australia (in particular)
You think fraud and abuse are rampant in Medicare/Medicaid
These programs deliver more for less than the rest of the US healthcare system. (facepalm.)
Vista had fresh eye candy, but nuts-and-bolts problems. It sucked.
Vista had /huge/ under the hood changes. The changes were extremely important in improving the security and stability of windows. I'm not a M$ fan, but can see that they did release some cool technology.
The NSA doesn't raise taxes. (facepalm.)