One can argue semantics forever, and try to claim that an accountant in the 17th century was a "computer," but that's not what the word currently means.
"Compute" is what an accountant did. A "computer" is a device which does computing. Computers existed as digital mechanical computers long long ago. Even by today's definition, Charles Babbage's difference engine is a "computer", and pre-dated WWII by 50+ years.
They existed. They were around. That you refuse to update your mind when reality conflicts indicates a problem with you, not reality.
A reasonable reading of the laws generally puts Uber into a livery service, They are not a Taxi under any reasonable reading of most taxi laws. They do not respond to hails. And, as taxis (and you) note, they don't obey the taxi laws. That should be proof they aren't taxis.
But the law makers don't seem to want to define what they are, but state that because they aren't sure, they'll apply laws to them which may or may not apply.
In short, it's easier for the government to declare them outlaws, than to define them. Yet, everyone agrees they aren't taxis.
So Medicare will try to collect against the driver (even if the other driver is at fault) and if your driver is not insured "properly" Medicare will refuse to cover your injuries? I could find nothing that would support your assertions.
Most single payer systems pay a lot of attention to causes of cost. Then, the government tries to minimize harm to people (measured by costs). The US already does it with seatbelt laws and the like. But if they use the cause codes the way they should, they could better reduce harm by actual measures, rather than assumptions, like seatbelt and airbag laws.
Not sure why Apple is getting a bad name for this. I had to turn off a similar feature on my Android phone, which was also enabled by default. It got me in the habit of turning off mobile data, unless I specifically want it.
Eisenhower sent in troops to block an election that was happening. The US panicked over an election that could see Ho Chi Minh elected. The US invaded without request from France or the Vietnamese. Then brainwashed the political leaders against Ho Chi Minh and declared that their invasion was because of the French and we were invited, and it had nothing to do with the democratic election we blocked or the war we started. The invasion was Eisenhower, and Eisenhower alone (not the French), and his "don't give in to the Military Industrial Complex" wasn't a warning, it was a confession, and perhaps, an apology.
He tried to leave Russia. He planted a hint he was on a diplomatic plane, and the US illegally intercepted it. The US doesn't follow its own rules. The US is a lawless country, worse than all the ones that it complains about.
Korea, Vietnam. Korea and Vietnam split because the US invaded the South and interrupted democratic elections. The US invaded sovereign countries who didn't want help, and prevented democracy. Multiple times. That should meet your definition.
quality of care will go down as doctors spend more time trying to figure this out than treating patients.
You do know that the people that code are usually not the ones that treat patients, right? Care will go down because the admin in the doctor's office spends more time on paperwork? She was bored anyway. The hospital administrators will hire more into the already existent coding teams.
It's only the dumb or the liars that think this would impact care.
We have more doctors than almost anywhere else. This results in higher cost, but not better outcomes. More efficient delivery of care can only be a good thing.
So if the doctor does a bad job, the doctor's costs go up. You obviously don't know much about how business works. Businesses try to minimize costs, and bad coding is a cost, to the doctor will have a financial incentive to make sure the coding is correct.
You are insisting that having the doctors do a good job with documentation treatment will "backfire". Yet you can't explain how it will backfire.
How will it backfire? There'll be bad data? It'll be found, and the doctor charged with the cost of finding and correcting it. It's a self-correcting problem, and not one that will cause medical care problems.
Mostly the result of insurance companies and doctor's fraud. A doctor inflating costs to recover more wasn't unusual. The codes make it easier to sniff out fraud.
Yes, the government does it by moving the cost of compliance to the user (the codes are on the doctor's side, the government just verifies), rather than the other way, where the government would be spending much more on fraud investigations and compliance.
I can see how having 70k codes can track issues, but I have to wonder a) what is this going to cost; and b) how in hell do they think people making 20k/year are going to do a good job at entering codes?
It's not going to cost the government much. Just like the IRS. All the complaints about the IRS being inefficient are about the cost to comply, not the cost of the IRS. The IRS is an order of magnitude (or more) cheaper than the same services from a private service. But partly because they push the cost to the person complying.
What I find funny is all the conservatives who hate ACA want the government to pay more (moving more compliance cost back to the government), rather than the smaller, more efficient government proposed.
We do. Semis aren't allowed on all streets, and there are more restrictions on them than cars. Trains are not even allowed to turn. The only cross streets when the street is closed. It's already acknowledged that those vehicles are more dangerous, and they are treated as such. You are seeing a logical contradiction that doesn't exist.
But yes, an SUV gives no added protection when involved in a crash with a tree, wall, or large commercial vehicle. To gain a perception of a tiny statistic advantage, they greatly increase the actual statistical harm of everyone around them. And yes, I worded it that way because it's proven that after a crash has happened, it's better to be in the larger vehicle than the smaller one, all else equal. The problem is that there is no practical way to study the liklihood of getting into that crash, nor ensure "all else equal" is true. So, for all we can prove, SUVs are less safe 100% of the time, and only increase the perception of safety.
A lot of US consumers are like this, but the Volvo buyers aren't, nor is anyone who pays attention to IIHS tests.
No, the Volvo buyers are more likely to buy safe so they drive unsafe. They don't need to drive safe, they have a safe car.
It doesn't seem to be working. Foreign cars seem to dominate auto sales.
I never said it was a good idea. I never said it worked. It worked for a while. But Toyota and others built here, and got around the rules and knocked the Big 2 off their perches. Well, that and bad management. Ford is thick with incompetent nepotism, and GM with bureaucrats that don't know anything about cars.
So, no change then. We've had a trade cold war with everyone since the 1950's. But now that we are being overtaken, others are in a position to fire back.
But there are no unsafe cars referenced in this article. The summary wouldn't have gotten any hits if they said "Crash tests incompatible across markets, EU cars tested in US fare worse than in EU tests. US cars tested in EU tests fare worse than in US tests."
That's common sense. But the media inflates everything to drive hits, views, and thus revenue.
Not true. The B-pillar can take all the weight. The mix of aeridynamics, weight, crash protection and such make for the shapes. The more sloped angles (from aerodynamics) lead to thicker A-pillars (for safety). You can hide a whole person in the spot, even if you move your head. At least in a few of the cars I opted to not buy, I found that the case. But if your windshield is vertical, the pillar can be tiny. So it's not the crash worthiness that forces it.
Also, the airbags are usually not in the a pillars. THey are too far from anyone to do any good. The side-bags are in the ceiling and B-pillar.
A seat belt is proven to improve safety. The same can't be said for helmets. I've driven an '67 VW. I was going to a soccer game, and thus, had on soccer shorts. They are shiny and baggy. The vinyl seats on the car are slippery. I managed to take a left turn at a normal speed, but the grip between my seat and the seat were less than normal. I ended up steering while facing backwards, sitting in the passenger footwell.. A seat belt would have helped. Seatbelts were required, but the grandfather law forgave cars that weren't fitted with them at the factory.
The state of Texas, doing a study to "prove" helmets saved money measured the hospital bills of people in motorcycle crashes. The finding was that helmeted riders cost more to the health care system than unhelmeted riders. The helmeted riders were more likely to survive worse crashes, leading to greater injuries and higher bills. The unhelmeted riders were more likely to be attended by coroners, rather than hospitals, thus didn't count against the hospital bills. The study didn't measure "total cost" but selected an easy to measure metric, hospital bills. And it found the opposite of the intended result.
So the reasoning against helmets isn't nearly as strong. What compelling reason is there to require them?
Disclaimer: I'm a motorcyclist who is against helmet laws for riders (but for them for passengers), and have never ridden without a helmet, aside from a few times to see what it was like. We should have the choice, and everyone should choose to wear it.
Slashdot Mirror
One can argue semantics forever, and try to claim that an accountant in the 17th century was a "computer," but that's not what the word currently means.
"Compute" is what an accountant did. A "computer" is a device which does computing. Computers existed as digital mechanical computers long long ago. Even by today's definition, Charles Babbage's difference engine is a "computer", and pre-dated WWII by 50+ years.
They existed. They were around. That you refuse to update your mind when reality conflicts indicates a problem with you, not reality.
A reasonable reading of the laws generally puts Uber into a livery service, They are not a Taxi under any reasonable reading of most taxi laws. They do not respond to hails. And, as taxis (and you) note, they don't obey the taxi laws. That should be proof they aren't taxis.
But the law makers don't seem to want to define what they are, but state that because they aren't sure, they'll apply laws to them which may or may not apply.
In short, it's easier for the government to declare them outlaws, than to define them. Yet, everyone agrees they aren't taxis.
So Medicare will try to collect against the driver (even if the other driver is at fault) and if your driver is not insured "properly" Medicare will refuse to cover your injuries? I could find nothing that would support your assertions.
Most single payer systems pay a lot of attention to causes of cost. Then, the government tries to minimize harm to people (measured by costs). The US already does it with seatbelt laws and the like. But if they use the cause codes the way they should, they could better reduce harm by actual measures, rather than assumptions, like seatbelt and airbag laws.
Not sure why Apple is getting a bad name for this. I had to turn off a similar feature on my Android phone, which was also enabled by default. It got me in the habit of turning off mobile data, unless I specifically want it.
Eisenhower sent in troops to block an election that was happening. The US panicked over an election that could see Ho Chi Minh elected. The US invaded without request from France or the Vietnamese. Then brainwashed the political leaders against Ho Chi Minh and declared that their invasion was because of the French and we were invited, and it had nothing to do with the democratic election we blocked or the war we started. The invasion was Eisenhower, and Eisenhower alone (not the French), and his "don't give in to the Military Industrial Complex" wasn't a warning, it was a confession, and perhaps, an apology.
That you reject reality doesn't invalidate it.
Any action he takes now would impact the election. What will he do in the months between election and inauguration?
It's not that easy, and even if they did, the US would still illegally intercept him.
He tried to leave Russia. He planted a hint he was on a diplomatic plane, and the US illegally intercepted it. The US doesn't follow its own rules. The US is a lawless country, worse than all the ones that it complains about.
Korea, Vietnam. Korea and Vietnam split because the US invaded the South and interrupted democratic elections. The US invaded sovereign countries who didn't want help, and prevented democracy. Multiple times. That should meet your definition.
quality of care will go down as doctors spend more time trying to figure this out than treating patients.
You do know that the people that code are usually not the ones that treat patients, right? Care will go down because the admin in the doctor's office spends more time on paperwork? She was bored anyway. The hospital administrators will hire more into the already existent coding teams.
It's only the dumb or the liars that think this would impact care.
Won't need as many doctors anyway.
We have more doctors than almost anywhere else. This results in higher cost, but not better outcomes. More efficient delivery of care can only be a good thing.
So if the doctor does a bad job, the doctor's costs go up. You obviously don't know much about how business works. Businesses try to minimize costs, and bad coding is a cost, to the doctor will have a financial incentive to make sure the coding is correct.
You are insisting that having the doctors do a good job with documentation treatment will "backfire". Yet you can't explain how it will backfire.
It's been that way for decades. It's only now that people are beginning to believe the people who have been saying it for years.
How will it backfire? There'll be bad data? It'll be found, and the doctor charged with the cost of finding and correcting it. It's a self-correcting problem, and not one that will cause medical care problems.
Yes, the government does it by moving the cost of compliance to the user (the codes are on the doctor's side, the government just verifies), rather than the other way, where the government would be spending much more on fraud investigations and compliance.
I can see how having 70k codes can track issues, but I have to wonder a) what is this going to cost; and b) how in hell do they think people making 20k/year are going to do a good job at entering codes?
It's not going to cost the government much. Just like the IRS. All the complaints about the IRS being inefficient are about the cost to comply, not the cost of the IRS. The IRS is an order of magnitude (or more) cheaper than the same services from a private service. But partly because they push the cost to the person complying.
What I find funny is all the conservatives who hate ACA want the government to pay more (moving more compliance cost back to the government), rather than the smaller, more efficient government proposed.
We do. Semis aren't allowed on all streets, and there are more restrictions on them than cars. Trains are not even allowed to turn. The only cross streets when the street is closed. It's already acknowledged that those vehicles are more dangerous, and they are treated as such. You are seeing a logical contradiction that doesn't exist.
But yes, an SUV gives no added protection when involved in a crash with a tree, wall, or large commercial vehicle. To gain a perception of a tiny statistic advantage, they greatly increase the actual statistical harm of everyone around them. And yes, I worded it that way because it's proven that after a crash has happened, it's better to be in the larger vehicle than the smaller one, all else equal. The problem is that there is no practical way to study the liklihood of getting into that crash, nor ensure "all else equal" is true. So, for all we can prove, SUVs are less safe 100% of the time, and only increase the perception of safety.
A lot of US consumers are like this, but the Volvo buyers aren't, nor is anyone who pays attention to IIHS tests.
No, the Volvo buyers are more likely to buy safe so they drive unsafe. They don't need to drive safe, they have a safe car.
It doesn't seem to be working. Foreign cars seem to dominate auto sales.
I never said it was a good idea. I never said it worked. It worked for a while. But Toyota and others built here, and got around the rules and knocked the Big 2 off their perches. Well, that and bad management. Ford is thick with incompetent nepotism, and GM with bureaucrats that don't know anything about cars.
So, no change then. We've had a trade cold war with everyone since the 1950's. But now that we are being overtaken, others are in a position to fire back.
But there are no unsafe cars referenced in this article. The summary wouldn't have gotten any hits if they said "Crash tests incompatible across markets, EU cars tested in US fare worse than in EU tests. US cars tested in EU tests fare worse than in US tests."
That's common sense. But the media inflates everything to drive hits, views, and thus revenue.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/23... But applied to the A-pillar, so you see what's on the other side.
Not true. The B-pillar can take all the weight. The mix of aeridynamics, weight, crash protection and such make for the shapes. The more sloped angles (from aerodynamics) lead to thicker A-pillars (for safety). You can hide a whole person in the spot, even if you move your head. At least in a few of the cars I opted to not buy, I found that the case. But if your windshield is vertical, the pillar can be tiny. So it's not the crash worthiness that forces it.
Also, the airbags are usually not in the a pillars. THey are too far from anyone to do any good. The side-bags are in the ceiling and B-pillar.
A seat belt is proven to improve safety. The same can't be said for helmets. I've driven an '67 VW. I was going to a soccer game, and thus, had on soccer shorts. They are shiny and baggy. The vinyl seats on the car are slippery. I managed to take a left turn at a normal speed, but the grip between my seat and the seat were less than normal. I ended up steering while facing backwards, sitting in the passenger footwell.. A seat belt would have helped. Seatbelts were required, but the grandfather law forgave cars that weren't fitted with them at the factory.
The state of Texas, doing a study to "prove" helmets saved money measured the hospital bills of people in motorcycle crashes. The finding was that helmeted riders cost more to the health care system than unhelmeted riders. The helmeted riders were more likely to survive worse crashes, leading to greater injuries and higher bills. The unhelmeted riders were more likely to be attended by coroners, rather than hospitals, thus didn't count against the hospital bills. The study didn't measure "total cost" but selected an easy to measure metric, hospital bills. And it found the opposite of the intended result.
So the reasoning against helmets isn't nearly as strong. What compelling reason is there to require them?
Disclaimer: I'm a motorcyclist who is against helmet laws for riders (but for them for passengers), and have never ridden without a helmet, aside from a few times to see what it was like. We should have the choice, and everyone should choose to wear it.
In most states, a properly insured adult motorcyclist is not required to wear a helmet. I find your correction to be irrelevant.