The better ones don't necessarily charge more. The ones with a private practice do. That you equate the two is your choice, and you've not presented anything to support that. Please do, otherwise, I'll assume you are trying to manufacture attacks on socialized medicine without regard to reality. Perhaps those with a private practice do so because they are inferior, so the private market will result in a poorer result for higher cost, on average.
The "worst" care in some of the best socialized care is better than what 90% of the US has as their "best". And the "worst" care costs a lot less.
Going from what we have to "better" should cost us less than today.
it sounds like even when it's 'better', the best care comes at a premium.
Only because that's what you choose to hear. I had a trip to the hospital and was attended by the best brain surgeon in the country. He happened to be on duty for that shift. I paid less, and got the absolute best care possible.
I don't recall being asked that, so you may have asked, but I didn't see. In the socialized medicine I live under, yes, but not while under contract to the government. So you can set up your "private" hospital and charge whatever you want. But if you take a shift working for the government, you get paid the rate contracted regardless of the value you think you are worth, but yes, "better" ones will get higher contract rates.
Having done similar, you have pre-waivers (standard-looking) and post-waivers, explicitly authorizing the deception used in the experiment. If they sign the first but not the second, you can use some of the test, but not all. Regardless, it would need to be explicitly passed by the authorizing ethics board, rather than rubber-stamped as most studies are.
A CEO making $10,000,000 per year is a "wage slave" just as much as the janitor. That's another reason why "wage slave" is a silly movement. There exists no non-slave wage. Working is slavery. Working for wages is being a "wage slave". It doesn't matter the type of work or conditions, nor the pay.
Like the Easter Bunny is "known". Just because some claim it exists and others fail to adequately object doesn't make it any more true than the Tooth Faerie. Though, it is true that many have asserted its existance. But as a wage slave, I'm not subject to beatings, and I may quit at any time, without notice. Most of the "bad" connotations of slavery don't exist for wage slaves. All that's left is trading work for livelihood, and that happens even if you are non-slave labor (such as a self-employed tradesman or craftsman). You are a slave when you do something, even if you are a slave to yourself. There is no non-slave, anywhere, if "wage slavery" exists.
Seems those who talk about wage slavery are perfectly ok with slavery, so long as you are your own master, and that's a different issue, but not addressed, as it would reveal their other arguments to be silly.
Here is another one: In the poorest corners of the world will people have children for the purpose of eventually selling all their paired organs?
Nope. The number of people willing and able to buy organs is small enough and matches are hard enough, that it would be possible to breed as often as humanly possible and die of old age without any of your children ever donating an organ. With that type of return, wouldn't it make more economic sense to just not breed?
With live liver donations, and a lack of anonymity, it's possible that there were some matches in the database to a live donor, and the donor picked Mickey. There were few details I could find, only complaints after the fact that focused on the appearances, and not the particular process for Mickey's liver. My mother donated bone marrow 20+ years ago and had regular contact for at least a while with the recipient.
The issues is that they overestimate lazy. Why do I have to opt-in to organ harvesting? Make it opt out, and the number of organs available for transplant will increase to near optimum levels. I also doubt his science that the number of procedures performed will increase. There are more than enough dead, but you have to die in very specific ways to have organs available for harvesting.
You are talking about the US, right? The Europeans are doing something about the debt. Only the US isn't. The US debt is still growing at an unsustainable rate.
There are 20 people. 10 male. 20 Female. 10 promiscuous males. 1 promiscuous female. The female has sex with anyone any time. As do the males. Yet there are 90% non-promiscuous females, and 0% non-promiscuous males. So I don't think your math is as clear as you state.
Also, when talking about "sex" in a "sex quiz" it would probably make more sense to use different words. When you ask gender as the last question in the quiz, the rates are less, and when you don't ask gender at all, then the highest rates are found. What happens if you ask the questions in a manner where the answers are recorded as answered, and "cancel" saves the test? Because a difference between "last question" and "no question" can only exist if on (or both) studies are flawed (or the quizzes can be abandoned at the last question, which I'd consider a flaw).
Theoretically, they could all be cleared out every administration change, but the disruption would be worst than the benefit, certainly when the "change" is just between mainstream Republicans and Democrats. But when the first real change gets in, cleaning out the bureaucracies would probably be high on the list.
Appointees are political, but employees aren't. You still haven't clarified which non-elected class you have issues with. People like the head of the FCC, who are appointed, or heads of the banks that make up the Federal Reserve who are neither elected, nor appointed?
The freedom of religion (Amendment #1) is taken to indicate a separation of church and state. It's Amendment #1. Most have at least made it through that one.
Did feminism lead to single parent homes with greater financial dependency on public welfare? Unless I'm very much mistaken, it did promote movement in that direction.
You are very much mistaken. It resulted in it, but didn't lead to it or promote movement in that direction. The counter-movement against women is what lead to it. Had there not been so much resistance to equality, there wouldn't have been the result that you indicate.
The ACLU has repeatedly fought for the right to exercise religion freely in school. Government money going to pay for religious studies, for only one specific religion is close enough to establishment to count. And that's what "creationism" is, as it's purely Christian. When they teach Norse and Greek along side it as "competing theories" then we can talk about it being possibly allowable.
Then why is it only the Christian creation myth taught as the competing theory? Where's Norse mythology, and Roman and Greek? Oh, it's not about teaching "competing theories" but about spending government money on pushing The One State Religion.
Too bad the founders of the country didn't foresee this and setup separation of church and state.
Christina fundamentalism is as bad as Muslim fundamentalism, and just as dangerous.
Not by body count.
Does that count the crusades, inquisition, witch hunts, and numerous other actions by kings who were technically heads of churches or important members of?
The same people claiming austerity didn't work also attack FDR for his anti-austerity stance. I can never figure it out. People advocate two conflicting opinions at the same time.
The argument is "if taxes were lower, the rich would donate a much larger portion of their income to charity." I've never seen anything that supports that opinion, but it's the objectivist's response to an indication that objectivism is anti-Christian, so far as I've seen.
Slashdot Mirror
The better ones don't necessarily charge more. The ones with a private practice do. That you equate the two is your choice, and you've not presented anything to support that. Please do, otherwise, I'll assume you are trying to manufacture attacks on socialized medicine without regard to reality. Perhaps those with a private practice do so because they are inferior, so the private market will result in a poorer result for higher cost, on average.
Going from what we have to "better" should cost us less than today.
it sounds like even when it's 'better', the best care comes at a premium.
Only because that's what you choose to hear. I had a trip to the hospital and was attended by the best brain surgeon in the country. He happened to be on duty for that shift. I paid less, and got the absolute best care possible.
I don't recall being asked that, so you may have asked, but I didn't see. In the socialized medicine I live under, yes, but not while under contract to the government. So you can set up your "private" hospital and charge whatever you want. But if you take a shift working for the government, you get paid the rate contracted regardless of the value you think you are worth, but yes, "better" ones will get higher contract rates.
Sarcasm? You mean crime should be legal? :-)
Sarcasm is "a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter gibe or taunt."
Sarcasm is not necessarily ironic.
If health care were better, people wouldn't have to make that decision.
Having done similar, you have pre-waivers (standard-looking) and post-waivers, explicitly authorizing the deception used in the experiment. If they sign the first but not the second, you can use some of the test, but not all. Regardless, it would need to be explicitly passed by the authorizing ethics board, rather than rubber-stamped as most studies are.
A CEO making $10,000,000 per year is a "wage slave" just as much as the janitor. That's another reason why "wage slave" is a silly movement. There exists no non-slave wage. Working is slavery. Working for wages is being a "wage slave". It doesn't matter the type of work or conditions, nor the pay.
Well, yes, Wage Slavery is a known phenomenon
Like the Easter Bunny is "known". Just because some claim it exists and others fail to adequately object doesn't make it any more true than the Tooth Faerie. Though, it is true that many have asserted its existance. But as a wage slave, I'm not subject to beatings, and I may quit at any time, without notice. Most of the "bad" connotations of slavery don't exist for wage slaves. All that's left is trading work for livelihood, and that happens even if you are non-slave labor (such as a self-employed tradesman or craftsman). You are a slave when you do something, even if you are a slave to yourself. There is no non-slave, anywhere, if "wage slavery" exists.
Seems those who talk about wage slavery are perfectly ok with slavery, so long as you are your own master, and that's a different issue, but not addressed, as it would reveal their other arguments to be silly.
Here is another one: In the poorest corners of the world will people have children for the purpose of eventually selling all their paired organs?
Nope. The number of people willing and able to buy organs is small enough and matches are hard enough, that it would be possible to breed as often as humanly possible and die of old age without any of your children ever donating an organ. With that type of return, wouldn't it make more economic sense to just not breed?
With live liver donations, and a lack of anonymity, it's possible that there were some matches in the database to a live donor, and the donor picked Mickey. There were few details I could find, only complaints after the fact that focused on the appearances, and not the particular process for Mickey's liver. My mother donated bone marrow 20+ years ago and had regular contact for at least a while with the recipient.
The issues is that they overestimate lazy. Why do I have to opt-in to organ harvesting? Make it opt out, and the number of organs available for transplant will increase to near optimum levels. I also doubt his science that the number of procedures performed will increase. There are more than enough dead, but you have to die in very specific ways to have organs available for harvesting.
You are talking about the US, right? The Europeans are doing something about the debt. Only the US isn't. The US debt is still growing at an unsustainable rate.
There are 20 people. 10 male. 20 Female. 10 promiscuous males. 1 promiscuous female. The female has sex with anyone any time. As do the males. Yet there are 90% non-promiscuous females, and 0% non-promiscuous males. So I don't think your math is as clear as you state.
Also, when talking about "sex" in a "sex quiz" it would probably make more sense to use different words. When you ask gender as the last question in the quiz, the rates are less, and when you don't ask gender at all, then the highest rates are found. What happens if you ask the questions in a manner where the answers are recorded as answered, and "cancel" saves the test? Because a difference between "last question" and "no question" can only exist if on (or both) studies are flawed (or the quizzes can be abandoned at the last question, which I'd consider a flaw).
Theoretically, they could all be cleared out every administration change, but the disruption would be worst than the benefit, certainly when the "change" is just between mainstream Republicans and Democrats. But when the first real change gets in, cleaning out the bureaucracies would probably be high on the list.
If
then
else
Appointees are political, but employees aren't. You still haven't clarified which non-elected class you have issues with. People like the head of the FCC, who are appointed, or heads of the banks that make up the Federal Reserve who are neither elected, nor appointed?
The freedom of religion (Amendment #1) is taken to indicate a separation of church and state. It's Amendment #1. Most have at least made it through that one.
Did feminism lead to single parent homes with greater financial dependency on public welfare? Unless I'm very much mistaken, it did promote movement in that direction.
You are very much mistaken. It resulted in it, but didn't lead to it or promote movement in that direction. The counter-movement against women is what lead to it. Had there not been so much resistance to equality, there wouldn't have been the result that you indicate.
The ACLU has repeatedly fought for the right to exercise religion freely in school. Government money going to pay for religious studies, for only one specific religion is close enough to establishment to count. And that's what "creationism" is, as it's purely Christian. When they teach Norse and Greek along side it as "competing theories" then we can talk about it being possibly allowable.
It's like how most of America think the "big three" religions are the Christians, the Muslims, and the Jews.
What's wrong with that? 2 of the 3 are the top 2, and the third is arguably the basis for the other two.
Then why is it only the Christian creation myth taught as the competing theory? Where's Norse mythology, and Roman and Greek? Oh, it's not about teaching "competing theories" but about spending government money on pushing The One State Religion.
Too bad the founders of the country didn't foresee this and setup separation of church and state.
Christina fundamentalism is as bad as Muslim fundamentalism, and just as dangerous.
Not by body count.
Does that count the crusades, inquisition, witch hunts, and numerous other actions by kings who were technically heads of churches or important members of?
The same people claiming austerity didn't work also attack FDR for his anti-austerity stance. I can never figure it out. People advocate two conflicting opinions at the same time.
A lot of the politicians with power aren't elected.
How is that? The definition I looked up defined a politician as "a holder of an elected office."
I can't tell if you are talking about the appointees, or the unelected leaders of the parties.
The argument is "if taxes were lower, the rich would donate a much larger portion of their income to charity." I've never seen anything that supports that opinion, but it's the objectivist's response to an indication that objectivism is anti-Christian, so far as I've seen.