What about nuclear, you never hear about state wide blackouts in France.
You don't hear about how nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies either. Or how "Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Sure you'll need a non-retarded grid to get that power everywhere but it seams like your grid is in need of a rework anyway
It's estimated that because of the poor condition of the electrical grid in the US it costs up to $83 billion a year in loses to business. No matter what generation technology is used the grid still has to be upgraded. That was one of the few things I agreed with Obama on, however he hasn't done anything about it yet. Like so many of his other promises.
do you really have DC power lines in places?
In Europe too. High Voltage DC current is terrific for transmitting electricity long distances, there is less loss of power with DC over long distances than with AC. DC is used widely by off gridders. If the electricity is generated as DC why convert it to AC?
Ever hear of the "necessary and proper" clause? Before you go spouting off about the Constitution, read and understand it first.
Golly, I must of missed where it says health care is necessary or proper. But I do see where Amendment 5 say "or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." While money may not be private property, it is a way to gain that property.
Over here the truck driver has to pay that, did they fail to catch him or what?
Actually his employer, he was working while driving a company van, paid. Almost a year later. The doctors and hospital had no guaranty they would paid before they treated me. However now because I survived a disability tax payers now have to pay to support me, when they shouldn't have to.
All I ever here from people here, is how insurance companies deny claims and the huge amounts of co-pays
That is because there is no competition. In this post of yours you say you had employer provided health insurance. Guess what? Your employer got a tax deduction for offering the insurance. On the other hand if you, I, or almost anyone else goes and buys their own health insurance then we not get a tax deduction. That is a distortion of the market.
Also I have to pay $50 in co-pays for my meds every month while in Germany it would be capped at 10 euros irrespective of total amount.
Guess what? I am on Medicare right now and if it weren't for Walmart's commitment to offer thousands of drugs for $4 I couldn't afford my prescriptions, not that I can now.
If Democrats were a center leaning group the bill they passed would not have passed.
it was really Medicare/Medicaid that was the first ventures towards that direction, so i guess this is the getting in the first few feet phase when everyone else is already well in and not complaining about it the way we are.
Nobody complains about Medicare? Are you really that far out of reality? Googling complaints about medicare returns more than 2 million results. Putting it in parentheses, "complaints about medicare", still results in more than 60,000. I am one of those that complains.
The bill is a compromise. It's not written by some shadowy extreme-left "they".
Ooh really? What did conservative get out of it? What did those who value freedom get? What did those who want to keep the money they work to earn get? Or was it just a compromise between different groups on the US left who don't care what the US Constitution says?
"How can it be optional if they are going to fine you when you say no???" She comes from the World War 2 generation, when freedom actually meant something.
How ironic you say this. The problem with health insurance got it's start in WWII. Government passed wage control laws, employers weren't allowed to pay employees more. Because this made it hard to hire people the government later allowed employers to offer insurance and other benefits to employees. For doing so they were given tax deductions. People who bought their own insurance didn't then and don't now get those deductions though. It tremendously distorted the market for health insurance.
Perhaps you should read your own link, iTunes can read, write and convert those formats; flac, the only lossless filetype that I care for is not sold by iTunes. I know their audio tracks are DRM free, I was referring to their video offerings, all of which have DRM.
You said iTunes only sells MP3s when in fact they sell more.
I made a mistake myself though. It was when I said iTunes sells DRM files, it appears only the music files are DRM free.
what pisses me off about the whole illegal imigration issue
What pisses me off about the whole "illegal immigration" issue is that those who have pushed it are the ones left after the native population was massacred. The conquerors used laws to bar others from immigrating as well. The Know Nothings in the 1840s and '50s tried to make it illegal for Irish Catholics to immigrate to the US. The Chinese Exclusion Act barred Chinese from immigrating in the 1880s. Southern Europeans, Eastern Europeans, and Africans have been discriminated against. Now it's Central and South Americans, some who's ancestors have been here longer than the European immigrants who settled in the New World.
Yes, and if they call the ambulance, without medical insurance, they can be shackled with massive medical bills.
They still get medical treatment so saying people are denied that treatment is BS and or a lie. I know, personally.
As a college student without insurance or working I was hit one day while riding my bike after classes. In a coma I was flown by helicopter to a hospital where I got treated, no treatment was withheld. After I came out of the coma I was moved to a rehab house. Even though I had no way to pay the bills I got the treatment doctors thought I needed. Altogether the medical bills came to more than $120,000, that was more than 10 years ago.
If you believe a bill can reside in a single page, you've never read a bill before.
Yes, a bill to remove exemptions can be done in less than a page. "A, B, and C are no longer exempt. Or the original law has those removed thus reducing it's length. Ooh and I have read real bills as well as real amendments. A long tyme ago I was even an elected member of student government. The First ten amendments to the Constitution of the USA didn't take more than a page. Heck the Constitution itself fits easily on 2 pages of paper, unlike the proposed EU constitution.
Dems have always pushed for more health care, and the republicans have always rejected it.
Lies. Republicans have not rejected more health care. In last year's campaign all candidates ran on reforming health care.
you're walking on awfully thin ground claiming that things don't have to be proven
Ever here of innocent before proven guilty? Even in civil cases, which has less stringent guides to show guilt than criminal cases, innocence is the default position. I could say someone is guilty and sue them all I want, if I could afford it, but I'd still have to show guilt within reasonable doubt based on evidence.
And SCO never could produce code in Linux they owned. They didn't even own Unix code, Novell did. All SCO had was a contract to sell Unix licenses, which they then had to remit to Novell but never did. Under the license Novell would then pay SCO I think it was 5% of the contracts.
How about the Constitution of the USA? Can you point to one place in there where the federal government is given the power control health care and medicine? And remember if it does not give a power then government does not have that power, it is a document limiting what government can do.
Now if you believe the government should do something the Constitution provides a way for it to do that, via amending it. Amazingly it has been amended 27 tymes already.
I personally like our parks, roads, fire/police/military, medicare, public educational finding/grants,
First, the Constitution gives the federal government the power to build and maintain roads. It also gives the power to defend the people and nation. Next there is nothing in the Constitution preventing state and local government from providing all these other things. And generally they have been pretty good at it. Actually with the feds into so much it can dictate to states what they must do. No Child Left Behind ring a bell? If a school doesn't meet federal requirements it can lose funding. Now if the feds did not have as high of taxes as it does then states and local governments could raise their own taxes and spend it on what they want instead of the feds dictating to them. Another example is Real ID. The feds want to tell the states they either have an ID that meets federal guidelines or they lose road funding. That's what they did with the minimum drinking age.
Anyone who believes in the purity of their ideals is suspect.
Then apply that to government as well. I have never ever heard of businesses exterminating and massacring millions of people but governments have a history of doing exactly that. Yes, even the government of the US.
if the private path went further towards these goals I'd vouch for it instead. Right now the private path seems to be a complete failure, individual greed and the general well being seem to be diametrically opposed.
You're assuming that the private path has been tried when in fact it has not been tried in more than 60 years. Instead government has been interfering with medicine and health care all this tyme.
Your statement is against the text of the bill, so the burden of proof is upon you.
You're looking at it the wrong way. It's not the responsibility if citizens to prove someone is not needed, it's the responsibility of government to prove that something is needed and that it has the power. Governments exist for the people, not the people existing for the government.
My dental insurance covered root canals! Nice. Except... when I called them to get the name of a local specialist that could perform the procedure they told me, "Oh, #4 tooth? We don't cover root canals on that tooth. Sorry." This is a direct quote.
There I was riding my bike after my classes in college when I was hit by a moving van. I was flown, yes flown by helicopter, to a hospital where I was treated while I was in a coma. What was the total in medical bills? More than $120,000. Did I have any insurance at all? No, not working and being a college student I could not afford health insurance. I still got the medical care I needed to save my life, though I'd rather have died.
It's not perfect. No bill is, but it IS an improvement over what we currently have, where people are outright denied any coverage at all.
Yes, people are denied insurance, but they are not denied medical care in life or death cases. Anybody can call for an ambulance to take them to the hospital. Neither the ambulance nor the hospital can deny treatment.
Actually that's in part why medical costs are high. Those who can not afford insurance wait until an emergency, when it will be expensive, before getting medical care. Because the law requires treatment the cost of the treatment is passed on to those who pay out of pocket and insurance.
The industry would also lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price fixing and market allocation which is a huge win for the consumer.
If true, I didn't know there was exemptions for antitrust restrictions in the health fields, removing them will help people. A 2000 page bill isn't needed to end the exemptions though. It takes less than a single page to do that.
As to the poor, the bill includes subsidies to help pay for their insurance when they cannot afford it.
To help pay but what if even with the subsidy a person still can afford insurance? Massachusetts already has a law like that, one than fines people for not buying insurance, but there are still people who can't afford insurance even with a subsidy. Some are finding it cheaper to pay the fine than to bu7y insurance.
If the Republican representatives were so repulsed by a 'government run health care system', then they would give up their own premium health care, which is run by the government I might add. Talk about the ultimate hypocrites. They already benefit from such a plan, and it's an excellent one at that. They also had many years of majority in both houses, and did absolutely nothing. They obviously had and still do not have the will to do what's needed.
Democrats are no different. Democrat representatives didn't offer the insurance taxpayers pay for congress. Try to get congress to offer everyone the same coverage they get and watch their reactions. The only people who have better coverage are the wealthy. Congress Keeps Gold-Plated Health Care... For Themselves
You're right on the money, but what happens when you get cancer and have to pony up $500k for cancer treatments?
Easy. First pay most medical costs out of pocket, most doctors are willing to reduce their prices if the person is paying out of pocket, after all filing and waiting for medical reimbursements fro insurance cost money. Next buy catastrophic health insurance. I know GP said he doesn't have insurance, but catastrophic health insurance pays for cancer treatments and such. Such policies are cheaper than insurance policies that only require a co-payment and cover the rest of the medical bill.
That's the kind of thing health insurance should be for, the catastrophic events that there is no way the average joe would be able to pay for.
You're right in part. Catastrophic expenses, not everyday expenses which is how most health insurance is today, should be paid for with insurance. Actually it should be up to the individuals who pay, if one person wants full coverage then they should be able to buy it, and pay the associated high premiums, whereas someone else who is willing and can pay out of pocket for most expenses should be able to buy catastrophic coverage with lower premiums.
Then deny the illegal aliens that to which they are not entitled. People dó have to identify at the hospital, don't they? Do not let the legit US population suffer.
I've been hit riding my bike, which does not require a license, and was rushed to the hospital. Once I was unconscious and another tyme I was in a coma. Now would you require me to identify myself in order to get medical care? How would I do that when I'm in a coma? Would you require people to always carry their papers, Papers please?
Either you haven't thought this through or you don't care.
I'm not and never have been a US resident, also and like most/.-ers I'm not an expert on insurance systems: what would you suggest should be done to have fixed the old system?
Allow people to go across state lines to buy insurance. Right now each state can say who can and can not sell insurance in that state, I can not go across a state line and buy insurance in another state which may have lower insurance premiums. In other words there is no competition. Another thing, in the US most people who have health insurance get it through their employers. Those employers get tax deductions for offering insurance. If I buy my own insurance I do not get those tax deductions though. So, there is no free market. Quite simply, if controlling health care costs is the goal then what will work is to allow a free market.
The reason is that the point isn't to fix the healthcare industry. The goal is to socialize it. We already have Medicare, Medicaid and SSI.
Medicare and Medicaid are health insurance policies but SSI isn't. SSI is disability insurance.
I agree with the rest though, as passed this bill isn't about fixing health care it's about socializing it. Nor does the Constitution of the USA give the federal government the power to offer a "public option". The one power it does give isn't used, the interstate commerce clause To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. The federal government can make it so that health insurance issued in one state can be bought and used in any other state. As it is now each state decides who can sell or offer insurance in the state. Some states only have a couple of companies offering insurance because the state only allows those companies to offer insurance.
The government programs would fund the whole development process from start to end (not just stopping at the early basic research point)
That is what the NCI did with Taxol, it did everything to win FDA approval for use of Taxol as a drug. Everything. If NCI had wanted to, and laws or regulations allowed, the NCI could have applied to the FDA for approval with the date they had.
Some argue that the government can do the whole thing on its own, and if that turns out to be true chances are the private industry will naturally wither away since they can't compete with the resulting cheap drugs.
The problem with government paying for research is the government isn't concerned about making a profit, unlike a business which has to make profit government can spend unsightly somes of money. For myself, I disapprove of the federal government paying for research because it is not a constitutionally authorized power of the federal government. While I support the National Institutes of Health, of which the NCI is part of, and the CDC or Centers for Disease Control and Prevention I'd privatize them. Either make them businesses or non-profits. The FDA I'd abolish altogether.
What does the United States Constitution have to do with the Free Software Foundation's definitions of anything?
Can you understand? You said only the FSF has the right to define what open source is so I asked what gives them the right to define it. If you don't understand rhetoric then I see no reason to continue.
Slashdot Mirror
What about nuclear, you never hear about state wide blackouts in France.
You don't hear about how nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies either. Or how "Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Sure you'll need a non-retarded grid to get that power everywhere but it seams like your grid is in need of a rework anyway
It's estimated that because of the poor condition of the electrical grid in the US it costs up to $83 billion a year in loses to business. No matter what generation technology is used the grid still has to be upgraded. That was one of the few things I agreed with Obama on, however he hasn't done anything about it yet. Like so many of his other promises.
do you really have DC power lines in places?
In Europe too. High Voltage DC current is terrific for transmitting electricity long distances, there is less loss of power with DC over long distances than with AC. DC is used widely by off gridders. If the electricity is generated as DC why convert it to AC?
Falcon
The bone-headed reflexive anti-immigrant nonsense that passes for debate in the US just saddens me. We really need to upgrade our educational system.
Thank you for voicing my thoughts.
Falcon
Ever hear of the "necessary and proper" clause? Before you go spouting off about the Constitution, read and understand it first.
Golly, I must of missed where it says health care is necessary or proper. But I do see where Amendment 5 say "or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." While money may not be private property, it is a way to gain that property.
Falcon
Over here the truck driver has to pay that, did they fail to catch him or what?
Actually his employer, he was working while driving a company van, paid. Almost a year later. The doctors and hospital had no guaranty they would paid before they treated me. However now because I survived a disability tax payers now have to pay to support me, when they shouldn't have to.
Falcon
All I ever here from people here, is how insurance companies deny claims and the huge amounts of co-pays
That is because there is no competition. In this post of yours you say you had employer provided health insurance. Guess what? Your employer got a tax deduction for offering the insurance. On the other hand if you, I, or almost anyone else goes and buys their own health insurance then we not get a tax deduction. That is a distortion of the market.
Also I have to pay $50 in co-pays for my meds every month while in Germany it would be capped at 10 euros irrespective of total amount.
Guess what? I am on Medicare right now and if it weren't for Walmart's commitment to offer thousands of drugs for $4 I couldn't afford my prescriptions, not that I can now.
Falcon
That is because there is little to no competition, nor is there a free market.
Falcon
you keep calling healthcare here a 'UK government monopoly', but that's completely wrong.
Can you opt out of NHI? If not it's mandatory and therefore no better than a monopoly.
Falcon
If Democrats were a center leaning group the bill they passed would not have passed.
it was really Medicare/Medicaid that was the first ventures towards that direction, so i guess this is the getting in the first few feet phase when everyone else is already well in and not complaining about it the way we are.
Nobody complains about Medicare? Are you really that far out of reality? Googling complaints about medicare returns more than 2 million results. Putting it in parentheses, "complaints about medicare", still results in more than 60,000. I am one of those that complains.
Falcon
All they have to do is extend Medicare to cover everyone.
Medicare is not a single payer system. I know, being on disability I am on Medicare and it does not cover all my medical expenses.
Falcon
The bill is a compromise. It's not written by some shadowy extreme-left "they".
Ooh really? What did conservative get out of it? What did those who value freedom get? What did those who want to keep the money they work to earn get? Or was it just a compromise between different groups on the US left who don't care what the US Constitution says?
Falcon
"How can it be optional if they are going to fine you when you say no???" She comes from the World War 2 generation, when freedom actually meant something.
How ironic you say this. The problem with health insurance got it's start in WWII. Government passed wage control laws, employers weren't allowed to pay employees more. Because this made it hard to hire people the government later allowed employers to offer insurance and other benefits to employees. For doing so they were given tax deductions. People who bought their own insurance didn't then and don't now get those deductions though. It tremendously distorted the market for health insurance.
Falcon
Perhaps you should read your own link, iTunes can read, write and convert those formats; flac, the only lossless filetype that I care for is not sold by iTunes. I know their audio tracks are DRM free, I was referring to their video offerings, all of which have DRM.
You said iTunes only sells MP3s when in fact they sell more.
I made a mistake myself though. It was when I said iTunes sells DRM files, it appears only the music files are DRM free.
We each made mistakes.
Falcon
what pisses me off about the whole illegal imigration issue
What pisses me off about the whole "illegal immigration" issue is that those who have pushed it are the ones left after the native population was massacred. The conquerors used laws to bar others from immigrating as well. The Know Nothings in the 1840s and '50s tried to make it illegal for Irish Catholics to immigrate to the US. The Chinese Exclusion Act barred Chinese from immigrating in the 1880s. Southern Europeans, Eastern Europeans, and Africans have been discriminated against. Now it's Central and South Americans, some who's ancestors have been here longer than the European immigrants who settled in the New World.
Falcon
Yes, and if they call the ambulance, without medical insurance, they can be shackled with massive medical bills.
They still get medical treatment so saying people are denied that treatment is BS and or a lie. I know, personally.
As a college student without insurance or working I was hit one day while riding my bike after classes. In a coma I was flown by helicopter to a hospital where I got treated, no treatment was withheld. After I came out of the coma I was moved to a rehab house. Even though I had no way to pay the bills I got the treatment doctors thought I needed. Altogether the medical bills came to more than $120,000, that was more than 10 years ago.
If you believe a bill can reside in a single page, you've never read a bill before.
Yes, a bill to remove exemptions can be done in less than a page. "A, B, and C are no longer exempt. Or the original law has those removed thus reducing it's length. Ooh and I have read real bills as well as real amendments. A long tyme ago I was even an elected member of student government. The First ten amendments to the Constitution of the USA didn't take more than a page. Heck the Constitution itself fits easily on 2 pages of paper, unlike the proposed EU constitution.
Dems have always pushed for more health care, and the republicans have always rejected it.
Lies. Republicans have not rejected more health care. In last year's campaign all candidates ran on reforming health care.
Spread your FUD somewhere else.
Falcon
As I said there are differences in general dictionary and legal definitions.
Falcon
you're walking on awfully thin ground claiming that things don't have to be proven
Ever here of innocent before proven guilty? Even in civil cases, which has less stringent guides to show guilt than criminal cases, innocence is the default position. I could say someone is guilty and sue them all I want, if I could afford it, but I'd still have to show guilt within reasonable doubt based on evidence.
And SCO never could produce code in Linux they owned. They didn't even own Unix code, Novell did. All SCO had was a contract to sell Unix licenses, which they then had to remit to Novell but never did. Under the license Novell would then pay SCO I think it was 5% of the contracts.
Falcon
That's right.
I'd like a reason to oppose things
How about the Constitution of the USA? Can you point to one place in there where the federal government is given the power control health care and medicine? And remember if it does not give a power then government does not have that power, it is a document limiting what government can do.
Now if you believe the government should do something the Constitution provides a way for it to do that, via amending it. Amazingly it has been amended 27 tymes already.
I personally like our parks, roads, fire/police/military, medicare, public educational finding/grants,
First, the Constitution gives the federal government the power to build and maintain roads. It also gives the power to defend the people and nation. Next there is nothing in the Constitution preventing state and local government from providing all these other things. And generally they have been pretty good at it. Actually with the feds into so much it can dictate to states what they must do. No Child Left Behind ring a bell? If a school doesn't meet federal requirements it can lose funding. Now if the feds did not have as high of taxes as it does then states and local governments could raise their own taxes and spend it on what they want instead of the feds dictating to them. Another example is Real ID. The feds want to tell the states they either have an ID that meets federal guidelines or they lose road funding. That's what they did with the minimum drinking age.
Anyone who believes in the purity of their ideals is suspect.
Then apply that to government as well. I have never ever heard of businesses exterminating and massacring millions of people but governments have a history of doing exactly that. Yes, even the government of the US.
if the private path went further towards these goals I'd vouch for it instead. Right now the private path seems to be a complete failure, individual greed and the general well being seem to be diametrically opposed.
You're assuming that the private path has been tried when in fact it has not been tried in more than 60 years. Instead government has been interfering with medicine and health care all this tyme.
Your statement is against the text of the bill, so the burden of proof is upon you.
You're looking at it the wrong way. It's not the responsibility if citizens to prove someone is not needed, it's the responsibility of government to prove that something is needed and that it has the power. Governments exist for the people, not the people existing for the government.
Falcon
My dental insurance covered root canals! Nice. Except... when I called them to get the name of a local specialist that could perform the procedure they told me, "Oh, #4 tooth? We don't cover root canals on that tooth. Sorry." This is a direct quote.
There I was riding my bike after my classes in college when I was hit by a moving van. I was flown, yes flown by helicopter, to a hospital where I was treated while I was in a coma. What was the total in medical bills? More than $120,000. Did I have any insurance at all? No, not working and being a college student I could not afford health insurance. I still got the medical care I needed to save my life, though I'd rather have died.
Falcon
It's not perfect. No bill is, but it IS an improvement over what we currently have, where people are outright denied any coverage at all.
Yes, people are denied insurance, but they are not denied medical care in life or death cases. Anybody can call for an ambulance to take them to the hospital. Neither the ambulance nor the hospital can deny treatment.
Actually that's in part why medical costs are high. Those who can not afford insurance wait until an emergency, when it will be expensive, before getting medical care. Because the law requires treatment the cost of the treatment is passed on to those who pay out of pocket and insurance.
The industry would also lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price fixing and market allocation which is a huge win for the consumer.
If true, I didn't know there was exemptions for antitrust restrictions in the health fields, removing them will help people. A 2000 page bill isn't needed to end the exemptions though. It takes less than a single page to do that.
As to the poor, the bill includes subsidies to help pay for their insurance when they cannot afford it.
To help pay but what if even with the subsidy a person still can afford insurance? Massachusetts already has a law like that, one than fines people for not buying insurance, but there are still people who can't afford insurance even with a subsidy. Some are finding it cheaper to pay the fine than to bu7y insurance.
If the Republican representatives were so repulsed by a 'government run health care system', then they would give up their own premium health care, which is run by the government I might add. Talk about the ultimate hypocrites. They already benefit from such a plan, and it's an excellent one at that. They also had many years of majority in both houses, and did absolutely nothing. They obviously had and still do not have the will to do what's needed.
Democrats are no different. Democrat representatives didn't offer the insurance taxpayers pay for congress. Try to get congress to offer everyone the same coverage they get and watch their reactions. The only people who have better coverage are the wealthy. Congress Keeps Gold-Plated Health Care... For Themselves
You're right on the money, but what happens when you get cancer and have to pony up $500k for cancer treatments?
Easy. First pay most medical costs out of pocket, most doctors are willing to reduce their prices if the person is paying out of pocket, after all filing and waiting for medical reimbursements fro insurance cost money. Next buy catastrophic health insurance. I know GP said he doesn't have insurance, but catastrophic health insurance pays for cancer treatments and such. Such policies are cheaper than insurance policies that only require a co-payment and cover the rest of the medical bill.
That's the kind of thing health insurance should be for, the catastrophic events that there is no way the average joe would be able to pay for.
You're right in part. Catastrophic expenses, not everyday expenses which is how most health insurance is today, should be paid for with insurance. Actually it should be up to the individuals who pay, if one person wants full coverage then they should be able to buy it, and pay the associated high premiums, whereas someone else who is willing and can pay out of pocket for most expenses should be able to buy catastrophic coverage with lower premiums.
Falcon
Then deny the illegal aliens that to which they are not entitled. People dó have to identify at the hospital, don't they? Do not let the legit US population suffer.
I've been hit riding my bike, which does not require a license, and was rushed to the hospital. Once I was unconscious and another tyme I was in a coma. Now would you require me to identify myself in order to get medical care? How would I do that when I'm in a coma? Would you require people to always carry their papers, Papers please?
Either you haven't thought this through or you don't care.
I'm not and never have been a US resident, also and like most /.-ers I'm not an expert on insurance systems: what would you suggest should be done to have fixed the old system?
Allow people to go across state lines to buy insurance. Right now each state can say who can and can not sell insurance in that state, I can not go across a state line and buy insurance in another state which may have lower insurance premiums. In other words there is no competition. Another thing, in the US most people who have health insurance get it through their employers. Those employers get tax deductions for offering insurance. If I buy my own insurance I do not get those tax deductions though. So, there is no free market. Quite simply, if controlling health care costs is the goal then what will work is to allow a free market.
Falcon
The reason is that the point isn't to fix the healthcare industry. The goal is to socialize it. We already have Medicare, Medicaid and SSI.
Medicare and Medicaid are health insurance policies but SSI isn't. SSI is disability insurance.
I agree with the rest though, as passed this bill isn't about fixing health care it's about socializing it. Nor does the Constitution of the USA give the federal government the power to offer a "public option". The one power it does give isn't used, the interstate commerce clause To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. The federal government can make it so that health insurance issued in one state can be bought and used in any other state. As it is now each state decides who can sell or offer insurance in the state. Some states only have a couple of companies offering insurance because the state only allows those companies to offer insurance.
Falcon
The government programs would fund the whole development process from start to end (not just stopping at the early basic research point)
That is what the NCI did with Taxol, it did everything to win FDA approval for use of Taxol as a drug. Everything. If NCI had wanted to, and laws or regulations allowed, the NCI could have applied to the FDA for approval with the date they had.
Some argue that the government can do the whole thing on its own, and if that turns out to be true chances are the private industry will naturally wither away since they can't compete with the resulting cheap drugs.
The problem with government paying for research is the government isn't concerned about making a profit, unlike a business which has to make profit government can spend unsightly somes of money. For myself, I disapprove of the federal government paying for research because it is not a constitutionally authorized power of the federal government. While I support the National Institutes of Health, of which the NCI is part of, and the CDC or Centers for Disease Control and Prevention I'd privatize them. Either make them businesses or non-profits. The FDA I'd abolish altogether.
Falcon
What does the United States Constitution have to do with the Free Software Foundation's definitions of anything?
Can you understand? You said only the FSF has the right to define what open source is so I asked what gives them the right to define it. If you don't understand rhetoric then I see no reason to continue.
Falcon
No, only the FSF (which wrote the GPL under which the ImageMaster code was released) can make the definitions here.
By what law or right can the FSF define something but others can't? I can't find it anywhere in the Constitution of the USA.
Falcon