All payment for health care comes from people, whether directly, indirectly via insurance using premiums paid by people, or even more inefficiently via government which uses taxes paid by people.
It is no secret that government is an incredibly inefficient redistributor. Therefore it is obvious to any thinking person that insurance companies could handle the same level of health care and charge less to do it.
I am sick and tired of all the whining that the free market hsn't solved some problem, therefore the government must step in. We haven't had anything close to a free market for ages. The health care industry in particular is hog tied from top to bottom.
If government really wanted to reform health care and insurance, it would be pretty simple:
Any policy must cover what was covered by a previous policy.
Switch the health insurance deduction fromemployers to people.
Don't allow premiums to rise merely because of claims; restrict them to age, gender, and risky behavior like mountain climbing.
One of the MAFIAA heads, I think Hilary Rosen (?), gave a speech some few years back where she complained that libraries let people read books without paying. My google-fu is weak today and I can't find references, but I remember it well.
Once again, ladies and gentlemen, we see more libertarian stances are unthinking bullshit.
Why don't you take you head out of Rand's ass long enough to actually think about what you spew out of you pie hole?
No, he's just some drunk who overheard a word he didn't understand and made a half-hearted weak attempt at satire. He's no more libertarian than the owners of the basement he occupies.
A true libertarian response is... nothing. Actions have consequences, and using forged documents to back up a lawsuit is nothing any libertarian would defend. No libertarian would say that every individual property owner would list all manner of restrictions like you suggest.
The real puzzle is why you would come up with such a pale imitation of either a real libertarian or a statist imitation thereof. It's really piss poor. I dunno. Maybe you heard someone bashing libertarians, looked the word up in a dictionary or asked an Obamneyite what it meant, and came up with that sorry rant. Pretty pathetic. You need to get a life or sharpen your sarcasm to include actual content.
Yes, those poor ignorant savages, always getting taken advantage of by the bad whites. Only the good whites can guide the poor ignorant savages on the path to enlightenment.
What effing world do you live in? If Android is actually taking over the world, it's doing so because it offers more choices. It's not like Apple, where fannies only get one or two new products every year and salivate between releases. If this plethora of choices is somehow evil, I am gobsmacked at having thought otherwise my whole life.
No. It shows that a lot of people don't stand by their convictions. They have a weak moral compass. Perhaps they only parrot what they think is popular.
At any rate, when faced with the conumdrum of having apparently ticked the wrong answer, they could have decided they had read it poorly the first time and made a simple mistake, but apparently they were too proud to admit that.
Or maybe they had such a weak opinion that they couldn't really decide. It's like voting for Obamney or Robama: once having decided that it must be one of them, and not a real alternative like Gary Johnson, their actual choice is so unimportant that they don't care. Or asking which you'd rather eat, broccoli or cauliflower, were a lot of people have no preference.
It has nothing to do with reading comprehension. A few might have made the mistake on the original question, but not half, and it wasn't a mistake on the substitute question because they had to actually support it.
I'd like to have seen them make supporting arguments on the original question and compared those to supporting arguments on the substitute question. That would weed out the reading comprehension possibility.
No, I remember it well, and it was a specific check to print the scary message and do nothing else. It was quite clearly marketing driven, not a lick of technological reasoning behind it.
There's a big difference between a war over a 150 year old colonial conquest in the middle of nowhere where Argentina had made enemies out of neighbors, and an outside insult like invading an embassy over a two bit crime. "Every single one" is probably an exaggeration, but not by much. People have rioted over far less.
You may be right technically, in a legal quibbling sense, but I and others are right in a practical sense. That wikipedia article says (my emphasis):
Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state.[5][6] Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Diplomats themselves still retain full diplomatic immunity, and (as an adherent to the Vienna Convention) the host country may not enter the premises of the mission without permission of the represented country. The term "extraterritoriality," therefore, is often used in this broader sense when applied to diplomatic missions.
As the host country may not enter the representing country's embassy without permission, embassies are sometimes used by refugees escaping from either the host country or a third country. For example, North Korean nationals, who would be arrested and deported from China upon discovery, have sought sanctuary at various third-country embassies in China. Once inside the embassy, diplomatic channels can be used to solve the issue and send the refugees to another country. Notable violations of embassy extraterritoriality include repeated invasions of the British Embassy, Beijing (1967)[7], the Iran hostage crisis (1979–1981) and the Japanese embassy hostage crisis at the ambassador's residence in Lima, Peru during 1996.
Embassy cars are also inviolate. Stopping and searching embassy cars would be just as much an international insult as storming the embassy building. If they want their embassy cars in Latin America to be left alone, they better leave the Ecuadorian embassy cars alone. They are playing with fire.
Says wikipedia about the Saigon embassy: "The Americans and the refugees they flew out were generally allowed to leave without intervention from either the North or South Vietnamese. Pilots of helicopters heading to Tan Son Nhat were aware that PAVN anti-aircraft guns were tracking them, but they refrained from firing. The Hanoi leadership, reckoning that completion of the evacuation would lessen the risk of American intervention, had instructed Dng not to target the airlift itself."
The US abandoned the embassy, and only then did the North Vietnamese invade it. Their actions showed an acute awareness of it being off-limits. Whether they would have invaded it if it had not been abandoned is an alternate universe question.
There's one hell of a lot of tradition behind leaving embassies and ambassadors alone, stretching way back to the middle ages at least.
The real question for Britain is, how much do they value their embassies in Latin America, how much do they value trade with the region, and how much effort do they want to put into protecting the Falklands?
It's all of Latin America. Do you really think any of Britain's embassies there would be protected by the local police? Do you really think trade would continue as if nothing happened?
Do you really think Latin Americans have no pride and no memory of past colonial abuses?
They ought to be terrified of the reaction from all of Latin America. Their embassies would be stormed in response and their trade would fall to pieces. What Latin American would want to be seen with any British product? Argentina would suddenly find a whole lot of friends ready to help it take back the Falklands, and I doubt the US would want to make any of its help public.
There's a much more likely response to the UK invading the embassy: their embassies in Latin America, all or nearly all of them, get stormed by people while the police pretend to be overwhelmed. They'd get very little sympathy from most of the world, have all of Latin America backing Argentina in a new takeover of the Falklands / Malvinas, and see all sorts of Latin America trade disappear down the toilet for decades.
Sure Assange is an asshole. Maybe he really did rape those women. But this is not the kind of charge you use as an excuse to become the first modern country to storm an embassy. Even the worst enemies in WW II didn't do that. Iran did, but their provocation was far worse than extradition for a dubious rape charge, and the world condemned them for it.
None of the Latin America countries enjoy being reminded of their past colonial status, or the continuing attitude of the US and European imperialists, whether former or not. I imagine if Britain really were so stupid as to storm the Ecuadoran embassy, every single one of their Latin American embassies would be stormed by the people, with the police stepping aside.
There aren't many people anywhere in the world that see this as anything but the UK sucking up to the US. No civilized country has ever stormed an embassy that I can think of, other than the Iranian revolutionaries storming the US embassy, and that was in response to 25 years of living under the Shah who had been forced on them by the US. Does Britain really want to be the first modern civilized country to do something so outrageous, for a somewhat dubious rape charge, as the US's lapdog? I wouldn't be surprised to see the Conservative government fall to a vote of no confidence. I can't imagine too many UK citizens would think this a proper demonstration of national pride.
Because SMS doesn't require a smart phone, it's always a push tech, and SMS will get thru in areas with marginal reception where a full internet connection won't.
Slashdot Mirror
What a load of twattle!
All payment for health care comes from people, whether directly, indirectly via insurance using premiums paid by people, or even more inefficiently via government which uses taxes paid by people.
It is no secret that government is an incredibly inefficient redistributor. Therefore it is obvious to any thinking person that insurance companies could handle the same level of health care and charge less to do it.
I am sick and tired of all the whining that the free market hsn't solved some problem, therefore the government must step in. We haven't had anything close to a free market for ages. The health care industry in particular is hog tied from top to bottom.
If government really wanted to reform health care and insurance, it would be pretty simple:
Any policy must cover what was covered by a previous policy.
Switch the health insurance deduction fromemployers to people.
Don't allow premiums to rise merely because of claims; restrict them to age, gender, and risky behavior like mountain climbing.
And a few other *simple* regulations.
One of the MAFIAA heads, I think Hilary Rosen (?), gave a speech some few years back where she complained that libraries let people read books without paying. My google-fu is weak today and I can't find references, but I remember it well.
Once again, ladies and gentlemen, we see more libertarian stances are unthinking bullshit.
Why don't you take you head out of Rand's ass long enough to actually think about what you spew out of you pie hole?
No, he's just some drunk who overheard a word he didn't understand and made a half-hearted weak attempt at satire. He's no more libertarian than the owners of the basement he occupies.
A true libertarian response is ... nothing. Actions have consequences, and using forged documents to back up a lawsuit is nothing any libertarian would defend. No libertarian would say that every individual property owner would list all manner of restrictions like you suggest.
The real puzzle is why you would come up with such a pale imitation of either a real libertarian or a statist imitation thereof. It's really piss poor. I dunno. Maybe you heard someone bashing libertarians, looked the word up in a dictionary or asked an Obamneyite what it meant, and came up with that sorry rant. Pretty pathetic. You need to get a life or sharpen your sarcasm to include actual content.
Yes, those poor ignorant savages, always getting taken advantage of by the bad whites. Only the good whites can guide the poor ignorant savages on the path to enlightenment.
That is one translation. Their words were in an ancient language, and there probably is no EXACT translation.
What effing world do you live in? If Android is actually taking over the world, it's doing so because it offers more choices. It's not like Apple, where fannies only get one or two new products every year and salivate between releases. If this plethora of choices is somehow evil, I am gobsmacked at having thought otherwise my whole life.
Or else YOU'VE been trolled. Your sarcasm detector is out of tune.
You give him a police record. Eventually he hangs himself with further crimes, and at least people who google have a chance at being forewarned.
No. It shows that a lot of people don't stand by their convictions. They have a weak moral compass. Perhaps they only parrot what they think is popular.
At any rate, when faced with the conumdrum of having apparently ticked the wrong answer, they could have decided they had read it poorly the first time and made a simple mistake, but apparently they were too proud to admit that.
Or maybe they had such a weak opinion that they couldn't really decide. It's like voting for Obamney or Robama: once having decided that it must be one of them, and not a real alternative like Gary Johnson, their actual choice is so unimportant that they don't care. Or asking which you'd rather eat, broccoli or cauliflower, were a lot of people have no preference.
It has nothing to do with reading comprehension. A few might have made the mistake on the original question, but not half, and it wasn't a mistake on the substitute question because they had to actually support it.
I'd like to have seen them make supporting arguments on the original question and compared those to supporting arguments on the substitute question. That would weed out the reading comprehension possibility.
No, I remember it well, and it was a specific check to print the scary message and do nothing else. It was quite clearly marketing driven, not a lick of technological reasoning behind it.
If the corners are round, you must impound.
Right, that's why people never riot over offended pride.
There's a big difference between a war over a 150 year old colonial conquest in the middle of nowhere where Argentina had made enemies out of neighbors, and an outside insult like invading an embassy over a two bit crime. "Every single one" is probably an exaggeration, but not by much. People have rioted over far less.
You may be right technically, in a legal quibbling sense, but I and others are right in a practical sense. That wikipedia article says (my emphasis):
Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state.[5][6] Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Diplomats themselves still retain full diplomatic immunity, and (as an adherent to the Vienna Convention) the host country may not enter the premises of the mission without permission of the represented country. The term "extraterritoriality," therefore, is often used in this broader sense when applied to diplomatic missions.
As the host country may not enter the representing country's embassy without permission, embassies are sometimes used by refugees escaping from either the host country or a third country. For example, North Korean nationals, who would be arrested and deported from China upon discovery, have sought sanctuary at various third-country embassies in China. Once inside the embassy, diplomatic channels can be used to solve the issue and send the refugees to another country. Notable violations of embassy extraterritoriality include repeated invasions of the British Embassy, Beijing (1967)[7], the Iran hostage crisis (1979–1981) and the Japanese embassy hostage crisis at the ambassador's residence in Lima, Peru during 1996.
Embassy cars are also inviolate. Stopping and searching embassy cars would be just as much an international insult as storming the embassy building. If they want their embassy cars in Latin America to be left alone, they better leave the Ecuadorian embassy cars alone. They are playing with fire.
Says wikipedia about the Saigon embassy: "The Americans and the refugees they flew out were generally allowed to leave without intervention from either the North or South Vietnamese. Pilots of helicopters heading to Tan Son Nhat were aware that PAVN anti-aircraft guns were tracking them, but they refrained from firing. The Hanoi leadership, reckoning that completion of the evacuation would lessen the risk of American intervention, had instructed Dng not to target the airlift itself."
The US abandoned the embassy, and only then did the North Vietnamese invade it. Their actions showed an acute awareness of it being off-limits. Whether they would have invaded it if it had not been abandoned is an alternate universe question.
There's one hell of a lot of tradition behind leaving embassies and ambassadors alone, stretching way back to the middle ages at least.
No. Embassies are foreign soil. The British would be wrong under international law to enter without permission, under every possible circumstance.
The real question for Britain is, how much do they value their embassies in Latin America, how much do they value trade with the region, and how much effort do they want to put into protecting the Falklands?
It's all of Latin America. Do you really think any of Britain's embassies there would be protected by the local police? Do you really think trade would continue as if nothing happened?
Do you really think Latin Americans have no pride and no memory of past colonial abuses?
They ought to be terrified of the reaction from all of Latin America. Their embassies would be stormed in response and their trade would fall to pieces. What Latin American would want to be seen with any British product? Argentina would suddenly find a whole lot of friends ready to help it take back the Falklands, and I doubt the US would want to make any of its help public.
There's a much more likely response to the UK invading the embassy: their embassies in Latin America, all or nearly all of them, get stormed by people while the police pretend to be overwhelmed. They'd get very little sympathy from most of the world, have all of Latin America backing Argentina in a new takeover of the Falklands / Malvinas, and see all sorts of Latin America trade disappear down the toilet for decades.
Sure Assange is an asshole. Maybe he really did rape those women. But this is not the kind of charge you use as an excuse to become the first modern country to storm an embassy. Even the worst enemies in WW II didn't do that. Iran did, but their provocation was far worse than extradition for a dubious rape charge, and the world condemned them for it.
None of the Latin America countries enjoy being reminded of their past colonial status, or the continuing attitude of the US and European imperialists, whether former or not. I imagine if Britain really were so stupid as to storm the Ecuadoran embassy, every single one of their Latin American embassies would be stormed by the people, with the police stepping aside.
There aren't many people anywhere in the world that see this as anything but the UK sucking up to the US. No civilized country has ever stormed an embassy that I can think of, other than the Iranian revolutionaries storming the US embassy, and that was in response to 25 years of living under the Shah who had been forced on them by the US. Does Britain really want to be the first modern civilized country to do something so outrageous, for a somewhat dubious rape charge, as the US's lapdog? I wouldn't be surprised to see the Conservative government fall to a vote of no confidence. I can't imagine too many UK citizens would think this a proper demonstration of national pride.
Because SMS doesn't require a smart phone, it's always a push tech, and SMS will get thru in areas with marginal reception where a full internet connection won't.