>There is plenty of time for the parent company to get their ROI.
But people are paying, no doubt competing for, the prices in the OP's message. So why should they wait? Price the services at the level that the market bears.
You are a professional journalist covering the olympic games. If this is more than a single digit percentage of your budget... you're not actually a player in that realm...
>It's already done. I know for a fact that cops, cab drivers, & aircraft pilots are required to pass >a physical exam. This isn't a new thing.
Yes of course, but the results are not disclosed *to you*. They probably are not even disclosed *to the organization*, except under very well-defined conditions, and even then, no doubt, with the patients authorization.
Without the patient's authorization, it is in all cases, grounds for revoking a medical license to improperly disclose medical information. Now if you spent four or five years getting a pre-med undergrad, six years getting a medical degree, and however long you've spent in practice (not long if you're still having to do physicals for cops), you don't want to lose it all, right?
The chief of police doesn't have the ability to look up which of the female officers have had abortions or STD's in the last 5 years.
>How many of you take the insurance discount at work for submitting to a health screening?
No such thing has been offered or even discussed at my workplace.
I'd love to have a free health screening. But I'd make very sure that the screening was done by the physician of my choice, and I will have it in writing from that physician that under HIPAA and other statutes, no disclosure will be made. And if illegal disclosure were made, I'd be very aggressive about having that physician's license to practice medicine taken away, and as much of his assets as possible, deeded to me in return for the damage that was done.
>Of course, as someone else pointed out, we don't have the right to privacy about our medical lives >from insurance companies, or the government.
Well, I'm not sure where you're going with "the government", but in the case of the insurance company, the company operates as a disinterested third party, and does not report anything to your employer that you do not agree to have disclosed.
>Sure, sounds great. Someone should tell the insurance companies and medical transcription outfits >about that, though.
There are corner cases where crimes are committed. Nevertheless, insurance companies do *not* disclose details about employee health records to other people in the company, not even to senior management, at least not without a sufficiently strong argument to obtain a court order.
There's a very serious, very high-penalty law protecting this level of privacy.
Imagine if some religious fanatic upper manager decided to find out if any employees had ever had abortions or sexually transmitted diseases? Imagine if they *could* obtain this information?
I don't see a post from anybody saying they'd give up their right to sell the stock if it turns out the medical record in question shows a clean bill of health.
For a Slashdot crowd, this thread is a disturbing indication that people seem to not understand what *rights* are.
>We want the police, airline pilots, cab drivers, surgeons, etc to be free of certain medical issues >for the sake of the public safety.
Who decides which medical issues are "certain?"
And to whom is the disclosure made?
The shareholders, customers, or any citizen who wants to know? No. Senior level executives and the board? Probably not. A disinterested third party who is compelled by law to limit disclosure at the risk of loss of medical licenses, enormous fines, and prison time? I could accept that. If there were very clear criteria, and judgments beyond merely "fly or no fly", and there was a disinterested party whose sole function was as a healthcare practitioner (and tightly bound to confidentiality!), then yes, I can accept certain limited interpretations of the things you said.
Well, nowadays, the enforcers of Federal Law say so.
What you're up against here is a law that can put you in a federal supermax for 5 years or more, just for *trying* to force the disclosure of this kind of information.
>But the stock holders also have the right to bail out due to rumors.
A stockholder who sells something as solid as Apple Computer on such a rumor, deserves whatever happens as a result. It's not as though any other board member could not take over competently.
Slashdot Mirror
>for the record, $50,000 for free coffee in a year is ~$191.57/day spent on coffee
Not even enough to provide 100 employees with a daily Grande Regular Coffee from Starbucks, at the retail price.
>Whilst this is true, I suspect that his company will be paying for it.
Why didn't they get in early enough to be reselling it and taking a cut?
*Somebody* did, and I'll bet they are having a good laugh reading all this.
>There is plenty of time for the parent company to get their ROI.
But people are paying, no doubt competing for, the prices in the OP's message.
So why should they wait? Price the services at the level that the market bears.
>You live in a desert in the middle of a fucked up shithole wasteland.
I do, literally... but I get 15mbps for about $80/mo.
You are a professional journalist covering the olympic games.
If this is more than a single digit percentage of your budget... you're not actually a player in that realm...
Plenty of people have said that Jobs should be compelled to give up certain information. There is no basis for this argument. It's that simple.
>Give me a break. Jobs *is* Apple. The day he kicks the bucket is the day the whole company begins a
>slide into nothingness.
Perhaps. This argument does not diminish his rights as a human being nor as a United States citizen, and that is the only question at issue here.
No matter who is elected to the Presidency or to Congress, investors always have a honeymoon.
>It's already done. I know for a fact that cops, cab drivers, & aircraft pilots are required to pass
>a physical exam. This isn't a new thing.
Yes of course, but the results are not disclosed *to you*.
They probably are not even disclosed *to the organization*, except under very well-defined conditions, and even then, no doubt, with the patients authorization.
Without the patient's authorization, it is in all cases, grounds for revoking a medical license to improperly disclose medical information. Now if you spent four or five years getting a pre-med undergrad, six years getting a medical degree, and however long you've spent in practice (not long if you're still having to do physicals for cops), you don't want to lose it all, right?
The chief of police doesn't have the ability to look up which of the female officers have had abortions or STD's in the last 5 years.
>How many of you take the insurance discount at work for submitting to a health screening?
No such thing has been offered or even discussed at my workplace.
I'd love to have a free health screening. But I'd make very sure that the screening was done by the physician of my choice, and I will have it in writing from that physician that under HIPAA and other statutes, no disclosure will be made. And if illegal disclosure were made, I'd be very aggressive about having that physician's license to practice medicine taken away, and as much of his assets as possible, deeded to me in return for the damage that was done.
>Of course, as someone else pointed out, we don't have the right to privacy about our medical lives
>from insurance companies, or the government.
Well, I'm not sure where you're going with "the government", but
in the case of the insurance company, the company operates as a disinterested third party, and does not report anything to your employer that you do not agree to have disclosed.
>Sure, sounds great. Someone should tell the insurance companies and medical transcription outfits
>about that, though.
There are corner cases where crimes are committed. Nevertheless, insurance companies do *not* disclose details about employee health records to other people in the company, not even to senior management, at least not without a sufficiently strong argument to obtain a court order.
There's a very serious, very high-penalty law protecting this level of privacy.
Imagine if some religious fanatic upper manager decided to find out if any employees had ever had abortions or sexually transmitted diseases? Imagine if they *could* obtain this information?
I don't see a post from anybody saying they'd give up their right to sell the stock if it turns out the medical record in question shows a clean bill of health.
For a Slashdot crowd, this thread is a disturbing indication that people seem to not understand what *rights* are.
>We want the police, airline pilots, cab drivers, surgeons, etc to be free of certain medical issues
>for the sake of the public safety.
Who decides which medical issues are "certain?"
And to whom is the disclosure made?
The shareholders, customers, or any citizen who wants to know? No. Senior level executives and the board? Probably not. A disinterested third party who is compelled by law to limit disclosure at the risk of loss of medical licenses, enormous fines, and prison time? I could accept that. If there were very clear criteria, and judgments beyond merely "fly or no fly", and there was a disinterested party whose sole function was as a healthcare practitioner (and tightly bound to confidentiality!), then yes, I can accept certain limited interpretations of the things you said.
>No when you are a public figure and so much people (users and investors, depends on you.
What's that? You get to decide which rights are abridged and for whom under what circumstances?
No, you don't get to do that. The Constitutional doctrine of "Equal Protection", among other things, definitely say you don't.
>Who says they had any such right
Well, nowadays, the enforcers of Federal Law say so.
What you're up against here is a law that can put you in a federal supermax for 5 years or more,
just for *trying* to force the disclosure of this kind of information.
>Have you ever read the New York Times??? They're socialists.
Why don't you read a book on political science before you open your mouth to squawk about socialists again?
>But the stock holders also have the right to bail out due to rumors.
A stockholder who sells something as solid as Apple Computer on such a rumor, deserves whatever happens as a result. It's not as though any other board member could not take over competently.
>Actually, I thought the entire point of this discussion *was* whether or not Jobs had the legal
>obligation to disclose his health.
You can sign a contract giving up your right and/or agreeing to disclosure.
Short of that, Jobs has no such obligation.
>I'm not sure I know what is or isn't owed to the public in the way of medical disclosure
I'm quite sure I know.
His medical information is private for the same reason yours is. It really is that simple: Either he has a right to this privacy or YOU DON'T.
But you do have that right. End of story. For a slashdot crowd, people sure do seem quick to want to abridge rights.
He has the same right to privacy of these records that you have for all the same reasons.
You want to abridge that right.
Tough titty!
When everybody on the NYT Board of Directors posts their full medical histories in an NYT op-ed, I will read this article.
> I got a reseller account with a company that will remain nameless.
What are you afraid of here?
The company's name is not some sort of privileged information that you can be punished for disclosing!
You are not in a position of decision making authority where you could veto this idea, or specify what the policy will be.
So explain the reason you care, exactly?
Get into a position where you make the decisions. Until then, don't waste your time worrying about this stuff.
>Apple Geniuses are hourly employees who work in shopping malls.
I'm surprised so many people with 140+ IQ can't do better.