Hospitals should not be required to provide free health care to anyone who walks in with a sniffle. Hospitals should be required to provide health care to those with serious injuries or other life-threatening situations.
I have a relative who works in the health industry and by far the biggest leeches on the free hospital care are people who come in with colds or related afflictions (flu), those looking to score a hit and yes, illegal immigrants.
If you take all those away, and/or force those who come in with a cold to pay something, there would be tons of money left over to treat those who are truly sick and in need.
Rand was a moron and a hypocrite. She spoke of free markets and capitalism while accepting government handouts.
Further, using an example such as mine is perfectly acceptable in cases such as this one. We can use their experience to show why taking from one person to give another, by force no less, is a bad thing.
Here's an idea, if people are so hepped up on making sure someone else has healthcare, why don't they give the money directly to that person and write it off on their taxes as a charitable contribution?
That way the government isn't involved (no bureaucracy), the money goes directly the person in need and those contributing get a monetary pat on the back.
Oh right, won't work because you're not forcing everyone to hand over money at gun point.
And how do you propose that? Is it your opinion that the equipment and cabling will spontaneously appear from thin air? That the people to maintain these systems don't want to get paid for their work? Is this like "free" healthcare where people are forced to shell out money whether they want to or not and if you don't have the money to pay, everyone else chips in more money to cover you?
Or does the term free refer to you taking or using something without paying for it?
The Department of Labor and Industry wanted to upgrade its unemployment compensation system from its mainframe system. IBM initially said it would take 3 years and cost $15 million.
The state finally pulled the plug after the project was 42 months behind schedule and $60 million over budget.
So much for those vaunted project managers and the PMI certs they have. These two projects fall under the 70% of IT projects that fail, a statistic that hasn't changed in 2 decades.
We do not nurture people to adulthood as a society. That is the responsibility of the parents.
If we're going to say the government is the be all and end all, then why not go whole hog? Let's say from the moment a woman gets pregnant we insinuate the government into her life. Everything she does needs to be monitored which means she can't smoke, can't drink (maybe once a month), can't do drugs of any kind without the government okaying it, has to be visited every week by someone trained in prenatal care and so on.
Once that's done, we'll monitor the kid until they turn 18, with everything they do kept in a nice, secure database somewhere which can be referenced later in life.
As we grow, we'll keep checking in with the government to let them know how we're doing. This will go on until we die.
Your health is your responsibility, not mine. If you believe that just because someone gets cancer, gets hit by a car crossing the street while talking on their phone or gets coated with shrapnel because of some whack job, then let's do it. Let's make government our protectors and we can all share in the grief of higher taxes without personal responsibility. We can all be protected from the vagaries of life's unpleasantness. We won't have to do a thing. We'll just sit back and let the government take care of us.
The difference is that police and education benefits the society as a whole. Forcing me to pay for your health insurance does not.
How does it affect me if you break your arm or due to your constant sucking down a 2 liter of Mountain Dew every day you get diabetes? It doesn't.
They guy who breaks into your house does affect me because it will lower my property value AND I could be the next house on the burglars list.
Besides, no where does it say you have to take responsibility for your actions. You can continue to get drunk every weekend (killing your liver), smoke weed every day or snort coke (wrecking your system in general), continue to eat Twinkies and Ho Hos (getting obese and possibly diabetes) and all other sorts of activities which directly affect your health but which I end up paying because hey, it's free health care!
You feel that health care is so important, you get a job which pays you enough to afford it. I shouldn't have to pick up your tab because you feel it's acceptable to leech off of others.
No, piracy is popular because people believe they're entitled to whatever they want without having to compensate the person/people who created the item.
They're cheap, lazy and use semantics such as, "It's not really stealing" while trying to justify their actions.
Users mainly (obviously) but the crap I have to deal with from these supposed global companies is really getting on my nerves.
The worst part is I'm not a full-fledged admin. I'm the guy who does just about everything else that people rely on, including working with the admins.
As I like to say, I'm the guy who fixes the problems created by the experts.
We're trying to find a technical solution to a human problem.
That's my goto phrase whenever someone starts talking about using technology to solve X, where X is anything they're too stupid or lazy to do or not do, depending on the situation.
Too lazy to check the air pressure in your car's tires? Put a sensor in them! (and increase the cost and complexity of the system)
Can't be bothered to turn your fat ass around in the car seat to see if anyone/anything is behind you? Put a camera in the ass of your vehicle (and increase the cost and complexity of the system)
Can't be bothered to make sure your kid goes to school? Have them wear an RFID chip! (and increase the cost and complexity of the system)
The difference is, the rhinos have no choice BUT to mate with each because we've almost killed them all off. Had we not been plugging them with lead so we could cut off their horns, leaving the rest to rot, because some parts of the world are so backward and lacking in anything resembling scientific knowledge that they think the horn has some kind of magical properties, this wouldn't be an issue.
Except for direct hit by solar flares or an asteroid/comet impact, the most likely cause of someone having to sleep with their sister to repopulate the world will be because of our doing.
That's always my question every time some company royally screws up. Like the plant in Texas which blew up because they lied about how much explosive stuff they had on hand or in my local area, a paving company has to go back and redo some work they did because the work wasn't up to snuff.
Every time a company screws up I say something to this effect on my local board because some guy always whines about the government screwing up and how private industry is always better.
It's like the people who espouse "Free Markets!" yet cheered when the taxpayer was forced to pick up the tab for the sins of the financial industry. Either you believe in free markets and letting them do what they do with as little government intervention as possible, or you want the government to be there to clean up after your mess and thwart the free market through trading collars and other rules.
No, it's because the three major providers in the U.S. sue the municipality for trying to offer what the provider refuses to do, and at a similar if not lower price. The companies claim they can't compete against the government entity.
It's like the batshit crazy ex who doesn't want to be with you but also doesn't want anyone else being with you.
True, but by doing this it would achieve the same thing that happened on 9/11. Namely, every airport in the nation would be shut down, every airplane grounded and more people living in fear that going to the supermarket might make them a target.
Then, in response to this, the TSA would be expanded even further to force people to undergo background checks before flying, to get searched before entering the terminals, and other related issues. The government would (somehow) get even more intrusive in our lives, possibly forcing us to verify who we are at all times.
Thus, we would have to change our ways which is the stated goal of terrorism. Killing people isn't the issue. It's getting people to live in fear and the changes to society that occur as a result of the terrorism until we do what they want.
I don't see why an airport should be a less secure zone than a plane.
And yet, I and 19 of my "friends" could walk into 5 of the busiest airports in the country on the day before Thanksgiving, each carrying a backpack and two duffel bags filled with explosives and shrapnel, get in line and at a predetermined time, blow ourselves up while waiting in the crowded lines caused by the security circus.
How many people do you think we could kill/maim in that event?
Who would prevent me from doing this? They don't check people as they walk into the building. That certainly isn't very secure.
It was not checking out too many books. He deliberately went into the library, where he didn't have access, and took books which the library had which could only be checked out under strict controls (i.e. the books were rare, old, in bad shape, etc).
You would agree that someone breaking into a library and performing the above acts should be jailed, correct? If not, then apparently breaking and entering isn't a crime in your eyes, nor is stealing something you don't have access to.
Exactly, because when someone installs their own equipment in someone else's closet, tries to hide the fact that they installed the equipment, carfs down oodles and oodles of documents which the general public did not have access to because THEY felt they had the right to decide how the information is used, that person bears no responsibility for their actions.
It's all on the backs of those who caught the person doing something they didn't have a right to do, not the person committing the crime.
Considering Baltimore has made it legal to be an illegal immigrant, it seems odd that the would have any restrictions at all.
I no longer visit Baltimore for that very reason. You get me for not having enough money in the meter but you let Paco and his compatriots roam the streets at will.
Slashdot Mirror
Hospitals should not be required to provide free health care to anyone who walks in with a sniffle. Hospitals should be required to provide health care to those with serious injuries or other life-threatening situations.
I have a relative who works in the health industry and by far the biggest leeches on the free hospital care are people who come in with colds or related afflictions (flu), those looking to score a hit and yes, illegal immigrants.
If you take all those away, and/or force those who come in with a cold to pay something, there would be tons of money left over to treat those who are truly sick and in need.
So there's your fix. Now let's implement it.
Rand was a moron and a hypocrite. She spoke of free markets and capitalism while accepting government handouts.
Further, using an example such as mine is perfectly acceptable in cases such as this one. We can use their experience to show why taking from one person to give another, by force no less, is a bad thing.
Here's an idea, if people are so hepped up on making sure someone else has healthcare, why don't they give the money directly to that person and write it off on their taxes as a charitable contribution?
That way the government isn't involved (no bureaucracy), the money goes directly the person in need and those contributing get a monetary pat on the back.
Oh right, won't work because you're not forcing everyone to hand over money at gun point.
If you're shelling out money, it's not free, is it?
Being forced to buy something you may not need or want just so the other guy doesn't have to take personal responsibility is not free.
The Soviets tried that process. Look how well it worked for them.
give everyone free internet
And how do you propose that? Is it your opinion that the equipment and cabling will spontaneously appear from thin air? That the people to maintain these systems don't want to get paid for their work? Is this like "free" healthcare where people are forced to shell out money whether they want to or not and if you don't have the money to pay, everyone else chips in more money to cover you?
Or does the term free refer to you taking or using something without paying for it?
Please define your definition of free.
The Department of Labor and Industry wanted to upgrade its unemployment compensation system from its mainframe system. IBM initially said it would take 3 years and cost $15 million.
The state finally pulled the plug after the project was 42 months behind schedule and $60 million over budget.
So much for those vaunted project managers and the PMI certs they have. These two projects fall under the 70% of IT projects that fail, a statistic that hasn't changed in 2 decades.
We do not nurture people to adulthood as a society. That is the responsibility of the parents.
If we're going to say the government is the be all and end all, then why not go whole hog? Let's say from the moment a woman gets pregnant we insinuate the government into her life. Everything she does needs to be monitored which means she can't smoke, can't drink (maybe once a month), can't do drugs of any kind without the government okaying it, has to be visited every week by someone trained in prenatal care and so on.
Once that's done, we'll monitor the kid until they turn 18, with everything they do kept in a nice, secure database somewhere which can be referenced later in life.
As we grow, we'll keep checking in with the government to let them know how we're doing. This will go on until we die.
Your health is your responsibility, not mine. If you believe that just because someone gets cancer, gets hit by a car crossing the street while talking on their phone or gets coated with shrapnel because of some whack job, then let's do it. Let's make government our protectors and we can all share in the grief of higher taxes without personal responsibility. We can all be protected from the vagaries of life's unpleasantness. We won't have to do a thing. We'll just sit back and let the government take care of us.
Solution: If security is important to you, don't be lazy.
This is Google we're talking about. The company which says you have no privacy.
This just shows they really mean it!
The difference is that police and education benefits the society as a whole. Forcing me to pay for your health insurance does not.
How does it affect me if you break your arm or due to your constant sucking down a 2 liter of Mountain Dew every day you get diabetes? It doesn't.
They guy who breaks into your house does affect me because it will lower my property value AND I could be the next house on the burglars list.
Besides, no where does it say you have to take responsibility for your actions. You can continue to get drunk every weekend (killing your liver), smoke weed every day or snort coke (wrecking your system in general), continue to eat Twinkies and Ho Hos (getting obese and possibly diabetes) and all other sorts of activities which directly affect your health but which I end up paying because hey, it's free health care!
You feel that health care is so important, you get a job which pays you enough to afford it. I shouldn't have to pick up your tab because you feel it's acceptable to leech off of others.
No, piracy is popular because people believe they're entitled to whatever they want without having to compensate the person/people who created the item.
They're cheap, lazy and use semantics such as, "It's not really stealing" while trying to justify their actions.
Order and wait? Are you crippled? You go to the store and have the rings at your place in 30 minutes (unless you live really far from a store).
Have we grown so lazy that we dare not leave our places any more?
Convenience is one thing, laziness is just inexcusable.
people are going to overdose and kill themselves.
And the problem with this is. . . ?
Voice wecognition on that thing is terrible. Wook.
Siwi, can you wecommend a westauwant?
I'm sorry, Bawwy. I don't understand "wecommend a westauwant."
Wisten to me. Not "westauwant," *westauwant*.
I don't know what you mean by "not westauwant, westauwant."
See? Total cwap. You suck, Siwi.
Users mainly (obviously) but the crap I have to deal with from these supposed global companies is really getting on my nerves.
The worst part is I'm not a full-fledged admin. I'm the guy who does just about everything else that people rely on, including working with the admins.
As I like to say, I'm the guy who fixes the problems created by the experts.
Dealing with incompetence and stupidity.
No shit.
Put another way:
We're trying to find a technical solution to a human problem.
That's my goto phrase whenever someone starts talking about using technology to solve X, where X is anything they're too stupid or lazy to do or not do, depending on the situation.
Too lazy to check the air pressure in your car's tires? Put a sensor in them! (and increase the cost and complexity of the system)
Can't be bothered to turn your fat ass around in the car seat to see if anyone/anything is behind you? Put a camera in the ass of your vehicle (and increase the cost and complexity of the system)
Can't be bothered to make sure your kid goes to school? Have them wear an RFID chip! (and increase the cost and complexity of the system)
The difference is, the rhinos have no choice BUT to mate with each because we've almost killed them all off. Had we not been plugging them with lead so we could cut off their horns, leaving the rest to rot, because some parts of the world are so backward and lacking in anything resembling scientific knowledge that they think the horn has some kind of magical properties, this wouldn't be an issue.
Except for direct hit by solar flares or an asteroid/comet impact, the most likely cause of someone having to sleep with their sister to repopulate the world will be because of our doing.
That's always my question every time some company royally screws up. Like the plant in Texas which blew up because they lied about how much explosive stuff they had on hand or in my local area, a paving company has to go back and redo some work they did because the work wasn't up to snuff.
Every time a company screws up I say something to this effect on my local board because some guy always whines about the government screwing up and how private industry is always better.
It's like the people who espouse "Free Markets!" yet cheered when the taxpayer was forced to pick up the tab for the sins of the financial industry. Either you believe in free markets and letting them do what they do with as little government intervention as possible, or you want the government to be there to clean up after your mess and thwart the free market through trading collars and other rules.
No, it's because the three major providers in the U.S. sue the municipality for trying to offer what the provider refuses to do, and at a similar if not lower price. The companies claim they can't compete against the government entity.
It's like the batshit crazy ex who doesn't want to be with you but also doesn't want anyone else being with you.
Either way, you're screwed.
I use targets with Ted's face on it. Gives me more incentive to hit the bulls eye than just a bunch of circles.
True, but by doing this it would achieve the same thing that happened on 9/11. Namely, every airport in the nation would be shut down, every airplane grounded and more people living in fear that going to the supermarket might make them a target.
Then, in response to this, the TSA would be expanded even further to force people to undergo background checks before flying, to get searched before entering the terminals, and other related issues. The government would (somehow) get even more intrusive in our lives, possibly forcing us to verify who we are at all times.
Thus, we would have to change our ways which is the stated goal of terrorism. Killing people isn't the issue. It's getting people to live in fear and the changes to society that occur as a result of the terrorism until we do what they want.
Which we are doing quite nicely.
I don't see why an airport should be a less secure zone than a plane.
And yet, I and 19 of my "friends" could walk into 5 of the busiest airports in the country on the day before Thanksgiving, each carrying a backpack and two duffel bags filled with explosives and shrapnel, get in line and at a predetermined time, blow ourselves up while waiting in the crowded lines caused by the security circus.
How many people do you think we could kill/maim in that event?
Who would prevent me from doing this? They don't check people as they walk into the building. That certainly isn't very secure.
It was not checking out too many books. He deliberately went into the library, where he didn't have access, and took books which the library had which could only be checked out under strict controls (i.e. the books were rare, old, in bad shape, etc).
You would agree that someone breaking into a library and performing the above acts should be jailed, correct? If not, then apparently breaking and entering isn't a crime in your eyes, nor is stealing something you don't have access to.
Exactly, because when someone installs their own equipment in someone else's closet, tries to hide the fact that they installed the equipment, carfs down oodles and oodles of documents which the general public did not have access to because THEY felt they had the right to decide how the information is used, that person bears no responsibility for their actions.
It's all on the backs of those who caught the person doing something they didn't have a right to do, not the person committing the crime.
Considering Baltimore has made it legal to be an illegal immigrant, it seems odd that the would have any restrictions at all.
I no longer visit Baltimore for that very reason. You get me for not having enough money in the meter but you let Paco and his compatriots roam the streets at will.