The problem is that sales taxes are spent in the state, not at the point of sale. Sales tax cover costs for roads and other services to brick and mortar establishments. All they are on the internet is mostly a money grab. In a lot of cases, the products being sold are not even delivered from the state where the sale was registered.
The second problem is that if states 1 to 47 have sales tax and 1-3 do not, then a lot of business is going to gravitate to those last three states.
Of course, if they tax them to be the same as brick and mortar, then folks will just shift back away from the internet.
That is actually a very interesting loophole and i bet the authorities have already dealt with it and found it to be prostitution. Someone pays the girls even if the pimp doesn't. It probably becomes muddier if he is paying them indirectly.
But anyway... if you opened a house with free girls in it. And you charged folks a hundred bucks an hour to go into the house... you would be busted for something.
We already have roombas that can find their plug and plug back in.
While there will be special cases (like the symphony), a lot of generic offices would do just fine with a fleet of roombas that come out to vacuum at night and then return to a storage closet.
I think you could just stop at "The problem is that there's just too many people."
We can keep cutting our lifestyles to the point where we avoid beans so the methane from multitudes of humans don't impact the atmosphere or we can get the population back down to 3 Billion and live on a paradise planet with a great deal of freedom.
You left of 9. Self checkout machines. These allow one human to check out 6 customers at a time.
Look at my other thread for a cost analysis. Most of your argument is predicated on robots being expensive. Given $55k robots, in my other post, I show it's cheaper than high school students. At $55k, you have three robots. Breakdowns are just a maintenance and SLA issue (except for the forklift issue but that won't stop robots any more- just slow them down- especially with today's surveillance abilities- likewise, who says a human is going to be running the forklift? You could easily have a truck back up to the dock and be unloaded completely to the warehouse by robots).
A car costs $11,000 to $35,000. Some very small run cars run $55,000.
They require maintenance but they really only even start breaking down after a few years (75-80 thousand miles).
Say a Kroger Stocking robot cost $55,000 and it requires $3,000 a year maintenance before being worn out after 5 years (total cost $60,000). It doesn't break down, it doesn't call in sick, and it can work seven days a week.
Having two low wage humans work a full shift 7 days a week all year runs about $36,000 a year after matching SS#, workers comp, and unemployment taxes. No health care, these are high schoolers being replaced. No vacation. No sick time. This would really be three or four high-schoolers since they are worked part time- maybe 20 to 30 hours a week (in part to prevent them being "full time" employees and partially because, well, they are in highschool.)
Over five years, Kroger would spend $180,000 on the humans (and probably more because of inflation). Over five years, Kroger would spend $60,000 (maybe $72,000 with financing but then they would also get to write off the expense and effectively pay $40,000 for them because of tax deductions you get for capital equipment).
It looks like the robots could actually cost up to $150,000 and still be a very good deal.
And as I said above, the reality is a lot more humans than two. And for 3rd shift work, they are probably making over 7 bucks an hour (plus overhead).
On the east and west coast, it's probably even worse.
As I said, when they solve the computer vision problem- it changes EVERYTHING. If you thought the industrial revolution and the luddites was impressive, hold on to your hat. It will be very good to have some money saved up going into this change. And you probably would want to buy stock in whatever company is making the "model T" of robots.
Finally- I expect consumer robots (put away, wash dishes, do laundry, vaccuum, make the bed) would rapidly drop to my original $12,000 or less.
I could argue this with you, but I don't think that's the right tack because it doesn't address my basic point.
My point is this: Robots can't replace many human jobs now because they cannot see.
Once robots can see, there will be a point where many "menial" jobs can be performed by them.
We need to start thinking about how we are going to handle the huge numbers of people who are only qualified for menial work now before we get to that day.
We may disagree on if that is 5 years (unlikely but possible) or 100 years (a certainty if we are not wiped out by some kind of bio-weapon or other new form of weapon of mass destruction).
My feeling is, once they solve the vision problem, we are at most five years from people being replaced.
And I'm not talking about a robot that does everything- I'm talking about specific types such as a "shelf stocking" robot. The market for those would be huge (imagine the savings of replacing the 6-10 people I see stocking the shelves late at night). Likewise an automatic cleaning robot for buildings- our building has a staff of 20 every night.
A large number of humans become unemployable shortly after this becomes a reality.
Anything where the only reason a human has the job is because they can see is done in the 1st world.
Why should you pay $7.25 an hour (really $9.25 w/benefits & overheard for workers comp, unemployment tax, etc.) when you can buy a $12,000 machine to do the same job (stocking grocery shelves, cleaning, painting, etc.).
The leading edge is here with things like roomba's.
They definately keep an artificially low supply of doctors. Hell they talk about it openly in their own press releases. By restricting the supply of doctors they keep them rare and expensive. There is no reason that lots of people couldn't be doctors (not specialists) and there is no reason for the insane residency hazing programs.
Yes and after a very short period, anyone can make that same product-- not (typical case they are pushing for!!!) 145 years!
Entire genre's of music would not exist under the current copyright law (blues, jazz). New forms of music are being smothered in the cradle by copyright law. The heinous fact that people can copyright tiny sequences of notes and lock them up for a hundred years is horrible. Copyright law is supposed to make lots of entertainment for people- not kill it.
However, back to your point-- if the every business on the planet got to use the same rules the music business did, we would be paying five to twenty times the price for everything invented since "Happy Birthday to You" was written (*STILL UNDER COPYRIGHT*) (http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp) in 1924! Almost 100 years ago. Everyone associated with the song is DEAD, DEMISED, PASSED OFF THE MORTAL COIL (oops- I just infringed something written in the last 75 years... uh oh).
If you can invent transisters (i.e. COMPUTERS) and you only get 17 years protection, why the HELL should "Happy Birthday To You" get 83 YEARS protection (and it's going to be protected through 2030 IF DISNEY DOESN'T BUY ANOTHER LAW).
If you search for 28 years and copyright you'll find a lot of references to the 28 year period plus a variety of extension periods that are getting longer and longer as mickey mouse gets older (47 years, 67 years, 95 years proposed). There are also references to the original periods being 14 years (http://news.com.com/5208-1025_3-0.html?forumID=1& threadID=22796&messageID=202465&start=0).
Wiki references the 28 year term here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_ Term_Extension_Act "...They question the proponents' life expectancy argument, pointing out that the copyright terms under the 1790 act lasted only 28 years total, that life expectancies have not risen threefold since 1790 (ignoring infant mortality, they have increased barely ten years), and that even though terms of patents have not been extended in parallel, patents adequately reward investment in the field with their mere 20-year term...."
I believe Valenti said point blank that it should be "forever + 1 day". This is what they are really driving for (even tho most of their stuff is based on other materials and in fact american entertainment is big on the west coast because they were infringing like hell on east coast works and it was a bit harder to travel back then.)
It's a bit rough since I remember a lot of things but not clearly where i first heard them any more. I probably decided 10 to 15 years ago that 28 years was about the limit of a reasonable period to me.
Based on many past threads and discussions- you are making a bit of an overstatement.
Lots of people here are anti-drm / information wants to be free. In varies from the college student being as ethical as they can afford to be (buy a few CD's and then pirate the rest when they run out of money) to the folks who have absolutely no respect for copyright to people like me that have no respect for the extended copyright periods that I feel were bought by media companies (If it's over 28 years old, I'll pirate away unless i can get it for a *reasonable* price).
For example: I put down $200 smackers five seasons for get smart. On the other hand I ahoy'd some 1960-1966 comics in cdisplay format vs paying $50 for them in hardback format. I'll also download things so I can take them on a trip with me- for example I downloaded Moulin Rouge (which I own on DVD) because I wanted to take it with me and not risk losing my original.
I have a problem with DRM period. I think we have a temporary window where these products are grossly overpriced. I completely disagree that an "artist" should get paid for the rest of their life for a song when the rest of the world gets paid by the hour. The purpose of copyright is not to provide artists/ creators retirement but to encourage them to create works for the public. Given how many artists there are striving to create entertainment today- I really doubt they need any more encouragement.
I'm really pretty cynical about the value of standing up for what I believe in. I do things on a personal level (habitat for humanity, donations to charities) but really want to get in a bullet proof situation before I do anything political. I view that I have a lot to lose with little to gain. The stakes went up even more when I developed the medical conditions.
Underlying all of it is a fairly nihilistic philosophy tho I have to admit. If I were to shoot for the bleachers, in 100 years, I would have suffered and the world will be exactly the same as if I minded my peace and enjoyed my private personal life.
I even feel that way for my charity activities but at least they make me feel good. But when I save a few kids from starving today, they are just going to grow up and have two to three times as many kids- making the basic problem (too many people) much worse.
It's hard to think of areas where any impact I might have are worth the stakes. And I'm able to help several friends who are worse off because of my position. But I have to admit, it's a wariness and lack of confidence that prevents me from striving.
and small companies could offer the same health benefits as large ones. and you'd have the same health benefits if you were self employed. and companies would not have an incentive to move jobs to countries without (or with much cheaper) health insurance.
You don't have to have a nice place to live, a computer worth a grand, a car, etc.
Lots of people choose freedom all the time.
We *are* slaves for computers, big screen tv's, even our pet bills (mine run almost $1,500 a year between food and vet bills).
I *AM* a slave and will be until I save up enough money to cover my life style. I'm giving up a couple decades of healthy life where I could be wandering around (without a car), talking, playing, etc.
The entire system is set up so you can be a willing slave or you can be poor and powerless with very few exceptions.
But like democracy, it is better than many of the alternatives.
You say: I mean, most people are not usually sick.
I think you may be a bit young. After a certain age, almost everyone is sick all the time.
The body breaks down in ways that can be adjusted and fixed if you have insurance or lots of money.
Diabetes, high blood pressure, cataracts, arthritis, low thyroid (VERY COMMON*), low hormones etc. etc.
People are very healthy until they are in their 30's. By their 50's most people have something going on. So for the last 10 to 40 years of their life they are taking something daily. Whatever is wrong usually won't kill them right away but it will carve several years off their lives.
* If you do not feel normal (tired, foggy thinking, losing the outer third of your eyebrows, anxious, low energy, sleep but it doesn't get you rested) you really should have your thyroid and primary sex hormones tested. Thyroid has lots of random symptoms. Testosterone is almost a miracle drug for men 40 to 60 (take saw palmetto to help keep your prostate healthy tho).
In part is from our examples of welfare in america. when it was relaxed and easy to get we developed large populations of people that never worked nor did they intend to work. Read about the hippy communes and so on in california. Part of the reasons they did so well were welfare checks.
Welfare and unemployment is a wonderful thing to give to people in need. It is a horrible and corrosive thing to give to people too tho and can absolutely destroy them. Any drive they may have had to create, to learn, to thrive is instead destroyed and they just get by.
It finally got bad enough here that a democratic president ended it for the most part.
The fact that large numbers of people were on welfare and had no intention of getting off it is just embedded in any discussion about the subject now.
It can be really heartless to not help someone who is permanently disabled. When you do tho, you get 4 other people pretending to be permanently disabled (hell they may even believe it themselves). You'd have people "too sick to work" out doing yardwork, gardening, mowing, etc. Bit of a travesty.
In the end- if you want to help people without money- give them yours. That's what I do-- habitat humanity, the food bank, and red cross of the tsunami. But it's MY money to do that with.
I'm a bit overly paranoid about the job market because (tho it never happened to me), I've had 3 close friends who went over a year between jobs (looking hard too). One of them never made it back in and had to fall down to fairly low paying jobs.
Cobra for me would run about $600 a month. That's going to rip through your savings.
But yea- I basically am living with the assumption that if I lose my job, it might be two years before I get another one and that I might never make half the pay that I'm making now again.
I get zero percent offers all the time (good til 2008 currently). I owe to much on the house to transfer them at this time. And the house is at a low rate so I would be taking risk (lose the job- miss a 0% payment- suddenly at 24% interest for 10 grand).
I have a fairly low tolerance for risk-- unless it's a double diamond.
You both have good points and your opinion is actually a lot closer to my own than you might imagine.
It hurts a bit to type so sometimes I am overly brief.
And it's slashdot so sometimes I use a bit too much hyperbole.
I don't think you can stop your queue jumping problem- there is always india, europe, etc. (Some people from the states are going to india for medical care (esp heart surgery) since it is cheaper than the cost here *with* insurance - including airfare there and back!)
I'm not totally in your camp- I see the value of limited socialism and I see the cost of unlimited capitalism. I see the cost of unlimited socialism. Both unlimited socialism and unlimited capitalism are fairly corrosive (in different ways) to society over the course of two to three decades. Both can devolve into a defacto nobility.
There are actually quite a lot of illnesses where the cost goes over a couple million pretty quickly.
Dude, Compared to everyone around me, I'm killing myself saving my ass off (40% of my net) and it's going to be at least four more years (ignoring the health issues) before I reach that point. My only debt is my house. The rest of the folks around me dont' even have a chance- many are a paycheck from being on the street.
I *want* to be free like you talk about. It's a lot *harder* than you seem to think.
Once my medical issues developed a couple years ago, I realized I would have to save at least another $100,000 to pay the costs for my treatments without insurance. And I'm fit- play sports twice a week- lots of veggies, not many carbs. It's just a fact that as you get older your health gets worse.
I have the freedom to speak my mind- lose my job- and (assuming my house is paid for and i have saved enough for property taxes, utilities, and food) die years earlier without my meds. Or I can keep my trap shut- and get another 10 years of healthy life and another 12-15 years of total life. I'd prefer not to die at 64 like my grandpa when I know I can make it to 80.
Some people are willing to trade life later for certain things now- I'm not.
Here's the deal-- you cannot have unlimited medical coverage.
Period.
1) there are too many diseases that can be cured IF you have unlimited resources... well really about $2,000,000 to $10,000,000 or so. The point is- we can't afford to cure everyone's $350,000 bypass surgery so we let people pay for it themselves or die. You do it in canada too- you just do it via rationing and delays instead of via money. "Sure you can get your surgery-- in 17 months" vs "Sure you can get your surgery- for $350,000".
2) If we could get the legal $ystem out of it, the costs would be much lower but there would be more malpractice. We currently say "no mistakes and no malpractice" but that decision probably doubles or triples every thing we do medically. Which in some cases means that the procedure that could be done cheaply- is now too expensive.
3) Even in socialist countries- you are paying. Sure- you may rip off the doctors (with a resulting shortage of doctors and hence long wait periods) but the drug company executives are still flying around in jets and vacationing in maui.
So the point is not curing every illness known regardless of price- but setting a reasonable amount of tax dollars aside to cover a reasonable amount of medical expenses for the most people possible. No open heart surgery for 98 year olds on the tax dollar but if they want to pay for it themselves- okay. Yes to vaccinations for everyone and broken limbs (tho perhaps a limit on the number of times to reign in the reckless types).
What I was saying is that I face large bills if I lose my insurance so I do not feel free to "fight the man".
Answering your question however:
1) Every american should be able to pay the negotiated rate for items. If all blue cross pays the hospital is $1,375 for a gall bladder operation- why should an uninsured person have to pay $18,325 for the same exact operation? If you can show that the hospital is charging anyone a certain price, you should be able to pay that same price for the same service.
2) Every american should have basic (and I do mean *BASIC*) health care covered socially. This includes random things like broken legs and car wreck injuries and not things like chemo therapy (and I say that as a cancer survivor). The larger the pool, the lower the costs. Right now, cherry picking is getting so extreme that you can't get insurance unless you are well. If I were grand high poohbah, I would set this at $1,000 * the minimum wage with a 20% co-pay but 0% on annual physicals. Everything over $1,000 would be your cost. If you used no benefits except the free physicals, I'd give you back 5% ($350) as a tax credit.
Why I say this is that we are competing against countries where this is true and it puts our companies at a competative disadvantage.
Even executing my "academic freedom" would result in instant unemployment in the private sector. That severely constrains my interest in executing it since my health care bills would be $300 a month easily for blood pressure and cholesterol medicine alone.
I applaud his efforts. And I chose not to work in academia so it's my responsibility that he has privileges that I do not.
One thing people do not consider is surge capacity.
We live in a society with instant food, instant gasoline, etc.
When an event like a hurricane, blizzard, or flu epidemic comes along, you see the side effects of this VERY thin inventory.
My point is that hospitals can give very good care. But ONLY when.001% of the population is sick. If 10% of the population is sick (and doctors and nurses are dying at 20% rates and so some are refusing to come to work and the ones that want to can't get gasoline for their cars) then that 10% is basically going to get 18th century standard health care if not completely ignored.
It's like New Orleans and Katrina. 1,500 policemen were fine until everything fell apart. Then they were so over manned as to be worthless.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that sales taxes are spent in the state, not at the point of sale. Sales tax cover costs for roads and other services to brick and mortar establishments. All they are on the internet is mostly a money grab. In a lot of cases, the products being sold are not even delivered from the state where the sale was registered.
The second problem is that if states 1 to 47 have sales tax and 1-3 do not, then a lot of business is going to gravitate to those last three states.
Of course, if they tax them to be the same as brick and mortar, then folks will just shift back away from the internet.
That is actually a very interesting loophole and i bet the authorities have already dealt with it and found it to be prostitution. Someone pays the girls even if the pimp doesn't. It probably becomes muddier if he is paying them indirectly.
But anyway... if you opened a house with free girls in it. And you charged folks a hundred bucks an hour to go into the house... you would be busted for something.
Lol...kleptomaniac kleaning krew.
We already have roombas that can find their plug and plug back in.
While there will be special cases (like the symphony), a lot of generic offices would do just fine with a fleet of roombas that come out to vacuum at night and then return to a storage closet.
I think you could just stop at "The problem is that there's just too many people."
We can keep cutting our lifestyles to the point where we avoid beans so the methane from multitudes of humans don't impact the atmosphere or we can get the population back down to 3 Billion and live on a paradise planet with a great deal of freedom.
You left of
9. Self checkout machines. These allow one human to check out 6 customers at a time.
Look at my other thread for a cost analysis.
Most of your argument is predicated on robots being expensive.
Given $55k robots, in my other post, I show it's cheaper than high school students.
At $55k, you have three robots.
Breakdowns are just a maintenance and SLA issue (except for the forklift issue but that won't stop robots any more- just slow them down- especially with today's surveillance abilities- likewise, who says a human is going to be running the forklift? You could easily have a truck back up to the dock and be unloaded completely to the warehouse by robots).
A car costs $11,000 to $35,000. Some very small run cars run $55,000.
They require maintenance but they really only even start breaking down after a few years (75-80 thousand miles).
Say a Kroger Stocking robot cost $55,000 and it requires $3,000 a year maintenance before being worn out after 5 years (total cost $60,000). It doesn't break down, it doesn't call in sick, and it can work seven days a week.
Having two low wage humans work a full shift 7 days a week all year runs about $36,000 a year after matching SS#, workers comp, and unemployment taxes. No health care, these are high schoolers being replaced. No vacation. No sick time. This would really be three or four high-schoolers since they are worked part time- maybe 20 to 30 hours a week (in part to prevent them being "full time" employees and partially because, well, they are in highschool.)
Over five years, Kroger would spend $180,000 on the humans (and probably more because of inflation).
Over five years, Kroger would spend $60,000 (maybe $72,000 with financing but then they would also get to write off the expense and effectively pay $40,000 for them because of tax deductions you get for capital equipment).
It looks like the robots could actually cost up to $150,000 and still be a very good deal.
And as I said above, the reality is a lot more humans than two. And for 3rd shift work, they are probably making over 7 bucks an hour (plus overhead).
On the east and west coast, it's probably even worse.
As I said, when they solve the computer vision problem- it changes EVERYTHING. If you thought the industrial revolution and the luddites was impressive, hold on to your hat. It will be very good to have some money saved up going into this change. And you probably would want to buy stock in whatever company is making the "model T" of robots.
Finally- I expect consumer robots (put away, wash dishes, do laundry, vaccuum, make the bed) would rapidly drop to my original $12,000 or less.
I could argue this with you, but I don't think that's the right tack because it doesn't address my basic point.
My point is this:
Robots can't replace many human jobs now because they cannot see.
Once robots can see, there will be a point where many "menial" jobs can be performed by them.
We need to start thinking about how we are going to handle the huge numbers of people who are only qualified for menial work now before we get to that day.
We may disagree on if that is 5 years (unlikely but possible) or 100 years (a certainty if we are not wiped out by some kind of bio-weapon or other new form of weapon of mass destruction).
My feeling is, once they solve the vision problem, we are at most five years from people being replaced.
And I'm not talking about a robot that does everything- I'm talking about specific types such as a "shelf stocking" robot. The market for those would be huge (imagine the savings of replacing the 6-10 people I see stocking the shelves late at night). Likewise an automatic cleaning robot for buildings- our building has a staff of 20 every night.
I get something else out of your comment too.
If you are not pro-GW, you may have greater difficulty finding funding.
It's going to change everything.
Robotic vision is a tipping point.
A large number of humans become unemployable shortly after this becomes a reality.
Anything where the only reason a human has the job is because they can see is done in the 1st world.
Why should you pay $7.25 an hour (really $9.25 w/benefits & overheard for workers comp, unemployment tax, etc.) when you can buy a $12,000 machine to do the same job (stocking grocery shelves, cleaning, painting, etc.).
The leading edge is here with things like roomba's.
They definately keep an artificially low supply of doctors. Hell they talk about it openly in their own press releases.
By restricting the supply of doctors they keep them rare and expensive. There is no reason that lots of people couldn't be doctors (not specialists) and there is no reason for the insane residency hazing programs.
Yes and after a very short period, anyone can make that same product-- not (typical case they are pushing for!!!) 145 years!
Entire genre's of music would not exist under the current copyright law (blues, jazz). New forms of music are being smothered in the cradle by copyright law. The heinous fact that people can copyright tiny sequences of notes and lock them up for a hundred years is horrible. Copyright law is supposed to make lots of entertainment for people- not kill it.
However, back to your point-- if the every business on the planet got to use the same rules the music business did, we would be paying five to twenty times the price for everything invented since "Happy Birthday to You" was written (*STILL UNDER COPYRIGHT*) (http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp) in 1924! Almost 100 years ago. Everyone associated with the song is DEAD, DEMISED, PASSED OFF THE MORTAL COIL (oops- I just infringed something written in the last 75 years... uh oh).
If you can invent transisters (i.e. COMPUTERS) and you only get 17 years protection, why the HELL should "Happy Birthday To You" get 83 YEARS protection (and it's going to be protected through 2030 IF DISNEY DOESN'T BUY ANOTHER LAW).
If you search for 28 years and copyright you'll find a lot of references to the 28 year period plus a variety of extension periods that are getting longer and longer as mickey mouse gets older (47 years, 67 years, 95 years proposed). There are also references to the original periods being 14 years (http://news.com.com/5208-1025_3-0.html?forumID=1& threadID=22796&messageID=202465&start=0).
_ Term_Extension_Act
Wiki references the 28 year term here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright
"...They question the proponents' life expectancy argument, pointing out that the copyright terms under the 1790 act lasted only 28 years total, that life expectancies have not risen threefold since 1790 (ignoring infant mortality, they have increased barely ten years), and that even though terms of patents have not been extended in parallel, patents adequately reward investment in the field with their mere 20-year term...."
I believe Valenti said point blank that it should be "forever + 1 day". This is what they are really driving for (even tho most of their stuff is based on other materials and in fact american entertainment is big on the west coast because they were infringing like hell on east coast works and it was a bit harder to travel back then.)
It's a bit rough since I remember a lot of things but not clearly where i first heard them any more. I probably decided 10 to 15 years ago that 28 years was about the limit of a reasonable period to me.
Based on many past threads and discussions- you are making a bit of an overstatement.
Lots of people here are anti-drm / information wants to be free. In varies from the college student being as ethical as they can afford to be (buy a few CD's and then pirate the rest when they run out of money) to the folks who have absolutely no respect for copyright to people like me that have no respect for the extended copyright periods that I feel were bought by media companies (If it's over 28 years old, I'll pirate away unless i can get it for a *reasonable* price).
For example: I put down $200 smackers five seasons for get smart. On the other hand I ahoy'd some 1960-1966 comics in cdisplay format vs paying $50 for them in hardback format. I'll also download things so I can take them on a trip with me- for example I downloaded Moulin Rouge (which I own on DVD) because I wanted to take it with me and not risk losing my original.
I have a problem with DRM period. I think we have a temporary window where these products are grossly overpriced. I completely disagree that an "artist" should get paid for the rest of their life for a song when the rest of the world gets paid by the hour. The purpose of copyright is not to provide artists/ creators retirement but to encourage them to create works for the public. Given how many artists there are striving to create entertainment today- I really doubt they need any more encouragement.
I'm really pretty cynical about the value of standing up for what I believe in. I do things on a personal level (habitat for humanity, donations to charities) but really want to get in a bullet proof situation before I do anything political. I view that I have a lot to lose with little to gain. The stakes went up even more when I developed the medical conditions.
Underlying all of it is a fairly nihilistic philosophy tho I have to admit. If I were to shoot for the bleachers, in 100 years, I would have suffered and the world will be exactly the same as if I minded my peace and enjoyed my private personal life.
I even feel that way for my charity activities but at least they make me feel good. But when I save a few kids from starving today, they are just going to grow up and have two to three times as many kids- making the basic problem (too many people) much worse.
It's hard to think of areas where any impact I might have are worth the stakes. And I'm able to help several friends who are worse off because of my position. But I have to admit, it's a wariness and lack of confidence that prevents me from striving.
and small companies could offer the same health benefits as large ones.
and you'd have the same health benefits if you were self employed.
and companies would not have an incentive to move jobs to countries without (or with much cheaper) health insurance.
No he's right.
You don't have to have a nice place to live, a computer worth a grand, a car, etc.
Lots of people choose freedom all the time.
We *are* slaves for computers, big screen tv's, even our pet bills (mine run almost $1,500 a year between food and vet bills).
I *AM* a slave and will be until I save up enough money to cover my life style. I'm giving up a couple decades of healthy life where I could be wandering around (without a car), talking, playing, etc.
The entire system is set up so you can be a willing slave or you can be poor and powerless with very few exceptions.
But like democracy, it is better than many of the alternatives.
You say: I mean, most people are not usually sick.
I think you may be a bit young. After a certain age, almost everyone is sick all the time.
The body breaks down in ways that can be adjusted and fixed if you have insurance or lots of money.
Diabetes, high blood pressure, cataracts, arthritis, low thyroid (VERY COMMON*), low hormones etc. etc.
People are very healthy until they are in their 30's. By their 50's most people have something going on. So for the last 10 to 40 years of their life they are taking something daily. Whatever is wrong usually won't kill them right away but it will carve several years off their lives.
* If you do not feel normal (tired, foggy thinking, losing the outer third of your eyebrows, anxious, low energy, sleep but it doesn't get you rested) you really should have your thyroid and primary sex hormones tested. Thyroid has lots of random symptoms. Testosterone is almost a miracle drug for men 40 to 60 (take saw palmetto to help keep your prostate healthy tho).
In part is from our examples of welfare in america. when it was relaxed and easy to get we developed large populations of people that never worked nor did they intend to work. Read about the hippy communes and so on in california. Part of the reasons they did so well were welfare checks.
Welfare and unemployment is a wonderful thing to give to people in need. It is a horrible and corrosive thing to give to people too tho and can absolutely destroy them. Any drive they may have had to create, to learn, to thrive is instead destroyed and they just get by.
It finally got bad enough here that a democratic president ended it for the most part.
The fact that large numbers of people were on welfare and had no intention of getting off it is just embedded in any discussion about the subject now.
It can be really heartless to not help someone who is permanently disabled. When you do tho, you get 4 other people pretending to be permanently disabled (hell they may even believe it themselves). You'd have people "too sick to work" out doing yardwork, gardening, mowing, etc. Bit of a travesty.
In the end- if you want to help people without money- give them yours. That's what I do-- habitat humanity, the food bank, and red cross of the tsunami. But it's MY money to do that with.
I'm a bit overly paranoid about the job market because (tho it never happened to me), I've had 3 close friends who went over a year between jobs (looking hard too). One of them never made it back in and had to fall down to fairly low paying jobs.
Cobra for me would run about $600 a month. That's going to rip through your savings.
But yea- I basically am living with the assumption that if I lose my job, it might be two years before I get another one and that I might never make half the pay that I'm making now again.
I get zero percent offers all the time (good til 2008 currently). I owe to much on the house to transfer them at this time. And the house is at a low rate so I would be taking risk (lose the job- miss a 0% payment- suddenly at 24% interest for 10 grand).
I have a fairly low tolerance for risk-- unless it's a double diamond.
You both have good points and your opinion is actually a lot closer to my own than you might imagine.
It hurts a bit to type so sometimes I am overly brief.
And it's slashdot so sometimes I use a bit too much hyperbole.
I don't think you can stop your queue jumping problem- there is always india, europe, etc. (Some people from the states are going to india for medical care (esp heart surgery) since it is cheaper than the cost here *with* insurance - including airfare there and back!)
I'm not totally in your camp- I see the value of limited socialism and I see the cost of unlimited capitalism. I see the cost of unlimited socialism. Both unlimited socialism and unlimited capitalism are fairly corrosive (in different ways) to society over the course of two to three decades. Both can devolve into a defacto nobility.
There are actually quite a lot of illnesses where the cost goes over a couple million pretty quickly.
Dude,
Compared to everyone around me, I'm killing myself saving my ass off (40% of my net) and it's going to be at least four more years (ignoring the health issues) before I reach that point. My only debt is my house. The rest of the folks around me dont' even have a chance- many are a paycheck from being on the street.
I *want* to be free like you talk about. It's a lot *harder* than you seem to think.
Once my medical issues developed a couple years ago, I realized I would have to save at least another $100,000 to pay the costs for my treatments without insurance. And I'm fit- play sports twice a week- lots of veggies, not many carbs. It's just a fact that as you get older your health gets worse.
I have the freedom to speak my mind- lose my job- and (assuming my house is paid for and i have saved enough for property taxes, utilities, and food) die years earlier without my meds. Or I can keep my trap shut- and get another 10 years of healthy life and another 12-15 years of total life. I'd prefer not to die at 64 like my grandpa when I know I can make it to 80.
Some people are willing to trade life later for certain things now- I'm not.
I missed the sarcasm too. I guess too dry for me.
Here's the deal-- you cannot have unlimited medical coverage.
Period.
1) there are too many diseases that can be cured IF you have unlimited resources... well really about $2,000,000 to $10,000,000 or so. The point is- we can't afford to cure everyone's $350,000 bypass surgery so we let people pay for it themselves or die. You do it in canada too- you just do it via rationing and delays instead of via money. "Sure you can get your surgery-- in 17 months" vs "Sure you can get your surgery- for $350,000".
2) If we could get the legal $ystem out of it, the costs would be much lower but there would be more malpractice. We currently say "no mistakes and no malpractice" but that decision probably doubles or triples every thing we do medically. Which in some cases means that the procedure that could be done cheaply- is now too expensive.
3) Even in socialist countries- you are paying. Sure- you may rip off the doctors (with a resulting shortage of doctors and hence long wait periods) but the drug company executives are still flying around in jets and vacationing in maui.
So the point is not curing every illness known regardless of price- but setting a reasonable amount of tax dollars aside to cover a reasonable amount of medical expenses for the most people possible. No open heart surgery for 98 year olds on the tax dollar but if they want to pay for it themselves- okay. Yes to vaccinations for everyone and broken limbs (tho perhaps a limit on the number of times to reign in the reckless types).
Not sure how you got that out of what I said.
What I was saying is that I face large bills if I lose my insurance so I do not feel free to "fight the man".
Answering your question however:
1) Every american should be able to pay the negotiated rate for items. If all blue cross pays the hospital is $1,375 for a gall bladder operation- why should an uninsured person have to pay $18,325 for the same exact operation? If you can show that the hospital is charging anyone a certain price, you should be able to pay that same price for the same service.
2) Every american should have basic (and I do mean *BASIC*) health care covered socially. This includes random things like broken legs and car wreck injuries and not things like chemo therapy (and I say that as a cancer survivor). The larger the pool, the lower the costs. Right now, cherry picking is getting so extreme that you can't get insurance unless you are well. If I were grand high poohbah, I would set this at $1,000 * the minimum wage with a 20% co-pay but 0% on annual physicals. Everything over $1,000 would be your cost. If you used no benefits except the free physicals, I'd give you back 5% ($350) as a tax credit.
Why I say this is that we are competing against countries where this is true and it puts our companies at a competative disadvantage.
Even executing my "academic freedom" would result in instant unemployment in the private sector. That severely constrains my interest in executing it since my health care bills would be $300 a month easily for blood pressure and cholesterol medicine alone.
I applaud his efforts. And I chose not to work in academia so it's my responsibility that he has privileges that I do not.
One thing people do not consider is surge capacity.
.001% of the population is sick. If 10% of the population is sick (and doctors and nurses are dying at 20% rates and so some are refusing to come to work and the ones that want to can't get gasoline for their cars) then that 10% is basically going to get 18th century standard health care if not completely ignored.
We live in a society with instant food, instant gasoline, etc.
When an event like a hurricane, blizzard, or flu epidemic comes along, you see the side effects of this VERY thin inventory.
My point is that hospitals can give very good care. But ONLY when
It's like New Orleans and Katrina. 1,500 policemen were fine until everything fell apart. Then they were so over manned as to be worthless.