First, let me thank you for the interesting debate. This forum is usually filled with folks who like to get their sound-offs published, but never want to follow up on them when challenged. I'm not sure if it makes sense to continue within this thread since we are already several levels deep and at this point, it's probably just us reading it anyway. I'd like to continue offline, but not sure how without posting my email address to the world here. That being said, I'll respond to a few of your items.
I can't comment on proportion or risk spread in house fires, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say your 95% figure sounds entirely fictional. I will say that medical costs and risks are pretty predictable for a similar proportion in the general population, though. If you control for income, inherited diseases, uncontrollable environmental conditions (contaminated drinking water, living near superfund sites, etc.), and normally high end-of-life expenses, you should have a pretty normal distribution of medical expenditures in society. People who are involved in catastrophic accidents will have higher expenditures than the more fortunate among us, but overall the average person is moderately healthy when they have access to routine care.
My apologies for the 95% remark. I dont' know that stats and was only trying to convey a clear majority. Yes, the average person is moderately healthy, but no, the distribution of medical expenses is not even remotely normal. That's precisely why medical insurance is so ridiculously complicated and expensive. Even if you exclude the uncontrollable factors, the costs are greatly varied.
Usually the business model is "Company signs an exclusive monopoly contract to provide fire services for _____ County. ____ re-hires existing firefighters at reduced pay, reduces training programs, and citizens eventually discover that the contract wasn't written the way they thought it was." Government programs aren't inherently less efficient than private industry, and they certainly are sometimes better bang for the buck than private for-profit industry.
Exclusive monopoly contracts are no different than government programs. Unless there is competition, there is no incentive to do a better job. My point was, it's not economical to have 5 fire service companies competing against each other. If your doctor sucks, you can get another doctor. If your fire department sucks, your house burns to the ground. You could make the same argument for Emergency Rooms, but I don't hear anyone saying that government should own the hospitals or emergency rooms.
Stretching? What percent of house fires are caused by cooking accidents? Overloaded or poorly maintained electrical systems? Smokers who fall asleep with the cigarette in their hand? People who light candles and leave them unattended? What about old space heaters? The majority of house fires are preventable. We've launched a lot of public education programs over the years, but we say "even if you're responsible for the fire, it's good public policy for the government to go and put it out." Fact: the majority of home fires in the US are preventable.
Yes, the [municipal] government-run firecare program doesn't reimburse you for your lost goods, but a national health care program wouldn't reimburse you for your lost wages or time, either.
I agree, most fires are preventable. Maybe smokers should pay more taxes. Maybe freaky candle chicks should pay more. But putting out fires is not just "good public policy". It's a damn fire!! It could burn down the entire neighborhood! This is not even remotely the same as public funds paying for someone's back pain medicine.
DNA testing isn't currently being used, but family history of illness and conditions is. So is such an exhaustive list of pre-existing conditions that it's essentially impossible to get insurance without declaring one. If you were ever diagnosed with
... and they also didn't mean for black men or white women to be able to vote. Times change and it now makes practical sense for the federal rather than state governments to provide such things. I will agree, though, that the constitution really needs a lot of amendments, but "conservatives" in the US are only willing to amend the constitution to take away rights these days.
I'll even say it makes practical sense for larger international organizations like the EU to pool resources and create an international health care system.
What is practical about creating an international health care system? What would make the EU or any larger organization qualified to run such a system? What ammendments to the US constitution need to be added? Outside of abortion (I'm conservative, but am also pro-choice), which rights do the "conservatives" want to take away?
I think you are just spouting your liberal ideals hoping that the complex problems of the world can be solved by simply having everyone be equal, with peach, love and harmony.
You make some valid arguments, but I still do not think you can place health care and fire/police services in the same category.
Congratulations, you've just destroyed the need for actuaries, saving the insurance companies millions of dollars! They'll be happy to know that homes in Malibu canyon are just as safe from fire as those in downtown San Diego. The police departments can now stop focusing their efforts on high crime areas and spend more time sitting around in gated communities near country clubs.
Regarding the need for actuaries, sure, there are certain high risk areas, and it would be logical for those people choosing to live there to pay more in taxes to accomodate the neccessary public services. But for the other 95% of us, the chances of our house burning down is about equal.
I'm glad we agree here. There are actually a lot of libertarians pushing to re-privatize the fire departments.
If it were economical to privatize fire & police services, I would support it. I just have yet to see a business model where several fire/police departments can compete against each other and offer the same level of EMERGENCY service.
The levels of fire protection and police protection depend on many factors that are within an individual's control (i.e. lifestyle, eating habits, exercise, housing location) as well as many factors that are NOT within an individual's control (i.e. DNA, where their parents choose to live, born socioeconomic status, accidents, victims of crime). The exact same can be said of health care.
I think you are really stretching here. You seriously think lifestyle, eating habits, and exercise significantly affects the probability that your house burns down? Housing location? Maybe, but not for the majority of us.
Regarding the factors not in our control, they are pretty much taken care of already. DNA testing is not (currently) being used to determine your insurance eligibility.
If you are in a car accident, you will be treated in the emergency room. If you are the victim of a crime, you will also be treated.
I think everyone in the world agrees that these special cases need special treatment. And we have laws and policies in place to accomodate them (although I agree they could be improved).
But these special cases do not account for the majority of health care.
How is it reasonable or logical? Because that's how it's been done in the US since the beginning? America has a broken health care system
that eats up over 15% of our GDP and adds an undue burden to our businesses. America's health care is demonstrably worse in nearly every empirical
measure and demonstrably more expensive in every empirical measure. How can it possibly be reasonable to continue doing things the way we have
been when we know damned well it's not working?
It's reasonable and logical because, yes, it has worked for the past couple hundred years or so. It's only recently become a FINANCIAL problem due to
out of control costs of doing business in the health care industry. I'll agree with you to say our health care is expensive, but to say that it is
sub-par compared to any other nation is simply not accurate.
Our health care system definitely has financial problems. But a reactionary decision to employ a national health care system is not the solution.
My original point was that health care is just too complex to deploy at a national level, without unfairly burdening it's citizens financially. To say
that nations that have done so are operating without problems is just naive. Health care is expensive and every citizen should make that expense a priority in
their lives.
It's because health care is not as black and white as fire rescue and policing services. For the most part, everyone needs the same level of fire and police protection. Individuals are equally likely to need police protection, or to need the fire department to put out a fire. It is also not logical for an individual to hire their own police/fire departments to protect them.
The same cannot be said when it comes to health care. The level of health care needed depends on many factors that are within an individuals control (i.e. lifestyle, eating habbits, exercise, etc. etc) It is also reasonable, and logical to have your own personal doctor and pay them as neccesary when you get sick. It has been done like that since the beginning.
Really? 15 hours a week to live a healthy life. Sounds like a pretty reasonable deal to me.
I think this is half the problem. Health Care / Health Insurance is not a priority for a lot of people.
The question should be, who wouldn't work an extra 15 hours a week if it meant your family could live long, healthy lives?
It's a shame they didn't support the tab preview options on the Windows 7 task bar. I know many Windows 7 users that switched back to IE just for that reason.
It's what the V's wanted in the 1984 series. Maybe climate change is really an evil plot by alien lizards to steal our food and natural resources. Prettty soon, scientists will come up missing all around the globe.
I'm with you on this. I not really sure why Palm always gets left out of these types of discussions. They have done a fantastic job with WebOS and their App Catalog (now that it supports paid apps) is about as simple as it gets. Allowing the homebrew apps mixed with the App Catalog is exactly what everyone is looking for. I can't figure out why palm is not getting more credit for this.
Thanks for the blog link. I look forward to reading it.
My guess is that most of the developers leaving the iPhone platform are leaving because there is no market for them. Mainstream consumer applications are a very small percentage of the software written in the world. There are a few companies that have the talent and resources to invest in producing highly polished apps that appeal to a broad range of users. It takes time, creativity, and marketing dollars to be successfull in that playing field.
For the rest of us, we are most likely writing some internal software app that attempts to solve business problems at the least amount of cost. It doesn't need to be pretty. Hell, it doesn't even need to work well. But we all get paid for doing it and, hopefully, what we write is useful to someone.
I know it's not Apple's target market, but I can think of a thousand ways to utilize the iPhone hardware, just none of them would matter to anyone outside my company. I guess my point is, until the iPhone platform is opened up to where it can be used to solve custom business issues, iPhone development will be little more than a side hobby for most developers.
This is so damn funny. If we all start punching people in the face when they ask stupid questions, I'm guessing they will start RTFM. I'm off to the gym to start training.
Q: Will Silverlight for mobile plug-in on Windows Mobile be any different from the one on Nokia S60?
A: Silverlight provides a consistent experience across the Web and mobile devices. The same Silverlight applications should work on both Windows Mobile and Nokia S60 devices.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as that stock price keeps bouncing between $23 and $28, I'll continue to buy it at $23 and sell it at $28.
Well, yeah. "Get a college degree" _or_ "get health insurance for a few years". Once again, how would you chose?
That is definitely a false dilemma. It's possible to put yourself through college and get health insurance. I've done it.
First, let me thank you for the interesting debate. This forum is usually filled with folks who like to get their sound-offs published, but never want to follow up on them when challenged. I'm not sure if it makes sense to continue within this thread since we are already several levels deep and at this point, it's probably just us reading it anyway. I'd like to continue offline, but not sure how without posting my email address to the world here. That being said, I'll respond to a few of your items.
I can't comment on proportion or risk spread in house fires, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say your 95% figure sounds entirely fictional. I will say that medical costs and risks are pretty predictable for a similar proportion in the general population, though. If you control for income, inherited diseases, uncontrollable environmental conditions (contaminated drinking water, living near superfund sites, etc.), and normally high end-of-life expenses, you should have a pretty normal distribution of medical expenditures in society. People who are involved in catastrophic accidents will have higher expenditures than the more fortunate among us, but overall the average person is moderately healthy when they have access to routine care.
My apologies for the 95% remark. I dont' know that stats and was only trying to convey a clear majority. Yes, the average person is moderately healthy, but no, the distribution of medical expenses is not even remotely normal. That's precisely why medical insurance is so ridiculously complicated and expensive. Even if you exclude the uncontrollable factors, the costs are greatly varied.
Usually the business model is "Company signs an exclusive monopoly contract to provide fire services for _____ County. ____ re-hires existing firefighters at reduced pay, reduces training programs, and citizens eventually discover that the contract wasn't written the way they thought it was." Government programs aren't inherently less efficient than private industry, and they certainly are sometimes better bang for the buck than private for-profit industry.
Exclusive monopoly contracts are no different than government programs. Unless there is competition, there is no incentive to do a better job. My point was, it's not economical to have 5 fire service companies competing against each other. If your doctor sucks, you can get another doctor. If your fire department sucks, your house burns to the ground. You could make the same argument for Emergency Rooms, but I don't hear anyone saying that government should own the hospitals or emergency rooms.
Stretching? What percent of house fires are caused by cooking accidents? Overloaded or poorly maintained electrical systems? Smokers who fall asleep with the cigarette in their hand? People who light candles and leave them unattended? What about old space heaters? The majority of house fires are preventable. We've launched a lot of public education programs over the years, but we say "even if you're responsible for the fire, it's good public policy for the government to go and put it out." Fact: the majority of home fires in the US are preventable. Yes, the [municipal] government-run firecare program doesn't reimburse you for your lost goods, but a national health care program wouldn't reimburse you for your lost wages or time, either.
I agree, most fires are preventable. Maybe smokers should pay more taxes. Maybe freaky candle chicks should pay more. But putting out fires is not just "good public policy". It's a damn fire!! It could burn down the entire neighborhood! This is not even remotely the same as public funds paying for someone's back pain medicine.
DNA testing isn't currently being used, but family history of illness and conditions is. So is such an exhaustive list of pre-existing conditions that it's essentially impossible to get insurance without declaring one. If you were ever diagnosed with
... and they also didn't mean for black men or white women to be able to vote. Times change and it now makes practical sense for the federal rather than state governments to provide such things. I will agree, though, that the constitution really needs a lot of amendments, but "conservatives" in the US are only willing to amend the constitution to take away rights these days.
I'll even say it makes practical sense for larger international organizations like the EU to pool resources and create an international health care system.
What is practical about creating an international health care system? What would make the EU or any larger organization qualified to run such a system? What ammendments to the US constitution need to be added? Outside of abortion (I'm conservative, but am also pro-choice), which rights do the "conservatives" want to take away?
I think you are just spouting your liberal ideals hoping that the complex problems of the world can be solved by simply having everyone be equal, with peach, love and harmony.
You make some valid arguments, but I still do not think you can place health care and fire/police services in the same category.
Congratulations, you've just destroyed the need for actuaries, saving the insurance companies millions of dollars! They'll be happy to know that homes in Malibu canyon are just as safe from fire as those in downtown San Diego. The police departments can now stop focusing their efforts on high crime areas and spend more time sitting around in gated communities near country clubs.
Regarding the need for actuaries, sure, there are certain high risk areas, and it would be logical for those people choosing to live there to pay more in taxes to accomodate the neccessary public services. But for the other 95% of us, the chances of our house burning down is about equal.
I'm glad we agree here. There are actually a lot of libertarians pushing to re-privatize the fire departments.
If it were economical to privatize fire & police services, I would support it. I just have yet to see a business model where several fire/police departments can compete against each other and offer the same level of EMERGENCY service.
The levels of fire protection and police protection depend on many factors that are within an individual's control (i.e. lifestyle, eating habits, exercise, housing location) as well as many factors that are NOT within an individual's control (i.e. DNA, where their parents choose to live, born socioeconomic status, accidents, victims of crime). The exact same can be said of health care.
I think you are really stretching here. You seriously think lifestyle, eating habits, and exercise significantly affects the probability that your house burns down? Housing location? Maybe, but not for the majority of us.
Regarding the factors not in our control, they are pretty much taken care of already. DNA testing is not (currently) being used to determine your insurance eligibility. If you are in a car accident, you will be treated in the emergency room. If you are the victim of a crime, you will also be treated. I think everyone in the world agrees that these special cases need special treatment. And we have laws and policies in place to accomodate them (although I agree they could be improved). But these special cases do not account for the majority of health care.
How is it reasonable or logical? Because that's how it's been done in the US since the beginning? America has a broken health care system that eats up over 15% of our GDP and adds an undue burden to our businesses. America's health care is demonstrably worse in nearly every empirical measure and demonstrably more expensive in every empirical measure. How can it possibly be reasonable to continue doing things the way we have been when we know damned well it's not working?
It's reasonable and logical because, yes, it has worked for the past couple hundred years or so. It's only recently become a FINANCIAL problem due to out of control costs of doing business in the health care industry. I'll agree with you to say our health care is expensive, but to say that it is sub-par compared to any other nation is simply not accurate.
Our health care system definitely has financial problems. But a reactionary decision to employ a national health care system is not the solution. My original point was that health care is just too complex to deploy at a national level, without unfairly burdening it's citizens financially. To say that nations that have done so are operating without problems is just naive. Health care is expensive and every citizen should make that expense a priority in their lives.
It's because health care is not as black and white as fire rescue and policing services. For the most part, everyone needs the same level of fire and police protection. Individuals are equally likely to need police protection, or to need the fire department to put out a fire. It is also not logical for an individual to hire their own police/fire departments to protect them.
The same cannot be said when it comes to health care. The level of health care needed depends on many factors that are within an individuals control (i.e. lifestyle, eating habbits, exercise, etc. etc) It is also reasonable, and logical to have your own personal doctor and pay them as neccesary when you get sick. It has been done like that since the beginning.
Really? 15 hours a week to live a healthy life. Sounds like a pretty reasonable deal to me. I think this is half the problem. Health Care / Health Insurance is not a priority for a lot of people. The question should be, who wouldn't work an extra 15 hours a week if it meant your family could live long, healthy lives?
It's a shame they didn't support the tab preview options on the Windows 7 task bar. I know many Windows 7 users that switched back to IE just for that reason.
It's what the V's wanted in the 1984 series. Maybe climate change is really an evil plot by alien lizards to steal our food and natural resources. Prettty soon, scientists will come up missing all around the globe.
I'm with you on this. I not really sure why Palm always gets left out of these types of discussions. They have done a fantastic job with WebOS and their App Catalog (now that it supports paid apps) is about as simple as it gets. Allowing the homebrew apps mixed with the App Catalog is exactly what everyone is looking for. I can't figure out why palm is not getting more credit for this. Thanks for the blog link. I look forward to reading it.
My guess is that most of the developers leaving the iPhone platform are leaving because there is no market for them. Mainstream consumer applications are a very small percentage of the software written in the world. There are a few companies that have the talent and resources to invest in producing highly polished apps that appeal to a broad range of users. It takes time, creativity, and marketing dollars to be successfull in that playing field. For the rest of us, we are most likely writing some internal software app that attempts to solve business problems at the least amount of cost. It doesn't need to be pretty. Hell, it doesn't even need to work well. But we all get paid for doing it and, hopefully, what we write is useful to someone. I know it's not Apple's target market, but I can think of a thousand ways to utilize the iPhone hardware, just none of them would matter to anyone outside my company. I guess my point is, until the iPhone platform is opened up to where it can be used to solve custom business issues, iPhone development will be little more than a side hobby for most developers.
Having never done this before, the government is bound to have problems. All of them do when they try new things.
Like a public health care option?
This is so damn funny. If we all start punching people in the face when they ask stupid questions, I'm guessing they will start RTFM. I'm off to the gym to start training.
Q: Will Silverlight for mobile plug-in on Windows Mobile be any different from the one on Nokia S60?
A: Silverlight provides a consistent experience across the Web and mobile devices. The same Silverlight applications should work on both Windows Mobile and Nokia S60 devices.