Even if you can not do it with consumer grade off-the-shelf DVD burners, large-scale DVD counterfeiting operations surely have access to equipment that can write the keys. Large-scale counterfeiting operations would probably use an actual DVD press to make silver copies, rather than burning each one.
This restriction isn't just in the burner, though - on either DVD-R or DVD+R media (can't remember which), the key area is physically unusable.
I still think the idea that CSS is a form of copy protection is a con. They certainly use it to control how people access the media they pay for. Agreed.
1. Put DRM-encumbered DVD in drive 2. Type "dd if=/dev/hdd of=/media/some_hollywood_blockbuster.iso" 3. Burn resulting image file to a blank DVD (or mount it as a loopback device and point your media player at the mount point). 4. Discover that the disc you just burned is unplayable, because you can't burn CSS keys to DVDR media. You end up with a disc full of encrypted data but no key to decrypt it with.
DRM didn't do much to stop us from making a copy, did it? I simply made an exact copy of the original DVD, complete with DRM. After all, that's what my player is expecting. Well, yeah, it did stop you in the case of DVDs. You're right about DRM in general -- it is fundamentally flawed -- but the way to successfully copy a DVD is to decrypt it using the key they helpfully provide to you.
I haven't seen any cases where the court distinguishes between a contract that gives you "extra" rights vs. a contract that "takes away" rights. I don't think there's a difference. In either case, you are granting a licensee less than the entire interest in the work. And any license will "take away" certain rights. The GPL, for example, purports to attach itself to code that dynamically links to the GPL software. The difference, a very important one which I think you're missing, is not in how the contracts are viewed by a court, but in how an end user is affected if he chooses to reject the contract. If a contract takes away your rights without granting new ones, you can reject it with no negative consequences.
For example, suppose you're installing some software when you get to the EULA, and you see that rather than granting you any new rights, it's only trying to restrict the ones you already have. You get up to grab a cup of coffee while you consider your options, but while you're away, your cat steps on the keyboard and selects "I Agree". The cat's consent is legally meaningless, of course, so the agreement is invalid. But that doesn't hurt you: in fact, you're better off than if you had clicked the button yourself, because you still have all the rights you had before.
And let's be clear: the GPL grants extra rights, it doesn't take them away. Copyright law gives you the right to run a copy of software which you have legally obtained. The GPL gives you the additional right to distribute that software, provided that you distribute it under certain terms. There is no action that you're allowed to do if you "reject" the GPL but prohibited from doing if you "accept" the GPL.
Re:Rights you already have
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If you have purchased a copy of the program under a license that limits your rights, then you have purchased less than the entire interest in your copy. A court may find that you are not actually the "owner" of that copy. Has a court actually ever found that a person who purchased a copy of software is not the "owner" under 17 USC 117, or is this just speculation?
Generally, when you buy something without having to agree to any contract first, you become the owner of that thing. Some courts have upheld that principle when applying the first sale doctrine to software, for example: the EULA can't stop you from reselling it, because you're the owner and selling it is your right.
Correct me if I'm wrong (with citations, please), but my understanding is that in order for an exchange of money for goods not to be considered a sale, it must be established beforehand that the item is being leased or rented instead of sold. That is not what happens with software: you bring a box to the counter and exchange money for it, with no promise to ever surrender it, just like buying a book. No one would seriously argue that some text on the inside cover of a book could change the transaction from a sale to something else, right?
The GPL is a contract, just like the Blizzard EULA. They all grant you rights you don't otherwise have, because under copyright, you don't have a right to make any copies. [...] In the case of Blizzard, it is "You can make a copy on your computer and copies into RAM as long as you don't use a playbot." No, they're not analogous. The GPL grants you something you don't already have by default: the right to distribute copies. The Blizzard EULA, on the other hand, "grants" you something you already have by default.
It's incorrect to say "under copyright, you don't have a right to make any copies". Fair use is one case, and this is another: you don't need a license in order to make incidental copies that are necessary for running a program.
Specifically, according to 17 USC 117(a)(1), "it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided... that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner".
There are a lot of different cases where one state changed their drinking age, then saw a spike in fatalities. Yes, like I said, that's what I'd expect. The question is, do they drop back down once the population adjusts?
Actually, the reason the drinking age has been set at 21 is that studies have shown that it decreases the amount of fatal auto accidents. Not really. The number of fatal auto accidents also decreased in Canada, during the same time period, even though the drinking age wasn't raised there.
That suggests that the drop was caused by something else that affected both countries equally: education, social pressure, etc.
An Arizona Department of Public Safety report found that fatal accidents increased over 25% while traffic fatalities increased more than 35% after the state MLPA was lowered from 21 to 19. Is there any reason to think this isn't a one-time event, caused by thousands of 19-20 year olds suddenly gaining the right to drink without having had time to prepare for it? I'd expect the numbers to spike after lowering the age, but then drop back down over the next few years as the population adjusts to the new laws.
Drunk driving has dropped enormously. Not because of the drinking age, though. For proof, look at Canada: they didn't raise their drinking age, but they experienced the same drop in drunk driving that the US did.
It happened because of education, social pressure, and drunk driving laws, not because of the drinking age.
As most everyone understands, or should understand by now, Apple is a hardware company. The terrific software they develop is in order to sell hardware. If Apple allows any piece of junk to run OS X then they've lost their business model. Er, that's backwards. If they're a hardware company, then shouldn't they be competing on the quality of their hardware? And since Psystar can't compete on hardware quality, wouldn't that mean Apple has nothing to worry about?
Here's an alternate theory: Apple is really a software company, but they pretend to be a hardware company. Competition in the hardware market is a problem for Apple because their hardware isn't actually competitive.
I hope Psystar goes down in flames, actually. I hope they stick around and pressure Apple to address the glaring holes in their product lineup: notably, the lack of a 15" laptop or expandable desktop for under $2000.
Well, the full price for Windows Vista Ultimate is $319. Let's suppose OS X ends up being even more expensive, somehow, and is priced at $500.
If you buy a compatible PC for $500 and the OS costs another $500, you're still only paying $1000 for an expandable Mac desktop, which is a bargain compared to the Mac Pro.
Mac OS X at $130 is probably subisdized by hardware hardware sales. Without that money Mac OS X could possibly suffer from lack of funding, losing the very gleam that made you want it in the first place...or be forced to jump to Windows Super Ultimate Edition price. What's wrong with that?
If they can't make a profit selling the OS for $130, then they should raise the price to one where they can make a profit. And if their OS is so expensive to make that the unsubsidized price is too high for customers to afford, well, I guess that takes care of the clone problem, right?
I'm quite astounded by folks who, when faced with a picture or video of something they don't understand or have never before seen immediately cry "fake!" Then I hope you're sitting down next time you read the comments on YouTube.
1. evil - it forces everyone into govt-ran and taxed system that is basically both enslaving and impossible to run efficiently and It's only "enslaving" in the minds of libertarian radicals who think taxation is inherently evil. If you're one of those people, I'm sorry; it must be a very hard life, being enslaved every time you go to the store or get a paycheck.
As for "impossible to run efficiently", that's already been proved false. A quick look at how much other countries spend on their health care (per capita or as a percentage of GDP) reveals that they pay less to get more. Even our own Medicare system has lower overhead than private insurers.
The notion that government agencies are inevitably less efficient than private companies is a myth. Competition isn't a magic bullet: for one thing, the competition between all those different insurance companies and plans requires American doctors to hire additional staff just to deal with billing. (Clinton and Obama's plans wouldn't fix that, of course, but a single-payer plan would.)
2. delusional, promise-oriented, as *most of the time* there are going to be long waiting queues in any nationalized scheme, and *most of the time* responsiveness of private solutions is going to be superior. Whenever demand exceeds supply, there will be some kind of rationing, and that's true whether it's a private or public system.
In a public system, the rationing is in clear view. If 100 people want to see a doctor, but the doctor only has time to see half, his time is rationed out to the 50 people who need treatment most, as determined by a health care professional who's qualified to make that judgment.
In a private system, the rationing is less obvious, but it's still there. Instead of the doctor's time being rationed according to need, it's rationed according to ability to pay: instead of seeing the 50 sickest patients, he sees the 50 highest bidders. And instead of everyone else going into a queue, they don't get treated at all.
Most people find that form of rationing unacceptable, but it seems to be the one you're preferring. Can you explain why you'd rather allocate health care to the highest bidders instead of the sickest patients?
(Also, what are these "private solutions" you're talking about? Is there a private company offering health insurance to everyone who wants it, whether or not they can afford it? If not, there is no private solution.)
When future generations read this thread, I think they'll conclude that if either of us was trolling, it was the one changing the subject and moving the goalposts with every other comment, not the one patiently backing his claims up with citations.
But, whatever. This discussion has been futile from the start, because we both know national health care is coming, no matter what anyone says on Slashdot.
This is where Health savings accounts and walkin clinics come in. Health savings accounts are a solution looking for a problem. How many people do you know who have extra money to put into an HSA, but don't have enough to pay for health insurance, and don't already get health benefits from work?
What good is an HSA if you don't have insurance to cover you once it's empty?
And what are people supposed to do when they get sick before they've managed to build up a respectable balance in their HSA?
What I want is for everyone to have the same tax benefits that employees and their employers have now. Even employers like McDonald's may pay employees a dollar an hour more so that full time workers could pay insurance on their own, and save money in the process. McDonald's is an employer, so the door is already wide open for them to do that, if they wanted to - but they don't. They don't need to attract employees with perks like health insurance or high wages.
Surely you aren't saying the health care problem will be solved by employers suddenly deciding to offer raises and benefits, but I don't see what else you could've meant here.
Furthermore, insurance through an employer isn't cheaper just because of the tax situation, but because employers get group policies. Individual polices are more expensive. Those employees would be better off with $40/week worth of group insurance than with an extra $1/hr in their paychecks.
Living in the US without insurance, not only did I not have to be put on a waiting list but I was also medivaced in a helicopter to the hospital. The same thing would've happened in Canada too, of course, but that's beside the point. We're not talking about emergencies, we're talking about taking care of problems before they become emergencies.
In the US, if you have a problem that needs treatment but isn't yet an emergency, you just don't get treated at all if you don't have enough money. In Canada, you do get treated, even though you might have to wait first.
A person doesn't have to be a doctor to practice health care, in a free market midwives would be allowed to practice, even as a nurse but not necessarily. I see. So, apparently when you say "free market", you don't just mean getting rid of tax breaks - you want to get rid of every regulation and let anyone practice medicine if they feel like it.
Sounds like a great plan. I can't wait for the opportunity to go to my local barber for a good old-fashioned bleeding, instead of having to go to one of those phony "MDs" who want to charge me for a bunch of useless tests and dangerous anesthetic. If it was good enough for my great-great-great-grandfather, it's good enough for me!
It's kind of hard to point to a real world example of what I advocate, a free market for health care, when one does not exist. Ah, of course not. All the private health care system in the world have some minor flaw that prevents the free market magic from working correctly... just like all the countries that tried communism got one little thing wrong that kept the Marxist magic from working. According to their apologists, at least.
I can however point to socialized medical systems that didn't work, the former Soviet Republics. Meanwhile, you ignore all the national health care systems that do work. It's funny how in all these threads, people treat national health care like some wacky new idea that hasn't been tried anywhere outside of Canada and occasionally the UK.
And I hope you don't need surgery in Canada: Restricted government spending along with universal health insurance has led to longer queues for surgical procedures in Canada versus the United States. Actually, if I needed surgery and didn't have health insurance, I'd take Canada over the US any day. Waiting in queue is a hell of a lot better than going without treatment.
In a free market more people would want to be medical professionals, more doctors can see more patients. That doesn't make sense. Remember, you said government intervention was keeping prices high, and that eliminating the tax break for employer-provided health insurance would cause prices to drop. If prices drop, that will discourage people from becoming doctors -- the opposite of what you want. Basic economics, you know?
In a free market groups could bargain for lower cost drugs. They can do that already.
Oh, I agree that any one who wants health care should be able to get it but I also believe the best way to lower costs so everyone can afford it is by having a free market. As long as the price is greater than $0, some people won't be able to afford it. How is a free market going to drop prices to $0?
I did no such thing, if you read my previous posts you will see I believe a free market in health care and insurance will lower costs so most if not everyone could afford it. If "most" is the best you can offer, then I don't see how your proposal is even relevant. The point of national health care is to cover everyone.
Are you ignoring economics? Or is it that you don't know it? I think it's that I know more of it than you do. Specifically, I know that the real world isn't a perfect idealized market like you learned about in Econ 101; consumers don't have perfect information, and health care is not something you can take or leave like a plasma TV when the price is too high.
And the fact that you can't point to a single real world example of your proposal working leads me to conclude that you haven't thought it through. Since this "basic economics" is so obvious, do you really think you're the first one to think of it?
Socialized medicine has already been shown to cause health care to be rationed. Health care is already rationed. Everything is rationed when demand exceeds supply. It's just that in a "free market", it's rationed by price: the scarce resources go to the people who are willing and/or able to pay the most for them.
I contend, and a majority of American citizens and doctors apparently agree, that rationing health care by price is a poor way to do it. If 100 people want to see a doctor, but the doctor only has time to see half of them, we would prefer him to see the 50 sickest people -- but a free market will inevitably lead him to see the 50 wealthiest people instead.
Yea, and the courts have also ruled the feds can prosecute Californians for medical marijuana, even though it has nothing to do with interstate commerce, it was the interstate commerce clause that the feds used as justification. Yup, and that's a shame, but it's still the law. If you believe the interstate commerce clause means something other than what the courts have said it means, then you're wrong, plain and simple. Deciding how to interpret laws is their job, not yours.
Also, as I stated earlier I have been denied insurance, yet I still advocate a free market and oppose socialized medicine. That's not surprising. Lots of people support policies that go against their own interests.
Neither of the quotes you provide suggest that it will be mandatory to have health insurance. Both refer to the option of having federal coverage. [...] Absent tax increases to involuntarily cover those who choose not to sign up, there will still be those who choose to keep cash in pocket. I believe one of the main differences between the Clinton and Obama proposals is that Clinton would make coverage mandatory for everyone, but Obama wouldn't.
The "option of having federal coverage" refers to the choice between the new public insurance plans and the existing private ones.
I don't mind counter-evidence being provided, but please use something other than a Micheal Moore film to do so. *shrug* It's not hard to find evidence of people being screwed by their insurance companies. Some of it is in the film. If you have an ideological bias against the film, feel free not to watch it, but the burden of proof is off my shoulders.
I did compare overall health care expenditures in the US. Similar to the UK, it's doubled in ten years, but the annualized percentage increases for the last five years have been only 8.2%, a third lower than in the UK. I used figures from the US Census Bureau [census.gov] with 2007 as the ending year. I'd say that means the UK system was probably underfunded. Compare the expenditures per capita or as a portion of GDP, and you'll see that we still spend a lot more in the US.
Aside from that, your recommendation to find another insurer is no different from today's market. It's no different for the person who has health insurance in today's market and can afford to shop around. For the person who doesn't, however, the option to use a publicly funded system would be one hell of a benefit, even if it did come with some restrictions.
In other words, these proposals say that if today's system works for you, you can keep it; if it doesn't, you can switch to something that probably will. That's win-win.
Medicare already does this on some occasions [...] It doesn't provide complete freedom of care [...] It's also not always all-inclusive. Yes, those are some of the reasons why Medicare is inadequate and why the new proposals go significantly beyond what Medicare offers.
Prey tell, when did I say they didn't deserve to live? You implied that it wasn't important for them to be able to afford preventive health care. If they wait for their health problems to become emergencies instead, many will die.
Yes, just as outsourcing lowers salaries and wages, a free market in health insurance would lower health care costs. That's not a real world example, it's a hypothesis. Do you have any evidence that a "free market in health insurance" actually results in lower prices and better outcomes in real life?
And, more importantly, since the point of national health care is to make health care available to everyone, is there any reason to believe a "free market in health insurance" would ever make it universally affordable?
If the government allowed employers to pay employees more, without taxing them more, so they could get insurance on their own then you'd have a free market in health insurance and care. There already is competition between health insurers; they have to compete for employers' business, and they also sell policies to individuals. How is eliminating the tax break for health benefits (or adding a new one somewhere else to counteract it) supposed to result in lower prices?
That's easy to handle, amend the Constitution. Not one proposal I've heard of mentions that anywhere. You think we need a Constitutional amendment for health care? I wouldn't oppose such a thing, but it's hardly necessary - every other social program, including Medicare, gets along just fine without one.
If people care so much about health care then why do so many eat junk food? Why are so many obese? Why are there so many diabetics? I don't know if you've noticed, but there are over 300 million people in this country. They don't all say or do the same things.
There are no real-world examples of a free market in health care. Ah, of course. Just like there are no real-world examples of communism, according to the people who advocate communism.
Slashdot Mirror
This restriction isn't just in the burner, though - on either DVD-R or DVD+R media (can't remember which), the key area is physically unusable. I still think the idea that CSS is a form of copy protection is a con. They certainly use it to control how people access the media they pay for. Agreed.
2. Type "dd if=/dev/hdd of=/media/some_hollywood_blockbuster.iso"
3. Burn resulting image file to a blank DVD (or mount it as a loopback device and point your media player at the mount point). 4. Discover that the disc you just burned is unplayable, because you can't burn CSS keys to DVDR media. You end up with a disc full of encrypted data but no key to decrypt it with. DRM didn't do much to stop us from making a copy, did it? I simply made an exact copy of the original DVD, complete with DRM. After all, that's what my player is expecting. Well, yeah, it did stop you in the case of DVDs. You're right about DRM in general -- it is fundamentally flawed -- but the way to successfully copy a DVD is to decrypt it using the key they helpfully provide to you.
For example, suppose you're installing some software when you get to the EULA, and you see that rather than granting you any new rights, it's only trying to restrict the ones you already have. You get up to grab a cup of coffee while you consider your options, but while you're away, your cat steps on the keyboard and selects "I Agree". The cat's consent is legally meaningless, of course, so the agreement is invalid. But that doesn't hurt you: in fact, you're better off than if you had clicked the button yourself, because you still have all the rights you had before.
And let's be clear: the GPL grants extra rights, it doesn't take them away. Copyright law gives you the right to run a copy of software which you have legally obtained. The GPL gives you the additional right to distribute that software, provided that you distribute it under certain terms. There is no action that you're allowed to do if you "reject" the GPL but prohibited from doing if you "accept" the GPL.
Generally, when you buy something without having to agree to any contract first, you become the owner of that thing. Some courts have upheld that principle when applying the first sale doctrine to software, for example: the EULA can't stop you from reselling it, because you're the owner and selling it is your right.
Correct me if I'm wrong (with citations, please), but my understanding is that in order for an exchange of money for goods not to be considered a sale, it must be established beforehand that the item is being leased or rented instead of sold. That is not what happens with software: you bring a box to the counter and exchange money for it, with no promise to ever surrender it, just like buying a book. No one would seriously argue that some text on the inside cover of a book could change the transaction from a sale to something else, right?
It's incorrect to say "under copyright, you don't have a right to make any copies". Fair use is one case, and this is another: you don't need a license in order to make incidental copies that are necessary for running a program.
Specifically, according to 17 USC 117(a)(1), "it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided
That suggests that the drop was caused by something else that affected both countries equally: education, social pressure, etc. An Arizona Department of Public Safety report found that fatal accidents increased over 25% while traffic fatalities increased more than 35% after the state MLPA was lowered from 21 to 19. Is there any reason to think this isn't a one-time event, caused by thousands of 19-20 year olds suddenly gaining the right to drink without having had time to prepare for it? I'd expect the numbers to spike after lowering the age, but then drop back down over the next few years as the population adjusts to the new laws.
It happened because of education, social pressure, and drunk driving laws, not because of the drinking age.
Here's an alternate theory: Apple is really a software company, but they pretend to be a hardware company. Competition in the hardware market is a problem for Apple because their hardware isn't actually competitive. I hope Psystar goes down in flames, actually. I hope they stick around and pressure Apple to address the glaring holes in their product lineup: notably, the lack of a 15" laptop or expandable desktop for under $2000.
You do realize that a verdict comes from the jury, not the judge, right?
Well, the full price for Windows Vista Ultimate is $319. Let's suppose OS X ends up being even more expensive, somehow, and is priced at $500.
If you buy a compatible PC for $500 and the OS costs another $500, you're still only paying $1000 for an expandable Mac desktop, which is a bargain compared to the Mac Pro.
If they can't make a profit selling the OS for $130, then they should raise the price to one where they can make a profit. And if their OS is so expensive to make that the unsubsidized price is too high for customers to afford, well, I guess that takes care of the clone problem, right?
As for "impossible to run efficiently", that's already been proved false. A quick look at how much other countries spend on their health care (per capita or as a percentage of GDP) reveals that they pay less to get more. Even our own Medicare system has lower overhead than private insurers.
The notion that government agencies are inevitably less efficient than private companies is a myth. Competition isn't a magic bullet: for one thing, the competition between all those different insurance companies and plans requires American doctors to hire additional staff just to deal with billing. (Clinton and Obama's plans wouldn't fix that, of course, but a single-payer plan would.) 2. delusional, promise-oriented, as *most of the time* there are going to be long waiting queues in any nationalized scheme, and *most of the time* responsiveness of private solutions is going to be superior. Whenever demand exceeds supply, there will be some kind of rationing, and that's true whether it's a private or public system.
In a public system, the rationing is in clear view. If 100 people want to see a doctor, but the doctor only has time to see half, his time is rationed out to the 50 people who need treatment most, as determined by a health care professional who's qualified to make that judgment.
In a private system, the rationing is less obvious, but it's still there. Instead of the doctor's time being rationed according to need, it's rationed according to ability to pay: instead of seeing the 50 sickest patients, he sees the 50 highest bidders. And instead of everyone else going into a queue, they don't get treated at all.
Most people find that form of rationing unacceptable, but it seems to be the one you're preferring. Can you explain why you'd rather allocate health care to the highest bidders instead of the sickest patients?
(Also, what are these "private solutions" you're talking about? Is there a private company offering health insurance to everyone who wants it, whether or not they can afford it? If not, there is no private solution.)
When future generations read this thread, I think they'll conclude that if either of us was trolling, it was the one changing the subject and moving the goalposts with every other comment, not the one patiently backing his claims up with citations.
But, whatever. This discussion has been futile from the start, because we both know national health care is coming, no matter what anyone says on Slashdot.
What good is an HSA if you don't have insurance to cover you once it's empty?
And what are people supposed to do when they get sick before they've managed to build up a respectable balance in their HSA? What I want is for everyone to have the same tax benefits that employees and their employers have now. Even employers like McDonald's may pay employees a dollar an hour more so that full time workers could pay insurance on their own, and save money in the process. McDonald's is an employer, so the door is already wide open for them to do that, if they wanted to - but they don't. They don't need to attract employees with perks like health insurance or high wages.
Surely you aren't saying the health care problem will be solved by employers suddenly deciding to offer raises and benefits, but I don't see what else you could've meant here.
Furthermore, insurance through an employer isn't cheaper just because of the tax situation, but because employers get group policies. Individual polices are more expensive. Those employees would be better off with $40/week worth of group insurance than with an extra $1/hr in their paychecks.
In the US, if you have a problem that needs treatment but isn't yet an emergency, you just don't get treated at all if you don't have enough money. In Canada, you do get treated, even though you might have to wait first. A person doesn't have to be a doctor to practice health care, in a free market midwives would be allowed to practice, even as a nurse but not necessarily. I see. So, apparently when you say "free market", you don't just mean getting rid of tax breaks - you want to get rid of every regulation and let anyone practice medicine if they feel like it.
Sounds like a great plan. I can't wait for the opportunity to go to my local barber for a good old-fashioned bleeding, instead of having to go to one of those phony "MDs" who want to charge me for a bunch of useless tests and dangerous anesthetic. If it was good enough for my great-great-great-grandfather, it's good enough for me!
And the fact that you can't point to a single real world example of your proposal working leads me to conclude that you haven't thought it through. Since this "basic economics" is so obvious, do you really think you're the first one to think of it? Socialized medicine has already been shown to cause health care to be rationed. Health care is already rationed. Everything is rationed when demand exceeds supply. It's just that in a "free market", it's rationed by price: the scarce resources go to the people who are willing and/or able to pay the most for them.
I contend, and a majority of American citizens and doctors apparently agree, that rationing health care by price is a poor way to do it. If 100 people want to see a doctor, but the doctor only has time to see half of them, we would prefer him to see the 50 sickest people -- but a free market will inevitably lead him to see the 50 wealthiest people instead.
A majority of doctors, too.
[...]
Absent tax increases to involuntarily cover those who choose not to sign up, there will still be those who choose to keep cash in pocket. I believe one of the main differences between the Clinton and Obama proposals is that Clinton would make coverage mandatory for everyone, but Obama wouldn't.
The "option of having federal coverage" refers to the choice between the new public insurance plans and the existing private ones. I don't mind counter-evidence being provided, but please use something other than a Micheal Moore film to do so. *shrug* It's not hard to find evidence of people being screwed by their insurance companies. Some of it is in the film. If you have an ideological bias against the film, feel free not to watch it, but the burden of proof is off my shoulders. I did compare overall health care expenditures in the US. Similar to the UK, it's doubled in ten years, but the annualized percentage increases for the last five years have been only 8.2%, a third lower than in the UK. I used figures from the US Census Bureau [census.gov] with 2007 as the ending year. I'd say that means the UK system was probably underfunded. Compare the expenditures per capita or as a portion of GDP, and you'll see that we still spend a lot more in the US. Aside from that, your recommendation to find another insurer is no different from today's market. It's no different for the person who has health insurance in today's market and can afford to shop around. For the person who doesn't, however, the option to use a publicly funded system would be one hell of a benefit, even if it did come with some restrictions.
In other words, these proposals say that if today's system works for you, you can keep it; if it doesn't, you can switch to something that probably will. That's win-win. Medicare already does this on some occasions [...] It doesn't provide complete freedom of care [...] It's also not always all-inclusive. Yes, those are some of the reasons why Medicare is inadequate and why the new proposals go significantly beyond what Medicare offers.
And, more importantly, since the point of national health care is to make health care available to everyone, is there any reason to believe a "free market in health insurance" would ever make it universally affordable? If the government allowed employers to pay employees more, without taxing them more, so they could get insurance on their own then you'd have a free market in health insurance and care. There already is competition between health insurers; they have to compete for employers' business, and they also sell policies to individuals. How is eliminating the tax break for health benefits (or adding a new one somewhere else to counteract it) supposed to result in lower prices?