Math should always start with a problem (not an equation). A real, live, honest-to-goodness problem. Then you should talk about the nature of the problem. Why is it important to solve the problem? If we can solve the problem what can we do with that? Then talk about what you know about the problem. Define things get to know the problem. Think about ways you might be able to solve it. Next, move on to showing how the problem was finally solved with known Mathematics. Explain the solution. The thinking that went into it. Compare it to your group's proposed solutions. Were any like it? Did you come up with other solutions? Are they really the same, but, in disguise? Now it's fun!
I used to be naive enough to think I should care about other people. Now I realize that is fruitless. While you're busy caring about other people, those same other people will stick a shiv in your back. Choose a side. Fight for it. That's the way it is.
Why? Do you not believe we should have borders? Do you not think that American Citizens should be the benficiaries of our laws, taxes, infrastructure? If you say no to either of these questions, then you must mean that we should be able to enforce our laws, whether they be environmental, working condition, criminal, civil, or whatever related in all other countries. Also, we should collect taxes from all other countries citizens. No?
It is a good thing, that should enough (stress on enough being a vast majority of the leadership and soldiers) determine that our country is taking too wrong a direction, they will likely think of their families and friends and be more loyal to their needs than to oligarchy or aristocracy. That is why, we who served in the Military, are referred to as "Citizen Soldiers". We are not instructed to follow orders unquestioningly. We are taught to obey lawful orders and uphold the Constitution and most of all, to THINK!
The quote I gave above is, in fact, from the U.S. Declaration of Independence, not the U.S. Constitution. It is, however, correct and recognized to interpret the constitution through the lens of the declaration as the foundational document of the independence of the American colonies from Britain an so provide the rational basis upon which the U.S. is founded. So, though the words I quoted do not appear in the Constitution, I still consider it a valid point.
You are correct. I misread. My apologies. I would say, though, that having billing/collections done by the IRS is not a big saving administratively. I highly doubt, that an Insurance company has anything like a significant billing and collections department. Who do they need to collect from? The customer pays for their insurance or their policy is cancelled, no collections involved. It is the providers that bill the payers that have to have significant collections departments in order to deal with all the delays and administrative denials from the payers. The payers biggest administrative overhead is payments, to providers, and sales. Now, as far as an actuarial process is concerned, I would disagree that such a process is needed under a single payer system. A process to determine efficacy of treatment and to determine the average costs based upon average health and average cost of treatment for average healtcare needs. Now, you may call this an actuarial process, and it may in fact technically be so, but, it is not the kind of actuarial process commercial insurances run. Also, at the end of the day, the actuarial process is not a significant cost either. It scales without requiring significant number of people (i.e. payroll) to maintain. The big cost is in the management of reimbursement, authorization/pre-authorization, and claims processing. All of these things are the exact things that Medi-Care must handle. So, though I agree I responded incorrectly to your original post, I thin the point still stands. Saying Medicare is so cheap because the IRS handles billing/collections is a non-starter.
You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Medicare does not process reimbursement through the IRS. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ever heard of DMERC's? They are in fact, commercial entities that have the contract to process claims and provide reimbursement on behalf of Medicare Part B. Medicare Part A has a similar set-up (though I can't recall the term right now). I'm most familiar with Part B (having spent a number of years creating Medical Billing Software for the DME/HME industry which is Primarily Medicare Part B).
Medicare does not need an actuarial process? They don't deny you or make you pay more based upon your risk. They pay what the market will accept. Any physician or hospital who is not happy with the rates Medicare reimburses is free not to accept Medicare patients. It's funny, but, none that I know of do so.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Enshrined right there in the constitution that all men (humans) are created equal. Meaning that they should be granted equal chances to succeed in life. Now, if all the land, resources, and capital are owned/controlled by a few, in what way does anyone else have an equality of opportunity?
As a side note: some would argue that "endowed by their creator" means God. But, that is provably not the case by looking at Federalist papers and such. They explicitly chose not to use the term God, or anything like that, because creator leaves up to the individual the nature of what is the creator. For me, my creators are my Mother and my Father. They, by joining there sperm and egg, created me. So, I am endowed by my Mother and Father with certain unalienable rights. The Constitution enshrines that my creator has the right to so endow me. It is unalienable or the entire constitution is a fraud and is null and void. It is an agreement, see. If we violate the agreement, then it is null and void.
So, the question is this: Does someone, who by birth, has no "right" to any meaningful resources (property, education, healthcare, capital) have an equal chance to pursue happiness, life, and liberty? If the answer is "No", then it is unconstitutional.
it is not obvious what advantage supersonic cruise missiles have over ballistic ones.
Huh? Ballistic and Cruise are opposite of one another. There is no such thing as a "Ballistic Cruis Missile". It is an oxymoron. Please review the definition of "Ballistic". "Ballistic" means following a trajectory dictated by free-fall/gravity. An artillery shell follows a ballistic trajectory. An ICBM ("B" means ballistic) follows a ballistic trajectory in that once it reaches it's highest point (or even before) it is no longer powered and instead free-falls (though somewhat guided/corrected aerodynamically) to its target. A Cruis missile powers itself in a flight path that is in no way a ballistic trajectory. I think the term you are searching for instead of ballistic is "sub-sonic"
Why use your other hand? Don't you wash your hands? If I use water and my hand to clean my ass (which is what I do in the shower because soap drys out your anus) and then I wash my hands with soap and water, why should I not use that hand for everything?
These "Jurors" (and I use this term loosely) should be outed by the community and ostracized for their inability to do justice. They, and the border guards, are garbage and are deserving of nothing but violence from the rest of the community.
A VERY LARGE proportion of those actively serving in the Police, National Guards, and Military in general, are members of, or sympathetic to, the NRA and the like. People in the military (and yes, I was one) are not mindless drones who follow orders from the top unquestionably.
Rules governing medical malpractice claims are one of a host of factors potentially
affecting the delivery and cost of health care services in the United States. Although
this analysis provides some evidence of links between tort limits and health care
spending, the results are inconsistent and depend on the particular relationships and
specifications tested. The mixed results also demonstrate the difficulty of disentan-
gling any effects of tort limits from other factors that affect levels of spending for
health care. CBO continues to monitor the work of other researchers and conduct its
own research on the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
...have REEFER fund!
You must've traveled here frequently and become quite familiar with the natives!
Math should always start with a problem (not an equation). A real, live, honest-to-goodness problem. Then you should talk about the nature of the problem. Why is it important to solve the problem? If we can solve the problem what can we do with that? Then talk about what you know about the problem. Define things get to know the problem. Think about ways you might be able to solve it. Next, move on to showing how the problem was finally solved with known Mathematics. Explain the solution. The thinking that went into it. Compare it to your group's proposed solutions. Were any like it? Did you come up with other solutions? Are they really the same, but, in disguise? Now it's fun!
So, has it been 2 or 3 days since you last molested a child? You're a Child Molestor. QED!
No, Marginal Tax Rates CANNOT and DO NOT exceed anything more than like 38%. You are a dishonest liar!
I used to be naive enough to think I should care about other people. Now I realize that is fruitless. While you're busy caring about other people, those same other people will stick a shiv in your back. Choose a side. Fight for it. That's the way it is.
It would've been better for them if they could have done so. They failed to do so, so they lost. If we fail to do so, we lose.
Why? Do you not believe we should have borders? Do you not think that American Citizens should be the benficiaries of our laws, taxes, infrastructure? If you say no to either of these questions, then you must mean that we should be able to enforce our laws, whether they be environmental, working condition, criminal, civil, or whatever related in all other countries. Also, we should collect taxes from all other countries citizens. No?
What they are doing is perfectly permitted by the GPL. If you do not understand that, then you do not understand the GPL.
It is a good thing, that should enough (stress on enough being a vast majority of the leadership and soldiers) determine that our country is taking too wrong a direction, they will likely think of their families and friends and be more loyal to their needs than to oligarchy or aristocracy. That is why, we who served in the Military, are referred to as "Citizen Soldiers". We are not instructed to follow orders unquestioningly. We are taught to obey lawful orders and uphold the Constitution and most of all, to THINK!
The quote I gave above is, in fact, from the U.S. Declaration of Independence, not the U.S. Constitution. It is, however, correct and recognized to interpret the constitution through the lens of the declaration as the foundational document of the independence of the American colonies from Britain an so provide the rational basis upon which the U.S. is founded. So, though the words I quoted do not appear in the Constitution, I still consider it a valid point.
You are correct. I misread. My apologies. I would say, though, that having billing/collections done by the IRS is not a big saving administratively. I highly doubt, that an Insurance company has anything like a significant billing and collections department. Who do they need to collect from? The customer pays for their insurance or their policy is cancelled, no collections involved. It is the providers that bill the payers that have to have significant collections departments in order to deal with all the delays and administrative denials from the payers. The payers biggest administrative overhead is payments, to providers, and sales. Now, as far as an actuarial process is concerned, I would disagree that such a process is needed under a single payer system. A process to determine efficacy of treatment and to determine the average costs based upon average health and average cost of treatment for average healtcare needs. Now, you may call this an actuarial process, and it may in fact technically be so, but, it is not the kind of actuarial process commercial insurances run. Also, at the end of the day, the actuarial process is not a significant cost either. It scales without requiring significant number of people (i.e. payroll) to maintain. The big cost is in the management of reimbursement, authorization/pre-authorization, and claims processing. All of these things are the exact things that Medi-Care must handle. So, though I agree I responded incorrectly to your original post, I thin the point still stands. Saying Medicare is so cheap because the IRS handles billing/collections is a non-starter.
Your word does me no harm.
In what alternate reality is my perfectly correct explanation of what "Ballistic" means "Flamebait"?
You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Medicare does not process reimbursement through the IRS. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ever heard of DMERC's? They are in fact, commercial entities that have the contract to process claims and provide reimbursement on behalf of Medicare Part B. Medicare Part A has a similar set-up (though I can't recall the term right now). I'm most familiar with Part B (having spent a number of years creating Medical Billing Software for the DME /HME industry which is Primarily Medicare Part B).
Medicare does not need an actuarial process? They don't deny you or make you pay more based upon your risk. They pay what the market will accept. Any physician or hospital who is not happy with the rates Medicare reimburses is free not to accept Medicare patients. It's funny, but, none that I know of do so.
Tell me where I can send my child for $ 3,000.00 per year to a private school? You must be on crack!
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Enshrined right there in the constitution that all men (humans) are created equal. Meaning that they should be granted equal chances to succeed in life. Now, if all the land, resources, and capital are owned/controlled by a few, in what way does anyone else have an equality of opportunity?
As a side note: some would argue that "endowed by their creator" means God. But, that is provably not the case by looking at Federalist papers and such. They explicitly chose not to use the term God, or anything like that, because creator leaves up to the individual the nature of what is the creator. For me, my creators are my Mother and my Father. They, by joining there sperm and egg, created me. So, I am endowed by my Mother and Father with certain unalienable rights. The Constitution enshrines that my creator has the right to so endow me. It is unalienable or the entire constitution is a fraud and is null and void. It is an agreement, see. If we violate the agreement, then it is null and void.
So, the question is this: Does someone, who by birth, has no "right" to any meaningful resources (property, education, healthcare, capital) have an equal chance to pursue happiness, life, and liberty? If the answer is "No", then it is unconstitutional.
it is not obvious what advantage supersonic cruise missiles have over ballistic ones.
Huh? Ballistic and Cruise are opposite of one another. There is no such thing as a "Ballistic Cruis Missile". It is an oxymoron. Please review the definition of "Ballistic". "Ballistic" means following a trajectory dictated by free-fall/gravity. An artillery shell follows a ballistic trajectory. An ICBM ("B" means ballistic) follows a ballistic trajectory in that once it reaches it's highest point (or even before) it is no longer powered and instead free-falls (though somewhat guided/corrected aerodynamically) to its target. A Cruis missile powers itself in a flight path that is in no way a ballistic trajectory. I think the term you are searching for instead of ballistic is "sub-sonic"
just use your other hand for eating
Why use your other hand? Don't you wash your hands? If I use water and my hand to clean my ass (which is what I do in the shower because soap drys out your anus) and then I wash my hands with soap and water, why should I not use that hand for everything?
Why, it's just a word.
This is the kind of thing that demands the application of the "Ammo Box"!
These "Jurors" (and I use this term loosely) should be outed by the community and ostracized for their inability to do justice. They, and the border guards, are garbage and are deserving of nothing but violence from the rest of the community.
A VERY LARGE proportion of those actively serving in the Police, National Guards, and Military in general, are members of, or sympathetic to, the NRA and the like. People in the military (and yes, I was one) are not mindless drones who follow orders from the top unquestionably.
In trying to make the point that Tort is not the problem, I used a little hyperbole with respect to insurance profits. My Bad!
Rules governing medical malpractice claims are one of a host of factors potentially affecting the delivery and cost of health care services in the United States. Although this analysis provides some evidence of links between tort limits and health care spending, the results are inconsistent and depend on the particular relationships and specifications tested. The mixed results also demonstrate the difficulty of disentan- gling any effects of tort limits from other factors that affect levels of spending for health care. CBO continues to monitor the work of other researchers and conduct its own research on the issue.