Health care professionals are still licensed. The threat of being sued for malpractice or losing ones licence is still there. But more to the point, most health care professionals aren't in that field for the money, but because they care about what they do. Much like any other field.
I was more referring to the people who run the health care companies or orchestrate the running of the facilities. Employees can't be sued by employers for being inefficient, and it is notoriously hard to fire government workers.
Private enterprise is more efficient than the government for the same reason that dictatorship is more efficient than democracy. Democratic governments, at least in theory, have openness and accountability constraints that don't apply to corporations. And the few constraints that do apply to corporations at the moment would definitely not apply under a pure libertarian system.
I would argue that competition and motivation are the main reason for greater efficiency, especially since, unlike dictatorships or any other government, competing businesses have freedom of association.
You answered your question here. "It may be necessary" to force people to pay money. Looks like you're just arguing about where the boundary lies to me.
Even if it is necessary in some cases, it may not be right, and would be ideal to avoid when possible. Those boundaries are what define government policies.
I could change a few words there and come up with a pretty plausible-sounding argument as to why open source software will inevitably be crap compared to proprietary offerings.
I am under the impression that open source software contribution is not a job for many people, and it is generally a hobby. For medical care, full time employees and administrators are necessary. One can read a few books and contribute to OSS, whereas it takes dedication to provide health care. Government has virtually unlimited funds, and many of the people who end up working for it don't do it out of dedication or pride like contributors to OSS. And proprietary software is often better than OSS.
Fox News has only a slight conservative slant. They are often considered right-leaning because occasionally they do not show complete animosity towards our president, and may even report on some on the good things he does, on one of the days where there is no one calling him an evil nazi to interview.
And most are religious people, who feel that certain degrees of morality should be required in individuals. Regardless of whether others support that, it is usually not done out of jealousy or authoritarianism.
There are plenty of logical arguments to the contrary, even if you do not agree with them. And agreeing with them does not mean you do not value life. In fact, it shows a great value on one of the most important things in life, freedom. That's not to say that people who support socialized medicine are "anti-freedom".
Isn't it our duty to take care of ourselves? That is half of freedom.
Is health care an essential right, when it requires someone to do something? Do you have the right to a health care worker's labor?
Is it right for an entity to force people to pay money? For the military, et al, it may be necessary, but it isn't for health care.
And even if you do believe in an essential right to health care, should it be done by the government in addition to being paid for by it?
Competing private enterprise is almost always more efficient than the government, because people are motivated to do things well. If a health care providing entity will get money and exist not matter how good it is, and no one's fortune depends on how well it does, what motivation is there for it to be efficient? In private enterprise, people strive to do better.
The Canadian health care system has a lot of problems, it is not very efficient, and skill among workers is not as highly valued or rewarded as that of a private enterprise system. It also costs a lot. So you do have to, or at least should, think about it.
Personally, I am glad that we have a free enterprise health care system in the U.S. and do not believe that will ever change.
What do you mean by the U.S. as an entity? Americans as a whole certainly value life, and all or most of the people in our government do. We also value freedom.
99% of: conservatives aren't nazis or fascists, liberals aren't immoral elitists or communists, libertarians aren't uncaring or selfish.
The average person could not install Windows or Linux, but you do not have to install Windows on most computers. Probably due to hardware integration, OS X is likely the easiest OS to install.
The difference between the 4GB Nano and the 30GB iPod is $50, which is the standard increase in cost on the iPods, so there is really no reason for a 10GB one. The extra 20GB won't bother anyone, but having to choose between 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 GB models will.
Open source software may be reliable and dependable as software, but there is no one a company can stop giving money to, or sue, if it does not work as advertised. There is no obligation for the people who make it to make it well, and they don't lose money if no one uses it. So in that sense it is not reliable, because no one is accountable for it, and it is not dependable, because there is no financial obligation to make it work as advertised.
Calling all Republicans fascists, "Hitler supporters, or "people who believe that the rich are better than the poor" is ridiculous. Most are good people, as are most Democrats.
Liberalism is the idea of individual liberty. Modern American liberalism is not the same thing. It is a left wing ideology that supports less social regulation and more economic regulation.
Liberalism in the true sense is the same as libertarianism and is generally considered more right wing, but is really neither.
Conservatism supports greater social regulation and less economic regulation. When they "decry" liberalism they are referring to the modern American ideology of that name.
The Republican party is not only of the extremely rich. In fact, the extremely rich are probably split evenly between the two main parties.
Neither are against individualism entirely. Conservatives believe one should take care of oneself financially, but should follow certain social restrictions. Liberals believe that one should receive help from the government, or be entirely taken care of, but shouldn't have many social restrictions. True liberals, libertarians, believe in less restriction in both areas.
Fox News may be a little biased, but it is a close to centrist as any news agency. It is generally considered conservative because it sometimes does not show complete and utter opposition to the president.
Just because you disagree with someone does not make them evil.
There is no Republican in any position in the United States government that desires a "theocratic fascist police state" or who deserves to die. Hyperbole is not a suitable substitute for argument.
Sure, they may wish for the government to act on some biblical principles, including not killing and not stealing, and they may want greater national security, but your claims are ridiculous.
What you are saying is very similar to "liberals hate America" except that that is true in some, but not most, cases.
Well, that scenario is a bit unlikely. I'll try one to play devil's advocate:
A national security agency suspects a man of being in league with terrorists. He is making a phone call out of the country, but their is no warrant nor time to get one, so security officials do not listen to the call.
If they had, they would have been able to prevent the nuclear attack that occurred the next day.
Islamic extremist terrorist groups weren't as active in the five years before 9/11 as they are now. More attacks are being tried now, and not just in the US.
America is the symbol of Western society, and the most prominent target for terrorists.
Yes, the US has bases all over the world, but it does not control those other countries. Rome controlled it's conquered territories with its military. And the US is still one of the most free places in the world. Evidence? Citizens go on trial for crimes. They can and do criticize their government. They can and do assemble in opposition to government policies.
Europeans do not have more freedom of speech than Americans. Several European countries have stopped people from saying things the government did not agree with, or things that may have offended someone. America has very few restrictions on free speech.
Most if not all criminals who stole or committed fraud for money could have earned an honest living. Some people are going to steal, and we need police. The police can't be allowed too much power, though.
So then how did the opposition almost win? Did the current administration have supporters vote for the opposition to prevent public notice of vote suppression or were aliens involved? Both?
First of all, the USA is not a democracy, it is a republic. Second of all, committing a crime is a choice and reflective of character. It is not something that is irrelevant to your competency in choosing who will represent you like race or gender. Would it be better to allow murderers to choose our leaders?
Both the United States and the United Kingdom are bastions of freedom and civil liberties. You're comment about invading Iraq was completely irrelevant.
Businesses exist to benefit the stockholders, and have every right to fire people and outsource their jobs unless they have a contract agreeing not to. Freedom.
Government is supposed to "lookout for the people" ? I thought it was supposed to ensure our essential rights to freedom, safety, and property ownership? The regulation you are proposing would stifle business, and hurt employees.
Slashdot Mirror
Health care professionals are still licensed. The threat of being sued for malpractice or losing ones licence is still there. But more to the point, most health care professionals aren't in that field for the money, but because they care about what they do. Much like any other field.
I was more referring to the people who run the health care companies or orchestrate the running of the facilities. Employees can't be sued by employers for being inefficient, and it is notoriously hard to fire government workers.
Private enterprise is more efficient than the government for the same reason that dictatorship is more efficient than democracy. Democratic governments, at least in theory, have openness and accountability constraints that don't apply to corporations. And the few constraints that do apply to corporations at the moment would definitely not apply under a pure libertarian system.
I would argue that competition and motivation are the main reason for greater efficiency, especially since, unlike dictatorships or any other government, competing businesses have freedom of association.
You answered your question here. "It may be necessary" to force people to pay money. Looks like you're just arguing about where the boundary lies to me.
Even if it is necessary in some cases, it may not be right, and would be ideal to avoid when possible. Those boundaries are what define government policies. I could change a few words there and come up with a pretty plausible-sounding argument as to why open source software will inevitably be crap compared to proprietary offerings.
I am under the impression that open source software contribution is not a job for many people, and it is generally a hobby. For medical care, full time employees and administrators are necessary. One can read a few books and contribute to OSS, whereas it takes dedication to provide health care. Government has virtually unlimited funds, and many of the people who end up working for it don't do it out of dedication or pride like contributors to OSS. And proprietary software is often better than OSS.
Fox News has only a slight conservative slant. They are often considered right-leaning because occasionally they do not show complete animosity towards our president, and may even report on some on the good things he does, on one of the days where there is no one calling him an evil nazi to interview.
And most are religious people, who feel that certain degrees of morality should be required in individuals. Regardless of whether others support that, it is usually not done out of jealousy or authoritarianism.
There are plenty of logical arguments to the contrary, even if you do not agree with them. And agreeing with them does not mean you do not value life. In fact, it shows a great value on one of the most important things in life, freedom. That's not to say that people who support socialized medicine are "anti-freedom".
Isn't it our duty to take care of ourselves? That is half of freedom.
Is health care an essential right, when it requires someone to do something? Do you have the right to a health care worker's labor?
Is it right for an entity to force people to pay money? For the military, et al, it may be necessary, but it isn't for health care.
And even if you do believe in an essential right to health care, should it be done by the government in addition to being paid for by it?
Competing private enterprise is almost always more efficient than the government, because people are motivated to do things well. If a health care providing entity will get money and exist not matter how good it is, and no one's fortune depends on how well it does, what motivation is there for it to be efficient? In private enterprise, people strive to do better.
The Canadian health care system has a lot of problems, it is not very efficient, and skill among workers is not as highly valued or rewarded as that of a private enterprise system. It also costs a lot. So you do have to, or at least should, think about it.
Personally, I am glad that we have a free enterprise health care system in the U.S. and do not believe that will ever change.
What do you mean by the U.S. as an entity? Americans as a whole certainly value life, and all or most of the people in our government do. We also value freedom.
99% of: conservatives aren't nazis or fascists, liberals aren't immoral elitists or communists, libertarians aren't uncaring or selfish.
What if one wants to upgrade their OS or install another one? Buy another laptop?
The average person could not install Windows or Linux, but you do not have to install Windows on most computers. Probably due to hardware integration, OS X is likely the easiest OS to install.
Why would you want to wait for an x86 Powermac? The G5 processors are quite fast.
The difference between the 4GB Nano and the 30GB iPod is $50, which is the standard increase in cost on the iPods, so there is really no reason for a 10GB one. The extra 20GB won't bother anyone, but having to choose between 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 GB models will.
Open source software may be reliable and dependable as software, but there is no one a company can stop giving money to, or sue, if it does not work as advertised. There is no obligation for the people who make it to make it well, and they don't lose money if no one uses it. So in that sense it is not reliable, because no one is accountable for it, and it is not dependable, because there is no financial obligation to make it work as advertised.
I never claimed to support all of the NSA's actions, but my scenario is very possible.
Calling all Republicans fascists, "Hitler supporters, or "people who believe that the rich are better than the poor" is ridiculous. Most are good people, as are most Democrats.
Liberalism is the idea of individual liberty. Modern American liberalism is not the same thing. It is a left wing ideology that supports less social regulation and more economic regulation.
Liberalism in the true sense is the same as libertarianism and is generally considered more right wing, but is really neither.
Conservatism supports greater social regulation and less economic regulation. When they "decry" liberalism they are referring to the modern American ideology of that name.
The Republican party is not only of the extremely rich. In fact, the extremely rich are probably split evenly between the two main parties.
Neither are against individualism entirely. Conservatives believe one should take care of oneself financially, but should follow certain social restrictions. Liberals believe that one should receive help from the government, or be entirely taken care of, but shouldn't have many social restrictions. True liberals, libertarians, believe in less restriction in both areas.
Fox News may be a little biased, but it is a close to centrist as any news agency. It is generally considered conservative because it sometimes does not show complete and utter opposition to the president.
Just because you disagree with someone does not make them evil.
There is no Republican in any position in the United States government that desires a "theocratic fascist police state" or who deserves to die. Hyperbole is not a suitable substitute for argument.
Sure, they may wish for the government to act on some biblical principles, including not killing and not stealing, and they may want greater national security, but your claims are ridiculous.
What you are saying is very similar to "liberals hate America" except that that is true in some, but not most, cases.
Well, that scenario is a bit unlikely. I'll try one to play devil's advocate:
A national security agency suspects a man of being in league with terrorists. He is making a phone call out of the country, but their is no warrant nor time to get one, so security officials do not listen to the call.
If they had, they would have been able to prevent the nuclear attack that occurred the next day.
Islamic extremist terrorist groups weren't as active in the five years before 9/11 as they are now. More attacks are being tried now, and not just in the US. America is the symbol of Western society, and the most prominent target for terrorists.
Yes, the US has bases all over the world, but it does not control those other countries. Rome controlled it's conquered territories with its military. And the US is still one of the most free places in the world. Evidence? Citizens go on trial for crimes. They can and do criticize their government. They can and do assemble in opposition to government policies.
It may be a form of democracy, but it is not a democracy in the true sense of the word.
Europeans do not have more freedom of speech than Americans. Several European countries have stopped people from saying things the government did not agree with, or things that may have offended someone. America has very few restrictions on free speech.
Most if not all criminals who stole or committed fraud for money could have earned an honest living. Some people are going to steal, and we need police. The police can't be allowed too much power, though.
So then how did the opposition almost win? Did the current administration have supporters vote for the opposition to prevent public notice of vote suppression or were aliens involved? Both?
First of all, the USA is not a democracy, it is a republic. Second of all, committing a crime is a choice and reflective of character. It is not something that is irrelevant to your competency in choosing who will represent you like race or gender. Would it be better to allow murderers to choose our leaders?
They aren't treated as less than human beings. They are treated as less than citizens. Voting is not an intrinsic right.
Both the United States and the United Kingdom are bastions of freedom and civil liberties. You're comment about invading Iraq was completely irrelevant.
The USA is not a democracy. It is a republic.
Businesses exist to benefit the stockholders, and have every right to fire people and outsource their jobs unless they have a contract agreeing not to. Freedom.
Government is supposed to "lookout for the people" ? I thought it was supposed to ensure our essential rights to freedom, safety, and property ownership? The regulation you are proposing would stifle business, and hurt employees.