I think we all have the right to ask anybody for their ID before we let a stranger into our house. I don't doubt that a white, asian or latino tech would also be asked for their ID on numerous occasions. Just because they don't like it and there is a small chance they did it because of their race, does not give them a right to get violent.
W....T....F....? "Well he hasn't beat any other customers so we're not going to do anything" Verizon said
This is not as bad as it sounds. Ok ok, just hear me out: IANAL but it appears that given the fact that verizon DIDNT fire him DESPITE his actions would mean an almost certain victory for the victim against Verizon in any civil suit along with hefty punitive damages. It would be even worse if the tech ends up hitting someone else and the second victim sued too.
I have to agree with you on this one. But if they're super paranoid, buy a flash drive and copy the document there, in plain text format or one that does not store metadata if possible. If there is a way to trace that back to the copier I'd be surprised.
Strangely enough, Jerry cannot keep a straight face. Don't get me wrong, Seinfeld was one of the best shows ever made (if not the very best), but Jerry was probably the worst actor of the bunch. He always looked like he was trying to stop himself from laughing.
The contract may say that they can change the terms without notice, however in court this will have little effect and will in most cases work against the party that imposed those terms.
Think about it, lets say you are with provider A who has a plan you hate. Provider B comes along with what looks like a fantastic plan so you pay a $200 cancellation fee with A and sign a contract with B. After one month B tells you that they are now doubling the rates on your plan which makes it much worse a plan than provider A. Now you are out $200 and have a worse plan that costs you much more. Any court would see this as a breach of contract and assuming you have a competent lawyer, the judge would award you damages of at least $200 plus the difference in rates plus lawyer fees.
The term has no real life power in court except to scare and attempt to manipulate the consumer.
You may or may not have noticed the term which says "provider may change terms of contract at any time, etc" along with other one sided things, but as we all know these contracts are not negotiable. They are a take it or leave it contract and all providers have these so the consumer is at quite a disadvantage and really has no negotiating power.
Courts recognize this as well and most of the time,as long as you don't have a corrupt judge, the court should see that most reasonable people given a real choice would not agree to a contract that allows one party to weazel out of their commitments with no penalty while the other has to pay ridiculous cancellation fees.
um...there is a 64bit version of windows, XP64, which Microsoft developed specifically for AMD's 64bit processors since at that time Intel was still pushing Itanium. This was available for public consumption not too long after AMD's processors were released and at that time only ran on AMD processors since they were the only producer of 64bit x86 processors. There is also a 64bit version of Vista available which runs on both Intel and AMD CPUs.
Your analogy is flawed because it involves a home invasion in which an individual is severely hurt financially. The amount of financial damage this hacker has done to the movie industry or any individual is equivelant to someone breaking into your house and stealing a can of pop from the fridge.
But i'll play along anyways. Lets say this robber stealing your TV, movies, or whatever and got caught in the act. He then says to himself "hmm...i'm gonna get 10 years if this guy catches me and calls the police. But, if i beat the living shit out of him i'll only get 5 years and possibly less since it's a first offense and thats only if he manages to get to the phone so i might as well break his spine just in case." What do you think he's going to do? He should be punished and your desire for vengence is understandable but if you make a petty offense a felony with a huge prison sentence, you encourage those involved to commit violent acts, which they otherwise would not undertake, in order to avoid capture. (in this case breaking your spine)
I totally agree, the punishment does not fit the crime.
10 years in prison should be reserved for things like rape, manslaughter, assault with a deadly weapon and other crimes of similar severity. Music/Movie/Software piracy should not be put in the same category.
I feel your pain bud. We need to stand up to the retailers and tell them we won't take it. Next time you're gonna buy something big, demand the competitive american price or threaten to walk out and buy it from the US. This may save you the hassle of importing and works very well when buying things like cars and motorcycles since in the US most dealers will sell you a car below the US MSRP which is already several thousands less than the Canadian MSRP (in some cases 10s of thousands) so obviously their profit margins must be huge. And don't buy their bullshit about 'import duties', 'Canadian warranties' or the fact that the canadian models are 'Weatherized'. Most warranties are valid if you put up a fuss, import duties are capped at 6.1% and weatherisation is just a different type of anti-freeze.
AMD, Nvidia and Intel don't care if your old GeForce 4, RageXL or intel crap integrated 4 year old graphics cards don't work anymore and really, they shouldn't. That hardware was made several years ago, is no longer in production and I don't recall any of them offering a lifetime warranty on their products. By the same logic you should be upset that Sega isn't releasing any firmware updates or new games for Sega Dreamcast or that Nintendo has dropped support for the Gamecube. It simply does not make sense. The companies have moved on and have shareholders to answer to. Supporting 5 year old out of production products for users who are unlikely to upgrade soon anyways, does not make the company any money.
Further to this, they REALLY don't care if it works under linux. Complain and threaten to boycott them all you want, linux users make up what, 5 maybe 10 percent of all desktop users? Out of that lets say that each graphics vendor has an equal share of linux users so approximately 3.33% Out of that 3.33% only a small fraction, say 50% have bought a new graphics card in the past year (gross overestimate) that they aren't using for gaming (since only a few commercial 3d games are ported to linux every year as opposed to the hundreds made for windows) so it's almost certainly a low end and low margin card. This means that even if any one of these companies dropped linux completely, their sales would go down at MOST by 1.5% That is still an exaggeration since VGA mode works fine for the majority of linux users who use their systems primarily as servers and these are low margin parts.
Supporting linux is almost akin to charity for these companies, except without the tax benefits. Despite this, they continue to support something that makes them no money and is unlikely to make them money in the near future. Perhaps one day it may, but certainly not now.
For example, we could be less-healthy on average (stereotypical american obesity anyone?). We could be (we are) older on average than the countries you listed. We have longer life expectancies than those countries as well. Neither France nor Canada show up in the top 20 of industrialized nations (perhaps because we spend more to keep people alive towards the end of their life?). We could spend more on elective procedures that aren't covered in those countries. It could be all of those things combined. I don't know what you are implying or directly trying to state with this comment. If it's to be taken directly, then it's just plain wrong. Canada and France are ranked in the well within the top 20 in terms of GDP by two measures (world bank & international monetary fund) and are again ranked in the top 20 for GDP per capita.
If you are referring to your previous sentence (life expectancy) then in fact they STILL rank within the top 20 and WAY ahead of the US. Canada is ranked 13th at 80.34years, France is ranked 10th at 80.59years, and the US is ranked 45th at 78years.
Sure there may be several reasons why the US spends more on healthcare per capita than any other nation but these facts about the US system remains true DESPITE the fact they spend the most on healthcare (government or private): The US is the only industrialized nation that DOESNT have universal healthcare, has a significantly lower life expectancy than most other industrial countries, has their healthcare system ranked lower than almost all industrialized countries by two measures (WHO and OEC reports), does not provide coverage for everyone, has high incidences of diseases/illnesses which can be prevented (only measured against Canada), etc. If you are looking for some reading material which highlights these facts, here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American _health_care_systems_compared
There is a way to find out how much your company's health insurance costs. Simply ask someone who has quit or has been laid off how much COBRA costs. Sometimes its even available on the company's intranet or from the HR department but you might have to do some hunting. The COBRA rate is the same as the group rate that the company pays for insurance for its employees and the rate that employees must pay if they want to continue their coverage after they leave the company. Don't be shocked when you hear the number though. My company pays $1150/month and it's plan SUCKS!!! (the name of the plan is United HealthCare Choice Plus)
Good post. I agree, that this does not help the problem but simply helps the revenues of Health Insurance companies. In fact, it will probably result in an INCREASE in premiums for residents of the state. I also agree, that a healthcare tax is what is really needed in conjunction with the government acting as the insurance company for the public similar to medicare but state run. This would force prices down and provide people with a reasonable alternative. Honestly, I could care less if it drives the insurance companies broke. Good riddance.
facts are overrated folks. as werner herzog says, you can cling to them if you wish, but that only makes you an unimportant obscure accountant. persuasion is what matters. because human belief is not about cold hard static facts, it is about your passion for how things SHOULD BE, not how THEY ARE. there are no facts to be had about how things should be. in which case, clinging to the need for "facts" in subject matter like healthcare is at best missing the point, and at worse, naive and stupid
I agree with you that persuasion is important but that does not mean that you can ignore objective evidence (ie. facts). Facts are what make a healthy debate healthy and relevant. In fact (no pun intended), it's far too often the opposers of universal healthcare that don't use facts in their arguments which is what pisses the hell of everyone else and causes people like Michael Moore to make documentaries like Sicko which highlight the reasons why the system needs to be changed. If you don't provide facts it's difficult to be persuasive and your piece will look like FUD or worse, propaganda. They are especially important in healthcare discussions because they can objectively show the strengths and weaknesses of the existing system and it's alternatives.
I also forgot to mention, that as far as I know, laser surgery isn't covered in Canada except in extreme cases.
Also, one point which is not mentioned often is that you have the option to purchase whats called extended health insurance or dental insurance in Canada which most employers provide basically for free. It covers all the stuff not covered under MSP (medical services plan - the name of the universal system) such as massages, laser eye surgery, eye glasses/contacts and dental care.
My mom was diagnosed with Breast cancer in Vancouver, Canada and the doctors started chemotherapy within a few days.
As for routine stuff, it too gets taken care of immediately. You can schedule an appointment with your own doctor or go to a walk in clinic at any time. There are plenty of walk in clinics in Canada where one can see a doctor fairly quickly. If you need to see a specialist (neurologist, ear nose and throat, etc), all you need to do is go to a doctor (or walk in clinic) and get a referral. If the doctor can fix you're ailment he will and if not, he'll give you a referral. Of course getting an appointment with the specialist could take several weeks but this is no different from the US where the wait time is just a function of how many specialists are in the area relative to the population. Things like earaches and your wife's diabetes related conditions are probably things that can be dealt with relatively quickly.
I will admit that optional surgeries requiring a hospital do take longer in Canada as there are waiting lists created for these things. This stems the from the fact that there are limited resources such as hospital beds. Usually this means things like non-post-traumatic cosmetic surgeries, non-essential knee surgery, deviated septum surgery, sex changes, etc. However, seeing as 90% of the population is within 90 miles of the US border anyways, one always have the option of going to the US for surgery.
As for toothaches and other dental issues, this is an irrelevant discussion since Dental Care is not covered with universal healthcare in Canada.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but you are already paying more towards your healthcare than people are in countries with universal healthcare. For example, in Vancouver, BC, Canada, I was paying $50 in healthcare premiums (which is the amount for those with middle class incomes). If I was making significantly more, it would cost me $130/month. Healthcare quality IS good there from my own personal experience and that of my family (mom had cancer, grandfather had heart disease and they were all treated promptly).
Now, I live in the US and pay $150/month for medical insurance through my company. My company actually pays $1000/month (I know because COBRA costs $1150/month).
So already, that is more than what I was paying before yet in Canada I had 100% coverage (not 80% - deductible - $20/50/150 copay depending on type of visit).
Also, the use of the term "socialized medicine" was created by the healthcare industry in the US in an attempt to demonize an efficient form of healthcare coverage which threatened the existence of their horribly inefficient and poor quality system. Universal healthcare systems are used by the rest of the developed world and their costs are WAY less, they provide better care/service and everybody is covered. See here
Why is universal healthcare cheaper/better than the alternative? Here are just a few reasons:
-Because there are reduced administrative costs determining coverage
-Standardized costs for procedures so less lawsuits between insurance providers or individuals against hospitals
-Reduced malpractice insurance because fewer lawsuits over pricing, insurance fraud, insurance coverage, and greater use of standardized procedures.
-The government would have an incentive to reduce costs which would result in the creation and increased enforcement of stringent of FDA regulations, increased preventative medicine, etc.
-It would drive private insurance premiums down (since an efficient and consistently reliable alternative is available they would be forced to improve their efficiency and quality of coverage to stay competitive)
-If you lose your job or quit, you can still get sick and survive
-Access to healthcare is increased.
-It would cost less. Right now the US spends more per capita on healthcare than every other developed country and it is the only first world country without universal healthcare and is ranked as one of the worst healthcare systems in the world.
-Reduced prescription drug costs. The government would likely regulate drug costs based on effectiveness like MOST OF THE WORLD DOES ALREADY. This would reduce the money spent by pharmeceutical companies on marketing and force them to spend more on R&D.
In fact, the attitude in the US seems to be: If you get sick and can't pay, tough luck. If you get sick and can pay for healthcare, we'll try to cure you but if you don't have insurance we'll probably extort you for everything you have. Elsewhere: If you get sick, we'll try to cure you regardless of who you are and whether or not you can pay.
Perhaps I am interpreting your statement wrong, but I don't know why you think that people in Europe have this philosophy that death and sickness can't be prevented, stopped or delayed. If that were the case, they wouldn't spend any money on geriatrics (healthcare for the elderly), preventative healthcare, medical research and development, or provide universal healthcare for all their citizens (whether they are old, young, sick, or healthy).
Yes, people in the US believe in the "magic" of medicine to help improve the quality and extend the length of their lives but that doesn't mean people elsewhere don't. Europe and Canada spends millions on new anti-aging drugs and treatments, cancer treatments, physical rehabilitation, vaccines, etc. just like the US does. People in Europe and Canada aren't turned away from the hospital when they are sick because the government believes that "they are going to die anyways" or because the treatment may or may not work. (in fact, only in the US people are turned away but that is because they can't pay).
The healthcare coverage that my company provides (which is a large company with 10,000+ employees listed on the NYSE), costs my company $1100 a month. I know this because a colleague of mine recently quit and under the COBRA program that is how much he is paying. (FYI, COBRA is a federal program that allows individuals to pay group rates for their company's insurance up 6 months after they quit or are laid off).
Anyways, $1100/month which is the negotiated group rate for 10,000+ employees that a company pays on behalf of its employees so it's quite possible that private healthcare, assuming it's quality is somewhat reasonable and you don't have a pre-existing condition, could likely cost about $1,500/month.
I beg to differ. Healthcare CAN be much cheaper and is cheaper in every other country on earth. It is cheaper for every single country that provides universal healthcare (see WHO report and here). There are several measures that confirm this: the percentage of GDP spent on healthcare in the US is higher than everywhere else, the total amount spent per capita is higher than anywhere else, government expenditure per capita in the US is higher than anywhere else with the exception of one Iceland and Norway. Despite this, only 85% of the US population (at best) are covered by some form of healthcare (for many this is some crappy HMO or other crappy insurance which doesn't cover much).
So I don't think you can make the argument that in other countries its simply cheaper because it's subsidized by everybody. It's cheaper because its run under a more efficient and more effective system. The total amount of money going into the system (from individuals, corporations and government) is less, and you are getting significantly more (healthcare coverage for everyone). In fact, if the US could implement a system similar to that of Germany's, Canada's or the UK's, it would probably SAVE you money and provide you with better care.
I completely agree with your argument. Stripping the last 2 bits of every colour results in very noticable banding and can produce unexpected visual results. Instead of being able to display 8-bits for each of RGB it's now 8-bits so instead of 16.7million colours its 262k. Big difference especially if you just dropped $2000 on a 32" panel or a similar amount on a macbook.
I just don't agree with first analogy. The human eye can see closer to 60fps if not more. If you play a FPS at 24fps then the same one at 60fps, you'll definately notice a difference in terms of smoothness. Additionally, flickering of fluorescent lights is noticable at 60hz and when on crt's around 75hz which makes me think that one can notice the difference even at higher frame rates.
You didn't read my comment completely as we both agree that such a company would be shut down and the one issuing the orders and possibly others could be indicted. I said IF it was the case that an illegally constructed contract (such as a contract to kill) was a legitimate contract that the company had this so called "corporate immunity" that would hold up in a court of law THEN they could act with impunity. Obviously this isn't the case and I used Hitmen as an example.
Slashdot Mirror
They celebrate Robonica for 6 weeks
I think we all have the right to ask anybody for their ID before we let a stranger into our house. I don't doubt that a white, asian or latino tech would also be asked for their ID on numerous occasions. Just because they don't like it and there is a small chance they did it because of their race, does not give them a right to get violent.
W....T....F....? "Well he hasn't beat any other customers so we're not going to do anything" Verizon said
This is not as bad as it sounds. Ok ok, just hear me out: IANAL but it appears that given the fact that verizon DIDNT fire him DESPITE his actions would mean an almost certain victory for the victim against Verizon in any civil suit along with hefty punitive damages. It would be even worse if the tech ends up hitting someone else and the second victim sued too.
I have to agree with you on this one. But if they're super paranoid, buy a flash drive and copy the document there, in plain text format or one that does not store metadata if possible. If there is a way to trace that back to the copier I'd be surprised.
Strangely enough, Jerry cannot keep a straight face. Don't get me wrong, Seinfeld was one of the best shows ever made (if not the very best), but Jerry was probably the worst actor of the bunch. He always looked like he was trying to stop himself from laughing.
The contract may say that they can change the terms without notice, however in court this will have little effect and will in most cases work against the party that imposed those terms.
,as long as you don't have a corrupt judge, the court should see that most reasonable people given a real choice would not agree to a contract that allows one party to weazel out of their commitments with no penalty while the other has to pay ridiculous cancellation fees.
Think about it, lets say you are with provider A who has a plan you hate. Provider B comes along with what looks like a fantastic plan so you pay a $200 cancellation fee with A and sign a contract with B. After one month B tells you that they are now doubling the rates on your plan which makes it much worse a plan than provider A. Now you are out $200 and have a worse plan that costs you much more. Any court would see this as a breach of contract and assuming you have a competent lawyer, the judge would award you damages of at least $200 plus the difference in rates plus lawyer fees.
The term has no real life power in court except to scare and attempt to manipulate the consumer.
You may or may not have noticed the term which says "provider may change terms of contract at any time, etc" along with other one sided things, but as we all know these contracts are not negotiable. They are a take it or leave it contract and all providers have these so the consumer is at quite a disadvantage and really has no negotiating power. Courts recognize this as well and most of the time
um...there is a 64bit version of windows, XP64, which Microsoft developed specifically for AMD's 64bit processors since at that time Intel was still pushing Itanium. This was available for public consumption not too long after AMD's processors were released and at that time only ran on AMD processors since they were the only producer of 64bit x86 processors. There is also a 64bit version of Vista available which runs on both Intel and AMD CPUs.
Your analogy is flawed because it involves a home invasion in which an individual is severely hurt financially. The amount of financial damage this hacker has done to the movie industry or any individual is equivelant to someone breaking into your house and stealing a can of pop from the fridge.
But i'll play along anyways. Lets say this robber stealing your TV, movies, or whatever and got caught in the act. He then says to himself "hmm...i'm gonna get 10 years if this guy catches me and calls the police. But, if i beat the living shit out of him i'll only get 5 years and possibly less since it's a first offense and thats only if he manages to get to the phone so i might as well break his spine just in case." What do you think he's going to do? He should be punished and your desire for vengence is understandable but if you make a petty offense a felony with a huge prison sentence, you encourage those involved to commit violent acts, which they otherwise would not undertake, in order to avoid capture. (in this case breaking your spine)
I totally agree, the punishment does not fit the crime. 10 years in prison should be reserved for things like rape, manslaughter, assault with a deadly weapon and other crimes of similar severity. Music/Movie/Software piracy should not be put in the same category.
I feel your pain bud. We need to stand up to the retailers and tell them we won't take it. Next time you're gonna buy something big, demand the competitive american price or threaten to walk out and buy it from the US. This may save you the hassle of importing and works very well when buying things like cars and motorcycles since in the US most dealers will sell you a car below the US MSRP which is already several thousands less than the Canadian MSRP (in some cases 10s of thousands) so obviously their profit margins must be huge. And don't buy their bullshit about 'import duties', 'Canadian warranties' or the fact that the canadian models are 'Weatherized'. Most warranties are valid if you put up a fuss, import duties are capped at 6.1% and weatherisation is just a different type of anti-freeze.
In fact, screw the Blackjack!!!
AMD, Nvidia and Intel don't care if your old GeForce 4, RageXL or intel crap integrated 4 year old graphics cards don't work anymore and really, they shouldn't. That hardware was made several years ago, is no longer in production and I don't recall any of them offering a lifetime warranty on their products. By the same logic you should be upset that Sega isn't releasing any firmware updates or new games for Sega Dreamcast or that Nintendo has dropped support for the Gamecube. It simply does not make sense. The companies have moved on and have shareholders to answer to. Supporting 5 year old out of production products for users who are unlikely to upgrade soon anyways, does not make the company any money.
Further to this, they REALLY don't care if it works under linux. Complain and threaten to boycott them all you want, linux users make up what, 5 maybe 10 percent of all desktop users? Out of that lets say that each graphics vendor has an equal share of linux users so approximately 3.33% Out of that 3.33% only a small fraction, say 50% have bought a new graphics card in the past year (gross overestimate) that they aren't using for gaming (since only a few commercial 3d games are ported to linux every year as opposed to the hundreds made for windows) so it's almost certainly a low end and low margin card. This means that even if any one of these companies dropped linux completely, their sales would go down at MOST by 1.5% That is still an exaggeration since VGA mode works fine for the majority of linux users who use their systems primarily as servers and these are low margin parts.
Supporting linux is almost akin to charity for these companies, except without the tax benefits. Despite this, they continue to support something that makes them no money and is unlikely to make them money in the near future. Perhaps one day it may, but certainly not now.
I can't believe you got trolled.
If you are referring to your previous sentence (life expectancy) then in fact they STILL rank within the top 20 and WAY ahead of the US. Canada is ranked 13th at 80.34years, France is ranked 10th at 80.59years, and the US is ranked 45th at 78years.
Sure there may be several reasons why the US spends more on healthcare per capita than any other nation but these facts about the US system remains true DESPITE the fact they spend the most on healthcare (government or private): The US is the only industrialized nation that DOESNT have universal healthcare, has a significantly lower life expectancy than most other industrial countries, has their healthcare system ranked lower than almost all industrialized countries by two measures (WHO and OEC reports), does not provide coverage for everyone, has high incidences of diseases/illnesses which can be prevented (only measured against Canada), etc. If you are looking for some reading material which highlights these facts, here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_America
There is a way to find out how much your company's health insurance costs. Simply ask someone who has quit or has been laid off how much COBRA costs. Sometimes its even available on the company's intranet or from the HR department but you might have to do some hunting. The COBRA rate is the same as the group rate that the company pays for insurance for its employees and the rate that employees must pay if they want to continue their coverage after they leave the company. Don't be shocked when you hear the number though. My company pays $1150/month and it's plan SUCKS!!! (the name of the plan is United HealthCare Choice Plus)
Good post. I agree, that this does not help the problem but simply helps the revenues of Health Insurance companies. In fact, it will probably result in an INCREASE in premiums for residents of the state. I also agree, that a healthcare tax is what is really needed in conjunction with the government acting as the insurance company for the public similar to medicare but state run. This would force prices down and provide people with a reasonable alternative. Honestly, I could care less if it drives the insurance companies broke. Good riddance.
y
P.S: Politicians may be sleezy but at least Massachusetts DOES have a flat tax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts#Econom
I agree with you that persuasion is important but that does not mean that you can ignore objective evidence (ie. facts). Facts are what make a healthy debate healthy and relevant. In fact (no pun intended), it's far too often the opposers of universal healthcare that don't use facts in their arguments which is what pisses the hell of everyone else and causes people like Michael Moore to make documentaries like Sicko which highlight the reasons why the system needs to be changed. If you don't provide facts it's difficult to be persuasive and your piece will look like FUD or worse, propaganda. They are especially important in healthcare discussions because they can objectively show the strengths and weaknesses of the existing system and it's alternatives.
I also forgot to mention, that as far as I know, laser surgery isn't covered in Canada except in extreme cases.
Also, one point which is not mentioned often is that you have the option to purchase whats called extended health insurance or dental insurance in Canada which most employers provide basically for free. It covers all the stuff not covered under MSP (medical services plan - the name of the universal system) such as massages, laser eye surgery, eye glasses/contacts and dental care.
It of course depends on the procedure.
My mom was diagnosed with Breast cancer in Vancouver, Canada and the doctors started chemotherapy within a few days.
As for routine stuff, it too gets taken care of immediately. You can schedule an appointment with your own doctor or go to a walk in clinic at any time. There are plenty of walk in clinics in Canada where one can see a doctor fairly quickly. If you need to see a specialist (neurologist, ear nose and throat, etc), all you need to do is go to a doctor (or walk in clinic) and get a referral. If the doctor can fix you're ailment he will and if not, he'll give you a referral. Of course getting an appointment with the specialist could take several weeks but this is no different from the US where the wait time is just a function of how many specialists are in the area relative to the population. Things like earaches and your wife's diabetes related conditions are probably things that can be dealt with relatively quickly.
I will admit that optional surgeries requiring a hospital do take longer in Canada as there are waiting lists created for these things. This stems the from the fact that there are limited resources such as hospital beds. Usually this means things like non-post-traumatic cosmetic surgeries, non-essential knee surgery, deviated septum surgery, sex changes, etc. However, seeing as 90% of the population is within 90 miles of the US border anyways, one always have the option of going to the US for surgery.
As for toothaches and other dental issues, this is an irrelevant discussion since Dental Care is not covered with universal healthcare in Canada.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but you are already paying more towards your healthcare than people are in countries with universal healthcare. For example, in Vancouver, BC, Canada, I was paying $50 in healthcare premiums (which is the amount for those with middle class incomes). If I was making significantly more, it would cost me $130/month. Healthcare quality IS good there from my own personal experience and that of my family (mom had cancer, grandfather had heart disease and they were all treated promptly).
Now, I live in the US and pay $150/month for medical insurance through my company. My company actually pays $1000/month (I know because COBRA costs $1150/month).
So already, that is more than what I was paying before yet in Canada I had 100% coverage (not 80% - deductible - $20/50/150 copay depending on type of visit).
Also, the use of the term "socialized medicine" was created by the healthcare industry in the US in an attempt to demonize an efficient form of healthcare coverage which threatened the existence of their horribly inefficient and poor quality system. Universal healthcare systems are used by the rest of the developed world and their costs are WAY less, they provide better care/service and everybody is covered. See here
Why is universal healthcare cheaper/better than the alternative? Here are just a few reasons:
-Because there are reduced administrative costs determining coverage
-Standardized costs for procedures so less lawsuits between insurance providers or individuals against hospitals
-Reduced malpractice insurance because fewer lawsuits over pricing, insurance fraud, insurance coverage, and greater use of standardized procedures.
-The government would have an incentive to reduce costs which would result in the creation and increased enforcement of stringent of FDA regulations, increased preventative medicine, etc.
-It would drive private insurance premiums down (since an efficient and consistently reliable alternative is available they would be forced to improve their efficiency and quality of coverage to stay competitive)
-If you lose your job or quit, you can still get sick and survive
-Access to healthcare is increased.
-It would cost less. Right now the US spends more per capita on healthcare than every other developed country and it is the only first world country without universal healthcare and is ranked as one of the worst healthcare systems in the world.
-Reduced prescription drug costs. The government would likely regulate drug costs based on effectiveness like MOST OF THE WORLD DOES ALREADY. This would reduce the money spent by pharmeceutical companies on marketing and force them to spend more on R&D.
In fact, the attitude in the US seems to be: If you get sick and can't pay, tough luck. If you get sick and can pay for healthcare, we'll try to cure you but if you don't have insurance we'll probably extort you for everything you have. Elsewhere: If you get sick, we'll try to cure you regardless of who you are and whether or not you can pay.
Perhaps I am interpreting your statement wrong, but I don't know why you think that people in Europe have this philosophy that death and sickness can't be prevented, stopped or delayed. If that were the case, they wouldn't spend any money on geriatrics (healthcare for the elderly), preventative healthcare, medical research and development, or provide universal healthcare for all their citizens (whether they are old, young, sick, or healthy).
Yes, people in the US believe in the "magic" of medicine to help improve the quality and extend the length of their lives but that doesn't mean people elsewhere don't. Europe and Canada spends millions on new anti-aging drugs and treatments, cancer treatments, physical rehabilitation, vaccines, etc. just like the US does. People in Europe and Canada aren't turned away from the hospital when they are sick because the government believes that "they are going to die anyways" or because the treatment may or may not work. (in fact, only in the US people are turned away but that is because they can't pay).
The healthcare coverage that my company provides (which is a large company with 10,000+ employees listed on the NYSE), costs my company $1100 a month. I know this because a colleague of mine recently quit and under the COBRA program that is how much he is paying. (FYI, COBRA is a federal program that allows individuals to pay group rates for their company's insurance up 6 months after they quit or are laid off).
Anyways, $1100/month which is the negotiated group rate for 10,000+ employees that a company pays on behalf of its employees so it's quite possible that private healthcare, assuming it's quality is somewhat reasonable and you don't have a pre-existing condition, could likely cost about $1,500/month.
I beg to differ. Healthcare CAN be much cheaper and is cheaper in every other country on earth. It is cheaper for every single country that provides universal healthcare (see WHO report and here). There are several measures that confirm this: the percentage of GDP spent on healthcare in the US is higher than everywhere else, the total amount spent per capita is higher than anywhere else, government expenditure per capita in the US is higher than anywhere else with the exception of one Iceland and Norway. Despite this, only 85% of the US population (at best) are covered by some form of healthcare (for many this is some crappy HMO or other crappy insurance which doesn't cover much).
So I don't think you can make the argument that in other countries its simply cheaper because it's subsidized by everybody. It's cheaper because its run under a more efficient and more effective system. The total amount of money going into the system (from individuals, corporations and government) is less, and you are getting significantly more (healthcare coverage for everyone). In fact, if the US could implement a system similar to that of Germany's, Canada's or the UK's, it would probably SAVE you money and provide you with better care.
I completely agree with your argument. Stripping the last 2 bits of every colour results in very noticable banding and can produce unexpected visual results. Instead of being able to display 8-bits for each of RGB it's now 8-bits so instead of 16.7million colours its 262k. Big difference especially if you just dropped $2000 on a 32" panel or a similar amount on a macbook.
I just don't agree with first analogy. The human eye can see closer to 60fps if not more. If you play a FPS at 24fps then the same one at 60fps, you'll definately notice a difference in terms of smoothness. Additionally, flickering of fluorescent lights is noticable at 60hz and when on crt's around 75hz which makes me think that one can notice the difference even at higher frame rates.
You didn't read my comment completely as we both agree that such a company would be shut down and the one issuing the orders and possibly others could be indicted. I said IF it was the case that an illegally constructed contract (such as a contract to kill) was a legitimate contract that the company had this so called "corporate immunity" that would hold up in a court of law THEN they could act with impunity. Obviously this isn't the case and I used Hitmen as an example.