The way the FDIC works is that they monitor the financials of all the banking institutions that are covered by them. And they require that the banks hold a certain amount of cash in reserve at all times in order to ensure that they can cover the funds that they've loaned.
The FDIC itself shuts banks down and sells them to other banks prior to them getting into serious trouble. So, the end result is that the FDIC rarely has to pay anything and when it does, most of the money is still in the bank.
$25b is a lot of money, but you have to realize that in order for it to owe $1tn or more that they would have to miss a ton of banks that weren't complying with the law, and that's highly unlikely. What's more, $10tn would require a complete collapse of the system, at which point there are bigger fish to fry. Such as finding fish to fry because you're starving.
This is ignorant hogwash, the FDIC can and does take control of banks before they fail. When we say that a bank failed, it usually means that they've dripped below their margin requirements and are at risk of failure. The FDIC swoops in over night, not unlike spies actually, and assumes control of the operation before even the staff know that the bank was going to be seized.
The reason for this is because it prevents a run on the bank and lessens the likelihood of the FDIC having to pay out non-trivial sums of money. What's more, there are almost certainly actuarial tables that dictate how much money they need to cover the total. If it really came to where they had to pay out $10tn to bail out the entire industry, we'd have bigger worries on our hands.
At present there is no law that says they can't fire an employee for not giving up the password. Now, one could make the argument that violating the ToS of the site would be illegal and as such one couldn't be compelled to do it, at present it's murky at best.
I certainly wouldn't count on it being illegal if I were an employee.
Fair point, but WA is an "at will" work state, so that would presumably be legal by default. Codifying the right of the employer to demand that information would be ridiculous though.
It depends upon the situation and the state. But yeah, it's common for employers to file fraudulent objections in most parts of the country, as they'll typically have only 30 days to object, and there don't seem to be any penalties for it.
Not likely, around here the employers pay the insurance cost and the people that do the adjudication are well aware of that fact. The double standard is just astonishing. They'll require all sorts of evidence from the person trying to claim benefits, but will take the word of the HR troll who may not even have seen any of the evidence.
Anybody up for unemployment would be well advised to get an attorney as the employer has one in the adjudicator.
That's not likely to be true. Life insurance might appear to be cheaper, but it's more or less exactly the same cost for men or women. The difference is that women on average get more time to pay into it than men do.
Health insurance is most certainly not a wash, I don't go to an OBGYN because I don't have a vagina or any of the related organs so going there would be a complete waste of my money. Yes, women do cost more because of services like that, but I'm a man, I don't benefit from any of that at all and I still pay like I am. I get a break by not having to pay a copay since I don't go, but my rates are precisely the same as they would be if I were a woman.
There's nothing wrong with that, why should people who were unfortunate enough to be born with autism or down's syndrome have to shoulder the burden alone? Why should their families be driven into bankruptcy over it?
It's one thing to tax and charge for choices that people make, but quite another to charge some people more money because of something they have no control over. I dislike paying more for insurance to subsidize women and because other men are at a higher risk. I've never been in an accident, so I'm probably not higher risk than women are, but I pay more anyways.
Should it be like that? No, but quite frankly with all the apologists in this topic, I'm grateful not to be given the death penalty for being over 5' 5" tall.
You're also ignoring that anybody can get cancer, even those that live a clean life, and at that point they'd be sucking out the funds as well. If we all knew how much money it was going to cost over our life, it would be a completely different situation.
The smaller folks wind up with a better experience on the flight because they have more space in proportion to the space they need.
The bottom line here is that I didn't choose to be larger, I was just born this way, and the folks who are smaller, should just suck it up and appreciate the fact that they've got more space than I do and probably are getting more comfort.
I wouldn't personally bitch about having to put up with the wife during pregnancy if I had a pregnant wife, because I'd clearly be getting the better deal. This is the same sort of thing. Small folks are fortunate enough to get more room for their money, so they shouldn't be bitching about having to pay slightly more, because they're actually getting something for the money. Whereas, I'm not getting crap for the extra money, I'm not getting proportionally more space for the money.
What the nimrods in this topic are missing is that it's not just a function of the fuel costs. If they're going to charge by the KG, then they had damn well better provide something for that. Empty space is quite cheap to fly around compared with the mass that is seats and people. If they provided larger seats to those paying more as part of the cost of the ticket, I don't think it would be as much of an issue. All this is is a money grab on those that don't have other options. And as long as just one or two carriers does it, it's not a problem,
It's not reasonable, if I want to take a flight on that carrier I have to pay more than other folks do. I don't have the option of losing weight to make up the difference. I get that people here are self centered idiots, but we're not talking about an obesity charge or a charge for taking up more than one seat, which would be reasonable. We're talking about charging people for things they have no control over.
Not likely, the insurance industry charges me the same amount of money that they would if I were a woman, even though it costs more to provide women services. The point which you idiots are missing is that charging different fees that are based primarily on genetics leads to a luck of the draw situation where it can be much, much more expensive to live just because your parents had certain genes.
To an extent with medical illness there isn't much that can be done about it, but permitting industry to do it is just plain wrong. I don't make more money by virtue of being average height and weight. And if they're going to be charging for weight, they should be going from average for the height, because that's the only thing that you have any hope of dealing with.
It's not, however there are laws in place so that I pay the same amount for my health insurance as women of my age do, even though they cost a lot more to provide services for. I'm willing to pay more to subsidize them because I didn't choose to be a man.
I fail to see how I should get screwed here when I'm already being screwed in the rest of my life.
Then again, most of the folks responding to me are ignorant jackasses so there you go.
Except for the detail that they're not measuring the weight of the baggage when they do the calculation. Baggage can easily turn a light person into a heavy person in terms of fuel consumption.
The reason why it hasn't caught on earlier is that it's discriminatory. This isn't a measure that just hits the obese, this is a fee that disproportionately hits men with larger fees. A kg is a kg regardless of whether it's fat or muscle and you don't have much control over that. I'm never going to weigh less than 160# without getting really sick and probably would be too sick to travel. But, women regularly weight under 120# and would get to pay far less just by virtue of being smaller people.
In the US, there's no way you could ever get away with something that discriminatory.
I have a definite issue with this sort of a system. Why should I, a 5' 10" man have to pay more for weighing 180# than a woman that's 5' tall and weighing only 100#? Genetics has a huge impact there, this isn't the result of my choosing to be an extra 10" taller than the woman and carrying the requisite weight that entails, it's an issue of the genes that I was born with.
What's interesting about their approach is that it seems to ignore baggage, which is something which people can easily do something about. Sure, the morbidly obese can and should lose weight, but this seems like an awful lot of unwarranted discrimination against people who are taller and just larger regardless of causation.
Considering that American English is the dominant form of English, that's the correct way of doing it. It's more likely for random people to know American English idiosyncrasies than British English ones. And what's more, American English is somewhat easier to learn than British English as we've fixed a lot of the weirdness with British English.
American is probably already a language. It's really a matter of debate as to when exactly to call it a new language. But, it will happen, if it hasn't already. By your reasoning, Dutch and Afrikaans don't exist because they'd both be German.
That change wouldn't warrant a new patent as there's nothing changed other than the packaging. Now, if they develop a new method of enshrouding the pill for longer uptake, that new enshrouding would be eligible for protection. This is one of the reason why generics aren't always the same as the name brand and why some people can handle one or the other, but not both.
Pharmaceutical companies' bread and butter is for things like impotence medications and psychiatric medications where the patient is expected to be on them for long periods of time.
But, ultimately, if they got caught keeping people sick unnecessarily, it would be the end of the industry. And for some types of medication there's no profit in it. Antibiotics and antiretrovirals are incredibly unprofitable as the more of them you sell, the less effective they become and you don't get an R&D discount because of that.
$30bn is a tiny amount of money for a country like the US, that's less than $2 per week per person for every man woman and child in the US. Whereas we spend more than 10x as much money on the DoD.
Sure it is, pills are substantially easier to administer than shots are. You may still require somebody to monitor the patients for side effects, but the level of training for that is lower, or can be lower if you can't get skilled nurses.
Well, you would separate the R&D from the manufacturing and have the government just pick up the tab on the R&D work, with anybody with a licensed line being permitted to create the medication in whatever quantities they like for a profit.
The R&D companies could turn a profit doing the research and the manufacturers would be the ones that were actually trying to profit on producing the medication. As opposed to the current system where a company has to hope to be able to turn the R&D into profit at some point. Basically, the government would be paying for the service of researching and developing the medications.
That was my thought. Considering how few people even read the TFS these days, I'm guessing this could be an improvement over the usual griping about the grammar and spelling errors that the "editors" left in.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a scam.
The way the FDIC works is that they monitor the financials of all the banking institutions that are covered by them. And they require that the banks hold a certain amount of cash in reserve at all times in order to ensure that they can cover the funds that they've loaned.
The FDIC itself shuts banks down and sells them to other banks prior to them getting into serious trouble. So, the end result is that the FDIC rarely has to pay anything and when it does, most of the money is still in the bank.
$25b is a lot of money, but you have to realize that in order for it to owe $1tn or more that they would have to miss a ton of banks that weren't complying with the law, and that's highly unlikely. What's more, $10tn would require a complete collapse of the system, at which point there are bigger fish to fry. Such as finding fish to fry because you're starving.
This is ignorant hogwash, the FDIC can and does take control of banks before they fail. When we say that a bank failed, it usually means that they've dripped below their margin requirements and are at risk of failure. The FDIC swoops in over night, not unlike spies actually, and assumes control of the operation before even the staff know that the bank was going to be seized.
The reason for this is because it prevents a run on the bank and lessens the likelihood of the FDIC having to pay out non-trivial sums of money. What's more, there are almost certainly actuarial tables that dictate how much money they need to cover the total. If it really came to where they had to pay out $10tn to bail out the entire industry, we'd have bigger worries on our hands.
At present there is no law that says they can't fire an employee for not giving up the password. Now, one could make the argument that violating the ToS of the site would be illegal and as such one couldn't be compelled to do it, at present it's murky at best.
I certainly wouldn't count on it being illegal if I were an employee.
Fair point, but WA is an "at will" work state, so that would presumably be legal by default. Codifying the right of the employer to demand that information would be ridiculous though.
It depends upon the situation and the state. But yeah, it's common for employers to file fraudulent objections in most parts of the country, as they'll typically have only 30 days to object, and there don't seem to be any penalties for it.
Not likely, around here the employers pay the insurance cost and the people that do the adjudication are well aware of that fact. The double standard is just astonishing. They'll require all sorts of evidence from the person trying to claim benefits, but will take the word of the HR troll who may not even have seen any of the evidence.
Anybody up for unemployment would be well advised to get an attorney as the employer has one in the adjudicator.
I'm curious what happens if you say you don't have an account and they don't believe you. Would they be permitted to not hire you?
That's not likely to be true. Life insurance might appear to be cheaper, but it's more or less exactly the same cost for men or women. The difference is that women on average get more time to pay into it than men do.
Health insurance is most certainly not a wash, I don't go to an OBGYN because I don't have a vagina or any of the related organs so going there would be a complete waste of my money. Yes, women do cost more because of services like that, but I'm a man, I don't benefit from any of that at all and I still pay like I am. I get a break by not having to pay a copay since I don't go, but my rates are precisely the same as they would be if I were a woman.
There's nothing wrong with that, why should people who were unfortunate enough to be born with autism or down's syndrome have to shoulder the burden alone? Why should their families be driven into bankruptcy over it?
It's one thing to tax and charge for choices that people make, but quite another to charge some people more money because of something they have no control over. I dislike paying more for insurance to subsidize women and because other men are at a higher risk. I've never been in an accident, so I'm probably not higher risk than women are, but I pay more anyways.
Should it be like that? No, but quite frankly with all the apologists in this topic, I'm grateful not to be given the death penalty for being over 5' 5" tall.
You're also ignoring that anybody can get cancer, even those that live a clean life, and at that point they'd be sucking out the funds as well. If we all knew how much money it was going to cost over our life, it would be a completely different situation.
The smaller folks wind up with a better experience on the flight because they have more space in proportion to the space they need.
The bottom line here is that I didn't choose to be larger, I was just born this way, and the folks who are smaller, should just suck it up and appreciate the fact that they've got more space than I do and probably are getting more comfort.
I wouldn't personally bitch about having to put up with the wife during pregnancy if I had a pregnant wife, because I'd clearly be getting the better deal. This is the same sort of thing. Small folks are fortunate enough to get more room for their money, so they shouldn't be bitching about having to pay slightly more, because they're actually getting something for the money. Whereas, I'm not getting crap for the extra money, I'm not getting proportionally more space for the money.
What the nimrods in this topic are missing is that it's not just a function of the fuel costs. If they're going to charge by the KG, then they had damn well better provide something for that. Empty space is quite cheap to fly around compared with the mass that is seats and people. If they provided larger seats to those paying more as part of the cost of the ticket, I don't think it would be as much of an issue. All this is is a money grab on those that don't have other options. And as long as just one or two carriers does it, it's not a problem,
It's not reasonable, if I want to take a flight on that carrier I have to pay more than other folks do. I don't have the option of losing weight to make up the difference. I get that people here are self centered idiots, but we're not talking about an obesity charge or a charge for taking up more than one seat, which would be reasonable. We're talking about charging people for things they have no control over.
Not likely, the insurance industry charges me the same amount of money that they would if I were a woman, even though it costs more to provide women services. The point which you idiots are missing is that charging different fees that are based primarily on genetics leads to a luck of the draw situation where it can be much, much more expensive to live just because your parents had certain genes.
To an extent with medical illness there isn't much that can be done about it, but permitting industry to do it is just plain wrong. I don't make more money by virtue of being average height and weight. And if they're going to be charging for weight, they should be going from average for the height, because that's the only thing that you have any hope of dealing with.
It's not, however there are laws in place so that I pay the same amount for my health insurance as women of my age do, even though they cost a lot more to provide services for. I'm willing to pay more to subsidize them because I didn't choose to be a man.
I fail to see how I should get screwed here when I'm already being screwed in the rest of my life.
Then again, most of the folks responding to me are ignorant jackasses so there you go.
Except for the detail that they're not measuring the weight of the baggage when they do the calculation. Baggage can easily turn a light person into a heavy person in terms of fuel consumption.
The reason why it hasn't caught on earlier is that it's discriminatory. This isn't a measure that just hits the obese, this is a fee that disproportionately hits men with larger fees. A kg is a kg regardless of whether it's fat or muscle and you don't have much control over that. I'm never going to weigh less than 160# without getting really sick and probably would be too sick to travel. But, women regularly weight under 120# and would get to pay far less just by virtue of being smaller people.
In the US, there's no way you could ever get away with something that discriminatory.
I have a definite issue with this sort of a system. Why should I, a 5' 10" man have to pay more for weighing 180# than a woman that's 5' tall and weighing only 100#? Genetics has a huge impact there, this isn't the result of my choosing to be an extra 10" taller than the woman and carrying the requisite weight that entails, it's an issue of the genes that I was born with.
What's interesting about their approach is that it seems to ignore baggage, which is something which people can easily do something about. Sure, the morbidly obese can and should lose weight, but this seems like an awful lot of unwarranted discrimination against people who are taller and just larger regardless of causation.
Considering that American English is the dominant form of English, that's the correct way of doing it. It's more likely for random people to know American English idiosyncrasies than British English ones. And what's more, American English is somewhat easier to learn than British English as we've fixed a lot of the weirdness with British English.
American is probably already a language. It's really a matter of debate as to when exactly to call it a new language. But, it will happen, if it hasn't already. By your reasoning, Dutch and Afrikaans don't exist because they'd both be German.
That change wouldn't warrant a new patent as there's nothing changed other than the packaging. Now, if they develop a new method of enshrouding the pill for longer uptake, that new enshrouding would be eligible for protection. This is one of the reason why generics aren't always the same as the name brand and why some people can handle one or the other, but not both.
Pharmaceutical companies' bread and butter is for things like impotence medications and psychiatric medications where the patient is expected to be on them for long periods of time.
But, ultimately, if they got caught keeping people sick unnecessarily, it would be the end of the industry. And for some types of medication there's no profit in it. Antibiotics and antiretrovirals are incredibly unprofitable as the more of them you sell, the less effective they become and you don't get an R&D discount because of that.
$30bn is a tiny amount of money for a country like the US, that's less than $2 per week per person for every man woman and child in the US. Whereas we spend more than 10x as much money on the DoD.
Sure it is, pills are substantially easier to administer than shots are. You may still require somebody to monitor the patients for side effects, but the level of training for that is lower, or can be lower if you can't get skilled nurses.
Well, you would separate the R&D from the manufacturing and have the government just pick up the tab on the R&D work, with anybody with a licensed line being permitted to create the medication in whatever quantities they like for a profit.
The R&D companies could turn a profit doing the research and the manufacturers would be the ones that were actually trying to profit on producing the medication. As opposed to the current system where a company has to hope to be able to turn the R&D into profit at some point. Basically, the government would be paying for the service of researching and developing the medications.
I know, at least have him buy Shatner dinner first...
That was my thought. Considering how few people even read the TFS these days, I'm guessing this could be an improvement over the usual griping about the grammar and spelling errors that the "editors" left in.