For the most part though, most patients don't end up with bank breaking bills from the family doc, unless that doc tricks them into getting a minor procedure at "his" facility, which you are informed the day of or evening before is not at the same location as his regular office. Though the doc is in-network, it turns out "his" facility is not, and you are billed directly $30k for a procedure that most other providers perform in their standard examination rooms for $600, which is usually paid by insurance.
As for the "increasing" cost of equipment, if the extra hardware adds to the total cost of services, then the physicians need to go back to the old way of doing things. If operating my laptop were to cost more than a typewriter without saving me any time, and if all I needed was a word processor, then the logical step would be to just use a typewriter and not splurge on the laptop. There was a time when computers did cost a lot more but were not as powerful, and at that time people still chose to use word processing typewriters for this very reason. If medical care is more expensive because the technology costs too much, and people aren't even allowed to access care because of the exhorbitant cost, then maybe we need a new class of physicians who are trained on the manual way of doing things. Or we could move to a European style healthcare system, which would make much more sense.
Problem is that such negotiations are highly dependent on the inviduals on the other end of the line and the policies set in place by their management. Hospitals, along with any other creditor of any debt, have the right to pursue whoever they wish for payment. They can choose to let one bill slide and pursue payment for a different bill from a patient who is known to own substantial assets that can be seized by a turn-over order in court if they don't pay willingly. There are also factors working behind the scenes. If the hospital or clinic is operating in the black with steadily increasing profits, they may not be as aggressive with debt collection. But if they are running into cash flow problems, they can be very aggressive, down to the point of suing patients who might otherwise qualify for charity care. Such abuses in medical billing and debt collection are well documented and frequently reported in news stories.
Except that they wrap the equipment and all related supplies into "kits". Once a kit is opened, often in anticipation of possible need but not actually used, the kit is now no longer "new" and cannot just be repackaged. Instead it is often sold to a recycler who will sterilize and repackage the kit, often for export to other countries. This is just one reason why a few hours in the ER can be billed for several thousand dollars. "Charity" hospitals are granted non-profit status when they take the lost revenue from unpaid bills and add it to your bill.
Now, if by law hospitals could only charge a fixed maximum price for each hour a patient is treated, then I guarantee they will find a reason why they do not need to continue the practice of "kitting" their medical supplies in this manner.
I had a facility bill my insurance for over $30k for a procedure that took less than one hour. Insurance paid about $600.00. The facility tried to get me to pay the balance, offered me a "deal" to pay just 1/3, alleging that I owed the amount because while the physician was in-network they were not. I didn't pay them anything and now the statute of limitations has expired to collect on the bill. The system is designed to screw over anyone who is accustomed to paying full retail price, religious people who presume they should always pay their "debts" regardless of how they were incurred, for people who don't have access to information to help them decide what the fair market value should be, people who are afraid of tarnishing their credit reports, people who are afraid of debt collectors, and people who don't have time or money to fight, haggle, negotiate, or go to court. Naturally the system hits honest, hard working American families the hardest.
To argue that we have a free market for health care makes no sense when such a massive portion of spending is channeled through government programs. When the government is paying your bill then you don't act like a cash conscious consumer at a grocery store. Instead, you get what you need from whoever is providing it with no regard to cost. Such a system artificially skews what is perceived as fair market value.
If you want a free market for health care, then you have to eliminate the non-free market participants. If healthcare providers could only be paid what their patients could afford then you wouldn't have a system like we have today - a system where a patient walks into a hospital and leaves behind his life savings. Even the so-called "charity" hospitals won't perform services for your child until your 401k has evaporated. Yet people keep donating to charity hospitals and feel good about themselves when they are only lining the pockets of physicians and managers. If you really want to be charitable, donate directly to patients. They aren't hard to find.
As for the free market, as long as patients can come up with data to show what the "usual, customary, and reasonable" charges are for a common procedure, they could argue effectively in court that they are being overbilled. Since the median income for most families is near $50k for many parts of the country, no clinic or hospital could effectively argue that their medical procedures should cost a patient $40k for a year's worth of services (say for treatment of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc.).
Of course the natural outcome is that those with below median incomes might be left with inadequate healthcare, free market forces being what they are, and expensive conditions, like cancer, might not be successfully treated except for those with substantial assets to pay for them. In the end, everyone loses, except physicians, hospital administrators, medical debt collectors, and pharmaceutical execs. Medical care would function much like dental care does in this country. Oddly enough, this is where we are today, in spite of the millions of dollars raised for private medical charities, private for-profit insurance companies, and programs like medicaid, medicare, VA benefits, and other state and federal welfare and disability programs. The problem is this patchwork of half-fixes leaves wide open gaps to exploit. Every day there is a clinic shut down after a physician and his staff were caught fraudulently billing medicare, medicaid, or even private insurance, but there are rarely any convictions of doctors who have been fraudulently billing their patients directly. There are physicians who target individuals that they suspect of having deep pockets and try all sorts of scams to tramp them into a situation where they are receiving servies out-of-network, because once a patient is receiving services without the protection of their insurance contracts they can be billed at rates several orders of magnitude over what insurance or medicare will pay.
Yes. That too many Americans sheepishly suspend their rights in the name of convenience is exactly why these practices have gotten too far out of hand in the first place. We are no longer the same people who went to war against our King because we were required to use name-brand paper (the Stamp Act) and repay the Crown for the cost of the French and Indian War.
I prefer my carbon arc lamp with dual axis swivel mount. If I can't read the tail markings of aircraft flying overhead then it's not bright enough. As far as blinding anyone approaching my compound, that just helps me zero in on their position while they stand still like deer on a highway. Now get off my lawn!
Except that head mounted lamps are already widely commercially available, and if you can't find one at your local hardware, sporting goods, or grocery store, there are a variety to chose from if you shop online. Even with shipping, the cost is typically cheaper than the cost of a floodlight fixture, and installation usually doesn't involve drilling holes, permanently wiring into the electrical grid, or turning any screws - though I wouldn't object to tightening any loose screws you find while you're poking around up there.
Except not all engineers create something "new". Many, if not most, play a support role. And many engineering disciplines involve following some very precise sets of rules and standards, even in the "design" of new products, so opportunity for "coming up" with something unique, or patentable, is actually quite uncommon. Many new and practical concepts in product design often comes from industrial designers with more of a background in art than in science and technology.
Most musicians are not creative either, though many like to claim they are. Most musicians are technicians who reproduce sounds on instruments according to very detailed instructions (ie sheet music). Even when improvisation is a element in a performance, the technic employed is often copied and not their own original idea. Only composers have a real chance to be creative. But even most artist, composers, and writers, while "creating" "new" content, are just following trends set by the creative leaders of their respective fields. Take my response to your post for instance - though original and my "creation", it is not uncommon in our modern era to instantly question presumptive, generalized statements that are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. So the product of my effort here is really not "creative", nor does it need to be. I have not in this post created any new style of prose, any new method of logical reasoning, any new literary elements. If there is anything truly unique about my post it is simply that I have questioned some well entrenched views on the nature of creativity, but I'm sure there are errors in grammar and style that are even more profound, after all I specialized in engineering, not rhetoric.
Can't take the chance. Just going to eat my chicken raw, just like my ancestors did before they learned to cook with fire. I imagine they must have been much healthier then since their diet was more natural and not tainted with carcinogens. How many people have died from cancer through the eons that could have been prevented by staying away from smoke and fire?
... Even easier if it wants to be found and can build a signalling beacon of some sort.
Such intelligent life couldn't be that intelligent then, given our history of plundering the resources of 'New Worlds' when we discover them. Not to mention that we kill, subdue, or drive out the native population to make room for our colonies, whether the natives bring us Thanksgiving goodies or not.
But it's a factor consumers and policy makers need to be aware off. Where I live in Texas most electricity is produced by coal burning plants. If I'm trying to reduce my carbon footprint by carpooling, limiting my travel, and operating a fuel efficient ethanol burning vehicle, and then switch to an all-electric vehicle I might fool myself into thinking that all the energy consumed is clean and green. I might drive more often, longer distances, leave the vehicle running in idle to keep the A/C on, use the vehicle as a portable power source, etc. The impact of such behavior may lead to more total air pollution from the power demanded from the coal burning plants.
Alternatively, if I built my own off-grid power system of wind turbines, solar panels, micro-hydro, and a digester with bio-gas turbine generator, I may end up with an energy surplus if I oversize the system or if I expect a need for all the power sometime in the future. The same frivolous consumption of electricity would not necessarily be as hard on the environment than when tied to a coal burning plant.
When it comes to sustainability there is no one single fix or cure. Energy and resource conservation will alway be an important element. The equipment you own and operate needs to be manufactured with as little embedded energy as possible. Recycling will be important to keep landfills manageable. Reduced use, proper handling, and safe disposal/recycling of hazardous materials will be essential (ideally, moving away from such materials altogether).
My point invokes the "slipperly slope" argument. Take it however you wish.
But please do your homework. Corporations, which are pieces of paper, may lead to the organization of people and there are benefits of such organization. But not all corporations involve groups of people. Some corporations do not have ANY employees, only one officer, and serve purposes that are of little benefit to society, such as patent trolling, blatant tax avoidance, and personal asset protection.
For instance, if I own a yacht, but list it as property of a corporation, and then if you sue me for damages I cause you, you might not be able to actually collect on the judgment, even if a jury agreed I was responsible and ordered me to pay you. And it doesn't stop with asset protection planning. Wealthy and upper-middle-class Americans are now using strategies, sometimes employing corporations or Family Limited Partnerships (FLPs) to hide their wealth. The reason to hide their wealth and legally claim they do not own the thousands or millions of dollars they have access to so they can qualify for medicaid if they or their spouse needs long term care, such as placement in a nursing home. Such nursing home care can easily consume all of a family's lifetime savings, no matter how hard they worked, how frugal they were, or how lucky they were. While unfortunate, I think there is something wrong with the system when any American can get all the medicaid coverage they need no matter how expensive the nursing home care can be, as long as they proof to the government that they don't have more than $2k in the bank and almost no other assets other than a modest house, one vehicle, and household furnishings. Using corporations to appear "poor" enough to qualify for medicaid sounds a lot like fraud, but in our system it is perfectly legal. Just Google "medicaid planning" to learn more.
I understand the motivation to preserve wealth and not hand over millions of hard earned dollars to a nursing home. An advantage of having a socialist government is that everyone, through broad taxation, could potentially get the nursing home care that is needed without leaving the rest of their family impoverished. Ironically, in the USA we claim to not be socialist, yet we provide this care anyway - but only on the condition that you and your family has to first be completely impoverished. So if you have $100k that you thought you were going to leave to your children or pay for their education, or to carry you and your spouse through retirement, well - you were wrong (if you or your spouse need nursing home care). You don't get any help until that $100k is spent on doctors and facilities. Once you are down to your last $2k you can apply for help (but you still might not get it - there are many barriers). But instead of fixing this problem so families aren't impoverished, we are OK with letting the poor get help and we are OK with letting the wealthy use corporations and other planning structures to hide assets and "appear" to be poor. But the honest middle class who own assets in their own name get slammed. Since the cost of hiring an attorney to draft the proper FLP and trust documents can cost thousands of dollars, there is no win-win scenario for most middle class families. They get to work, struggle, save, and then have it all taken away. But if you're much wealthier and can afford to spend $10k on some documents (like a corporation, FLP, LLC, trusts, etc) you can keep on living the good life and get free handouts.
I have nothing against groups of people, even with leaders or managers earning profits. Nor do I have anything against certain activities being inherently protected from liability. But the scheming of using corporations to get around loopholes does bother me. If you don't think corporations are being abused by some wealthy individuals, then read up on "offshore banking" and "offshore corporations". Again, these are usually just personal bank accounts tied to a corporation with one officer/shareholder. In some cases "nominee" officers are shareholders are employed to thwart investigations. Just Google "nominee officer" and "nominee shareholder" to learn more.
I was going to say "damn!", but that implies condemning people to an eternity of destruction in a lake of fire with no chance of redemption. Not sure how the authorities might interpret that.
True, they can't just claim "saftey first". They just have to invoke Wickard v. Fulburn. You never had any rights to begin with, because those rights fall under the Interstate Commerce clause - everything does.
I like your approach. In fact, math for STEM majors would also be better if it was taught the way you describe. Sharp arithmetic and memorized formulas gradually fade in a world dominated by calculators, smart phones, and Google search.
One of the main differences between liberal arts and STEM studies is that liberal arts courses tend to involve a breadth of knowledge with writing and reasoning skills being applied almost equally to most of the subjects studied, whereas STEM courses typically follow a series of complex prerequisites, the cornerstone typically being calculus (or specifically, Calc 101, Calc 201, and Calc 301).
Case in point, for one of my liberal arts electives I chose to study "History of 20th Century Russia" rather than Western Civ or American Lit (of which I felt then, and still feel now, that I had plenty of exposure during high school and my own personal musings). I was warned, as beginning my sophomore year, that this course was designed for Junior and Senior history majors, and I would be expected to keep up and perform on the same level they were. In the end I found the class engaging and interesting, and also an easy A+. I wish I could say that for my engineering classes - the few A's in those classes were hard earned, and too few and far between. I seriously doubt that a typical, or even an above average, liberal arts major could walk into a Junior or Senior level engineering course and have much chance at passing, let alone getting an A. Not because of any lack of ability, but it just takes mastering the pre-reqs before taking on higher-level coursework is even possible for most STEM classes.
I will say though, that my friends who were struggling engineering majors and eventually switched to business or liberals arts (mostly business) - they tended to thrive and quickly climbed to the top of their class once they joined "the dark side". I never came across a liberal arts major struggling to pass their classes who switched to engineering to have a better chance of completing their degree.
All goes back to Wickard v. Filburn, under FDR's long-standing administration. Perhaps the most destructive Supreme Court ruling in our modern era. At a time when America was fighting Fascism abroad, this decision probably did the most to entrench Fascism, corporate hegemony and cronyism in the United States, usurping the natural rights of free citizens as well as transferring power from the state level to Federal government agencies.
The logic behind the Wickard v. Filburn decision seems to stand in opposition against the small government ideals of conservatives, the civil liberties of individuals as espoused by liberals, and the value of a free market as advocated by libertarians, yet this attitude seems to be growing more pervasive throughout our government, especially on the Federal level, with rarely any outcry from voters, the politicians they elect, or from hardly any of the many outspoken critics of our government and society. What is behind this sheeple mentality?
OK - if you support the Citizens United decision, and believe that corporations (a piece of paper, also referred to by lawmakers and judges in official documents as 'legal fiction') are just as equal as natural person in all regards, then you have no problem with the following statement:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and corporations are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men and Corporations, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed [mostly corporations], — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [the interests of corporations], it is the Right of the Corporations and People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness [sorry, what makes a corporation safe and happy?]. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that corporations [and trusts too, living and irrevocable] and mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right [of corporations and humans], it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security [Blackwater?]. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies [of corporations and the people who are mostly employed by such corporations]; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations [against corporations, and sometimes even living, breathing human beings], all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States [poor corporations - so unfair]. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world...[and so on]...
OK, I'll accept corporations as people when one of them is jailed or executed. Otherwise, the lunacy of accepting the "equality" of 'legal persons' to natural persons will ultimately result in absolute absurdity. For instance, I can with a stroke of a pen create 100,000 new 'legal persons' who are bound by contract to serve me and do my bidding. If they obtain the right to vote, what is to stop me, as CEO with control and influence over my new corporate minions (pieces of paper commonly referred to as 'legal fiction') from winning all the elections in my home town? Or for my corporation to run for sheriff? Or for my corporation to have an abortion? What happens if a corporation comes into my restaurant, takes a seat, and I refuse to serve him? What if I hire natural persons to work at my restaurant, but I refuse to hire corporations to fill any positions? What if I rent houses to natural persons but refuse to rent houses to corporations?
What about the rights of corporations to marry? Sure, there are mergers and acquisitions, but those are more like civil unions. What if my corporation wants to marry another corporation, with marriage vows, wedding rings, a ceremony, an official state-issued marriage license, and all the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage? What if my corporation wants to adopt a child? Can my corporation join the military? If not, then why not? Can it also serve in combat?
I think of that fact every time I sit in a doctor's office. Half of them are below average, too.:-(
Yes. They are called general practitioners. The other half tend to specialize in higher paying fields, like surgery or anesthesiology.
For better or for worse, medical schools set their standards so high that only the most qualified (typically overqualified) ever get the opportunity to even study medicine, let alone practice. You may have a physician who was at the bottom of his class, but he's still likely to have more knowledge and intelligence than anyone else working or waiting in his clinic. It's not like IT, where there is a job for everybody, with a very wide spectrum of credentials or abilities (or lack thereof). Nor is it like those with a liberal arts degree, where employers just presume the degreed applicants don't know a thing about working life and have them start at the lowest position in the company, most often side-by-side with non-degreed hourly employees, and then only promote those noobs who show some potential to figure it out and actually make some effort to show up on time, properly dressed, and without a bad attitude.
Given that the student loans for the professions can easily top $100k, success is the only option. There is no bankruptcy allowed, and without a physicians salary there is little hope of ever having more than a Spartan existence, regardless of how earnestly one tries to pay off such loans by any other means.
Slashdot Mirror
For the most part though, most patients don't end up with bank breaking bills from the family doc, unless that doc tricks them into getting a minor procedure at "his" facility, which you are informed the day of or evening before is not at the same location as his regular office. Though the doc is in-network, it turns out "his" facility is not, and you are billed directly $30k for a procedure that most other providers perform in their standard examination rooms for $600, which is usually paid by insurance.
As for the "increasing" cost of equipment, if the extra hardware adds to the total cost of services, then the physicians need to go back to the old way of doing things. If operating my laptop were to cost more than a typewriter without saving me any time, and if all I needed was a word processor, then the logical step would be to just use a typewriter and not splurge on the laptop. There was a time when computers did cost a lot more but were not as powerful, and at that time people still chose to use word processing typewriters for this very reason. If medical care is more expensive because the technology costs too much, and people aren't even allowed to access care because of the exhorbitant cost, then maybe we need a new class of physicians who are trained on the manual way of doing things. Or we could move to a European style healthcare system, which would make much more sense.
Problem is that such negotiations are highly dependent on the inviduals on the other end of the line and the policies set in place by their management. Hospitals, along with any other creditor of any debt, have the right to pursue whoever they wish for payment. They can choose to let one bill slide and pursue payment for a different bill from a patient who is known to own substantial assets that can be seized by a turn-over order in court if they don't pay willingly. There are also factors working behind the scenes. If the hospital or clinic is operating in the black with steadily increasing profits, they may not be as aggressive with debt collection. But if they are running into cash flow problems, they can be very aggressive, down to the point of suing patients who might otherwise qualify for charity care. Such abuses in medical billing and debt collection are well documented and frequently reported in news stories.
Except that they wrap the equipment and all related supplies into "kits". Once a kit is opened, often in anticipation of possible need but not actually used, the kit is now no longer "new" and cannot just be repackaged. Instead it is often sold to a recycler who will sterilize and repackage the kit, often for export to other countries. This is just one reason why a few hours in the ER can be billed for several thousand dollars. "Charity" hospitals are granted non-profit status when they take the lost revenue from unpaid bills and add it to your bill.
Now, if by law hospitals could only charge a fixed maximum price for each hour a patient is treated, then I guarantee they will find a reason why they do not need to continue the practice of "kitting" their medical supplies in this manner.
I had a facility bill my insurance for over $30k for a procedure that took less than one hour. Insurance paid about $600.00. The facility tried to get me to pay the balance, offered me a "deal" to pay just 1/3, alleging that I owed the amount because while the physician was in-network they were not. I didn't pay them anything and now the statute of limitations has expired to collect on the bill. The system is designed to screw over anyone who is accustomed to paying full retail price, religious people who presume they should always pay their "debts" regardless of how they were incurred, for people who don't have access to information to help them decide what the fair market value should be, people who are afraid of tarnishing their credit reports, people who are afraid of debt collectors, and people who don't have time or money to fight, haggle, negotiate, or go to court. Naturally the system hits honest, hard working American families the hardest.
To argue that we have a free market for health care makes no sense when such a massive portion of spending is channeled through government programs. When the government is paying your bill then you don't act like a cash conscious consumer at a grocery store. Instead, you get what you need from whoever is providing it with no regard to cost. Such a system artificially skews what is perceived as fair market value.
If you want a free market for health care, then you have to eliminate the non-free market participants. If healthcare providers could only be paid what their patients could afford then you wouldn't have a system like we have today - a system where a patient walks into a hospital and leaves behind his life savings. Even the so-called "charity" hospitals won't perform services for your child until your 401k has evaporated. Yet people keep donating to charity hospitals and feel good about themselves when they are only lining the pockets of physicians and managers. If you really want to be charitable, donate directly to patients. They aren't hard to find.
As for the free market, as long as patients can come up with data to show what the "usual, customary, and reasonable" charges are for a common procedure, they could argue effectively in court that they are being overbilled. Since the median income for most families is near $50k for many parts of the country, no clinic or hospital could effectively argue that their medical procedures should cost a patient $40k for a year's worth of services (say for treatment of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc.).
Of course the natural outcome is that those with below median incomes might be left with inadequate healthcare, free market forces being what they are, and expensive conditions, like cancer, might not be successfully treated except for those with substantial assets to pay for them. In the end, everyone loses, except physicians, hospital administrators, medical debt collectors, and pharmaceutical execs. Medical care would function much like dental care does in this country. Oddly enough, this is where we are today, in spite of the millions of dollars raised for private medical charities, private for-profit insurance companies, and programs like medicaid, medicare, VA benefits, and other state and federal welfare and disability programs. The problem is this patchwork of half-fixes leaves wide open gaps to exploit. Every day there is a clinic shut down after a physician and his staff were caught fraudulently billing medicare, medicaid, or even private insurance, but there are rarely any convictions of doctors who have been fraudulently billing their patients directly. There are physicians who target individuals that they suspect of having deep pockets and try all sorts of scams to tramp them into a situation where they are receiving servies out-of-network, because once a patient is receiving services without the protection of their insurance contracts they can be billed at rates several orders of magnitude over what insurance or medicare will pay.
When insurance and medicare a
Yes. That too many Americans sheepishly suspend their rights in the name of convenience is exactly why these practices have gotten too far out of hand in the first place. We are no longer the same people who went to war against our King because we were required to use name-brand paper (the Stamp Act) and repay the Crown for the cost of the French and Indian War.
I prefer my carbon arc lamp with dual axis swivel mount. If I can't read the tail markings of aircraft flying overhead then it's not bright enough. As far as blinding anyone approaching my compound, that just helps me zero in on their position while they stand still like deer on a highway. Now get off my lawn!
And scatter some shotgun shells around the perimeter, just for effect.
Except that head mounted lamps are already widely commercially available, and if you can't find one at your local hardware, sporting goods, or grocery store, there are a variety to chose from if you shop online. Even with shipping, the cost is typically cheaper than the cost of a floodlight fixture, and installation usually doesn't involve drilling holes, permanently wiring into the electrical grid, or turning any screws - though I wouldn't object to tightening any loose screws you find while you're poking around up there.
Except not all engineers create something "new". Many, if not most, play a support role. And many engineering disciplines involve following some very precise sets of rules and standards, even in the "design" of new products, so opportunity for "coming up" with something unique, or patentable, is actually quite uncommon. Many new and practical concepts in product design often comes from industrial designers with more of a background in art than in science and technology.
Most musicians are not creative either, though many like to claim they are. Most musicians are technicians who reproduce sounds on instruments according to very detailed instructions (ie sheet music). Even when improvisation is a element in a performance, the technic employed is often copied and not their own original idea. Only composers have a real chance to be creative. But even most artist, composers, and writers, while "creating" "new" content, are just following trends set by the creative leaders of their respective fields. Take my response to your post for instance - though original and my "creation", it is not uncommon in our modern era to instantly question presumptive, generalized statements that are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. So the product of my effort here is really not "creative", nor does it need to be. I have not in this post created any new style of prose, any new method of logical reasoning, any new literary elements. If there is anything truly unique about my post it is simply that I have questioned some well entrenched views on the nature of creativity, but I'm sure there are errors in grammar and style that are even more profound, after all I specialized in engineering, not rhetoric.
If only that bastard Nixon were still alive to account for the atrocities of the agency he created so many years ago.
Can't take the chance. Just going to eat my chicken raw, just like my ancestors did before they learned to cook with fire. I imagine they must have been much healthier then since their diet was more natural and not tainted with carcinogens. How many people have died from cancer through the eons that could have been prevented by staying away from smoke and fire?
Death to the moon! Put our rusting nukes to some good use and nuke the moon now, dammit!
... Even easier if it wants to be found and can build a signalling beacon of some sort.
Such intelligent life couldn't be that intelligent then, given our history of plundering the resources of 'New Worlds' when we discover them. Not to mention that we kill, subdue, or drive out the native population to make room for our colonies, whether the natives bring us Thanksgiving goodies or not.
C'mon, use some imagination.
I also remember the day when you could by a T-shirt and the logo was kept hidden on a tag near the neck. Boy, I am an old-timer!
But it's a factor consumers and policy makers need to be aware off. Where I live in Texas most electricity is produced by coal burning plants. If I'm trying to reduce my carbon footprint by carpooling, limiting my travel, and operating a fuel efficient ethanol burning vehicle, and then switch to an all-electric vehicle I might fool myself into thinking that all the energy consumed is clean and green. I might drive more often, longer distances, leave the vehicle running in idle to keep the A/C on, use the vehicle as a portable power source, etc. The impact of such behavior may lead to more total air pollution from the power demanded from the coal burning plants.
Alternatively, if I built my own off-grid power system of wind turbines, solar panels, micro-hydro, and a digester with bio-gas turbine generator, I may end up with an energy surplus if I oversize the system or if I expect a need for all the power sometime in the future. The same frivolous consumption of electricity would not necessarily be as hard on the environment than when tied to a coal burning plant.
When it comes to sustainability there is no one single fix or cure. Energy and resource conservation will alway be an important element. The equipment you own and operate needs to be manufactured with as little embedded energy as possible. Recycling will be important to keep landfills manageable. Reduced use, proper handling, and safe disposal/recycling of hazardous materials will be essential (ideally, moving away from such materials altogether).
My point invokes the "slipperly slope" argument. Take it however you wish.
But please do your homework. Corporations, which are pieces of paper, may lead to the organization of people and there are benefits of such organization. But not all corporations involve groups of people. Some corporations do not have ANY employees, only one officer, and serve purposes that are of little benefit to society, such as patent trolling, blatant tax avoidance, and personal asset protection.
For instance, if I own a yacht, but list it as property of a corporation, and then if you sue me for damages I cause you, you might not be able to actually collect on the judgment, even if a jury agreed I was responsible and ordered me to pay you. And it doesn't stop with asset protection planning. Wealthy and upper-middle-class Americans are now using strategies, sometimes employing corporations or Family Limited Partnerships (FLPs) to hide their wealth. The reason to hide their wealth and legally claim they do not own the thousands or millions of dollars they have access to so they can qualify for medicaid if they or their spouse needs long term care, such as placement in a nursing home. Such nursing home care can easily consume all of a family's lifetime savings, no matter how hard they worked, how frugal they were, or how lucky they were. While unfortunate, I think there is something wrong with the system when any American can get all the medicaid coverage they need no matter how expensive the nursing home care can be, as long as they proof to the government that they don't have more than $2k in the bank and almost no other assets other than a modest house, one vehicle, and household furnishings. Using corporations to appear "poor" enough to qualify for medicaid sounds a lot like fraud, but in our system it is perfectly legal. Just Google "medicaid planning" to learn more.
I understand the motivation to preserve wealth and not hand over millions of hard earned dollars to a nursing home. An advantage of having a socialist government is that everyone, through broad taxation, could potentially get the nursing home care that is needed without leaving the rest of their family impoverished. Ironically, in the USA we claim to not be socialist, yet we provide this care anyway - but only on the condition that you and your family has to first be completely impoverished. So if you have $100k that you thought you were going to leave to your children or pay for their education, or to carry you and your spouse through retirement, well - you were wrong (if you or your spouse need nursing home care). You don't get any help until that $100k is spent on doctors and facilities. Once you are down to your last $2k you can apply for help (but you still might not get it - there are many barriers). But instead of fixing this problem so families aren't impoverished, we are OK with letting the poor get help and we are OK with letting the wealthy use corporations and other planning structures to hide assets and "appear" to be poor. But the honest middle class who own assets in their own name get slammed. Since the cost of hiring an attorney to draft the proper FLP and trust documents can cost thousands of dollars, there is no win-win scenario for most middle class families. They get to work, struggle, save, and then have it all taken away. But if you're much wealthier and can afford to spend $10k on some documents (like a corporation, FLP, LLC, trusts, etc) you can keep on living the good life and get free handouts.
I have nothing against groups of people, even with leaders or managers earning profits. Nor do I have anything against certain activities being inherently protected from liability. But the scheming of using corporations to get around loopholes does bother me. If you don't think corporations are being abused by some wealthy individuals, then read up on "offshore banking" and "offshore corporations". Again, these are usually just personal bank accounts tied to a corporation with one officer/shareholder. In some cases "nominee" officers are shareholders are employed to thwart investigations. Just Google "nominee officer" and "nominee shareholder" to learn more.
I was going to say "damn!", but that implies condemning people to an eternity of destruction in a lake of fire with no chance of redemption. Not sure how the authorities might interpret that.
So every time we lock up a potential terrorist, we are creating new terrorists? Probably true.
True, they can't just claim "saftey first". They just have to invoke Wickard v. Fulburn. You never had any rights to begin with, because those rights fall under the Interstate Commerce clause - everything does.
I like your approach. In fact, math for STEM majors would also be better if it was taught the way you describe. Sharp arithmetic and memorized formulas gradually fade in a world dominated by calculators, smart phones, and Google search.
One of the main differences between liberal arts and STEM studies is that liberal arts courses tend to involve a breadth of knowledge with writing and reasoning skills being applied almost equally to most of the subjects studied, whereas STEM courses typically follow a series of complex prerequisites, the cornerstone typically being calculus (or specifically, Calc 101, Calc 201, and Calc 301).
Case in point, for one of my liberal arts electives I chose to study "History of 20th Century Russia" rather than Western Civ or American Lit (of which I felt then, and still feel now, that I had plenty of exposure during high school and my own personal musings). I was warned, as beginning my sophomore year, that this course was designed for Junior and Senior history majors, and I would be expected to keep up and perform on the same level they were. In the end I found the class engaging and interesting, and also an easy A+. I wish I could say that for my engineering classes - the few A's in those classes were hard earned, and too few and far between. I seriously doubt that a typical, or even an above average, liberal arts major could walk into a Junior or Senior level engineering course and have much chance at passing, let alone getting an A. Not because of any lack of ability, but it just takes mastering the pre-reqs before taking on higher-level coursework is even possible for most STEM classes.
I will say though, that my friends who were struggling engineering majors and eventually switched to business or liberals arts (mostly business) - they tended to thrive and quickly climbed to the top of their class once they joined "the dark side". I never came across a liberal arts major struggling to pass their classes who switched to engineering to have a better chance of completing their degree.
All goes back to Wickard v. Filburn, under FDR's long-standing administration. Perhaps the most destructive Supreme Court ruling in our modern era. At a time when America was fighting Fascism abroad, this decision probably did the most to entrench Fascism, corporate hegemony and cronyism in the United States, usurping the natural rights of free citizens as well as transferring power from the state level to Federal government agencies.
The logic behind the Wickard v. Filburn decision seems to stand in opposition against the small government ideals of conservatives, the civil liberties of individuals as espoused by liberals, and the value of a free market as advocated by libertarians, yet this attitude seems to be growing more pervasive throughout our government, especially on the Federal level, with rarely any outcry from voters, the politicians they elect, or from hardly any of the many outspoken critics of our government and society. What is behind this sheeple mentality?
OK - if you support the Citizens United decision, and believe that corporations (a piece of paper, also referred to by lawmakers and judges in official documents as 'legal fiction') are just as equal as natural person in all regards, then you have no problem with the following statement:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and corporations are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men and Corporations, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed [mostly corporations], — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [the interests of corporations], it is the Right of the Corporations and People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness [sorry, what makes a corporation safe and happy?]. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that corporations [and trusts too, living and irrevocable] and mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right [of corporations and humans], it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security [Blackwater?]. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies [of corporations and the people who are mostly employed by such corporations]; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations [against corporations, and sometimes even living, breathing human beings], all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States [poor corporations - so unfair]. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world...[and so on]...
OK, I'll accept corporations as people when one of them is jailed or executed. Otherwise, the lunacy of accepting the "equality" of 'legal persons' to natural persons will ultimately result in absolute absurdity. For instance, I can with a stroke of a pen create 100,000 new 'legal persons' who are bound by contract to serve me and do my bidding. If they obtain the right to vote, what is to stop me, as CEO with control and influence over my new corporate minions (pieces of paper commonly referred to as 'legal fiction') from winning all the elections in my home town? Or for my corporation to run for sheriff? Or for my corporation to have an abortion? What happens if a corporation comes into my restaurant, takes a seat, and I refuse to serve him? What if I hire natural persons to work at my restaurant, but I refuse to hire corporations to fill any positions? What if I rent houses to natural persons but refuse to rent houses to corporations?
What about the rights of corporations to marry? Sure, there are mergers and acquisitions, but those are more like civil unions. What if my corporation wants to marry another corporation, with marriage vows, wedding rings, a ceremony, an official state-issued marriage license, and all the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage? What if my corporation wants to adopt a child? Can my corporation join the military? If not, then why not? Can it also serve in combat?
I think of that fact every time I sit in a doctor's office. Half of them are below average, too. :-(
Yes. They are called general practitioners. The other half tend to specialize in higher paying fields, like surgery or anesthesiology.
For better or for worse, medical schools set their standards so high that only the most qualified (typically overqualified) ever get the opportunity to even study medicine, let alone practice. You may have a physician who was at the bottom of his class, but he's still likely to have more knowledge and intelligence than anyone else working or waiting in his clinic. It's not like IT, where there is a job for everybody, with a very wide spectrum of credentials or abilities (or lack thereof). Nor is it like those with a liberal arts degree, where employers just presume the degreed applicants don't know a thing about working life and have them start at the lowest position in the company, most often side-by-side with non-degreed hourly employees, and then only promote those noobs who show some potential to figure it out and actually make some effort to show up on time, properly dressed, and without a bad attitude.
Given that the student loans for the professions can easily top $100k, success is the only option. There is no bankruptcy allowed, and without a physicians salary there is little hope of ever having more than a Spartan existence, regardless of how earnestly one tries to pay off such loans by any other means.
I thought No Child Left Behind was supposed to fix that.