I was wondering, as a European I don't understand it, what the deal is with medical insurance in the US. In Europe everyone has (to have) medical insurance. There are varying degrees to which people are covered, but almost all make sure you can get the treatment you need at a cost that won't leave you with a medical bill that makes you wish they didn't bother saving you. Why does the US not have something similar and what is it actually like in the US. If someone can help me out here, I'd appreciate it.
Exactly, and now that I think about it, I don't understand why most universities don't do this. A well prepared and educated student body will only help to bolster the University's reputation as a good institution for higher education and thus leads to more prestige and money from grants. But I suppose a college needs to put in the extra effort for this to happen and if someone just wants a paycheck without caring too much about what he actually achieves from his 9-5 job then this isn't likely to happen. Which brings me back to my first point, maybe the government should try and get involved with the quality of higher education in some cases. In Holland the government essentially funds all the universities but lets them go about their own business as long as the results are good. This is a similar relationship that most students here have with their parents, as long as the results are good, they'll keep getting their allowance, it's a wonderful incentive to allow one to learn to live independently without compromising their education. Would anybody know what the degree of influence the US or in this case Indian government has on the universities in their respective countries?
I understand what you mean, and I can see how this is a good example of how something like this shouldn't be done. I apologize that I didn't clarify it fully in my post, the University requires us to write reports after our internship on exactly what we did and evaluates companies like this. But also, companies are selected in advance on whether their methods in the past and their current workings are of high enough quality to send the students to for educational purposes. I luckily enough attend a university whose standing in the country allows it to be picky on where it chooses to allow students to go to. The whole system has several checks on different levels to ensure students learn the proper way of doing things.
I realize that not all colleges have the ability to do this and I can't really think of any way to solve this, but I was merely trying to point out to the/. community that the system I am fortunate enough to be a part of seems to work well and maybe it could be used as a model for the ones that don't seem to work as well.
While there is a debate ongoing about whether to train for jobs or to train purely subject matter, why not do both? I'm currently in my first year of college at a technical college (studying mechanical and electrical engineering), and we are required to get internships with businesses at the end of our first year. This internship requires us to essential join an engineer in his job and follow along to see what an engineer does for a living. This way we not only learn the theory but also see what it's used for. Now I have to admit that for engineering this isn't really a big problem, most graduates from my university have no problem at all getting a job, and with engineering it is easy to draw parallels between what you learn and the real world. Then again, while I'm on the subject, the actual problems of transitions from college to jobs in my country (the Netherlands) is not the lack of a quality degree, but what degree it is you have. One of the most popular studies here is psychology, and while we do need psychologists (we is a crazy bunch), the sheer number of psychologists coming onto the job market trying to find jobs in other fields because the psychology jobs are quickly filled leads to managers and the like with a degree in psychology, which isn't what most companies want. So actually one of the largest problems here is not a lack of educated workers, but it's what education they have. I realize it's not exactly likely we can assign a study to someone purely based on what is needed, but one should keep in mind what they plan to do after college. The main deficits job-wise here are mainly technical studies (engineers, but also plumbers and such) as well as doctors. This is not due to a lack of people applying to med school, but we have a system similar to a lottery for a lot of studies. The government has a set number of slots for people studying medicine (don't ask me why, it's still a mystery for me) and such people with an average grade on their final exam of less than 8.5 need to essential draw straws to see if they get into a med school. So maybe it's not all the colleges fault, the government has a heavy hand in that. Possibly the government of India can do something about the problem in the education there by setting certain criteria, or emulating education systems elsewhere (the US or Europe), which have struck a balance between theory and vocational education.
Sorry about the off topic explanation to my topic, but this is the only way I can be sure you guys understand what I was trying to say...
I see your point, and I agree, but I was just trying to point out that when someone says 'relatively modest', it could be interpreted as he lives in a two bedroom apartment somewhere, and that that doesn't exactly come close to reality. I was just trying to clarify the comment. But Biltmore Estate is pretty neat, it has some nifty features, such as personal climate control depending on where you are in the house.
I agree that it's never really been about the money with him, and kudos to him for that, but to say he lives in relative modesty (my beef is with the word relative) is going a tad far. He has put a large portion of his assets into his fund, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have any for himself, and who could blame him, it's HIS money afterall. However, happening upon an edition of MTV's cribs with Mr. Gates' home on it, I doubt that could be called modest compared to most people's homes. Just type in 'Bill Gates home' in google and you'll see what I mean.
All this has nothing to do with how he spends his money, I personally believe he should invest more in something more along the lines of sustainable energy like nuclear fusion as opposed to HIV/AIDS, because this way he funds an advancement of science, which benefits mankind in the long run. But hey, that's me and I have no say in where the money goes, so what does it really matter, just wanted to point out that Mr. Gates lives pretty luxuriously, as well he may, he did earn the money (one way or other).
I've always been a huge Myst fan, but it takes some doing to get through it all. Just get your hands on the whole set (you can skip URU,) and play it. It's essentially a mouse oriented game, where you point and click 99% of the time. The games are timeless, last forever, satisfying and also, it doesn't ruin your joints. That's what I'd play if I had one last game to play, Myst.
Gentlemen (and ladies, if applicable), I'm with ccarson here, Although I do think one needs to use reliable facts. I am paraphrasing here from Bill Bryson's book; A short history of nearly everything. But your average volcano eruption (I know we don't have too many) apparently releases more CO2 in one go than humans have in their entire existence, and by existence I do mean the whole car exhaust and industry emissions.
I do have to add my disclaimer that I did not ask every scientist within a 5 mile radius if it was accurate, but since I have yet to come across any serious and credible accusations about it's factual accuracy, I assume it's true. Granted, humans are not exactly gentle with their environment, but bear in mind that the Earth is a very destructive planet and that it's been around for a long time before we arrived and it will most likely be very capable of living on after we cease to exist.
This is my 2c worth.
I think that's pretty scary, the US is certainly far from a good place to live. I think this is where I mention that I'm not American and I don't live there anymore, so I guess I don't really have to worry about American federal laws, unless George Bush decides to invade Europe.
I'm not going to say I haven't listened to illegally downloaded music.
I think it would be lying to say I haven't downloaded a bit, but usually I got the album if it's any good, otherwise deleted the content. I'm not losing any sleep over it.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you there are varying degrees of evil. And I think that we (society) should focus on dealing with the worst before going after the mildly and slightly criminal. That means murderers, rapists and pedophiles should be summarily castrated and perhaps shot in my opinion. Some student (I'm 18, so most of the things on your list don't really apply) who downloads a bit is not too high on the list of criminal perpetrators.
As to your prison issue, maybe it shows that your prison system works too well, or maybe it imprisons too many. Take the other side of the coin, here in western Europe, most criminals get away very easily and are out on the street very soon. I think I'd rather see a few innocent men go to jail than the same amount of murderers and rapists get out. It's a rotten choice, but it's the lesser of two evils.
I do believe however that there is something in that constitution of yours that states that if the state or government starts to work against its people, then the people have the right, nay the duty to rise up. I'm not saying a rebellion is in order, but maybe the state has lost sight of what it's purpose is; to serve its citizens.
That's a good point, but I still don't see why the 'privacy maffia' are to darn anal about a database about everyone or whatever people are worried about. Maybe someone can enlighten me, but if the government wants to watch everyone's every move and have a full database on my DNA, blood, fingerprints and such. Fine by me. I have nothing to hide and as such, if some government employee has nothing better to do than to watch reruns of me going to school, then be my guest, it's his wasted life. I realize that DNA holds information such as lineage and predisposition to medical ailments and such, but hey, your medical record isn't as confidential as you think. Also, if these databases can help speed up the police's ability to track down and incarcerate criminals, so much the better.
Added to this is that no one is looking through everyone's fingerprints and saying 'ooh, look at this guy's thumb, check out that swirl!'. I think the people who are complaining are being a little too paranoid on what this database will be used for. There are too many Americans and 19 times more foreignors in the world for the police or any other conspiracy you imagine to look into each and every person's personal life and look for them downloading illegal music or anything along those lines.
Take this even further, if everyone had a chip in their arm or back or where ever making them traceable, good idea. If a database where in some way set up to record this, we can pinpoint exactly who was at the crime scene and therefore almost guarantee most crimes are solved. Just think about it logically, if this is a universal thing, then you won't be spied on because it's just not possible to go through everyperson's life, not enough people do it and they also have better things to do than care about what you do in your spare time. Unless you have something to hide then you shouldn't be against this, seriously. And then if you DO have something to hide, well then you should be worried either way, the system isn't designed to help you, it's designed to protect the citizens from people who might infringe on their rights.
Slashdot Mirror
I was wondering, as a European I don't understand it, what the deal is with medical insurance in the US. In Europe everyone has (to have) medical insurance. There are varying degrees to which people are covered, but almost all make sure you can get the treatment you need at a cost that won't leave you with a medical bill that makes you wish they didn't bother saving you. Why does the US not have something similar and what is it actually like in the US. If someone can help me out here, I'd appreciate it.
Exactly, and now that I think about it, I don't understand why most universities don't do this. A well prepared and educated student body will only help to bolster the University's reputation as a good institution for higher education and thus leads to more prestige and money from grants. But I suppose a college needs to put in the extra effort for this to happen and if someone just wants a paycheck without caring too much about what he actually achieves from his 9-5 job then this isn't likely to happen. Which brings me back to my first point, maybe the government should try and get involved with the quality of higher education in some cases. In Holland the government essentially funds all the universities but lets them go about their own business as long as the results are good. This is a similar relationship that most students here have with their parents, as long as the results are good, they'll keep getting their allowance, it's a wonderful incentive to allow one to learn to live independently without compromising their education. Would anybody know what the degree of influence the US or in this case Indian government has on the universities in their respective countries?
I understand what you mean, and I can see how this is a good example of how something like this shouldn't be done. I apologize that I didn't clarify it fully in my post, the University requires us to write reports after our internship on exactly what we did and evaluates companies like this. But also, companies are selected in advance on whether their methods in the past and their current workings are of high enough quality to send the students to for educational purposes. I luckily enough attend a university whose standing in the country allows it to be picky on where it chooses to allow students to go to. The whole system has several checks on different levels to ensure students learn the proper way of doing things. I realize that not all colleges have the ability to do this and I can't really think of any way to solve this, but I was merely trying to point out to the /. community that the system I am fortunate enough to be a part of seems to work well and maybe it could be used as a model for the ones that don't seem to work as well.
While there is a debate ongoing about whether to train for jobs or to train purely subject matter, why not do both? I'm currently in my first year of college at a technical college (studying mechanical and electrical engineering), and we are required to get internships with businesses at the end of our first year. This internship requires us to essential join an engineer in his job and follow along to see what an engineer does for a living. This way we not only learn the theory but also see what it's used for. Now I have to admit that for engineering this isn't really a big problem, most graduates from my university have no problem at all getting a job, and with engineering it is easy to draw parallels between what you learn and the real world.
Then again, while I'm on the subject, the actual problems of transitions from college to jobs in my country (the Netherlands) is not the lack of a quality degree, but what degree it is you have. One of the most popular studies here is psychology, and while we do need psychologists (we is a crazy bunch), the sheer number of psychologists coming onto the job market trying to find jobs in other fields because the psychology jobs are quickly filled leads to managers and the like with a degree in psychology, which isn't what most companies want. So actually one of the largest problems here is not a lack of educated workers, but it's what education they have. I realize it's not exactly likely we can assign a study to someone purely based on what is needed, but one should keep in mind what they plan to do after college. The main deficits job-wise here are mainly technical studies (engineers, but also plumbers and such) as well as doctors. This is not due to a lack of people applying to med school, but we have a system similar to a lottery for a lot of studies. The government has a set number of slots for people studying medicine (don't ask me why, it's still a mystery for me) and such people with an average grade on their final exam of less than 8.5 need to essential draw straws to see if they get into a med school. So maybe it's not all the colleges fault, the government has a heavy hand in that. Possibly the government of India can do something about the problem in the education there by setting certain criteria, or emulating education systems elsewhere (the US or Europe), which have struck a balance between theory and vocational education.
Sorry about the off topic explanation to my topic, but this is the only way I can be sure you guys understand what I was trying to say...
I see your point, and I agree, but I was just trying to point out that when someone says 'relatively modest', it could be interpreted as he lives in a two bedroom apartment somewhere, and that that doesn't exactly come close to reality. I was just trying to clarify the comment. But Biltmore Estate is pretty neat, it has some nifty features, such as personal climate control depending on where you are in the house.
I agree that it's never really been about the money with him, and kudos to him for that, but to say he lives in relative modesty (my beef is with the word relative) is going a tad far. He has put a large portion of his assets into his fund, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have any for himself, and who could blame him, it's HIS money afterall. However, happening upon an edition of MTV's cribs with Mr. Gates' home on it, I doubt that could be called modest compared to most people's homes. Just type in 'Bill Gates home' in google and you'll see what I mean. All this has nothing to do with how he spends his money, I personally believe he should invest more in something more along the lines of sustainable energy like nuclear fusion as opposed to HIV/AIDS, because this way he funds an advancement of science, which benefits mankind in the long run. But hey, that's me and I have no say in where the money goes, so what does it really matter, just wanted to point out that Mr. Gates lives pretty luxuriously, as well he may, he did earn the money (one way or other).
I've always been a huge Myst fan, but it takes some doing to get through it all. Just get your hands on the whole set (you can skip URU,) and play it. It's essentially a mouse oriented game, where you point and click 99% of the time. The games are timeless, last forever, satisfying and also, it doesn't ruin your joints. That's what I'd play if I had one last game to play, Myst.
Gentlemen (and ladies, if applicable), I'm with ccarson here, Although I do think one needs to use reliable facts. I am paraphrasing here from Bill Bryson's book; A short history of nearly everything. But your average volcano eruption (I know we don't have too many) apparently releases more CO2 in one go than humans have in their entire existence, and by existence I do mean the whole car exhaust and industry emissions. I do have to add my disclaimer that I did not ask every scientist within a 5 mile radius if it was accurate, but since I have yet to come across any serious and credible accusations about it's factual accuracy, I assume it's true. Granted, humans are not exactly gentle with their environment, but bear in mind that the Earth is a very destructive planet and that it's been around for a long time before we arrived and it will most likely be very capable of living on after we cease to exist. This is my 2c worth.
What? A bit like skydiving? Or jumping off the ground? -yea, only minus the air...
I think that's pretty scary, the US is certainly far from a good place to live. I think this is where I mention that I'm not American and I don't live there anymore, so I guess I don't really have to worry about American federal laws, unless George Bush decides to invade Europe. I'm not going to say I haven't listened to illegally downloaded music. I think it would be lying to say I haven't downloaded a bit, but usually I got the album if it's any good, otherwise deleted the content. I'm not losing any sleep over it. I'm sure I don't have to tell you there are varying degrees of evil. And I think that we (society) should focus on dealing with the worst before going after the mildly and slightly criminal. That means murderers, rapists and pedophiles should be summarily castrated and perhaps shot in my opinion. Some student (I'm 18, so most of the things on your list don't really apply) who downloads a bit is not too high on the list of criminal perpetrators. As to your prison issue, maybe it shows that your prison system works too well, or maybe it imprisons too many. Take the other side of the coin, here in western Europe, most criminals get away very easily and are out on the street very soon. I think I'd rather see a few innocent men go to jail than the same amount of murderers and rapists get out. It's a rotten choice, but it's the lesser of two evils. I do believe however that there is something in that constitution of yours that states that if the state or government starts to work against its people, then the people have the right, nay the duty to rise up. I'm not saying a rebellion is in order, but maybe the state has lost sight of what it's purpose is; to serve its citizens.
That's a good point, but I still don't see why the 'privacy maffia' are to darn anal about a database about everyone or whatever people are worried about. Maybe someone can enlighten me, but if the government wants to watch everyone's every move and have a full database on my DNA, blood, fingerprints and such. Fine by me. I have nothing to hide and as such, if some government employee has nothing better to do than to watch reruns of me going to school, then be my guest, it's his wasted life. I realize that DNA holds information such as lineage and predisposition to medical ailments and such, but hey, your medical record isn't as confidential as you think. Also, if these databases can help speed up the police's ability to track down and incarcerate criminals, so much the better. Added to this is that no one is looking through everyone's fingerprints and saying 'ooh, look at this guy's thumb, check out that swirl!'. I think the people who are complaining are being a little too paranoid on what this database will be used for. There are too many Americans and 19 times more foreignors in the world for the police or any other conspiracy you imagine to look into each and every person's personal life and look for them downloading illegal music or anything along those lines. Take this even further, if everyone had a chip in their arm or back or where ever making them traceable, good idea. If a database where in some way set up to record this, we can pinpoint exactly who was at the crime scene and therefore almost guarantee most crimes are solved. Just think about it logically, if this is a universal thing, then you won't be spied on because it's just not possible to go through everyperson's life, not enough people do it and they also have better things to do than care about what you do in your spare time. Unless you have something to hide then you shouldn't be against this, seriously. And then if you DO have something to hide, well then you should be worried either way, the system isn't designed to help you, it's designed to protect the citizens from people who might infringe on their rights.