Even pretending your offensive nonsense is true, moving on would mean not "raping" this planet anymore. So, a win-win.

Oh, I know, it's whats called a "Self-Regulatory Organization". Congress gave them sole authority for accreditation of medical professionals. University programs are accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which is run by the AMA and the Association of American Medical Colleges, and likewise recognized by Congress as the sole authority on the matter.

As far back as 1977 there were concerns that the AMA and LCME were intentionally restricting the supply of doctors ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/... ). Which went nowhere.

No more abstract electricity!

What? No, that's utter nonsense. Being self-employed could not be more unlike what you describe.

to the self-employed.

How does one force themselves to work unpaid overtime? Even if violating labor laws is possible, who's going to turn you in?

Ah, I take your point. Going back to the beginning of the thread, you hit a far more important nail on the head. The root of the cost problem in the US healthcare system! Simple supply and demand - there aren't enough doctors to satisfy demand, so costs are naturally high. And we consistently make the problem worse by focusing not on increasing supply, but rather subsidizing (aka increasing) demand.

There's also an improper focus on how we pay for healthcare. Because European nations with single payer or nationalized healthcare have lower costs, people assume adopting one of those systems will solve the cost problem here. What they don't take into account is that those nations have 50-100% more doctors and hospital beds per patient. I came across (and lost) a fascinating historical study of healthcare in the US illustrating how throughout the 20th century a number of measures were put in place to restrict the supply of doctors and hospital beds. At least up to the 60's, when the focus shifted to subsidizing demand.

I agree that subsidizing medical training would be a move that would actually help, graduating with a quarter-to-half million dollars in debt is not exactly an incentive, but there's another problem. There aren't enough medical schools to train all the doctors we need. Less than half of well qualified applicants to med school can actually get in to a program. Also a legislative cock-up. It's nigh impossible to start a new med school. Even if a university want's to start one, odds are that the AMA won't let them, Nor can we import doctors, as the AMA won't certify graduates of foreign training programs. If a doctor wants to immigrate, they aren't allowed to practice unless they go through an American medical program and redo their residency.

We don't need "tremendous social change". We need more doctors. That solves every problem in the healthcare system.

Given the choice between catching something and bleeding to death from a compound fracture, I'll happily catch whatever the doctor has.

And if you're a doctor, taking a sick day could mean not saving lives. If you're the only doctor for miles, "I have pneumonia" ain't gonna override, "my wife is bleeding to death, please help!"

There's also far more demand for their services then they can supply, and patient needs are often too urgent to delay.

I don't know. Unless you're talking about the DaVinci Code, I haven't read either.

Ozzy Osbourne snorted ants once. He didn't recommend it, but he didn't specifically warn against it either.

I should clarify. OSX has the same potential functionality as any flavor of BSD, but the GUI is designed to hide it. It's part of Apple's "get it out of the way" philosophy. Their products are designed to be used in the way they intend, so those things they expect (or want) people to do is easy, but the side effect is that going any deeper is fraught with stumbling blocks. The programming guidelines are littered with "don't let the user know this, don't let them see that, never let them even think this..."

Simplicity and depth/flexibility are often incompatible, and Apple takes it to an extreme. Very few controls are exposed, and many are simply inaccessible. Tasks that in windows are a simple matter of opening the control panel, in OSX require opening a terminal and going far deeper than a typical user would be comfortable with.

Hardware wise, well, we have a staff member for whom we recently got a MacBook Pro. We had to get an overpriced adapter so she could be wired into the network. No ethernet port on a high-end laptop.

That's right, no ethernet port.

That might be okay for hipsters who spend all day in a coffee shop showing off their ability to afford a Mac while pretending to be writers, but in an office it's an obscene oversight.

Ever read something written by someone with BPD during one of the extremes? Reading case studies was a hobby of mine. They can be a lot of fun.

So perhaps then it isn't the design of the software or the hardware, but the overall aesthetic. Both the Air and OSX are "pretty", but lacking in functionality. There's also an (undeserved) reputation for ease of use to consider, which ties back into the lack of functionality/flexibility.

AHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Thank you life, for being so damn funny.