Comment Re:Yes, can we do this to Microsoft? (Score 1) 223
Stop it... now you're just teasing.
Stop it... now you're just teasing.
"We were running low on our 'being an asshole' quota this month. Now be sure to continue to watch as your wives and kids demand and purchase our products, chumps."
Mind you, that was just frustration talking... because seriously, what is anyone going to do about this?
That.... that would be awesome.
And the fact that the poor Q1 numbers were again accompanied by outrageous executive compensation didn't help either. It must be really nice to be in mr. Noto's shoes, getting about $72.8 million dollars for half a year's work - well, presumably less now due to the stock grants part taking a plunge.
There is one sure, fair, and solid way to put a stop to "outrageous executive compensation"... stop buying stock in companies that grant such pay/bonus levels.
While it seems like a stupid move to lavish cash on a CxO who is running a company that is bleeding cash left right, and sideways, it's the perfect right of stock investors to make their own judgements as to how stupid/not-stupid they believe such a thing to be.
The reason why is because there are two ways to buy/sell stock.
The original intent was to own a piece of the company via buying stock, investing in its long-term growth, and reaping the benefits by selling it at some indeterminate point in the future.
The modern method (via shorting and similar tricks) is gambling.
Problem is, in order to eliminate the gambling aspect, the SEC would have to require a minimum 1-2 year holding period between sales of a given share of stock... that is, you buy the stock, but you cannot sell it to anyone else until it has been in your possession for at least 12-24 months or so. Good luck having that happen.
That's just incorrect. The British NHS, for example, costs 6.5% of GDP.
...now what percentage of tax revenue is it?
GDP != Tax Revenue.
But, you know... many ideologues (and even folks in government) think that they have access to private citizens' money, so...
*sigh* - go learn the difference between individuals spending money on healthcare, and the US government spending taxpayer money on same. While you're at it, also look up the bureaucratic overhead that a government-run healthcare system would bring (see also the VA Medical System).
Now go back to the kids' table and stop pretending that you know what you're talking about.
Dunno who modded you up, because this bit:
So clearly US could afford the same kind of healthcare system, it's only a matter of political will.
...is crap. We can afford our *current* system, but not a complete socialist-style healthcare system applied to the general population. It will either destroy the federal budget, or the resulting healthcare for individuals will be far worse than what we see now.
Would you like evidence? No problem: Google for "Veterans Administration" if you want an example of what US-government run healthcare looks like.
As someone whose spouse has had to ensure that travesty of an organization, I can tell you first-hand that you most emphatically do not want to go to a government-run hospital or doctor.
since they just throttle the connection into tiers so as to maximize profit, isn't it at least possible that the higher tiers also have lower latency or higher prioritization (among the ISP's users, not necessarily of youtube)?
If it's the case that latency or QoS is applied to intentionally push lower-tier users to a higher tier, then Verizon is even sleazier than TFA indicates.
Thinking the same thing here, methinks.
If what the guy says is true? A competent prof would have taken the most egregious examples and kicked them out of his class - right after informing them in front of one and all that they in particular will fail the semester, why they will fail, that they are to leave immediately, and that anyone else in class who exhibits similar behavior will get similar treatment. Do it early and as soon as trouble arises, so that you can solve the problem while it is still small and contained, much like you would control a small brush fire. It's a tried-and true tactic: make an expensive and career-harming example out of the ones who deserve it, and the rest will fall in line very quickly.
[...] then the government can similarly intervene in that market on behalf of the public to make it more affordable.
No, they cannot. The reason healthcare costs are so high now is precisely because the government has done just that (viz. Medicare/Medicaid). When you have a guaranteed payout, you can pack and pad the patient bill so as to maximize the amount of money that Uncle Sugar pays out per patient. This is usually done through such tactics as unnecessary tests, extreme itemization, and even collusion among providers to raise the overall costs (even if indirect). Top that with a government that regulates every last tidbit of healthcare (see also the FDA, among dozens if not hundreds of other acronyms), and even in some ways artificially restricts the supply of new doctors (at the educational level)? That's an overly-simplified but fairly accurate reason why we have the overpriced mess we have today.
Thing is, they can afford it whereas the US cannot. This is largely due to the demographics of these nations, the fact that their defense budgets are largely carried by NATO/Treaty/aid/etc (read: the US is paying for and/or providing a very significant percentage of it, even if indirectly), immigration laws are uber-strict (which cuts down on the flood of low/no-income users of the system), and because each has a relatively low population that is densely packed when compared to the US (which means you don't need so many clinics, doctors, specialties, etc). In spite of this, many of the nations you list are already under moderate to severe economic crisis in spite of that...
Meanwhile, if the US were to adopt such a system, or if the US DoD stopped providing direct/indirect military defense for these nations in order to afford such a system, a whole lot of economies would collapse within 10-15 years, maximum - the economies of both sides would be radically hamstrung under either condition.
Fire fighting service is [etc, etc].
False equivalence: an ugly smile != your house burning down.
That's a very American viewpoint. In other countries, government functions well. In others, it does well with some things, and badly at others.
...that would've been be a good point, until you find the torrent of NIH scandals and the massive money-suck it represents.
Why should I have pay for someone to have a pretty smile??
Because they'll pay for you to have something you'd argue isn't essential, like fire protection, food safety, fertility treatments, counselling, etc.
Again, false equivalence, but this time in multiples, with a non-sequitur thrown in for fun. (hint: fertility treatments are not essential to life and limb, and "counselling[sic]" is too vague to provide context as to how essential it may be.)
She's still OK to drive, the medical benefit is currently justified for her mental health (she's lost confidence with worsening sight). It's free on the NHS.
...and while it's nice that your granny is getting the surgery, I completely fail to see how "lost confidence" is justification for physical surgery, let alone having it become sufficient justification for payment from the public purse.
The cost of feathers has risen, even down is up!