It actually works that way because at the core it's the same issue: the insurance wants to reduce claim costs by enforcing/incentiving behaviour which prevents the claim to happen at all or reduce its magnitude. The difference is in the way it's done: you might get a discount on the premium e.g. if you do extra checks or maintenance or keep a low mileage, or get your claim paid only if you have proof that you did the due maintenance correctly.

Car insurance is less expensive simply because the insured risks are much cheaper than in health insurance.

Nobody questions that, it's obvious that the coverage needs to be mandated and defined in the law. The problem is more "does it makes sense that contraception is included in the basic healthcare coverage mandated by law?".

Technically speaking the risks are insurance claims due to unwanted pregnancy. Assuming unwanted pregnancies do actually cost the healthcare insurance money, reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies reduces the claims to be paid. Subsidizing contraception is an investment made to prevent more claims, and it might be a good investment if the money invested is less than the cost of the claims it prevented.

It's absolutely traditional: an insurance covers some risk which might happen in the future. Incentiving practices which help in reducing the probability of this risk or the magnitude of the claim is a very old strategy to try to reduce the cost of future claims. Typical health insurance claims cost much less if the problem is discovered soon and treatment administered as soon as possible, so incentiving regular checks or a healthy lifestyle ultimately helps the insurance's bottom line.

Usually even if you have healthcare you need evidence that you actually need a procedure or medication to get it covered, otherwise you'll have to pay it yourself or get it paid with a private insurance. Here we have universal healthcare coverage and contraception is obviously not covered unless you for some reason actually *require* it and a medic gives you a prescription (like for every other procedure or medication).

Of course you can test incomplete software. The relevant tests should fail until the implementation is complete and correct.

It wouldn't make the law automatically bad, it would just make it proactive instead of reactive.

You're describing a job position which relies almost completely on product-specific experience, which means that a new employee for this position without the specific experience would not be productive until successfully trained. Not all high-pay jobs are like that: in some positions you can be a great asset for the company even if you don't know the product-specific details in-depth yet.

The problem is that not-so-great recruiters have difficulties in recognizing which jobs require a product-specific experience and which allow for a more generic profile as long as the correct skills are there, so in case of doubt they tend to be over-specific.

About hiring juniors and training them, it's always a risk but you should be able to retain more of them. If all of them run away as soon as they can I would investigate the issue, maybe your company is not proposing a career path interesting enough.

The other reason is that many companies are not interested in training people anymore: they want someone already trained to put to the task immediately without additional costs.

It takes a big man to apologize when there is no gain in doing it. In this case I guess the intention to defuse a tricky situation harming the brand's reputation played a role too.

The fact is that the army-issued rifle is not a private weapon and you are allowed to use it only "on duty". You cannot even use it for personal defense in your own home. Said that, getting a private weapon and ammunition is very easy, you just need a permit which is not granted only in very specific cases (mentally ill, with a criminal record...).

Bank secrecy is not absolute, it merely means you need to get a warrant if you want to inspect someone's bank data, and if you actually have good reasons to believe that someone is doing something fishy the warrant is not an issue. What many foreign states want is actually unlimited access to any and all customers data without the need for probable cause, which is against the Swiss constitution.

Strict bank secrecy laws were not amended: to do that the government would actually need to change the constitution, since that's where this protection is defined. Every change to the constitution needs to be approved by popular vote, so even if the government caves in to the US requests, it has to actually convince the majority of Swiss voters to approve the amendments in the mandatory vote. What actually happened is that many Swiss banks got threatened with lawsuits in the US and decided that US customers were more hassle than they were worth it.

The sad thing is that there is people who still think that more money automatically equals more quality:

The math might be sound, but the logic is definately lacking.

I'm not advocating special treatment for any technology. As I said, coal is not the long term solution and the reason is the same as with current technology nuclear power: as soon as you take into account the externalities and have to pay for them they become very expensive. Allowing these externalities to be basically subsidized you can ignore these costs and allow for inferior technologies to stay viable and relevant. These technologies should get obsoleted much faster, but as long as these costs are offloaded there is simply not enough incentive.