Yes.

I suppose we can go write this way to do so.

This, and only this, was required. Israel had them for decades, so there's not even a reasonable smidgin of doubt that this wasn't a well-known way to stop a hijacking.

That doesn't mean that the in between part couldn't be a whole lot better if the general work environment wasn't what it is. Right now - if you want to work 30 hours a week, you won't get 75% of FT pay. You might get 50%, if you're lucky and no benefits and most likely less, unless you can grab an hourly based contract job with some upper and lower bounds on hours.

There's not much beyond a 1-2K cost associated with an ER room visit, compared to 100s of thousands for chronic disease care. What I'm suggesting is something between "we'll pay for everything" and "we'll pay for nothing" that can be budgeted for and improves everyone's general life without taxing them into oblivion. Feel free to suggest an alternative that doesn't result in 50+% tax rates. Or pick another percentage, it doesn't matter, certain chronic diseases have unlimited costs associated with them as they progress, and the quality of life rapidly goes down. For instance, aging (the ultimate chronic disease) can go into million $ plus treatments near the end, to prolong the "life" for another few minutes, hours, or days. Where do you stop treatment? Not stepping on the slippery slope at all, by stating we'll only treat known fixable issues caps potential costs, as those are relatively well known, and provides at least a base health care for all. It's doable and most importantly, more affordable than the current solution. It should have been what was implemented instead of Obamacare. IMHO.

My primary goal is to continue to bring in a living wage, as without it, there's not much of a life. That's only possible by accepting a job and working under its requirements today. Don't be obstinately dense.

And here's where the single provider payer model doesn't have to cover everything. It should just do basic / accident (ER) healthcare and palliative care. That will be a huge step up in coverage for most. Additional coverage would be private for chronic illnesses and the like, much like they are today. That limits the public exposure, reduces healthcare costs for everyone, and has little impact on those wishing private coverage. Adding additional rules preventing discrimination from signing up would be a bonus - ie, you just sign up for a class of coverage, and once signed up, you cannot be dropped.

Like keeping your job through the next layoff, where you'll be asked to work more hours?

I'd rather work less, at least when I work for someone else. When I work for me, work time takes on an entirely different meaning. Having FT work with health care benefits be 25-30 hours per week would be awesome (insert something here about how universal basic healthcare could enable this environment without costing employers) A 25 hour week (at reduced pay) would allow me to do a whole host of other activities should I so choose, without having to give up a living wage. I might even be more productive during those 25 hours than the normal 40 expected today.

Cancer is genes gone bad, more or less. Good stem cells can develop into cancer, but that's no more likely than their neighbors. I'd be a volunteer if I were in that position, because to me death or improvement would both be desirable in comparison to the GP posed situation. Others will most likely have different opinions.

ties are essentially convenient nooses for someone to grab.

Check your local copy of the Constitution - see anything in there about the government tracking your whereabouts? No? Interesting.

You do realize "NYT Best Seller" is for sale?

The fact that a publisher setting their own price on your market with the only requirement of that market being that it is equal to or lower than any other market you sell in seems perfectly fine. Apple is not setting a price, the publisher is free to set any price they want anywhere they want to sell. Amazon, however, is setting the price, regardless of what price you want to sell your product for.

In this case, I agree with the publishers, and Apple, and disagree with Amazon. Amazon had been brute forcing publishers to accept Amazon's set prices, not allowing publishers to set their own prices. Apple wanted to allow publishers to set their own prices. Think Walmart here, the same thing applies. Philosophically, Apple and the publishers are in the right. Amazon is abusing an effective monopoly position by saying "sell at our prices or hit the road". Apple said "sell at any price you want, as long as that price is equal to or less than the lowest price you sell elsewhere".