Of course they should be free to sell it. There are research opportunities all over the place to do this, and I don't mind that one bit. The difference is they don't have police pulling you over to ask.
It's not anonymous. It has your DNA on it, which uniquely identifies you.
They aren't the same people. I wouldn't buy into it, and I've never been stoned, and am almost a non-drinker. I would just find getting pulled over and being asked for a cheek swab to be a bizarre and highly intrusive request.
I'd really like to hear from someone who was pulled over and refused to participate. If that was they end of it and they were allowed to drive away, it's still an abuse of power to have police stopping people to ask them to participate in a research study, but it's less bad than coercing people into participating.
Ford wouldn't have paid investors for losing money on their stock either. Nor should they. Do you think the government would have given GM the money had they profited? Of course not. Why do you think it should go the other way?
Pretty soon, the argument about whether you have in any given facet of your life a "reasonable expectation of privacy" may take on a whole new meaning.
No, it absolutely will not. People need to get through their heads that just because your rights are violated, that doesn't mean expecting them not to be becomes unreasonable. If someone breaks into your house every day, it doesn't become "reasonable" for them to do so, or unreasonable for you to expect people to stay out of your house.
The logic espoused by the quoted idea is the same as saying if police were to start strip searching everyone without cause, it would be reasonable simply because it always happens.
Not sure why this was modded down. It's a simple econ question.
If virtually no one is willing to buy, then people who want or need to sell have to offer a price that the people who ARE willing to buy will pay. In other words, the price falls.
Says who, exactly?
Why? Because the entire nation is obsessed with that very issue now, and it's relevant. Sure, he has enough money that he could pay for his dad's care for the rest of MY lifetime, but that's not the point. $8,000/month wasted is $8,000/month wasted.
If this came from the traditional medical, you would have to go to a doctor who would release the results to your insurance company, it would cost about $1000, and you wouldn't even get to see the results yourself unless the doctor wanted to show you something.
Nope. My test results are reported in full on my medical record, which I have access to. I usually get my results within hours of them leaving the lab. For imaging studies, I usually get a copy on CD if I want it. In one case, they told me I'd have to go to medical records and pay $10. At least in my part of the medical world, the days when doctors knew everything and told you what they thought you should know seem to be gone.
If I were the US Government, I wouldn't bother about shutting off the Internet, I'd bother about getting people to stop attaching critical infrastructure to it. The internet is not and was never designed to be a secure network. It's a lot more like a common sewer.
The 0.051 is annual failure rate (12 months, not 18), so your survival rate should be
I would provide low interest loans, secured by a lien against the house
And that's where you lose me. No thanks, I'm not taking out a small loan if failing to pay it back means I lose my house.
Also, this is great: "Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love."
I'm going to use that.
That depends very much on what kind of health care you need.
This is something people persistently misunderstand. Insurance doesn't decrease your average expected costs. It increases them. It's value is that it also smoothes them.
Imagine a population of 1000 people. The only disease is cancer. One person, on average, gets it every year. It costs $250,000 to treat. The average cost of health care, then, is $250. Everyone can choose to be uninsured, and assuming that one person doesn't have $250,000 lying around, one person drops dead every year.
If everyone is insured, then they have to kick in $250/year to cover the predicted cost of treatment. Oh, but there's overhead costs. Employees of the insurance company don't work for free. Records have to be kept, etc. Also, no one is going to bother to run an insurance company if there isn't some profit in it, so figure really everyone kicks in $300 or so.
You're trading an unlikely, but ruinous cost for a certain but bearable cost.