There also needs to be the option of, "I believe the science, I believe it to be catastrophic, I believe it to be a significant threat that requires the investment of trillions, but I don't think what you're planning to spend that money on will actually solve the problem"
One example from a close friend that has practiced in both the US and Canada. In Canada he sends a patient to central radiology to get a MRI scan, there the hospitals 2 MRI scanners run nearly around the clock to maximize their use. 3 days later he gets the results back (life threatening conditions like cancer rarely need to wait for a scan). In the US, rather than see another patient, he had to go down to the scanner room and look over the MRI techs shoulder (adding zero value) so they can bill insurance for a "doctor supervised MRI scan". All the while the MRI machine in the cancer center runs at maybe 20% capacity because god forbid they use one of the 5 machines at the hospital next door which are only used maybe 30% of the time because the paperwork would be a nightmare and they'd have to share the insurance money with the hospital.
While a particular hospital in the US may have better outcomes for cancer, heart disease or stroke. Outcomes for the general population are no better in the US (and in fact worse in many cases) at a much higher cost. The rich often come to the US because they can afford Cedar Sinai or the Mayo Clinic (or other world leading institutions), Joe Shmoe gets Grand Forks General which is probably worse than what they'd get at home.
3 weeks? An oncologist friend of mine in Canada has taken in patients within 3 days of diagnosis depending on the nature and severity of the cancers.
He did try briefly to practice in the US and was discusted with what he saw. The cancer center he was looking at in Boston had its own MRI machine that was used a quarter of the time, while the hospital attached to it had 2 more MRIs that were used a third of the time. When he asked why not just use 1 MRI for everyone and save several million dollars, they looked at him as if he were crazy. They also wanted him to supervise every MRI scan as a "Doctor supervised" MRI scan is charged to insurance at a much higher rate than a regular one, a it looked good to the patient. A total waste of his time as he was neither a radiologist it MRI technician
Fantastic straw man, no where has anyone claimed that "all" the voters thought there would be no consequences. However its fairly well documented that a significant number of voters did not understand the full implications of their choice. Enough to change the outcome? who knows, and its irrelevant as the vote has been cast and the UK has to deal with the consequences one way or another
Yes you can, however the trading regime will be completely different and whole new sets of trade agreements will have to be negotiated. This is a multi-year process, full of uncertainties, and requiring both sides to agree on things and requiring various conditions to be met. If I were a large multi-national looking to deploy capital, the uncertainty about the Brexit would lead me to steer far away and invest elsewhere.
I don't think there is anything in wanting this, however to think that it can be achieved without consequence is foolish. The UK in its current form is tightly integrated into the EU and the health of its economy is dependent on trade. The pro-Brexit champions were just as aware of this as anyone.
Firstly, it's estimated at 30% off the $62M list price, so ~$40M. Secondly, the latest version of Soyuz (Soyuz 2) can carry 8,200 kg to LEO, while the Falcon 9 can carry 22,800 kg (almost 3 times as much). Lastly, the price of a Soyuz 2 isn't $20 million ( that's about the price of a single tourist seat on a Soyuz capsule), list price for a Soyuz 2 is $60M--$70M. So 3 times the payload for 30% less cost
That's not my experience, and not only did I work on contract for several years, my wife works on contract, and several of my friends work on contract (all in technology). I've also hired and used contractors on many projects. In none of these cases were benefits provided. That's typically one of the advantages of using contractors (easy to hire, easy to let go, but you pay a premium for that flexibility)
As well Cisco just released its quarterly earnings and is taking a $700 million provision to cover these layoffs (severance and other one-time termination benefits)
The article refers to employees not contractors. Contractors don't get severance or benefits (and are generally compensated better), but employees most definitely do (particularly at companies like Cisco)