Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Tradeoffs (Score 1) 604

If you think a lawyer (using this occupation as a placeholder) in Mississippi and a lawyer in New York don't have largely similar standards of living when compared to lawyers in the rest of the world, then we are both using English but not using the same language.

You were talking about free trade in the post that I replied to. You seemed to imply that you find it acceptable, within the context of the EU, because the member-states have similar standards of living and labor laws. This is false. As I said, we do not even have similar standards of living and labor laws within the United States. Indeed, a lot of corporations go out of their way to locate their facilities within so-called "right to work" States, where wages are lower and the legal balance is tilted more in the employer's favor.

The same trend has been happening for years within the EU. Most of the Nokia phones I purchased over the years were made in Romania. Why? Wages are cheaper there than they are in Finland. Romania is the South Carolina of the EU and Nokia moved production there for the same reasons that Boeing built their new plant in South Carolina rather than Washington.

You're right to say that a lawyer in Mississippi will have a similar standard of living to a lawyer in New York. He may even have it better; he'll make less money than the New York lawyer, but the cost of living is significantly cheaper, so much so that he may effectively be richer than his New York counterpart. That doesn't change the fact that New York has it better when we look at average metrics, things like educational attainment, life expectancy, obesity rates, etc. And if we want to talk about labor laws and regulations, well, there's no contest between the Northeast and the Gulf Coast.

Comment Re: Lesson 1 (Score 1) 231

Right, why should men have to subsidize maternity care? Why should women have to subsidize prostate exams? hint: that's how insurance pools work.

So, the pool of people who are planning to have kids should pay for itself. There are millions of them. The pool of people who are biologically incapable of having kids are at zero risk of incurring that cost, and shouldn't pay for the risk of an occurrence that cannot happen. Women who cannot have children are not in the pool of women who will experience the cost giving birth. Are you foggy on that, somehow?

Sounds like you should have just gone with the "no coverage" option.

But you've just been explaining to me how affordable and reasonable and good it all is. Why the change of heart?

Comment Re:"Green" technologies aren't sufficient. (Score 1) 205

not because they think it's genuinely the optimal solution for any real world problem

Three words: Base load power.

Even the most optimistic assessment of solar and wind do not envision them as a replacement for the base load. I'm only aware of two carbon-neutral sources for base load power: nuclear and hydro. The latter doesn't have much room left for growth, certainly not enough to replace coal and natural gas, so what does that leave you with?

Frankly, I don't see how anyone that accepts anthropological climate change can be against nuclear power. If you believe the impact of climate change to be as bad as many say it will be then the economics of nuclear power are irrelevant. It's a necessary investment to bring down carbon emissions.

Comment Re: Lesson 1 (Score 2) 231

We have a plan for two people. Our state approved, ACA-mandated plan has a deductible of $13,100 - just for two people. Add children to that, and you're quickly much higher. That is NOT catastrophic insurance (on paper, anyway) - it's the Obamacare law that requires (say, in our case) people in their 50's to pay for full maternity insurance, drug treatment and mental health coverage whether we need or want it. There is zero chance of us having a baby now or in the future. Why are we required to buy coverage for that? Because the Democrats decided to charge a tax, and that's how they disguised it.

Our rates have gone up over 50% per year every year since the ACA went into effect. Up 70% for 2017, and government says they expect next year (2018) to see another increase of close to 90% again. That's how they get around the "out of pocket" limits - by hugely increasing the monthly premiums, which are VERY MUCH out of pocket, but which don't get you a dime of actual health care. And no, "preventative care" is not covered. You get things like simple blood tests one a year (for which you pay part of the visit, and the lab costs), but of course no treatment of any kind - preventative or otherwise - is ever included in that. The ONLY thing that would be completely covered without requiring the deductible, is child birth. How's that for hilarious.

Comment Re:"We're" loosing it? (Score 1) 234

Doesn't that directly lead to the conclusion that power should be decentralized? If people are fallible, then fallible people should not be allowed to exert authority over others' choices -- except when there's an absolutely necessary, critical need, along with substantial procedural safeguards.

In short: government should be humble and hands-off in ordinary situations. Because people make mistakes, and they shouldn't be empowered to force those mistakes on others.

Comment Re: Lesson 1 (Score 2) 231

Nope instead your insurance premiums will continue to cover other people's bills. You know, since that's how all insurance works.

But that's not how Obamacare works, at least not for millions of middle-class people who are self employed or run small businesses and actually have to write a check every month. Their premiums have gone up hundreds of percent, and many no longer have the cash to go visit the doctor ... but because a small family might have a deductible of $20,000 ... they get no healthcare unless it's catastrophic, and they're still wiped out. For millions of people who WERE buying insurance and able to write a check to the doctor, they no longer can. The ACA is the Healthcare Prevention Act, but it certainly does work as the Democrats intended - a massive new tax that distributes middle class income to other people to buy votes.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Only a brain-damaged operating system would support task switching and not make the simple next step of supporting multitasking." -- George McFry

Working...