Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
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:Idea (Score 3, Interesting) 404

You don't have any idea what you're talking about. Many industrial scale cattle, swine and chicken operations use subtherapeutic doses of antibiotics in feed as a growth enhancing technique. Over 70% of all antibiotics used in teh US are used in agriculture, and the vast majority of those are used in feed, and subtherapeutic doses are the problem. The ag CAFOs are where many of these bugs get a toehold.

Tyson chicken, Smithfield pork, all the big operators use antibiotics in feed. Look it up.

Comment Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless (Score 1) 339

"No. I just wish they paid more taxes."

Well, then it appears you're uninformed. If you tax cap gains at a higher rate, you make it less likely that people will exercise a sale due to high tax pain, which in this case means it'd be more likely that the 4.x billion dollars that S&B will have to spend and invest ways would never make it into the economy. Perhaps S&B will use the $4bn funding the next Google, or the 21st century's version of Jonas Salk, or maybe it's as simple as providing work for a few thousand people who will build homes and aircraft for them. Maybe they'll use it to fund a new source of clean energy. Unsold, the paper wealth would just sit there on a balance sheet doing nothing - the economy would not see the 4.x billion, and the federal govt would not see the $825 million while S&B wait for a more hospitable tax environment.

Would you want that to happen just to see your pound of flesh extracted? You should be appreciative of the 15% cap gain rate, not the reverse.

Comment Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless (Score 1) 339

"Er... no. The profits will be taxed as capital gains. The top capital gains rate is 15 percent I believe, and there's no social security or medicare tax on capital gains. So they'll pay tax at a considerably lower rate than someone who works at McDonald's"

Yes, but if they worked at McDonalds there would be no Google, and if there were no Google the federal govt wouldn't be getting 15% of the sale of Sergey and Brin's $5.5Bn of Google stock, or $825 million.

Don't you wish they worked at McDonalds?

Comment Re:global warming heretic (Score 0) 95

"Yeah, sure, nothing tells us better about the effects of human activity on Earth than looking at something that human activity cannot affect high in the sky."

Translation: Looking at the sun for clues about earth climate cycles and change can produce no helpful argument for imposition of global command economy, so stop looking up there.

Comment Re:First Nuclear Weapon Equipped Post (Score 3, Insightful) 416

Well, it isn't only GWB - Jimmy Carter, too, mispronounced the word in the exact same fashion. The difference is that while Bush was never associated with nuclear powerplants or propulsion in any way, the same cannot be said of Carter, as he was in the middle of U.S. Navy nuclear powerplant operator training when his father died, an event which caused Carter to resign his Navy commission. In other words, Bush may have consistently mangled the word, and that's bad, but not nearly as bad as Carter mangling it when he most certainly knew better and should have had the habit knocked out by Rickover's crew. Carter's the bigger dolt in this case.

Comment Re:Easy alternative (Score 1) 366

When I'm in my best shape, meaning very little fat, good muscle tone and good endurance capability, I weigh between 175lbs and 180lbs. I'm 5'7" tall. Six foot, 200lb people are not necessarily overweight, they may have much more natural muscle mass than others. Your BMI charts have never applied to the entirety of the population.

Comment Re:Peppy (Score 1) 418

"And why do so many Americans come to Canada and lie to get basic medical treatment?"

Because you give it away for "free"? I don't agree with that practice, scumbags exist.

"And here's the kicker: Our Socialized medicine will pay for Canadians to go to the US for these treatments when they aren't offered here."

So you lament the fact that individuals from the US scam your system to get "free" health care, but you have no problems with the fact that your system appears to be designed to keep costs in check by sponging off the more robust health care apparatus in the US? That's pretty rich. What will you do when some American bureaucrat decides to cut the treatments you get in the US? You'll go without, that's what. Sounds great!

Comment Re:Peppy (Score 1) 418

"No single country has the best treatment for all diseases. Rich Americans often leave the US to seek treatment in other countries."

It is quite rare for Americans to seek medical care abroad and typically it only occurs when the Federal government has failed to recognize or authorize a specific type of treatment for use in the US, not because the quality of care is questionable, and certainly not because the timeliness of the care is a problem. Conversely, Canadians often seek care in the US precisely due to quality and timeliness problems in Canada. My former boss, who is a native of Montreal, was so fed up with the poor care and long waits his mother was experiencing with her breast cancer care in Canada that he brought her down to Pittsburgh to be treated. The oncology departments in Montreal are second rate, understaffed, and underfunded. And that is a direct result of the Canadian socialized system. It's sad that socialized medicine, which is usually brought into being under the guise of compassion, ends up causing avoidable suffering.

While not Canada, I have some experience with and understanding of the socialized health care milieu in the UK. There are entities there which are set up expressly for the purpose of lobbying government lawmakers and bureaucrats in an attempt to get them to authorize treatments and drugs. This happens in any country, but in the UK new therapies are routinely rejected solely based on cost, with the result being that, if you're not able to afford private care, you're not getting those treatments no matter how effective they are because some government bean counter had decided it's not worth it.

Granted, US insurance companies refuse to pay for drugs or procedures in some cases, but the key point here is that Americans can choose another insurance plan to get the type of care and access to treatments they desire. Under single payer, socialized medicine, a person only has options if they're wealthy. Normal folk are at the mercy of the bureaucrat hack.

"When scheduling a procedure more than 2 days in advance you can basically go to any hospital in the world."

This assertion is simply untrue. Ask suffering Canadians on waiting lists to get hemorrhoid surgery if they can call their local hospital and request surgery in 2 days.

"The real problem is not the peek quality of the US healthcare system it's all the gap's which kill people."

We in America may have 40 million without health care insurance, but if you discount illegal immigrants, young, healthy people who decide to spend their money elsewhere, and the stupid, the number becomes relatively small. The uninsured argument is a canard that's artfully used by the left to promote attacks on the free market.

Comment Re:Peppy (Score 1) 418

If the Canadian health care system doesn't have a piss-poor record regarding waiting lists and unavailable procedures, why do so many Canadians visit US hospitals for treatment? The good old American hospitality? The "fact" is that wealthy people in countries w/ socialized health care find a way to opt out and get decent care elsewhere - from private health care providers if they are allowed by the govt, or from private providers abroad if they don't. And they opt out because they know that with a single payer system comes qualitative and quantitative decline. In the end it's only those who are not wealthy who need to deal with the mediocrity (or worse) that invariably arrives with socialized medicine.

The insidiousness of socialized medicine (or socialized anything) is that no matter how terrible the results may be, once it's implemented it is almost impossible to do away with. Look at the massive Ponzi scheme that is American Social Security for an apt example.

Comment Re:Peppy (Score 1) 418

Why bother explaining it to them, Shadow? Their worldview is so ass-backwards you'll never make any headway. We'll just have to sit back and watch until enough of them have had to wait for months or years for a medical procedure they can get on-demand now for them to come around. Canadians facing long waits or poor care have an option now, they can come to the US for treatment, and they do. When we socialize our healthcare, there'll be no place for us to go. We're about to taste a gigantic shit sandwich.

Comment Re:Tax breaks for the rich? (Score 1) 260

I realize you were referring to business tax, but the amount of income taxes I pay exceeds the amount I pay per year for my own "infrastructure", namely, my housing, vehicle, insurance and clothing. I don't believe that paying the federal government more than I pay for a nice, 12y/o, 3bdrm ranch style on 2 acres of land, decent car, and passable wardrobe can be considered a worthy "investment" by any stretch of the imagination. It's just way beyond BS.

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce