Yes, but you go to America to BUY procedures. The system is set up so that the wealthy are fine, but those poorer are shafted.
Healthcare is always open to other financial elements - look at all the Brits who go to Eastern Europe for cheaper dental care. But the baseline should be that prevention is better than cure, and support for most stuff should be available to nearly everyone, as much as possible.
Also, taking an economic view, government-controlled healthcare allws the buyer (the government) to really force down drug/equipment/service costs. Of course, this is somewhat offset by bureaucratic inefficiency, but overall it seems to help - and it fosters and is fostered by a culture of 'we are here to help', not 'we are here to profit'.
That's why most of the Western world has government-subsidised 'insurance'. That covers most stuff. You just buy your own if you want fast treatment, or your own hotel (sorry, hospital) room.
The US system seems to do it backwards, primarily for the financial benefit of the 'insurance' companies, the pharma/meditech companies, and all-too many doctors.
Given that science works by convincing people of evidence, which AGM has done in that time frame to everyone who isn't a Tory/Republican, shouldn't we at least treat it as a possibility? Climate change happens - we have historical evidence. Whether we can change the climate, and whether we should or not, we need to know more about the science in case Nature changes it for us. Unless you are a Raptard who thinks that some sky fairy will protect us/save us, we need to be ready ourselves, whether it's preventing or mitigating some natural catastrophe. Look at the records of what happened after Krakatoa, and extrapolate to the modern day. What happens if Yellowstone blows, or the San Andreas? Knowing the science better and accepting that yes, we /can/ change the environment is important and shouldn't be denigrated.
And that's only if AGM doesn't happen, or is miniscule. What if it isn't? Where do we bring the precautionary principle in? Certainly in Europe, that's why GM crops are so unpopular - many people feel that it has been proven to their satisfaction that these are 'safe'.
Wasn't the same Tory/Republican denialism seen about financial deregulation "nonsense, nothing bad can come from deregulating banks"? These are the same people who love their favourite banks/maga-corps/politicians to make billions screwing over people, then whine when some scientists might want to make some money to help the world.
Plus more troops than we have in Afghanistan, plus....
Ugh. How to get a police state without anyone noticing. Bread and circuses, literally.
On a lighter note, I was amused at seeing someone's comment that their mother was praying to remove the 'evil influences of Zeus' when the Olympic torch went past. Was Zeus the main deity of the original Olympics?
I like how they get from 'just over one in four' (25+2%) to the much further 'nearly one in three' (33-6%). Why not go the whole hog and say that 40% = 'nearly everyone'?
I love how your argument is to rail against the (non-existent) censorship of a stupid post that adds nothing to the conversation (much like your post), but that you really can't add anything meaningful more than "BSA rool, CCIA suk, rah!"
Re: Re: Special situation
She's just showing the rest how it should be done.
Now, if she charged minimal amounts, she could become a publisher all by herself...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BBC Porn
Yum...
...and euuuuuwww!
Why should it have to be a parent? How about someone a bit more... experienced? :)
Re: Re: Re: Re: obviously
Yes, but you go to America to BUY procedures. The system is set up so that the wealthy are fine, but those poorer are shafted.
Healthcare is always open to other financial elements - look at all the Brits who go to Eastern Europe for cheaper dental care. But the baseline should be that prevention is better than cure, and support for most stuff should be available to nearly everyone, as much as possible.
Also, taking an economic view, government-controlled healthcare allws the buyer (the government) to really force down drug/equipment/service costs. Of course, this is somewhat offset by bureaucratic inefficiency, but overall it seems to help - and it fosters and is fostered by a culture of 'we are here to help', not 'we are here to profit'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BBC Porn
I'd go for Number 10 (clone) with Rose...
Re: Re: Re: BBC Porn
Didn't she already snog two of the Doctors? (Ok, one was in another show, but... :)
Re: Re: Re: obviously
I think that needs a mural of Adam Smith weeping.
Re: Re: Re: Business Opportunity
And +1 to you for that!
Although you could call it porn, if you consider classic age-style 'hard' Sci-fi to be pr0n for techies...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: obviously
That's why most of the Western world has government-subsidised 'insurance'. That covers most stuff. You just buy your own if you want fast treatment, or your own hotel (sorry, hospital) room.
The US system seems to do it backwards, primarily for the financial benefit of the 'insurance' companies, the pharma/meditech companies, and all-too many doctors.
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
Makes me curious what the game was, to have such devotion!
Re: Why are we condemning the voter's children to a CO2 death? Why?
Given that science works by convincing people of evidence, which AGM has done in that time frame to everyone who isn't a Tory/Republican, shouldn't we at least treat it as a possibility? Climate change happens - we have historical evidence. Whether we can change the climate, and whether we should or not, we need to know more about the science in case Nature changes it for us. Unless you are a Raptard who thinks that some sky fairy will protect us/save us, we need to be ready ourselves, whether it's preventing or mitigating some natural catastrophe. Look at the records of what happened after Krakatoa, and extrapolate to the modern day. What happens if Yellowstone blows, or the San Andreas? Knowing the science better and accepting that yes, we /can/ change the environment is important and shouldn't be denigrated.
And that's only if AGM doesn't happen, or is miniscule. What if it isn't? Where do we bring the precautionary principle in? Certainly in Europe, that's why GM crops are so unpopular - many people feel that it has been proven to their satisfaction that these are 'safe'.
Wasn't the same Tory/Republican denialism seen about financial deregulation "nonsense, nothing bad can come from deregulating banks"? These are the same people who love their favourite banks/maga-corps/politicians to make billions screwing over people, then whine when some scientists might want to make some money to help the world.
Re: Re: If you think we have problems now, just wait...
Bah, on Helliconia the winters last *much* longer. Puny Earthlings!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
Yes, but that's an issue of being accused of being a criminal with no trial.
The main point, that a DoS is structually the same as a redirect, i.e. your business is hurt (unfairly), still holds.
Both are worth debating and fighting abuses of.
Re: Re: Re: Climate Engineering
Please feel free to go into a room with 50% CO2 and 50% Oxygen and tell me how 'unpolluted' you feel.
Re:
Plus more troops than we have in Afghanistan, plus....
Ugh. How to get a police state without anyone noticing. Bread and circuses, literally.
On a lighter note, I was amused at seeing someone's comment that their mother was praying to remove the 'evil influences of Zeus' when the Olympic torch went past. Was Zeus the main deity of the original Olympics?
Re:
I like how they get from 'just over one in four' (25+2%) to the much further 'nearly one in three' (33-6%). Why not go the whole hog and say that 40% = 'nearly everyone'?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's just be blunt about this
I love how your argument is to rail against the (non-existent) censorship of a stupid post that adds nothing to the conversation (much like your post), but that you really can't add anything meaningful more than "BSA rool, CCIA suk, rah!"
Re: Re: Re: Governments
Unless you are sharing your ill-gotten gains with your family, in which case...
Re: Cyber Bullying
Isn't this just another form of 'cyber'-bullying? You are only allowed to 'participate' online if you are RL identifiable?
Re: Nope no bias at all here
Not 'conservative' like the redneck 'slave' states, anyway :)
Re: Re: Automating filtering
But... but... the profits!1!!