Search Results

I don't see what reasons he could bring up for not wanting to use Mediafire. It's a pretty reliable site and I haven't heard of many people having a problem with it. I do have Ubuntu installed on my laptop though so we might be able to get Ubuntu One to work. If, for some reason, we aren't able to though, I suggest talking with your dad about using Mediafire.

You could link it here. By the way, what's the resolution of your video and framerate? I'm kind of worried that the resolution would be too low and we would have to upscale the footage which would reduce the quality of it.

oh

he's back

yay?

Yeah, I've resorted to just writing everything up in LibreOffice first then copypasting to KHV. Much safer this way.

You see, this makes sense in theory but it seems that the opposite has happened in practice. As I mentioned earlier, France and various European countries are considered to have the best healthcare yet the unemployment rates of some of those countries are higher than the US's. The US has an unemployment rate of 8.3 while France and the European Union have an unemployment rate of 10.2 and 10.3 respectively. If those countries are able to make their healthcare system run well despite having a higher unemployment rate than the US then the US should be more than capable of doing the same. Especially when you consider the fact that the US has a much higher population than all of those countries and thus would have a larger labor force and thus more money going into the welfare system.

By the way, there are some parts of PPACA that are actually trying to improve the economy. The bill has already put these into effect so far. It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs, making for more competition in the market to drive down prices. It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare so drugs cost less. It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. The Congressional Budget Office even estimates that the health care law in its entirety would reduce the Federal budget deficit over the next decade.

And to address a point that you made earlier about physicians losing the economic incentive to do their best and being able to do just the bare minimum. Apparently after 2015, the act will make a physician's pay be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat.

I'm personally a fan of ethical hedonism/utilitarianism so I personally define ethical treatment as “the course of action which brings the most happiness, pleasure, well-being or good to the most people. To maximize the good and minimize the bad is the most desirable course of action”. So I concede that forcing a physician into interacting with others is unethical since it would increase his “suffering” in a sense but I also find it unethical to leave a person to handle a “dispute” that they are incapable of winning despite one being able to help them because one has chosen the path that leads to more suffering for that person without a justifiable reason to do so.

Also I'd like to add that the last sentence of that first paragraph confused me for so much time. And it was because you used "not to" instead of "to not" which really really fucked up with the flow of the sentence and made it sound weird in my head. As for your argument, while the first would be considered unethical since it leads to the suffering of one person, I would only consider it to be unethical if a person is perfectly capable of feeding and helping that person and then decides not to without a reason to justify it. The second one isn't unethical though because you aren't making that person experience suffering. And honestly if they feel suffering from not having sex then they need help anyway.

Could you please go into more depth about how it would hurt the physicians who want to work in the private sector?

You die. Simple as that. But not everybody is you. If there were a way to treat their condition, more often than not, a person would choose to receive treatment.

You do realize that the ability to pay out of your pocket won't disappear just because health insurance has become more affordable, right? In my country, Brazil, we have both public and private healthcare systems and both seem to work fine together. One time I had to take an x-ray for my orthodontist but when I went to get the results, I was told that there was apparently some complication with my health insurance provider and that I would have to get into contact with them before I could get the x-ray. But the problem was that I needed those x-rays now. So I just asked if I could pay out of my pocket and there were like “Sure”. No problem with that whatsoever. I would assume that the same would apply in the US. In the end, as long as things are getting paid, I don't see how the problem you stated would arise. Has the money suddenly lost its value?

The tax for not wanting health insurance is a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, a fee of 1% from what I've read which is relatively small when it comes to taxes to my knowledge, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it and there will be help in the form of rebates or subsidies to help those people. I would assume that if a person doesn't want health insurance, then they would have the money to pay for healthcare when they actually needed it.

You have provided no evidence that shows that people will need health insurance to receive healthcare. That is purely speculative and quite the opposite happens across the world. If you can find actual evidence of that happening then please provide it. Even then it'd probably more of an exception than the rule.

WAGA ARU G!

HOW COULD YOU!? ; ~ ;

Gotta feel sorry for the Lancers in this series.

Dear god, I almost lost this post by accidentally closing the tab. Thank god for auto-save. I was on the verge of tears. ; _ ;

You say that the economic incentive to do just the bare minimum will rise since their pay is guaranteed. Okay that is a legitimate worry. But let's look at other healthcare system. France, for example, spends 11.7 per cent of GDP, or $4,000 per capita, according to 2009 World Health Organization figures. The US spends 16.2 per cent of its GDP on health care, or $7,400 per capita. Yet France was ranked higher than the US by the World Health Organization in quality, efficiency, acceptability, and equity and its healthcare is considered the best in the world. And over 75% of the healthcare is of the public sector. This article on the French healthcare system even states that there is no significant difference between the public and private sector in France. Even the countries from 2nd to 36th place spend less the US and some of them even spend less than France yet they are still considered better than the US.

I should also add that a physician doesn't get a full license to practice medicine unsupervised until he has completed 1 or 2 years of his residency so he has faced "market factors" when he gets to practice it unsupervised. In most countries, physicians are also expected to stay up to date on the current happenings of medicine and are often reviewed by a board to see if they are still capable of performing their jobs.

The obligation to help a fellow human being would in itself be a positive ethical thing. Helping others solve their dilemmas is not unethical. On the contrary, it is a positive ethical factor because it serves to establish something quite like the fraternal bond between fellow human beings, which is the basis of positive ethical behaviour by its definition of fairness, equality, helping others, etc.

As for the second part of your argument, I'm a little confused. If somebody who can perform the procedure doesn't want to then they don't have to. Let's just hope that they don't expect their paycheck anytime soon or, if they're working for a hospital, expect to still have their job.

As I said earlier, I don't see what's wrong with having others aid you. One of our biological imperatives is to form groups. A human being as an individual is imperfect and we cannot always do everything by themselves, especially in regards to physical medicine. You have been diagnosed with lung cancer. Now tell me how you're going to treat yourself by yourself. Good luck.

Yes, the bill is forcing everyone, although not everybody technically since you can be exempt from the bill for religious beliefs or financial hardship, to buy health insurance, and the government has the right to levy a small tax on those who don't(Only an estimated 1 percent of the population will face the tax though – a tax that maxes out at 1 percent). But by doing this, it becomes cheaper for everyone since the cost is split.

Could you please clarify what you mean when you say "the incentives to excellence are gone when payment is ensured regardless of individual failures" by giving an example. I think I understand what you mean but it'd be best for you to clarify then for me to assume and probably be wrong.

As for your question as to whether there is a more rigorous selection process, I don't know if there is one. The process for getting a license for most physicians in the US actually takes between 3 to 6 months due to the extensive background checks, educational, training, and historical primary source verification which are required so it isn't exactly soft.

You seem to have misunderstood what I said. I never said that we should feel obligated to interfere. If a person doesn't want help, then I will not give it to them. I will feel sorry for them but one life's and one's body is one's own and they shall do with it whatever they want. But isn't it just as unethical to leave a person to die even if they don't want to and help can be provided but unfortunately the price tag is far too high for them to pay and thus help is declined.

People are already being forced to pay for continuing their own existence. Medicine has a price tag and it isn't cheap. This bill just makes continuing their existence much more affordable for everybody. And I personally don't see how people relying on others for their own health is a bad thing. A human being as an individual is imperfect and cannot always do everything by themselves, especially in regards to physical medicine. You cannot diagnose yourself with a myocardial infraction and administer appropriate treatment, can you?

What are you going to get a tattoo of? Still planning on getting that Triforce tattoo?

You'll be 18. 8'D

We can finally make that porno-*shot*

Ha ha ha

Okay I'll just provide a counterexample to hypothesis. Here's the World Health Organization's ranking of health systems. The first twenty countries on that list all provide public healthcare. Some of those countries in the Top 20 also have the highest life expectancy in the world as well. Now notice where the US is on that list. 37th place. Now if all of these countries have "lost the economic incentives to seek excellence" then explain how their health care systems are still better than the US's health care system which has only lost that incentive relatively recently.

Because obviously people who suffer from illnesses but unfortunately can't afford to pay for the treatment should be left to die.

Mind sharing whatever it is you're on?

Don't worry. The second phase won't start until next week most likely.

The time limit for tracks will be determined once we find out how many people are interested in participating. Last year the time limit for each track was around 45 seconds. Although we weren't very strict with it since we let a few people go over the limit if it wasn't too much.

Uhhh, I know we've just met but here's my number. Call me sometime?

I wanna put my thingy into your thingy.

;D

On a scale of 1 to Misty, how hipster are yo-*shot*

It is futile. The moderators alone cannot lock this thread of spam. Kingdom Hearts! Fill me...WITH THE POWER OF SPAM!

I think Manliest Man will have some competition this year.