The publication is NPR so that it is US news goes somewhat without saying. However, this is something that Americans need to understand is exceptional for a nation of its resources.
So what is the solution? More than 42% went all in with the constraint being their personal assets. If that constraint was lifted, then what would the next constraint be? Obviously the additional assets would come from other people, and probably not voluntarily (which is a different issue), but what would be the limiting factor then? Also, I assume the new pool of assets would be available not just to the 42% that were willing to put all of their own in but to the remaining 58% as well. The US may be a nation of relatively high resources, but they aren't infinite. What do the rules look like for this in other nations?
How about if we have a single entity who pays doctors and hospitals fair and reasonable rates, we fire hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats we don't need, and we fund it all out of general revenues, saving roughly 2 trillion dollars per year, while at the same time improving life expectancy and other health outcomes?
You're assuming that the costs are fixed, and that the only issue is when we decide to stop spending.
An alternative is that the costs AREN'T fixed - that a significant portion of the money involved goes to costs that aren't actually costs of the heath care itself. This could be insurance overhead (all the people to manage the paperwork to get approval for the work ultimately adds to bill I have to pay), inflated costs (for those without insurance, or dealing with things insurance won't/has stopped covering, the habit of hospitals to raise their base rates so they can then offer a discount to insurance companies hits them full on), market weaknesses (A lot has been written about how non-transparent the market is, meaning it's basically impossible to shop for good care at a good price), etc.
If a new splanch transplant (made up numbers here) ultimately costs $10,000 in the UK and $100,000 in the US (regardless of whether that is paid directly by me or indirectly via taxes), then the issue is different than what you've highlighted.
>What do the rules look like for this in other nations?
In Austria we pay a "Sozialversicherungsbeitrag"/social security with each month's pay. Your employer also chips in part of it. I don't even know how much it is percent-wise.
It is really not that hard. You just go the doctor / hospital when you NEED it. Because that's the important thing: health care is a need, nobody likes being sick or injured and having a system where people end up bankrupt to pay for their medical bills ist just stupid.
No matter the philosophical arguments against taxes and state-power, it's cruel and stupid and it's astonishing that a country that considers itself "the greatest nation" is actually run like this in the 21st century.
Ok, but how does this relate to the problem in this post. If I get cancer in Austria, do I spend all my money first and when that's gone, how much more is spent? Or do I only spend some of my money first (or maybe none), but still, how much gets spent on me - what constrains it?
Death, the next constraint would be death. If the patient doesn't get better, they don't just keep piling up bills forever, eventually the Cancer kills them.
The socialization of the insurance market puts the citizens paying at the mercy of the healthcare industry.
Wouldn't it make more sense to socialize the healthcare industry itself? Our tax dollars pay for much of the education and hospitals. Are we entitled to ownership?
This may be the same issue as is seen in crop pesticides. The practitioners don’t trust the science and try to play it safe by adding more than is advised.
That could mean a lot of things. Are you saying that they look dead, fused with another cat, drastically younger, attacked by an interdimensional monster, cloned or are the evil alternate reality version of themselves?
The moderators have a long-standing bias towards the political right. A black man with a PhD in Mathematics is not allowed to speak out about systemic racism on Hacker News.
I know how obvious it seems that the bias is against you, but that's mostly because you (i.e. any of us) are 1000x more likely to notice cases you dislike or disagree with.
Your handling of this comment section was irresponsible. If you cannot handle this responsibility you should ban submissions and comments dealing with any and all social issues and allow only technical discussion. You have allowed a hateful element to silence a voice that spoke truth to power by making simple observations about how mathematicians handle race over a course of decades. The moderation of this submission was unreasonable and discompassionate.
Edit: To my brigader bot, I am responding directly to a moderator. I want him to read this comment. Flagging it immediately after I post is actually helpful. Downvoting it only helps to prove my point.
To be honest I'm having a hard time orienting to your complaint here. The only thing I remember about the thread is banning someone who commented from (I think?) the opposite side to yours, so if anything I'd expect the bias accusation to run the other way.
If you think we made a mistake in the thread, it'd be more helpful to post (or email us) a link and point out the specific mistake. Rote denunciations don't help us correct anything, and general accusations like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19195885 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19194629 don't add information, because you're simply not working with an accurate picture of what we do. I understand how that happens, but there isn't much in it I can learn from.
My complaint from the beginning was that you stifled conversation by detaching this thread and because every comment is flagged and downvoted automatically you have allowed those who are afraid of this type of discussion to sabotage any submission they dislike. You caved to the brigade instead of acting as a responsible moderator. The ranking algorithm and the moderation policies are too crude for this type of submission. It would be more responsible to disallow them entirely.
This is an interesting and innovative approach. It is essentially a grey hat operation carried out by the government to raise individual awareness about cybersecurity. Considering that the article mentions a "constitutional right to privacy" I'm assuming that citizens would have significant recourse if one were to prove that one's data were leaked. It is ethically dubious but as an American whose phone calls can be tapped at any time without a warrant I am open to the idea that it is time for radical measures to improve privacy.
Have you ever had a device responding to ping that documentation says runs an old version of Windows NT, while the last version was released 10 years ago, and you have no idea where the machine is physically located?
I could imagine a lot of businesses will open a closet to find the source of that infernal beeping, and discover a computer they forgot about.
By that logic Apple's Retina displays would be worse than non-Retina displays. Down-sampling decreases eye strain and makes the image smoother. It is only an issue when dealing with fine lines that our eyes watch very closely, such as in text.
If you turn your apple retina display to 1080p mode, then I would think it's not that good when there's a 1:1 correspondence between physical pixels and pixel data. However when the size stays the same, I wouldn't expect much difference.
A 32 inch 4k display downsampled to 1080p, well... :)
A down-sampled image has less noise than an image in its native resolution. You can experiment on your own monitors if you don't believe the theory, just remember to use font smoothing for non-native resolutions. You can also ask about it on the appropriate stack exchange, it is a frequent topic of confusion.
This is one of the advantages of shooting at a higher resolution than the intended target delivery resolution. When downscaling an image, the noise gets 'averaged' out of the image. For HD 1920x10280, a 2.7K resolution was a good choice before having to jump all the way to 4K. There's other technical reasons as well for shooting larger than intended use, but just re-enforcing the 'noise removal' process of downscaling an image.
