sees_all1

That's the big issue, and why the healthcare issue is like two mules bashing their heads together. There is a growing number of people, myself included, who feel that it is an inalienable right and therefore want it stated and handled as such. I don't know how you can declare it as an inalienable right, as in you are guaranteed healthcare from your first breath until your last, and that you're guaranteed anything and everything that prolongs or improves the quality of your life, no matter what the cost to society or the dangers. I also don't understand how healthcare can be declared an inalienable right when basic nutrition hasn't been, and isn't being debated. As long as off-duty doctors have a right to do nothing in emergency situations, healthcare cannot be declared an inalienable right.

A right to free healthcare is more of a legal right/entitlement/privilege than an inalienable right. A simple example of this is if I'm suffering some immediate ailment that threatens my life (say a heart attack), and the person next to me has a life saving drug (aspirin?), I don't have an inalienable right to their aspirin. If I die and they do nothing to help me, they're not at fault, there's no law that can force them to help me (even if they were a doctor). Access to healthcare and free healthcare are not the same thing. Moreover, costly treatment in a specialized burn ward and generic treatment are not the same either, and giving specialized (costly) treatment is different than giving generic treatment. Hospitals may have the moral (and in some cases) legal obligation to treat everyone, but that doesn't make them obligated to give the absolute best care available, especially for those that can't afford it. Healthcare rationing is a cold hard fact, and those with more money or power get access to better care. It doesn't matter if that's right or wrong, it's just the way it is.

I don't believe that healthcare is an inalienable right endowed by the Creator. I don't believe doctors or hospitals should have a moral legal obligation to treat people. Sure, turning people away from hospitals if they're unable to pay is "cruel," but having to shut down entire burn units in hospitals because of criminals making meth is worse for the general population. In the strictest John Locke sense of government (that the USA is founded on), requiring a health care professional to treat someone violates the professional's freedoms (and in a sense is tyranny). Government (We the people) paying for healthcare for those who can't (i.e. making the taxpayers pay for the poor) violates the rights of the people. That's not to say that people who can't pay shouldn't be treated, it means that's left up to charity. In my opinion, that also means that people who can't pay shouldn't receive the latest and greatest, most costly treatment. EDIT:fixed an inconsistency... :oops:

As referenced in the article, burns from shake-n-bake gone bad are often more severe than normal burns people sustain. When treating someone who is burned, usually 24-hour supervision is required, along with antibiotics, pain killers, etc. Also I bet they're growing skin grafts, and possibly other forms of reconstructive surgery. 20 days of intensive care isn't cheap. Socialize medicine won't take any of those costs away (it'll just spread it around), unless the treatment is rationed. But hey, you pay a premium for a 95% survival rate.

I think I understand what you're getting at. I think the "solution" would be to place them somewhere it doesn't cost $6000/day for treatment, like a prison hospital. That way they could recover, not cost so much to society, and stand trial possibly with a sentence of time served. And if they succumb to their injuries, that's a shame, but they shouldn't have been making meth in the first place.

Forcing? I can't take your comments seriously when you say people are "forced" to make meth this way. EDIT: I'm not sure what you're asking, could you rephrase it?

Saw the original three month statistic in an economics book. Not sure which one, will have to dig it out of the attic when I get home. However, this page suggests that 67% of full time workers get paid more than minimum wage within a year of starting work at minimum wage. Also, the economics behind a price floor are well known. But in reality, the price floor economics don't apply to minimum wages as long as they aren't at ridiculous amounts. In the UK, there isn't mass unemployment due to minimum wage because it isn't set at a level which is too high. If it can work here, there is no reason why it cannot work in America, as the economic systems of the country are surely very similar. Economic theories are all well and good, but when it comes to reality, minimum wages work in many countries. I'm not saying they are perfect, but it is a better situation than people being purposefully short-changed and the rest of society, not the employer having to fill the gap in wages. I'm going to be brief, as this might be better suited to another topic. Minimum wage laws are subject to the laws of supply and demand. They are literally the textbook example of a price floor. As shown time and again, a higher minimum wage means higher unemployment among unskilled workers. Also as proof, recessions hurt unskilled people looking for jobs more than skilled. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2048659/The-minimum-wage-pushing-youth-unemployment.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/10/no-labor-market-recession_n_456797.html http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/international/south-african-unemployment-and-the-minimum-wage http://www.balancedpolitics.org/minimum_wage.htm

Not that I'm advocating for anything different (call it devils advocate?), but here's the problem: Usually these types of injuries are spectacular. As cited in the article, an average meth maker's burns cost $6k/day to treat, $130k to heal completely. 21 days in a hospital bed for someone who is there not only for their own sheer stupidity, but also because they broke the law. It doesn't matter if you have socialized medicine or not, everyone still pays for it one way or another. On top of that, filling a hospital bed with someone who deserves a jail cell takes away a hospital bed from someone who deserves treatment. Not that I'd pretend to know or be able to cite waiting times for every country, they're probably higher than they need to be. Lastly, as cited in the article. Hospitals can't afford to keep burn units open with so many deadbeats. Treatment for criminals is actually making care for civilians worse. As heartless as this may sound, as a law abiding society we would be better off if criminals didn't receive free care for injures during their crimes.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/01/24/ravens-kicking-consultant-cant-rule-out-new-england-patriots-cheating-in-afc-championship/ Patriots cheated? And the plot thickens!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/23/meth-makers-fill-up-burn-hospitals/ [hide=Meth Makers fill up burn hospitals] ST. LOUIS A crude new method of making methamphetamine poses a risk even to Americans who never get anywhere near the drug: It is filling hospitals with thousands of uninsured burn patients requiring millions of dollars in advanced treatment - a burden so costly that its contributing to the closure of some burn units. So-called shake-and-bake meth is produced by combining raw, unstable ingredients in a 2-liter soda bottle. But if the person mixing the noxious brew makes the slightest error, such as removing the cap too soon or accidentally perforating the plastic, the concoction can explode, searing flesh and causing permanent disfigurement, blindness or even death. An Associated Press survey of key hospitals in the nations most active meth states showed that up to a third of patients in some burn units were hurt while making meth, and most were uninsured. The average treatment costs $6,000 per day. And the average meth patients hospital stay costs $130,000 - 60 percent more than other burn patients, according to a study by doctors at a burn center in Kalamazoo, Mich. The influx of patients is overwhelming hospitals and becoming a major factor in the closure of some burn wards. At least seven burn units across the nation have shut down over the past six years, partly due to consolidation but also because of the cost of treating uninsured patients, many of whom are connected to methamphetamine. Burn experts agree the annual cost to taxpayers is well into the tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars, although it is impossible to determine a more accurate number because so many meth users lie about the cause of their burns. Larger meth labs have been bursting into flame for years, usually in basements, backyard sheds or other private spaces. But those were fires that people could usually escape. Using the shake-and-bake method, drugmakers typically hold the flammable concoction up close, causing burns from the waist to the face. Youre holding a flame-thrower in your hands, said Jason Grellner of the Franklin County, Mo., Sheriffs Department. Also known as the one-pot approach, the method is popular because it uses less pseudoephedrine - a common component in some cold and allergy pills. It also yields meth in minutes rather than hours, and its cheaper and easier to conceal. Meth cooks can carry all the ingredients in a backpack and mix them in a bathroom stall or the seat of a car. The improvised system first emerged several years ago, partly in response to attempts by many states to limit or forbid over-the-counter access to pseudoephedrine. Since then, the shake-and-bake recipe has spread to become the method of choice. By 2010, about 80 percent of labs busted by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration were using shake-and-bake recipes, said Pat Johnakin, a DEA agent specializing in meth. So instead of a large lab that supplies many users, there are now more people making meth for their personal use. The consequences are showing up in emergency rooms and burn wards. From what we see on the medical side, thats the primary reason the numbers seem to be going up: greater numbers of producers making smaller batches, said Dr. Michael Smock, director of the burn unit at Mercy Hospital St. Louis. Its impossible to know precisely how many people are burned while making shake-and-bake meth. Some avoid medical treatment, and no one keeps exact track of those who go to the hospital. But many burn centers in the nations most active meth-producing states report sharp spikes in the number of patients linked to meth. And experts say the trend goes well beyond those facilities, easily involving thousands of drug users. [/hide] Here's an interesting question. Should people injured while breaking the law be given free healthcare? To broaden the scope from just "hurt while making illegal drugs," a couple other scenarios: -Thieves injured while stealing copper cable -Injured after high speed chase Feel free to post related links, stories. We might need some comic relief in this discussion.

Manners and social etiquette are never required contractually. I prefer being able to pay for service, or be able to not pay for a lack of service. If you built the servers wages into food prices, as a customer you lose that control, and you're at the mercy of whoever is serving your food. Economically, it's in everyone's best interest to have servers work for tips.

Saw the original three month statistic in an economics book. Not sure which one, will have to dig it out of the attic when I get home. However, this page suggests that 67% of full time workers get paid more than minimum wage within a year of starting work at minimum wage. Also, the economics behind a price floor are well known.

I disagree. Price floors lessen the quantity of work demanded and increase the quantity supplied, makes it harder for people to get a job. It also can trap people in the, "I can't get a job without work experience, I can't get work experience without a job" cycle. Not to mention that all work isn't worth the same amount. Also, as shown time and again, people only have to work for minimum wage for about three months before getting a raise or promoted. More jobs allows people to leave their job if they feel they're not being compensated the correct amount, fewer jobs make people compete for scraps. EDIT: The US system gives more protection for their consumers. If I go to a restaurant, pay full price for my food and it comes late, I don't like the service, etc., there is no direct feedback for my server. I'm not their boss, they get paid the same amount. I could never come back, that's not their problem, it's the owner that takes a hit. It also rewards outstanding employees, people that do better work get paid more.

No, the Americans [bleep]ing about "mandatory" tips hiding behind the "we shouldn't pay people for what they're paid to do" fail to realize is that servers go to work with the understanding that their clients are their bosses, not the restaurant. Their job is serving you, you are expected to pay them for it. Their sub minimum wage from the restaurant is a way to pay them for not so busy times and retain them, not for serving you. It isn't some cruel system where the restaurant is making bank on the backs of slave labor, unless you don't tip them. Then you're the problem, for being a douche. In places where there are better wages and the servers are paid in full by the restaurant (In the U.S., fast food and casual "order up front"), tipping isn't mandatory, and should be reserved for great or outstanding service. Probably the distinguishing feature in the US is if you sit down before ordering.

If you're replying to me (I've no idea if you are, as I'm sure no-one else is), then I am not convinced that paying someone a fair wage for the services they offer you as an employer can be put in the same category as "charity". If your location is UK you're off the hook.

Just "smart graded" my power supply from 450w to its original 300w. Not because I care about being green or anything, my younger brother was annoyed at the noise at night. The 300w is silent.

It feels heartwarming how charitable people are with other people's money, and how tight-fisted they are with their own.

Wonder if we'll see a bump in subscribers.

Back in my day, we had high-tech lynchings.

Just finished My Grandfather's Son by Clarence Thomas, and Being George Washington by Glenn Beck. Started Ameritopia by Mark Levin.

In the US, servers at restaurants make under minimum wage, with the understanding that they make tips. As a standard, their income is taxed at an expected rate of 12-15% of the food they serve. If a server serves $100 in food, Uncle Sam expects them to have made $12-15 on it, and taxes them accordingly. The other thing too is that when a customer is unhappy and sends back their food or the restaurant "eats" the bill, it really is being taken out of the server's wages. I'm not sure how many of you (in the US) have been in the service industry. It sucks. I worked as a caddy from ages 13-16. My base pay was $17, Iirc minimum wage was $7.35 at the time. That's four hours of hard, manual labor for about $4.25 an hour. Yes, I know it was my job to carry a 40-50 lb bag around 18 holes of golf in 80-90 degree weather. Yes, I know it was my job to clean balls and clubs, replace divets, spot balls, walk off distances, tend the pin while not stepping in peoples putting paths and being absolutely silent. Tips are expected. If I knew I was going to caddy for tight wads, I probably wouldn't have showed up. If I have no complaints about my service at a restaurant or at a hair salon, my base tip is 20%. Usually I'll round my bill up to a quarter or dollar amount. I never forget to tip, and make a point of it. I've only had one time when I tipped $.02... We ordered our drinks, waited 15 minutes before getting them. Waited another 20 minutes before we pulled the manager to order our food, and after being served didn't see our waiter until the check. Had to wait an extra 15 minutes for him to pick it up, considered just walking out. I haven't been back to that restaurant since.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203750404577173243494465660.html Tried to remove all the embedded crap, WSJ might read easier.

It's not censorship if you don't have the right to put it up. edit:right as in IP... content you own. That's understandable (in reference to you being a developer/inventor), except these bills are already problematic. Enter the curious case of Dajaz1, which is the exact problem I'm worried about. Seizing a website without due process is a problem I don't want to become commonplace. Despite the fact Megaupload's takedown was the result of law enforcement agencies working together for months, there has still been no due process that I'm aware of requiring it's takedown. As for your concerns regarding SOPA, I'll bite. Be a bit more specific on this. I'm curious as to what you think is causing SOPA to become a potential piece of legislation. I'll just say this much though: There's a ton of lobbying regarding SOPA, and they're sending tons of cash to these legislators to try to fast-track a bill like this. I've read the entire bill. It won't even solve the problem it's setting out to solve, and it sets a horrible precedent in addition to being too broad. I could go on for HOURS ON END explaining why this bill is wrong in almost every way imaginable, it's that horribly written. I do think IP protection and copyright protection is fine, it's just that there needs to be some changes, because the current way isn't working as well as it could. For one, make the expiration on a trademark/copyright before it becomes public domain shorter. Seventy+ years after the death of an author/designer/developer of a work is a tad extreme. This is also random rambling, so disregard it unless you have something to say regarding it. I'm all in favor of "comprehensive" legislation, so long as it is "comprehensive" and not just another boondoggle add on. Comprehensive would mean, "hey look-it, we've got more than 70,000 pages of laws on the books. If we can write something solid to cover everything in under 1,000, and throw the other 69,000 out," I'm all ears. I prefer to keep intellectual property as a civil matter. If the feds decide to prosecute you for copyright infringement and you end up being fined $250,000, a large portion of that money better be going to the copyright owner and not Uncle Sam. The biggest problem here is that for international cases like this, I can't sue a guy in New Zealand, so the Federal Government does have a right to step in and enforce my rights as determined in trade agreements, etc.

It's not censorship if you don't have the right to put it up. edit:right as in IP... content you own.

Back in my day, we bought albums instead of singles.