> True. The central problem described in the article is that he has cancer and doesn't want to go bankrupt from the medical bills. What bills? He’s 79 so he’d have been on Medicare for the past 14 years. Sure there’s the Medicare premiums, but that’s peanuts.
My mom's insurance with medicare generally covers 80%, she gets to pay the leftover 20%. So uh bills with medicare is totally a thing.
My dad has medigap that covered all that
He pays like 140 a month extra for it though. But he had all his cancer treatments covered
True. The central problem described in the article is that he has cancer and doesn't want to go bankrupt from the medical bills. I'm not a socialist and am broadly pro-capitalism, but for decades I've held a firm belief that healthcare should have a public option and people should have the ability to get high-quality medical care for $0, no matter how realistic that would be.
there wouldn't be any way to compete with tax pre-paid $0 point of sale health care, so there would be no option. the term "public option" is a weasel word. there would be no private option because nobody is going to choose to pay out of pocket in addition to their taxes that already pay for care. advocate for whatever but use honest terms. you're advocating for a single payer system and there's no evading that.
Fwiw, a lot of European healthcare has both a public and private option. You may pick the private options because they are "better" in some ways (e.g. more modern clinics, shorter waiting times, or sometimes just better care) which still leaves some wealth gap, but usually means no one goes bankrupt to cure cancer.
"To be improper, interference must be wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself, such as a statute, regulation, recognized rule of common law, or an established standard of trade or profession." They don't need a defense: nobody has yet stated a claim!
It was claimed they committed copyright infringement and they admit to photographing his works as part of this discovery. It actually being copyright infringement is questionable, but if so it would be improper behavior.
NAL but in copyright it’s not making a copy that’s problematic, it’s making that copy available to others. Anyone can take a picture of Mickey Mouse; one only has a problem when they start to sell it.
This cryptography solution is more akin to mathematics. And mathematics isn’t covered by the copyright law.
True. The central problem described in the article is that he has cancer and doesn't want to go bankrupt from the medical bills. I'm not a socialist and am broadly pro-capitalism, but for decades I've held a firm belief that healthcare should have a public option and people should have the ability to get high-quality medical care for $0, no matter how realistic that would be.
The simple reality is that advanced medical care is expensive. Access to advanced medical care can either by gated by one person's wealth or by the average wealth of many people. At the end of the day though, someone is paying and the only way to actually cost reduce is too have worse treatment.
>the only way to actually cost reduce is too have worse treatment
but also the cost of treatments generally decreases with time, while the efficacy increases as techniques are refined, disseminated, etc.
> True. The central problem described in the article is that he has cancer and doesn't want to go bankrupt from the medical bills. What bills? He’s 79 so he’d have been on Medicare for the past 14 years. Sure there’s the Medicare premiums, but that’s peanuts.
You're deeply confused about the average American experience.
So the central controversy in the story is whether the journalist fans should share the solution with the world or keep quiet for the auction. Sanborn wants the money for medical reasons so he needs to maintain a high sale price. The two fans want to share the solution with the world. Presumably the winner of the auction will be buying a severely depreciating asset: the right to know but not disclose the solution. Th…
Can we talk about how broken America’s medical system is that folks make decisions based on medical issues or bills?
So the central controversy in the story is whether the journalist fans should share the solution with the world or keep quiet for the auction. Sanborn wants the money for medical reasons so he needs to maintain a high sale price. The two fans want to share the solution with the world. Presumably the winner of the auction will be buying a severely depreciating asset: the right to know but not disclose the solution. Th…
i guess cooking meth is not an option when you have a sculpture in cia hq
there wouldn't be any way to compete with tax pre-paid $0 point of sale health care, so there would be no option. the term "public option" is a weasel word. there would be no private option because nobody is going to choose to pay out of pocket in addition to their taxes that already pay for care. advocate for whatever but use honest terms. you're advocating for a single payer system and there's no evading that.
Fwiw, a lot of European healthcare has both a public and private option. You may pick the private options because they are "better" in some ways (e.g. more modern clinics, shorter waiting times, or sometimes just better care) which still leaves some wealth gap, but usually means no one goes bankrupt to cure cancer.
Usually the medical part of it all is strictly worse in the private sector (at least in my country) because the public system has a pretty strict competitive exam to get in, whereas profit driven private companies hire the cheapest doctor they can get.
Not everybody realizes that and they often fall for the single room in the hospital.
Shorter waiting times is definitely a thing though, especially for non life threatening conditions.