>>The technology is already available. They only typed a few numbers when I revoked my 50-channel subscription and voila - I lost them immediately. So it's just software, which can be adjusted for a la carte in a matter of weeks. I think that once they're forced to offer it, they'll be able to switch overnight.
>>
>I don't think they should be forced, I think the market will settle the issue as broadband access continues to expand.

I meant "forced by the market".

>>The trouble then is that the big networks will finally have real ratings data that can't be rigged so easily.
>>
>Doubtful.

The present sampling system is under even more doubt.

>>I'm speaking hypothetically. The product is literally unknown here. I suppose it could be a competition to cream cheese and butter. How far would I get?
>
>I'd guess you'd get as far as you wanted to. It would depend on how much work you put into the enterprise.

I think the big obstacle would be getting it into any sales chain. You don't get to hear a lot about it, but it's quite hard to get into them, if any of the major manufacturers feels you're intruding into their shelf space. The reports on this are quite rare, though; last one I read five years ago or so.

>>The trouble with the commercialization of the web is that when you want to find information about something, you get about 10:1 of where you can buy it against real information.
>>
>You also are getting the information without paying for it. You don't have to spend your time in a library researching for hours or days. I think this is a fair trade.

Actually, the advertising on the web has been tamed by Google. You get a stamp sized space - one sentence and a link - and that's it, and no more than four of those, plus one or two sponsored links. Nobody's shouting at you (the reason I don't listen to the radio in the car, and why all of my family has the reflex to mute the TV as soon as ads begin), no more flashing, dancing, popping up, resizing your browser - all but gone.

>>> Unless someone is chronoligically ill or on expensive drugs, I suggest a high-deductable (catastrophic emergency) insurance plan. For yearly visits I suggest finding a private practice doctor that you like and just paying him out of pocket for each visit.
>>
>>Do you hear yourself? You already started listing cases, look for this if this, or else look for this if ... there's no comprehensive system. There's cases, plans, programs, but no system.
>>
>
>Right. I don't want a "system". I like having choices.

Do I hear an implied XOR here? Did I say I don't want choices? I said I want a system available to all no matter what. If you want more than that system can provide, you should have choices. Why not have both? Is that "no system system" of yours afraid of competition?

> As I get older my health care needs will change and I like having multiple options for dealing with those changes. I do not want a single, government-run health care plan that will limit my choices of doctors, hospitals, medications, procedures, etc. HMOs are bad enough.

The health care system should provide basic care for all. At least it would be much cheaper than financing the paper-pushers in each of the HMOs et al, plus their fancy buildings, agents, security staff and other middlemen - as is proven by the health cost per capita in the rest of the developed world. And let's not forget that infant mortality in the USA is worse than in Slovenia and two dozen other countries. This is a symptom of the basic prevention failing or being absent.

>>>There are numerous choices. HMOs, private practice, comprehensive plans, catastrophic plans...

...but no system. We've been through this at least two full circles.

>>IOW, a total smorgasboard of everything, and they're all primarily trying to make money on you, and give you health protection if they must or if they think you can take them out in court.
>>
>
>Again you seem to have a problem with a business making money. I don't. In fact I want my insurance company to make money, that way I know they'll still be around if I have a crisis.

Anyone who does an honest work should be paid for it, period. I have a problem when they're trying to increase their profit not by doing a better job, but by cutting the corners of the patients they're supposed to serve. They aren't serving the patients, but their stockholders - and that's where I do have a problem.

>>The American way of doing government is a real obstacle here - it can be done much more efficiently (take the example of just all of the rest of the developed world) and for less money per capita, but somehow this belief that whatever government does will be worse, cost more and take longer, becomes another self-fulfilling prophecy here.
>
>We believe it because of experience. The more the government gets involved the harder it becomes to get things done.

And it never occurred to you that the reason for that is that there's something wrong in the way you do it? That it can be done better?

I think there's a substantial power pushing this belief that government can't do anything well and let's privatize everything, it'll be for the best. It surely will be for the best interests of those involved, and call me crazy and paranoid if you want, but I somehow doubt their sincerity.

>>>If there was a governmental system in place the same would be true. Except that the politicians would have control of even more money. Scary.

At least these politicians are up for reelection every now and then. What recourse do you have against a HMO that your employer enrolls you into? And remember their lawyers are bigger than yours, and that you didn't really have the time to read all the small print (which you wouldn't understand anyway, because the intended meaning of the words may not equal the received meaning).

>It will be a mess here.

Because you believe so. See above.

> We have a government mandated "retirement" plan here also called Social Security. Originally designed to supplement retirement and the money was supposed to be kept seperate. HAHA! The money is in the general fund and being pillaged every year.

It's duly replaced with federal bonds, from what I heard. Now the net worth of these bonds is really a question, since the signed entity is getting deeper in debt by the minute.

>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylstilbestrol
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methaqualone (aka quaalude)
>>or the rest on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs
>>
>What do you want me to say? Bad people do bad things. Our jails are full of people who kill, steal, rape, etc and they knew the consequences beforehand.

So what about the deterrent factor of the verdicts? Did the previous verdicts deter Merck from doing this?

>>It's OK most of the time - provided they do produce what people need. It's when they do anything for profit, over dead bodies, that the system at least doesn't prevent sufficiently (and I may be inclined to think that the system is tolerating it more and more).
>>
>I would completely disagree. If anything the businesses are being regulated more each year.

After they were heavily deregulated during Reagan's term. Now they have to put some of the checks and balances back.

>>Insides of the house are private. However, the pavement in front of my house is a public place. If I can't stop you from walking on it, why should I be entitled to stop you from talking on it?
>>
>I don't think you can unless I'm creating a nuisence. Which is what you would be doing if your blocking the entrance to a business.

Which is what nobody's really doing anywhere I saw - people who engage in spontaneous conversation instinctively move a step or two aside so not to be in anybody's way (as I saw in Europe so many times), because "people are passing", not because "we're hurting a business".

I guess this is a major cultural difference. Designated areas for this or that vs spontaneity.

>I don't know that its a bad thing, after all a great number of people are moving up not down. I just read a report that the number of millionaires has doubled in the last 10 years.

Millionaires are middle class? C'mon - just the other day I've heard half an hour rant on the radio by someone important (pimping his book, probably) about how the median income has gone down significantly. So while the guys on the top are doing better and better, the median line is getting lower and lower.

>>Ah, the lovely partial pregnancy... when they attack, they are warriors; when they're caught, they aren't. Nice gray area where the gov't can pick and choose which laws to apply and which not.
>>
>Spies and guerrilas have never been treated as soldiers, but they are still a part of a country's forces.

So, it's a war except when it isn't, and it isn't a war except when it is. They are at war, but when they're captured they don't get any of POW status and no law applies to them; none of the occupying force's obligations by Geneva convention applies (look up Bremmer's orders) yet it's OK to have all the real and imaginary prerogatives of a commander-in-chief as if this was a real war... nice.

>>So how come the previous governments weren't accused of cronyism?
>
>They were. I think the most famous one is JFK appointing his brother to attorney general.

That's nepotism, but never mind. I'm talking about proportions and competency. How many of such cases per term? This administration seems to have replaced anyone competent with just about anyone who helped a lot in the elections. Just look at the Heckuva Brownie and his predecessor.

>>How come INS took three weeks seven years ago to do something that takes months now? Has the human nature changed so quickly?
>
>Not sure to what you're referring, but I probably cound't answer anyhow. I have zero experience with INS.

I had to get the visa four times - and the last time it took about three times longer and cost about as much more, while the actual work they had to do was far less (it was just the reissue). And it's not anything post-nine-eleven related, because only the first one was before that. I've also tracked similar cases among acquaintainces, and they all say that what once took two weeks now takse three months. Even my attorney told me so - and he was specialized for these cases.

>There is a distinct lack of economic education in this country. People fall for it because they don't know any better.

What education do you need? If you spend what you don't have, you'll have to borrow. When you borrow, they'll get your shirt. Period.

>>>>I know. I read dailyKos, CrooksAndLiars et al.
>
>I hope you read national review also for a little balance. :)

Does Harper's count? :)