Uplift Fan Fiction
A while back there was a thread on the list about people wanting David Brin to write more Uplift fiction. Back when I was writing the Alliance for Progress Encyclopedia I wrote some Fan-Fic history and fiction--the longer works I never finished. A few people wrote and said they liked what I had written. I am not in grad school, I'm pretty healthy, I have some free time, and I need a hobby. If I were to write new Uplift Fan Fiction would anybody be interested in reading it? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:50 PM, David Hobby wrote: > You may find that > things won't work out as neatly as you hoped. What ever gave you the idea that I want things to work out "neatly"? Messy, quirky, diverse, surprising, unpredictable, they're all good (as long as coercion is minimal). > As for having people pick the laws they'd be under, > wouldn't that be a huge mess? Would the police be > enforcing the laws, and have to check which system > people were under before ticketing/arresting them? Most of those sorts of laws would not be part of the subset. > Could you be more specific about what you have in > mind? I think some elements of it are covered in Stephenson's Snow Crash and Delany's Triton, but neither is exactly what I am thinking of. But I am not attached to any particular implementation, I just would like to see more real choice in government. There is so little competition and experiment going on towards improving governance. But to give you more of an idea of what I had in mind with my previous statement, think of tax laws (Federal, possibly state) and many of the programs funded from taxes, import/export laws, and many business regulations, certainly anything where the state is being even remotely paternal in its laws. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Chris Frandsen wrote: > Okay. However if a corporation or a family group infringes on the health of > my family by polluting a stream I drink from doesn't it become "my business" > ? How you personally handle such a situation? I would not handle that personally. I think rules about emissions and waste, and enforcement of those rules, is a valid government function. > John, no answer is required but I wonder why you expend time and effort > writing to this list if you are not trying to influence our thinking. Did I miss something? This seems like a non-sequitur. Anyway, I would not say that I am trying to influence other people's thinking, nor am I NOT trying to influence. Neither is a goal. The most enjoyable discussions for me involve new ideas or points of view that I have not encountered before. People interested in SF seem to be more likely to have unique ideas than people who are not SF fans. Not that there isn't a lot of "noise" of conventional ideas mixed in...anyway, I write about my points of view, and hopefully they are interesting to some, and I hope others will do the same. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:50 PM, David Hobby wrote: > I doubt that "would otherwise have been kept secret" > is going to be a useful criterion for when a patent > should be granted. How do you propose to tell when > that's the case? Easily, when you look at the reverse: when would it obviously NOT be kept secret. You gave one example. Unfortunately, there are many in the patent system. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
John Williams wrote: On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:36 AM, David Hobby wrote: I'd argue that the patent laws are not that poorly written, the problem is that there's latitude in their interpretation. I think that may be an unavoidable problem. Are you including the patents themselves in "patent laws"? Because I think that is the real problem in the system. Other than the existence of the system, which I agree, is full of unavoidable problems. Why don't you attempt to outline a system of patent laws that would NOT have latitude in their interpretation? There are of course trivial examples, such as "have no patents, ever". I believe that's worse than the present system. You know we disagree on that, right? I stated my belief earlier. Obviously, I don't think that is an efficient use of my time. Short of eliminating the system all together, which I think is unlikely to happen, then the best thing that could happen is that the number of patents granted by drastically reduced. The vast majority of the patents granted are not beneficial to anyone but the patent-holder. The only collective benefit of the patent system is to disseminate information that might otherwise have been kept secret. Only patents consistent with that criterion should be granted. And that is a small fraction of the ones that currently are granted. John-- I'd like you to pick one area pretty much of your choice, and have a detailed discussion of how your ideas would work in practice. You may find that things won't work out as neatly as you hoped. I agree, there have been WAY too many US patents granted, particularly recently. To pick a famous one, Amazon should never have been granted a patent on one-click ordering. There really wasn't anything new there. I doubt that "would otherwise have been kept secret" is going to be a useful criterion for when a patent should be granted. How do you propose to tell when that's the case? You keep going on about "poorly written laws"--let's see if you can produce alternatives. I also mentioned too many laws. That is the first problem to attack. If the number were drastically reduced, then perhaps there would be more resources available to carefully craft the remaining laws. Bruce and I have similar views on that -- testing is required. I'd like to see something along the lines of letting people "vote" to choose which system of laws they are subject to -- instead of electing a politician where your vote might not count, your vote chooses for certain what you get (of course, as a practical matter this is only applicable to a subset of total laws). O.K., please give me an example of ONE well-written law, just so I know what you mean. As for having people pick the laws they'd be under, wouldn't that be a huge mess? Would the police be enforcing the laws, and have to check which system people were under before ticketing/arresting them? Could you be more specific about what you have in mind? ---David ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On Aug 13, 2009, at 7:29 PM, John Williams wrote: On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Chris Frandsen wrote: Now what is your attitude towards passing your wealth on to family members? None of my business, unless it is my wealth. Right now, most of my estate is slated to go to a couple charities I favor. I doubt I will change that significantly (possibly the specific charities may change, depending on how many years I have left and what the future brings...). I am sorry I did not mean you specifically. However based on your response below I will not ask you to suggest solutions for other people again. I struggle with this question. I raised my family without benefit of inherited wealth, would I have worked as hard if I had inherited money? Have I earned my way? What do I owe my forefathers and my nation for the safety and security that I and my family have enjoyed for all my years?Now my parents have left me some wealth for which I am very grateful as I grow older. How much should be returned to the common weal? Our system of government will answer some of this partiular question for me and I accept that. Corporations today have rights as corporate citizens that you and I do not have, one of which is with regards to national borders. As a libertarian , what is your position on corporations and their wealth? Please don't ask me questions that begin "as a "...I won't answer them in the future. I am John. I apologize. Absolutely and with no hesitation. I will not generalize or label you again as anything but "John" As John, my position on corporations and their wealth is, none of my business (unless of course I am an owner or partner). Okay. However if a corporation or a family group infringes on the health of my family by polluting a stream I drink from doesn't it become "my business" ? How you personally handle such a situation? I As for my position on national borders, I am against them. Let everybody in, or out, or make in and out meaningless. Impressive position. Actually the United States of America has done this pretty well with state borders. I personally believe that to do this on a world wide scale with our present population levels is not tenable. From my understanding of historical and archeological records humans have always tended to aggregate together. In today's environment of competition for resources such aggregates must have considerable power and wealth to secure sufficient resources. The US has been blessed with an abundance of natural resources and for the most part of the last two centuries our territorial boundaries have provided security from other such aggregations. However the wealth that this nation and its citizens have enjoyed since WWII largerly resulted from the world beating a path to our door for education, manufactured products and medical care. I will also grant you that some groups have been overrun and/or over ruled by our present system of government. It still occurs today but I believe our constitution and this nation state has been the best solution that mankind has ever developed to provide safety and security to the majority of its citizens. John, no answer is required but I wonder why you expend time and effort writing to this list if you are not trying to influence our thinking. learner ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:31 PM, John Williams wrote: > > "It is ethical to take wealth from some people in order to help other > people with less resources, but only if all of those people are in the > same political boundary"? Another straw man. Developed countries put about $120 billion into less developed nations, just for health care, in 2006, the most recent year I came up with doing a quick search. Ignoring the existence of foreign aid for health demonstrates either being hopelessly out of the loop in terms of international politics or deliberate omission of material facts. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:36 AM, David Hobby wrote: > I'd argue that the patent laws are not that poorly > written, the problem is that there's latitude in > their interpretation. I think that may be an > unavoidable problem. Are you including the patents themselves in "patent laws"? Because I think that is the real problem in the system. Other than the existence of the system, which I agree, is full of unavoidable problems. > Why don't you attempt to outline a system of patent > laws that would NOT have latitude in their interpretation? > There are of course trivial examples, such as "have no > patents, ever". I believe that's worse than the present > system. You know we disagree on that, right? I stated my belief earlier. Obviously, I don't think that is an efficient use of my time. Short of eliminating the system all together, which I think is unlikely to happen, then the best thing that could happen is that the number of patents granted by drastically reduced. The vast majority of the patents granted are not beneficial to anyone but the patent-holder. The only collective benefit of the patent system is to disseminate information that might otherwise have been kept secret. Only patents consistent with that criterion should be granted. And that is a small fraction of the ones that currently are granted. > You keep going on about "poorly written laws"--let's > see if you can produce alternatives. I also mentioned too many laws. That is the first problem to attack. If the number were drastically reduced, then perhaps there would be more resources available to carefully craft the remaining laws. Bruce and I have similar views on that -- testing is required. I'd like to see something along the lines of letting people "vote" to choose which system of laws they are subject to -- instead of electing a politician where your vote might not count, your vote chooses for certain what you get (of course, as a practical matter this is only applicable to a subset of total laws). ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Chris Frandsen wrote: > Now what is your attitude towards passing your wealth on to family members? None of my business, unless it is my wealth. Right now, most of my estate is slated to go to a couple charities I favor. I doubt I will change that significantly (possibly the specific charities may change, depending on how many years I have left and what the future brings...). > Corporations today have rights as corporate citizens that you and I do not > have, one of which is with regards to national borders. As a libertarian , > what is your position on corporations and their wealth? Please don't ask me questions that begin "as a "...I won't answer them in the future. I am John. As John, my position on corporations and their wealth is, none of my business (unless of course I am an owner or partner). As for my position on national borders, I am against them. Let everybody in, or out, or make in and out meaningless. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Chris Frandsen wrote: > My generation has become noticeably stingier as our balance of trade swung > around from crazy black to very red, starting with Nixon. Now it appears > some do not even think we can care for our own people Our "own people"? Who would that be, exactly? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On 14/08/2009, at 1:53 AM, Lance A. Brown wrote: Bruce Bostwick wrote: I still think version control, requirements management, and user acceptance testing have very definite roles to play in the development of legislation, and I'd still like to see alpha and beta level testing with bug tracking, or a very close analogue, employed in the rollout of new legislation. But I'm kind of a voice in the wilderness on that one .. How the hell would you alpha test new legislation? It's not like you can set up a test lab for legislation. I'm genuinely curious. It's called "Europe". Charlie. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On 12 Aug 2009 at 10:56, John Williams wrote: > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Dan M wrote: > > > John, would you agree that some sort of community system, like the courts, > > are necessary to resolve disputes over true ownership of property, > > contracts, and the like? > > Necessary, no, I can imagine alternatives that might be practical, at > least on a small scale. But desirable, yes, I think it is a good idea > to have some sort of government justice system to settle contractual > and legal disagreements. I've never met anyone who thinks that a free > market means total anarchy. A free market simply means that people are > free to enter into agreements with others. If these agreements are > formalized into a contract, then it is a good idea to have some way -- > that all parties agree is fair -- to enforce the contract. I think a The missing element is an easy to to assure that contracts are equitable. That is, there is no system of templates and checks (think legal AI on tap) to check the contacts you'd enter into, when you say buy some software. If the contracts are visible (maybe even a RFID tag on the software box, to continue that example) and examinable before purchase, that you be asked if you agree with the terms before purchase and so on.. well, then you might have a point. (And indeed on this particular point I'd agree, including agreements between people to do things which would otherwise be on shaky legal grounds) However, that system /must/ be fully in place (and it involves, among other things, proper identity authentication services (which to me /is/ a proper government function, on-tap legal AI's and more) /and/ I do not in any way see it excluding the role of government and taxation in other areas. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
[Lance] wrote: > Jo Anne, did you have an HSA or a health care flexible spending account? > Flexible spending accounts have a pre-selected amount of pre-tax > dollars set aside that you can then spend on non-covered medical > expenses. Those funds "expires" at the end of the calendar year. I > thought all HSA accounts allowed you to accrue money over time. > > Flexible spending accounts do need a fair bit of crystal ball gazing. I > lost about 500 bucks last year because I overestimated my needs. Ya know, I'm not sure. It must have been the flex account, because we had a choice of how much we put into it every month, but it did expire after a year. We lost money one year too. An accountant friend of mine told me where that money went once, but it didn't make a lot of sense to me, so I didn't put it in long term memory. It had to go somewhere, I just wonder who benefitted from my not using my savings for my own care. I suppose I could have gotten lots of "unnecessary tests" to make up the difference. This is one more thing that annoys the hell out of me about our current health care. You need an advanced degree in Understanding the Health Care System to make good choices and not bankrupt yourself. Amities, Jo Anne evens...@hevanet.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
OK, group, those of you who've been acquainted with me over the years know I believe in communication above all. I believe John has a right to express his opinion. If I sound crankier than usual, it's because I am. This debate is one of the most important we can have in this country right now, so I'm a little more blunt than usual. My apologies if I offend anyone. John wrote: > I'll be glib here and object to "universal". What I think you really > mean is "all US citizens", or perhaps "all US citizens and non-citizen > residents". But see my question here about why we are not more > concerned about helping those much worse off than most Americans. Glib? Are you sure you're not trolling? I agree with what Chris has to say about the US spreading allopathic western medicine around the world post WWII and thereby causing a population explosion that we now have to deal with. That aside, the topic *I'M* discussing is health care in the US. > I think these sorts of details should be up to each consumer to decide > upon. And I wonder how much of a believer you would become should you, your partner, you children, your parents, etc. be suddenly injured or struck with a long-term/life threatening illness later today. You can make all those 'sound economic decisions' you want to, and it won't stop Ifni from pointing a capricious finger in your direction. What is it, something like half of all personal bankruptcies are due to medical problems? > No offense intended, but I have seen that attitude by many people who > work as health-care providers. But I think the needs and desires of > health care providers are quite different from those who must bear the > costs of that health care. Certainly it is easier to work in a > hospital if you do not have to worry about the costs and benefits of > each test or procedure, but that is not the way for those who bear the > costs to get the most value for their money. Well, some offense taken. Just what are the 'needs and desires' of health care workers? The patients I took care of in a large Canadian hospital were not as sick when they entered the hospital as those in a large American city that I took care of around the same time. They had access to doctors earlier in their illness. It's easier to work in a hospital when those in your care have a better chance of getting well than those who your work your tail off to save, get out of the hospital and have them back the next week because they couldn't get the help they needed in the interim. Andy what makes you think that health care workers don't bear the cost of their own health care too? I suppose you could refuse health care in Canada, that's you right. I think it would be nutty, but probably doable. But if you don't think health care in this country is rationed, you are mistaken. No we don't have to wait for an MRI, *if you have insurance and can afford it*. If you can't, you have to go to one of the clinics that accept 'indigents' (or in some parts of Oregon, even Medicare patients) and wait, and wait and wait. So how many people in the US have to wait? I just tried to get into physical therapy for vertigo on Tuesday, and they want me to wait a week to see a therapist. We raised two kids in Canada with all the troubles and trials having little kids brings (in two different Provinces, BTW), and never experienced what your 'expert' quotes. Also, am I to understand that you will refuse Medicare when you turn 65, or Social Security? > Do you have any idea about the breakdown of the workload by those > people on Medicare/Medicaid vs. private insurance? Also, do you think > their work is mostly pointless, or did their work (together with the > insurance rules) help to keep costs down? In other words, if not for > their work (and insurance rules), would there have been many more > tests and procedures performed that had a low benefit to cost ratio? No, I don't have a clear understanding of what they did in the billing department, just as you seem to not understand what nurses were trained to do. My point was that since they had one primary insurance to bill, and only a few secondary insurances, it took far fewer bureaucrats to get the job done. And at the time, Canada was providing insurance to all it's people for something like 8.2% of GDP while were were spending over 11% of GDP for our health care. Now I understand that the US is somewhere around 18% of GDP. I don't want to take the time to look up Canadian stats, but I'm about 99% sure it's not more that 18% of GDP. > Compassion and government are strange bedfellows. I'd prefer to > express my compassion without government. Good luck with that. You are part of the government. Amities, Jo Anne Cranky Crone of the Willamette evens...@hevanet.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On Aug 12, 2009, at 6:19 PM, John Williams wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Dave Land wrote: Other than various charities, there isn't a world "government" (i.e., a "mutually agreed-upon means by which people can pitch in to help each other out") through which I can "redistribute wealth from people in the US to the people in the world who have far worse health care than those in the US." But there are charities. And the ambitious (and/or extremely wealthy) can start their own organizations. Why must your desired method involve "government"? It mustn't, but it generally does. Did you not read the part where I mentioned Habitat for Humanity, or was it just harder to build a straw man if you took it into consideration? Dave ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
Bruce Bostwick quoted: > > Heard from a flight instructor: > "The only dumb question is the one you DID NOT ask, resulting in my > going out and having to identify your bits and pieces in the midst > of torn and twisted metal." > This seems like a Heinlein quote to me. Alberto Monteiro the lurker ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
Actually, I believe that the US WWII generation did more to improve healthcare around the world than any nation in the history of the world, especially when they were riding the gravy train in the 1950's and 60's. (US medicine and transportation of food surpluses probably did more to create a population problem in third world countries that anything else.) My generation has become noticeably stingier as our balance of trade swung around from crazy black to very red, starting with Nixon. Now it appears some do not even think we can care for our own people. And the argument is that it is everyone for himself. If this argument prevails I see the dark ages ahead and a return to feudal times. As the namesake of this list has said many times, the enemy is the oligarchy always and forever. learner On Aug 12, 2009, at 1:06 PM, John Williams wrote: There are billions of people around the world with worse healthcare than virtually everyone in the United States. If the goal is to redistribute wealth to improve healthcare because of the belief that everyone should have a chance to live and be healthy, then why not focus on redistributing wealth from people in the US to the people in the world who have far worse health care than those in the US? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
Wow, a mention of science fiction! On this list of all places:-) The first sci fi read to me was Heinlein's Have Spacesuit, Will Travel and Starship Troopers was almost a life guide. I did go to West Point and believe in government service. I think everyone should do at least 18 months in some form of service. I was a Goldwater Republican for many years with a belief in limited federal government. However life experience has changed my attitude about many things. John, obviously you believe that individuals are responsible for themselves and their families, yes? Now what is your attitude towards passing your wealth on to family members? Corporations today have rights as corporate citizens that you and I do not have, one of which is with regards to national borders. As a libertarian , what is your position on corporations and their wealth? I am interested in the answers if you have a moment learner On Aug 12, 2009, at 12:56 PM, John Williams wrote: By the way, as I've mentioned before, I have not read any of Ayn Rand's novels. If you want to discuss a SF novel with libertarian ideas, may I suggest Heinlein's Moon is a Harsh Mistress? And I don't mean to suggest that as a libertarian guidebook or anything (it is rather simplistic), but it does bring up some interesting ideas that might be worth discussing on a SF forum. For example, there is an interesting court / justice system which may be workable on a small scale, but I do not see how it could be scaled up beyond a community level. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
Bruce Bostwick wrote: > I still think version control, requirements management, and user > acceptance testing have very definite roles to play in the development > of legislation, and I'd still like to see alpha and beta level testing > with bug tracking, or a very close analogue, employed in the rollout of > new legislation. But I'm kind of a voice in the wilderness on that one .. How the hell would you alpha test new legislation? It's not like you can set up a test lab for legislation. I'm genuinely curious. --[Lance] -- GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9 CACert.org Assurer ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
Bruce Bostwick wrote: On Aug 12, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Dan M wrote: No, that is the fault of the laws as written. The problem with the court system is that they do not understand enough to enforce the laws as written. There is also the problem of laws written by people who often fail to anticipate the unintended consequences of the laws they write, compounded by the fact that people still don't approach legislation the way they do software design and testing. I still think version control, requirements management, and user acceptance testing have very definite roles to play in the development of legislation, and I'd still like to see alpha and beta level testing with bug tracking, or a very close analogue, employed in the rollout of new legislation. But I'm kind of a voice in the wilderness on that one .. Bruce-- Hi. That's a clever idea. Some would say that the alpha and beta testing should be done in individual states, and then the final roll out be done at the Federal level. ---David "No officer, I didn't subscribe to that law. It's still in beta." ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On Aug 12, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Dan M wrote: No, that is the fault of the laws as written. The problem with the court system is that they do not understand enough to enforce the laws as written. There is also the problem of laws written by people who often fail to anticipate the unintended consequences of the laws they write, compounded by the fact that people still don't approach legislation the way they do software design and testing. I still think version control, requirements management, and user acceptance testing have very definite roles to play in the development of legislation, and I'd still like to see alpha and beta level testing with bug tracking, or a very close analogue, employed in the rollout of new legislation. But I'm kind of a voice in the wilderness on that one .. Heard from a flight instructor: "The only dumb question is the one you DID NOT ask, resulting in my going out and having to identify your bits and pieces in the midst of torn and twisted metal." ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On Aug 12, 2009, at 8:30 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Compassion, folks. IAAMOAC. And remember .. http://xkcd.com/386/ .. because it's always, *always*, true. :D "When you mention that we want five debates, say what they are: one on the economy, one on foreign policy, with another on global threats and national security, one on the environment, and one on strengthening family life, which would include health care, education, and retirement. I also think there should be one on parts of speech and sentence structure. And one on fractions." -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
Jo Anne said the following on 8/12/2009 9:04 PM: > Also, when we had a H.S.A., it expired after a > year. We had to use everything in the account within the year or it was > gone. You have to look deep into your crystal ball to decide exactly how > much heath savings you need each year. Jo Anne, did you have an HSA or a health care flexible spending account? Flexible spending accounts have a pre-selected amount of pre-tax dollars set aside that you can then spend on non-covered medical expenses. Those funds "expires" at the end of the calendar year. I thought all HSA accounts allowed you to accrue money over time. Flexible spending accounts do need a fair bit of crystal ball gazing. I lost about 500 bucks last year because I overestimated my needs. --[Lance] -- GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9 CACert.org Assurer ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
John Williams wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:50 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: I wasn't clear. They don't understand enough about what is being regulated to enforce the laws. The laws are very clear to me; its how one interprets these clear laws in the light of facts that are far too complex for the judge to understand. Then they are poorly written laws. Laws should be kept to a minimum, and when absolutely necessary, should be written in a way that makes them as easy as possible to understand and enforce. ... John-- I'd argue that the patent laws are not that poorly written, the problem is that there's latitude in their interpretation. I think that may be an unavoidable problem. Why don't you attempt to outline a system of patent laws that would NOT have latitude in their interpretation? There are of course trivial examples, such as "have no patents, ever". I believe that's worse than the present system. You keep going on about "poorly written laws"--let's see if you can produce alternatives. (Or do it for some other system of laws. Except the US income tax code-- I'll believe that could be radically simplified.) ---David ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
