Cyber-Security Czar To Be Named 139
The Washington Post and everybody else is reporting that on Tuesday President Obama will name Howard A. Schmidt as cyber-security czar. Schmidt was an advisor to President Bush on cyber-security matters. The Post rehearses the reasons why the Obama administration has had difficulty in finding someone for the post, and notes that the turf battles did not start in this administration: "Schmidt was chosen after a long process in which dozens of people were sounded out. Many declined the post, largely out of concern that the job conferred much responsibility with little true authority, some of them said. Meanwhile, the cybersecurity chief at the National Security Council, Christopher Painter, has served as the de facto coordinator, trying to push ahead the 60-day cyberspace policy review plan unveiled by Obama in May. That plan's formulation was led by Melissa Hathaway, who resigned in frustration in August after delays in naming a cyber-coordinator. She had been a contender for the position... Schmidt served as special adviser for cyberspace security from 2001 to 2003 and shepherded the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, a plan that then was largely ignored. He left that job also frustrated, colleagues said."
Re:What's next (Score:3, Informative)
What's next, the Fuhrer of Healthcare?
Right on.
The Prez called him a cyber-security coordinator - it was the dumb-ass reporter for TFA that introduced the word czar, once again.
Re:What's next (Score:3, Informative)
you don't understand what freedom is (Score:3, Informative)
according to any philosphical understanding of what freedom means conceptually, freedom has never meant behavior which imposes on other people. your problem is you don't understand in which direction the imposition is happening in the healthcare debate. the issue is not that the government is imposing on you to pay for health insurance, the issue is you are imposing on society thinking you can walk around without health insurance
"You can't have freedom without responsibility."
this is exactly right. it is your responsibility to take care of your health. if you don't do that, you are not exercising a freedom of yours, you are acting irresponsibly. you are willfully or ignorantly avoiding the fact that if you are passed out on the ground, we can't simply walk by you, we have to take you to the hospital, or we aren't being ethical. therefore you MUST get health insurance because this is your RESPONSIBILITY. not having insurance is not a right or a freedom you are exercising, it is an act of IRRESPONSIBILITY you are committing
do you understand now?
EVERYONE READ THE ABOVE (Score:3, Informative)
"If you are passed out on the ground, I can simply choose to walk by without caring. Police officers or other public servants may be required to offer assistance as part of their job, but as a member of the public no such obligations exist for me."
this is the part where those who oppose something as simple and obvious as universal health insurance show their true colors: selfish self-centered irresponsible unethical assholes
thank you for going on record and showing to the world exactly what you are
Re:you don't understand what freedom is (Score:1, Informative)
You seem to be suffer from a great misunderstanding of medical billing and reimbursement. Cosmetic surgeons bill their patients directly (and usually up front before services are rendered). Their prices are fairly exorbitant for relatively simple procedures (e.g. breast augmentation via implant; ~ 10K per side) as compared to what medicare, or even PPO insurance will pay a physician for something as complex as coronary bypass surgery (medicare avg ~ $2200).
Having third-party payers is what "distorts" pricing in this way. Interestingly, people will galdly pay tens of thousands of dollars for cosmetic procedures but god forbid, they have to pay for actual medical care when they get sick. That is what insurance is for after all.
Perhaps we should scrap insurance for a while and let "the market" set prices.