Subscribe: Comments for Eric James Stone
Preview: Comments for Eric James Stone

Comments for Eric James Stone

Award-Winning Author

Last Build Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:24:14 +0000


Comment on The Responsible Market-based Universal Health Care Plan by Daniel Call

Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:24:14 +0000

Interesting post--I've been looking forward to it since we spoke. I'm curious to see additional thoughts on the following: - Hospitals are usually monopolies in their local markets. How would you address that in the "transition" period from what we have today to your plan? - Other insurance models (auto, for example) keep pricing down by allowing the insurer to negotiate on behalf of the consumer. By having "approved" autobody shops, the insurer doesn't get taken advantage of by the customer/provider, and the customer gets a consistent minimum level of service while maintaining the option to pay the difference and go out of network. I don't see anything like that here, which would expose insurers to "premium" pricing once catastrophic coverage is triggered. In combination with the monopoly situation, one could imagine an ICU stay costing much more than it does today. The government would pick up the tab through the tax credits you discuss. - It wasn't clear if you agree with everything at or just the bullets you repeat here. They seem fixated on legal status in the country; I couldn't tell how someone unconscious from a car accident would prove they were a citizen (maybe I missed how those folks get treated vs refused immediately). - Many treatments have side-effects. Are you suggesting the the expected value of treating those should be priced into the initial treatment? For example, if the hospital must provide a wig for free when chemotherapy leads to hair loss, my chemo will just cost more, even if I don't mind being bald. What about developing cancer later in life from X-ray or CAT scans? I think real life is too messy for this recommendation to work. Rather, hospital-based infections and "malpractice" situations alone could be excluded, perhaps. - Market-ticker also seems to suggest an extremely invasive (but indirect) level of control--live the lifestyle the government endorses or lose financial protection. As you are no doubt aware, a "health lifestyle" is redefined on a regular basis. Would religious objections be allowed? (Must Mormons drink a glass of wine a day for cardiac health?) If those could be exceptions, why not conscientious objectors? (At any rate, you didn't repeat this one in your list, so perhaps you disagreed with it.) - Setting a drug price ceiling seems incongruous with a free market. Why that item? Why not cap doctors' salaries? Hospital stays? Equivalent services exist in other countries... Thanks for posting--enjoyed reading. Much better than any other ideas I'm hearing!

Comment on The Minimum Advance: A Modest Proposal by Daniel

Thu, 18 Jun 2015 20:15:31 +0000

Fun analysis. Since drones haven't been outlawed (yet), I will join the drone camp. Publishers won't go out of business, but new authors will certainly find it harder to get published. The risk they represent to a publisher will be higher, and they, like their unemployed fellow striking burger-flippers, will find that the minimum wage is, and always will be, $0.

Comment on The Minimum Advance: A Modest Proposal by Mike Sepos

Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:47:54 +0000

I am going to fall under the conservative side and criticize your proposal. I will venture to bet I could get a few investors and we could put together a business plan that will do exactly what you are suggesting, I would even venture to say that we could do the $15 an hour. There is one caveat, we own your work once your done. We pay you by the hour for your work, but we collect any royalties going forward forever Art, is a lot like a business. Now if I wanted to open a business selling widgets, although that term doesn't mean what it used to mean since widgets are a real thing now. Do I have the right do demand of my future customers a set price based on my estimated sales to them for a product that I haven't even created yet? They can't look at it, they can't touch it They have no real assurance that they will even want my product once I create it. In a traditional business that would be absurd, although it is happening a bit now with the new crowd funding sites that are popping up. Traditionally, if you needed the cash up front you would go to a third party source, usually a bank. you would present a business proposal. You would sign a promissory note and they would give you money. That money is the same as your advance. The publishing companies give you a loan against your future business in the hopes that your future sales will be able to cover the loan. If you wish to get an amount of money up front, maybe you could set up a crowdfunding site. Promise each contributor a Signed first edition copy of your novel for a mere contribution of $25. All it would take is about 950 pre-sales to cover the cost of the crowd sourcing and give you an advance near the $15 per hour mark. You could probably even throw in dinner with the author for 2 at any restaurant in the greater Salt Lake City area for a mere $1000 contribution. You never know, you might have a few wealthy fans willing to pay $500 a plate to have dinner with you. On a side note, it would probably create a great money making opportunity for some creative people.

Comment on Ruminations on Nominations by Walter Daniels

Tue, 28 Apr 2015 13:22:07 +0000

I have to take issue with _two_ statements that you made. 1) I've been "handicapped" since August 1977, when I destroyed my right knee. Until I became (legally) disabled in April 1994 (left knee damaged in a car-pedestrian accident), I *never* got or kept a job, because I was "handicapped." I worked for _years_ at low paying jobs, and studied a mountain of professional material every month, to *qualify* for a job as a Network Operations manager. Yet, some people I worked form "decided" that was how I got the job. That is the price *every* person "eligible" for preferential treatment, gets viewed. The attitude is, "they got it as a result of 'special" treatment." 2) Sad Puppies was _never_ presented as more than, "Consider these authors/artists." The same as all the AP's claim to do, with their "recommendations." (I can't speak for Vox Day. Nor, would I wish to.) If there was "no secret cabal," how did Theresa Nielsen Hayden *know and complain about* the "wrong names being nominated?" She did this, *in public, on her blog," several days _before_ the "secret" nominations, were publicly announced. So, either TNH is a great psychic, or there was a "secret cabal of voters."

Comment on Ruminations on Nominations by Eric James Stone

Tue, 28 Apr 2015 13:10:54 +0000

I hope there will be, but I don't know anything definite.

Comment on Ruminations on Nominations by Peggy :)

Tue, 28 Apr 2015 10:14:14 +0000

Hey Eric, do you know if there is an audiobook version of Unforgettable in the works? Btw, nice post. :)

Comment on Ruminations on Nominations by James

Tue, 28 Apr 2015 04:48:16 +0000

I don't agree with everything here, but at least you presented a reasonable approach. But, who cares, really? When is Unforgettable coming out? That is what I want to know. Cheers

Comment on Ruminations on Nominations by Eric James Stone

Tue, 28 Apr 2015 02:31:56 +0000

Ken, I'm not sure whether you're addressing me with your comment, but if you read my full post you'll see I'm not the type to smear someone on the basis of who they sell their words to. (I used to work for Orson Scott Card's InterGalactic Medicine Show, so I've seen that in action, and it's not pretty.) I plan to read your work and judge it on how I perceive its merits. I've already read two Puppy nominees that I think are worthy of being voted above No Award, and I hope to find more.

Comment on Ruminations on Nominations by Ken Burnside

Tue, 28 Apr 2015 01:38:27 +0000

I have sinned. I have sinned by selling words to Vox Day, who is outside the bounds of reasonable human discourse. I have sinned by not distancing myself from someone whom I have a contractual obligation to. I have not repented with enough publicity and remorse. By not putting sufficient distance between myself and Vox Day in public, I am assumed to secretly, or not so secretly, agree with him. If you can find racism, misogyny or religious dialecticism in "The Hot Equations," I'd be fascinated to hear your interpretation of the piece. Sorry, not buying the narrative there. "Read the works. Vote your conscience. In that order." You may not feel that any of the Related Works are worthy of a Hugo, and if you vote No Award after reading them, you are voting your conscience. My victory condition is different: I'm looking for readers. People who don't know my name in a field related to one where I'm narrowly famous. I consider advocacy for "No Award" without reading the works to be dishonest. I consider distributing paid memberships by people who are opposed to the slates to be dishonest. I'll end this with a paraphrase of Sarkeesian: "In the game of niche literary awards, the writers on the slate aren't the other side. They're the ball."