This is not true--especially when considering different SQL implementations (e.g. Oracle SQL versus Microsoft SQL). NULL and EMPTY handle the intersection of ontic versus epistemic claims.
EMPTY implies a known, 0-byte value whereas NULL can imply either an unknown value or the "unknowability" of a value (i.e. the in-existence of a value).
In practical terms, this would be like equating the statements "I don't know whether that dog has a name" (i.e. a NULL name) and "I do not know the name of that dog" (an EMPTY name). The former does not assert the existence of a proper noun to represent "that dog", whereas the latter implicitly asserts that there exists a proper noun which nominates "that dog".
beg pardon I wasn't aware sql actually defined empty. of the engines I'm familiar with there is no keyword for empty like what gp is asking for (and I hold my argument for why it should not be necessary). it sounds like what you're describing is a blank string and I agree with using blanks to distinguish between "has no phone number" and "we don't know their phone number" but that isn't what gp was talking about.
It's not because Medicare offers a "blank check"; after all--the amount of revenue that the hospital can generate will always be hard-capped by the number of beds+/physicians+/resources available.
They go with Medicare because the pay-out rate (i.e. "collect-ability") for billable services is much higher--and much more predictable--than if they attempted to collect/negotiate with non-governmental providers. A LOT of money is lost by hospital systems due to unpaid patient responsibility (e.g. insurance deductibles), which they can minimize by offering only services already guaranteed to be covered by Medicare.
Wait, wait, wait--you're saying that we need to solve issues like regulatory capture through legislation... so that we can have a market without governmental interference (aka a "free market")? Huh?
You can't on the one hand tout the "free market", while on the other complain that we don't have the "right" kind of governmental interference.
Even if you could square that circle, it still sounds disingenuous to argue that we could have the most efficient system if only we were to eliminate _thing that said system actively encourages_. The failure is baked into the game, my friend.
I don’t think that reasoning is necessarily unsound. For there to be regulatory capture, there needs to be regulation. The legislation proposed could be to remove or minimize that regulation, and thus limit the ”hooks” whereby to capture it with. Replacing ”governmental interference” with ”less governmental interference”, not ”different governmental interference”.
I don’t take such a libertarian view myself, by the way. Just pointing out that I don’t think you can pick apart the argument of the person you replied to in that way.
Put simply: it is fraudulent when a creditor uses lies or deception. JP Morgan deceived the Greek people by masking a massive loan to the Greek government as a "currency swap", seemingly to avoid the financial regulators within the EU. See here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/global/14debt.htm...
"Instruments developed by Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and a wide range of other banks enabled politicians to mask additional borrowing in Greece, Italy and possibly elsewhere."
Sounds like the Greek government was culpable.
Not blaming the culture of corruption in Greece and not pointing out that the Greek overspending was the root of the problem is disingenuous.
There have been two different Greek governments in this period.
Smearing Syriza, a socialist formation which made the same critique as the above poster, and would never have signed those deals -- for the corrupt actions of New Democracy & PASOK which did is a little bit of intellectual dishonesty.
