This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think forcing people to buy insurance is a really terrible way to reform the system, because it keeps the pricing inflated, putting more of a burden on small businesses and individuals who have to buy their own insurance, rather than doing away with the system that causes the problem of over-inflation of prices.
Granted- we do need a reform, but we need one designed to help people, and not designed to help people as long as it still benefits the insurance companies.
EDIT: I read that wrong. Edited appropriately, and will get more caffeine.
Post by
Squishalot
I'd like to see what factors were controlled for in relation to the IQ study. I know that IQ tests are often biased against anyone who speaks that language as a second language (e.g. migrants), so it could be a correlation between cultural beliefs/behaviours and IQ results.
I'm also curious about the accuracy of reporting. 1-2 spankings in 4 years... it's a mighty big long period to recall singular events.
Obamacare ruled constitutional!
Good to hear. It's a similar system to one we have in Australia (i.e. levy people who don't have private health insurance, in order to help compense the state for the additional burden being presented), so hopefully it works out for the US too.
Good- I think forcing people to buy insurance is a really terrible way to reform the system, because it keeps the pricing inflated, putting more of a burden on small businesses and individuals who have to buy their own insurance, rather than doing away with the system that causes the problem of over-inflation of prices.
If that's your view, what part of the ruling was good?
Never mind, just saw your edits.
Edit: Apparently CNN screwed up the reporting, initially reporting the legislation as unconstitutional, and took about 10 minutes before they realised they made a mistake.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Hmm. Not sure I'm happy about the health care thing. I'm not in the US much these days so I'm hazy on some of the details, but presumably it puts the US that much further away from having actual public health care...
Right- because it makes people further dependent on the for-profit insurance system, which provides nothing except financing (essentially) for the health care system. It's an extra layer of cost for the patient, keeps the health care industry from having to find ways to make the product affordable for current salaries, according to supply and demand, and makes it mandatory for people to contribute in one way or another. It's basically like a tax, that goes directly to a private company instead of the government, and fuels the system we're already having problems with by ensuring it has financing.
It's basically everything that conservatives fear about public healthcare combined with all of the price gouging that liberals want to cut out of the system by going public. It's the worst of both worlds.
Post by
Squishalot
I'm about to head to sleep, but I'd like to point out that one major advantage to be obtained is the community rating system - health insurance companies can't discriminate against people who would otherwise be unable to afford effective health care.
I agree that it's like a tax that goes to the private sector rather than the government, but if people like MyTie are correct in determining that the private sector is better able to manage processes, then it's a reasonable alternative. Short of banning health insurance, I don't see a way around it.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Squish- I think it's quite possible that a privately run Healthcare facility might be able to be more efficient with their funds than a publicly run one. But insurance isn't a healthcare facility. It's a financing structure for the healthcare facilities- one which needs to make its own profit before the patient even begins to deal with the actual health care provider.
I think the only real reform to the system that would be going in the right direction would have to ban/make obsolete health insurance.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I agree that it's like a tax that goes to the private sector rather than the government, but if people like MyTie are correct in determining that the private sector is better able to manage processes, then it's a reasonable alternative. Short of banning health insurance, I don't see a way around it.
Managing processes isn't the only factor in play. You're not going to get a system that keeps people healthy if it only makes money when they get sick.
Ok- but why does that have to go through Health Insurance? If we truly want a guaranteed stream of income to healthcare facilities, why not send it directly to them, instead of to a financing company who then turns around and only has to lay that money back out when people are sick? The healthcare facilities themselves aren't benefiting from this.
Post by
gamerunknown
Also the hard drugs like meth, MDPV, and psychedelics like MDMA and LSD weren't even around back then.
Not to mention hard drug use has declined in recent years in the
UK
and
Portugal
.
Looking at this
chart
, we can associate youth population with crime, but there's a confounding factor: in countries with lower average lifespan, there will be fewer old people in general. It also doesn't indicate that young people are more predisposed to violence now: rates of violent crime are dropping in the
US
and
Scotland
for instance, despite the
youth bulge
- if there are suitable social mechanisms in place, crime declines.
If one wants to propose a lack of discipline in this generation then one will need to find a suitable, disprovable metric to make that case. Perhaps our literacy could be the problem - Socrates seemed to think
that writing
would lead to a decline in intelligence since smart people could just memorise everything they needed to know.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I'm personally fine with public health care. I just think that this particular system is the complete opposite of what would accomplish either side's goals. It's more government regulation and taxation by proxy, but with all the benefit going to the Health Insurance system, rather than in any way improving or lowering the cost of the actual medical facilities, or changing the way in which they're paid only when people are sick.
I was just noting that even for people who did think that private healthcare would be a better way to make health care cost effective, enshrining the middle-man markup in law is the opposite of what they should want.
Post by
916544
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
916544
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
Well, I hope we can all agree
rescissions
weren't a good practice.
Post by
Ksero
Well, I hope we can all agree
rescissions
weren't a good practice.
That's completely ridiculous, they rescinded a women's coverage for breast cancer because she had acne and a rapid heartbeat earlier in life. Whats the point of having insurance if they take it away as soon as you get sick.
It would be understandable if you failed to mention rapid heartbeat, then had a heart attack, but for something completely unrelated i think it's ridiculous that they are able to do that.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18662531
For goodness' sake! Britain is in an economic meltdown, and needs all the willing and skilled workers it can get, and she does this?
Actually, the British government is opposed to bringing in new skilled workers, because it takes jobs away from the existing, unemployed skilled workers in the community. That approach has shafted a couple of co-workers who were left in the lurch somewhat when their young traveller visas were due to expire, since they were expecting to apply for the old skilled working visas to come in.
That being said, skilled migration =/= citizenship. You can be a permanent resident and work and pay taxes and all that, without being a citizen.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.