Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: free healthcare
Thread: free healthcare This thread is 21 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 ... 17 18 19 20 21 · «PREV / NEXT»
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 10, 2013 04:34 AM

Quote:
Americans are all proudly standing behind their leader at difficult moments.
They aren't, as Obama's approval ratings show. And given everything Obama has done, 46% approval is too high.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted July 10, 2013 07:58 AM
Edited by Elodin at 07:59, 10 Jul 2013.

Obamacare is bad for business and bad for the economy according to a new Gallup poll.

Clicky

Quote:

A new Gallup poll of small-business owners indicates that Obamacare is having a dramatic and deleterious effect on Americans’ employment prospects.  More than 40 percent of small-business owners say that Obamacare has caused them to freeze hiring, while nearly a fifth say that it has caused them to cut existing workers.  According to the poll, 41 percent of small-business owners have frozen hiring, while 19 percent have “reduced the number of employees [they] have in [their] business as a specific result of the Affordable Care Act [Obamacare]” (italics added).

The Gallup poll was commissioned by Littler Mendelson, a firm specializing in employment law.  Steven Friedman, an attorney for the firm, said of the results, “We were startled.”  He added that these are “some pretty startling answers.”

Just 9 percent of the 603 employers surveyed by Gallup said Obamacare will be good for their business, compared to 48 percent who said it will be bad.  Just 5 percent said Obamacare will lower health costs, while 55 percent said it will raise them.  Just 13 percent said Obamacare will improve the quality of health care, versus 52 percent who said it will diminish it.

Fully three-eighths (38 percent) of small-business owners said that, because of Obamacare, they “have pulled back on their plans to grow their business.”

In addition to these results, 18 percent of small-business owners say they have already cut their workers’ hours back to part-time levels in anticipation of Obamacare’s effects.  Moreover, 24 percent “are weighing whether to drop insurance coverage.”

Obamacare’s federally required insurance has to cover more things (including birth control, sterilization, and the abortion drug ella), and hence will be more expensive, than the insurance that most people choose to buy when they are left free to make such decisions for themselves.  Obamacare will mark the first time in American history that private citizens will be required to buy a product or service of the federal government’s choosing, merely as a condition of living in the United States.

Small businesses are a major driver of job growth, and this Gallup poll helps shed light on why job growth has been so abysmal during the Obamacare era.  Since the moment when the Democrats passed Obamacare in March 2010, the portion of Americans (among those who are at least 16 years old and are free to pursue employment) who have been employed has always remained under 59.0 percent — according to the federal government’s own Bureau of Labor Statistics.  In comparison, from the last few months of the Reagan administration, through the entire four years of the first Bush administration, through the entire eight years of the Clinton administration, through the entire eight years of the second Bush administration (which covered the bulk of the most recent recession), the portion of Americans who were employed was always over 60.0 percent — every single month, for more than 20 consecutive years.  Again, that’s according to the federal government’s own tallies.

Perhaps there’s a reason why this has been the worst economic recovery in the past six decades — and perhaps that reason, or at least the core of it, is Obamacare.


____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
del_diablo
del_diablo


Legendary Hero
Manifest
posted July 10, 2013 06:21 PM

So a minority of smaller companies could no long just hire temp work to avoid commitment? Neat.
____________



 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted July 13, 2013 10:56 PM

fred79 said:
Quote:
Americans are all proudly standing behind their leader at difficult moments.


i don't think americans stand behind their leader(s) when the leader(s) in question are corrupt, sal. i think they stand behind their country, and the leader is backed by default.

i don't personally know anyone who liked either bush OR obama. but we all like our country. i think that is the difference, at least with americans. i can't speak for the french, i don't know any outside this forum.


If you don't approve Bush or Obama, why stand behind their decisions in the name of country? How is that kind of patriotism different than nepotism. People should only stand by things they actually agree on. If you don't approve your country's politics on something, you shouldn't support it. That kind of loyalty is robotic to me.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 14, 2013 03:21 AM

artu said:
fred79 said:
Quote:
Americans are all proudly standing behind their leader at difficult moments.


i don't think americans stand behind their leader(s) when the leader(s) in question are corrupt, sal. i think they stand behind their country, and the leader is backed by default.

i don't personally know anyone who liked either bush OR obama. but we all like our country. i think that is the difference, at least with americans. i can't speak for the french, i don't know any outside this forum.


If you don't approve Bush or Obama, why stand behind their decisions in the name of country? How is that kind of patriotism different than nepotism. People should only stand by things they actually agree on. If you don't approve your country's politics on something, you shouldn't support it. That kind of loyalty is robotic to me.


i never said i stand behind any decisions, or support anything, especially by politicians. i was speaking about the masses, not me personally. and i was speaking in general. when 9/11 happened, people stood behind bush because they wanted to lash out in anger. they stood behind obama because they thought he was going to bring something new to the white house, being that he was the first african american in office. most people are full of this short-sightedness.

but who doesn't support their own country, artu? i mean, really? what you are saying doesn't make any sense to me. the country and the people who run it are two seperate things. that democracy fails the people again and again and again due to corruption is one thing, love for your country is something entirely different. i am loyal to my country, not a collection of horrible people who run it. that's why i don't vote, the game is rigged. that other people do, shows:

1. their shortsightedness,
2. their patriotism(if, by patriotism, they think that voting is actually supporting their country), and finally,
3. their misguided belief that the system works in their favor.

now that i think of it, i can see why you say it is robotic, but it's not necessarily "loyalty" that make people follow the lies of those in power. there are many different, more personal reasons, but i think what i have stated pretty much covers it.

____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted July 14, 2013 07:38 AM

Dude, you say the leader is backed by default. Loving your country is a feeling not necessarily a political stance. If you turn it into that,  it becomes a matter of, quoting your president, "you are either with us or against us" which is the perfect mentality to stop using your own head and start taking sides just because you're told it's the loyal thing to do.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 14, 2013 08:31 AM

artu said:
Dude, you say the leader is backed by default. Loving your country is a feeling not necessarily a political stance. If you turn it into that,  it becomes a matter of, quoting your president, "you are either with us or against us" which is the perfect mentality to stop using your own head and start taking sides just because you're told it's the loyal thing to do.


no, it doesn't. there were many soldiers who were against the war in iraq, yet they still deployed there. they weren't against the iraqi's at all, many of them were friends with them. just because you are a part of a country, doesn't mean you necessarily bend to the will of the corrupt politicians.

granted, there is a WHOLE lot of "side-taking" in the united states, just like there probably is everywhere else. nothing is black and white, though, and there are too many things to take into account, for each person, each idea, even such things as "sides".

so, let me ask you a question, artu. do you like the country you're in? and if not, why not move to another one, more fitting with what you believe in?
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted July 14, 2013 09:34 AM
Edited by artu at 09:41, 14 Jul 2013.

Quote:
no, it doesn't. there were many soldiers who were against the war in iraq, yet they still deployed there.


That may have many reasons, money, being a soldier by family tradition, to see the world... But if you are against the war in Iraq and you enlist anyway out of loyalty, that is obedience rather than loyalty. What are you loyal to, if you think the war is wrong for your country?

Quote:
so, let me ask you a question, artu. do you like the country you're in? and if not, why not move to another one, more fitting with what you believe in?

There are things I like and dislike about my country. I like how I'm culturally from all Mediterranean, Middle-east and Europe at the same time (especially in Istanbul), I like the rich history of the Empire, I love my mother tongue, I like the coastal climate in the Aegean part where my family roots are, I like how people are loose on time (a writer once said, you know how we say to each other "see you next week," that's "see you next friday at 14:37" for someone from the West.)

I don't like Islam, I don't like the mediocraty on modern art, films, organizations. I don't like how half the population still are peasants culturally. I don't like the way they treat the sexuality of women like sin. I hate the tasteless, provincial urbanization that turns the cities into this:



If I ever move to another country, and I don't plan to, it will be Italy. Similar culture and climate minus Islam and historical, lovely cities that are preserved beyond imagination.  

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 14, 2013 11:00 AM

artu said:
But if you are against the war in Iraq and you enlist anyway out of loyalty, that is obedience rather than loyalty. What are you loyal to, if you think the war is wrong for your country?


i was talking about the soldiers that were already in the military when the war started, like myself.

and, lol, enlisting out of loyalty isn't obedience, it's loyalty. you said it yourself.

i don't know if you've ever served in a military, artu, but when you sign up, you are signing on to do what you are told, by whoever is supposedly the boss, just like any other job, but moreso as a soldier, because now, lives are on the line. do you know what value a person is to their country when they defect? do you know how "traitors" are treated? like i said, the game is rigged. you don't really have options as soldier, if you value your future.

i'm getting confused in the point you are trying to make here, artu.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted July 14, 2013 11:20 AM
Edited by artu at 11:28, 14 Jul 2013.

Well, anytime soon Corb will drop by and tell us to stay on topic. So, to keep it short, there's nothing to be confused about: This isn't about not being able to get out of the service cause you already signed up. Look at the context, Sal says he appreciates how Americans stand by their leaders, you correct him by saying they actually stand by their country, the leaders just happen to be there and I object by saying you don't stand by your country or leaders regardless of content. That is not something to appreciate, that kind of loyalty is blind and blind loyalty in practice, is obedience. If a soldier enlists AFTER (that was my example) he hears about a war that he don't, in his thoughts, agree on, if his motive is loyalty without questioning things (or not putting that doubt in his actions), then it is robotic. Blind loyalty is only meaningful during combat. In combat there is no time for everyone's opinion and it's a matter of instant life or death. So yes, military has a unique structure of hierarchy that is very strict. Other than that I don't see why people ALWAYS standing by their leaders is a good thing. When it comes down to it, what you call standing by your country is actually going along with some decisions that some politicians make. To give an example, the US of the 60's that had crowds marching the streets protesting the war is way more respectable to me than a US in which, it's "politically incorrect" to talk against the war.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 14, 2013 11:31 AM

lol, i forgot all about the actual topic. sorry, cor. not intentional.

artu, we can agree to disagree. caring about your country isn't the same thing as liking your leaders, is all i'm saying. there's nothing blind about liking your country, what is blind is liking the leaders who represent it, when they aren't worthy to be in the positions they're in. two seperate things. i have already stated countless times in other threads that people are too lazy to remove the corrupt officials, and put responsible people in office. the game is rigged, until it is fixed, no one can win, except the rotten. which i don't see changing anytime soon.

[end of off-topic for me]
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted July 14, 2013 11:38 AM

Well, the whole thing was never about LIKING in the first place. It was about STANDING BY it. (Which practically means backing up some decisions.)

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted July 16, 2013 08:57 AM

The labor unions are beginning to turn against Obmacare even though they spent millions to promote it.

Clicky

Quote:

Labor unions are among the key institutions responsible for the passage of Obamacare. They spent tons of money electing Democrats to Congress in 2006 and 2008, and fought hard to push the health law through the legislature in 2009 and 2010. But now, unions are waking up to the fact that Obamacare is heavily disruptive to the health benefits of their members.

Last Thursday, representatives of three of the nation’s largest unions fired off a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, warning that Obamacare would “shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.”


____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted July 16, 2013 02:17 PM

This is what happens when you support passage of a terrible bill that nobody read.  It will be simultaneously fun and irritating to watch the Obama administration try to blame this disastrous law on the Republicans.  They have already attributed the delays in implementation, somehow, on Republican obstructionism.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
markkur
markkur


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
posted July 16, 2013 05:51 PM

So, its going down the drain then?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted July 16, 2013 11:19 PM

I think citizens, businesses and NGOs are finally beginning to realize what a disaster it is.  It will cost a fortune and will solve nothing.  In fact, it's going to make medical costs worse.  If the labor folks and unions are starting to tilt against it, you know it's in trouble.

The repeal issue may be moot if the Obama Administration can't get enough young people to sign up for it.  Without participation, it won't function.  Goodbye, Obamacare, and good riddance.  

The Administration has tried to get organizations like the NFL and NBA to support the initiative, but they are reluctant to do so, and who can blame them.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 17, 2013 06:46 AM

The problem with the US is, that your medical sector is nothing less than theft and extortion from doctors, surgeons, hospitals, the supplying industry and the pharma industry - which means premiums of insurances must necessarily be high from the start plus THEY want to make a buck with it as well. A mandatory health insurance under these conditions is basically like forcing everyone to pay protection money to the "health racket".

Since it's pretty obvious that "free market" isn't working here because not only is there no competition - the system doesn't really have to advertise for customers, because there is a steady and natural supply, even though that doesn't mean that they cannot fuel the fear and get people for example to let themselves vaccinate against the flu to make an additional buck -, but there is also no control of what treatment and prescriptions are necessary and what not, with the fear of the patients being a good foundation to suck them dry, you don't need to be a prophet to foresee serious problems for the future. The US spends 18% of their GNP for health service, and that percentage will rise and rise and rise, unless your government destroys the racket and - oh, beware of the devil - controls and sets prices.

You should get a clue as well, for what's really happening in your country, by looking at the other countries - that strangely enough seem all to be able to afford a public healthcare system, spending a lot less all in all for health without being sicker or something - even though our docs and pharma corps make a fine life out of the job as well.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted July 17, 2013 10:31 AM
Edited by Elodin at 10:34, 17 Jul 2013.

Europe's health care systems are collapsing so Europe is the last place the US should look for inspiration.

Clicky
Quote:

Public hospitals in cash-strapped European Union countries are denying patients access to healthcare under the European Health Insurance Card or EHIC, according to healthcare insurers. Patients who present their insurance card hoping for care in public hospitals are increasingly being treated as private patients and given a final bill up to four times as high, say insurers in Belgium. The practice is most widespread in Spain but has reportedly spread to Greece, Portugal, Italy and Romania - where health system are under financial stress.

When arriving at the accident and emergency ward of a public hospital, patients presenting an EHIC are asked if they have additional private insurance. If they do, they are treated as private patients. "This is a clear violation of citizens' rights to use the card," says Christian Horemans, international affairs expert with Mutualités Libres - a Belgian insurer. "European Community law says public hospitals are obliged to accept these cards."

Patients refused access to largely free public care are redirected in many cases to Gestitursa, which is operating in several European countries – according to Horemans. On its webpage, Gestitursa says it specialises in "administration and resolution of problems not directly connected to healthcare". It provides "a double service, to the patient on one hand and to the insurance company on the other". The company did not respond to a request for comment.

Increasingly frequent refusals risk jeopardising the health insurance scheme that has protected tourists since the 1970s, Horemans tells PublicServiceEurope.com. "We are crossing our fingers now because the holiday season is coming."

Patients diverted to private healthcare can have a nasty shock as in some cases they are presented with the entire bill for their treatment, says Geert Messiaen - secretary general of Belgium's Union Nationale des Mutualités Libérales, an umbrella group of 10 health insurers. They are expected to settle in full and then enter a claim with their insurer when they get back home. "It is possible in public hospitals to be treated as a private patient and, in these cases, the health insurance card is not accepted and the patient must settle the bill in full," Messiaen says.

Refusing to accept the European card - one of the basic benefits of the common market - is said to be a phenomenon that has sprung up in public hospitals over the last two months. But it follows other reports of reduced benefits for the many retirees who have flocked to Spain over the last two decades. The health insurance card used to cover both emergency care and treatment for chronic illnesses, says Horemans. But over the last two years, Spanish hospitals have refused to cover chronic conditions. Pharmacies are also reported to be clamping down. Tourists are finding they have to pay full price for their medicine, when at home they would pay a subsidised price.

The European Commission says it is on the case after having received "an increasing number of complaints" regarding Spain. "Many of these hospitals, we understand, provide both private and public healthcare and some tourists say they have been pushed to accept private treatment and to use private travel insurance," says commission spokesman Jonathan Todd. "People should ask for confirmation that the treatment they are receiving is part of the public healthcare system."

Brussels "is in discussions with the Spanish authorities about how to deal with this problem" says Todd. "If a person's European health card is refused for public healthcare in another member state during a temporary stay, then this is most likely a breach of EU law."

The unspoken reality is that healthcare cuts in near-bankrupt countries have often been imposed by Brussels acting in coordination with other bodies such as the International Monetary Fund. By making tourists pay more than locals for their healthcare, countries such as Spain are getting their own back. The result of this struggle could be the collapse of the European health insurance system for tourists.




Clicky
Quote:

Traditional sources of funding health care in Europe have been branded obsolete and unaffordable. The need for innovation has never been stronger and while some countries, such as the Netherlands and Switzerland, are embracing change, others are resisting any significant overhaul. Indeed, the notion of free, state-backed health care is ingrained in the psyche of most Europeans.

Reformers want to reduce the state's role in health-care delivery and introduce a competitive element. Those against change are adamant that a health-care system without state involvement is health care without a heart. Good for the rich, calamitous for the poor. It is an issue heavily clouded by emotion. But many feel that without innovation, crumbling state-backed systems will collapse as they struggle to cope with aging populations, soaring overheads and, more recently, mounting budget deficits.

The statistics paint a bleak picture. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the European Union will see an increase in health expenditure of 350% by 2050, whereas at the same time the economy is only set to expand by 180%.
....



Clicky
Quote:

The British government has decided that it needs to cut millions of operations because the public system cannot afford them. This is coming soon to a hospital or doctor's office near you.

According to the Daily Mail, Britain's National Health Service is "preparing to cut millions of operations" so that it can save $29 billion by 2014. Procedures that will be "decommissioned," if we may borrow a particularly descriptive term used by one doctor, include hip replacements for obese patients, some operations for hernias and gallstones, and treatments for varicose veins, ear and nose problems, and cataract surgery.

Thus is the future of all socialized medicine. Bureaucratic rationing of treatment is inevitable. No system can forever meet the demand of "free" care. Jeff Taylor of the Economic Voice clarified the problem when he wrote last week that "the U.K. is broke."

"Our whole society and way of life is now built on the shaky foundation of debt," he writes in response to the NHS cuts. "Our hospitals, schools, armed forces, police, prisons and social services are founded on debt. In truth we have not yet paid for the operations that have already taken place."

As former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously — and fittingly — said: The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money to spend. This is a universal truth, more universal than the health care provided in Britain. To trifle with it, ignore it, disrespect it, attempt to repeal it or arrogantly try to bypass it will always lead to trouble.

Yet the political left continually makes those mistakes and operates as if governments will never run out of other people's money. Until it does. And then the government has to make cuts and ration the benefits.

What have the congressional Democrats who rammed through their health care overhaul been watching over the years as both hard and soft socialist governments have either collapsed, continued to bring misery or become unsustainable? Despite ample evidence that a welfare state cannot thrive, these lawmakers have forced on the country a "reform" that will load Americans with a burden they will not long be able to bear.

Though it was sold to the public as a plan that, at $940 billion over the first decade, would bring down the deficit, the real cost for the initial 10 years could be as much as $2.5 trillion, including mandates placed on the private sector, according to an estimate by the Cato Institute.




____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Zenofex
Zenofex


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
posted July 17, 2013 10:57 AM

You can at least read your propaganda articles before posting them. The first one refers to ill practices concerning tourists, the others are mostly about the size of the safety net included in the insurances and what should be included and what not - which hardly translates as "the system is failing".

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 17, 2013 10:58 AM

It's unbelievable how much false information is spread, just to make a point (and I don't mean you, Elodin, but your sources).

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 21 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 ... 17 18 19 20 21 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1157 seconds