Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
ParticipantThe headline is more than a little misleading. According to the Columbia Journalism Review:
These planes are for an Air Force fleet that’s barely used by Congress—at least compared to the others who also use it. Over the last five years, 86 percent of the use of the private-plane fleet has been by the White House and the military. Just 14.5 percent has been congressional use.
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/journal_misleads_congress_jets.php
Not to mention that the addition just may make financial sense. From the WSJ article, well after the disingenuous lede:
The House Appropriations Committee says the new purchases are designed to replace seven aging and more expensive business jets. The net impact is one additional plane owned by the federal government and a substantial increase in its passenger capacity.
ParticipantThe headline is more than a little misleading. According to the Columbia Journalism Review:
These planes are for an Air Force fleet that’s barely used by Congress—at least compared to the others who also use it. Over the last five years, 86 percent of the use of the private-plane fleet has been by the White House and the military. Just 14.5 percent has been congressional use.
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/journal_misleads_congress_jets.php
Not to mention that the addition just may make financial sense. From the WSJ article, well after the disingenuous lede:
The House Appropriations Committee says the new purchases are designed to replace seven aging and more expensive business jets. The net impact is one additional plane owned by the federal government and a substantial increase in its passenger capacity.
ParticipantThe headline is more than a little misleading. According to the Columbia Journalism Review:
These planes are for an Air Force fleet that’s barely used by Congress—at least compared to the others who also use it. Over the last five years, 86 percent of the use of the private-plane fleet has been by the White House and the military. Just 14.5 percent has been congressional use.
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/journal_misleads_congress_jets.php
Not to mention that the addition just may make financial sense. From the WSJ article, well after the disingenuous lede:
The House Appropriations Committee says the new purchases are designed to replace seven aging and more expensive business jets. The net impact is one additional plane owned by the federal government and a substantial increase in its passenger capacity.
ParticipantSomebody does.
[quote=afx114]Does anybody have any data on how many people stay in their current job simply because of their healthcare? How much does employer-provided healthcare hinder worker mobility? Would you personally be more likely to search for a different job if your healthcare was not tied to your current employer?[/quote]
There was a good article in last week’s USN&WP covering this issue. From that article:
Most workers—about 60 percent—get their health insurance through their employers, and as health premiums have spiraled, those benefits have become highly valuable to most. Nearly a quarter of top-performing employees said healthcare benefits were one of the top three reasons they would leave an employer, and two thirds said healthcare benefits were an important reason to stay with a company, according to a 2006 Watson Wyatt study. Last year, 78 percent of finance and accounting workers surveyed by the Mergis Group viewed healthcare benefits as “most crucial to retaining them.”
I looked for the actual Watson Wyatt study that the artical references, I couldn’t find it.
ParticipantSomebody does.
[quote=afx114]Does anybody have any data on how many people stay in their current job simply because of their healthcare? How much does employer-provided healthcare hinder worker mobility? Would you personally be more likely to search for a different job if your healthcare was not tied to your current employer?[/quote]
There was a good article in last week’s USN&WP covering this issue. From that article:
Most workers—about 60 percent—get their health insurance through their employers, and as health premiums have spiraled, those benefits have become highly valuable to most. Nearly a quarter of top-performing employees said healthcare benefits were one of the top three reasons they would leave an employer, and two thirds said healthcare benefits were an important reason to stay with a company, according to a 2006 Watson Wyatt study. Last year, 78 percent of finance and accounting workers surveyed by the Mergis Group viewed healthcare benefits as “most crucial to retaining them.”
I looked for the actual Watson Wyatt study that the artical references, I couldn’t find it.
ParticipantSomebody does.
[quote=afx114]Does anybody have any data on how many people stay in their current job simply because of their healthcare? How much does employer-provided healthcare hinder worker mobility? Would you personally be more likely to search for a different job if your healthcare was not tied to your current employer?[/quote]
There was a good article in last week’s USN&WP covering this issue. From that article:
Most workers—about 60 percent—get their health insurance through their employers, and as health premiums have spiraled, those benefits have become highly valuable to most. Nearly a quarter of top-performing employees said healthcare benefits were one of the top three reasons they would leave an employer, and two thirds said healthcare benefits were an important reason to stay with a company, according to a 2006 Watson Wyatt study. Last year, 78 percent of finance and accounting workers surveyed by the Mergis Group viewed healthcare benefits as “most crucial to retaining them.”
I looked for the actual Watson Wyatt study that the artical references, I couldn’t find it.
ParticipantSomebody does.
[quote=afx114]Does anybody have any data on how many people stay in their current job simply because of their healthcare? How much does employer-provided healthcare hinder worker mobility? Would you personally be more likely to search for a different job if your healthcare was not tied to your current employer?[/quote]
There was a good article in last week’s USN&WP covering this issue. From that article:
Most workers—about 60 percent—get their health insurance through their employers, and as health premiums have spiraled, those benefits have become highly valuable to most. Nearly a quarter of top-performing employees said healthcare benefits were one of the top three reasons they would leave an employer, and two thirds said healthcare benefits were an important reason to stay with a company, according to a 2006 Watson Wyatt study. Last year, 78 percent of finance and accounting workers surveyed by the Mergis Group viewed healthcare benefits as “most crucial to retaining them.”
I looked for the actual Watson Wyatt study that the artical references, I couldn’t find it.
ParticipantSomebody does.
[quote=afx114]Does anybody have any data on how many people stay in their current job simply because of their healthcare? How much does employer-provided healthcare hinder worker mobility? Would you personally be more likely to search for a different job if your healthcare was not tied to your current employer?[/quote]
There was a good article in last week’s USN&WP covering this issue. From that article:
Most workers—about 60 percent—get their health insurance through their employers, and as health premiums have spiraled, those benefits have become highly valuable to most. Nearly a quarter of top-performing employees said healthcare benefits were one of the top three reasons they would leave an employer, and two thirds said healthcare benefits were an important reason to stay with a company, according to a 2006 Watson Wyatt study. Last year, 78 percent of finance and accounting workers surveyed by the Mergis Group viewed healthcare benefits as “most crucial to retaining them.”
I looked for the actual Watson Wyatt study that the artical references, I couldn’t find it.
Participant[quote=AN][quote=dbapig]
Yes illegals are uninsured. No denying. However so are many many US citizens.[/quote]
What’s the % of uninsured are US citizens vs illegals?[/quote]According to a Pew article a few months ago, there are approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in the US. Of that number roughly 7 million have no health insurance, out a total of 47 million without medical insurance. So approximately 15% of those without insurance are undocumented. Under the current house plan, undocumented residents would not be prohibited from buying insurance or receiving employer sponsored insurance benefits but would not be eligible for aid in doing so.
Participant[quote=AN][quote=dbapig]
Yes illegals are uninsured. No denying. However so are many many US citizens.[/quote]
What’s the % of uninsured are US citizens vs illegals?[/quote]According to a Pew article a few months ago, there are approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in the US. Of that number roughly 7 million have no health insurance, out a total of 47 million without medical insurance. So approximately 15% of those without insurance are undocumented. Under the current house plan, undocumented residents would not be prohibited from buying insurance or receiving employer sponsored insurance benefits but would not be eligible for aid in doing so.
Participant[quote=AN][quote=dbapig]
Yes illegals are uninsured. No denying. However so are many many US citizens.[/quote]
What’s the % of uninsured are US citizens vs illegals?[/quote]According to a Pew article a few months ago, there are approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in the US. Of that number roughly 7 million have no health insurance, out a total of 47 million without medical insurance. So approximately 15% of those without insurance are undocumented. Under the current house plan, undocumented residents would not be prohibited from buying insurance or receiving employer sponsored insurance benefits but would not be eligible for aid in doing so.
Participant[quote=AN][quote=dbapig]
Yes illegals are uninsured. No denying. However so are many many US citizens.[/quote]
What’s the % of uninsured are US citizens vs illegals?[/quote]According to a Pew article a few months ago, there are approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in the US. Of that number roughly 7 million have no health insurance, out a total of 47 million without medical insurance. So approximately 15% of those without insurance are undocumented. Under the current house plan, undocumented residents would not be prohibited from buying insurance or receiving employer sponsored insurance benefits but would not be eligible for aid in doing so.
Participant[quote=AN][quote=dbapig]
Yes illegals are uninsured. No denying. However so are many many US citizens.[/quote]
What’s the % of uninsured are US citizens vs illegals?[/quote]According to a Pew article a few months ago, there are approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in the US. Of that number roughly 7 million have no health insurance, out a total of 47 million without medical insurance. So approximately 15% of those without insurance are undocumented. Under the current house plan, undocumented residents would not be prohibited from buying insurance or receiving employer sponsored insurance benefits but would not be eligible for aid in doing so.
Participant[quote=Veritas]Obama Care, The Next Generation: Time to go, Grampa.
by Pat Buchanan
Beneath this controversy lie conflicting concepts about life. To traditional Christians, God is the author of life and innocent life, be it of the unborn or terminally ill, may not be taken. Heroic means to keep the dying alive are not necessary, but to advance a natural death by assisting a suicide or euthanasia is a violation of the God’s commandment, Thou shalt not kill.To secularists and atheists who believe life begins and ends here, however, the woman alone decides whether her unborn child lives, and the terminally ill and elderly, and those closest to them, have the final say as to when their lives shall end. As it would be cruel to let one’s cat or dog spend its last months or weeks in terrible pain, they argue, why would one allow one’s parents to endure such agony?
In the early 20th century, with the influence of Social Darwinism, the utilitarian concept that not all life is worth living or preserving prevailed. In Virginia and other states, sterilization laws were upheld by the Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said famously, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
In Weimar Germany, two professors published “The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life,” which advocated assisted suicide for the terminally ill and “empty shells of human beings.” Hitler’s Third Reich, marrying Social Darwinism to Aryan racial supremacy, carried the concepts to their logical if horrible conclusion.
Revulsion to Nazism led to revival of the Christian ideal of the sanctity of all human life and the moral obligation of all to defend it. But the utilitarian idea — of the quality of life trumping the faith-based idea of the sanctity of life — has made a strong comeback.
And the logic remains inexorable. If government intends to “bend the curve” of rising health care costs, and half of those costs are incurred in the last six months of life, and physician-counselors will be sent to the seriously ill to advise them of what costs will no longer be covered, and what their options are — what do you think is going to be Option A?
Let’s hope you make the right decision when it is your time to go….[/quote]
Beautifully written by a racist fear monger. But it has nothing to do with any proposal now in congress. It is without basis. It is devoid of any conclusive truth.
Currently, the insurance companies constantly try to “bend the curve” of rising health care costs. They do this in order to increase profits. So the more important question is not whether you trust the government to make the right decision, but whether you trust an insurance company. Too many times, for too many people, that question has already been answered. With cancellations, with denials of claims, with death by spreadsheet. For the more than 40 million currently uninsured, the question is moot.
-
AuthorPosts