SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: i-node who wrote (740297)9/18/2013 1:15:50 PM
From: bentway  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1572758
 
See it from the employee's POV. They used to be locked into their Walgreens job if they wanted to keep the healthcare, or limited only to jobs that would provide equivalent healthcare, if they had to have it. Now, as in ALL OTHER developed countries, his healthcare will continue if he leaves Walgreens.

Walgreens is not on the hook to provide healthcare, making them more competitive.

I have no problems with it at all. It's the future. The fact is, more and more employers are dropping health insurance entirely. That had become the way America got health insurance entirely by accident, with no planning at all. Eat it, Dave!



To: i-node who wrote (740297)9/18/2013 1:38:35 PM
From: simplicity1 Recommendation

Recommended By
MakeMyDay

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1572758
 
"Strategies like moving workers to private exchanges "may be the way of the future, but don't blame the Affordable Care Act for it," says Ezekiel Emanuel, a former Obama administration health-care adviser and University of Pennsylvania professor of health-care management."

This is the same Ezekiel Emanuel who believes that healthcare should be rationed depending on a citizen's ability to contribute to society as a whole:
This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just alloca- tion of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future genera- tions, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.
Some may believe this to be logical, and reasonable, but, considering the fact that this administration (and possibly others that follow) and its belief that human beings are merely tools to be used to achieve the realization of a political agenda, some degree of eugenics can't be far behind.