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.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Metacomet who wrote (109915)1/19/2015 11:04:33 AM
From: Follies  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 217573
 
I am not a Christian and I am pro-abortion, I think it should be mandated in certain circumstances, there are too many people.

But back to healthcare. Your solution is a typical liberal response, take from those who have and give to those who haven't. If more people are getting some healthcare, some people are getting less healthcare. Why not consider growing the healthcare pie, instead of free community college, why not free or reduced tuition for anyone entering the healthcare field (take away from liberal arts scholarships) . The more doctors we have the more healthcare we have. I would also be for government run clinics that anyone could go to and get free care. That would have been far less costly and disruptive. Maybe doctors who get free tuition must work in the government clinic for 2 or 3 years.



To: Metacomet who wrote (109915)1/19/2015 12:34:36 PM
From: RJA_  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217573
 
The ACA: Nothing to be proud of, as it is get less/pay more for the majority, the result: a good chunk of those that voted for it are gone, and both houses are now R. Thats your ACA.

Re the ACA, “I feel your pain” (said in an arkansas accent)… the thing is a major f**kup… you get to pay a lot for non coverage unless you make very little, or had a serious pre existing condition and could not be otherwise covered. For the majority, get less, pay more. And deductibles have increased dramatically, so coverage is essentially catastrophic only. You would think this thing could have been tested on a small scale before rolling out for everyone. And then of course, the great lie about being able to keep your old coverage.




And here is someones direct experience with it:


I did have several preexistings. This was why I was eligible for a state public option of a group insurance for ininsurable people. and was covered in a pool of ‘un-insurables’ in Oregon (a nice insurance group rate – tho over $500 a month for individual – still worth it – saw me thru a major surgery and most follow up). That was decent insurance. The new, mandated (as in I still need to pay to for-profit corporations, or get fined and still have to pay for actual health care), insurance is not decent, but crap. Because of this ACA, I may get bumped down into the low poverty rates which may mean lots of other difficulties. I’ve had to deal with (and pay for) several health issues in 2014 and will have to have major surgery in 2015 which I need, but cannot afford with crap insurance – which will make a profit for the rich, thanks to the Ds and Obama. When it hits this close to home it is hard to be a cheerleader for the “great and wonderful” Ds (and hope that Obama is more ‘popular’ in 2016) !! I may have to go green (party).


To be more clear, it was because of the ACA, and Obama who championed it, I lost my state public option health insurance and was mandated to buy on the open market, since my income did not “fit the profile” of who could buy on the ‘exchanges’. They – the govt people – told me that right away. So the for-profit insurance corporations could not refuse me, like they had so very many times before, but the were allowed to offer me, mandated, crap insurance which would not actually pay for anything.



To: Metacomet who wrote (109915)1/19/2015 11:32:22 PM
From: elmatador  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217573
 
Central banks have caught the renminbi fever, and are showing strong interest in investing part of their foreign-currency reserves in the Chinese currency, with more than 50 central banks now actively doing so either onshore or offshore.
...
If the renminbi were to be included in the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR) reserve asset (effectively a basket of reserve currencies), which is up for review next year, it would be a significant step up for renminbi internationalization.

French, Swiss central banks swell rush to hold renminbi
blogs.ft.com