Because the biggest savings associated with single-payer come from reduced payments to service providers, the switch would require American doctors and administrators to work for significantly less than they currently earn. But how painful would those sacrifices be?
Many I know went into healthcare to help people, not necessarily to feather their nests. If the overall emphasis changes from the current model, would not the former make for better healthcare? I constantly hear physicians complaining about how things are currently, the lack of time to diagnose patients properly, the excessive electronic records documentation to collect insurance billings, etc. It points strongly (to me) that they'd like to simply do their jobs and return to their domiciles at the end of a workday with feelings of accomplishment.
They said Trump was 'over', multiple times, going way back. I think a more historical view than the current reactionary one (that attracts clicks), is a better way to view all this.
Or am I the only one imagining some sanctimonious Presidential run by Ryan, offering to 'restore the soul of the Republican Party'? Those dewy eyes, appealing to red-state voters ... ? The lonely widows chucking their retirement leavings at him, much as men do at strip clubs?
After five years of research and the publication of The One Percent Solution, Lafer concluded that by lobbying to make changes like increasing class sizes, pushing for online instruction, lowering accreditation requirements for teachers, replacing public schools with privately-run charters, getting rid of publicly elected school boards and a host of other tactics, Big Business was aiming to dismantle public education.
Bear with me on this one; I know that title's twitching the 'sensationalism meter.' Read about his theories (remember they are such). The concept of most college-educated (the non-hereditarily-affluent) individuals entering the workforce with the reins of debt upon them, allowing 'control' by external economic and cultural forces, hits particularly hard.
This often takes the form of checkout shaming, in which consumers are asked to contribute a dollar to charity they might not be able to afford.
You realize, these huge firms claim this as a tax deduction (as I understand it). I loudly proclaim I give to the charity of my choice directly. You should, too. One should always choose charities deliberately, with forethought.
Users' data are the lifeblood of Facebook, and if they wanted to opt out of all of the platform's data-driven advertising, they would have to pay for it ...
We keep telling you people we don't mind a charge, if you leave our data out of the equation. $1/month per person, how much do you think you could make, going for the volume play?
If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
I take it that's a "no" then.
According to the National Institute on Retirement Security, some 66 percent of Americans between the ages of 21 and 32 have nothing saved for retirement.
When I see skilled work-for-hire gigs on Craiglist offering to 'generously pay' $3.00/hour less than the $18.00 hourly rate I worked at as a temp in 1985, when king-cab Toyota pickups were $7995 ... is it ANY WONDER? Working America needs to wake up and smell the Scrooge.
‘It costs three times more to look after a 75-year-old and five times more to look after an 80-year-old than a 30-year-old … today, there are half a million more people aged over 75 than there were in 2010. And there will be two million more in ten years’ time.’ Still, the last sentence strikes an uneasy note. There are shades of the rhetoric of immigrant fear, of the neurosis that a stable, long-established society is on the verge of being swamped by outsiders from far away, except that these ‘outsiders’ were born far away in time, rather than space.
Harbinger for upcoming budget battles in the US. When will the Boomers in Congress turn on, and begin to stab themselves and their generation in the back? The big social program battle looms.
Results of the online auction, posted on Tuesday afternoon, showed that all 43 parcels up for sale received winning bids, which averaged $28.68 per acre and ranged between $2 and $93 per acre. Total proceeds from the auction were $1.56 million, according to the BLM.
OK, here's a crazy idea. Get on Kickstarter or similar before one of these auctions. Let's get thousands of people willing to buy an acre, and scoop this acreate right out from under them. Whaddaya say? It's our land. We should buy it back. We shouldn't have to. But we could?