In universal healthcare, nobody will be happy, and I am talking about the three parties: the people (who will use the coverage) the providers (doctors, hospitals, and etc.), and the insurers. Here's why
The people want to be covered for everything, and pay nothing. Right? The reality is they can only get covered for something, and pay a bit more than something.
Providers want to provide everything, and get paid for everything at price of their choosing. The reality is providers can only provide something, and get paid for what the insurer chooses to pay up.
Insurer want to pay providers nothing, take in lots of premiums from the people. The reality is They have to pay providers something.
The needs are mutually exclusive, and it's a THREE-WAY relationship. So in short, nobody will get everything they want. Thus, nobody will be happy when the solution is available.
Since 1998, a bunch of paranoid parents, claiming that the MMR (mumps, measles, and rubella) vaccine may actually CAUSE autism, started an anti-vaccine movement, leading to massive drop in vaccinations for mumps, measles, and rubella. All of which were nearly eradicated in the 1980's and 1990's, that is, until this movement got started. Since then, these diseases are on the rise again. And autism rates are STILL going up for the past 10 years.
The only legitimate reason these anti-vaccine folks have that they can cite was a single paper, written by Andrew Wakefield and his group, published in February of 1998, in the British medical journal "The Lancet". So what did the paper actually say?
The paper is a study of twelve children with developmental disorders (i.e. autism). Eight of the parents claim that the symptoms started after the MMR vaccination. Studies show some sort of gastrointestinal problem in addition to the developmental problems seem to be in common among the children. However, the paper did NOT prove any sort of association between MMR vaccine and autism. What was its conclusion? Without the medical-ese, what it says is:
These kids, previously normal, now have digestive problems and autism, which seems to be triggered by something in the environment.
Absolutely NO mention of the vaccine at all was in the paper's conclusion.
The author, Andrew Wakefield, in a press conference before publishing the paper, stated that he believe it may be prudent to use single vaccines instead of the triple-combination MMR vaccine until it can be proven that there really is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism, even though there was no evidence that single vaccines will avoid triggering autism. This is his personal opinion, and was NOT in the research paper.
In other words, you are not really supposed to enjoy social security, even though you did pay for it. Yet you cannot opt out of it either.
What's more, the earliest social security law excluded almost 50% of the workforce. No domestic help, no hospital worker, no agricultural worker, and a lot more exclusions (see wikipedia)
That was 70+ years ago. Guess what the life expectancy is now? 78 (okay, 77.8, same link above, as of 2005). Yet the retirement age, i.e. time to enjoy social security, is still 65. And the payout groups have grown steadily larger, and larger.
No wonder social security is going bankrupt. In fact, 2010 will be the first year that Social Security is actually running a deficit. It hasn't yet because it had built up a huge reserve in the past 70 years, but if the retirement age isn't adjusted upward, or the payout severely reduced, social security will cease to exist.
Everybody knows Kia and Hyundai, but anybody knows Ssangyang? They are actually the fourth largest automaker in Korea. And they were just MUGGED by the Chinese, done with money, rather than espionage.
Ssangyong Motors, a minor Korean car maker (4th in Korea), was in financial trouble in 2005, and when Shanghai Motors (yes, from China), also known as SAIC, offered a financial deal, that they will establish a co-op venture in China, and take 51% stake of Ssangyong. The Koreans were very skeptical. It is clear that China wants the tech (SsangYang has hybrid tech, among other stuff that Shanghai motor doesn't), not the employees.
The deal was rammed through, with some promises that no one will be laid off. However, after the deal went through, and the plant was indeed established in China, but this also lead SAIC gaining access to ALL technology and researched made by Ssangyong Motors, including the hybrid tech. With no executive board input, the two company networks are linked, and as a result, virtually everything in the Ssangyang network was copied.
San FranciscoCity Council wants to pass a resolution making it ILLEGAL for landlords to specify "no pets" in San Francisco. Another typical SF Madness resolution.
The main reason that this is being brought up was that the tenants are being forced to "downsize" their rentals, and the new rentals don't take pets, thus, the shelters are overwhelmed, and lots of pets are "put to sleep". And apparently, this is anathema to some of the SF Animal Care and Control Commission members.
Frankly, this is backwards reasoning. In this economy, people can't afford both pets AND a nice place. The lack of "pet friendly" rental is just an excuse. The REAL TRUTH is people can no longer afford mortgages, and have to rent. If they own their own house, they can have pets with no restrictions. If they rent, they have restrictions. That's something they have to live with. If they want pet ownership right, they need to own their own house.
Do you put bumper stickers on rental cars? Of course not. When you "rent" or "lease", your rights toward that property is naturally more limited than if you owned it. Basically, you accept whatever the landlord says... unless you are discriminated against.
What exactly is a pet? Clearly, it means more than cat or dog... So where do you draw the line? Mouse? Hamsters and gerbils? Lizards like iguanas and dragons and such? Chameleons? Snakes? How long? How about horses, pigs, birds, and others? How big or small? Insects? If you include one, are you going down a slippery slope toward anything? How about a "human pet"?
Then since when is pet ownership a "right"? Pet is a LUXURY, like wine, jewelry, bling bling, and such. It's a PRIVILEGE! There is no such thing as "right to companionship" either. So this whole thing is a joke.
Artificially increasing the so-called "pet-friendly" rentals will cause a severe backlash against the city government.
A bunch of students have taken over several University of California campus buildings at UC Berkeley and UC Santa Cruz, as well as other campuses. The students are "outraged" by the increase in fees, to over 10000, roughly 32%. So what exact did these student "protest" this lack of funds? By causing massive police presence, occupying buildings, forcing police to break in, trespassing, and destroying rooms and general vandalizing. They were finally evicted by police, charged with various misdemeanors and infractions in some cases.
Their protests actually COST the university system more money.
They claim they are expressing their outrage over the fee increase, but they are actually contributing to the problem by causing general mayhem, thus causing the school to lose even MORE MONEY.
Also, if the classes would be cut due to lack of funds, wouldn't you want to get your money's worth NOW, instead of cutting class and join this "protest" that actually costs the schools MORE money?
What's more, a bunch of yahoos then messed up the UC Chanceller's RESIDENCE building, and vandalized the entire front porch, plus throwing a TORCH at it, essentially trying to firebomb it! That's completely OUTRAGEOUS! These are ****ing terrorists, not student activists!
By now, the entire nation has probably thought about why did a Major in the US Army opened fire on other soldiers in the deployment processing area of Ft. Hood, Texas.
Strangely, I actually think I have an answer for that.
In my opinion, the problem here is Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is depressed, either covertly or overtly. The depression, along with other stressful events, lead him to believe that 1) he must 'save' others from getting deployed, and 2) in doing so, he can 'save' himself from getting deployed as well. It is just unfortunate that he chose two pistols and more ammo as his tool to do the saving. And there are many factors that lead to his present day.
One such factor is his ethnic background. Some reported him as "Jordanian-American", though he seems to have identified himself as more of a Palestinian, according to his local mosque former Imam, even though he is born in Arlington, VA. His parents have long since passed away and his brothers and cousins are living here in the US. Reports say that his family "has Palestinian roots". It is likely he grew up with the stories of the difficult lives of his parents, whom eventually fled to Jordan, then emigrated to the US.
Image via Wikipedia
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=39f6503a-f8f7-4490-a647-6b5bb8ab688b)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=b1a34967-fba8-4529-a844-563cc8ae547d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=126f1882-1343-4c72-98e5-7e83b705851c)
