Dubstepforum.com

tr0tsky wrote:What the Government has ignored is the repeated calls to institute a ‘Robin Hood’ tax. A 0.05% tax on banks, hedge funds and financial transactions can – and importantly will- fill budget deficits and prompt economic recovery. This 0.05% can be applied differently to various markets and coordinated with market regulation to minimize affects on volatility. There’s no reason not to implement it.

Interesting one this. I'm all for the Robin Hood Tax as it's been proposed... I've just noticed in the Evening Standard on the way home though, that journalists are calling the extra duty on houses over £1m a "Robin Hood Tax".

This is going to make that campaign VERY confusing from now on.

The 'Robin Hood' tax idea (also called the Tobin Tax) has been going round for ages now.

http://www.attac.org/

enaz wrote:Are you all aware that this bill would actually require every person having annual income above the poverty line to purchase private health insurance?

Don't they already have to do that? Or else just wait around and die?

No they don't.

So what do they do now then?

Choose whether or not to carry insurance. It's also choice what kind of insurance and how much and so forth. I'm not so keen on the government controlling yet another aspect of my life. If this legislation is inacted I will be required to carry three seperate insurance policies.

So let me get this straight. Right now, everyone in the US has the choice to either buy insurance, or risk the chance that they'll end up in hospital or require long term treatment and not be able to get treatment because they have no insurance.

After the bill, everyone below the poverty line will have access to healthcare. Everyone above the poverty line has to buy insurance in case they end up in hospital or require long term treatment. So by law, everyone will now have health coverage of some sort which will guarantee that everyone will get treatment if they need it.

I can't see how the new option can in any way be inferior to the old option. I can't even begin to imagine the type of convoluted mentality that could even consider that carrying health insurance of some sort was ever a choice in the first place. It is never a choice when the choice is between having insurance, or dying/suffering. I can't imagine anyone who could afford insurance or had it included in their work benefits package would ever turn it down.

kay wrote:So let me get this straight. Right now, everyone in the US has the choice to either buy insurance, or risk the chance that they'll end up in hospital or require long term treatment and not be able to get treatment because they have no insurance.

After the bill, everyone below the poverty line will have access to healthcare. Everyone above the poverty line has to buy insurance in case they end up in hospital or require long term treatment. So by law, everyone will now have health coverage of some sort which will guarantee that everyone will get treatment if they need it.

I can't see how the new option can in any way be inferior to the old option. I can't even begin to imagine the type of convoluted mentality that could even consider that carrying health insurance of some sort was ever a choice in the first place. It is never a choice when the choice is between having insurance, or dying/suffering. I can't imagine anyone who could afford insurance or had it included in their work benefits package would ever turn it down.

Right now, people can buy insurance, have it provided by their employer, or go without it, risking going into debt or not getting treatment for serious problems. Those risks exist even if you do have insurance because insurance companies are greedy bastards who will deny you coverage at the slightest sign of trouble.

The bill requires everyone who is here legally to buy insurance unless it's way too expensive or you're willing to pay a fine. It doesn't guarantee insurance for low class people but it does expand coverage of the existing government health program for the poor (medicaid).

collige wrote:

kay wrote:So let me get this straight. Right now, everyone in the US has the choice to either buy insurance, or risk the chance that they'll end up in hospital or require long term treatment and not be able to get treatment because they have no insurance.

After the bill, everyone below the poverty line will have access to healthcare. Everyone above the poverty line has to buy insurance in case they end up in hospital or require long term treatment. So by law, everyone will now have health coverage of some sort which will guarantee that everyone will get treatment if they need it.

I can't see how the new option can in any way be inferior to the old option. I can't even begin to imagine the type of convoluted mentality that could even consider that carrying health insurance of some sort was ever a choice in the first place. It is never a choice when the choice is between having insurance, or dying/suffering. I can't imagine anyone who could afford insurance or had it included in their work benefits package would ever turn it down.

Right now, people can buy insurance, have it provided by their employer, or go without it, risking going into debt or not getting treatment for serious problems. Those risks exist even if you do have insurance because insurance companies are greedy bastards who will deny you coverage at the slightest sign of trouble.

The bill requires everyone who is here legally to buy insurance unless it's way too expensive or you're willing to pay a fine. It doesn't guarantee insurance for low class people but it does expand coverage of the existing government health program for the poor (medicaid).

Another important part of the legislation is that it puts new pressure on insurance companies to behave fairly. For the majority who are not on Medicaid this is a lot more important.

I'm sure there were lots of people suspicious of the NHS when it started. Nobody likes government intruding in their lives except (and this is the big one) when they need it.

kay wrote:So let me get this straight. Right now, everyone in the US has the choice to either buy insurance, or risk the chance that they'll end up in hospital or require long term treatment and not be able to get treatment because they have no insurance.

After the bill, everyone below the poverty line will have access to healthcare. Everyone above the poverty line has to buy insurance in case they end up in hospital or require long term treatment. So by law, everyone will now have health coverage of some sort which will guarantee that everyone will get treatment if they need it.

I can't see how the new option can in any way be inferior to the old option. I can't even begin to imagine the type of convoluted mentality that could even consider that carrying health insurance of some sort was ever a choice in the first place. It is never a choice when the choice is between having insurance, or dying/suffering. I can't imagine anyone who could afford insurance or had it included in their work benefits package would ever turn it down.

Have you ever looked into purchasing private insurance? It isn't cheap. 400-500 a month in some cases. And as someone already pointed out, having insurance does not guarantee that you'll be covered. As I said earlier I think some research should be done before forming an opinion. Even more research is needed if you've never lived in the US.

enaz wrote:

kay wrote: Even more research is needed if you've never lived in the US.

Although it doesn't take much research to know that the previous procedure needed changing.

In no country should it be possible for an injured or sick person to go untreated due to the fact they haven't got the papers.

As many people have said. Step in the right direction (in my opinion).

Insurance companies are the cause of the problems as far as I'm concerned. The solution is not to give them more business.

enaz wrote:Insurance companies are the cause of the problems as far as I'm concerned. The solution is not to give them more business.

No but that's not what the nutcases are arguing - they are ideologically against "socialized medicine" - though I suspect many don't quite know why.

americans are mental