Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
I like to see someone have a plan - i just think this plan has some serious holes in it
the first is making the cost the same for everyone - that goes against the whole purpose of insurance and only in healthcare would anyone tolerate it - those who have better health SHOULD pay less - the USE IT less frequently - by fixing rates regardless of risk factors you are undermining the shared risk aspect of insurance
also, while UW & marketing make up 2/3 of expenses - the expense portion makes up a small bit of the combined ratio - for example, a strong insurance company would have something that looks like this - 25% expense ratio, 70% loss ratio for a total of 95% combined ratio - leaving them 5% of every dollar to use for investements
in reality most companies make much less than that (or anything at all) on the actually money side of a policy - it isn't uncommon for a company to have a combined ratio of say 1.2, but then make 10% in investments off the unreserved portion of the dollar giving them a slight net gain - although the policy itself is a loser
if you take away a companies ability to UW, you are only going to jack up the amount of loss a company bears - when a company bears loss in a line as sweeping as healthcare, they will make it up by tightening up the other markets as well - so now your business owners will be paying increased premiums as well
what I do like about this plan is that there would be less government involvement than in other plans - private companies will still provide, there will be enhanced competition - also the less red tape and various stages of government a dollar has to make it through, the more that will be left to actually help someone
The former senator, who was the Democrats' candidate for vice president in 2004, said he would have the government auction off rights to produce greenhouse gases. That sale would raise about $10 billion a year, which could be used to finance development of alternative energy sources, he said.
Which is to say, he would levy a $10 billion per year tax on industry (which is to say, Exxon), which in turn causes inflation on goods across the board.
Which is to say, he would levy a $10 billion per year tax on industry (which is to say, Exxon), which in turn causes inflation on goods across the board.
Not to mention squash small business's that can't compete to purchase the rights to produce greenhouse gases. Would a trucking company be subject to these taxes? If so, too bad for Joe trucker who owns his own truck. He can't afford to bid on the rights to produce greenhouse gases. Enforcement would also be next to impossible.
Not to mention squash small business's that can't compete to purchase the rights to produce greenhouse gases. Would a trucking company be subject to these taxes? If so, too bad for Joe trucker who owns his own truck. He can't afford to bid on the rights to produce greenhouse gases. Enforcement would also be next to impossible.
You're right. Forget it--we should just keep producing pollutants at a brisk clip.
Things need to change, and change isn't always painless. It's time America starts working towards a better future instead of acting like it's owed to us. It's what our grandparents did, it's what we should do, too.
The status quo is broken. We are not entitled to sitting on our haunches.
__________________ America cannot have an empire abroad and a Republic at home.
You're right. Forget it--we should just keep producing pollutants at a brisk clip.
Things need to change, and change isn't always painless. It's time America starts working towards a better future instead of acting like it's owed to us. It's what our grandparents did, it's what we should do, too.
The status quo is broken. We are not entitled to sitting on our haunches.
You're right. Forget it--we should just keep producing pollutants at a brisk clip.
Things need to change, and change isn't always painless. It's time America starts working towards a better future instead of acting like it's owed to us. It's what our grandparents did, it's what we should do, too.
The status quo is broken. We are not entitled to sitting on our haunches.
no your right - we should just take the first semi-solution that comes along to fix a known issue, other consequences be damned
no point in debating a topic to find the plan that has the highest impact to the problem with the least amount of residual plan
no point in debating a topic to find the plan that has the highest impact to the problem with the least amount of residual plan
nothing like change for the sake of it
Who said it's not open for debate? Like I said in my commentary that went with the article, I respect that Edwards isn't afraid to put the discussion in motion with a concrete plan instead of simply theoretical discussions.
I then followed that up with the thought that we're not going to get on the right track by thinking the "solution" is going to be without sacrifice. We're doing things wrong right now--I'm not sure there can be too much debate on that basic premise. We need to do something else--and that something else is likely going to come with a sacrifice, or at the very least, a perceived sacrifice.
__________________ America cannot have an empire abroad and a Republic at home.
You're right. Forget it--we should just keep producing pollutants at a brisk clip.
Things need to change, and change isn't always painless. It's time America starts working towards a better future instead of acting like it's owed to us. It's what our grandparents did, it's what we should do, too.
The status quo is broken. We are not entitled to sitting on our haunches.
Thursday, Mar. 22, 2007 Edwards to Discuss Wife's Health
By AP/NEDRA PICKLER
(WASHINGTON) — John Edwards disclosed that his wife, Elizabeth, had breast cancer the day after he lost the vice presidency in the 2004 election. Now his political future may hinge on her health.
The couple planned a news conference in Chapel Hill, N.C., to discuss their plans Thursday, a day after visiting doctors who are monitoring Mrs. Edwards' recovery from the cancer.
Campaign officials refused to answer any questions about what the couple learned at the doctor's appointment or how it might affect Edwards' second presidential bid. Edwards had cut short a trip to Iowa to be with his wife but still attended a barbecue fundraiser Wednesday evening in Chapel Hill, their hometown.
The campaign had said Mrs. Edwards, 57, had a follow-up appointment Wednesday to a routine test she had Monday. The campaign explained that she had similar follow-ups in the past but they always resulted in a clean bill of health.
The campaign refused to describe what happened this time.
Mrs. Edwards discovered a lump in her breast in the final days of the 2004 campaign, when her husband was the Democratic vice presidential nominee. He announced the diagnosis the day after he and presidential nominee John Kerry lost the election to President Bush.
Mrs. Edwards was diagnosed with invasive ductal cancer, the most common type of breast cancer. It can spread from the milk ducts to other parts of the breast and beyond.
She wrote about her life, including her breast cancer treatment, in a book published last year called "Saving Graces." She had surgery and underwent several months of radiation and chemotherapy.
Mrs. Edwards, born in Jacksonville, Fla., grew up between the United States and Japan because of her father's career as a Navy pilot. She met her future husband at University of North Carolina law school.
The Edwardses have been married nearly 30 years and had four children. Their oldest child, Wade, died in a car accident in 1996.
"During the (2004) campaign, people who knew we had lost a son said, 'You are so strong,' and when I had breast cancer people would say, 'You are so strong,' and I thought, 'They don't know that there's a trick to being strong, and the trick is that nobody does it alone,'" she said in an interview with The Associated Press last year. "I wanted, from the perspective of someone going through it, not tell them what to do, but show them what great support I got."
John Edwards has been a strong contender in the 2008 Democratic race, leading in early polls of the important Iowa caucus goers who will cast the first ballots in January. His wife has served as his closest political adviser in both his campaigns.
Associated Press Writer Mike Baker in Raleigh, N.C., contributed to this report.
Moon Lander Champion!
All Hell is breakin loose!!!!!
Linear Mode
