You underestimate the power of greed.
You underestimate the power of greed.
I was only replying to the statement that the insurers are taking massive profits compared to their costs. The MLR was instituted to limit profit vs costs.
The overall cost of our healthcare insurance is higher and I did not refute that.
In the US, you may want to look up the Medical Loss Ratios now in effect. There is some wiggle room in these but to call the profits "massive" with the current MLRs is only accurate if you look at overall dollars. If you look at percentages, the profits are no longer massive.
The UAW claimed the same thing when the auto industry in the US started looking at robots.
You are making the assumption that politicians have enough working grey matter between their ears to be able to understand these things. Many of them do not. Many of those most fearful and hateful of firearms are those that know the least about them. At least a very knowledgeable gun hater knows what they are talking about and even they may back silly laws on the principle that any law is better than no law.
The irony here is that right now, you work for the man, that man is rich, and you do not like it. In your future you described, you would be working for the man, that man is the lazy masses that do not have to work while you do, and you claim to like it. The only thing that changed in your world is the number of people that make up "the man."
The problem with that future ideal world you described is that either everyone has the same amount of skin in the game or there will always be folks that are getting pissed on.
The problem with a proper study upon violent video games and its impact on anti-social behavior is that you have to also expand it to gaming in general. The researcher would have to find a statistically significant number of gamers of violent games and a second set of gamers that only plays non-violent games and has little to no exposure to so called violent games. An additional problem would be showing that any conclusion was truly due to gaming rather than that the people attracted to violent games (or games in general) are not predisposed to being anti-social.
Silly rabbit. Rules are for people, not governments.
This is false, depending upon your definition of delivery driver. In many areas, UPS and FedEx have been using USPS for the last mile delivery. UPS and FedEx accept the package, they ship it around, and then have USPS deliver locally. It is not used everywhere and also tends to be dependent upon the size of the package. I have received some items this way in the past year from both services. Thus, to say that UPS and FedEx always comes in by delivery driver is only correct if you mean the delivery driver may be employed by either UPS, FedEx, or USPS.
To think that a single payer system only thinks about "the most net good to all their patients" and then implying that they have your back is overly simplistic and optimistic. The difference between a single payer and multi-payer system is the number of entities screwing you. You are still getting screwed regardless of the system.
Define onerous. Shooters and the anti-gun crowd will have vastly differing amounts in mind when asked the same question.
Then, by extension, Apple, Google, and a few hundred more companies should also go away because of their histories or their recent and current activities. Once you are for profit you become a dirt bag. Once you grow to a certain large size, you become even worse. That is just how it is.
That seems a bit short sighted. What about the classic enthusiasts coming up behind you, prehaps your children who might want to restore the car he remembers doing family holiday in from todays line up of cars?
With all the electronics that are in cars these days, they will likey be called something other than classics (mostly reserved for what we consider to be classic cars today) and you are out of luck unless you have the training and access to diagnostic equipment.
I disagree - if more corporations were playing the game honestly, and actually shouldering their share of the tax burden,...
At issue is an agreed upon value for the share each tax payer has.
The corporations you speak of probably believe that they are paying their share - especially since they are following the tax law. You believe that their share should be larger than what they are really paying.
There are a few things virtually every tax paying entity has in common:
- they believe that they pay their share or more than their share
- they believe that someone else does not pay their share
A lawyer could enumerate all the things the app does and doesn't do, in absolutely clear language,...
Clear language? Legalese is about as far from clear as one can get.
I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it.