• Images
  • Text
  • Find a Couple + Registry
GO
Etiquette

The world is a changing

Senate just passed the health care reform bill. The next few years could get very interesting...until 2012 when we all are destroyed by aliens/tornados/asteroid/flames/...
«13

Re: The world is a changing

  • My FI doesn't have insurance, willingly.  It drives me insane.  But, he has to get it before he leaves for Uganda so I guess we should look into that now that this bill is slightly figured out.
  •  When you switch retail jobs (like Dh is trying to do) you normally have to wait 90 days before you qualify for benefits. That's a long time if someone needs prescriptions, multiple visits, or has a family.
    Posted by katiewhompus[/QUOTE]

    Exactly. Rick works retail now, and I'll lose my insurance through my parents next year. I'll go on his insurance after the wedding, but there's a waiting period for that too.

  • edited March 2010
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_world-changing?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:006d95bd-fae0-4da8-a26b-57d1a1b0420cPost:fc15d550-5ccc-4873-ba08-0eb8644d9e9f">Re: The world is a changing</a>:
    [QUOTE]I have been putting off getting my heart checked, because if they find anything, I could never get insurance again. I currently can't get anythign for my endo. problems covered either. So, this is really good news for me.
    <p>Posted by jasmineh7777[/QUOTE]</p><p> </p><p>Wow... I am really amazed/saddened/shocked that your system for insurance didn't cover anything pre-existing up until this point, particularly so given (from my understanding) your insurance is tied to your employment.</p><p>I hate to think how much my H would be paying for insulin etc if we lived over there, as diabetes is clearly a pre-existing condition for him. </p><p> </p><p>I can't imagine anyone having to put off such necessary diagnostic investigations for the sake of obtaining insurance later- it almost defeats the purpose, given that if you do put off diagnosis until you get insurance (and I'm sure you're not the only one who would) you'll likely have further disease progression by the time you do get diagnosed, and thus ulitmately insurance companies will pay more than they would have had you been able to undergo investigations/treatment before you were with them without fear of lack of coverage in the future.</p>
  • Oh and here's a fun one, although it may still not qualify.

    My friend is currently undergoing a series of hormone and cosmetic surgeries to go from a female to male body. Throughout this process she was working with a genetic testing scientist guy as well. He had very firm reason to believe that her chromosomes (and possibly those of other gay/lesbian/transexuals) were actually a mutation causing her to be xxy, instead of the usual xx or xy. He asked her to be tested so that there would be proof that xxy existed and she had to decline. If it were ever proven, every single thing she had done would be classified under "sexual cosmetic procedure" and not be covered by insurance. Even if she broke her arm or went to a yearly annual exam.
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_world-changing?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:006d95bd-fae0-4da8-a26b-57d1a1b0420cPost:1235efae-14ce-4314-a34f-f1ea874bc736">Re: The world is a changing</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The world is a changing :   Wow... I am really amazed/saddened/shocked that your system for insurance didn't cover anything pre-existing up until this point, particularly so given (from my understanding) your insurance is tied to your employment. I hate to think how much my H would be paying for insulin etc if we lived over there, as diabetes is clearly a pre-existing condition for him.  <strong> I can't imagine anyone having to put off such necessary diagnostic investigations for the sake of obtaining insurance later- it almost defeats the purpose, given that if you do put off diagnosis until you get insurance (and I'm sure you're not the only one who would) you'll likely have further disease progression by the time you do get diagnosed, and thus ulitmately insurance companies will pay more than they would have had you been able to undergo investigations/treatment before you were with them without fear of lack of coverage in the future.</strong>
    Posted by thesuninherhead[/QUOTE]

    This.  Exactly.  All of it.  If you wait and wait and wait to get something like diabetes or a small lump checked out, it's almost guaranteed that it's going to cost waaaayy more when it finally does get checked out.

    Honestly, I just don't think healthcare should be a for-profit industry.  Obviously, that will never happen.  But it would be really nice.  No one should ever have to deal with not being able to get necessary healthcare just because they can't afford it.  Life shouldn't have a price tag.
  • sucrets4sucrets4 member
    10000 Comments Seventh Anniversary Name Dropper 5 Love Its
    edited March 2010
    Sun - I heard recently that the Australian gov't is voting on a bill that decides between 18 month full salary vs. 18 month min wage for maternity leave.

    It's sad that Americans are so far behind.
    BFP(1) DD1 born 4.17.10 @ 33w5d due to pPROM
    BFP(4) DD2 born 2.14.13 @ 35w5d due to pPROM

    image
    Lilypie Third Birthday tickersLilypie Premature Baby tickers
  • But we're the best country ever, and the leader in the world *eye roll*.
  • mocha - I think the 'for profit' thing is what annoys me the most.  If I had to choose between a for profit corporation vs. the government deciding on my medical care, I'd choose the government.  Presumably they have my interest more at heart.
    BFP(1) DD1 born 4.17.10 @ 33w5d due to pPROM
    BFP(4) DD2 born 2.14.13 @ 35w5d due to pPROM

    image
    Lilypie Third Birthday tickersLilypie Premature Baby tickers
  • I really hate that this happened.  I've gone into details here before on why this sucks but a lot of people don't care.  All in all, don't think that this will be a cure all.  Someone is always pushed aside.  I don't like that people with pre-existing conditions are denied, no one does.  There will be other corners that are cut though. 

    I completely disagree that passing a crappy bill is better than passing no bill at all.  Our country was formed so that we wouldn't pass bills willy nilly.  I don't do anything in my life without trying to do it well and I don't want my country doing the same thing.  There is BETTER reform out there and we settled. 

    image
    My Bio Updated 4/6/10
  • (sun - if you aren't aware, most maternity leaves in America are unpaid.  I can use my sick time if I want, but the only thing they're required to do is hold my job for 12 weeks.  Thanks.)
    BFP(1) DD1 born 4.17.10 @ 33w5d due to pPROM
    BFP(4) DD2 born 2.14.13 @ 35w5d due to pPROM

    image
    Lilypie Third Birthday tickersLilypie Premature Baby tickers
  • ggmaeggmae member
    5000 Comments
    FWIW, I'm still not sure what to think about this bill. I need more time to think about it.

    I do have a question for those in favor of it: Many people believe that this bill is unconstitutional - that the Constitution does not state anywhere that Congress can mandate its people to purchase anything (health insurance in this case) and apply fines if the item (health insurance) is not purchased. I'm just wondering what people feel about this - should Congress have passed this bill if it is, in fact, unconstitutional?
    image
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_world-changing?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:006d95bd-fae0-4da8-a26b-57d1a1b0420cPost:4e2f7dea-d975-444a-b69c-1e289edd6e3c">Re: The world is a changing</a>:
    [QUOTE]mocha - I think the 'for profit' thing is what annoys me the most.  If I had to choose between a for profit corporation vs. the government deciding on my medical care, I'd choose the government.  Presumably they have my interest more at heart.
    Posted by sucrets4[/QUOTE]

    The politicians are paid by the "for profit" people.  The insurance companies actually won big in this.  Every major politician is in bed with corporations and big money.  That's how they stay in office.
    image
    My Bio Updated 4/6/10
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_world-changing?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:006d95bd-fae0-4da8-a26b-57d1a1b0420cPost:bc7dcab4-42b2-4190-a2f1-7253f42fd8eb">Re: The world is a changing</a>:
    [QUOTE]FWIW, I'm still not sure what to think about this bill. I need more time to think about it. I do have a question for those in favor of it: Many people believe that this bill is unconstitutional - that the Constitution does not state anywhere that Congress can mandate its people to purchase anything (health insurance in this case) and apply fines if the item (health insurance) is not purchased. I'm just wondering what people feel about this - should Congress have passed this bill if it is, in fact, unconstitutional?
    Posted by ggmae[/QUOTE]

    No, the Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land.  Everything should come AFTER it.  It wasn't written to be an afterthought.  It's not like the founders of our country weren't intelligent people and didn't think hard about what they were writing.  Unlike most of the people who just voted, our founders read the laws that they wrote. 
    image
    My Bio Updated 4/6/10
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_world-changing?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:006d95bd-fae0-4da8-a26b-57d1a1b0420cPost:a4e9415b-661f-4a2f-8c11-dfacf4d7d48f">Re: The world is a changing</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The world is a changing : The politicians are paid by the "for profit" people.  The insurance companies actually won big in this.  Every major politician is in bed with corporations and big money.  That's how they stay in office.
    Posted by andyandhillary[/QUOTE]

    So our entire government is corrupt and run by big corporations and it just doesn't matter since we're screwed either way?
    BFP(1) DD1 born 4.17.10 @ 33w5d due to pPROM
    BFP(4) DD2 born 2.14.13 @ 35w5d due to pPROM

    image
    Lilypie Third Birthday tickersLilypie Premature Baby tickers
  • edited March 2010
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_world-changing?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:006d95bd-fae0-4da8-a26b-57d1a1b0420cPost:acb06fd3-5e80-4a0b-934c-631325f2ad03">Re: The world is a changing</a>:
    [QUOTE]Sun - I heard recently that the Australian gov't is voting on a bill that decides between 18 month full salary vs. 18 month min wage for maternity leave. It's sad that Americans are so far behind.
    Posted by sucrets4[/QUOTE]
    <p> </p><p> </p><p>I only wish this were true, Sucrets! Australia's maternity leave scheme is among the worst in the developed world. The debate is around it being 18 WEEKS min wage paid  leave. The opposition indicated they would implement a 6 month scheme if elected, but I doubt they would follow through on that promise as it's something their leader threw out there which didn't really reflect their party's viewpoint. It makes me sad that Australia is so far behind the ballpark when it comes to maternity/paternity leave. Investing in the wellbeing of infants through maternity leave is a very good thing for outcomes for children in the future, much in the same way that investing in the health of people in the community maximises community engagement in work and productivity in the future.</p><p> </p><p>I believe Aus and the US are the only western countries that currently don't have government funded paid maternity leave schemes. There are many great models out there which demonstrate how beneficial paid paternity/maternity leave can be, particularly in countries like sweden and norway... I wish that my country would aspire to be closer to those, but alas right now we are very far behind.</p>
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_world-changing?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:006d95bd-fae0-4da8-a26b-57d1a1b0420cPost:6dbc55ee-ffe7-4cdf-abc1-9433f4a9aa78">Re: The world is a changing</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The world is a changing : So our entire government is corrupt and run by big corporations and it just doesn't matter since we're screwed either way?
    Posted by sucrets4[/QUOTE]

    Yup.  And I'm not a conspiracy theorist either.  I promise I am a perfectly sane individual :).  You may have been sarcastic but really, that's how it works.   And neither party is immune to it.  We're all human. 
    image
    My Bio Updated 4/6/10
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_world-changing?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:006d95bd-fae0-4da8-a26b-57d1a1b0420cPost:bff55cf9-fdb8-4800-8404-4cb900c420e5">Re: The world is a changing</a>:
    [QUOTE](sun - if you aren't aware, most maternity leaves in America are unpaid.  I can use my sick time if I want, but the only thing they're required to do is hold my job for 12 weeks.  Thanks.)
    Posted by sucrets4[/QUOTE]

    You could always say you are being deployed.  At 9 months pregnant.

    <img src="http://cdn.cl9.vanillaforums.com/downloaded/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-undecided.gif" border="0" alt="Undecided" title="Undecided" />
  • I should explain though that working in one's self interest isn't evil.  I believe in free-markets and am a libertarian.  I admit that people act in their own (rational) self interest and believe that, in fact, it can benefit the world as a whole. 
    image
    My Bio Updated 4/6/10
  • edited March 2010
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_world-changing?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:006d95bd-fae0-4da8-a26b-57d1a1b0420cPost:7956acc3-9950-4ce3-ab10-5d20b97cc8b8">Re: The world is a changing</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The world is a changing : Yup.  And I'm not a conspiracy theorist either.  I promise I am a perfectly sane individual :).  You may have been sarcastic but really, that's how it works.   And neither party is immune to it.  We're all human. 
    Posted by andyandhillary[/QUOTE]
    <p> </p><p>Are you suggesting that no one in government has any motivation to be in government for the betterment of their people? What, pray tell, attracts politicians to their profession to begin with, if not a desire for change that they perceive as positive? I'm not suggesting that there's not <em>some</em> politicians who are in bed with companies/paid to be biased, nor do I dispute that there's certainly a lot of support from the business sector for politicians who are likely to boost their business causes, but I don't believe for a second that every single one of the people in government is motivated only by greed, which seems to be what you're suggesting...</p>
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_world-changing?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:006d95bd-fae0-4da8-a26b-57d1a1b0420cPost:1121436d-d0ee-4d74-942b-c1dd6f802539">Re: The world is a changing</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The world is a changing :   Are you suggesting that no one in government has any motivation to be in government for the betterment of their people? What, pray tell, attracts politicians to their profession to begin with, if not a desire for change that they perceive as positive? I'm not suggesting that there's not some politicians who are in bed with companies/paid to be biased, nor do I dispute that there's certainly a lot of support from the business sector for politicians who are likely to boost their business causes, but I don't believe for a second that every single one of the people in government is motivated only by greed, which seems to be what you're suggesting...
    Posted by thesuninherhead[/QUOTE]

    Oh, I don't doubt that almost all start out with high hopes.  But then there's the pressure to get re-elected.  How do they do that?  By pleasing people.  Who do they please?  Their constituents, sure, but also the companies within their constituencies.  They are told (and accurately really) that in order to affect positive change, they need to be elected.  To be elected they need to do what people want them to do.  It's a horrible cycle.

    I would very confidently say that about 85% of politicans are stuck in the vicious cycle and are bed-fellows with corporations. 

    You should rent "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".  It's an old movie (30s, 40s?) and it demonstrates extremely well how politics are.  It was a huge deal when it came out because it was so accurate and it's upsetting.  Even though it's old, it is certainly not dated. 

    It's all about special interests.  And most politicians have them.  It's unavoidable. 
    image
    My Bio Updated 4/6/10
  • I don't know, the government is giving me $8k for buying a house. I'm fairly happy with them right now. I think it's better to try and not be as perfect as originally planned then not try anything at all. So far things (again like the housing tax) seem to be written to benefit the middle class who so often gets left out of things. Everything goes in cycles, and I think we're starting to go up. Gas is more expensive than 5 years ago, but is fairly stable and half of what it was 2 years ago, we're trying to fix problems with the country, and the economy seems to have stabilized. You can't fix all of our problems but iif we keep trying we'll stand a chance.

    Now what about the propsal to put an extra tax on soft drinks to encourage people to drink less? *runs off to bed*
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_world-changing?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:006d95bd-fae0-4da8-a26b-57d1a1b0420cPost:747df9fd-b377-4e91-ad22-8478d5ff846a">Re: The world is a changing</a>:
    [QUOTE]<strong>I should explain though that working in one's self interest isn't evil</strong>.  I believe in free-markets and am a libertarian.  I admit that people act in their own (rational) self interest and believe that, in fact, it can benefit the world as a whole. 
    Posted by andyandhillary[/QUOTE]

    While I do agree with this, that a person's desire to better themselves is an integral driving force in the advancement of our society, it needs to be tempered sometimes.  When the desire to advance yourself, ie make more money, comes at the expense of someone else's needs, ie life saving healthcare, that's not right.  I don't know how we're going to fix that, it may not be fixable because it's instinctual, but hopefully as society as a whole advances that will come.
  • Katie, I am super happy about your house, but that money came from taxpayers like yourself.  And I know you know that, but we all forget where this money comes from sometimes.  Higher taxes and regulations can be very cumbersome not only to American business, but then it trickles down to "normal" people like you and me. 

    The economy did not stabilize because of anything the government did.  It's a bogus argument that people blame presidents for how the economy goes.  It always has and always will go up and down.  It will eventually get better, it may be great like the 90s for awhile, and then it will go down and suck all over again.  It's not anyone's fault.  Bailouts, no matter if they go to Wallstreet or mid-America, don't do jack. 
    image
    My Bio Updated 4/6/10
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_world-changing?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:006d95bd-fae0-4da8-a26b-57d1a1b0420cPost:bc7dcab4-42b2-4190-a2f1-7253f42fd8eb">Re: The world is a changing</a>:
    [QUOTE]FWIW, I'm still not sure what to think about this bill. I need more time to think about it. I do have a question for those in favor of it: Many people believe that this bill is unconstitutional - that the Constitution does not state anywhere that Congress can mandate its people to purchase anything (health insurance in this case) and apply fines if the item (health insurance) is not purchased. I'm just wondering what people feel about this - should Congress have passed this bill if it is, in fact, unconstitutional?
    <p>Posted by ggmae[/QUOTE]</p><p> </p><p>I'm confused by this, gg. Is the argument that universal health care is unconstitutional because it is paid for by taxes and thus a 'forced purchase'? Because if so, how does this vary from the way that other taxes are spent (eg. on roads, defence, etc etc?). Should a US citizen be able to 'opt out' of taxes that pay for the Army, say, because they don't want to spend that money on something they're not personally involved in? Or opt out of their tax going towards the development of a particular highway, because they don't want to use it? </p><p> </p><p>Healthcare helps to ensure that on a whole, your society is productive and thus maximises your advantage as a country in the same way as your army or your road system does- it increases your functioning as a nation to ensure you are better placed to continue your success as a country. I'm not sure how spending on healthcare can be unconsitutional when other tax spending isn't... </p>
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_world-changing?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:006d95bd-fae0-4da8-a26b-57d1a1b0420cPost:7ac7cf54-7028-4e1c-83c2-08626ac67893">Re: The world is a changing</a>:
    [QUOTE]I don't know, the government is giving me $8k for buying a house. I'm fairly happy with them right now.
    Posted by katiewhompus[/QUOTE]

    This.  I am lovin this townhome right now.
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_world-changing?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:006d95bd-fae0-4da8-a26b-57d1a1b0420cPost:86f7ceb8-982e-43d1-8900-3475b0a8927c">Re: The world is a changing</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The world is a changing :   I'm confused by this, gg. Is the argument that universal health care is unconstitutional because it is paid for by taxes and thus a 'forced purchase'? Because if so, how does this vary from the way that other taxes are spent (eg. on roads, defence, etc etc?). Should a US citizen be able to 'opt out' of taxes that pay for the Army, say, because they don't want to spend that money on something they're not personally involved in? Or opt out of their tax going towards the development of a particular highway, because they don't want to use it?    Healthcare helps to ensure that on a whole, your society is productive and thus maximises your advantage as a country in the same way as your army or your road system does- it increases your functioning as a nation to ensure you are better placed to continue your success as a country. I'm not sure how spending on healthcare can be unconsitutional when other tax spending isn't... 
    Posted by thesuninherhead[/QUOTE]

    Just to throw in my 2 cents....

    I am sure you haven't read our Constitution (why would you?  You're Austrailian, right? :) ) but it's actually fairly specific about what things can be used with taxes and what cannot. 

    Yes, health care assumably enhances the health of our nation.  In the mean time, however, it greatly sacrifices the economic stability of muck of our nation's economy:  small business (among other things).  So while the physical health of our nation is increased, our productivity may very well take a huge hit. 
    image
    My Bio Updated 4/6/10
  • Great article to check out to see ALL sides.  I know the main news channels are giving certain views but often times the Wall Street Journal provides other views.  Definitely worth some insight. 

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704207504575130321235660474.html
    image
    My Bio Updated 4/6/10
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_world-changing?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:006d95bd-fae0-4da8-a26b-57d1a1b0420cPost:615c3b3f-b7ad-4920-8692-0b1fee840ae3">Re: The world is a changing</a>:
    [QUOTE]The economy did not stabilize because of anything the government did.  It's a bogus argument that people blame presidents for how the economy goes.  It always has and always will go up and down.  It will eventually get better, it may be great like the 90s for awhile, and then it will go down and suck all over again.  It's not anyone's fault.  Bailouts, no matter if they go to Wallstreet or mid-America, don't do jack. 
    <p>Posted by andyandhillary[/QUOTE]</p><p> </p><p>Actually, I do believe that in the case of my country, our better faring in terms of the GFC (as compared to your country) is as a result of the spending measures that we have engaged in to ensure that our citizens are employed and not defaulting on loans etc, thus stablising our economy. We never officially went into recession, although there was a slow-down in our spending and we're not in the clear yet. In previous years of economic crashes, our government tried to hold onto every penny and thus when the economy halted, so too did our spending and our employment and productivity- and we suffered a huge and prolonged problem as a result. I wouldn't say that it was the stimulus measures we've had alone which have kept us out of a crash like that which you've experienced, but I do believe that they have helped to stabilse our economy. I can't comment on your contry's situation as I don't know it well, but I do believe it is valid to link government policy with a country's economic wellbeing. When businesses like banks are poorly regulated by a government, for example, that can have huge impact on the economy. In that way, it's pretty clear that there is a link between the government's decisions and the economic health of a country.</p>
  • But wouldn't the economic productivity presumably go up over time, as people are able to be healthier and work more, they don't wait to treat conditions that end up costing thousands more than they would have?  Similar to how k-12 education has presumably increased our productivity by giving kids a basic education and a starting point for further education.  I fully expect it to take a generation or two for the full effects to be seen.

    I could be wrong though, I haven't done much research on the issue, unfortunately.
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_world-changing?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:006d95bd-fae0-4da8-a26b-57d1a1b0420cPost:c8a98c5b-6551-41a3-9d37-fbc852e8ebf2">Re: The world is a changing</a>:
    [QUOTE]  So while the physical health of our nation is increased, our productivity may very well take a huge hit. 
    <p>Posted by andyandhillary[/QUOTE]</p><p> </p><p>Physical health is intrinsically linked to health care, though, because people who are healthy are more able to work/study/run businesses/contribute to your society, and thus increase the productivity of the nation on a whole. </p><p> </p><p>Your productivity may take a short-term hit as a result of the impact of extra tax on businesses/individuals, but in the long term (as health issues are rectified and your country has a higher percentage of fit and able bodied persons) you will increase your productivity. </p><p>I understand one being opposed to the <em>way</em> in which the reform is happening, but I don't understand how one could be opposed to the idea of having a system of healthcare which ensures better health for every member of society thus providing long-term benefits to your country as a whole.</p>
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards