Current Events > List of 'pre-existing conditions' that AHCA may make peoples lives with harder.

(+) Yeah! (+)

What incentivizes the asteroid mining companies to give that newfound wealth to people in the form of a UBI? Wouldn't having a government take money from the rich to supply not just health care, but basic standards of living be just as bad or worse as something like ACA?
---

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/robot-hysteria-aside-heres-what-leaders-shaping-future-fairchild

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, Americans didn’t have jobs. They had a trade and you lived and worked in the same place, New America’s Slaughter pointed out. Outlining four different scenarios for what the future of work will look like, Slaughter believes it’s likely that you will earn income based on a mix of jobs and tasks.

For Slaughter, it doesn’t really matter if most people have jobs or most people are fulfilling tasks. Both scenarios require real human work from every sector of society. What does matter is how the public and private sector works together to ensure that those opportunities can still allow Americans to lead a middle-class life.

“We might go back to an idea of how I bring in income and then there are the other aspects of my life that bring me meaning,” she said. “Then the question becomes [whether or not] you can support your family and have the life that [you want.]”

It’s not a zero-sum game.

A lot of the predictions around robots replacing jobs fail to mention that technology creates new jobs too, said Box’s Levie. Calling himself an optimistic when it comes to the future of employment, Levie said that there are countless examples of markets that are powered by technology, but employment opportunities are still growing.

“If you look at the set of problems in the world, it is not the case that we have a fixed amount of demand for the world’s services,” Levie said. “If you look at healthcare, education and financial services… these are all areas where the market isn’t saturated.”

Walmart has seen several workers whose jobs are getting taken over by automation move to other sectors of the business. Cashiers, for example, now act as “hosts” within stores and spend more time interacting face-to-face with customers. The same goes for the increase of people who are now picking and packing groceries for customers buying food online, Walmart’s Canney said.

Still, Slaughter cautioned the panel to not minimize the disruption that the digital revolution will likely cause. With the Industrial Revolution came Marxism, and Slaughter said she wouldn’t be surprised if there will be similar upheaval in the near future due to automation replacing today’s workers. Yes, more jobs will be created, but there will be huge numbers of people who will be left behind as the same types of jobs won’t be created as quickly as they are destroyed.
---

Haha. Fuck you, America.
---

ShinyMasamuneZ posted...

What incentivizes the asteroid mining companies to give that newfound wealth to people in the form of a UBI? Wouldn't having a government take money from the rich to supply not just health care, but basic standards of living be just as bad or worse as something like ACA?

If a few hundred trillion dollars worth of new opportunities enter the market, there's not much you can do to stop the entire global economy from growing.
---

Don't forget guys, democrats and republicans are just as bad as each other!
/s

LightningAce11 posted...

How can they be so stupid? They're grown adults.

They're grown adults that all earn in the $150k and up category, they're definitely not worried about any of this.
---

pinky0926 posted...

LightningAce11 posted...

How can they be so stupid? They're grown adults.

They're grown adults that all earn in the $150k and up category, they're definitely not worried about any of this.

Time to strip government employees of their cushy salaries and benefits?
---

meingott posted...

pinky0926 posted...

LightningAce11 posted...

How can they be so stupid? They're grown adults.

They're grown adults that all earn in the $150k and up category, they're definitely not worried about any of this.

Time to strip government employees of their cushy salaries and benefits?

Hey look, a rational post.

Unfortunately I don't see how this can be done barring civil war or some other uprising.
---

meingott posted...

Time to strip government employees of their cushy salaries and benefits?

If you're referring to politicians, that'd be a bad idea.

KarmaMuffin posted...

meingott posted...

Time to strip government employees of their cushy salaries and benefits?

If you're referring to politicians, that'd be a bad idea.

Why? Aren't they supposed to represent the interests of the working man/woman in this day and age?
---

1. Salaries/pensions for public officials are designed to lessen the influence of outside money (whether they've been successful in this goal...)
2. If you were to reduce the income of congressmen, there would still be wealth/income barriers to running for and taking the office. John Kerry's Senate salary was not the primary source of his weath,and I imagine he's not an outlier in that.
---

Antifar posted...

1. Salaries/pensions for public officials are designed to lessen the influence of outside money (whether they've been successful in this goal...)

lmfao is it working?

Antifar posted...

2. If you were to reduce the income of congressmen, there would still be wealth/income barriers to running for and taking the office. John Kerry's Senate salary was not the primary source of his weath,and I imagine he's not an outlier in that.

they should be given a decent wage, but career politicians should not be making more than 3x the average family income. especially not when most of them are useless fucks.
---

The Act lets states decide if they want to let insurance companies charge more to those with preexisting conditions.

P4wn4g3 posted...

Why? Aren't they supposed to represent the interests of the working man/woman in this day and age?

Is there something specifically about someone making a large wage that makes them out-of-touch with the working person? Do you feel that someone from a higher income class is incapable of understanding and addressing the needs of someone from a lower class?
A member of congress' salary is fairly in line with other careers that require specialized skill sets. Most of them could make more money in the private sector than the gov't anyway.

Put simply, if politicians don't make that much money, they become even more open to bribing.
Highly qualified intelligent people would never take office; successful people aren't going to give up six figure jobs to go make minimum wage. You're going to limit your pool to people who aren't otherwise excelling or who are already incredibly wealthy.

Now, most politicians are already wealthy (average net worth of a US representative is over a million dollars iirc) and do take bribes, but if you cut out a high salary / benefits then you're gonna have a bunch of trust fund inheritance kids taking up everything. We saw how people treated Jeb and Hillary in 2016, do we really want to see dynasty's become even more possible?

Not to mention stress levels and focus.
People making low income have much higher levels of stress, which leads to bad decision making; they have more pressing concerns which leads to less thought towards their jobs; they have much greater time restraints which leads to less time available for working.
We can't hold ourselves up as a top economic country globally while our members of congress work nights and weekends slinging french fries. It's god damn embarrassing.

If you want all Congressmen to be millionaires and billionaires who are in it for the power trip (or to pass laws that benefit their companies/fortunes), then by all means, limit their pay.


meingott posted...

lmfao is it working?

So your proposed solution is to make the identified problem worse, not better?
We should work to stop bribes, not give a larger incentive to take them.

KarmaMuffin posted...

So your proposed solution is to make the identified problem worse, not better?
We should work to stop bribes, not give a larger incentive to take them.

Just like we should work to stop drug trafficking, right? Because the overhead and regulation are sure to work? Maybe it's time to strip these officials of their high salaries and force them to actually work for a change, if they want to be public servants. There's no way to eliminate the influence of bribes and outside money. High salaries that are 3x what average families make aren't changing that. So it's time to save by reducing the costs.
---

meingott posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

But where exactly is that money coming from?

What are people going to do?

You want to lower taxes and then come up with this UBI plan that the government has no money for. Like, I'm baffled.

How you don't understand his disconnect is quite fascinating.

There is no disconnect. Wealth can be generated. The market grows in value. What do you think will happen once humans successfully mine the first asteroid? Some of those asteroids are worth hundreds of trillions of dollars because of the precious metals in them. The money will come from massive increases in productivity and technology. New wealth will be generated.

Edit: And the idea is that with time, we'll have robots that do most of the work. And our efforts will just be to maintain the robots. Which means we can be a post-money society.

So it sounds like you're in favor of the rich getting richer. Why would a company willingly give its wealth when you want to lower taxes?

And then you want to move to a post-work society, which sounds very leftist, but again you hate the left.

It sounds like you're just trolling or you have this crazy ass utopia in your head that will never happen.
---

I guess that makes sense, but frankly corruption is so widespread in the government these days that I can't see it making a big difference.
---

meingott posted...

If a few hundred trillion dollars worth of new opportunities enter the market, there's not much you can do to stop the entire global economy from growing.

Counterpoint: Mansa Musa, the 13th century ruler of the Mali Empire, once made a pilgrimage to Mecca and on the way made vast generation donations in Egypt, devaluing gold in the region and causing great economic panic and collapse for more than a decade.
---

ShinyMasamuneZ posted...

meingott posted...

If a few hundred trillion dollars worth of new opportunities enter the market, there's not much you can do to stop the entire global economy from growing.

Counterpoint: Mansa Musa, the 13th century ruler of the Mali Empire, once made a pilgrimage to Mecca and on the way made vast generation donations in Egypt, devaluing gold in the region and causing great economic panic and collapse for more than a decade.

because the 13th century has so much in common with the modern era of advanced and rapidly advancing technology
---

A lot of those illnesses have foundations that gives you the stuff for free most of the time. I know my insurance didn't cover my new medicine for cystic fibrosis so the vertex foundation that made it gave me if for free.

I found very very good insurance for my cystic fibrosis without dealing with Obama care or Trump care. Most working people usually have their own insurances. Idk. I just don't agree with government in health care cause most of the time these guys don't have a clue what they're doing.

The only reason health Care is a problem is because everyone wants to make more money. It's a cultural thing in America. I mean. You can find other insurance. You don't have to get this health care plan. Back in the day charitable foundations would help really sick people.

But I'm sure there's no correlation with things like cancer rates dramatically increasing for no reason or mental health illness increasing for "no reason". Human genes don't evolve or devolve in 50 years without interference. It's all a calculated hoax for the top people to get get and get more money. That's what it's always been and will be. Until someone repeals completely and tears down health care or the tax codes and figures something out. Then it'll never change. Nothing will ever change no matter who is elected. If Bernie was elected he'd literally never be able to do anything. It'd all get rejected. And if Hillary got elected well fuck it'd be worse lol. This is all the elites play thing and we live in it. Make the best of it kids.
---

meingott posted...

ShinyMasamuneZ posted...

meingott posted...

If a few hundred trillion dollars worth of new opportunities enter the market, there's not much you can do to stop the entire global economy from growing.

Counterpoint: Mansa Musa, the 13th century ruler of the Mali Empire, once made a pilgrimage to Mecca and on the way made vast generation donations in Egypt, devaluing gold in the region and causing great economic panic and collapse for more than a decade.

because the 13th century has so much in common with the modern era of advanced and rapidly advancing technology

It was an era of increasing globalization and technological advances, yes.
---

If you don't understand how economics are equatable across all instances of human history, perhaps you should exclude yourself from those conversations entirely.
---

This is basically a license for insurance companies to gouge their customers.
No one should like this.

I'm fine for charging more if someone smokes or does drugs, etc.
But for things people can't choose, like diabetes and fucking allergies....or old age.
Fucking crazy.

Thankfully, it will take a miracle for this to pass the Senate.
So all this crying is for nothing.
---

lilJoe457 posted...

But I'm sure there's no correlation with things like cancer rates dramatically increasing for no reason or mental health illness increasing for "no reason". Human genes don't evolve or devolve in 50 years without interference. It's all a calculated hoax for the top people to get get and get more money. That's what it's always been and will be

Surely there is no correlation because otherwise there would be validity to your babbling insanity.

It's not like we have seen huge medical advances in the last 50 years and that people are living longer than ever. Did you ever think maybe we were just worse at diagnosing illness many years ago? Mental healthcare was going to the funny farm and possibly getting an icepick in the brain or being told to get over whatever was bothering you. Better technology, smarter doctors, longer lifespans, larger population, increased diversity all lead to contracting and diagnosing more illness. On the bad side, we have also seen increases in environmental pollution and obesity that cause us harm.

More people wear glasses than many years ago. Is it a Big Vision conspiracy or did people just walk around with shitty eyesight back then?
---

JcOpIVY86 posted...

This is basically a license for insurance companies to gouge their customers.
No one should like this.

I'm fine for charging more if someone smokes or does drugs, etc.
But for things people can't choose, like diabetes and fucking allergies....or old age.
Fucking crazy.

Thankfully, it will take a miracle for this to pass the Senate.
So all this crying is for nothing.

If this passes the senate as is, I don't think you could call it a miracle..miracles are suppose to be good,right? This would be more of a dark prophecy come true.
---