Too bad they failed to include a double/triple negative to really hammer down the confusion.
TH1NKTHRICE
joined 1 year ago
It’s my understanding that the individual mandate requires people to buy health insurance from private companies, this means those companies can thrive while offering terrible coverage for high costs without any chance of losing business because of their shady practices. This sounds to me like a plan that a conservative would concoct if they really wanted Laissez-faire / croney capitalism but wanted to placate the left by making it sound like this was entirely government funded.
If this is true, it’s a win-win for the right. Keep it in place and the private medical companies are secure to maintain high profit margins surreptitiously. If it fails, blame the left and you get an easy justification for going back to having no government involvement at all whereby less people pay monthly because there is no individual mandate but the private medical companies are free to charge even more to the people who do pay and when those that don’t pay need medical treatment (everyone eventually in their lifetime) they can charge an arm and a leg and laugh all the way to the bank while medical debt for citizens skyrockets. The best part? If this plan is put in place carefully enough and messaging is carefully crafted, you’ll get nominally left people advocating for it!
Am I wrong?
(What city was this that tried housing first and it didn’t work? I’m interested in reading the details
Section 6. Except as provided for in Section 4, nothing in this act shall be construed as limiting or preventing psychologists, psychological technicians, and master's level licensed mental health professionals from rendering the services for which they are qualified by training or experience involving the application of recognized principles, methods, and procedures of the science and profession of psychology and counseling. Section 7. Nothing in this section shall be construed to establish a new or separate standard of care for hospitals or physicians and their patients or otherwise modify, amend, or supersede any provision of the Alabama Medical Liability Act of 1987 or the Alabama Medical Liability Act of 1996, or any amendment or judicial interpretation of either act.
If affirming care means socially affirming as well as medical (drugs / surgery) then the law isn’t entirely against affirming care because it doesn’t mention anything against social affirmation and explicitly allows for psychologists to make appropriate decisions in that realm.
I’m not saying I’m for this law, but it is important to be precise about what the law is. It’s actually not a very long read.
Try this lecture by Andrew Steele on for size if you’re actually interested: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fX9P1xuIJGg
Why martyr him when you can slowly turn him into Emmanuel Goldstein?
Pathetic. Given the seriousness of what he said, and continues to say even this month, no one with a working brain could possibly believe anything in this sad non-attempt at an apology message. It doesn’t resolve anything, it doesn’t make clear that he understands what was wrong with what he said, it doesn’t specify what he is going to do differently going forward, and it isn’t even clear that it is truly a message from him or genuine.
I was completely naive to 3D printing 6 months ago, got a Prusa mini, got printing. Pretty simple. Great explainers on the prusa website. Easy installation and intuitive software. I recommend it.