Chủ Nhật, 17 tháng 2, 2019

Waching daily Feb 17 2019

 Man United are said to be eyeing up a £90M transfer swoop for Senegal and Napoli defender Kalidou Koulibaly in the summer

 United could really do with some more options to choose from in the centre of defence, as players like Chris Smalling, Phil Jones and Eric Bailly just aren't good enough if the club are serious about winning the Premier League again

 United signing Koulibaly would instantly improve their defence massively, and the dream of seeing him in a Red Devils shirt could seen become a reality if this report from the Sun is anything to go off

 According to the report, United are planning a £90M swoop for the defender in the summer, with club scout Jim Lawlor watching the player in Napoli's 0-0 draw with Fiorentina last week

 United paying £90M for Koulibaly would end up being a world record fee for a defender, as the current record stands at £75M, the fee Liverpool paid to sign Virgil Van Dijk last year as per the Sun

United are ready to break the bank to bring Koulibaly from Napoli to Old Trafford  Koulibaly has managed to establish himself as one of the top defenders in the world in the last couple of years, and it's no surprise to hear that Untied are willing to fork out so much for the player's signature

 If United are successful in their pursuit of Koulibaly, it'll be a huge boost for the club's squad, and the difference the Senegalese international would bring to United side could be the difference in them winning the Premier League title or not in the not-too-distant future

For more infomation >> News24 - Manchester United planning WORLD RECORD summer transfer swoop for top class defensive tale - Duration: 2:09.

-------------------------------------------

(Malayalam) Fortnite - CONSOLE (Xbox One S) | P For Play - Duration: 1:56:06.

For more infomation >> (Malayalam) Fortnite - CONSOLE (Xbox One S) | P For Play - Duration: 1:56:06.

-------------------------------------------

This Is How Much Celebs Really Get Paid For Private Events - Duration: 5:01.

In addition to whatever celebs get paid for just doing their jobs, they also rake it in

by attending private events and parties.

Planning your next blowout and want a really spectacular act or special guest?

Here's what kind of moolah you'll need to book your favorite star.

Scott Disick

Keeping Up with the Kardashians cast member Scott Disick may not top your list of most-wanted

A-listers, but as GQ revealed in 2016,

"Scott Disick, the runt of the Kardashian litter, the f---up father of Kourtney's three

children, makes more money doing nothing than most Americans earn in an entire year."

"Look at you, this is what you do during the day, you lay in the sun and you tan?"

The mag explained that the celeb gets paid seventy to eighty grand a night in appearance

fees, and at one point, he earned a whopping $250,000 for a set of appearances in the U.K.

GQ noted Disick was contracted to appear eight times a year at 1OAK Las Vegas in 2016, saying,

"He says a few hoarse words on the mic, sits back down, and sips slowly from a water bottle

at his VIP table, out of the crowd's sight."

Jennifer Lopez

Considering her ongoing A-lister status, it's not surprising that Jennifer Lopez pulls in

hefty fees.

But that didn't stop her from catching bad press in 2013, when Us Weekly reported she'd

earned $1.5 million to sing at a birthday party for the President of Turkmenistan, a

dictator who has been accused of human rights violations.

Per Us Weekly, Lopez's reps later released a statement saying,

"The event was vetted by her representatives, had there been knowledge of human [rights]

issues of any kind, Jennifer would not have attended."

"When I heard it like that, I was like, are we crazy?"

In 2016, Lopez made headlines again for a high-profile private appearance at the wedding

of the son of a Russian billionaire.

According to Elle, Lopez earned a whopping $5 million to perform at the nuptials.

Kim Kardashian

These days it seems like the Kardashians can spin anything into money, so it's not too

shocking that they're big players in the private appearances game.

As far back as 2010, Glamour UK reported Kim Kardashian was earning major money for club

appearances, estimating that she earned more than $500,000 for a series of 30th birthday

appearances in Vegas.

And by 2016, Page Six reported that her fee for showing up to party in the Hamptons was

a whopping $700,000.

"I have warned everyone that I will come for them if they even dare try to copy anything

that I'm doing"

But according to leaked emails obtained by Radar Online in 2014, Kardashian demands even

more on top of her appearance fee, including:

"5 first class tickets, plus 1 coach, first class hotel accommodations […] first class

exclusive ground transportation, airport greeter service, security, glam fee […] and a per

diem."

"Mom, she's always late."

"No I'm here!"

"Oh come on…"

"Really?"

Beyonce

Beyoncé found herself in hot water when news broke that she'd performed at a 2009 New Year's

Eve party hosted by the Gaddafi family.

The big deal?

Libya's Muammar Gaddafi was an infamously repressive dictator, until his death in 2011.

According to The Guardian, Beyoncé reportedly received $2 million to perform five songs.

In March 2011 Beyoncé's publicist released a statement via Entertainment Weekly that

explained,

"All monies paid to Beyoncé […] were donated to the earthquake relief efforts for Haiti.

[…] Once it became known that the third party promoter was linked to the [Gaddafi]

family, the decision was made to put that payment to a good cause."

Paris Hilton

"So I'm just so honored and excited for foam and diamonds again this year.

It's gonna be incredible"

By 2013, Paris Hilton's heyday as a private appearance high-earner was waning, with a

source telling Radar Online that the reality star's fees for a club appearance had dropped

from seven hundred and fifty, to five hundred grand, to "the much lower fee of $250,000."

Cut to 2014, and the tide had turned for Hilton, with The Sun reporting that she'd earned $2.7

million for just four nights of DJ-ing.

When Page Six asked Hilton to confirm the rumored rate of $1 million per appearance,

she replied,

"My mother always told me it's not polite to discuss money, but it's true."

By 2017, the Daily Mail reported that Hilton's club appearance fees had settled somewhere

closer to $300,000.

Mariah Carey

"Is this a normal outfit for people to wear?

I don't know.

But I'm at home and this is what I wear"

As The Guardian reported in 2013, Mariah Carey came under fire when it came to light that

she had accepted $1 million to perform at a benefit for the Angolan Red Cross.

Carey reportedly posed for pictures with the then Angolan president, who stood accused

of major corruption.

According to The Guardian, Carey's appearance came on the heels of another controversial

private appearance in 2008 at a New Year's party for the Gaddafi family, for which the

celeb reportedly got paid $1 million.

She later released a statement saying,

"I was naive and unaware of who I was booked to perform for.

I feel horrible and embarrassed to have participated in this mess."

But none of the bad press stopped Carey from booking a private appearance at a Brazilian

New Year's party in 2015, for which TMZ reported she'd be receiving between $2 million and

$5 million.

For more infomation >> This Is How Much Celebs Really Get Paid For Private Events - Duration: 5:01.

-------------------------------------------

Swansea's Daniel James has gone viral for incredible pace to score solo goal in the FA Cup - Duration: 2:52.

 The magic of the FA Cup returned this weekend with some enticing ties to look forward to

 While Monday's clash between Premier League giants Manchester United and Chelsea is undoubtedly the pick of the round, the weekend's games proved to be a more than adequate curtain-raiser

 Wolves and Crystal Palace both booked a spot in the final eight while Millwall continued their party with a 1-0 win over AFC Wimbledon

 Meanwhile, Manchester City avoided a potential banana skin when they travelled to League 2 Newport County

 The League cup finalists eased into the quarter-finals, netting four times after overcoming fears that the dodgy pitch could hinder their free-flowing style

 However, the pick of the action on Sunday came in Swansea's dramatic come-from-behind win against Brentford

 Having gone a goal down, the Welsh club roared back to life with a scintillating second-half performance to run out 4-1 winners in the end

 Once Brentford were reduced to ten men in the second half, the tie was reduced to a mere formality, but that certainly didn't stop the Swans from having some fun

 One moment in particular though, caught the eye of football fans watching on.  With the scores level, Brentford were awarded a free-kick in a promising position and would have been hoping to restore their lead

 However, they made a dreadful hash of the set-piece and Swansea's Daniel James pounced

 James ended the bundled move just outside his own area before turning on the afterburners and leaving the Brentford defence for dead

 In just over nine seconds he had run the length of the pitch and was tucking the ball away to put the Swans on top

 You can watch James showing some incredible pace below.  Blistering speed - made some of the opposition players look like they were moving in reverse

 That is the kind of counter-attacking speed the likes of Mohamed Salah and Kylian Mbappe would be proud of

 From that point on it was all Swansea and after Monday night's draw, a coveted spot in the last four beckons for the Championship club

For more infomation >> Swansea's Daniel James has gone viral for incredible pace to score solo goal in the FA Cup - Duration: 2:52.

-------------------------------------------

ONE Chelsea star blamed for poor run of form - 'He's a liability' - Duration: 2:16.

That is the view of ESPN pundit Stewart Robson who has labelled the Italian midfielder a 'liability'.

Chelsea have lost four of their last nine in all competitions with Jorginho being scapegoated for much of their poor form.

The summer signing from Napoli has been accommodated at the expense of N'Golo Kante but the former Napoli man has registered just a single goal and no assists in his 25 Premier League appearances.

Robson has criticised the technical aspects of Jorginho's game citing his refusal to track back, inability to help out his defence and reluctance to pass forward as major flaws.

Sarri's side have dropped down to sixth-place, but despite being just one point outside the top four the ESPN pundit does not think Chelsea have a chance of Champions League football with Jorginho as their midfield linchpin.

He said: "Sarri is sticking with the same old policy and he's still got a player in there that I think is the main reason Chelsea are not winning enough games and that is Jorginho.

"As I said at the start of the season - he can't run so he can't defend spaces outside of him.

"He can't head the ball so he can't get between his centre-halves and do a good defensive job.

"He can't pass the ball forwards unless he's got loads of time so it means he only passes backwards or square.

"So he is a liability and all the time he is in the side I don't think Chelsea will qualify for the Champions League."

Chelsea have never had to endure consecutive seasons without Champions League football since Roman Abramovich bought the club in 2003.

However their current form puts that record in serious danger - unless they enter the competition via a Europa League win.

They host Manchester United on Monday night in the FA Cup fifth round with Jorginho expected to assume his usual midfield role.

Ole Gunnar Solskjaer suffered his first defeat since taking interim charge at Old Trafford when PSG beat them during the week.

Chelsea have beaten United in the FA Cup for the past two seasons including last year's final.

For more infomation >> ONE Chelsea star blamed for poor run of form - 'He's a liability' - Duration: 2:16.

-------------------------------------------

Jazz 4th Position Exercise for Jazz Dance Class - Duration: 5:35.

hi it's Bob Boross and this is My jazz And Tap Dance Life. We're back in the

studio today we're we talking about a very particular technique exercise which

is a simple one but super super important for jazz dancing and this is

the position of jazz fourth it's really interesting as I teach and I talk to so

many people I ask them what is a jazz fourth and they've never heard of this

it's just amazing to me since a jazz fourth is sort of the basic step that

connects so many steps in jazz dance choreography if we think of in ballet we

would have fifth position Demi plie that would be the connecting step between

glissade assemblé sissone etc jazz fourth is that step but in jazz okay so

what I'm gonna give you is a simple exercise and then just a little bit

harder version of it which is coming from the matt mattox method in freestyle

jazz dance and it's about taking the body from a straight position going into

the demi plie level but keeping the support in the body and then returning

back up to support on one hip and closing back into jazz first so I

suggest this exercise for anybody who's studying jazz even at this simple rate

particularly for young kids if you're teaching children who are 10 12 13 14

they need this exercise to get themselves down off of the straight

knees and into the Demi plie level where so much jazz dance happens okay so this

is the Matt Mattox version of jazz fourth exercise here we go

okay so for jazz fourth exercise I usually start in the neutral

position we do a turn out to ballet first and then opening to jazz first

position which is parallel and I really go for parallel not a little bit turned

out full parallel from there now the jazz fourth position I'm going to take a

step to my right on one - from here then I fold back in and then from here I'm

going to pivot the body and drop down into plie bending the back knee this

will be in parallel make sure the heel is lifted and I extend the arms in

opposition so if I have my right leg forward I will have my left arm forward

in this line we want to get a straight line from the knee through the hip

through the ribcage and up through the head so if I end up here that's a little

bit too far forward I want to be situated right

back in here I reach out to the wrist and relax the hands so there's no

tension in the fingertips it's relaxed from this position I push off of this

front leg to return to the back hip - up - this will be a parallel

tendu position the weight is about 95% on this left leg at this moment and the

arms will fold in slightly and then I step to return in to jazz first and

basically that's what the exercise is I step open then I fold

jazz fourth plie sit then I push back up find my balance with the parallel tendu

and I close so I would start one - fold the arms two - to jazz 4th three stay four recover on five, stay six and

back to first you snap one neutral jazz fourth - hold

back on five six seven - I can go faster one two three and four five and six seven and

eight one two three and four five and six seven and eight

okay now if we go on to the second step I'm going to back in to the right leg I'm

gonna fold my arms then come through neutral and then out through an

extension and drop fold the arms then to neutral than an extension as I back up I

do a little bit of a contraction so I step back one two and right there

there's a neutral position knees are bent in parallel then three four then I

recover up onto the hip six back to jazz first seven eight back into it one two

three four five six seven and eight I do have to shift my weight so I shift

the weight and I rotate and I push up and first other side

contract and two - jazz forth four five six and seven and eight

so those are two versions of jazz fourth exercise. I'm going to start some music and we're gonna do this a little bit faster

so I'm in my neutral - six seven eight

one two three....push - and drop

one two three - push and a little snap in the arms

(drum track by John Hanks - see "Description" for link to order music)

now I back into it

one two three four - push and close

back, contract - extend - press - one more...

That would be the Jazz fourth exercise. We put this in with many other things we'll do

a head isolations and jazz fourth exercise it's a really important part of

the dancers training in jazz dance so please insert this into your classes

especially for your younger students

For more infomation >> Jazz 4th Position Exercise for Jazz Dance Class - Duration: 5:35.

-------------------------------------------

This Umbrella Academy Easter egg is perfect for Gerard Way fans - Duration: 2:17.

This Umbrella Academy Easter egg is perfect for Gerard Way fans

Gerard Way evidently wrote praise for Vayna Hargreeves autobiography.

While we all expected a few from the adaptation of s , we were left with even more than we originally bargained for. Just one search through the shows will give fans a plethora of sweet surprises.

However, the one where Gerard Ways name is featured on the back of Vayna Hargreeves autobiography in Episode 1 has to be one of our favorites.

Following a description of praise that is hard to make out, Ways words appear to be as follows:

An incredible read… a revealing portal into the amazing life of Vayna Hargreeves and the way she has lived… I couldnt put it down!

In the Umbrella Academy show, the critical praise on the back of Vanyas autobiography was written by Gerard, Reddit user Ignoramus430 says.

You can check out the cool find below.

A few days ago on the red carpet premiere of The Umbrella Academy, Way explained its .

The message I think is that were all screwed up and that well have an easier time if we do this together, Way tells Variety.

Additionally, Way that he created The Umbrella Academy while on the road.

Yeah, cause you have so much time to kill on the road. Lets say youre playing at 8 oclock at night. Youre just sitting there all day, so I just started drawing them, Way says. I wrote down a list of interests that I had — everything from seances, tarot cards, fortune tellers, Just all this stuff. … And then I tried to make characters based off those interests.

The Umbrella Academy is now streaming on Netflix. You can watch the trailer for the show below.

What is your favorite Easter egg from the show? Sound off in the comments below.

ALTERNATIVE PRESS is dedicating its November 2018 issue AP 364 to chronicling the brief life and times of Gustav Elijah Ahr, commonly known as LIL PEEP, the artist whose ability to intersect the worlds of hip hop, emo and DIY production ignited a new consciousness in both music and culture.

For more infomation >> This Umbrella Academy Easter egg is perfect for Gerard Way fans - Duration: 2:17.

-------------------------------------------

HSN | Suze Orman Financial Solutions for You 02.17.2019 - 03 PM - Duration: 1:00:01.

For more infomation >> HSN | Suze Orman Financial Solutions for You 02.17.2019 - 03 PM - Duration: 1:00:01.

-------------------------------------------

Opinion How Much Will Americans Sacrifice for Good Health Care? The New York Times - Duration: 4:06.

Opinion How Much Will Americans Sacrifice for Good Health Care? The New York Times

A battle is looming over universal health care. Politicians and voters will have to decide whether the trade offs are worth it.

The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op Ed section.

Its been nearly 10 years since the passage of the Affordable Care Act — one of the most sweeping health care overhauls in the nations history. The law has brought the number of uninsured people in America to an low, secured protections for people with pre existing conditions and advanced the notion that .

But the system was never perfect, and its fractures and stress points have become too great to ignore. The number of people who are uninsured or underinsured is , after two years of sabotage to the current law by the Trump administration. A Republican led lawsuit that once seemed like is Obamacares protections for pre existing conditions. And high out of pocket costs, absurd hospital billing practices and ever rising prescription drug prices have forced too many people to skip crucial treatments, avoid and life sustaining medications.

America may be a country rich in medical innovation — a place where robots perform surgery — but its also one where tens of thousands of people die every year because they cant afford basic care.

Both parties seem certain to make health care a significant election issue over the next two years. There are no fewer than bills floating through Congress that would address these problems. And Medicare for all — a concept that describes only some of those proposals — has become both a rallying cry and a test of progressive credentials.

Voters, however, appear more ambivalent. Though health care has long topped the electorates list of concerns, , surveys suggest that most Democrats want their party to focus on fixing the Affordable Care Act rather than on starting a long shot bid for a single payer health care system. In a recent poll, some 56 percent of Americans, including nearly a quarter of Republicans, supported the idea of a new federal program; but when trade offs like higher taxes or the loss of private insurance options were factored in, that support evaporated.

As the 2020 race heats up, heres a primer to help citizens sort out where they stand.

The plans currently in play differ in their particulars: Senator Bernie Sanderss Medicare for All Act would scrap private insurance and create a new federal system to cover everyone; a plan from the Center for American Progress, a think tank, would create an optional public program that anyone could buy into; and a plan from Senator Debbie Stabenow would give all Americans the option to buy into Medicare when they turn 50. But these plans would extend coverage to more people and would increase the federal governments role in providing and policing health insurance.

The proposals fall into two broad categories: universal and incremental. On the universal side, Medicare for all would largely eliminate the need for private insurance and for other public programs like Medicaid and the Childrens Health Insurance Program. Its coverage would also be more expansive than current Medicare: It would include eye and dental care as well as prescription drugs, and it would eliminate premiums, deductibles, copays and surprise medical bills.

A single federal payer — as such proposals envision — may well eliminate the waste, inefficiency and corruption that make the current system so expensive and inaccessible; the experience of countries like Canada and Britain that rely heavily on one government payer suggests as much. But such a system would require dramatic changes from the status quo and would be a tough political sell. Whats more, single payer is not the only way to achieve universal coverage.

On the incremental side, several different proposals would allow certain people to buy into existing public plans. Some would enable older Americans who are not yet eligible for Medicare to buy into that program — at age 50 or 55 or 60. One would let people who dont have other insurance coverage buy into Medicaid as long as their state opted into the program .

Because these programs dont rely on a single payer, they would not do as much to clean up the existing system. But they have a better chance of being adopted by Congress, and some could bring the country very close to achieving universal coverage.

A recent Kaiser poll found that the potential loss of private insurance was what turned most people off the concept of Medicare for all. Thats not surprising. About half of all Americans — some 156 million people — get their health insurance through employer based plans, and rely on other forms of private coverage, including the A.C.A. marketplace and Medicare Advantage plans. The of those people say that they like their coverage. And so far, the majority of Americans seem loath to give up what they have, no matter how good the alternative is made to sound.

Thats too bad. The idea of forcing more than half the country off existing programs might sound scary, but the majority of those people are at constant risk of losing their health coverage — for instance, if they lose or leave their jobs, if their employers change plans or if their insurers change their terms in ways that increase out of pocket costs.

Still, the choice between universal health care and private insurance will very likely prove to be a false one. Most of the six plans leave ample room for private options to play a role, and the ones that dont — the true Medicare for all proposals — will almost certainly change as they are negotiated. As , no other country has managed to achieve universal health care without including some form of private insurance.

Proponents of Medicare for all say that total health care spending would remain roughly the same, but that more of that spending would be shouldered by the federal government and less of it would be wasted.

A single payer system would mean fewer administrative costs. Eliminating other government programs would free up billions of dollars for the new plan. And eliminating private insurers would bring billions more dollars worth of profits and employer taxes back into the health care system. Businesses currently enjoy a tax break on the money they spend covering their employees.

But there would also be new taxes. Proponents say that, to the extent those taxes fell on consumers, they would be offset by the elimination of premiums, deductibles and copays. But that may not be enough to assuage voters. In Vermont and Colorado, legislators dropped bids for a state run single payer system when it became clear that people would not support the tax increases needed to sustain such a program.

Taxes are not the only trade off. Increased efficiency and less profiteering should mean that more people would be covered and could afford the care they needed. But a single payer system could also mean the elimination of many thousands of health care jobs and lower pay for providers, both of which could impede access to, and the quality of, care. Those impediments could be small — slightly longer wait times, for example. Or they could be substantial — much longer wait times and far fewer doctors.

There are two basic ways for insurance programs to curb costs. One is to cover fewer things; the other is to negotiate on prices.

Medicare for all would forgo the first option, meaning that it would cover everything. But it would use the massive bargaining power of so many users — the entire United States population — to negotiate far better deals on prescription drugs, hospital stays and more. The different incremental programs would use both levers: Most would not cover vision or dental, for example. But all of them would also direct the secretary of health and human services to negotiate costs with providers.

Most other countries use negotiating power to control health care costs; thats why prescription drugs cost so much less elsewhere than they do in the United States. But those countries accept a trade off, inherent in this approach, that the United States has so far resisted: They forgo access to certain innovations, like pricey new drugs and medical devices whose benefits are found to be minimal.

A plan that results in higher taxes but skimps on cutting edge medicine may seem unfair — and may well be unpopular. But many Americans are already being denied essential services every day. It may make sense to forgo innovations that a growing number of people cant benefit from anyway in exchange for a program that sets fair prices at the outset and doesnt leave people low tech essentials or for donations to cover basic costs.

The fight to once again remake American health care will almost certainly be brutal. Before voters can if they want to have that fight, candidates will need to clarify what they are selling. Only then can the nation have an honest dialogue about the risks, benefits and trade offs ahead.

The Times is committed to publishing to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some . And heres our email: .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on , and .

For more infomation >> Opinion How Much Will Americans Sacrifice for Good Health Care? The New York Times - Duration: 4:06.

-------------------------------------------

Anti-Skid Rock for Bridge Decks | Project Neon - Duration: 0:55.

[big band jazz music]

MARK: I like that it's less abrasive,

and it really saves our equipment

because the flint rock just tears up all the PVC piping and anything it touches—

even our steel tubing in the back—it just eats through it like butter.

[jazz music]

It's less elongated and less sharp.

And yeah, it's just less abrasive in my opinion.

A little lighter, maybe.

[jazz music]

Love it. Beautiful.

[big band jazz music]

[saxophone solo as music fades out]

For more infomation >> Anti-Skid Rock for Bridge Decks | Project Neon - Duration: 0:55.

-------------------------------------------

Lawmakers push for colleges to continue publishing hazing and drug violations on campus - Duration: 2:10.

For more infomation >> Lawmakers push for colleges to continue publishing hazing and drug violations on campus - Duration: 2:10.

-------------------------------------------

Microsoft Azure Cloud Free For process mining - Duration: 12:24.

Create your account microsoft to the start

your name

real mail or temp mail

your password

waiting for ready

minning on shell azure

Cloud Newbile

Like & Subscribe

For more infomation >> Microsoft Azure Cloud Free For process mining - Duration: 12:24.

-------------------------------------------

Opinion How Much Will Americans Sacrifice for Good Health Care? The New York Times - Duration: 3:36.

Opinion How Much Will Americans Sacrifice for Good Health Care? The New York Times

A battle is looming over universal health care. Politicians and voters will have to decide whether the trade offs are worth it.

The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op Ed section.

Its been nearly 10 years since the passage of the Affordable Care Act — one of the most sweeping health care overhauls in the nations history. The law has brought the number of uninsured people in America to an low, secured protections for people with pre existing conditions and advanced the notion that .

But the system was never perfect, and its fractures and stress points have become too great to ignore. The number of people who are uninsured or underinsured is , after two years of sabotage to the current law by the Trump administration. A Republican led lawsuit that once seemed like is Obamacares protections for pre existing conditions. And high out of pocket costs, absurd hospital billing practices and ever rising prescription drug prices have forced too many people to skip crucial treatments, avoid and life sustaining medications.

America may be a country rich in medical innovation — a place where robots perform surgery — but its also one where tens of thousands of people die every year because they cant afford basic care.

Both parties seem certain to make health care a significant election issue over the next two years. There are no fewer than bills floating through Congress that would address these problems. And Medicare for all — a concept that describes only some of those proposals — has become both a rallying cry and a test of progressive credentials.

Voters, however, appear more ambivalent. Though health care has long topped the electorates list of concerns, , surveys suggest that most Democrats want their party to focus on fixing the Affordable Care Act rather than on starting a long shot bid for a single payer health care system. In a recent poll, some 56 percent of Americans, including nearly a quarter of Republicans, supported the idea of a new federal program; but when trade offs like higher taxes or the loss of private insurance options were factored in, that support evaporated.

As the 2020 race heats up, heres a primer to help citizens sort out where they stand.

The plans currently in play differ in their particulars: Senator Bernie Sanderss Medicare for All Act would scrap private insurance and create a new federal system to cover everyone; a plan from the Center for American Progress, a think tank, would create an optional public program that anyone could buy into; and a plan from Senator Debbie Stabenow would give all Americans the option to buy into Medicare when they turn 50. But these plans would extend coverage to more people and would increase the federal governments role in providing and policing health insurance.

The proposals fall into two broad categories: universal and incremental. On the universal side, Medicare for all would largely eliminate the need for private insurance and for other public programs like Medicaid and the Childrens Health Insurance Program. Its coverage would also be more expansive than current Medicare: It would include eye and dental care as well as prescription drugs, and it would eliminate premiums, deductibles, copays and surprise medical bills.

A single federal payer — as such proposals envision — may well eliminate the waste, inefficiency and corruption that make the current system so expensive and inaccessible; the experience of countries like Canada and Britain that rely heavily on one government payer suggests as much. But such a system would require dramatic changes from the status quo and would be a tough political sell. Whats more, single payer is not the only way to achieve universal coverage.

On the incremental side, several different proposals would allow certain people to buy into existing public plans. Some would enable older Americans who are not yet eligible for Medicare to buy into that program — at age 50 or 55 or 60. One would let people who dont have other insurance coverage buy into Medicaid as long as their state opted into the program .

Because these programs dont rely on a single payer, they would not do as much to clean up the existing system. But they have a better chance of being adopted by Congress, and some could bring the country very close to achieving universal coverage.

A recent Kaiser poll found that the potential loss of private insurance was what turned most people off the concept of Medicare for all. Thats not surprising. About half of all Americans — some 156 million people — get their health insurance through employer based plans, and rely on other forms of private coverage, including the A.C.A. marketplace and Medicare Advantage plans. The of those people say that they like their coverage. And so far, the majority of Americans seem loath to give up what they have, no matter how good the alternative is made to sound.

Thats too bad. The idea of forcing more than half the country off existing programs might sound scary, but the majority of those people are at constant risk of losing their health coverage — for instance, if they lose or leave their jobs, if their employers change plans or if their insurers change their terms in ways that increase out of pocket costs.

Still, the choice between universal health care and private insurance will very likely prove to be a false one. Most of the six plans leave ample room for private options to play a role, and the ones that dont — the true Medicare for all proposals — will almost certainly change as they are negotiated. As , no other country has managed to achieve universal health care without including some form of private insurance.

Proponents of Medicare for all say that total health care spending would remain roughly the same, but that more of that spending would be shouldered by the federal government and less of it would be wasted.

A single payer system would mean fewer administrative costs. Eliminating other government programs would free up billions of dollars for the new plan. And eliminating private insurers would bring billions more dollars worth of profits and employer taxes back into the health care system. Businesses currently enjoy a tax break on the money they spend covering their employees.

But there would also be new taxes. Proponents say that, to the extent those taxes fell on consumers, they would be offset by the elimination of premiums, deductibles and copays. But that may not be enough to assuage voters. In Vermont and Colorado, legislators dropped bids for a state run single payer system when it became clear that people would not support the tax increases needed to sustain such a program.

Taxes are not the only trade off. Increased efficiency and less profiteering should mean that more people would be covered and could afford the care they needed. But a single payer system could also mean the elimination of many thousands of health care jobs and lower pay for providers, both of which could impede access to, and the quality of, care. Those impediments could be small — slightly longer wait times, for example. Or they could be substantial — much longer wait times and far fewer doctors.

There are two basic ways for insurance programs to curb costs. One is to cover fewer things; the other is to negotiate on prices.

Medicare for all would forgo the first option, meaning that it would cover everything. But it would use the massive bargaining power of so many users — the entire United States population — to negotiate far better deals on prescription drugs, hospital stays and more. The different incremental programs would use both levers: Most would not cover vision or dental, for example. But all of them would also direct the secretary of health and human services to negotiate costs with providers.

Most other countries use negotiating power to control health care costs; thats why prescription drugs cost so much less elsewhere than they do in the United States. But those countries accept a trade off, inherent in this approach, that the United States has so far resisted: They forgo access to certain innovations, like pricey new drugs and medical devices whose benefits are found to be minimal.

A plan that results in higher taxes but skimps on cutting edge medicine may seem unfair — and may well be unpopular. But many Americans are already being denied essential services every day. It may make sense to forgo innovations that a growing number of people cant benefit from anyway in exchange for a program that sets fair prices at the outset and doesnt leave people low tech essentials or for donations to cover basic costs.

The fight to once again remake American health care will almost certainly be brutal. Before voters can if they want to have that fight, candidates will need to clarify what they are selling. Only then can the nation have an honest dialogue about the risks, benefits and trade offs ahead.

The Times is committed to publishing to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some . And heres our email: .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on , and .

For more infomation >> Opinion How Much Will Americans Sacrifice for Good Health Care? The New York Times - Duration: 3:36.

-------------------------------------------

Opinion How Much Will Americans Sacrifice for Good Health Care? The New York Times - Duration: 3:32.

Opinion How Much Will Americans Sacrifice for Good Health Care? The New York Times

A battle is looming over universal health care. Politicians and voters will have to decide whether the trade offs are worth it.

The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op Ed section.

Its been nearly 10 years since the passage of the Affordable Care Act — one of the most sweeping health care overhauls in the nations history. The law has brought the number of uninsured people in America to an low, secured protections for people with pre existing conditions and advanced the notion that .

But the system was never perfect, and its fractures and stress points have become too great to ignore. The number of people who are uninsured or underinsured is , after two years of sabotage to the current law by the Trump administration. A Republican led lawsuit that once seemed like is Obamacares protections for pre existing conditions. And high out of pocket costs, absurd hospital billing practices and ever rising prescription drug prices have forced too many people to skip crucial treatments, avoid and life sustaining medications.

America may be a country rich in medical innovation — a place where robots perform surgery — but its also one where tens of thousands of people die every year because they cant afford basic care.

Both parties seem certain to make health care a significant election issue over the next two years. There are no fewer than bills floating through Congress that would address these problems. And Medicare for all — a concept that describes only some of those proposals — has become both a rallying cry and a test of progressive credentials.

Voters, however, appear more ambivalent. Though health care has long topped the electorates list of concerns, , surveys suggest that most Democrats want their party to focus on fixing the Affordable Care Act rather than on starting a long shot bid for a single payer health care system. In a recent poll, some 56 percent of Americans, including nearly a quarter of Republicans, supported the idea of a new federal program; but when trade offs like higher taxes or the loss of private insurance options were factored in, that support evaporated.

As the 2020 race heats up, heres a primer to help citizens sort out where they stand.

The plans currently in play differ in their particulars: Senator Bernie Sanderss Medicare for All Act would scrap private insurance and create a new federal system to cover everyone; a plan from the Center for American Progress, a think tank, would create an optional public program that anyone could buy into; and a plan from Senator Debbie Stabenow would give all Americans the option to buy into Medicare when they turn 50. But these plans would extend coverage to more people and would increase the federal governments role in providing and policing health insurance.

The proposals fall into two broad categories: universal and incremental. On the universal side, Medicare for all would largely eliminate the need for private insurance and for other public programs like Medicaid and the Childrens Health Insurance Program. Its coverage would also be more expansive than current Medicare: It would include eye and dental care as well as prescription drugs, and it would eliminate premiums, deductibles, copays and surprise medical bills.

A single federal payer — as such proposals envision — may well eliminate the waste, inefficiency and corruption that make the current system so expensive and inaccessible; the experience of countries like Canada and Britain that rely heavily on one government payer suggests as much. But such a system would require dramatic changes from the status quo and would be a tough political sell. Whats more, single payer is not the only way to achieve universal coverage.

On the incremental side, several different proposals would allow certain people to buy into existing public plans. Some would enable older Americans who are not yet eligible for Medicare to buy into that program — at age 50 or 55 or 60. One would let people who dont have other insurance coverage buy into Medicaid as long as their state opted into the program .

Because these programs dont rely on a single payer, they would not do as much to clean up the existing system. But they have a better chance of being adopted by Congress, and some could bring the country very close to achieving universal coverage.

A recent Kaiser poll found that the potential loss of private insurance was what turned most people off the concept of Medicare for all. Thats not surprising. About half of all Americans — some 156 million people — get their health insurance through employer based plans, and rely on other forms of private coverage, including the A.C.A. marketplace and Medicare Advantage plans. The of those people say that they like their coverage. And so far, the majority of Americans seem loath to give up what they have, no matter how good the alternative is made to sound.

Thats too bad. The idea of forcing more than half the country off existing programs might sound scary, but the majority of those people are at constant risk of losing their health coverage — for instance, if they lose or leave their jobs, if their employers change plans or if their insurers change their terms in ways that increase out of pocket costs.

Still, the choice between universal health care and private insurance will very likely prove to be a false one. Most of the six plans leave ample room for private options to play a role, and the ones that dont — the true Medicare for all proposals — will almost certainly change as they are negotiated. As , no other country has managed to achieve universal health care without including some form of private insurance.

Proponents of Medicare for all say that total health care spending would remain roughly the same, but that more of that spending would be shouldered by the federal government and less of it would be wasted.

A single payer system would mean fewer administrative costs. Eliminating other government programs would free up billions of dollars for the new plan. And eliminating private insurers would bring billions more dollars worth of profits and employer taxes back into the health care system. Businesses currently enjoy a tax break on the money they spend covering their employees.

But there would also be new taxes. Proponents say that, to the extent those taxes fell on consumers, they would be offset by the elimination of premiums, deductibles and copays. But that may not be enough to assuage voters. In Vermont and Colorado, legislators dropped bids for a state run single payer system when it became clear that people would not support the tax increases needed to sustain such a program.

Taxes are not the only trade off. Increased efficiency and less profiteering should mean that more people would be covered and could afford the care they needed. But a single payer system could also mean the elimination of many thousands of health care jobs and lower pay for providers, both of which could impede access to, and the quality of, care. Those impediments could be small — slightly longer wait times, for example. Or they could be substantial — much longer wait times and far fewer doctors.

There are two basic ways for insurance programs to curb costs. One is to cover fewer things; the other is to negotiate on prices.

Medicare for all would forgo the first option, meaning that it would cover everything. But it would use the massive bargaining power of so many users — the entire United States population — to negotiate far better deals on prescription drugs, hospital stays and more. The different incremental programs would use both levers: Most would not cover vision or dental, for example. But all of them would also direct the secretary of health and human services to negotiate costs with providers.

Most other countries use negotiating power to control health care costs; thats why prescription drugs cost so much less elsewhere than they do in the United States. But those countries accept a trade off, inherent in this approach, that the United States has so far resisted: They forgo access to certain innovations, like pricey new drugs and medical devices whose benefits are found to be minimal.

A plan that results in higher taxes but skimps on cutting edge medicine may seem unfair — and may well be unpopular. But many Americans are already being denied essential services every day. It may make sense to forgo innovations that a growing number of people cant benefit from anyway in exchange for a program that sets fair prices at the outset and doesnt leave people low tech essentials or for donations to cover basic costs.

The fight to once again remake American health care will almost certainly be brutal. Before voters can if they want to have that fight, candidates will need to clarify what they are selling. Only then can the nation have an honest dialogue about the risks, benefits and trade offs ahead.

The Times is committed to publishing to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some . And heres our email: .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on , and .

For more infomation >> Opinion How Much Will Americans Sacrifice for Good Health Care? The New York Times - Duration: 3:32.

-------------------------------------------

Donald Trump's real threat, likely headed to prison for twenty to twenty-five years - Duration: 4:32.

For more infomation >> Donald Trump's real threat, likely headed to prison for twenty to twenty-five years - Duration: 4:32.

-------------------------------------------

Deal: Moto G6 goes on sale on Amazon for 30% off (Prime Exclusive and standard versions) - Duration: 1:12.

Now that Motorola launched its new Moto G7 family, we could say that the Moto G6 phones are a thing of the past

Well, that's not entirely true if you're looking at the price aspect, which usually goes down when a new phone from the same category is announced

The Moto G6 was originally priced at $250, but the phone has been the subject of so many deals that would have to look hard to find a retailer that would sell it for its full retail price

Nowadays, customers can buy the Moto G6 much cheaper and they don't even have to try too hard

Currently, Amazon is running a deal on the Moto G6, which is now available for purchase for 30 percent off

What's interesting is that both the Prime Exclusive and standard versions have been discounted, although the former is a bit cheaper since it comes pre-installed with a selection of Amazon apps

The good news is both the Prime Exclusive and the regular models come unlocked and should work with any major carrier in the United States, including AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon

It's worth mentioning that both the 32GB/3GB RAM and 64GB/4GB RAM variants are on sale at Amazon, so you'll have plenty of choices if you decide to go for the Moto G6

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét