dutchroll Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 I probably should have said "healthcare companies", of which health insurance companies are a subset as well as pharmaceutical companies etc. The top 5 healthcare companies all earn well over $100 billion each per year in revenue. The largest insurer among those, #3 on the list, is UnitedHealth Group (2014 revenue, $130.5 billion). After-tax profit in 2015, $6 billion. However it's true that some of the smaller companies do not make such profits, though that's to be expected. The ACA has to some extent dented industry profit margins too. The article is interesting and although I totally agree that the US spends much more money than many other modern countries on healthcare and delivers far more scans etc, it also produces far worse results! One of my wife's big bugbears here in Oz is the over-ordering of scans which costs the system a lot of money when they're not appropriate or necessary. Like ordering CT scans for non-specific acute low back pain with no other associated symptoms. It's an endemic problem in the USA, but it's often because patients demand them even though there would be no benefit.
fly_tornado Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 this has to be the photo of the election, exPM abbott opening a new just cuts
willedoo Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 FT, for some reason I often can't view your posted images. I get this:
fly_tornado Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 Images are often from Twitter, so that might be the issue
willedoo Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 Thanks FT. I remember the odd other person having trouble seeing your images, but most can. I'll look into the Twitter factor and see if I can work it out. Cheers, Willie.
hihosland Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 senate getup ad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq7PqUyJ5yY
pmccarthy Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 I expect to wake up with an election tomorrow. I don't intend to waste it.
bexrbetter Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 I expect to wake up with an election tomorrow. You Chinese too?
Marty_d Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 Well, I didn't waste my election. Filled out all 58 below the line in the senate sheet. Hardest thing was picking who to put absolutely last... Pauline Hanson, Christian Democrats, Liberal Democrats, Family First, Fred Nile... the list of absolute nut jobs grows longer every time...
bexrbetter Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 FT, news just in .... TONY ABBOTT WINS HIS SEAT!!! He's staying, YAY!!! I'm having extra onion on my pizza tonight in honour!
fly_tornado Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 Like Lazarus rising from the ashes, should be an interesting time to be Mal. I predicted that the libs would lose most of the moderate liberals that supported him would be lost after the election and Tony's faction would have the numbers.
old man emu Posted July 3, 2016 Author Posted July 3, 2016 I would love to see an analysis of the First Preference votes given to the special interest parties (Sex party, Marijuana Party etc) in the Senate vote. From what I overheard at the exits of polling places, a lot of people gave their votes that way. OME
fly_tornado Posted July 3, 2016 Posted July 3, 2016 on the AEC website but won't be complete till later this week
Marty_d Posted July 3, 2016 Posted July 3, 2016 I would love to see an analysis of the First Preference votes given to the special interest parties (Sex party, Marijuana Party etc) in the Senate vote. From what I overheard at the exits of polling places, a lot of people gave their votes that way. OME On our ticket the Sex party and Marijuana party were grouped together, which seems like one hell of a good time to me...
old man emu Posted July 3, 2016 Author Posted July 3, 2016 On our ticket the Sex party and Marijuana party were grouped together, which seems like one hell of a good time to me... The Christian Democrats stopped the music - wowsers!
dutchroll Posted July 3, 2016 Posted July 3, 2016 Well, Pauline Hanson is back (thanks a lot, Queensland), and she wants a Royal Commission into climate science and Royal Commission into Islam. Personally I'm going to raise her bet here, and call for a Royal Commission into cancer research, and a Royal Commission into Christianity. It bugs me that greedy scientists make money out of cancer research when no-one in my family has it. We also need to make them account for their scaremongering and the millions of dollars of our money they spend while the cure mysteriously doesn't eventuate (coincidence? I don't think so). On christianity, just like Pauline, I want a Royal Commission to investigate whether it's a religion or a political ideology. After all, hasn't she heard of Fred Nile and his Christian Democratic Party, as OME mentioned above? With an approximate total cost per Royal Commission of $50 million, I think these would be an excellent use of taxpayers money and would reap enormous benefits. Only $50 million to decide whether Islam is a religion or not - how can we not benefit greatly from that, I ask you? Ah Pauline.......you've done it again. You really are an "ideas" woman!
fly_tornado Posted July 3, 2016 Posted July 3, 2016 Hinch is a creation of the ALP and he is just as f---ed up, so thanks Victoria. Keep in mind that after 6 months the novelty of wheeling out your racist grandma for a soundbite will get pretty tired and the media will tear her to shreds. She also will hire James Ashby as an advisor, so he might take another big payday to spoil Pauline's run.
bexrbetter Posted July 3, 2016 Posted July 3, 2016 Well, Pauline Hanson is back (thanks a lot, Queensland), and she wants a Royal Commission into climate science and Royal Commission into Islam. I wouldn't like to see 50 mil spent on a RC but there does need to be some checks put in place for the previous BILLIONS Australian Political Parties have thrown at it in order to look good, blindly in some instances. The reaction for Abbott to dare spend 4 million, remember that's out of BILLIONS, note the emphasis there, a measly 4 million (relative, did I mention BILLIONS?) for a team for opposing views to get some balance was disgusting. I want my money spent properly and wisely, not on "Social Guilt Vote Grabs" thanks of which Global Warming has been a God's send (one of them) for major Political Parties, or is it Climate Change now, whatever. Oh and, Ha, Ha! Pauline Hanson got a seat. Please accept that in the most childish way directly aimed at those with sanctimonious'ism (new word there ). BILLIONS, not millions, of your money virtually gone unchecked, greatest scam to hit this planet since Elvis Presley's death.
Marty_d Posted July 3, 2016 Posted July 3, 2016 Exactly. And while he was at it, he should've spent a few million on those opposing that ridiculous "law" of gravity. Oh, and Penicillin. Does anybody actually believe that stuff works? What a gyp! Next they'll be saying the world goes around the sun. Bloody scientists. Always causing trouble. Bugger this, I have to edit this post. You know what? Tony Abbott spending a few million on seeking opposing views to climate change for "balance" WAS a total waste. It's, let's see, about 800 times worse than Bronny spending $5,000 on a helicopter ride. Why? Because there is no "balance". It's not like arguing about whose footy team is better or Holden vs Ford or Blondes vs Redheads. The science is IN. Climate change is real, it's been proven, it's the biggest problem facing humanity in the period since the industrial revolution. If there was any valid scientific opposition to climate change then it would have laid out its hypothesis, backed up by observations, modelling and other proofs. It would then be peer reviewed by all the other scientists in the field, and if the processes were sound and the evidence clear then it would be accepted as the valid theory. This hasn't happened. Tony Abbott wanted to support pseudo-science and a disinformation campaign because climate change is a direct threat to his beliefs and world view, which is, that Australia should dig up and sell the black stuff for the next thousand years or so. It had nothing to do with science and everything to do with Tony Abbott.
bexrbetter Posted July 3, 2016 Posted July 3, 2016 Exactly. And while he was at it, he should've spent a few million on those opposing that ridiculous "law" of gravity. Oh, and Penicillin. Does anybody actually believe that stuff works? "Bloody Scientists" form opinions, and true science is only ever a temporary, but usually repeatable opinion while further discovery is attempted and continued. Mostly everything a scientists does is based on a constant and everything about Science is judged by other scientists from their own research, which they do with constants (or control). To have a constant, you must know both sides of that constant hence for the climate change you must have people offering opposing findings. We wouldn't be where we are today unless scientists performed their duty true to science of which currently a lot of climate change science isn't, i.e. without bias. Oh, and nobody actually knows how gravity works and Fleming actually gave up on penicillin as not viable, luckily others took it up but wasn't seen for something like 20 years later. Also literally all his scientist peers and doctors denied his research on anti-septics, killing many along the way. This hasn't happened. Plenty of it actually, just no money or votes in it and besides, you get called names if you mention any of it, kind of like a Pauline Hanson discussion. [ATTACH]47936._xfImport[/ATTACH]
dutchroll Posted July 3, 2016 Posted July 3, 2016 To have a constant, you must know both sides of that constant hence for the climate change you must have people offering opposing findings. So there are scientists who oppose the idea that gravity exists, right? We wouldn't be where we are today unless scientists performed their duty true to science of which currently a lot of climate change science isn't Eagerly awaiting you to post evidence of that...... Oh, and nobody actually knows how gravity works Yet still it does. So we agree that a scientific theory can be both imperfect and have uncertainties, but describe an absolutely factual phenomenon, right? Also literally all his scientist peers and doctors denied his research on anti-septics, killing many along the way. His early research on WW1 wounded showed antiseptics which were in widespread use sometimes worsened the condition of the patient because they only killed the surface bacteria, not the bacteria buried in a deep wound. His research was strongly supported by some eminent scientists such as bacteriologist Sir Almroth Wright, however it was army doctors, not "literally all his scientist peers" who refused to change their treatment. The Army did a lot of stupid and stubborn things leading to many deaths in WW1. This was one of quite a number. This was a massive discovery overturning a widespread principle at the time. Sometimes it takes time for a discovery like this to get around and overturn established thinking. Often several years. However if the science is good enough, it will, and usually a Nobel Prize is the result. Fleming is one example. Recently Australians Marshall & Warren are another example, overturning established wisdom on peptic ulcer treatment. Einstein did it with Newtonian Gravity too. Arrhenius published his initial work on global warming due to greenhouse emissions in 1896, so sceptics have had 120 years to disprove it to an acceptable and rigorous scientific standard, along with offering up a viable alternative explanation for actual observations of increasing temperatures under the sea, on the surface, and in the atmosphere. Which goes to show global warming sceptics are no Einsteins and won't be booking their dinner with the King of Sweden any time soon.
fly_tornado Posted July 4, 2016 Posted July 4, 2016 probably the greatest commentary on Pauline Hanson's return to power https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLa2oOUWCwA
fly_tornado Posted July 4, 2016 Posted July 4, 2016 liberals in meltdown https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vqy14gGQF1c
dutchroll Posted July 4, 2016 Posted July 4, 2016 I have to admit that I find it difficult to listen to any opinions Alan Jones has, unless it involves one of his only two qualifications: rugby coaching, or high school English teaching. The anti-Halal crowd always make me giggle too. Strictly speaking, if you want to wipe Halal off the face of the Earth, then you must ban donations to charity, ban cricket and soccer, ban swimming, and ban eating out. All of which are strictly Halal in the Muslim world and have always been. Of course this requires that you have no clue what "Halal" actually means in the first place.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now