News on Youtube Feb 18 2019

Welcome back, it's Sara and today we're going to be talking about planning and

money so basically they are actually very relevant to my life right now since

I'm in high school and I'm still figuring out how to balance everything

so I really have to focus on how I plan things and how I budget as well so

basically today I'm going to be covering three main things and that is my

physical calendar my digital calendar and then how I budget so all of

those I'm going to show you guys and explain a bit and so show the thing in

and show the thing in detail so let's get started with a physical

planner first okay so this is my physical planner it's this nice pink one

pink ain't my favorite color but it's still cute so basically this says every day

matters which is really true and it's also a 2019 planner so basically I got

this for Christmas um December 2018 I have used this like

just the kind of like a backbone or a guideline you for my life so it just

has like the important things that I have to remember and then

that way I will add like all the detailed stuff into my digital calendar so

basically I try and keep my physical planner really simple so it's not like

stressing me out and just has things I really have to remember and that are

like holidays or like videos or anything like that and now I'm going to show you

guys what is in it so let's carry on. Let's get into detail about the physical calendar.

so basically there's just like a yearly overview and like holidays and things

yeah and there's like 2020 as well so you can see that cuz currently there's

no other place to see it so basically here's January and that's like

everything I did in January and basically to show you that like overview

there's like squares for each month I love it except that Saturday is the last

day in the week and Sunday is the first for me it's like Monday is

the start of the week so I would prefer if Sunday was there but I have slowly

gotten used to it and then there's like my notes of things I have to get done

and then there's also a money section which I will get into later

so basically currently I'm going to show you my February I just have things like

filming and uploading, my church services, when I don't have school, when a

new term starts and any holidays that I have coming up so yeah that's basically

just my physical calendar it's really useful and it just keeps me updated with

the important things that I have coming up or anything I really have to remember. So the next thing is my phone.

Basically on here I have this app called time tree and I and there is also an online version on a laptop so you

can use it if you want on laptop and you prefer it that way but I prefer to use

my phone cuz I always have this with me so I can always add things okay and

then we have my digital calendar so basically as I said earlier you can use

it on a computer but I use it on my phone and that is why I'm showing to you guys

this on my phone so basically I have my app time free here and when I open it I

hope yeah it opened on my private which is good because I don't want to show my

friends so basically here you can add all kinds of things for example if we

take here I can add an event like school for example and then I can pick like all

day I can pick color so if you want to color code things that's great and you

can also set like reminders and then there's also like advanced things so I

keep an event without a date don't repeat you can add location websites and

notes as well so basically if I put it here it just shows up on the calendar

and you can repeat things as well which is really useful and then basically you

can just have like a good overview and it adds holidays as well and then you

can have like keep so events that don't have a date then you can have a feed of

what you've added and also suggested photos to events if you want to connect

something like that and then you can also invite people which is great so you

can have like collab ones so there's basically like mine then there's like a

school one then there's like Our mess of a life which is me and my friends'

calendar and then there's crocodile and twertle so Milka from previous videos

and they're both with my best friends so that's great and then you can also have

a public calendar I don't really see the point of that but oh well so yeah and

then there's also like settings so you can pick like your color event label

management so you can like color code it automatically so yeah and then there's

like user settings so you can set your notifications and then if you've

been using already like Google ones or something then you can just like join

them here and you can also add them in a different color and then you can delete

the calendar as well so this is one of my favorite apps and I highly recommend

it so check it out it's very easy to use and it because it's on your phone and

almost all of us have a phone if you don't good for you but if you do and you

carry with you all the time this is one of the best I highly recommend

especially on the go when you can't carry a physical planner with you I use it

a lot for like detailed things since I am the most forgetful person ever like I

have no short-term memory I will remember something that happened 10

years ago but I won't and that detail then that was like

random homework or something but I can't remember what happened like 10 minutes

ago so yeah next is money so money is a big thing I will automatically

automatically say I got a hundred years per month from my parents that's very

generous of them but I do use it to buy a lot of my clothes a lot of my beauty

products and stuff so and I also save money from that so I'm gonna explain to

you guys a bit more like how much exactly but I do save around half and

then I also do odd jobs so I work at our future house basically for my parents

and they pay me a little salary just like clean and stuff and then I also

babysit for family friends which is great and I really enjoy since I love

kids so it's like perfect for me there's two things I used to track my money it's

just this little section here that I write down everything I've spent on so

there's the ten years to the church savings is not counted here I don't like

that and then I also like I spend like three point five euros on like school

supplies three years on a bus four euros on the

editor that I used for my videos three years on some juice and then on my phone

I will put any like odd drops that I've done and how much money I've earned and

I also keep like a small tab of like what is my current bank account balance

since I don't check that all the time so that's what I use my phone for I

apologize for the dirty screen but yeah that's just like money and there's

really not much to it but I do highly recommend to save and just focus what do

you really need on money like and just really focus on what you need money for

and what you really don't and what you can find for free and that is the end of

the video I hope you enjoyed I hope it inspired you or gave you a look on how you

could possibly try and plan planning is so individual so I highly recommend

trying different things and see what suits you because what suits one person

does not suit another person because our lives are so different but yeah leave a

like subscribe and comment down below what you would like to see thank you for

watching and bye

For more infomation >> How I plan?? How much money do I use?? - Duration: 7:44.

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

Extreme Geared Down LEGO WEIGHT LIFTER | How much can it lift? - Duration: 2:31.

For more infomation >> Extreme Geared Down LEGO WEIGHT LIFTER | How much can it lift? - Duration: 2:31.

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

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.

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

How Dirty Are You? Funny Test Answers That Reveal Your Personality! - Duration: 5:27.

How Dirty Are You? Funny Test Answers That Reveal Your Personality!

For more infomation >> How Dirty Are You? Funny Test Answers That Reveal Your Personality! - Duration: 5:27.

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

You'll never guess how much Katy Perry's engagement ring cost - Duration: 2:22.

 Katy Perry and Orlando Bloom are set the get hitched, with the couple sharing their engagement news on social media

 Fans have been quick to point out just how similar Perry's engagement ring is to Bloom's ex, supermodel Miranda Kerr

E! News on Twitter  "Katy's unbelievable engagement ring from Orlando Bloom would retail in the range of $5 million," Andrew Brown, President, WP Diamonds told E! News

 "What looks to be a 4-carat fancy vivid pink oval shaped diamond arranged with eight white diamonds around it to assemble a flower 'in bloom' - this ring is truly one-of-a-kind and wildly valuable

"  US Magazine reports, Kerr's ring is worth an estimated US$65,000.  The lovebirds both took to Instagram to share the happy news

full bloom  "full bloom," the singer captioned her selfie with Bloom.It was back in January 2016 when Katy and Orlando were spotted being all flirty at a Golden Globes after party

According to Us Weekly, they danced the night away. "Katy literally dropped to the floor and was waving her booty around, beckoning Orlando," the source revealed

 Since then it has been an on again, off again relationship - and if this latest gossip bomb is true then it could be heading towards their very own fairytale wedding

For more infomation >> You'll never guess how much Katy Perry's engagement ring cost - Duration: 2:22.

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

Opinion How Much Will Americans Sacrifice for Good Health Care? The New York Times - Duration: 3:33.

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: 3:33.

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

Opinion How Much Will Americans Sacrifice for Good Health Care? The New York Times - Duration: 3:38.

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: 3:38.

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

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.

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

Update | Opinion How Much Will Americans Sacrifice for Good Health Care? The New York Times - Duration: 3:46.

Update | 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 >> Update | Opinion How Much Will Americans Sacrifice for Good Health Care? The New York Times - Duration: 3:46.

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

Opinion How Much Will Americans Sacrifice for Good Health Care? The New York Times - Duration: 3:33.

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: 3:33.

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

HOW TO ACTUALLY ACHIEVE YOUR NEW YEARS RESOLUTION - Duration: 0:54.

When you're trying to plan your new year a lot of people go

for that long picture they think of 2019

I mean we all hear it don't we?

2019 is going to be my year!

But like with all of the people I employ

the executives that I have

and the people that I coach

I ask everybody to just slow things down a bit

break it down and start thinking about just the start of the year first of all

So can we get the first quarter clear in our mind and plan around that?

And can we break it down just into each month?

And think about what can we do in January?

And for me it's like, let's just slow things down

let's understand what you can do in the next 30 days

What really can you achieve then?

And once you're clear on that, let's focus on trying to get that done

before we start; I suppose it's walking before you run, isn't it?

Let's get that done first

and people that do that, then can see the finish line

and when they see the finish line, it will give them more confidence

and it will help motivate them then to think about what they can do for the next month

For more infomation >> HOW TO ACTUALLY ACHIEVE YOUR NEW YEARS RESOLUTION - Duration: 0:54.

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

How Much Fiber Should Be In A Dog's Diet - Duration: 3:07.

We know the benefits of fiber in our own diet, but is their any benefits of fiber in a dog's

diet?

Fiber was consider filler and bulk in year's past, but today, the nutritional value of

fiber in the dog's diet is finally realized.

What exactly is fiber?

It is a part of carbohydrates.

Fiber is not highly digestible by the body.

Your dog's diet can benefit from fiber in appropriate amounts.

Just like humans, too much fiber in a diet can have negative effects on the digestive

system.

It is always important to monitor your dog's diet to maintain a healthy level of fiber

to suit your pet's needs.

Talk to your veterinarian about the benefits of fiber in your dog's diet.

Obedience is prevalent in both humans and pets.

Too often, pet's become overweight.

Fiber in your dog's diet is a terrific way to help your pet lose excess weight.

Maintaining a healthy weight is crucial to the longevity and quality of your dog's life.

We know that fiber cannot accomplish weight loss on its own, but it can truly make a difference.

Fiber helps to keep your dog feeling full and content without large amounts of calories.

The pets who achieve the desired weight goal may need a little extra fiber in the dog's

diet to maintain the desired weight.

Combining fiber with strict portion control, you will be able to create a dog diet that

is healthy and satisfying for your pet.

Again, similar to humans, constipation does occur in pets.

Your dog's diet should contain fiber to help prevent this medical condition from occurring.

As your dog ages, his or her diet should contain elevated levels of fiber.

Senior dogs tend to deal with issues of constipation more frequently than their younger counterparts.

For this reason, you will note higher fiber content in senior dog diets.

How does fiber help keep things moving?

Fiber absorbs water.

With the absorption of water in the fiber, the contents in the intestine have more bulk.

This is what causes the movement along the intestinal tract.

The passage time through the bowel becomes more normalized and regular.

Healthy amounts of fiber in your dog's diet will contribute to fecal consistency.

You will know when your pet is getting the proper amount of fiber when your dog relieves

himself regularly.

Too much fiber in your dog's diet will result in loose and messy stools.

Some studies indicate that a slight increase in fiber can assist in the management of diabetes

mellitus.

The fiber helps to control blood sugar levels by slowing the absorption of sugar from the

intestine.

Take note that excessive amounts of fiber can have negative affects on your dog's health.

For this reason, it is important to buy high-quality dog food from reputable companies to ensure

a healthy diet for your dog.

Watch for these sources of fiber in your dog's diet.

Beet pulp, soybean hulls, rice bran, apple and tomato pomace, and peanut hulls.

Grain such as oats and rice are also examples of indigestible fiber.

Fiber does have benefits in your dog's diet when used in moderation.

Talk to your vet about the best amount of fiber for your pet.

For more infomation >> How Much Fiber Should Be In A Dog's Diet - Duration: 3:07.

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

Opinion How Much Will Americans Sacrifice for Good Health Care? The New York Times - Duration: 3:38.

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: 3:38.

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

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.

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

Meghan Fashion - Meghan Markle letter: How much of the news do the Royals REALLY read? - Duration: 4:03.

 Last week, five of Meghan Markle's closest friends spoke to PEOPLE magazine to stand up against the "global bullying" and speak the truth about their pal

And the week before that, Kensington Palace appealed to social media firms to help stem the level of vitriol directed towards both Meghan and Kate, Duchess of Cambridge

Then Meghan's father leaked that letter and suddenly even more of Meghan's personal life was exposed

 But is all of this concern justified? How much of the news and comments do the royals actually read? Of course, the Royals are all protected from the comments and remarks to some extent

 They have teams around them who will surely try filter out the most unnecessary of remarks

 And none of the key British Royals are on social media - no Facebook, no Twitter, no Instagram

 READ MORE: The interview Meghan's best friends gave PEOPLE - 'Meg has silently sat back and endured the lies and untruths' But Marlene Koenig, an expert on British and European royalty, told Express

co.uk she would be surprised if Meghan didn't know what was going on. She said: "I cannot speak for the Duchess of Sussex but I suspect she is very aware of what is being written, as there is no doubt her staff sees basically everything

Her friends see it. "I would hope that she does not see half the nasty, racist tweets, but certainly the press coverage - and no doubt that other members of the Royal Family do as well

" When Express.co.uk approached Kensington Palace to try find out more, they declined to comment

 The palace referred back to the comments made by Meghan during her and Prince Harry's engagement interview in November 2017

 In the interview, she said: "We were just hit so hard at the beginning with a lot of mistruths that I made the choice to not read anything, positive or negative

 "It just didn't make sense and instead we focused all of our energies just on nurturing our relationship

" But the Duchess is surely aware of some of the content out there and indicated such in the letter to her father

 She wrote about the claims Thomas Markle made to the press about his daughter and pleaded with him to "please stop lying"

 READ MORE: Meghan's letter to her father IN FULL - 'Daddy, you broke my heart'  Meghan also said she found out about his heart attack around the time of her wedding through the tabloids, which she described as "horrifying"

 But she added: "I pleaded with you to stop reading the tabloids. "On a daily basis you fixated and clicked on the lies they were writing about me

" But the Royal Family usually weather storms by remaining silent and waiting for the storm to pass

 With Meghan and Harry expecting their first baby in the spring, here's hoping they're still choosing to shut out the noise and focus on nurturing their relationship and this new phase of their lives

For more infomation >> Meghan Fashion - Meghan Markle letter: How much of the news do the Royals REALLY read? - Duration: 4:03.

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

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 .