12 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, we do. They bought him out. By definition, all "Buy out" means is to purchase a controlling share in a company .

Disney bought the controlling share in Lucsasfilm from George Lucas. That is, by definition , a buyout.

Your wide dictionairy definition is kinda lacking in precision and accuracy there...

4 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

No. A buy out referes to a specific type of transaction. Lucas was not bought out. He sold his company. The difference is Lucas specifically deccided he wanted to sell. Buy outs are involuntary.

1 minute ago, micheldebruyn said:

Your wide dictionairy definition is kinda lacking in precision and accuracy there...

I just posted the actual definition of the word Buyout. In fact, I looked at several actual definitions of the term "buyout" from multiple different online dictionaries, and none of them say a "Buyout" is an involuntary transaction. A buyout can be voluntary or involuntary. What you two are thinking of is a hostile takeover . That is a buyout where one entity buys out the shares in a company directly from the shareholders in order to get a majority share.

A buyout is simply a transaction where one entity buys the controlling share in a company.

Disney bought the controlling share in Lucasfilm from George Lucas. By definition, that is a buyout. Specfifically, it is a voluntary buyout, rather than a hostile takeover. It is still a buyout.

On 3/2/2020 at 7:48 PM, Eoen said:

There’s an episode of the Clone Wars where they mention the Republic has universal healthcare. Likely the Core worlds and Mid Rim worlds and other large population centers have universal healthcare. In the Outer Rim worlds probably not so much.

I doubt the Empire changed this in the Core Worlds, the Empire was all about nationalization. Totalitarian states need to placate the population to maintain loyalty. On resisting worlds, Alien governments and in places like the Corporate Sector not so much.

Canon material suggests that army personnel receive rationed medical care based on their individual importance to the Empire. So American VA style care, death panels etc.

Do you know which episode says that?

40 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I just posted the actual definition of the word Buyout. In fact, I looked at several actual definitions of the term "buyout" from multiple different online dictionaries, and none of them say a "Buyout" is an involuntary transaction. A buyout can be voluntary or involuntary. What you two are thinking of is a hostile takeover . That is a buyout where one entity buys out the shares in a company directly from the shareholders in order to get a majority share.

A buyout is simply a transaction where one entity buys the controlling share in a company.

Disney bought the controlling share in Lucasfilm from George Lucas. By definition, that is a buyout. Specfifically, it is a voluntary buyout, rather than a hostile takeover. It is still a buyout.

A voluntary buyout is a thing that exists, but the term refers to something completely different.

24 minutes ago, Leia Hourglass said:

Do you know which episode says that?

I believe it’s in season 3 pursuit of peace, it’s also mentioned the Republican funds electricity, and water too.

25 minutes ago, Eoen said:

I believe it’s in season 3 pursuit of peace, it’s also mentioned the Republican funds electricity, and water too.

Awesome. Thanks!

1 hour ago, Eoen said:

I believe it’s in season 3 pursuit of peace, it’s also mentioned the Republican funds electricity, and water too .

Are you read up on Freud's theories? 😁

30 minutes ago, Sturn said:

Are you read up on Freud's theories? 😁

I’m not a fan of Freud, I’m more of a Jung guy.

1 hour ago, Sturn said:

Are you read up on Freud's theories? 😁

Where were you going with this? I read him about 26 years ago, I am familiar with the basic Id, Ego, Super Ego model he postulated.

If your going to say society is like a big impulsive Id child constantly grasping for what it desires, I’d agree. I don’t see us getting out from under that burden with any form of government as at least 1/3 of society are children (actually or mentally).

31 minutes ago, Eoen said:

Where were you going with this? I read him about 26 years ago, I am familiar with the basic Id, Ego, Super Ego model he postulated.

He's refering to Freudian slips.

1 hour ago, Eoen said:

Where were you going with this? I read him about 26 years ago, I am familiar with the basic Id, Ego, Super Ego model he postulated.

I was going with comedy. It was a joke regarding Freudian slips. You typed "Republican" instead of "Republic".

ETA: And before anyone wants to debate me, I was making no attempt to paint either political spectrum in a negative or positive light. It was a joke.

2 hours ago, Eoen said:

I’m not a fan of Freud, I’m more of a Jung guy.

….and I completely read that wrong the first time while thinking, "woah, we really didn't need to know that".

13 minutes ago, Sturn said:

I was going with comedy. It was a joke regarding Freudian slips. You typed "Republican" instead of "Republic".

Oh, I didn’t even notice that, no they probably would never do that.

1 minute ago, Eoen said:

Oh, I didn’t even notice that, no they probably would never do that.

Again, I wasn't actually making political commentary, just making a joke.

It is funny how the posters here line up exactly the same as they do when discussing the ST.
Not surprisingly of course, bit still quite funny.

22 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:

A voluntary buyout is a thing that exists, but the term refers to something completely different.

Wrong . A buyout is simply when one entity buys the controlling shares in a company. It does not need to be involuntary. That is a hostile takeover .

To quote:

Quote

Management Buyouts Versus Leveraged Buyouts

Management buyouts, or MBOs, provide an exit strategy for large corporations that want to sell off divisions that are not part of their core business, or for private businesses whose owners wish to retire. The financing required for an MBO is often quite substantial and is usually a combination of debt and equity that is derived from the buyers, financiers, and sometimes the seller.

The deal between George Lucas and Disney was a Management Buyout .

25 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Wrong . A buyout is simply when one entity buys the controlling shares in a company. It does not need to be involuntary. That is a hostile takeover .

To quote:

The deal between George Lucas and Disney was a Management Buyout .

Who cares. How many Disney lawyers can dance on the head of a pin? Answer: it doesn’t matter.

7 minutes ago, Eoen said:

Who cares. How many Disney lawyers can dance on the head of a pin? Answer: it doesn’t matter.

Tell that to the others who are trying to "correct" me for using the term "Buyout" then.

40 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Tell that to the others who are trying to "correct" me for using the term "Buyout" then.

Tell them to quit being pedantic, and we can all move on. There are serious healthcare issues in imaginary governments to discuss. 😎

Reports of the release of the Blue Shadow virus on Naboo by the Separatists is fake news. This is why the Republic needs to move to laissez faire healthcare.

This public message is brought to you by NotaSith Health Systems.

On 3/6/2020 at 3:03 PM, Daeglan said:

Well universal has most of those problems worse. But then I have yet to see government run anything well. And most of those increased costs are direct results of government intervention...I have yet to have anyone explain how adding more people with paychecks between a patient and their doctor is going to decrease costs.

Universal wouldn't increase the amount of paychecks between a patient and their doctor as it swaps one insurance system for a different one. However, the government isn't a for profit entity where the insurance company is. Government intervention in pricing control would help limit cost inflation for profit from paymasters. If anything, universal coverage would reduce the amount of people looking to get paid. Think of the reduction in the billing/claims department of various medical institutions. The reduction in salespeople. The reduction in various middlemen.

Universal would mean that hospitals could cut billing staff. Universal means no more PBM (pointless middleman). Universal means no more skyrocketing pharmaceutical prices (which always seems to follow legislation that the pharmaceutical company lobbied for). No more hospital chargemasters making up arbitrary numbers for goods/services.

The problem with the US system is that there are too many levels trying to make profit and doing so in ways that are basically unregulated. Pharmaceutical company, PBMs, insurance company, pharmacy, hospital, and the doctor are all trying to get paid from writing a script. That means the patient getting that script is on the hook for the profit of at least 6 different entities and thats just at the high level. While making profit isn't a bad thing by any means (pretty important element of capitalism), when it gets out of hand, it needs to be wrangled back into control. The medical industry as a whole though has too many lobbyists to control that through simple price control mechanics. At this point direct government intervention is needed. Some things just shouldn't be profit orientated (not to say that profit can't be made).

But beyond all that cost control, there is a societal impact. It's something that is harder to measure, but is there, and its important.

Reduction in bankruptcies and divorces has already been mentioned. Financial stability for people is very important. General health levels. Elderly or disabled people on fixed incomes not having to decide between medications and medical treatment or food and rent. No longer having to rely on charity or luck to finance expensive medical treatment through fundraisers or gofundme campaigns. It's been shown that universal healthcare (even if it covers elective abortions) actually decreases the abortion rate. Access to affordable birth control also reduces the abortion rate. Preventative care could heavily reduce overall cost of coverage vs more costly post-problem treatments, but most people, even if insured avoid preventative care because any medical care is expensive. The list goes on.

4 minutes ago, kmanweiss said:

Universal wouldn't increase the amount of paychecks between a patient and their doctor as it swaps one insurance system for a different one. However, the government isn't a for profit entity where the insurance company is. Government intervention in pricing control would help limit cost inflation for profit from paymasters. If anything, universal coverage would reduce the amount of people looking to get paid. Think of the reduction in the billing/claims department of various medical institutions. The reduction in salespeople. The reduction in various middlemen.

Universal would mean that hospitals could cut billing staff. Universal means no more PBM (pointless middleman). Universal means no more skyrocketing pharmaceutical prices (which always seems to follow legislation that the pharmaceutical company lobbied for). No more hospital chargemasters making up arbitrary numbers for goods/services.

The problem with the US system is that there are too many levels trying to make profit and doing so in ways that are basically unregulated. Pharmaceutical company, PBMs, insurance company, pharmacy, hospital, and the doctor are all trying to get paid from writing a script. That means the patient getting that script is on the hook for the profit of at least 6 different entities and thats just at the high level. While making profit isn't a bad thing by any means (pretty important element of capitalism), when it gets out of hand, it needs to be wrangled back into control. The medical industry as a whole though has too many lobbyists to control that through simple price control mechanics. At this point direct government intervention is needed. Some things just shouldn't be profit orientated (not to say that profit can't be made).

But beyond all that cost control, there is a societal impact. It's something that is harder to measure, but is there, and its important.

Reduction in bankruptcies and divorces has already been mentioned. Financial stability for people is very important. General health levels. Elderly or disabled people on fixed incomes not having to decide between medications and medical treatment or food and rent. No longer having to rely on charity or luck to finance expensive medical treatment through fundraisers or gofundme campaigns. It's been shown that universal healthcare (even if it covers elective abortions) actually decreases the abortion rate. Access to affordable birth control also reduces the abortion rate. Preventative care could heavily reduce overall cost of coverage vs more costly post-problem treatments, but most people, even if insured avoid preventative care because any medical care is expensive. The list goes on.

Yes it would because it adds bureaucrats who get pay checks between the patient and the doctor...
Since when has adding bureaucracy ever decreased the number of bureaucrats? ever?

No the problem with the US healthcare system is there are bunch of regulations on it that increase costs.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

Yes it would because it adds bureaucrats who get pay checks between the patient and the doctor...
Since when has adding bureaucracy ever decreased the number of bureaucrats? ever?

No the problem with the US healthcare system is there are bunch of regulations on it that increase costs.

I’ve lived in both Canada and the United States. The American system (if it can even be called a system) as it is now has way more bureaucratic overhead than the Canadian single payer system. In Canada you just swipe your SIN card in a reader and that’s the extent of the bureaucracy you see, while in the US I’ve had to fill out paperwork while literally bleeding on the counter, followed by months of wrangling between the insurance company and the hospital to arrive at the actual price on the bill (which is always to high). On top of which the American billing system is Tiered you pay more if you have a job, insurance than you would if you didn’t.

Also there’s no way the American medical system could be considered capitalist. There is no price competition between hospitals or even posted prices to comparison shop between hospitals. As soon as the insurance companies get involved capitalism goes out the window, it’s just two private bureaucracies wrangling over how much the can gouge you.

The only part of the American system I’d actually consider capitalism is the cosmetic surgery and laser eye surgery clinics who actual compete against each other.

8 minutes ago, Eoen said:

I’ve lived in both Canada and the United States. The American system (if it can even be called a system) as it is now has way more bureaucratic overhead than the Canadian single payer system. In Canada you just swipe your SIN card in a reader and that’s the extent of the bureaucracy you see, while in the US I’ve had to fill out paperwork while literally bleeding on the counter, followed by months of wrangling between the insurance company and the hospital to arrive at the actual price on the bill (which is always to high). On top of which the American billing system is Tiered you pay more if you have a job, insurance than you would if you didn’t.

Also there’s no way the American medical system could be considered capitalist. There is no price competition between hospitals or even posted prices to comparison shop between hospitals.

The only part of the American system I’d actually consider capitalism is the cosmetic surgery and laser eye surgery clinics who actual compete against each other.

Key point is that you see.

6 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Key point is that you see.

It’s the only point I as the end user gives a **** about. The numbers are clear Canada’s system is more cost effective than ours.

It is also cheaper to become a doctor in Canada, the school costs are lower, the malpractice insurance rates aren’t half your income like here. Canadians aren’t as litigious as Americans so less time in court.

Costs for the end patient are lower across the board. Drugs are much lower priced than here, proceeders cost less in general, people don’t have to switch doctors every year or two because the company they work for shopped a new plan.