Auto news on Youtube Feb 21 2019

Last year, I hired a wardrobe consultant and completely changed my entire

wardrobe. Did it make a difference? I'm going to answer that in this video. So, do

the clothes that you wear really make a difference? Yeah. They make a huge

difference. Just in the last 6 months, my new wardrobe has been responsible for

making me hundreds of thousands of dollars. So, what's my story? Well, if

you go back in the history of my YouTube channel, you'll see that I used to wear

my old Be The Hero logo. It was more of an athletic shirt made out of polyester.

And I thought it was so cool. But one of my good friends for many years as a

wardrobe consultant, I've always wanted to work with her. And as I was starting

to get some traction in my business, I thought, "You know what? I'm going to have a

conversation with her. Get her advice. See what she thinks of what I wear." She told

me right off the bat. "You got to stop wearing that. Do not wear those shirts

ever again. Maybe if you're going exercising but not any other time." And I

said... Well, I was surprised. I was really shocked. The reason she gave me such bold

advice is I gave her permission too. I said, "You know what? This is my ideal

client. This is who I am working with and this is who I want to

work with. This is the type of service that I offer. This is what my brand

represents. This is what I stand for. This is what I'm doing." Came with that

understanding, she saw how I was dressing and says, "That doesn't match. You can't do

that. Uh-uh, that doesn't work. If everything that you have told me... Let's

go shopping together and I'll show you how to dress." Okay? So, this is one of the

shirts. Okay, this is a real casual. This is a... You

know, if I'm if I were going out networking, I'd wear something I'd wear a

button-down and whatnot. We'd go to Dillard's or Nordstrom. And we went into

the shoe section. And she pointed at, "Would you like these? Do you like these?"

And I'm like, "Okay. You can see me wearing those?" Like everything seemed so foreign

to me. But I decided to be coachable and just like, "Alright. I'll give it a try."

And I bought a couple pairs of shoes. And right away, I felt the difference. I mean,

one there really good quality shoes. But people

started commenting. Like, "Oh, I like your shoes. Those shoes look really nice." And

then I went to Nordstrom Rack and there was a pair of shoes there I don't have

him here with me to show you. But there's a pair of shoes, they're dress shoes that

were like those are sharp. They were slightly too big for my foot. But they

were... They're still expensive being it that they are at the rack. They were

originally like $400 shoes. And I'm like, I think I'm just going to buy some inserts

and see if I can make these shoes work. They became instantly one of my favorite

shoes. I wore him to church, I warm to meetings and people would notice. Okay, I

want to show you the shoes that I'm wearing today right now. Just in my socks.

Let me go grab my boots. Okay, I'm back. Check out these beauties. Wow! Alright.

So, these weren't the ones that I purchased at first. After I learned that

there was something to this that the shoes that I wear, the pants that I

wear. By the way, I used to be a Levi's guy. Now wearing Mavi jeans. These are so

much more comfortable than Levi's. Just have to say. They look way better but

they're way, way, way more comfortable. Just saying. And anyway. So, these boots I

bought after I'd already been having some good experiences with my new

wardrobe. And I asked my wardrobe stylist to go shopping with me again. And she

said, "You know what? These boots are awesome. You're going to love these boots." I

was not a boot person. I've never worn boots like that. I've had like just ugly

snow boots that are functional. These were $400 boots. Am I saying that

to brag? It's almost kind of embarrassing just say. I don't know, it still feels

embarrassing to say that I spent 400 bucks on a pair of boots. Why would I do

that? Why would I spend 400 bucks on some boots? Well, I wanted my clients to notice.

My clients appreciate stuff like this. And I wanted my clients to notice. I

wanted them to feel comfortable. And it's worked. It really has worked. These very

shoes, anytime I've worn these boots with my clients. They comment on them. And they

talk about their favorite shoes and where they got them. It's just... It really

works. Now, let's talk about confidence. I had no idea that confidence was

connected to the way I dressed. But I tell you when I go places, when a network,

when I walk into a room and I'm right, I feel great. And of course, I like

it when people compliment me. On Sunday, I wore a new blazer to church. And I got

the same compliment for multiple people. They said, "That looks sharp." They use the

same word like, "Wow, you look sharp." I said, "Thanks." See, if I want to get new clients,

if I want to make a good first impression, they're going to see my clothes

first. They're going to see my outer shell first. They don't know what's on the

inside. They don't see my heart. They don't see how genuine I am. They don't

see my capability. They don't see my track record. They don't know the results

that I can help them with. They just see my exterior. They see my facial

expression. They see my haircut. They see my shirt. They see my pants, they see my

shoes, they see my confidence level. And they make a judgement. You make a

judgment of me, I make a judgment of you. That's how it works. And the way that we

dress really can set the stage for how everything else goes. So, I am NOT your

wardrobe stylist. But I have a great one. If you'd like me to refer you to

somebody. She works with men and women. But I just have to say. I highly

recommend it. I hope you enjoyed this episode. It's really made a big impact

for me. And unrelated, but I've got 2 things that I like to give away. So, you

know that I do keyword research for YouTube videos. And I've got a keyword

research guide. You can find a link to that down below. Also, I've got a whole

team with people that I employ in the Philippines. And I talk a lot and teach

people a lot about how to hire people in the Philippines. So, also in the link down

below, you can find my outsourcing guide. If either of those things would be a

value to you, then you can get them for free and be sure to subscribe and I will

see you tomorrow.

For more infomation >> Do My Clothes Make A Difference? - Duration: 6:12.

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

Factory calibration vs. traceable calibration to ISO 17025 | What is the difference? - Duration: 2:13.

[Traceable calibration]

Not every calibration is the same.

There are differences, which become apparent in the procedures and certificates issued.

WIKA offers factory calibration and calibration in accordance with ISO 17025.

The main difference is that the calibration in accordance with ISO 17025

completely guarantees the traceability of the test item to the national standard.

This means that the deviation from the standard has been documented for each individual level in the test chain.

Other possible sources of error

such as the hysteresis

or the repeatability

are measured and documented together with the deviation.

From this the expanded measurement uncertainty is calculated.

Through a larger number of test series and validated test procedures,

only calibration in accordance with ISO 17025 ensures traceability.

Thus it is more precise and, unlike the factory calibration, internationally recognised.

The certificate issued reflects this.

With a factory calibration, the certificate is limited to the deviation of the test item

from the reference.

In addition, with a calibration in accordance with ISO 17025,

many more key figures are determined and the expanded measurement uncertainty is developed graphically.

Thus the calibration in accordance with ISO 17025 is recognised worldwide by all operators.

In many cases, this type of calibration is even compulsory.

In order to ensure the high standards internationally,

our calibration laboratories are audited regularly.

When it comes to the question of whether a factory calibration is sufficient for your application,

or whether a calibration in accordance with ISO 17025 is appropriate,

we will be happy to advise you.

For more infomation >> Factory calibration vs. traceable calibration to ISO 17025 | What is the difference? - Duration: 2:13.

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

Difference in COUNT(*) vs COUNT(1) vs COUNT(col) in SQL / Hive query | APDaga | DumpBox - Duration: 6:00.

Visit - https://apdaga.blogspot.com

For more infomation >> Difference in COUNT(*) vs COUNT(1) vs COUNT(col) in SQL / Hive query | APDaga | DumpBox - Duration: 6:00.

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

What's the Difference Between Hominids and Hominins? - Duration: 5:10.

For more infomation >> What's the Difference Between Hominids and Hominins? - Duration: 5:10.

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

What's the difference? Bernardi - Duration: 1:00.

The abandonment of subsidies for renewables,

the allowance of nuclear energy and so forth and let the market rip in the energy sector for example, are

part of our ethos and our policy position. What One Nation has done

federally is

poles apart from that, if I may say so. They are advocating for the Government to build coal-fired power stations.

Malcom Roberts voted for

emissions restrictions for lawn mowers and weed whackers and things which opens the door to emissions restrictions for

motor vehicles and farm machinery and stuff like this. It goes on and on and on. It is about consistency in the application.

The problem is there isn't that consistent position and approach from One Nation.

And so from from my point of view

that's all I'm trying to do is to continually say, no Government should be not be interfering in markets,

in the main and we need to make sure that taxpayers are getting good value for money.

For more infomation >> What's the difference? Bernardi - Duration: 1:00.

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

The Difference Between a Public Option and Medicare for All? Lets Define Our Terms - Duration: 4:15.

The Difference Between a Public Option and Medicare for All? Lets Define Our Terms

A glossary for the emerging Democratic health care debate.

Democrats, the many running for president as well as energized members of Congress, about health care again. Among other things, that means brace yourself for some jargon.

Heres your neighborhood health care nerd to help define some terms.

Various proposals are floating around, each of which would change the health care system in distinct ways. Some, like one from Senator Bernie Sanders, would do away with all private health insurance. Some would make small expansions in existing public programs. Some would try to cover all Americans through a mix of different insurance types.

It can be mystifying when people call of these ideas Medicare for all, as some in the debate have been doing.

A glossary of terms could make the debate less confusing. Lets start with the basics.

Medicare is a 54 year old program that provides health insurance for Americans 65 and older, and for a few other groups of people with particular diseases or disabilities.

Traditional Medicare pays doctors and hospitals according to set prices determined by the government, and most medical providers in the United States accept it. Its also possible to enroll in private Medicare plans that can offer additional benefits, though with a more limited set of health providers.

Private plans handle Medicare drug coverage, and you can choose among options. You pay premiums each year, and you pay deductibles and co payments when you use medical services.

Because the programs out of pocket spending has no limits, most Medicare beneficiaries also buy private supplemental insurance to limit those costs. That insurance doesnt cover medical services outside the Medicare system, but it helps pay the patients share of the bill when a person goes to the doctor or hospital.

This increasingly popular term was coined to describe a system in which all Americans, not just older ones, get health insurance through the governments Medicare system.

Mr. Sanders, who prominently in his 2016 presidential platform and just, uses this term a lot. His plan would both expand traditional Medicare to cover all Americans, and , to cover more services and eliminate most deductibles and co payments. So the Medicare everyone would be getting would differ in crucial ways from the Medicare older people get now.

There would effectively be no private health insurance, because the new system would cover everyone and everything; duplicative coverage would be banned. Thats why Senator Kamala Harris of California, a co sponsor of the Sanders bill and a presidential candidate, told CNN recently that abolishing all private insurance — doing so is a key feature of the plan.

But there are many other possible flavors of Medicare for all. Though no prominent politicians are currently proposing it, an expansion of the current Medicare benefits, with its current co payments, deductibles and premiums, could also be thought of as Medicare for all.

The idea of Medicare for all is suggestive . There, doctors and hospitals remain private, but everyone gets insurance from the government. No one there is asked to pay any money when seeing a doctor. The Canadian health care system is even called Medicare.

This one is pretty simple if you understand Medicare for all. Single payer is a more general term used to describe a government system, typically backed by taxes, in which everyone gets health care from one insurer, run by the government. Think of Medicare for all as a brand name single payer plan. Some advocates also like the term national health insurance. These terms all describe a system in which the government pays for everyones health care services.

Critics of single payer are particularly fond of this term, which describes a system in which the government runs not just the financing of health care — by running an insurance company like Medicare — but also manages hospitals and employs medical providers directly. Britains National Health Service is an example of a socialized system. Doctors there work for the government.

The United States has its own socialized system, for military veterans. Veterans get their insurance through the Department of Veterans Affairs, which owns hospitals; employs doctors, nurses and other medical professionals; and negotiates directly with pharmaceutical companies for drugs. In general a veteran couldnt get coverage for routine care from a doctor who didnt work directly for the V.A., but have more health care for veterans.

There are currently no mainstream proposals to fully socialize the United States health care system.

When lawmakers were writing the Affordable Care Act, there was an extensive debate about whether it should include a public option. The idea in the end, but many Democrats now want to bring it back.

You can think of a public option as something of a compromise between a single payer system and our current system, in which only certain Americans now qualify for government run programs. More people — maybe many more — could get government insurance. But only if they wanted it.

Public option plans would allow middle income, working age adults to choose a public insurance plan — like Medicare or Medicaid — instead of a private insurance plan. There are various ways this could work. Some proposals would allow individuals to pay a premium to buy a Medicare or Medicaid plan that would be the same as the insurance now available to older people, the disabled or the poor. Others would set up , run by the government, that Americans could buy. Under most proposals, people who get federal help buying Obamacare coverage could use their government subsidies to help them buy either a private or public option.

Most of the current proposals would limit access to the public option to certain groups of Americans. from Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and colleagues would allow only those older than 50 to buy a Medicare plan, for example. Some plans would allow only people who buy their own health insurance to choose Medicare or as an option alongside those offered in the Obamacare exchanges.

Others would choose Medicare, instead of a private health insurance company, when offering benefits to their workers. from a liberal think tank, the Center for American Progress, would make the public Medicare option available to anyone who wanted to sign up.

An advantage of a public option, at least politically, is it would preserve more choice for individuals, who could stick with a private plan if they prefer. That would make it less disruptive than a single payer plan. A downside is that keeping lots of different insurance options could undermine one of the goals of a single payer system, a simpler approach that would involve less money tied up in paperwork and insurance company profits.

All of the earlier entries describe ways of organizing the health insurance system. Universal coverage is a broader goal. When people push for universal coverage, they mean that everyone should have access to the health care system. Youll sometimes hear politicians say that health care should be a right. That statement is an endorsement of universal coverage.

Most other developed countries embrace this idea, that health care should not be only for those who can afford it. But those countries have not all embraced single payer approaches.

There are ways to achieve universal coverage that dont look like a single payer system at all. Most European countries, for example, have systems with competing private health insurance plans, along with tight regulation and government subsidies that make the premiums affordable for everyone. from my Upshot colleagues Aaron Carroll and Austin Frakt, in which experts voted on the worlds best health system, does a nice job of showing the different ways that countries have achieved universal coverage. This sort of European style coverage is not prominent in our current policy debate.

For more infomation >> The Difference Between a Public Option and Medicare for All? Lets Define Our Terms - Duration: 4:15.

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

The Difference Between a Public Option and Medicare for All? Lets Define Our Terms - Duration: 4:15.

The Difference Between a Public Option and Medicare for All? Lets Define Our Terms

A glossary for the emerging Democratic health care debate.

Democrats, the many running for president as well as energized members of Congress, about health care again. Among other things, that means brace yourself for some jargon.

Heres your neighborhood health care nerd to help define some terms.

Various proposals are floating around, each of which would change the health care system in distinct ways. Some, like one from Senator Bernie Sanders, would do away with all private health insurance. Some would make small expansions in existing public programs. Some would try to cover all Americans through a mix of different insurance types.

It can be mystifying when people call of these ideas Medicare for all, as some in the debate have been doing.

A glossary of terms could make the debate less confusing. Lets start with the basics.

Medicare is a 54 year old program that provides health insurance for Americans 65 and older, and for a few other groups of people with particular diseases or disabilities.

Traditional Medicare pays doctors and hospitals according to set prices determined by the government, and most medical providers in the United States accept it. Its also possible to enroll in private Medicare plans that can offer additional benefits, though with a more limited set of health providers.

Private plans handle Medicare drug coverage, and you can choose among options. You pay premiums each year, and you pay deductibles and co payments when you use medical services.

Because the programs out of pocket spending has no limits, most Medicare beneficiaries also buy private supplemental insurance to limit those costs. That insurance doesnt cover medical services outside the Medicare system, but it helps pay the patients share of the bill when a person goes to the doctor or hospital.

This increasingly popular term was coined to describe a system in which all Americans, not just older ones, get health insurance through the governments Medicare system.

Mr. Sanders, who prominently in his 2016 presidential platform and just, uses this term a lot. His plan would both expand traditional Medicare to cover all Americans, and , to cover more services and eliminate most deductibles and co payments. So the Medicare everyone would be getting would differ in crucial ways from the Medicare older people get now.

There would effectively be no private health insurance, because the new system would cover everyone and everything; duplicative coverage would be banned. Thats why Senator Kamala Harris of California, a co sponsor of the Sanders bill and a presidential candidate, told CNN recently that abolishing all private insurance — doing so is a key feature of the plan.

But there are many other possible flavors of Medicare for all. Though no prominent politicians are currently proposing it, an expansion of the current Medicare benefits, with its current co payments, deductibles and premiums, could also be thought of as Medicare for all.

The idea of Medicare for all is suggestive . There, doctors and hospitals remain private, but everyone gets insurance from the government. No one there is asked to pay any money when seeing a doctor. The Canadian health care system is even called Medicare.

This one is pretty simple if you understand Medicare for all. Single payer is a more general term used to describe a government system, typically backed by taxes, in which everyone gets health care from one insurer, run by the government. Think of Medicare for all as a brand name single payer plan. Some advocates also like the term national health insurance. These terms all describe a system in which the government pays for everyones health care services.

Critics of single payer are particularly fond of this term, which describes a system in which the government runs not just the financing of health care — by running an insurance company like Medicare — but also manages hospitals and employs medical providers directly. Britains National Health Service is an example of a socialized system. Doctors there work for the government.

The United States has its own socialized system, for military veterans. Veterans get their insurance through the Department of Veterans Affairs, which owns hospitals; employs doctors, nurses and other medical professionals; and negotiates directly with pharmaceutical companies for drugs. In general a veteran couldnt get coverage for routine care from a doctor who didnt work directly for the V.A., but have more health care for veterans.

There are currently no mainstream proposals to fully socialize the United States health care system.

When lawmakers were writing the Affordable Care Act, there was an extensive debate about whether it should include a public option. The idea in the end, but many Democrats now want to bring it back.

You can think of a public option as something of a compromise between a single payer system and our current system, in which only certain Americans now qualify for government run programs. More people — maybe many more — could get government insurance. But only if they wanted it.

Public option plans would allow middle income, working age adults to choose a public insurance plan — like Medicare or Medicaid — instead of a private insurance plan. There are various ways this could work. Some proposals would allow individuals to pay a premium to buy a Medicare or Medicaid plan that would be the same as the insurance now available to older people, the disabled or the poor. Others would set up , run by the government, that Americans could buy. Under most proposals, people who get federal help buying Obamacare coverage could use their government subsidies to help them buy either a private or public option.

Most of the current proposals would limit access to the public option to certain groups of Americans. from Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and colleagues would allow only those older than 50 to buy a Medicare plan, for example. Some plans would allow only people who buy their own health insurance to choose Medicare or as an option alongside those offered in the Obamacare exchanges.

Others would choose Medicare, instead of a private health insurance company, when offering benefits to their workers. from a liberal think tank, the Center for American Progress, would make the public Medicare option available to anyone who wanted to sign up.

An advantage of a public option, at least politically, is it would preserve more choice for individuals, who could stick with a private plan if they prefer. That would make it less disruptive than a single payer plan. A downside is that keeping lots of different insurance options could undermine one of the goals of a single payer system, a simpler approach that would involve less money tied up in paperwork and insurance company profits.

All of the earlier entries describe ways of organizing the health insurance system. Universal coverage is a broader goal. When people push for universal coverage, they mean that everyone should have access to the health care system. Youll sometimes hear politicians say that health care should be a right. That statement is an endorsement of universal coverage.

Most other developed countries embrace this idea, that health care should not be only for those who can afford it. But those countries have not all embraced single payer approaches.

There are ways to achieve universal coverage that dont look like a single payer system at all. Most European countries, for example, have systems with competing private health insurance plans, along with tight regulation and government subsidies that make the premiums affordable for everyone. from my Upshot colleagues Aaron Carroll and Austin Frakt, in which experts voted on the worlds best health system, does a nice job of showing the different ways that countries have achieved universal coverage. This sort of European style coverage is not prominent in our current policy debate.

For more infomation >> The Difference Between a Public Option and Medicare for All? Lets Define Our Terms - Duration: 4:15.

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

The Difference Between a Public Option and Medicare for All? Lets Define Our Terms - Duration: 4:09.

The Difference Between a Public Option and Medicare for All? Lets Define Our Terms

A glossary for the emerging Democratic health care debate.

Democrats, the many running for president as well as energized members of Congress, about health care again. Among other things, that means brace yourself for some jargon.

Heres your neighborhood health care nerd to help define some terms.

Various proposals are floating around, each of which would change the health care system in distinct ways. Some, like one from Senator Bernie Sanders, would do away with all private health insurance. Some would make small expansions in existing public programs. Some would try to cover all Americans through a mix of different insurance types.

It can be mystifying when people call of these ideas Medicare for all, as some in the debate have been doing.

A glossary of terms could make the debate less confusing. Lets start with the basics.

Medicare is a 54 year old program that provides health insurance for Americans 65 and older, and for a few other groups of people with particular diseases or disabilities.

Traditional Medicare pays doctors and hospitals according to set prices determined by the government, and most medical providers in the United States accept it. Its also possible to enroll in private Medicare plans that can offer additional benefits, though with a more limited set of health providers.

Private plans handle Medicare drug coverage, and you can choose among options. You pay premiums each year, and you pay deductibles and co payments when you use medical services.

Because the programs out of pocket spending has no limits, most Medicare beneficiaries also buy private supplemental insurance to limit those costs. That insurance doesnt cover medical services outside the Medicare system, but it helps pay the patients share of the bill when a person goes to the doctor or hospital.

This increasingly popular term was coined to describe a system in which all Americans, not just older ones, get health insurance through the governments Medicare system.

Mr. Sanders, who prominently in his 2016 presidential platform and just, uses this term a lot. His plan would both expand traditional Medicare to cover all Americans, and , to cover more services and eliminate most deductibles and co payments. So the Medicare everyone would be getting would differ in crucial ways from the Medicare older people get now.

There would effectively be no private health insurance, because the new system would cover everyone and everything; duplicative coverage would be banned. Thats why Senator Kamala Harris of California, a co sponsor of the Sanders bill and a presidential candidate, told CNN recently that abolishing all private insurance — doing so is a key feature of the plan.

But there are many other possible flavors of Medicare for all. Though no prominent politicians are currently proposing it, an expansion of the current Medicare benefits, with its current co payments, deductibles and premiums, could also be thought of as Medicare for all.

The idea of Medicare for all is suggestive . There, doctors and hospitals remain private, but everyone gets insurance from the government. No one there is asked to pay any money when seeing a doctor. The Canadian health care system is even called Medicare.

This one is pretty simple if you understand Medicare for all. Single payer is a more general term used to describe a government system, typically backed by taxes, in which everyone gets health care from one insurer, run by the government. Think of Medicare for all as a brand name single payer plan. Some advocates also like the term national health insurance. These terms all describe a system in which the government pays for everyones health care services.

Critics of single payer are particularly fond of this term, which describes a system in which the government runs not just the financing of health care — by running an insurance company like Medicare — but also manages hospitals and employs medical providers directly. Britains National Health Service is an example of a socialized system. Doctors there work for the government.

The United States has its own socialized system, for military veterans. Veterans get their insurance through the Department of Veterans Affairs, which owns hospitals; employs doctors, nurses and other medical professionals; and negotiates directly with pharmaceutical companies for drugs. In general a veteran couldnt get coverage for routine care from a doctor who didnt work directly for the V.A., but have more health care for veterans.

There are currently no mainstream proposals to fully socialize the United States health care system.

When lawmakers were writing the Affordable Care Act, there was an extensive debate about whether it should include a public option. The idea in the end, but many Democrats now want to bring it back.

You can think of a public option as something of a compromise between a single payer system and our current system, in which only certain Americans now qualify for government run programs. More people — maybe many more — could get government insurance. But only if they wanted it.

Public option plans would allow middle income, working age adults to choose a public insurance plan — like Medicare or Medicaid — instead of a private insurance plan. There are various ways this could work. Some proposals would allow individuals to pay a premium to buy a Medicare or Medicaid plan that would be the same as the insurance now available to older people, the disabled or the poor. Others would set up , run by the government, that Americans could buy. Under most proposals, people who get federal help buying Obamacare coverage could use their government subsidies to help them buy either a private or public option.

Most of the current proposals would limit access to the public option to certain groups of Americans. from Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and colleagues would allow only those older than 50 to buy a Medicare plan, for example. Some plans would allow only people who buy their own health insurance to choose Medicare or as an option alongside those offered in the Obamacare exchanges.

Others would choose Medicare, instead of a private health insurance company, when offering benefits to their workers. from a liberal think tank, the Center for American Progress, would make the public Medicare option available to anyone who wanted to sign up.

An advantage of a public option, at least politically, is it would preserve more choice for individuals, who could stick with a private plan if they prefer. That would make it less disruptive than a single payer plan. A downside is that keeping lots of different insurance options could undermine one of the goals of a single payer system, a simpler approach that would involve less money tied up in paperwork and insurance company profits.

All of the earlier entries describe ways of organizing the health insurance system. Universal coverage is a broader goal. When people push for universal coverage, they mean that everyone should have access to the health care system. Youll sometimes hear politicians say that health care should be a right. That statement is an endorsement of universal coverage.

Most other developed countries embrace this idea, that health care should not be only for those who can afford it. But those countries have not all embraced single payer approaches.

There are ways to achieve universal coverage that dont look like a single payer system at all. Most European countries, for example, have systems with competing private health insurance plans, along with tight regulation and government subsidies that make the premiums affordable for everyone. from my Upshot colleagues Aaron Carroll and Austin Frakt, in which experts voted on the worlds best health system, does a nice job of showing the different ways that countries have achieved universal coverage. This sort of European style coverage is not prominent in our current policy debate.

For more infomation >> The Difference Between a Public Option and Medicare for All? Lets Define Our Terms - Duration: 4:09.

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

Royal FEUD: Critical difference between Charles, Andrew and Edward and REVEALED - Today News US - Duration: 3:09.

 Prince Andrew and Prince Edward had a luxury not allowed to their elder brother Prince Charles, and that was falling for women whose prior love lives and live-in boyfriends weren't considered impediments to marrying into the House of Windsor

While Andrew's marriage to Sarah Ferguson flamed out in tabloid scandals, Edward and Sophie, Countess of Wessex, will have been married for 20 years this June

Unlike Charles, who had his dynastic responsibilities to consider, Edward was able to date who he wanted

'You're KILLING the monarchy!' David Attenborough's shock royal rant Royal PARANOIA: Charles feared Edward and Andrew were 'plotting his

 Royal writer Ingrid Seward reveals in "Prince Edward: A Biography" that when Edward was in New Zealand in the early Eighties, the Earl of Wessex co-starred with 17-year-old Alison Bell in an amateur production of Charley's Aunt

 Ms Seward claims Ms Bell said: "I remember after the play he came up and gave me a surprise kiss

 "He has lovely soft lips, she said, adding, 'He is defiantly not shy with girls.'" Ms Seward wrote: "Unlike Andrew, whose lusts were straight to the point, Edward was always more attracted to personality than to other more obvious allures

" Prince Andrew was notorious for dating beautiful and glamorous women before his marriage and after his divorce to Sarah Ferguson

 Compared to Prince Charles, Prince Andrew had relative freedom being the spare, and this meant he could date any woman he wanted

 The Duke of York never had a shortage of women following his divorce from Fergie, either

 Andrew never settled down since leaving the Royal Navy and instead returned to cultivating his "playboy image"

 The Prince frequented the social scenes in London and Los Angeles and it was estimated that he has had around 15 girlfriends since he divorced his wife

 In "Prince Andrew: The War Hero from Buckingham Palace" by Jessica Jayne, the author describes how he was labelled a "ladies man" and "never discouraged his Playboy image"

 Charles had numerous rendezvous before settling down with Diana Spencer, but he continued to have one notable affair, with Camilla Parker Bowles

For more infomation >> Royal FEUD: Critical difference between Charles, Andrew and Edward and REVEALED - Today News US - Duration: 3:09.

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

Brad Goodwin - Influence Maker, Response Maker, Difference Maker - Duration: 1:13.

For more infomation >> Brad Goodwin - Influence Maker, Response Maker, Difference Maker - Duration: 1:13.

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

The Difference Between a Public Option and Medicare for All? Lets Define Our Terms - Duration: 4:10.

The Difference Between a Public Option and Medicare for All? Lets Define Our Terms

A glossary for the emerging Democratic health care debate.

Democrats, the many running for president as well as energized members of Congress, about health care again. Among other things, that means brace yourself for some jargon.

Heres your neighborhood health care nerd to help define some terms.

Various proposals are floating around, each of which would change the health care system in distinct ways. Some, like one from Senator Bernie Sanders, would do away with all private health insurance. Some would make small expansions in existing public programs. Some would try to cover all Americans through a mix of different insurance types.

It can be mystifying when people call of these ideas Medicare for all, as some in the debate have been doing.

A glossary of terms could make the debate less confusing. Lets start with the basics.

Medicare is a 54 year old program that provides health insurance for Americans 65 and older, and for a few other groups of people with particular diseases or disabilities.

Traditional Medicare pays doctors and hospitals according to set prices determined by the government, and most medical providers in the United States accept it. Its also possible to enroll in private Medicare plans that can offer additional benefits, though with a more limited set of health providers.

Private plans handle Medicare drug coverage, and you can choose among options. You pay premiums each year, and you pay deductibles and co payments when you use medical services.

Because the programs out of pocket spending has no limits, most Medicare beneficiaries also buy private supplemental insurance to limit those costs. That insurance doesnt cover medical services outside the Medicare system, but it helps pay the patients share of the bill when a person goes to the doctor or hospital.

This increasingly popular term was coined to describe a system in which all Americans, not just older ones, get health insurance through the governments Medicare system.

Mr. Sanders, who prominently in his 2016 presidential platform and just, uses this term a lot. His plan would both expand traditional Medicare to cover all Americans, and , to cover more services and eliminate most deductibles and co payments. So the Medicare everyone would be getting would differ in crucial ways from the Medicare older people get now.

There would effectively be no private health insurance, because the new system would cover everyone and everything; duplicative coverage would be banned. Thats why Senator Kamala Harris of California, a co sponsor of the Sanders bill and a presidential candidate, told CNN recently that abolishing all private insurance — doing so is a key feature of the plan.

But there are many other possible flavors of Medicare for all. Though no prominent politicians are currently proposing it, an expansion of the current Medicare benefits, with its current co payments, deductibles and premiums, could also be thought of as Medicare for all.

The idea of Medicare for all is suggestive . There, doctors and hospitals remain private, but everyone gets insurance from the government. No one there is asked to pay any money when seeing a doctor. The Canadian health care system is even called Medicare.

This one is pretty simple if you understand Medicare for all. Single payer is a more general term used to describe a government system, typically backed by taxes, in which everyone gets health care from one insurer, run by the government. Think of Medicare for all as a brand name single payer plan. Some advocates also like the term national health insurance. These terms all describe a system in which the government pays for everyones health care services.

Critics of single payer are particularly fond of this term, which describes a system in which the government runs not just the financing of health care — by running an insurance company like Medicare — but also manages hospitals and employs medical providers directly. Britains National Health Service is an example of a socialized system. Doctors there work for the government.

The United States has its own socialized system, for military veterans. Veterans get their insurance through the Department of Veterans Affairs, which owns hospitals; employs doctors, nurses and other medical professionals; and negotiates directly with pharmaceutical companies for drugs. In general a veteran couldnt get coverage for routine care from a doctor who didnt work directly for the V.A., but have more health care for veterans.

There are currently no mainstream proposals to fully socialize the United States health care system.

When lawmakers were writing the Affordable Care Act, there was an extensive debate about whether it should include a public option. The idea in the end, but many Democrats now want to bring it back.

You can think of a public option as something of a compromise between a single payer system and our current system, in which only certain Americans now qualify for government run programs. More people — maybe many more — could get government insurance. But only if they wanted it.

Public option plans would allow middle income, working age adults to choose a public insurance plan — like Medicare or Medicaid — instead of a private insurance plan. There are various ways this could work. Some proposals would allow individuals to pay a premium to buy a Medicare or Medicaid plan that would be the same as the insurance now available to older people, the disabled or the poor. Others would set up , run by the government, that Americans could buy. Under most proposals, people who get federal help buying Obamacare coverage could use their government subsidies to help them buy either a private or public option.

Most of the current proposals would limit access to the public option to certain groups of Americans. from Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and colleagues would allow only those older than 50 to buy a Medicare plan, for example. Some plans would allow only people who buy their own health insurance to choose Medicare or as an option alongside those offered in the Obamacare exchanges.

Others would choose Medicare, instead of a private health insurance company, when offering benefits to their workers. from a liberal think tank, the Center for American Progress, would make the public Medicare option available to anyone who wanted to sign up.

An advantage of a public option, at least politically, is it would preserve more choice for individuals, who could stick with a private plan if they prefer. That would make it less disruptive than a single payer plan. A downside is that keeping lots of different insurance options could undermine one of the goals of a single payer system, a simpler approach that would involve less money tied up in paperwork and insurance company profits.

All of the earlier entries describe ways of organizing the health insurance system. Universal coverage is a broader goal. When people push for universal coverage, they mean that everyone should have access to the health care system. Youll sometimes hear politicians say that health care should be a right. That statement is an endorsement of universal coverage.

Most other developed countries embrace this idea, that health care should not be only for those who can afford it. But those countries have not all embraced single payer approaches.

There are ways to achieve universal coverage that dont look like a single payer system at all. Most European countries, for example, have systems with competing private health insurance plans, along with tight regulation and government subsidies that make the premiums affordable for everyone. from my Upshot colleagues Aaron Carroll and Austin Frakt, in which experts voted on the worlds best health system, does a nice job of showing the different ways that countries have achieved universal coverage. This sort of European style coverage is not prominent in our current policy debate.