Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday May 29 2018, @07:40PM   Printer-friendly
from the generational-attitude-shift dept.

Al Jazeera reports

Polls have closed in an Irish referendum on abortion that could represent a change in the path of a country that was once one of Europe's more socially conservative.

Voters turned out in large numbers on [May 25] to have their say on whether to repeal the country's Eighth Amendment, which outlaws abortion by giving equal rights to the unborn.

An exit poll, conducted for the Irish Times by Ipsos/MRBI, suggested that the country voted by a landslide margin to change the constitution so that abortion can be legalised.

The vote to repeal the constitutional ban was predicted to win by 68 percent to 32 percent, according to the poll of 4,000 voters, the Irish Times said.

[...] If the proposal to repeal the Eighth Amendment is defeated on [May 25], the country will not have a second referendum and it could be another 35 years before voters have their say on the matter again, [Prime Minister Leo] Varadkar said.

[...] 78 percent of the Irish population is Catholic

[...] Thousands of people living abroad returned home to vote. Ireland is one of the few countries in the European Union that does not allow those abroad to vote via post or in embassies.

Those away for less than 18 months remain eligible to vote at their former local polling station. Those living on the Atlantic islands cast their ballot a day early to help prevent delays in transportation and counting the ballot papers.

When the constitutional amendment to instate the ban was voted on in 1983, 66.9 percent voted "yes," and 33.1 percent voted "no".

Widely reported, including:


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @11:06PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @11:06PM (#685983)

    During WWII, The US Government put wartime caps on employee compensation, so corporations used a loophole: Providing "benefits" in addition to salary, one benefit of which was health care insurance plans.

    Hence, insurance became tied to employment, and thus became easy prey for politicians.

    Next, the Government implemented its own competing insurance system, Medicare (and to an extent, Medicaid), which has used the power of the government to influence distort the natural market forces inherent in risk management sectors such as insurance.

    Under the distortion, the insurance companies abandoned risk management, becoming instead convoluted, specialized payment networks that collude with government officials to set national policy and profits. It is no longer private in any meaningful sense (indeed, it's virtually detached from any kind of market signals), and it no longer behaves as an insurance sector should.

    YOU are the one who doesn't understand how the U.S. health-care system works.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @11:46PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @11:46PM (#685999)

    I would love to give capitalist medicine an honest try. We need to undo the damage that wage cap did by tying insurance to employment. Self-employed people routinely complain about this, because they cannot get the group policies that are offered to employers. Additionally, the employer-insurer link is regressive against small businesses (self-employed being the extreme case of small business and the people against which it is the most regressive).

    What we have right now is the worst of both worlds. I think we need single payer, but I'm a bootstrapper so I'm willing to take my chances with capitalism. If only we could have it.

    I suppose it should not be surprising that socialism can outperform our frakenstein pork monster of a health "care" system.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 30 2018, @06:13AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 30 2018, @06:13AM (#686126)

    Private only ever meant owned by a person or group of persons.

    Never has it ever meant anything to do with market signals.

    You do not grasp basic economic concepts but you are grandstanding like a 5-year-old.

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday May 30 2018, @09:48AM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday May 30 2018, @09:48AM (#686197) Homepage
    "it's virtually detached from any kind of market signals"

    Tosh! You seem to not understand how a market works. I bet you think a market has a buyer and a seller. Sorry, but it doesn't - it has competing parties A_n which are willing to provide product or service X in return for product or service Y, and competing parties B_m which are willing to provide product or service Y in return for product or service X.

    You think that market forces will drive the "price" down, such that the "sellers" have to provide the greatest amount of product or service to the "buyers" for the lowest "price", but you've got the two parties confused. Market forces are driving the "price" up - the "buyers" are the medical providers, who are demanding the largest amount of $$$ off the supplier of that resource, the ill. And because it's a free market, and dollars are very much a commmodity item, those suppliers have to buckle to this market pressure.

    Markets find equilibrium - that doesn't mean there's pressure one way or the other - it means there's pressure in both directions. You're only seeing one of those directions, and completely overlooking the other.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves