Jacque Lauren

Someone is shy

Jacque hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Favorite talks

Comments & conversations

Noface
Jacque Lauren
Posted over 1 year ago
Are the ethics of healthcare compatable with the ethics of business?
i disagree with the first sentence: healthcare providers do not need to be profitable to serve patients. They only need to make payroll and cover expenses. Medical care should not be a profit focused activity. It is unethical to make a profit off of sick and dying people. People who do this are vultures not doctors. It seems to me the biggest problem is that insurance creates huge pools of money which allows healthcare providers to charge extremely high prices. Prices are completely out of control. The only solution is to eliminate the huge pool of money, i.e. get rid of insurance plans and go to cash based payments only. That would limit usage and lower prices. However under the new ACA more people are required to have it. This will cause prices increase since more money will be available. I'm in favor of private physician practice and for eliminating the AMA which controls the number of physicians thus keeping salaries extremely high. One problem in the U.S. is the wolves are in charge of guarding the sheep.
Noface
Jacque Lauren
Posted over 1 year ago
Redefine the term "rehabilitation" in context of prison
Very few people are aware of the laws thus deterrence is not a factor. Segregation is needed for a small percentage. A major factor is that in the U.S. prisons are for-profile corporations with the main goal to make a profit for their shareholders. Thus they need prisoners to make a profit. There is a lot of corruption in the legal system. The incentive structure is designed to benefit lawyers. Lawyers have created thousands of laws most of which very few people even know exists. Their strategy is to set a trap. They catch people who are completely unaware of the laws and then charge people thousands of dollars with hopes to avoid jail. We must reform the entire legal system. Secondly the legal system including prisons must stop blaming and trying to use guilt as a method of changing people. These methods clearly are ineffective and very out-of-date. The legal system should identify the source of the unwanted behavior and address any issues including mental health issues or negative past programming. Thirdly the legal system needs to educate the public about the laws. People who are accused of crimes should be treated as someone with any other medical condition, i.e. with care, love, and positive treatments. They should be put in a positive, nurturing environment that demonstrates the positive traits of human nature. The current legal and prison system in the U.S. does much more harm than good. It destroys self-esteem, puts people at risk of physical harm, fails to provide a positive environment. A complete change is desperately needed. Obstacles: Many people in society do not care about anyone classified as a criminal. And once convicted of a serious crime a person is not allowed to vote. Politicians are motivated to show they are protecting society. The bottom line is that people are all human and deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.
Noface
Jacque Lauren
Posted over 1 year ago
Thomas Barnett: Let's rethink America's military strategy
Suggestion: add a third organization to the defense department focused on prevention. Thus the DoD would be divided into three internal organizations: prevention, use of force, and repair. Hopefully the prevention organization would be able to prevent the use of force from arising thus eliminating the need for the other two. The prevention is where the real focus needs to be. Second point is that the U.S. defense spending needs to be reduced by at least 75%. The last ten years of war have been very expensive and wasteful. The U.S. government is responsible for unintended consequences including loss of innocent lives and a tremendous amount of wasted economic resources which have produced no real value. What can the average citizen do?
Noface
Jacque Lauren
Posted over 1 year ago
Ideological topics: Wealth Redistribution, Equality, Universal Health Care are quite contentious. Is there common ground for common good?
The common ground is to start with the basic rule that the use of force is not allowed except to protect against the use of force. Thus any trading or exchanges must be done freely. Governments rely on the use of force to achieve their social engineering goals thus violate the principle of free trade. So the first rule is change the governments to not rely on the use of force but instead use free trade just as any other entity. Thus the current system of taxation must be abolished since it relies on the use of force. Hence health care must be follow the same rule: that of free trade and not the use of force. Since the ACA is a tax, it relies on the use of force thus is against free trade and freedom. The second common ground is that natural resources belong to all people of the world thus must be shared equally by all people in all countries. Thus what we need is one world government to ensure resources are allocated fairly. I always wonder when I see a piece of land for sale, where did the owner get this land? If we look back a couple of hundred years ago the piece of land was not owned by anyone. Then some government claimed ownership. Then someone purchased it or acquired it somehow. Now that person selling it for millions of dollars. In the beginning the government claimed the land and likely stole it from someone else. We must see the foolishness of this and go to a policy of all land, minerals, and natural resources belong to humans as a whole rather than individuals.
Noface
Jacque Lauren
Posted over 1 year ago
Must government rest upon violence? If so, what are the implications?
I was wondering a similar question: do governments require the use of force or threat of force in order to exists? Is there a way around this situation? I was thinking about this in terms of the IRS and the ACA (Obamacare). The ACA has been determined to be a tax. In a truly free market and society, the use of force would not be allowed except for protection from others using force. The problem is the U.S. government will use force against those who simply refuse to pay taxes. This violates the principle of freedom. Another question: is it possible to have government that does not require force or threat of force to its citizens in order to collect taxes? At the present moment the U.S. as well as most other governments use force or threats of force against their residents. Thus it is nearly impossible to live on the planet without living in fear of a government.