The bill will bring near universal coverage to the US and is a major step forward for America, although it is long overdue.
During the next year, health insurance companies will be forced to cover everyone who applies for medical cover, regardless of past or current illness. They will also be stopped from dropping customers once they get sick.
The bill will also impose an annual fee on pharmaceutical firms with sales which exceed $5m.
Currently, it is estimated that 45 million people in America have no medical insurance. Obama’s health reform bill will extend coverage to about 32 million, meaning that 95% of the population will have some form of insurance. Obama is delivering what he promised.
By 2014, all US citizens will be required to have medical insurance, or face a $695 fine. To me, it seems that those people who cannot afford medical insurance will be penalised under this new legislation. If they cannot afford the insurance, they will have to pay a large fine, which obviously they also will not be able to afford. It seems self defeating to me.
To help pay for the reform, a new tax will be imposed on the wealthy. Medicare payroll tax will be increased from 1.45% to 2.35% for those who earn more than $200,000, and married couples who earn more than $250,000 combined.
The health care reforms will still not cover illegal immigrants. Around 10-12 million immigrants living in the US, most who play an integral role in the economy, doing menial jobs, will not be covered. The Democrats originally planned to include them, but the Republicans flatly rejected it.
Does it go far enough?
America boasts a better quality of healthcare; the medical industry earns trillions of dollars a year and is one of the main revenues for the US. It creates jobs all over the sector and provides excellent care. I understand why they don’t want to give this up and create an NHS equivalent (even though I think they should).
The bill supposedly reins in the worst excesses and abuses of the insurance industry, and extends insurance coverage, which can only be a good thing. However some people think that instead this bill just gives even more power to the insurance companies, allowing them to make more money.
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Monday, 22 March 2010
Health incentive or discrimination?
Embedded in today’s culture is an obsession with looks, and in particular weight. In the media there are always campaigns to rid the catwalk of size zero supermodels and combat obesity across the nation.
Even though the media celebrate voluptuousness and curves, there has always been pressure to be thin. Even more so with the summer coming up and all the 'slim down for summer' diets. Yet one store in America has taken it a little too far…
Being skinny can save you money in Whole Foods store in America! The food retailer has offered discounts to their staff who have healthy body mass index's, and will soon extend this privilege to their customers. Basically, the lower your BMI, the better the discount!
The whole idea is outrageous. It is discrimination and I wonder how on earth they are getting away with it! Rewarding slim people? This will only put pressure on people to maintain their slim figures or lose weight; in some cases this will be unnecessary, unhealthy and even dangerous. It undoes all the hard work that the campaigns such as the Boots crusade for real women has achieved. Like when Kate Moss irresponsibly said: “Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels.” As a role model, a statement like that could have a serious, detrimental affect on people who have eating disorders, and this Whole Foods system of discounts could have the same impact.
Moreover, it is not fair to discriminate based on weight at all! The nation needs educating so that people who need to lose weight can safely slim down.
Regardless of the fact that it is blatant discrimination, the scheme seems self defeating. It would make more sense to offer discounts to those with higher BMI's, so that they are actually encouraged to buy the healthy foods and shed the extra pounds?
BMI should not even come into question; it is barefaced discrimination! I wonder how people would react if Whole Foods offered discounts to pretty people, and not to the ugly, surely there would be an uproar?!
Perhaps they were simply trying to encourage healthy living among their employees, but it comes across as ruthless discrimination and they should reconsider their discount scheme.
Even though the media celebrate voluptuousness and curves, there has always been pressure to be thin. Even more so with the summer coming up and all the 'slim down for summer' diets. Yet one store in America has taken it a little too far…
Being skinny can save you money in Whole Foods store in America! The food retailer has offered discounts to their staff who have healthy body mass index's, and will soon extend this privilege to their customers. Basically, the lower your BMI, the better the discount!
The whole idea is outrageous. It is discrimination and I wonder how on earth they are getting away with it! Rewarding slim people? This will only put pressure on people to maintain their slim figures or lose weight; in some cases this will be unnecessary, unhealthy and even dangerous. It undoes all the hard work that the campaigns such as the Boots crusade for real women has achieved. Like when Kate Moss irresponsibly said: “Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels.” As a role model, a statement like that could have a serious, detrimental affect on people who have eating disorders, and this Whole Foods system of discounts could have the same impact.
Moreover, it is not fair to discriminate based on weight at all! The nation needs educating so that people who need to lose weight can safely slim down.
Regardless of the fact that it is blatant discrimination, the scheme seems self defeating. It would make more sense to offer discounts to those with higher BMI's, so that they are actually encouraged to buy the healthy foods and shed the extra pounds?
BMI should not even come into question; it is barefaced discrimination! I wonder how people would react if Whole Foods offered discounts to pretty people, and not to the ugly, surely there would be an uproar?!
Perhaps they were simply trying to encourage healthy living among their employees, but it comes across as ruthless discrimination and they should reconsider their discount scheme.
Sunday, 21 March 2010
FEATURE: Penniless fans vs penniless musicians. Whose side are you on?
Fans cannot afford to buy the music. Musicians cannot afford to make the music. The government have intervened to stop the collapse of the record industry, but in a culture where downloading music is the norm, Emma Wilson asks, is this law self-defeating?
“It’s not stealing.” Is it?
Macs on laps and blasting (illegally downloaded) music, six Cardiff University students are discussing the new legislation which aims to clamp down on music piracy. Over the years they have acquired an abundance of music and films and have not paid a single penny for albums that have not yet been released, and films that have not been shown in cinemas. “It’s not stealing,” they say. When asked if they would walk out of a shop with a box set of DVDs without paying, they replied: “Obviously not. That’s not the same. You’ll get caught for that. Whereas music and films are so easily available online; there are no consequences for downloading it, and its instant access.”
The younger generations are the worst offenders. According to think tank Demos, in the UK, 61% of 14-24 year olds admit to downloading files illegally. Why? Because it is easy, free, and there are no repercussions. The law is set to change this. The government have proposed a new bill which will punish the perpetrator. The Digital Economy Bill will clamp down on illegal downloading by cutting those responsible off from the internet. In addition, their contact details will be made available to the copyright owners of the material they illegally downloaded, so that they can be sued. This bill, currently being considered by the House of Commons, and due to be passed in April, has caused a great deal of controversy.
Piracy is destroying the record industry
Artists and record companies alike have been complaining that illegal downloading is destroying their livelihood. Chief Executive of UK Music, Feargal Sharkey said: “When your products are being taken, for free, without your knowledge or consent, and on this scale, the consequences are grim.” UK Music wholeheartedly supports the bill, which they hope will encourage fans towards using legal services.
Additionally, Gennaro Castaldo, a spokesman for music retailer HMV, agrees that illegal downloading is a problem which is drastically impacting on the music industry. He said: “It would actually benefit [fans] in the long-term to support artists and labels via legal downloads as this helps to preserve and develop choice and variety for everybody across different music genres.” This sentiment is echoed throughout the industry, by many artists and record labels, for instance, Lily Allen famously stated “piracy is not the answer” in her campaign against illegal downloading in her blog called “It’s Not Alright.”
Illegal downloading prohibits new talent from flourishing
Meet Luke Leighfield. He is a budding musician trying to break his way in to the music industry. Frustratingly, people illegally download his music which means he cannot reap the benefits of his hard work. Despite the fact that he has been played on Radio 1 and performed at hundreds of gigs, he still cannot sell enough CD’s to remotely make a living. “If all those people who have downloaded my music illegally bought a CD, then I would be in a far better financial position.”
Luke supports the bill, and thinks it is a step in the right direction; however he has little faith that it will combat illegal downloading. He admitted that in the past he had illegally downloaded music files. “But now, there is no excuse for it”, he said. “Most bands on major labels have their music on Spotify so that people can hear the whole record before they buy it. So all those people who claim to download an album to supposedly check it out before later buying the album (if they ever do) no longer have an excuse for illegally downloading music.”
Spotify allows music to be streamed for free, and was established to offer music fans an alternative to piracy. The programme allows people to search for any artist or song, listen to their albums, and create play lists of their favourite music. Andres Sehr, spokesman for Spotify, said: “Over the past year we've seen a large number of users drop piracy altogether and use Spotify as their sole music source.” Some people, like Luke, think that now there is no excuse to illegally download. He reiterated: “If I like a band, I buy their CD. I consider anything else to be theft.”
Does piracy actually benefit the industry?
On the contrary, perhaps music benefits from an unregulated internet? Some musicians, such as Kate Nash, have been discovered by putting their music online for free. In a recent investigation, Demos discovered that those who illegally download music actually spend almost double on legitimate music than those who only buy legally; £77 and £44 per year respectively (Demos online poll). The record industry claims to lose around £200m per year thanks to illegal downloading. However, in 2008 £1.4bn was spent on live music. Perhaps it is fair to say that while the record industry is declining, the music industry is thriving? Also, if these findings are correct, and those who illegally download music actually spend the most on legitimate music, what will happen to the industry after their first rate customers are cut off?
Potential problems with the bill?
The new bill will also impact on the internet service providers (ISPs). A spokesman for TalkTalk, Steve Marinker, explained why they oppose the bill and warned about the impacts it could have on innocent people’s lives. “First of all, it’s totally impractical,” Mr Marinker began his rant about the bill. Every internet account holder has an IP address. If someone who is using that connection visits a site and illegally downloads, the copyright owner will be aware of it and can access their contact details under the new law. They can then make the ISP cut off their customers. However, the system is flawed. Mr Marinker pointed out that although it may be the account holder who is illegally downloading, it could also be a hacker, or someone in a household who is using the IP address.
Mr Marinker continued: “Innocent until proven guilty. That’s what our law is based on. But this system bypasses the courts; under this new law, the ISPs can cut off customers without proving in court that they are guilty of illegally downloading.” Mr Marinker explained how a similar law, passed in France, actually resulted in an increase in illegal downloading. He concluded: “It’s completely and utterly futile… Far from curbing illegal downloading, it will probably encourage more of it.”
Will the bill work?
The Cardiff students agreed; this behaviour is embedded in a whole generation of music fans. But would they be deterred if they were threatened to be cut off? “Probably. Or I’d cover my IP address…” said one student, meaning they will remain anonymous and avoid detection by record companies if they continue to download illegally. Computer savvy fans will beat the system and will always find a way to download music for free. But ultimately, cutting perpetrators off from the internet, if they are indeed guilty, could be the answer and the bill should not be completely disregarded. The Digital Economy Bill might just do the trick; as one student said: “The internet is essential to every day living, and to be cut off would be a disaster. If they threatened to disconnect me it would probably stop me doing it again.”
“It’s not stealing.” Is it?
Macs on laps and blasting (illegally downloaded) music, six Cardiff University students are discussing the new legislation which aims to clamp down on music piracy. Over the years they have acquired an abundance of music and films and have not paid a single penny for albums that have not yet been released, and films that have not been shown in cinemas. “It’s not stealing,” they say. When asked if they would walk out of a shop with a box set of DVDs without paying, they replied: “Obviously not. That’s not the same. You’ll get caught for that. Whereas music and films are so easily available online; there are no consequences for downloading it, and its instant access.”
The younger generations are the worst offenders. According to think tank Demos, in the UK, 61% of 14-24 year olds admit to downloading files illegally. Why? Because it is easy, free, and there are no repercussions. The law is set to change this. The government have proposed a new bill which will punish the perpetrator. The Digital Economy Bill will clamp down on illegal downloading by cutting those responsible off from the internet. In addition, their contact details will be made available to the copyright owners of the material they illegally downloaded, so that they can be sued. This bill, currently being considered by the House of Commons, and due to be passed in April, has caused a great deal of controversy.
Piracy is destroying the record industry
Artists and record companies alike have been complaining that illegal downloading is destroying their livelihood. Chief Executive of UK Music, Feargal Sharkey said: “When your products are being taken, for free, without your knowledge or consent, and on this scale, the consequences are grim.” UK Music wholeheartedly supports the bill, which they hope will encourage fans towards using legal services.
Additionally, Gennaro Castaldo, a spokesman for music retailer HMV, agrees that illegal downloading is a problem which is drastically impacting on the music industry. He said: “It would actually benefit [fans] in the long-term to support artists and labels via legal downloads as this helps to preserve and develop choice and variety for everybody across different music genres.” This sentiment is echoed throughout the industry, by many artists and record labels, for instance, Lily Allen famously stated “piracy is not the answer” in her campaign against illegal downloading in her blog called “It’s Not Alright.”
Illegal downloading prohibits new talent from flourishing
Meet Luke Leighfield. He is a budding musician trying to break his way in to the music industry. Frustratingly, people illegally download his music which means he cannot reap the benefits of his hard work. Despite the fact that he has been played on Radio 1 and performed at hundreds of gigs, he still cannot sell enough CD’s to remotely make a living. “If all those people who have downloaded my music illegally bought a CD, then I would be in a far better financial position.”
Luke supports the bill, and thinks it is a step in the right direction; however he has little faith that it will combat illegal downloading. He admitted that in the past he had illegally downloaded music files. “But now, there is no excuse for it”, he said. “Most bands on major labels have their music on Spotify so that people can hear the whole record before they buy it. So all those people who claim to download an album to supposedly check it out before later buying the album (if they ever do) no longer have an excuse for illegally downloading music.”
Spotify allows music to be streamed for free, and was established to offer music fans an alternative to piracy. The programme allows people to search for any artist or song, listen to their albums, and create play lists of their favourite music. Andres Sehr, spokesman for Spotify, said: “Over the past year we've seen a large number of users drop piracy altogether and use Spotify as their sole music source.” Some people, like Luke, think that now there is no excuse to illegally download. He reiterated: “If I like a band, I buy their CD. I consider anything else to be theft.”
Does piracy actually benefit the industry?
On the contrary, perhaps music benefits from an unregulated internet? Some musicians, such as Kate Nash, have been discovered by putting their music online for free. In a recent investigation, Demos discovered that those who illegally download music actually spend almost double on legitimate music than those who only buy legally; £77 and £44 per year respectively (Demos online poll). The record industry claims to lose around £200m per year thanks to illegal downloading. However, in 2008 £1.4bn was spent on live music. Perhaps it is fair to say that while the record industry is declining, the music industry is thriving? Also, if these findings are correct, and those who illegally download music actually spend the most on legitimate music, what will happen to the industry after their first rate customers are cut off?
Potential problems with the bill?
The new bill will also impact on the internet service providers (ISPs). A spokesman for TalkTalk, Steve Marinker, explained why they oppose the bill and warned about the impacts it could have on innocent people’s lives. “First of all, it’s totally impractical,” Mr Marinker began his rant about the bill. Every internet account holder has an IP address. If someone who is using that connection visits a site and illegally downloads, the copyright owner will be aware of it and can access their contact details under the new law. They can then make the ISP cut off their customers. However, the system is flawed. Mr Marinker pointed out that although it may be the account holder who is illegally downloading, it could also be a hacker, or someone in a household who is using the IP address.
Mr Marinker continued: “Innocent until proven guilty. That’s what our law is based on. But this system bypasses the courts; under this new law, the ISPs can cut off customers without proving in court that they are guilty of illegally downloading.” Mr Marinker explained how a similar law, passed in France, actually resulted in an increase in illegal downloading. He concluded: “It’s completely and utterly futile… Far from curbing illegal downloading, it will probably encourage more of it.”
Will the bill work?
The Cardiff students agreed; this behaviour is embedded in a whole generation of music fans. But would they be deterred if they were threatened to be cut off? “Probably. Or I’d cover my IP address…” said one student, meaning they will remain anonymous and avoid detection by record companies if they continue to download illegally. Computer savvy fans will beat the system and will always find a way to download music for free. But ultimately, cutting perpetrators off from the internet, if they are indeed guilty, could be the answer and the bill should not be completely disregarded. The Digital Economy Bill might just do the trick; as one student said: “The internet is essential to every day living, and to be cut off would be a disaster. If they threatened to disconnect me it would probably stop me doing it again.”
Monday, 15 March 2010
Radio Podcasts
At the end of each radio news day, we produced podcasts which reflected on the most topical news of the day.
Our first podcast, for South Coast Radio, sounded very scripted. We were all uneasy about going live on air without having a script in front of us, so we all made sure we each had a script.
I think that it lacked entertainment, and seemed to cram too much information in. It sounded far too regimented and we decided that in future we would improvise more, and not bombard listeners with information.
Our podcast for Talbot FM however was much more successful. We were much more confident this time, and decided to focus on just three topics. We would have a few snippets of information about the story and then a few people would discuss it. For example, Hayley was presenting, and she anchored the podcast. She introduced the story on the Brit Awards, for example, and me and Adam debated the show. Because this was ad lib, the podcast flowed much easier, was lively and was more interesting.
Both podcasts were successful because the presenter acted as an anchor and so there was a definite structure to the broadcasts. Both podcasts also included a variety of extended clips which we had gathered throughout the day, including vox pops, professional opinion and IRN sound bites. The topics we discussed in both podcasts suited the target audience; in particular the podcast for Talbot FM was aimed at younger listeners, discussing jobs and the Brit Awards. However, a weakness of the broadcasts is that we focussed too heavily on the Dorset region and neglected other areas which the radio station covers. In future, the podcast should be structured so that it appeals to all listeners.
Our first podcast, for South Coast Radio, sounded very scripted. We were all uneasy about going live on air without having a script in front of us, so we all made sure we each had a script.
I think that it lacked entertainment, and seemed to cram too much information in. It sounded far too regimented and we decided that in future we would improvise more, and not bombard listeners with information.
Our podcast for Talbot FM however was much more successful. We were much more confident this time, and decided to focus on just three topics. We would have a few snippets of information about the story and then a few people would discuss it. For example, Hayley was presenting, and she anchored the podcast. She introduced the story on the Brit Awards, for example, and me and Adam debated the show. Because this was ad lib, the podcast flowed much easier, was lively and was more interesting.
Both podcasts were successful because the presenter acted as an anchor and so there was a definite structure to the broadcasts. Both podcasts also included a variety of extended clips which we had gathered throughout the day, including vox pops, professional opinion and IRN sound bites. The topics we discussed in both podcasts suited the target audience; in particular the podcast for Talbot FM was aimed at younger listeners, discussing jobs and the Brit Awards. However, a weakness of the broadcasts is that we focussed too heavily on the Dorset region and neglected other areas which the radio station covers. In future, the podcast should be structured so that it appeals to all listeners.
Saturday, 6 March 2010
Bournemouth Triangle to be revitalised
Work will start this month to turn Bournemouth Triangle in to "an attractive pedestrian-friendly area."
As part of the new town centre vision, a new sitting wall will be implemented with access to a larger green area. Trees will be planted, new and wider pavements will be installed, there will be new lighting arrangements and the area in general will be tidied.
Following public consultation during September and October last year, local people asked for a new green space and better disabled parking.
Leader of the project Cllr Bob Chapman said: "Local people and traders in the area have told us how they want the Triangle to look and feel and I am extremely pleased that we are now able to move forward with this project. We want to create a public space that visitors, residents and local businesses will find more accessible. The Triangle has great potential and the aim is to create an attractive space where events, markets and informal recreation can take place."
The council have said that they are going to remove two trees which will "suffer disturbance" during the improvement works, and will also remove some small trees which are in a "poor condition."
Work is expected to be completed by July, in time for the Bourne Free event.
The developments will probably cost the council nearly £275,000.
As part of the new town centre vision, a new sitting wall will be implemented with access to a larger green area. Trees will be planted, new and wider pavements will be installed, there will be new lighting arrangements and the area in general will be tidied.
Following public consultation during September and October last year, local people asked for a new green space and better disabled parking.
Leader of the project Cllr Bob Chapman said: "Local people and traders in the area have told us how they want the Triangle to look and feel and I am extremely pleased that we are now able to move forward with this project. We want to create a public space that visitors, residents and local businesses will find more accessible. The Triangle has great potential and the aim is to create an attractive space where events, markets and informal recreation can take place."
The council have said that they are going to remove two trees which will "suffer disturbance" during the improvement works, and will also remove some small trees which are in a "poor condition."
Work is expected to be completed by July, in time for the Bourne Free event.
The developments will probably cost the council nearly £275,000.
Dorset's youngsters uni bound
Children as young as seven might be donning a cap and gown next year, if they graduate from Dorset's first Children's University.
The Children's University is a national trust, funded from government endorsed charities, and Jae Harris, who is managing the new university, has brought it to Christchurch.
"The university aims to show children that learning is not just confined to the school day. It can occur anywhere and anytime", Mr Harris said.
The CU is aimed to engage seven to fourteen year olds in out of school activities. The sessions will take place in various sports centres, after school clubs or museums which will be classed as official CU learning destinations.
The children will acquire rewards for their efforts. After 30 hours of participation, they receive a bronze level, after 65 hours a silver level, and after 100 hours a gold level award. Each child will be rewarded with a certificate and will be able to graduate in their cap and gowns.
Mr Harris added: "Research shows that children learn 15% of their knowledge in school, whilst the remaining 85% is learned outside of school. Hopefully the university will draw young people away from engaging in anti social or disruptive behaviour, and will increase their aspirations for the future."
The CU aim to support those children who are not especially academic, or do not engage with school very well.
This different approach to learning lets children decide what and how they want to learn, and has been praised by Christchurch Borough Council. Cllr Mike Turvey said: "This is an exciting and innovative way of building a better future for the young people of Christchurch and eventually Dorset. It is about raising the aspirations of the young people along with their families and their schools." Mr Turvey has been appointed chancellor of the CU.
The Mayor of Christchurch, Cllr David Flagg, said: "I think this is an excellent opportunity for youngsters to learn extra-curricular activities which will give them a greater foundation of common-sense knowledge and experience."
The CU has been granted £29, 000 to set up the organisation, and is hoping to attract around 700 children in the initiative.
It will be launched on Saturday with running a quiz trail around Christchurch, with the opportunity of winning a Nintendo Wii.
The Children's University is a national trust, funded from government endorsed charities, and Jae Harris, who is managing the new university, has brought it to Christchurch.
"The university aims to show children that learning is not just confined to the school day. It can occur anywhere and anytime", Mr Harris said.
The CU is aimed to engage seven to fourteen year olds in out of school activities. The sessions will take place in various sports centres, after school clubs or museums which will be classed as official CU learning destinations.
The children will acquire rewards for their efforts. After 30 hours of participation, they receive a bronze level, after 65 hours a silver level, and after 100 hours a gold level award. Each child will be rewarded with a certificate and will be able to graduate in their cap and gowns.
Mr Harris added: "Research shows that children learn 15% of their knowledge in school, whilst the remaining 85% is learned outside of school. Hopefully the university will draw young people away from engaging in anti social or disruptive behaviour, and will increase their aspirations for the future."
The CU aim to support those children who are not especially academic, or do not engage with school very well.
This different approach to learning lets children decide what and how they want to learn, and has been praised by Christchurch Borough Council. Cllr Mike Turvey said: "This is an exciting and innovative way of building a better future for the young people of Christchurch and eventually Dorset. It is about raising the aspirations of the young people along with their families and their schools." Mr Turvey has been appointed chancellor of the CU.
The Mayor of Christchurch, Cllr David Flagg, said: "I think this is an excellent opportunity for youngsters to learn extra-curricular activities which will give them a greater foundation of common-sense knowledge and experience."
The CU has been granted £29, 000 to set up the organisation, and is hoping to attract around 700 children in the initiative.
It will be launched on Saturday with running a quiz trail around Christchurch, with the opportunity of winning a Nintendo Wii.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- Emma_Wilson
- I am currently a Masters student studying Multi-Media Journalism at Bournemouth University. I am also a graduate from Cardiff University where I studied History and Philosophy. In future I hope to be a successful broadcast journalist and I am working hard to achieve this dream. This blog will include articles I have written, some radio clips I have produced for university, and general comments.