Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Laughing Sam's Dice on May 09, 2007, 10:39:04 AM
-
Do children have the right to healthcare? Does it make good sense to ensure that all children have access to healthcare regardless of their parents' economic status, political affiliation, or citizenship? If not, do you believe that the children should suffer if their parents can't afford healthcare?
-
do you believe that the children should suffer if their parents can't afford healthcare?
yes they should..
lemme flip this..
what kinda parent would let their child suffer?
ya need to travel out of sheepland and the US..
-
Don't they essentially have it already? Aren't there clinics in most every community that will treat anyone who cannot afford to pay? There are county and state hospitals, funded by taxpayers, that treat low (or no) income people. There is also Medical and its state equivalents. We also have anti-patient dumping laws that require all hospitals to treat anyone who shows up at the ER (though they can bill for their services).
The quality of care might be an issue, but I think pretty much any poor kid can get medical treatment.
-
What Beach said..
-
Don't they essentially have it already? Aren't there clinics in most every community that will treat anyone who cannot afford to pay? There are county and state hospitals, funded by taxpayers, that treat low (or no) income people. There is also Medical and its state equivalents. We also have anti-patient dumping laws that require all hospitals to treat anyone who shows up at the ER (though they can bill for their services).
The quality of care might be an issue, but I think pretty much any poor kid can get medical treatment.
You are referring to emergency care which is extremely more expensive than preventive medicine. Universal Healthcare opens the door to preventive healthcare which should lower overall health costs.
Why wait until that lump on the neck turns into terminal cancer?
-
You are referring to emergency care which is extremely more expensive than preventive medicine. Universal Healthcare opens the door to preventive healthcare which should lower overall health costs.
Why wait until that lump on the neck turns into terminal cancer?
Only part of what I said refers to emergency care. MediCal and its state law equivalents (called QUEST in Hawaii) and the numerous community clinics do permit preventive healthcare. We already have a safety net. Universal Healthcare might lower some costs, but will significantly increase others.
But we'll find out just how much the government will sock it to all of us if President Hillary takes over. :-\
-
Yes, but how we do it in a cost effective way is a real challenge. As someone else pointed out Emergency Room costs are exhorbitant and they're not a particularly effective means of patient care.
In a perfect world universal healthcare for children would be a wonderful concept, in our world it's not.
-
no the tweeners suffer. My sister in law makes 35k and is a single mom. she can't afford the insurance her managerial position offers and pay the bills. so she's doing piecemeal healthcare and its inadequate.
If she had no job, she'd be getting taken care of well. Middle class is taking the hit.
-
Only part of what I said refers to emergency care. MediCal and its state law equivalents (called QUEST in Hawaii) and the numerous community clinics do permit preventive healthcare. We already have a safety net. Universal Healthcare might lower some costs, but will significantly increase others.
But we'll find out just how much the government will sock it to all of us if President Hillary takes over. :-\
The only federally mandated healthcare I am aware of is emergency healthcare.
I looked up Med-Quest for hawaii but I can't find the particulars.
States can set up whatever system they like but there is no federal safety net.
What other costs will increase with UHC?
Right now employer provided HC is disappearing. Profit motive of insurance companies greatly contribute to that. Government is infinitely more economical in replacing insurance companies in some aspects--look at SS compared to private insurers re coverage and administrative costs.
When you don't have to fund to pay for corporate jets, golden parachutes, executive comp, the savings add up.
-
no, because quality will suffer in the long run (see military healt system). so instead of 75% getting great care, 100% will get a bandaid station.
-
no, because quality will suffer in the long run (see military healt system). so instead of 75% getting great care, 100% will get a bandaid station.
In other countries with UHC, private doctors can remain private and tend to all the sick elites they want.
I have more faith in Americans. I think the US medical community will rise to the occasion.
-
no, because quality will suffer in the long run (see military healt system). so instead of 75% getting great care, 100% will get a bandaid station.
The quality of healthcare (or any other government provided service) suffers when it is under-funded. The neocons desire to privatize everything has resulted in under-funded services like the VA. This allows them to claim that the government can't provide good services, and that privatization is the way to go. What everyone should recognize is that privatization often means cutting services as much as possible in order to increase profit. Been to an HMO lately?
-
In other countries with UHC, private doctors can remain private and tend to all the sick elites they want.
Exactly, people (or companies) can still pay for whatever private services they want. UHC just means that everyone has at least a minimal level of coverage for services and medications.
-
The quality of healthcare (or any other government provided service) suffers when it is under-funded. The neocons desire to privatize everything has resulted in under-funded services like the VA. This allows them to claim that the government can't provide good services, and that privatization is the way to go. What everyone should recognize is that privatization often means cutting services as much as possible in order to increase profit. Been to an HMO lately?
That's a magnificent point. The privatizers and defenders of the elites always have a bait and switch procedure to dupe the common man into providing his support. With VA hospitals, they blame 'big government' for inflated prices when all along they are laughing to the bank with their privatized profits.
-
The quality of healthcare (or any other government provided service) suffers when it is under-funded. The neocons desire to privatize everything has resulted in under-funded services like the VA. This allows them to claim that the government can't provide good services, and that privatization is the way to go. What everyone should recognize is that privatization often means cutting services as much as possible in order to increase profit. Been to an HMO lately?
The medical system is screwed because of the fraud insurance raket. I went in for a procedure that cost $4,500. The insurance company only paid out $1275. Med care is so expensive because the Docs need to charge more to get what it really cost.
-
The medical system is screwed because of the fraud insurance raket.
Another reason for universal coverage (public management not private fraud).
-
I'm fine with the concept of a nationwide 'group plan' that anyone can join, with fair premiums determined by income level.
The 'subsidy' would be in the form of a gigantic, centralized system that should require FAR less in administrative costs.
Everyone who has the ability to should have to pay *something* for care, even if it's just a few dollars per visit.
-
ABSOLUTELY!!!
It's shocking to think that such a well-developed first world nation is unable to provide this for their entire population, ...let alone their children. There are many less developed nations that have access to universal health care. This is a national embarrrasment and a national shame on the part of the USA.
-
The only federally mandated healthcare I am aware of is emergency healthcare.
I looked up Med-Quest for hawaii but I can't find the particulars.
States can set up whatever system they like but there is no federal safety net.
What other costs will increase with UHC?
Right now employer provided HC is disappearing. Profit motive of insurance companies greatly contribute to that. Government is infinitely more economical in replacing insurance companies in some aspects--look at SS compared to private insurers re coverage and administrative costs.
When you don't have to fund to pay for corporate jets, golden parachutes, executive comp, the savings add up.
Medicare and Medicaid = federal safety net.
What other costs will increase? How are we going to pay for some new federally mandated program? I don't know precisely which costs will increase, but the money will come from either taxes or employers passing along the increased costs to consumers. We, the taxpayers, will pay for it one way or the other.
And I think there is available "preventive" care available for poor kids. They don't need much preventive care anyway: annual physical, teeth cleaned twice a year, and shots. That's about it. Pretty much everything else is treatment, which you get with the help of Medicaid, state programs, local clinics, and state and county hospitals.
-
Medicare and Medicaid = federal safety net.
What other costs will increase? How are we going to pay for some new federally mandated program? I don't know precisely which costs will increase, but the money will come from either taxes or employers passing along the increased costs to consumers. We, the taxpayers, will pay for it one way or the other.
And I think there is available "preventive" care available for poor kids. They don't need much preventive care anyway: annual physical, teeth cleaned twice a year, and shots. That's about it. Pretty much everything else is treatment, which you get with the help of Medicaid, state programs, local clinics, and state and county hospitals.
You could always take money out of corporate welfare.
-
California has the Healthy Families program (formerly AIM) that's especially good for single, working mothers.
A middle-income family pays a premium of $10-15/month for one child and then there's a small co-pay for all doctor's visits and prescriptions. You have a choice of doctors on the plan (like an HMO) and in this area, you're almost guaranteed to get a great physician. Dental and vision coverage is available for a small additional fee. My daughter hasn't seen a dentist yet, but I'd like to get her in before we have to move to fully private insurance later this year (once the wife and I re-marry...long story).
-
Why would universal health care for children be such a bad idea?
We can do it with the existing revenue and won't have to raise taxes.
Of course that would mean the brainwashed drones would have to put their soap boxes away.
-
Why would universal health care for children be such a bad idea?
We can do it with the existing revenue and won't have to raise taxes.
Of course that would mean the brainwashed drones would have to put their soap boxes away.
It's not but how would it be funded and run in a fiscally responsible way and who would manage such a program? I have serious reservations about our governments ability to manage such a program.
-
It's not but how would it be funded and run in a fiscally responsible way and who would manage such a program? I have serious reservations about our governments ability to manage such a program.
totally agree.
(off the top of my head) How about Privately run and accountable to the government?
-
You could always take money out of corporate welfare.
Is there a corporate welfare fund? :)
-
ABSOLUTELY!!!
It's shocking to think that such a well-developed first world nation is unable to provide this for their entire population, ...let alone their children. There are many less developed nations that have access to universal health care. This is a national embarrrasment and a national shame on the part of the USA.
No. Universal health care means shitty care for everyone.
And don't blame the government for making kids suffer. Blame the parents for having kids they can't support.
-
We have universal health care here in Oz. The healthcare isn't shitty but the waiting lists are long if you need a procedure. Howard (Prime Minister) is trying to push private healthcare but a lot of people don't bother since they figure they are covered by medicare. Really they are trying to dismantle the public system bit by bit they're just trying to disguise it, since I think they would rather not fund it. You US cheapskates have got no chance of UTC.
-
No. Universal health care means shitty care for everyone.
And don't blame the government for making kids suffer. Blame the parents for having kids they can't support.
{ROTFLMAO} Stop drinking the kool-aid w8tlftr. Your country could provide fabulous universal health care to ALL of it's citizens and legal landed residents, for just a smally teeny tiny puny little fraction of what you're currently wasting in Iraq. What's the bill up to these days? :)
-
Yes, but how we do it in a cost effective way is a real challenge. As someone else pointed out Emergency Room costs are exhorbitant and they're not a particularly effective means of patient care.
In a perfect world universal healthcare for children would be a wonderful concept, in our world it's not.
The challenge as effin is pointing out, is how to make it cost-effective.
It's obviously more cost effective for a society to treat all kids with the best possible care as early as possible.
The challenge is to find a way to do it without a big bureacracy, making sure it will be cost-effective.
Big challenge.
-Hedge
-
{ROTFLMAO} Stop drinking the kool-aid w8tlftr. Your country could provide fabulous universal health care to ALL of it's citizens and legal landed residents, for just a smally teeny tiny puny little fraction of what you're currently wasting in Iraq. What's the bill up to these days? :)
I'll put down my glass after you put down your pitcher of Socialist-Aid. ::)
Ever been to a military hospital? That's just a glipse of what Universal Health Care would be like in America. No fucking thanks. Besides enough of my tax dollars are wasted on dumb ass career politicians (socialist liberals AND pseudo-conservatives) and lazy fuckers that won't learn to fish.
You love nanny states so enjoy your socialist utopia in Canada and leave the United States to Americans.
-
Ever been to a military hospital? That's just a glipse of what Universal Health Care would be like in America.
If military hospitals are poor, it is because the neoconservative desire for privatization underfunds them to make them look poor. Then fools like you will assume that it is because government programs don't work. As Jag pointed out, UHC would cost a fraction of the war we are paying for (paying TO the owners of the military-industrial complex, i.e., Bush/Cheney and friends).
And your other post:
"And don't blame the government for making kids suffer. Blame the parents for having kids they can't support."
Why should we stand by and let kids suffer because their parents couldn't afford good care for whatever reason (including being middle class without healthcare). Also, let's stop the anti-abortion crusaders who are happy to have more kids suffering in this world.
-
If military hospitals are poor, it is because the neoconservative desire for privatization underfunds them to make them look poor. Then fools like you will assume that it is because government programs don't work. As Jag pointed out, UHC would cost a fraction of the war we are paying for (paying TO the owners of the military-industrial complex, i.e., Bush/Cheney and friends).
And your other post:
"And don't blame the government for making kids suffer. Blame the parents for having kids they can't support."
Why should we stand by and let kids suffer because their parents couldn't afford good care for whatever reason (including being middle class without healthcare). Also, let's stop the anti-abortion crusaders who are happy to have more kids suffering in this world.
The fact that military health system is flawed has nothing to do with money. They have plenty, the problem is since it is free it gets flooded with non-issues making no room for real issues.
-
The fact that military health system is flawed has nothing to do with money. They have plenty, the problem is since it is free it gets flooded with non-issues making no room for real issues.
What are these "non issues" that doctors give all their attention to? What's up with vets wasting their days going to the VA with all these non issues, don't they have anything better to do? It must be the vets undermining the system! Of course they would stop that nonsense if they were treated by the private sector. Private sector doctors would tell them to "go away, we have more important cases to treat." Hmmm, if only doctors who worked for the VA could learn that skill.
-
What are these "non issues" that doctors give all their attention to? What's up with vets wasting their days going to the VA with all these non issues, don't they have anything better to do? It must be the vets undermining the system! Of course they would stop that nonsense if they were treated by the private sector. Private sector doctors would tell them to "go away, we have more important cases to treat." Hmmm, if only doctors who worked for the VA could learn that skill.
Maybe you didn't know, but VA hospitals and Military hospitals aren't affiliated. if UHC is so great how come canadians have the same problem getting appointments? because of people going in for every headache and runny nose.
-
Maybe you didn't know, but VA hospitals and Military hospitals aren't affiliated. if UHC is so great how come canadians have the same problem getting appointments? because of people going in for every headache and runny nose.
I lived in New Zealand for a year and they have a great UHC system. Easy to get appointments, doctors who took time to talk to you, cheap prescriptions. I don't know where you get the idea that the Canadian healthcare system is overrun by people with headcolds, but I would guess that its not from living in Canada.
-
from a bigger picture standpoint of nat'l mgmt-
If you ran a nation, would you WANT a group of 100 million people (lowest third of America) living to be 90?
Would you want this group of uneducated, non-contributing, babymaking consumers to live to be 90?
Can you think about the impact on the social security system of a group of people (who don't contribute BTW), living to 90 instead of 65 (on average)?
I can assure you the nation's planners have thought this through, even if you find it morally offensive. To nationalize health care would mean the lowest third of our nation lives longer, which would tax our society's resources longer as they live for 35 or 40 years on the nation's dime.
-
I can assure you the nation's planners have thought this through, even if you find it morally offensive. To nationalize health care would mean the lowest third of our nation lives longer, which would tax our society's resources longer as they live for 35 or 40 years on the nation's dime.
I was thinking something similar.. The same unproductive population that already eats welfare, public housing and benefits from rent control will have a new meal ticket in the form of healthcare.
-
Medicare and Medicaid = federal safety net.
What other costs will increase? How are we going to pay for some new federally mandated program? I don't know precisely which costs will increase, but the money will come from either taxes or employers passing along the increased costs to consumers. We, the taxpayers, will pay for it one way or the other.
And I think there is available "preventive" care available for poor kids. They don't need much preventive care anyway: annual physical, teeth cleaned twice a year, and shots. That's about it. Pretty much everything else is treatment, which you get with the help of Medicaid, state programs, local clinics, and state and county hospitals.
This thread concerns UHC for children. Medicare applies only to senior citizens and Medicaid offers lower insurance rates to those kids under the poverty line and is funded jointly State/Federal.
That's not good enough. 9 million children have no health insurance coverage at all. To get Medicaid, a child's family must be poor enough to satisfy eligibility requirements for lower costs.
-
I lived in New Zealand for a year and they have a great UHC system. Easy to get appointments, doctors who took time to talk to you, cheap prescriptions. I don't know where you get the idea that the Canadian healthcare system is overrun by people with headcolds, but I would guess that its not from living in Canada.
It is from growing up on the other side of the river from canada and working/going to school/playing sports/seeing canadians in my hospitals growing up.
-
from a bigger picture standpoint of nat'l mgmt-
If you ran a nation, would you WANT a group of 100 million people (lowest third of America) living to be 90?
Would you want this group of uneducated, non-contributing, babymaking consumers to live to be 90?
Can you think about the impact on the social security system of a group of people (who don't contribute BTW), living to 90 instead of 65 (on average)?
I can assure you the nation's planners have thought this through, even if you find it morally offensive. To nationalize health care would mean the lowest third of our nation lives longer, which would tax our society's resources longer as they live for 35 or 40 years on the nation's dime.
Of all the elitest nonsense I've read, this really tops it off. I imagine you are making your sweeping generalizations based on income...or wealth...or is it net worth....maybe education level...how about IQ?
What is the dividing line for rabble?
100,000 "uneducated, non-contributing babymaking consumers"...what country are you referring to?
Ask the Social Security Actuaries how to gauge life expectancy in light of all relevant facts. They are damn near Nostradamus in some of their predictions regarding mortality.
Who are the planners of our nation?
-
from a bigger picture standpoint of nat'l mgmt-
If you ran a nation, would you WANT a group of 100 million people (lowest third of America) living to be 90?
Would you want this group of uneducated, non-contributing, babymaking consumers to live to be 90?
Can you think about the impact on the social security system of a group of people (who don't contribute BTW), living to 90 instead of 65 (on average)?
I can assure you the nation's planners have thought this through, even if you find it morally offensive. To nationalize health care would mean the lowest third of our nation lives longer, which would tax our society's resources longer as they live for 35 or 40 years on the nation's dime.
I'm glad you point out the "morally offensive" part. I see your years of aligning with conservative values has stayed with you. It sounds like you would prefer that people suffer and die at age 50 if it saves you a couple bucks. How American of you.
If you really want to look at the bigger picture, remember that prevention is cheaper than intervention. So if money is spent on helping people prevent illness, there won't need to be as much spent on emergency medical procedures.
Also (from your humanistic conservative roots) comes your assumption that people without healthcare are non-contributing. Not having healthcare doesn't mean that people aren't working. Ask any WalMart employee. There's the future of privatization. People want to work, be paid fairly, and have affordable food, housing, and healthcare. These are all liberal/humanistic values.
The social security system is also a liberal program. Its the conservatives who want to take the social security money and cash in early, leaving everyone else penniless. A government protected social security system is crucial for humane treatment of the elderly, and to keep healthcare costs manageable.
Finally, in the bigger picture, what's the war costing? Its a lot more expensive to kill people than to help them.
-
I was thinking something similar.. The same unproductive population that already eats welfare, public housing and benefits from rent control will have a new meal ticket in the form of healthcare.
Typical conservative prejudice of people who are not paid well. You assume people without healthcare are lazy (any particular racial groups you're thinking of). The economic reality is that millions of people work full time and cannot afford healthcare. Small businesses can't afford to pay for their employees' healthcare and large corporations that pay low wages (WalMart) don't want to pay for healthcare (more money for the stockholders).
-
I'm glad you point out the "morally offensive" part. I see your years of aligning with conservative values has stayed with you. It sounds like you would prefer that people suffer and die at age 50 if it saves you a couple bucks. How American of you.
If you really want to look at the bigger picture, remember that prevention is cheaper than intervention. So if money is spent on helping people prevent illness, there won't need to be as much spent on emergency medical procedures.
Also (from your humanistic conservative roots) comes your assumption that people without healthcare are non-contributing. Not having healthcare doesn't mean that people aren't working. Ask any WalMart employee. There's the future of privatization. People want to work, be paid fairly, and have affordable food, housing, and healthcare. These are all liberal/humanistic values.
The social security system is also a liberal program. Its the conservatives who want to take the social security money and cash in early, leaving everyone else penniless. A government protected social security system is crucial for humane treatment of the elderly, and to keep healthcare costs manageable.
Finally, in the bigger picture, what's the war costing? Its a lot more expensive to kill people than to help them.
Well said. The Federal Safety Net is one of the costs of civilization.
-
Typical conservative prejudice of people who are not paid well. You assume people without healthcare are lazy (any particular racial groups you're thinking of). The economic reality is that millions of people work full time and cannot afford healthcare. Small businesses can't afford to pay for their employees' healthcare and large corporations that pay low wages (WalMart) don't want to pay for healthcare (more money for the stockholders).
B/c of corporate america--financing its private jets, million dollar pro golf events, executive pay, golden parachutes, advertising etc.--health insurance is available but out of the financial grasp of small to mid sized employers.
-
B/c of corporate america--financing its private jets, million dollar pro golf events, executive pay, golden parachutes, advertising etc.--health insurance is available but out of the financial grasp of small to mid sized employers.
I don't understand why democrats want to hold back someone to give handouts to others. Not all is fair in life and if you are willing to work hard enough you can get whatever you want. Your party wants to hand things to everyone
-
This thread concerns UHC for children. Medicare applies only to senior citizens and Medicaid offers lower insurance rates to those kids under the poverty line and is funded jointly State/Federal.
That's not good enough. 9 million children have no health insurance coverage at all. To get Medicaid, a child's family must be poor enough to satisfy eligibility requirements for lower costs.
I'd still define that, along with the other things I've mentioned, as a safety net. I think the uninsured numbers that are routinely tossed around are misleading. I think there is a very small segment of society that cannot get medical treatment when they need it.
There is a legitimate issue over the quality of care, but we often grossly exaggerate the complete lack of care available to poor people.
-
if you are willing to work hard enough you can get whatever you want.
Good example of someone buying into the American Dream (as George Carlin points out, you have to be dreaming to believe it). By this logic, people who work in low paying jobs aren't working hard enough. Newsflash- hard work does not necessarily result in a house in the suburbs.
-
Good example of someone buying into the American Dream (as George Carlin points out, you have to be dreaming to believe it). By this logic, people who work in low paying jobs aren't working hard enough. Newsflash- hard work does not necessarily result in a house in the suburbs.
I disagree. Hard work, good decision making, living below your means, etc. can definitely result in the "American Dream."
-
There is a legitimate issue over the quality of care, but we often grossly exaggerate the complete lack of care available to poor people.
How many million Americans are you okay with not having healthcare?
Here's the latest stat:
"The percentage of people without health insurance coverage rose from 15.6 percent to 15.9 percent (46.6 million people).
These findings are contained in the Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005 [PDF] report."
Link:
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/007419.html
-
I don't understand why democrats want to hold back someone to give handouts to others. Not all is fair in life and if you are willing to work hard enough you can get whatever you want. Your party wants to hand things to everyone
Some people view healthcare as a right.
How do you quantify fairness?
Everyone grab as much with both hands and those on the short end of the stick...well you had your shot?
Your Horatio Alger story is facile. People work hard all the time but the world needs ditch diggers too. Unfortuately those (necessary) ditch diggers cannot afford basic healtcare.
Why is the cost of insurance so high?
Last year the top 6 health insurers netted 10 billion in profits.
How does "my party" want to hand "everything" to "everyone?"
-
I disagree. Hard work, good decision making, living below your means, etc. can definitely result in the "American Dream."
So can buying a lottery ticket. But neither hard work nor buying the ticket is any guarantee that life will improve.
-
If military hospitals are poor, it is because the neoconservative desire for privatization underfunds them to make them look poor. Then fools like you will assume that it is because government programs don't work. As Jag pointed out, UHC would cost a fraction of the war we are paying for (paying TO the owners of the military-industrial complex, i.e., Bush/Cheney and friends).
And your other post:
"And don't blame the government for making kids suffer. Blame the parents for having kids they can't support."
Why should we stand by and let kids suffer because their parents couldn't afford good care for whatever reason (including being middle class without healthcare). Also, let's stop the anti-abortion crusaders who are happy to have more kids suffering in this world.
It's called accountability, dumbass. There are private charities available for families in need. Accountability is what you won't have if the government takes over your medical care.
Socialized medicine doesn't work. I don't care how hard you head-in-the-cloud big government zealots wish it to be.
-
I disagree. Hard work, good decision making, living below your means, etc. can definitely result in the "American Dream."
It can for a some people. But many americans will never taste that success. Wages have been fairly stagnant since the early 1970s while 'hours worked' have gone through the ceiling.
We are working much harder for less and paying more for goods/services thanks to inflation. This country has a negative savings rate and president beating the drum for more shopping. We live on credit.
The stranglehold credit card companies have on this country is amazing: miss a payment and your interest rate goes through the roof, declare bankruptcy but you can't discharge credit card debt.
The deck is stacked and it certainly isn't in favor of the middle class and poor.
-
I lived in New Zealand for a year and they have a great UHC system. Easy to get appointments, doctors who took time to talk to you, cheap prescriptions. I don't know where you get the idea that the Canadian healthcare system is overrun by people with headcolds, but I would guess that its not from living in Canada.
Yay for New Zealand.
Lots of room in the hospital for the 50 people and the 200 sheep that live there.
-
Good example of someone buying into the American Dream (as George Carlin points out, you have to be dreaming to believe it). By this logic, people who work in low paying jobs aren't working hard enough. Newsflash- hard work does not necessarily result in a house in the suburbs.
I am far from living in the burbs. I was a Wal-mart worker. Realized that wasn't going to get me far so I joined the military. Most people that work in low paying jobs are there for a reason. Not all but most.
-
It's called accountability, dumbass. There are private charities available for families in need. Accountability is what you won't have if the government takes over your medical care.
Socialized medicine doesn't work. I don't care how hard you head-in-the-cloud big government zealots wish it to be.
Accountability is exactly what you will have with a government run system. The General Accounting Office would beg to differ with you. Are you intimating that Social Security is rife with corruption? Or Medicaid?
Socialized medicine doesn't work? If you mean Universal Health Care won't work, I suggest you contact these countries and tell them that they are doing it wrong:
Argentina,Australia,Austria, Belgium,Brazil, Canada, Cuba, Denmark, Finland,France, Germany,Greece,, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan,The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, The Republic of China (Taiwan), and the United Kingdom, Mexico, South Africa and Thailand
-
Some people view healthcare as a right.
How do you quantify fairness?
Everyone grab as much with both hands and those on the short end of the stick...well you had your shot?
Your Horatio Alger story is facile. People work hard all the time but the world needs ditch diggers too. Unfortuately those (necessary) ditch diggers cannot afford basic healtcare.
Why is the cost of insurance so high?
Last year the top 6 health insurers netted 10 billion in profits.
How does "my party" want to hand "everything" to "everyone?"
your party is the welfare party
-
So can buying a lottery ticket. But neither hard work nor buying the ticket is any guarantee that life will improve.
Nothing in life is guaranteed, but hard work typically trumps a lottery ticket.
-
Socialized medicine doesn't work.
The rest of the civilized world disagrees. Would you also prefer that we give up similar "socialist" programs like having the FDA test and regulate food and drugs? Should we allow a free market system of drugs where people can buy anything they want without a doctor's prescription (doctor's act as representatives of the government, prescribing only what is allowed for particular conditions). Hey, you could get all the roids you want at the store! (of course you'd have to take the word of the manufacturer that they contained what they said- having eliminated the FDA).
-
The rest of the civilized world disagrees. Would you also prefer that we give up similar "socialist" programs like having the FDA test and regulate food and drugs? Should we allow a free market system of drugs where people can buy anything they want without a doctor's prescription (doctor's act as representatives of the government, prescribing only what is allowed for particular conditions). Hey, you could get all the roids you want at the store! (of course you'd have to take the word of the manufacturer that they contained what they said- having eliminated the FDA).
If you give an American something for free they will abuse it. Medical care is no different.
-
I am far from living in the burbs. I was a Wal-mart worker. Realized that wasn't going to get me far so I joined the military. Most people that work in low paying jobs are there for a reason. Not all but most.
And what is the reason? They like it?
The military is a fine option. Go and lose one's autonomy and kill people because the people in power make money off it. I expect you'll be joining Blackwater and getting paid a great salary for mercenary activity.
-
guys - i am not endorsing it at all.
I am asking you though - do you think the nation's planners, (themselves rich men looking out for the greater good and long term sustainability of the nation) would take into consideration the longer lives that the poor would lead, and the economic impact it would have on the soc sec system?
-
If you give an American something for free they will abuse it. Medical care is no different.
Better to give them nothing and let them suffer. Tough luck for the kids without healthcare! Another example of compassionate conservative in action!
-
It can for a some people. But many americans will never taste that success. Wages have been fairly stagnant since the early 1970s while 'hours worked' have gone through the ceiling.
We are working much harder for less and paying more for goods/services thanks to inflation. This country has a negative savings rate and president beating the drum for more shopping. We live on credit.
The stranglehold credit card companies have on this country is amazing: miss a payment and your interest rate goes through the roof, declare bankruptcy but you can't discharge credit card debt.
The deck is stacked and it certainly isn't in favor of the middle class and poor.
Yes inflation has gone up, but home ownership is at an all time high (I think) and there are a plethora of job and educational opportunities for pretty much every American, regardless of income, education, or disability. There are social factors that greatly impact a person's success (e.g., lack of a father--or strong father--in the home), but the opportunities are there.
I agree the deck is stacked against people who live in poverty and don't have an education, but we already have plenty of things in place to help them succeed.
-
guys - i am not endorsing it at all.
I am asking you though - do you think the nation's planners, (themselves rich men looking out for the greater good and long term sustainability of the nation) would take into consideration the longer lives that the poor would lead, and the economic impact it would have on the soc sec system?
you don't quit with the CT stuff do you.
-
your party is the welfare party
Zing. So what. You have a problem with welfare?
Welfare is proven to battle poverty effectively.
Welfare gives people down on their luck a second chance at getting back on their feet as contributing workers thus keeping the pool of available workers afloat thus keeping inflation at bay.
-
(themselves rich men looking out for the greater good and long term sustainability of the nation)
I hate to break it to you but...
-
Accountability is exactly what you will have with a government run system. The General Accounting Office would beg to differ with you. Are you intimating that Social Security is rife with corruption? Or Medicaid?
Socialized medicine doesn't work? If you mean Universal Health Care won't work, I suggest you contact these countries and tell them that they are doing it wrong:
Argentina,Australia,Austria, Belgium,Brazil, Canada, Cuba, Denmark, Finland,France, Germany,Greece,, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan,The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, The Republic of China (Taiwan), and the United Kingdom, Mexico, South Africa and Thailand
That's EXACTLY what I'm saying, Decker. We've had this talk before about taxes and how our money is wasted and how it should be given back to the people so WE can make choices for ourselves.
You want me to ask a government office if they think the government is buried in corruption and layers of red tape? Do you honestly think they'll say, "Yeah, maybe just a bit"?
Tell me something. If all the countries you listed have such fantastic health care systems then why do so many people come to the United States for treatment? Is there any other country you would rather have medical treatment besides here?
-
Better to give them nothing and let them suffer. Tough luck for the kids without healthcare! Another example of compassionate conservative in action!
Like I said before, I would rather give 85% great healthcare than give 100% poor health care.
-
Zing. So what. You have a problem with welfare?
Welfare is proven to battle poverty effectively.
Welfare gives people down on their luck a second chance at getting back on their feet as contributing workers thus keeping the pool of available workers afloat thus keeping inflation at bay.
lmao, "down on their luck" right, you might get 10% of the people on welfare just needing a helping hand for a short period. The rest live on it for life because it is to easy.
-
Yes inflation has gone up, but home ownership is at an all time high (I think) and there are a plethora of job and educational opportunities for pretty much every American, regardless of income, education, or disability. There are social factors that greatly impact a person's success (e.g., lack of a father--or strong father--in the home), but the opportunities are there.
I agree the deck is stacked against people who live in poverty and don't have an education, but we already have plenty of things in place to help them succeed.
The home ownership bubble is largely due to the purchase of second, third and fourth homes amongst the wealthy and nonsensical interest only loans (which are crashing as we speak).
Jobs are out there for certain. But for the marginally talented, those jobs don't carry Health Insurance.
But we are on the same page.
-
I agree the deck is stacked against people who live in poverty and don't have an education, but we already have plenty of things in place to help them succeed.
You mean that we have plenty of things in place to help keep people stuck in the same socio-economic level. The U.S. is way down on the least in regards to people changing their economic status. Good news for the rich!
-
I'm glad you point out the "morally offensive" part. I see your years of aligning with conservative values has stayed with you. It sounds like you would prefer that people suffer and die at age 50 if it saves you a couple bucks. How American of you.
If you really want to look at the bigger picture, remember that prevention is cheaper than intervention. So if money is spent on helping people prevent illness, there won't need to be as much spent on emergency medical procedures.
Also (from your humanistic conservative roots) comes your assumption that people without healthcare are non-contributing. Not having healthcare doesn't mean that people aren't working. Ask any WalMart employee. There's the future of privatization. People want to work, be paid fairly, and have affordable food, housing, and healthcare. These are all liberal/humanistic values.
The social security system is also a liberal program. Its the conservatives who want to take the social security money and cash in early, leaving everyone else penniless. A government protected social security system is crucial for humane treatment of the elderly, and to keep healthcare costs manageable.
Finally, in the bigger picture, what's the war costing? Its a lot more expensive to kill people than to help them.
I'm not condoning it.
I KNOW that prevention is cheaper than treatment. But what number is bigger - free occasional treatment of a non-contributor for 40 years before he kicks off of a heart attack, or free preventative medicine of the same non-contributor who will now live to be 90 year old?
I am saying that when congressional committees look at the number - and realize not only the initial costs, but the longterm ripple effects on the economy - they might be less likely to support univ. health care. Hell, their families have coverage. ANd their donors have coverage. The people who don't - also don't pay much in taxes, contribute much to greater good, or even vote in many cases.
So I'm not endorsing it - but I am saying I'm pretty darn sure the economic effects of bottom third producing of nation living an extra 30 years plays into their decision making process. You guys don't think so?
-
The rest of the civilized world disagrees. Would you also prefer that we give up similar "socialist" programs like having the FDA test and regulate food and drugs? Should we allow a free market system of drugs where people can buy anything they want without a doctor's prescription (doctor's act as representatives of the government, prescribing only what is allowed for particular conditions). Hey, you could get all the roids you want at the store! (of course you'd have to take the word of the manufacturer that they contained what they said- having eliminated the FDA).
I didn't say the government doesn't have it's place. I have no problem with the FDA regulating the drugs pumped out the the public.
I just don't want the government dictating my medical care.
-
That's EXACTLY what I'm saying, Decker. We've had this talk before about taxes and how our money is wasted and how it should be given back to the people so WE can make choices for ourselves.
You want me to ask a government office if they think the government is buried in corruption and layers of red tape? Do you honestly think they'll say, "Yeah, maybe just a bit"?
Tell me something. If all the countries you listed have such fantastic health care systems then why do so many people come to the United States for treatment? Is there any other country you would rather have medical treatment besides here?
B/c the US has the finest emergency healthcare in the world. The US stinks at preventive healthcare. PHC is much more cost efficient than EHC. Why wait for that pain in one's side to become cancer?
Preventive healthcare is where the US ranks right behind the Isle of Togo.
-
It's not anything CT. It's simple economics coupled with the utilitarian midset of national planners.
If it costs $X to provide free health care, it will cost another $Y because they will now live longer. Period.
-
Zing. So what. You have a problem with welfare?
Welfare is proven to battle poverty effectively.
Welfare gives people down on their luck a second chance at getting back on their feet as contributing workers thus keeping the pool of available workers afloat thus keeping inflation at bay.
Our welfare system is broken. It's supposed to help get people back on their feet so they can contribute to society.
Instead we have a system of dependency.
-
lmao, "down on their luck" right, you might get 10% of the people on welfare just needing a helping hand for a short period. The rest live on it for life because it is to easy.
Percent of
Time on AFDC Recipients
-------------------------------
Less than 7 months 19.0%
7 to 12 months 15.2
One to two years 19.3
Two to five years 26.9
Over five years 19.6
Overview of Entitlement Programs, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives
Does that look like 10% to you?
This is getting off topic so I'll stop here on this point.
-
How many million Americans are you okay with not having healthcare?
Here's the latest stat:
"The percentage of people without health insurance coverage rose from 15.6 percent to 15.9 percent (46.6 million people).
These findings are contained in the Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005 [PDF] report."
Link:
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/007419.html
Assuming those numbers are accurate, how many of these 46.6 million have no access to healthcare?
-
Percent of
Time on AFDC Recipients
-------------------------------
Less than 7 months 19.0%
7 to 12 months 15.2
One to two years 19.3
Two to five years 26.9
Over five years 19.6
Does that look like 10% to you?
This is getting off topic so I'll stop here on this point.
my bad, 19%. Meanwhile 66% stay on it for more than a year? come on now.
-
The home ownership bubble is largely due to the purchase of second, third and fourth homes amongst the wealthy and nonsensical interest only loans (which are crashing as we speak).
Jobs are out there for certain. But for the marginally talented, those jobs don't carry Health Insurance.
But we are on the same page.
Depends on where you live. In Hawaii, every employer with one or more full-time employees is required to provide health insurance.
-
B/c the US has the finest emergency healthcare in the world. The US stinks at preventive healthcare. PHC is much more cost efficient than EHC. Why wait for that pain in one's side to become cancer?
Preventive healthcare is where the US ranks right behind the Isle of Togo.
Hmmm... preventive health care.
You mean things like live a healthy lifestyle (diet, exercise, no drugs) and regular check-ups with your doctor? That sounds like a personal responsibility to me.
The sad fact is that there are a lot of people that make bad choices every day and do not want to take responsibility for them. It's really no different than maintaining a house or a car. You get what you put into it and if and neglect only snowballs into a big problem that could have prevented.
We need to address the problems with the system we currently have. What we don't need are more government programs and politicians that don't give a rat's ass about the people they represent and only care about power.
People need to take personal responsibility and quit relying on the government for everything. Do you really want us to live in a nanny/police state, Decker, where the government does absolutely everything for us and tells us how to live because they foot the bill for everything?
-
I didn't say the government doesn't have it's place. I have no problem with the FDA regulating the drugs pumped out the the public.
I just don't want the government dictating my medical care.
A couple things you don't understand:
1. The government, via the FDA, controls which drugs are on the market and which drugs you may be able to have access to. You have no problem with that? I'm glad you see the benefit of that socialist system.
2. Universal healthcare does not mean that you or your employeer can't pay for whatever medical services you want from a private provider. Just like public schooling doesn't mean that parents are restricted from sending their kids to private schools. Both universal healthcare and public schooling allow for everyone to receive services. For those that can afford other services that they would like to receive, they can pay out of pocket.
-
Depends on where you live. In Hawaii, every employer with one or more full-time employees is required to provide health insurance.
You're lucky. Health is a topic left to the States as far as legislation goes.
What is this Hawaii you speak of? Is it like heaven?
-
Depends on where you live. In Hawaii, every employer with one or more full-time employees is required to provide health insurance.
Bummer for small businesses trying to get a foothold the first few years. That can be a big expense that breaks them.
-
You're lucky. Health is a topic left to the States as far as legislation goes.
What is this Hawaii you speak of? Is it like heaven?
lol. We call it Paradise. :) I'm currently looking at a rainbow hovering over the harbor. It is a privilege and a blessing to live here. It's just awesome: the weather, mountains, ocean, people, clean air, low violent crime rate. As I tell people, there are two ways I am leaving this rock: in a box or when Jesus comes, whichever happens first. :)
-
A couple things you don't understand:
1. The government, via the FDA, controls which drugs are on the market and which drugs you may be able to have access to. You have no problem with that? I'm glad you see the benefit of that socialist system.
2. Universal healthcare does not mean that you or your employeer can't pay for whatever medical services you want from a private provider. Just like public schooling doesn't mean that parents are restricted from sending their kids to private schools. Both universal healthcare and public schooling allow for everyone to receive services. For those that can afford other services that they would like to receive, they can pay out of pocket.
I have my share of problems with the FDA - especially which drugs they decide are legal and not legal.
Yeah, and our public school system is the best in the free world. ::)
You need a better example, LSD.
-
Hmmm... preventive health care.
You mean things like live a healthy lifestyle (diet, exercise, no drugs) and regular check-ups with your doctor? That sounds like a personal responsibility to me.
The sad fact is that there are a lot of people that make bad choices every day and do not want to take responsibility for them. It's really no different than maintaining a house or a car. You get what you put into it and if and neglect only snowballs into a big problem that could have prevented.
We need to address the problems with the system we currently have. What we don't need are more government programs and politicians that don't give a rat's ass about the people they represent and only care about power.
People need to take personal responsibility and quit relying on the government for everything. Do you really want us to live in a nanny/police state, Decker, where the government does absolutely everything for us and tells us how to live because they foot the bill for everything?
I agree that healthy living is important and a matter of personal responsibility. But even the healthy get sick--cancer, diabetes, etc. How can you see a doctor regularly for preventive check-ups without insurance?
I want government to provide a safety net for those with less in this country. Let us rugged individuals stake our own claims and blaze our own paths.
As an anecdotal matter, think of how incompetent and dumb the average person is. Half the people out there are worse than that.
On a more sober note, I would say that the world needs waitresses, ditch diggers, vegetable pickers etc. and those people should have access to preventive healthcare to help ensure a healthy meaningful life.
Not everyone can be a doctor, lawyer, executive etc.
If that's what you consider a nanny/police state endeavor, then I'm guilty as charged.
-
Yeah, and our public school system is the best in the free world. ::)
So should we abolish the public school system and privatize it, or fund it properly (well paid teachers, computers in every classroom, etc.)?
-
Bummer for small businesses trying to get a foothold the first few years. That can be a big expense that breaks them.
True.
-
That's EXACTLY what I'm saying, Decker. We've had this talk before about taxes and how our money is wasted and how it should be given back to the people so WE can make choices for ourselves.
You want me to ask a government office if they think the government is buried in corruption and layers of red tape? Do you honestly think they'll say, "Yeah, maybe just a bit"?
Tell me something. If all the countries you listed have such fantastic health care systems then why do so many people come to the United States for treatment? Is there any other country you would rather have medical treatment besides here?
No offence, but I would not trade the Swedish health care system for the US system for anything.
Despite that we pay for everyone.
It's terrible to read about persons in the USA not having health insurance, and therefore not being able to get the proper treatment.
I saw an ad for a guy who was dying of cancer, and his relatives was asking for donations, apparently a surgery could save him, but he had no insurance. Stuff like that is crazy.
A man will die, someone who could work and produce in the society. But instead he is allowed to die away.
From a macro economical point of view, that's insanity.
Keep as many people healthy as possible.
The challenge is to do it in a capitalistic environment, with competing franchises, making sure the customer always gets the best treatment for the buck.
There have been problems in Sweden, with not enough competing franchises, creating doldrum. But it seems like with the European Union, the amount of franchises competing for business is satisfactory.
-Hedge
-
I'll put down my glass after you put down your pitcher of Socialist-Aid. ::)
Ever been to a military hospital? That's just a glipse of what Universal Health Care would be like in America. No fucking thanks. Besides enough of my tax dollars are wasted on dumb ass career politicians (socialist liberals AND pseudo-conservatives) and lazy fuckers that won't learn to fish.
You love nanny states so enjoy your socialist utopia in Canada and leave the United States to Americans.
A Military hospital is a bad example. We all know the US doesn't give a shit about their military personnel.
They're useful to them when they're killing other people, but when they can no longer kill or get killed... who cares?
That may be hard for you to hear and or accept because you are military, and your wife was career military,
...but those are the facts... evidenced by the deplorable state of conditions wounded vets have to endure.
Just look at cuts made to benefits etc after many shipped out... look at everything... the picture should emerge abundantly clear.
ps - Your tax dollars are not going to dumbass career politicians. They're going to pay the enormous interest on the debt to private bankers whom your gov borrowed money from to send you into battle to kill and die.
Gotta love the irony in that huh? huge loans are taken out daily to fund people like you risking your life in some foreign country to do 'God knows what', ...and if you survive the hell you're plunged in, ...you get to pay for it for the rest of your life. If you don't survive... your kids get to pay for it for the next few generation. Heck... they'll be paying either way. What racket! Where do i sign up?
I could loan you a million bucks at 24% interest compounded daily, ...then have you mine a football field, ...then have you and your family run around in it for a few years. In the end, if you survive... You pay me back in interest only payments. If you don't survive, I take your house, your boat, and all your possessions, and your descendants live in indentured servitude to me for the next 7 or 8 generations. Kewl? :D
Don't tell me you've shoved the Aaron Russo doc down the memory hole so quickly? :-*
ps: I will enjoy Canada. Unfortunately... not as many American's will be able to enjoy the USA.
-
I agree that healthy living is important and a matter of personal responsibility. But even the healthy get sick--cancer, diabetes, etc. How can you see a doctor regularly for preventive check-ups without insurance?
I want government to provide a safety net for those with less in this country. Let us rugged individuals stake our own claims and blaze our own paths.
As an anecdotal matter, think of how incompetent and dumb the average person is. Half the people out there are worse than that.
On a more sober note, I would say that the world needs waitresses, ditch diggers, vegetable pickers etc. and those people should have access to preventive healthcare to help ensure a healthy meaningful life.
Not everyone can be a doctor, lawyer, executive etc.
If that's what you consider a nanny/police state endeavor, then I'm guilty as charged.
I agree with you on this. Government should provide for those who truly can not take care of themselves.
But that does not excuse anyone who is able to work from getting health insurance through their employer.
What we should be tackling is how to make insurance affordable and fair - not more government programs that talk big but do nothing.
-
So should we abolish the public school system and privatize it, or fund it properly (well paid teachers, computers in every classroom, etc.)?
I'm not saying we get rid of public school - not at all.
However, throwing money at a problem simply doesn't fix it.
-
A Military hospital is a bad example. We all know the US doesn't give a shit about their military personnel.
They're useful to them when they're killing other people, but when they can no longer kill or get killed... who cares?
That may be hard for you to hear and or accept because you are military, and your wife was career military,
...but those are the facts... evidenced by the deplorable state of conditions wounded vets have to endure.
Just look at cuts made to benefits etc after many shipped out... look at everything... the picture should emerge abundantly clear.
ps - Your tax dollars are not going to dumbass career politicians. They're going to pay the enormous interest on the debt to private bankers whom your gov borrowed money from to send you into battle to kill and die.
Gotta love the irony in that huh? huge loans are taken out daily to fund people like you risking your life in some foreign country to do 'God knows what', ...and if you survive the hell you're plunged in, ...you get to pay for it for the rest of your life. If you don't survive... your kids get to pay for it for the next few generation. Heck... they'll be paying either way. What racket! Where do i sign up?
I could loan you a million bucks at 24% interest compounded daily, ...then have you mine a football field, ...then have you and your family run around in it for a few years. In the end, if you survive... You pay me back in interest only payments. If you don't survive, I take your house, your boat, and all your possessions, and your descendants live in indentured servitude to me for the next 7 or 8 generations. Kewl? :D
Don't tell me you've shoved the Aaron Russo doc down the memory hole so quickly? :-*
ps: I will enjoy Canada. Unfortunately... not as many American's will be able to enjoy the USA.
No, I haven't forgotten the Aaron Russo doc. It still pisses me off.
-
No, I haven't forgotten the Aaron Russo doc. It still pisses me off.
Ahhhh ...poor baby :'(
But look on the bright side... you have your morning commute to look forward to. :D
BTW: How's the gas pump treating you these days? ;D
-
I'm not saying we get rid of public school - not at all.
However, throwing money at a problem simply doesn't fix it.
So you like that social program. Good for you. Better funding of schools, including paying teachers a decent salary, might draw people into the profession who chose a different profession because they wanted to make a living wage. Adaquate funding of social programs is not the same as "throwing money at a problem."
-
Ahhhh ...poor baby :'(
But look on the bright side... you have your morning commute to look forward to. :D
BTW: How's the gas pump treating you these days? ;D
My morning commute is fine. It's the afternoon commute that sucks. >:(
Lucky for me that I can afford to gas up my global warming SUV. ;D
-
So you like that social program. Good for you. Better funding of schools, including paying teachers a decent salary, might draw people into the profession who chose a different profession because they wanted to make a living wage. Adaquate funding of social programs is not the same as "throwing money at a problem."
It is when the system isn't working and you throw money at it anyways.
Don't confuse my approval of "social" programs like public education with my strong dislike for big government and tax and spend socialists.
-
It is when the system isn't working and you throw money at it anyways.
Don't confuse my approval of "social" programs like public education with my strong dislike for big government and tax and spend socialists.
While I don't like your use of the word "socialist" for labeling programs like those, I completely agree with your take on the problem with effectiveness, and not getting the money's worth.
Capitalistic competition is key.
-Hedge
-
I agree with you on this. Government should provide for those who truly can not take care of themselves.
But that does not excuse anyone who is able to work from getting health insurance through their employer.
What we should be tackling is how to make insurance affordable and fair - not more government programs that talk big but do nothing.
At the moment, only employers can offer remotely affordable health care. Big Insurance will not allow anyone to reduce its bottom line just to save a few lives. That's a matter of history.
The only way to tackle this is the way FDR tackled Big Business Corruption and that's through a governmental effort.
Remember, We The People are the government.
-
While I don't like your use of the word "socialist" for labeling programs like those, I completely agree with your take on the problem with effectiveness, and not getting the money's worth.
Capitalistic competition is key.
-Hedge
I don't think it's the key. It's the problem. One, Unmoderated capitalism results in monopolies. Monopolies set the price of services/products. We have a concentration of Insurance company ownership that could rightly be characterized as monopolistic.
Two, profit motive is driving the costs through the roof. It takes money to fund pro golf tour events (Lincoln, Pacific Life etc.), pay executive compensation, pay golden parachute arrangements, pay for advertising, pay for corporate jets and luxurious corp. HQ, and still show a profit to shareholders.
-
I don't think it's the key. It's the problem. One, Unmoderated capitalism results in monopolies. Monopolies set the price of services/products. We have a concentration of Insurance company ownership that could rightly be characterized as monopolistic.
Two, profit motive is driving the costs through the roof. It takes money to fund pro golf tour events (Lincoln, Pacific Life etc.), pay executive compensation, pay golden parachute arrangements, pay for advertising, pay for corporate jets and luxurious corp. HQ, and still show a profit to shareholders.
The competition that comes with capitalism will lead to effectiveness and streamlining.
But there has to be thorough legislation, to prevent from monopoly and oligarchies, like the insurance company oligarchy structure currently present in the USA, where insurance companies are making profits, and there are no alternatives that will keep the prices down.
The legislators has to make sure the competition is fair.
-Hedge
-
The competition that comes with capitalism will lead to effectiveness and streamlining.
That ship sailed along time ago.
The dynamic is this: competition puts out a better service/product. Soon we have mergers. And more mergers. Then we have behemoth corporations that either gobble up competition or destroy it. There are anti-trust laws on the book but the Bush administration has no fire in it to see enforcement.
My favorite quote on this is the tape of Bill Gates telling the board of Netscape that he will destroy them if they don't join him.
But there has to be thorough legislation, to prevent from monopoly and oligarchies, like the insurance company oligarchy structure currently present in the USA, where insurance companies are making profits, and there are no alternatives that will keep the prices down.
The legislators has to make sure the competition is fair.
-Hedge
The insurance giants are writing the regulatory laws.
It is difficult to have serious change when that happens.
-
That ship sailed along time ago.
The dynamic is this: competition puts out a better service/product. Soon we have mergers. And more mergers. Then we have behemoth corporations that either gobble up competition or destroy it. There are anti-trust laws on the book but the Bush administration has no fire in it to see enforcement.
My favorite quote on this is the tape of Bill Gates telling the board of Netscape that he will destroy them if they don't join him.
The insurance giants are writing the regulatory laws.
It is difficult to have serious change when that happens.
Bump for the hearing the reality of modern-day capitialism.