Why is Healthcare such a big deal anyway?


Reply
 
Topic Tools Search this Thread
dito is offline dito Post #51  November 8,2009, 4:39pm
dito's Avatar

Veteran

Joined: Dec 2008

Colorado

Posts: 1,308

See profile

independentthinker wrote :

What would you rather see instead? Old people starving in tents on the streets? We already have plenty of that. I am frankly worried about what the future portends as it is, as the waves of people whose pensions were gutted by modern day robber barons at the head of corporations enter retirement and struggle to make it on the crumbs left for them through the PBGC.
Then more of the same isn't going to fix it, is it?

Social Security is nothing more than a ponzi scheme. It's nice if you are one of the first to take out. Not so nice if you aren't.
 
  Reply With Quote
bigfincat is offline bigfincat Post #52  November 8,2009, 6:32pm
bigfincat's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 4,077

See profile

dito wrote :
Then more of the same isn't going to fix it, is it?

Social Security is nothing more than a ponzi scheme. It's nice if you are one of the first to take out. Not so nice if you aren't.
And corporate structure is nothing more than a pyramid scheme. Not so nice if you are on the bottom of that either.

I thoroughly believe that there is more freedom in small business (say companies of 12 people or fewer). I am for anything that takes an arbitrary advantage away from large corporations & results in making working for or starting a smaller company more desirable or achievable for the masses.

Larger companies offer better insurance plans for the most part due to larger pools. It is completely arbitrary that insurance is tied in to employment at all.

People with families tend to stick with corporations in part because of the better benefit package offered. I understand that people have the "freedom" to do their own thing. That, however, does little in practice.
It is not what people can do but what they tend to do. People can work for small companies or for themselves... but when so few do it leaves a competitive disadvantage.

A lot of ideas that supposedly help small business actually hurt in the big picture because it helps big business even more. Big business will always continue to destroy little business.

I absolutely think that a public option for healthcare helps small business fantastically. I can think of many, many small business owners that would love to lose that expense. Those looking to start such a business would have a much easier time as well.

I can think of multiple ways that it would simplify things & open up opportunities for me (freedom) for me personally. My situation is not unique.

When a company prefers you to be nameless & faceless & easily replacable you have NO power in my opinion.
 
  Reply With Quote
dito is offline dito Post #53  November 8,2009, 8:30pm
dito's Avatar

Veteran

Joined: Dec 2008

Colorado

Posts: 1,308

See profile

An 8% fine for not providing insurance is really going to help small business and boost employment!
 
  Reply With Quote
independentthinker is offline independentthinker Post #54  November 8,2009, 11:45pm
independentth…'s Avatar

Newbie

Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 28

See profile

bigfincat wrote :
And corporate structure is nothing more than a pyramid scheme. Not so nice if you are on the bottom of that either.

It is completely arbitrary that insurance is tied in to employment at all.

People with families tend to stick with corporations in part because of the better benefit package offered. I understand that people have the "freedom" to do their own thing. That, however, does little in practice.
It is not what people can do but what they tend to do. People can work for small companies or for themselves... but when so few do it leaves a competitive disadvantage.

I absolutely think that a public option for healthcare helps small business fantastically. I can think of many, many small business owners that would love to lose that expense. Those looking to start such a business would have a much easier time as well.

.
I agree with you 100% . Notwithstanding the fantasies of some that going to an emergency room is a reasonable healthcare plan, insurance is a prerequisite to access to decent medical care. I simply haven't been able to understand why some of the "freedom-loving", anti-government control "patriots" enjoy being slaves to their corporate employers, and to the ability of the insurance industry to defacto control where they work because the industry sets the terms on which insurance is available. Insurers also control who sees what doctor through the iron fist of their provider networks. Given the data on the huge amount of economic growth driven by small businesses, I cannot imagine why people wouldn't want a system that makes it easy for them to begin and thrive. I know many, many people who stay in jobs they hate for the benefits, health insurance mostly. Who wants to have to compete for a job at a company with someone who otherwise doesn't want to be there? Making insurance truly universal, and enjoyed as an individual, portable right rather than linked to specific employment, would improve things tremendously.

The misconception held by some is that advocates of reform and/or single payer simply want a "free ride" and are looking to "redistribute the wealth" of others. I think medical care, and insurance if we must have it, should be affordable, but I am more than happy to pay my share as I always have been. I am happy to pay more than others of lesser means. And one thing is for sure: I would rather pay more through a "public option" than I do to Blue Cross just on principle. Why should some corporate jerk profit off of my need to be able to have a system to see a doctor?
 
  Reply With Quote
Fleuellen is offline Fleuellen Post #55  November 9,2009, 12:11am
Fleuellen's Avatar

Enthusiast

Joined: Jul 2009

Posts: 785

See profile

saulgoode wrote :
Why do the Liberals want to put healthcare under federal supervision?

Why do the Conservatives oppose it so much?

There aren't ethical reasons, don't argue that. If you think anything in our federal gov't is done out of "goodwill," then you are naive.

The Federal Liberals want the ~control~ and the ~income~ from healthcare in the US, crossing state boundaries, and it has always been one of their top priorities at the Federal Level (NOT always at the State Level, mind you, though it weighs heavily in our Far East and Far West blue states).

Why do the Federal Liberals want healthcare so much, and why is it the first thing they go after every time they gain control of congress?

Why is controlling our healthcare industry at the heart of the Liberal charter?


- Saul
Why do the Conservatives oppose it so much?

maybe its all the money they get ... as a guess.

Why do the Federal Liberals want healthcare so much

Maybe its because in no other advanced society do so many folk suffer needless pain and premature death ... and for such bad health care you pay 50% more pe GDP than counties like Australia.

Here both side of politics support universal public health care ... if they didn't, they be chucked out of office.
Last edited by Fleuellen; November 9,2009 at 12:14am.
 
  Reply With Quote
dito is offline dito Post #56  November 9,2009, 7:33am
dito's Avatar

Veteran

Joined: Dec 2008

Colorado

Posts: 1,308

See profile

I agree these corporations are taking advantage of people by providing jobs for them. I know the owner probably had to sacrifice, work hard, and take risk to build the company. But they shouldn't be rewarded. They should just give it all back. It's the right thing to do.

I am also against these big insurance giants. So much in fact that I want laws passed that a mandate is passed that people have to use them or they pay a fine or go to jail. That will teach them to be so greedy!
 
  Reply With Quote
bigfincat is offline bigfincat Post #57  November 9,2009, 10:58am
bigfincat's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 4,077

See profile

dito wrote :
I agree these corporations are taking advantage of people by providing jobs for them. I know the owner probably had to sacrifice, work hard, and take risk to build the company. But they shouldn't be rewarded. They should just give it all back. It's the right thing to do.

I am also against these big insurance giants. So much in fact that I want laws passed that a mandate is passed that people have to use them or they pay a fine or go to jail. That will teach them to be so greedy!
Being a person that does not need anyone to provide a job for me I will not be thanking anyone for such an opportunity.

I think that it is personally responsible for a person to be able to acquire their own means of compensation.

IMO all things should be equal between very small business & very large business. Why have their been larger tax credits for larger corporations than for smaller ones over the decades? Why do larger corporations get better rates in deals with insurance companies & pay no tax for than do smaller businesses? Why do I need a middleman when dealing with insurance companies at all? I call that unequal protection seeing that someone else can buy insurance for a different price than I can as a solo individual. It is completely arbitrary that this is the case.

Taking healthcare costs out the risk assessment of creating a business will be a huge advantage for any individual looking to cut out their middleman which would be the company that contracts out their labor. The fact that they will get a more accurate & direct compensation for their labor makes that 8% possible penalty of minor significance. Much like the fact that many people believe that a public option will slowly convert our system into single-payer I believe that any such penalty will be very short-lived.
 
  Reply With Quote
dito is offline dito Post #58  November 9,2009, 11:28am
dito's Avatar

Veteran

Joined: Dec 2008

Colorado

Posts: 1,308

See profile

bigfincat wrote :
Being a person that does not need anyone to provide a job for me I will not be thanking anyone for such an opportunity.
.
Then you definitely need to pay more taxes! How can you be so greedy?
 
  Reply With Quote
Jacquesne is offline Jacquesne Post #59  November 10,2009, 12:15pm
Jacquesne's Avatar

knows the answer...42

Veteran

Joined: May 2008

Reno, NV

Posts: 1,357

See profile

When did "reform" become synonymous with "make a new government bureaucracy?"

How many government agencies are self-sufficient? Can you name one? By that I mean if you removed all their tax money supporting them would they still be able to exist? I can't think of any.

The point is this...government agencies cost money. They don't make it. This isn't a bad thing if they're necessary, like the military or disaster relief.

The health care reform bill is trying to create an agency to give people an option to replace the current insurance system, correct? I thought we were trying to reform the system because it wastes money. Isn't one of the big arguments against our system is because other countries pay less for equivalent levels of health care? What problem are we trying to solve, exactly?

You reform things by implementing restrictions. We reformed monopolies by antitrust laws. Without getting into the mechanics of how the rise of monopolies is directly related to taking advantage of government policies rather than capitalism let's keep it simple by saying antitrust laws were designed to prevent monopolies.

What this bill is doing is different. Instead of preventing monopolies by making it illegal or difficult to form them (reform) the health care bill is like trying to solve the problem by implementing U.S. Oil so that consumers can choose a government monopoly instead of existing companies. At least the existing monopolies created a profit...a government one would be constantly in the negative based on the fact every other government agency is that way. Use tools for what they're designed to do. You don't use a hammer to carve wood.

So if we have a problem with insurance companies policies try passing a bill that makes those policies unlawful. Say we don't like that preexisting conditions are discriminated against. Simple. Make such discrimination illegal. Problem solved or extremely reduced.

We're trying to use advanced calculus to solve an addition problem. Why do we need a one thousand page bill, an entirely new insurance system, complex policies, and oversight committees to reform health care?

The question isn't a matter of being for or against health care reform. It's a question of how it's being implemented. When you put the health care bill through Occam's Razor does it shave down to being purely about fixing corruption?

What's really going on here? We can't possibly be saying we're going to spend more money in order to reduce health care costs. That's like saying if you don't buy something on sale you're losing money.

Oh, wait, people actually do say stuff like that. Perhaps I should stop wondering why we have a ten trillion dollar debt. But I'm still a bit confused as to when we say we desire "health care reform" this bill is what we come up with.

Something isn't right here and it's not just Republican vs. Democrat. If it were that simple the bill would have been passed already because Democrats have a majority in both the Senate and House along with control over the executive branch. If it were just that the Republicans were against some unanimously accepted Democrat bill it should already be going through, right? It's been giving Jon Stewart an ulcer for months.

It doesn't add up. There's some other angle on this debate and I want to know what it is. The conservatives say it's government control. The liberals say it's corporate control. I'm not so sure about either.

The only thing I am sure about is that you shouldn't implement a plan that doesn't make sense. So until the Democrats can start making sense I'm going to be against it. And I don't mean the "well, do you want poor people dying in the gutters?!" kind of sense, I mean actual arguments as to how this health care reform bill will cause health care reform. I wasn't impressed with Obama's speeches about how things needed to change without an explanation of how they were going to change and I'm not impressed by arguments about fixing problems without explaining how they're going to be fixed.

Until then I'll continue to keep a raised eyebrow.

Jacquesne
 
  Reply With Quote
dito is offline dito Post #60  November 12,2009, 5:31pm
dito's Avatar

Veteran

Joined: Dec 2008

Colorado

Posts: 1,308

See profile

Campaign For Liberty — NPR reporting a Free Market Solution for Health Care!?!
 
  Reply With Quote
Reply


« If Asked, Could You Clearly Explain Your Political Preference? | Politics | AAFES Concessions closing in Afghanistan »
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new topics
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Topics
Topic Topic Starter Board Replies Last Post
Question: Why is socialism bad? The1Tomcat Politics 401 October 4,2010 3:08pm
Dating Deal Breakers! fireheart35 A Man's Point of view 42 April 22,2010 5:51pm
Deal breakers or no? Shepherd3597 Relationships 9 September 23,2009 5:13pm
Vote On Healthcare DennisWisconsin Intelligent Conversation 2 August 24,2009 6:18am
Vote For Your Choice On Healthcare DennisWisconsin Chit Chat 0 August 19,2009 10:47pm

Looking for a Great Relationship?

Get started now. Fill out this form and take the questionnaire to receive your matches.

First Name:

I'm a:
seeking

Postal Code:

Country:

Email:

Confirm Email:

Password:


How did you hear about us?


Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“It's important to understand the way a site works. Rigidly assuming / insisting that eH works likes all the others you're used to isn't utilizing the site functions to your best advantage. No.... ... ” –  Wiseman2

Join the “First contact on eHarmony, smile, questions, email?” discussion

“ If you have yet to meet, you don't know him or whether you two will form a connection. Connections formed over e-mail tend to be fantasies. You will see this echoed over and over by experienced ... ” –  shapeShifter79

Join the “How do i recoonect with him again?” discussion

“ Then it's a bit premature to worry about being friend-zoned. The first step is to go out on dates! What specific steps did you try? How many women did you ask out in person? Did you buy a ... ” –  shapeShifter79

Join the “For women to answer: How to avoid the friend zone” discussion

“ This is an old thread. She asked this in 2010. By now they are likely very exclusive or very over. ” –  shapeShifter79

Join the “is there a reason to ask if we're exclusive?” discussion

“ I'm sure he wouldn't get that. And I can't be sure that was the actual message. But it sems kind of likely to me.” –  boomer_gal

Join the “Why am I not successful?” discussion

“Hi eccemuliere and welcome to eHA.On an internet forum like eHA, you're going to get a wide variety of responses; some you'll like and some you won't. It's best to focus on the ones that speak to ... ” –  Sassafras54

Join the “Being blown off, or something else?” discussion

“ Although I have ignored my gut at times, in hindsight it's always been right, in terms of recognizing bad choices. QUOTE] But once we realize our past mistakes, we can use our reason to clue us ... ” –  eccemuliere

Join the “Is Your Gut Leading - or Misleading You?” discussion



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:20pm.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0