|
“Pardon my nosiness ”
Since: May 07
London, England
|
Please wait...
The Red Raider wrote: And to think the sheep of America put up with this. It's pathetic. The Sheep Herders of America are graduates of the GOP and the sheep are mostly Rush Limpball and his listeners The opening of the Constitution reads, "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union," but when seen through the lens of your average conservative it reads, "I the individual, in order to form a more perfect Me." This interpretation has been advanced by the corporate sector. It is this rugged individualism and callousness toward our fellow citizens that conservative ideology espouses. It's interesting to note that "libertarians" spend roughly 90% of their time championing the same causes as right-wing conservatives, this is why I said in a previous post that America's "libertarians" are of the Conservative variety. If we want true healthcare change in this country then we need to change our social ethic, at the moment our ethic is, "It's every man for himself. And to hell with you. Me. Me, me, me, me. My, my, I, I, I. I. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps." Until we see true change then I see no hope for this country.
|
|
Concerned Resident
Columbus, OH
|
In the worst recession since the Great Depression their profits are up 56%. This is the system that Republicans are defending so vehemently? Know that a good portion of that 56% increase in profits is going into the re-election coffers of these low lifes.
|
|
YouHelpFixIt
Scottsdale, AZ
|
Concerned Resident wrote: In the worst recession since the Great Depression their profits are up 56%. This is the system that Republicans are defending so vehemently? Know that a good portion of that 56% increase in profits is going into the re-election coffers of these low lifes. Did you happen to actualy read the article, or just react to the headline? Did you know that Ford made more profits this year? So did Pepsi, Apple, and many other companies. Do you hate them too? Would you be happier if they did not make a profit and then had to cut even more jobs and find other ways to reduce costs? Guess what, they are constanly trying to reduce costs! Aetna, Cigna, United, WellPoint and many BCBS plans have been laying off folks throuout 2009 and probably will continue into 2010. Wellpoint profits were mostly from selling a portion of the company. Perhaps you would prefer that they make less profits, insure more people, employ more people, ingore exploding costs, and consolidate into just a few competing companies just like GM and Chrysler did for years. That worked out well didn't it? And if you think only Republicans get money from the healthcare lobbyist then you are just as partisan as you are naive. http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/64655-... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/25/do... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/...
|
|
CollegeProf
Dayton, OH
|
NoBama Health Care wrote: <quoted text>
Look to Canada and YOU will get a f***ing clue. The findings of a Gallop Poll on the matter: "One-fourth of American respondents are either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with "the availability of affordable healthcare in the nation," (6% very satisfied and 19% somewhat satisfied). This level of satisfaction is significantly lower than in Canada, where 57% are satisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, including 16% who are very satisfied. Roughly 4 in 10 Britons are satisfied (43%), but only 7% say they are very satisfied (similar to the percentage very satisfied in the United States). Looking at the other side of the coin, 44% of Americans are very dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, and nearly three-fourths (72%) are either somewhat or very dissatisfied. The 44% in the United States who are very dissatisfied with healthcare availability is significantly higher than corresponding figures in either Canada (17%) or Great Britain (25%)." http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/healthcare-sy... Arguments that Canadians and Great Britons are less satisfied with their health care systems than Americans are quite simply inaccurate and have been for years. That they are repeated by pundits working on behalf of industries and individuals who profit from the lie and work on many people is proof positive of the tyranny and the tragedy that is ignorance in this country.
|
|
CollegeProf
Dayton, OH
|
YouHelpFixIt wrote: <quoted text> Did you happen to actualy read the article, or just react to the headline? Did you know that Ford made more profits this year? So did Pepsi, Apple, and many other companies. Do you hate them too? Would you be happier if they did not make a profit and then had to cut even more jobs and find other ways to reduce costs? Guess what, they are constanly trying to reduce costs! Aetna, Cigna, United, WellPoint and many BCBS plans have been laying off folks throuout 2009 and probably will continue into 2010. Wellpoint profits were mostly from selling a portion of the company. Perhaps you would prefer that they make less profits, insure more people, employ more people, ingore exploding costs, and consolidate into just a few competing companies just like GM and Chrysler did for years. That worked out well didn't it? And if you think only Republicans get money from the healthcare lobbyist then you are just as partisan as you are naive. http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/64655-... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/25/do... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/... Ford, Pepsi, and Apple are not industries offering products and services that most Americans need, but only want. Affordable healthcare and health insurance are by contrast a necessity for most Americans, as health is fundamental to a life. Your second point offers a false dilemma. What many, if not most, Americans would like is affordable health care, in a system not maximized toward profit but toward care.
|
|
YouHelpFixIt
Scottsdale, AZ
|
CollegeProf wrote: <quoted text>Ford, Pepsi, and Apple are not industries offering products and services that most Americans need, but only want. Affordable healthcare and health insurance are by contrast a necessity for most Americans, as health is fundamental to a life.
Your second point offers a false dilemma. What many, if not most, Americans would like is affordable health care, in a system not maximized toward profit but toward care. So your argument is that because everyone needs heathcare, companies should not be profitable? That is rediculous and you know it. Perhaps you think we should also nationalize or legally limit the profit of the housing industry, agriculture, the textile industry, grocery stores, clothing stores, education, utilities... We need all of those things also. If companies do not make a profit then they die or get propped up with public money just like GM and Chrysler. When that happens you don't get any better product or service but you end up paying much more. The simple fact is that if a private insurance company could opperate more efficiently, they would (or try to), because they would make more profits. If they could offer better rates than thier competators to get more consumers and make more profits, they would. What they cannot do is spend themselves into oblivion because they think good intentions overides economics. Only government can do that.
|
|
americans
Columbus, OH
|
want healtcare reform - now.
|
|
CollegeProf
Richmond, IN
|
YouHelpFixIt wrote: <quoted text>
So your argument is that because everyone needs heathcare, companies should not be profitable? My response is directly to your comparing what the insurance companies do to Ford, Pepsi, and Apple, not to the issue of profitability, which is a straw man. Any consideration of their role in society -- and whether government should regulate -- cannot be based solely on the privilege of profitability. But let's take that straw man and apply it to other "necessities" in our society that you suggest. Should grocery stores monopolize and charge $25 for a loaf of bread because there are people in our society who can afford to pay that? How about $50? Even if they only sell a few loaves of bread, they'll certainly make a higher return given the markup. We could then pay significantly higher salaries and bonuses to the managers and owners of the stores, too, creating an incentive for people to move beyond simply being a cashier or stock clerk even though there will always be significantly more openings for those jobs than executives. The people dying of starvation certainly don't have to live here, or they can turn to government assistance. Meanwhile, we'll demand lower taxes so that there is less money to provide that assistance, or we can give some free loaves of bread away and increase the charges to $100 for those who can pay. They sky's the limit so long as we are making maximum profit. This is a much better system than charging a lower cost for the bread so more people can afford it, increasing the number of customers, decreasing the pressure on government to support the poor, and keeping our executive pay in check so that more of the money is put back into the company rather than into their bank accounts. And we wouldn't have to weather the criticism of wealth redistribution because we would be making sure that the privileged fraction of our company is rewarded the most rather than the customer is best taken care of -- after all, we are not in business for the customer but for the executives and our share holders. While we're at it, we can apply a different, profit-driven model to basic commodities like gasoline. When you go to the pump, there will be an auction. Those bidding the highest will be able to purchase, while those who cannot will need to go elsewhere, start their own gas station, or look for a private charity that will provide donated gasoline for nothing. We could privatize the police department and only respond to citizens who can afford to pay for services. If profitability is our only concern, there are many models to choose from that would certainly make these industries more profitable and those that have the privilege of working for them or investing in them much wealthier. Any effect on society as a whole is not our concern because, after all, we're only about making a profit. Your assertion that if the insurance companies could be more efficient they would to increase their profitability or be more competitive is exactly the reason they should be reformed or regulated further. Obviously, as their profits go up but correspondingly fewer people can afford their services or are increasingly turned away by them, they are demonstrating at best grotesque inefficiency and at worst simple greed that is impacting the quality of life in this country. That makes it a national and not simply a marketplace concern. A company should be allowed to make a profit but when its mission to do so undermines the quality of life for the citizenry then it should not have a reasonable expectation to continue profiteering unimpeded.
|
|
|
|
roger_s
Hilliard, OH
|
Judged:
1
legalized mafia? YES. in ten years of retirement monthly premiums have gone from $324 to $1285 (who knows what it will be this april). each year with premium increase the coverage is decreased (how can this be). government needs to keep out of health care, but control the insurance companies so we the people can afford it. out landish bonus for corporate officers must go.
|
|
“Pardon my nosiness ”
Since: May 07
London, England
|
Please wait...
CollegeProf wrote: <quoted text>My response is directly to your comparing what the insurance companies do to Ford, Pepsi, and Apple, not to the issue of profitability, which is a straw man. Any consideration of their role in society -- and whether government should regulate -- cannot be based solely on the privilege of profitability.
But let's take that straw man and apply it to other "necessities" in our society that you suggest. Should grocery stores monopolize and charge $25 for a loaf of bread because there are people in our society who can afford to pay that? How about $50? Even if they only sell a few loaves of bread, they'll certainly make a higher return given the markup. We could then pay significantly higher salaries and bonuses to the managers and owners of the stores, too, creating an incentive for people to move beyond simply being a cashier or stock clerk even though there will always be significantly more openings for those jobs than executives. The people dying of starvation certainly don't have to live here, or they can turn to government assistance.
Meanwhile, we'll demand lower taxes so that there is less money to provide that assistance, or we can give some free loaves of bread away and increase the charges to $100 for those who can pay. They sky's the limit so long as we are making maximum profit. This is a much better system than charging a lower cost for the bread so more people can afford it, increasing the number of customers, decreasing the pressure on government to support the poor, and keeping our executive pay in check so that more of the money is put back into the company rather than into their bank accounts. And we wouldn't have to weather the criticism of wealth redistribution because we would be making sure that the privileged fraction of our company is rewarded the most rather than the customer is best taken care of -- after all, we are not in business for the customer but for the executives and our share holders.
While we're at it, we can apply a different, profit-driven model to basic commodities like gasoline. When you go to the pump, there will be an auction. Those bidding the highest will be able to purchase, while those who cannot will need to go elsewhere, start their own gas station, or look for a private charity that will provide donated gasoline for nothing. We could privatize the police department and only respond to citizens who can afford to pay for services. If profitability is our only concern, there are many models to choose from that would certainly make these industries more profitable and those that have the privilege of working for them or investing in them much wealthier. Any effect on society as a whole is not our concern because, after all, we're only about making a profit.
Your assertion that if the insurance companies could be more efficient they would to increase their profitability or be more competitive is exactly the reason they should be reformed or regulated further. Obviously, as their profits go up but correspondingly fewer people can afford their services or are increasingly turned away by them, they are demonstrating at best grotesque inefficiency and at worst simple greed that is impacting the quality of life in this country. That makes it a national and not simply a marketplace concern. A company should be allowed to make a profit but when its mission to do so undermines the quality of life for the citizenry then it should not have a reasonable expectation to continue profiteering unimpeded. I agree wholeheartedly with your hypothesis, and would go further and say that we should not be made into commodities where our health is traded on Wall Street at the whim of investors, there is a reason that we are #37 in the developed world according to the WHO, and this is a big part of it.
|
|
HowRad
Hamilton, OH
|
Judged:
1
1
reza june wrote: <quoted text>
Because it's so watered down that it's rendered meaningless. I disagree, the bill isn't watered down. You look at it from a healthcare point and say it is watered down because it doesn't do enough. I think the bill is about control and they had to let some of the healthcare provisions go to protect their control provisions.
|
|
Harry Balczak
Olathe, KS
|
Judged:
2
1
What value do these companies add? The answer is NONE. We need single payer health coverage.
|
|
Steverino
Columbus, OH
|
Wall Street has its problems. I worked for a privately held company that was kicking butt in its market. We had flexibility. I was able to use my judgment and land accounts at a lower margin than the company normally looked for if I felt like I could get a high volume of business.
That all changed when we went public. Then it was all about impressive the shareholders. I ended up losing an account that wasn't turning a high enough profit. We were making money, I had to balance my P&L's every week and even though the client fell below our target margin, the volume of business we were doing offset it. When I lost that account my office went from turning a net profit of 8.8% to turning a net profit of 17.3%. Unfortunately my sales dropped by 37%.
Eventually the company had to close offices and lay people off. When we went public the stock was worth $18 per share and it climbed to $25 at one point, but once the home office started using the share price as a tool to manage the business sales fell and the stock bottomed out around $7 a share. That was before 2000!
I
|
|
Drink The Hive
Orlando, FL
|
Health-Care & Education Are A National Security Issue 4 Any Civilized Nation.
|
|
YouHelpFixIt
Scottsdale, AZ
|
CollegeProf wrote: <quoted text>My response is directly to your comparing what the insurance companies do to Ford, Pepsi, and Apple,... Your long-winded analogy assumes that there is no competition, which is why it is utterly useless, but let’s go with it just for fun: Say you are the only grocery story in 100 miles you can charge whatever you want for a loaf of bread and you want to maximize your profits. If you do $100 a loaf, a few people may buy from you but others will simple make their own bread, have bread brought in, find an alternative, or move to somewhere where the cost of bread is lower. There would also be a great incentive for someone else to open another store and undercut your price, so you can't set the prices to high or you will have no profits at all. In your centrally planned and overly regulated world the government would set the price of bread for you, at the minimum possible so that the most people could afford it and so that the store could just barely stay in business. Anything more would be excess profits and any less and no bread would be sold at all. No new stores will open because they cannot make enough profit to regain the initial investment. And from there on out bread will be made the same way, sold at the same price and at the same stores forever because there is no incentive to change. Even if they find a more efficient way to make or distribute it, why bother because the price controls will be adjusted to minimize profits. Thanks, but no thanks. If you are thinking that the same principles do not apply to health insurance or health care because they are more important, you are simply wrong. The same principles apply, no matter the product or service. If prices are too high, people will find alternatives (co-ops), bring in replacements (mail order drugs and foreign workers), and travel to get can get healthcare cheaper. Most of all, other companies will seek profits in that market. P.S. If you really are a professor, it's definitely not in economics.
|
|
YouHelpFixIt
Scottsdale, AZ
|
Harry Balczak wrote: What value do these companies add? The answer is NONE. We need single payer health coverage. So you think a monopoly run by the right people is more efficient? History tells us that that is not true for very long.
|
|
A Nnoyed
Norwalk, CT
|
CollegeProf wrote: <quoted text> The findings of a Gallop Poll on the matter: "One-fourth of American respondents are either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with "the availability of affordable healthcare in the nation," (6% very satisfied and 19% somewhat satisfied). This level of satisfaction is significantly lower than in Canada, where 57% are satisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, including 16% who are very satisfied. Roughly 4 in 10 Britons are satisfied (43%), but only 7% say they are very satisfied (similar to the percentage very satisfied in the United States). Looking at the other side of the coin, 44% of Americans are very dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, and nearly three-fourths (72%) are either somewhat or very dissatisfied. The 44% in the United States who are very dissatisfied with healthcare availability is significantly higher than corresponding figures in either Canada (17%) or Great Britain (25%)." http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/healthcare-sy... Arguments that Canadians and Great Britons are less satisfied with their health care systems than Americans are quite simply inaccurate and have been for years. That they are repeated by pundits working on behalf of industries and individuals who profit from the lie and work on many people is proof positive of the tyranny and the tragedy that is ignorance in this country. It's all about expectation. From birth neither Canadians nor Brits expect much of anything from their systems. Americans expect the best care, the biggest slice of the pie and to be served immediately for everything. I lived in the UK for ages. I'm married to a Brit. Tons of our friends are expats living in and around NYC. And I'll tell you what. Not one single one of them or me thinks the NHS (british system) is anything other than crap. To say that it's even in the same class as the vastly superior care in the US is a joke. Go ask a British expat which is better, US or UK medicine and they'll laugh themselves silly. When they all go home they drop the NHS like a stone and seek out private insurance. Because government run care is just crap but they didn't realise it until they experience truly world class health care in the States. You're welcome, I'm glad I could clear this up for everyone.
|
|
CollegeProf
Richmond, IN
|
YouHelpFixIt wrote: <quoted text>
Your long-winded analogy assumes that there is no competition, which is why it is utterly useless ...
P.S. If you really are a professor, it's definitely not in economics. My response had to be "long winded" because your replies are either inaccurate to what I write or laced with logical fallacies. The one you just used is called ad hominem, or personal attack, a favorite of national pundits because it tries to refute ideas not through reason but through belittling of speakers. My analogies are actually quite accurate to the current situation. There are no insurance companies undercutting the costs in the way you describe with the bread example, nor are there the alternatives you describe, aside from having no insurance at all or turning to public assistance in some form, concepts I noted in my original example. A significant alternative for thousands each year is to go without and die. Once again, you create a false dilemma, a logical fallacy, by assuming that the only alternatives are no regulation at all or regulation to the point of un-profitability. There are innumerable alternatives in between. Lets use the bread model again. One of the reasons that loaf of bread is affordable in the first place is because the federal government has controls over the production of agriculture to keep the price of wheat and other basic ingredients affordable. Without it, you might indeed be paying $25 a loaf. With your reasoning, however, the industry should be out of business, even though we have ample evidence it thrives, if in no more obvious a way than the success of multinational corporations like ADM and Nabisco. But it doesn't even have to be an issue of government intervention. The only reason for that to happen is when the unfettered greed of those providing the services is out of proportion with the public good that is the result of their commerce in the United States' marketplace ... as I posted earlier, when it undermines the welfare of the citizenry, it becomes an issue of public interest. By being less greedy and putting the customers ahead of self-interest in a field that is at heart dependent on the very health of the customer for its existence, these organizations could reduce costs and provide better and more affordable services and avoid any further government intervention. But given the nature of the economic philosophies involved, I am doubtful that will be possible. Of course, sometimes the specter of government intervention is all that is needed ... how remarkable that when the issues of health care reform looked like changes might be a reality, so many pharmaceuticals and retailers suddenly were able to offer $4 prescriptions after years and years of vitriolic argument that there would be no profit if they lowered the costs of generic drugs and medications.
|
|
CollegeProf
Richmond, IN
|
A Nnoyed wrote: <quoted text>
It's all about expectation.
From birth neither Canadians nor Brits expect much of anything from their systems.
Americans expect the best care, the biggest slice of the pie and to be served immediately for everything.
I lived in the UK for ages. I'm married to a Brit. Tons of our friends are expats living in and around NYC.
And I'll tell you what. Not one single one of them or me thinks the NHS (british system) is anything other than crap. To say that it's even in the same class as the vastly superior care in the US is a joke.
Go ask a British expat which is better, US or UK medicine and they'll laugh themselves silly. When they all go home they drop the NHS like a stone and seek out private insurance. Because government run care is just crap but they didn't realise it until they experience truly world class health care in the States.
You're welcome, I'm glad I could clear this up for everyone. And yet I have peers and colleagues from the UK and Canada say exactly the opposite, as well as peers and colleagues who have virtually been bankrupted in the U.S. by a major health concern. I'm sure we can find individuals who like or dislike the system to cite until the end of time. Doing so doesn't change the poll results. It would also be just as easy to speculate that the poll results are reflective of people's true feelings and not of their ignorance of one system or the other; that is, that it's about results and not about expectation.
|
|
big bad union teacher
Columbus, OH
|
CollegeProf wrote: <quoted text>My response is directly to your comparing what the insurance companies do to Ford, Pepsi, and Apple, not to the issue of profitability, which is a straw man. Any consideration of their role in society -- and whether government should regulate -- cannot be based solely on the privilege of profitability.
But let's take that straw man and apply it to other "necessities" in our society that you suggest. Should grocery stores monopolize and charge $25 for a loaf of bread because there are people in our society who can afford to pay that? How about $50? Even if they only sell a few loaves of bread, they'll certainly make a higher return given the markup. We could then pay significantly higher salaries and bonuses to the managers and owners of the stores, too, creating an incentive for people to move beyond simply being a cashier or stock clerk even though there will always be significantly more openings for those jobs than executives. The people dying of starvation certainly don't have to live here, or they can turn to government assistance.
Meanwhile, we'll demand lower taxes so that there is less money to provide that assistance, or we can give some free loaves of bread away and increase the charges to $100 for those who can pay. They sky's the limit so long as we are making maximum profit. This is a much better system than charging a lower cost for the bread so more people can afford it, increasing the number of customers, decreasing the pressure on government to support the poor, and keeping our executive pay in check so that more of the money is put back into the company rather than into their bank accounts. And we wouldn't have to weather the criticism of wealth redistribution because we would be making sure that the privileged fraction of our company is rewarded the most rather than the customer is best taken care of -- after all, we are not in business for the customer but for the executives and our share holders.
While we're at it, we can apply a different, profit-driven model to basic commodities like gasoline. When you go to the pump, there will be an auction. Those bidding the highest will be able to purchase, while those who cannot will need to go elsewhere, start their own gas station, or look for a private charity that will provide donated gasoline for nothing. We could privatize the police department and only respond to citizens who can afford to pay for services. If profitability is our only concern, there are many models to choose from that would certainly make these industries more profitable and those that have the privilege of working for them or investing in them much wealthier. Any effect on society as a whole is not our concern because, after all, we're only about making a profit.
Your assertion that if the insurance companies could be more efficient they would to increase their profitability or be more competitive is exactly the reason they should be reformed or regulated further. Obviously, as their profits go up but correspondingly fewer people can afford their services or are increasingly turned away by them, they are demonstrating at best grotesque inefficiency and at worst simple greed that is impacting the quality of life in this country. That makes it a national and not simply a marketplace concern. A company should be allowed to make a profit but when its mission to do so undermines the quality of life for the citizenry then it should not have a reasonable expectation to continue profiteering unimpeded. Well said professor you make an a** out of these Healthcare deniers (probably the same people who deny global warming)
|
|
Tell me when this thread is updated:
(Registration is not required)
Add to my Tracker
Send me an email
|
Leo
