Patriots In Exile Club

[Tim]

It's the pattern.

• Tax the piss out of tobacco so people can't afford to buy them, rather than prohibiting them outright.
• Destroy competition in the healthcare system, which makes any healthcare besides gov't healthcare so expensive only the richest can afford it.
• Make gov't programs so attractive that gov't dependence is easier than independence and self-determination.

It's no different than the contracts most companies have that require you to agree to arbitration rather than sue when they fuck up. You don't have to sign, but you can't get what you want unless you do.

Tax the piss out of tobacco? You mean the tax that pays for the health care for several million kids that didn't have it before? Yup, I pay it every time I buy a pack of smokes. And if it really bothered me, I'd quit smoking. That's the choice I have.
And the tobacco companies raised the price $.71 on March 9th in anticipation of the $.64 increase on April 1st. Yet I didn't hear anyone complain that they raised their price weeks before the new tax went into effect.

And as far as the health care system... Are you saying it was doing well before Obama came into office? Premiums have increased on average 7% each year since 1999. 17% of our nations GDP (2008) goes to health care, that's 4.3 times the amount we spend on national defense. And yet we have 46 million without coverage. So you were happy with the way the rates were? The system is totally fucked up and you know it. Something needed to be done to help drive the costs down and I think we are taking the right steps...

Hell, If I had my way, I would take ALL profit out of health care like it was back in the 60's. I think it's a fucking crime that people feel the need to make money off other peoples health.

 

[Accountable]

Glad we agree on the gov't dependence bit. :cool

 

[Tim]

So you are a firm believer in self reliance? If you can't provide for yourself then you shouldn't have? Or does this only apply to health care?

 

[Accountable]

Those who can, should. Those who can't, should be helped. Those who won't, don't deserve help.

Federal programs such as universal healthcare make people unnecessarily dependent on the government. That dependence skews priorities and discourages self-dependence ... discourages liberty. Such programs are thus un-American, arguably anti-American.

 

[Minor Axis]

That's nothing but uniformed idiots reacting to the emails they got from the NRA...

Nail hit on head.

 

[Minor Axis]

Those who can, should. Those who can't, should be helped. Those who won't, don't deserve help.

Federal programs such as universal healthcare make people unnecessarily dependent on the government. That dependence skews priorities and discourages self-dependence ... discourages liberty. Such programs are thus un-American, arguably anti-American.

Philosophically I disagree with your analysis (the second statement). Any advanced society should be able to provide health care to it's citizens. What do you think about those people who have health coverage through their job? Are they overly dependent on their employer and not self-dependent?

When you have corporations, someone like Walmart who think their huge profits are much more important than taking care of their employees, the world comes across as "we can't afford it". Then you have a government who historically has protected pharmaceutical companies and a medical system where one country alone pays the highest medical costs in the world with medical coverage ranking down around 20th, you have to ask why, don't you?

 

[Tim]

We pay 17% of our GDP in health care costs while countries like France, Great Britain and Canada which provide free health care to everyone pays much less in relation to their GDP. And our health care is ranked much lower with higher infant mortality rates than most other industrialized countries.

And I want to know why the pharmaceutical companies spend millions on commercials for their medications that I can't even buy? Why is every other commercial trying to sell me a medication that I cannot buy or even request? Doesn't that seem strange to anyone else?

 

[Alien Allen]

We pay 17% of our GDP in health care costs while countries like France, Great Britain and Canada which provide free health care to everyone pays much less in relation to their GDP. And our health care is ranked much lower with higher infant mortality rates than most other industrialized countries.

And I want to know why the pharmaceutical companies spend millions on commercials for their medications that I can't even buy? Why is every other commercial trying to sell me a medication that I cannot buy or even request? Doesn't that seem strange to anyone else?

They probably follow the lead of the post office. Why does the post office have any ads. They have a friggin monopoly.

 

[Accountable]

Philosophically I disagree with your analysis (the second statement). Any advanced society should be able to provide health care to it's citizens.

Why? Why should a society (read "government") take tax money from an unwilling citizen in order to provide to him something that that citizen can afford to provide for himself?

What do you think about those people who have health coverage through their job? Are they overly dependent on their employer and not self-dependent?

That is a benefit the employer provides to the employee, no different from vacation days - partial compensation for services rendered. The employer wants the employee to become dependent on it; it reduces turnover and saves tons of money in recruiting and training. However, the employee can refuse the benefit or find other employment. Finding different citizenship is slightly more involved.

When you have corporations, someone like Walmart who think their huge profits are much more important than taking care of their employees, the world comes across as "we can't afford it".

Corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to maximize profits. That has to be the #1 priority. Ford shareholders once sued Henry Ford for paying his employees too much (something like 5 bucks per day, I think). Corporate citizenship is one of many tools for increasing the bottom line, and is observed only as much as is necessary. Why do people insist on giving corporations human qualities?? Getting angry at Walmart for caring more about profits is as dumb as getting angry at the lion for killing and eating the gazelle.

Then you have a government who historically has protected pharmaceutical companies and a medical system where one country alone pays the highest medical costs in the world with medical coverage ranking down around 20th, you have to ask why, don't you?

I don't know what protection you're talking about but I don't doubt it exists. Most if not all of the other developed nations have price caps on how much pharma can charge for their drugs, so they make up their losses by charging us more. They do it because they can. They do it because we will pay it. We pay it because the insurance company is handling the money and we just don't give a shit. Wanna blame somebody? Blame insurance for helping us become financially irresponsible. Blame ourselves for stupidly thinking a corporation (insurance company) has our best interests in mind.

 

[Minor Axis]

The easy answer is that you are naive.

My standard is not huge profits at the cost of everything else. I don't begrudge corporations profits as that is what it takes to stay in business. But today, maximum profits is an unacceptable standard if you can't afford to protect the environment and fairly treat your employees. I'm sure we disagree on just what "fair" is.

A good example is shipping jobs overseas to countries who pay employees practically nothing and have no environmental standards in order to drop the price of the product a little bit and pocket most of the profit themselves. It's great for those in the management food chain who take care of themselves, but it's bad for everyone else- employees, the economy, and the country.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Nail hit on head.

What I am really curious about is who would you think has the most accurate information about what is happening with policy in Washington, lobbyists, or the media?

Because I can tell you frightening policies this administration is trying to put in effect in regards to my industry, and it's all fact, straight from the hill.

I think the NRA does a responsible job in using accurate figures to represent what is going on in the world of gun ownership.

However, they are now so readily identified with the hard line right, they don't have any credibility with anyone except the right.

Bottom line is this, we are heading for "trickle up" economics, and those of you who think that you can levy the wealthy and convince them to stay have never read history.

Study what happened in the UK when they began taxing the well to do there beyond 60%, the wealthy fled.

Wealthy shouldn't be a crime, and shouldn't be expected to cover the losses for a government offering up a 10 trillion dollar pork barrel budget.

 

[Minor Axis]

What I am really curious about is who would you think has the most accurate information about what is happening with policy in Washington, lobbyists, or the media?

Because I can tell you frightening policies this administration is trying to put in effect in regards to my industry, and it's all fact, straight from the hill.

I think the NRA does a responsible job in using accurate figures to represent what is going on in the world of gun ownership.

We all have the sources we trust plus our experience and prejudice to rely upon. Otherwise why on Earth would you push the BS about it being illegal to reload ammo? The NRA has an agenda- prevent any regulation of firearms. They lost my trust long ago and if it matters, I grew up with guns and hunting and currently own several...

 

[Accountable]

The easy answer is that you are naive.

Which part of my post are you referring to? It's been alot of years since someone accused me of being naive & I want to know where you see it.

My standard is not huge profits at the cost of everything else. I don't begrudge corporations profits as that is what it takes to stay in business. But today, maximum profits is an unacceptable standard if you can't afford to protect the environment and fairly treat your employees. I'm sure we disagree on just what "fair" is.

I don't get where "fair" came into the conversation, but I imagine you & I would be closer to agreeing on the word than would Walmart.
The things you mention here are part of corporate citizenship I mentioned earlier.

But you didn't address the most important part of my post:
"Why? Why should a society (read "government") take tax money from an unwilling citizen in order to provide to him something that that citizen can afford to provide for himself?"

 

[Minor Axis]

But you didn't address the most important part of my post:
"Why? Why should a society (read "government") take tax money from an unwilling citizen in order to provide to him something that that citizen can afford to provide for himself?"

I believe that most in our society could not afford to pay for their medical bills without some kind of insurance. And a very large percentage don't have affordable medical insurance although they have full time jobs. Is that because corporations can't afford to pay for the insurance and still make a profit, or because they insist on a level of profits that don't allow for subsidizing their employees medical coverage? As previously stated, we as a country are unique in paying top dollar for for medical but we are no where near the top in results. Why is that? I don't know but answers to those questions must it be part of the equation.

In the mean time, is it reasonable to say an economic system should be designed to cover full time workers for medical? Or should it be "tough shit" situation for those full time workers at the bottom economic spectrum? There is a parallel with environmental law- is it worth paying for or isn't it? Is it acceptable to send jobs/manufacturing to countries with no environmental/labor laws so corporations can maximize their profits? Philosophically I'd say no.

 

[Alien Allen]

Minor I got a question for you

I own a small business. used to employ 20 people in our hey day but am at bare bones now with 6 including myself.

Our family has provided health care to all employees for many years. For the last 7 years I have worked for a paycheck only. At the end of the year either it is a loss or if money is made it is not there to distribute the earnings. Should I be able to discontinue health care so I can make a profit?? I would like your blessing so I could afford to pay for my childrens college out of pocket.

For those who never ran or owned a business they will find it odd one can lose money or when making money have it only be on paper. Trust me that is the case.

 

[Tim]

Minor I got a question for you

I own a small business. used to employ 20 people in our hey day but am at bare bones now with 6 including myself.

Our family has provided health care to all employees for many years. For the last 7 years I have worked for a paycheck only. At the end of the year either it is a loss or if money is made it is not there to distribute the earnings. Should I be able to discontinue health care so I can make a profit?? I would like your blessing so I could afford to pay for my childrens college out of pocket.

For those who never ran or owned a business they will find it odd one can lose money or when making money have it only be on paper. Trust me that is the case.

And this is a perfect example why health care should be taken off the backs of employers and taken care of though the federal government. If your company was a global one, every other company you would be competing with would not have health care as an overhead. So they would be able to undercut your price or they would be making more money than you.
We need to adopt a health care system similar to France's, we would pay less and have better health care and it would be off the backs of business.

 

[Minor Axis]

Minor I got a question for you

I own a small business. used to employ 20 people in our hey day but am at bare bones now with 6 including myself.

Our family has provided health care to all employees for many years. For the last 7 years I have worked for a paycheck only. At the end of the year either it is a loss or if money is made it is not there to distribute the earnings. Should I be able to discontinue health care so I can make a profit?? I would like your blessing so I could afford to pay for my childrens college out of pocket.

For those who never ran or owned a business they will find it odd one can lose money or when making money have it only be on paper. Trust me that is the case.

My critiques concern larger corporations so I'm not picking on you. Offering health care is very commendable for a small business. You offer insurance to your employees yet Walmart (I've not checked in the last year), the richest corporation in the country, can't afford to cover all of their employees? And I've always known that small business, especially retail is a real challenge. Just look at all the closed store fronts these days.

I know some friends kids who both work, who would have health insurance but can't afford to pay the $500 per month fee to have it and still have money left over to pay the rent and eat. So basically they don't have it. As Tims said, wouldn't universal healthcare be a good thing from a business sense?

If you feel like revealing, what kind of business do you run?

 

[Alien Allen]

I have reached the point I might accept a single payer type of system. Part of that is selfish. In 10 years or less I would be retired and it scares the crap out of me what health costs will be.

But the problem is we already are saddled with inefficient and bankrupt SS and medicare programs. If we can not make them work financially then how can we do that with national health care.

I do not buy the argument that national health care would be lest costly as a nation. It just does not pass the smell test.

I think before long you guys will get your wish. I sure hope it allows for private insurance to be kept and that the govt does not force them out of business. And do not live under the illusion that it will be the end of all the evil doings the insurance industry is blamed for. The govt will do the same stuff. They will have to if they will make any inroads to control skyrocketing costs.

As to my job Minor I am not ready to let that cat out of the bag. I have a high position on a state trade association and I do not want my hi jinx on the internet to become an issue with the regulators I deal with. Let me just state that I have dealt with state and level officials. I know how they go about their work. So when I belly ache about something dealing with my profession I am not just spitting out bull shit.

 

[Alien Allen]

Another thing is that IMO a lot of the problems with health care costs are the fact we had a change from catastrophic insurance coverage to full coverage with little co pays. In addition the benefit was never taxed so people did not give a shit how much the employer made.

This resulted in people going to the doctor for every damn sneeze and burp along with doctors giving out meds for things that were not necessary.

I think we need to go back to catastrophic care with the caveat that people should get a free physical every year as part of that coverage. There has been somewhat of a move towards that with health savings type plans

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

The entire european union is in trouble with the nationalized healthcare program, Great Britain claimed its system was damn near bankrupt.

I think if anything they have proven it doesn't work WELL, it might work, just not well. Why does everything have to be an opportunity for more government?