Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 27, 2012, 09:51 AM   #76
classicaliberal
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by leekohler View Post
Of course. When you know you have no argument, try to insult your opponent's intelligence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
Do you realize how much we have companies paying today?

Papa John's showed how big of an issue purchasing healthcare is for small businesses and business franchises. Where as Papa John's can usually employ younger persons on their parent's health care plan, other small businesses, such as one that makes match grade ammunition, probably don't have this luxury. Is it fair to make companies have to bear this burden? How is this not hurting competitiveness in a global economy?
  • Today, companies don't HAVE to pay anything. They choose to offer insurance because their employees value it more than they value comparable cash-only compensation. Basically, companies find by providing insurance instead of monetary compensation, they can provide more perceived value to their employees for less expense... and so many CHOOSE to offer it.
  • After Obamacare is fully enacted, companies will (for the first time) be required (mandated by law) to pay for healthcare.
  • Your ridiculous assertion is that somehow the cost of healthcare will disappear for businesses after the enactment of Obamacare, as if the net result of Obamacare is FREE care for everyone.
  • Do you actually know how Obamacare is funded? You must not.
classicaliberal is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 10:09 AM   #77
leekohler
Banned
 
leekohler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
  • Today, companies don't HAVE to pay anything. They choose to offer insurance because their employees value it more than they value comparable cash-only compensation. Basically, companies find by providing insurance instead of monetary compensation, they can provide more perceived value to their employees for less expense... and so many CHOOSE to offer it.
  • After Obamacare is fully enacted, companies will (for the first time) be required (mandated by law) to pay for healthcare.
  • Your ridiculous assertion is that somehow the cost of healthcare will disappear for businesses after the enactment of Obamacare, as if the net result of Obamacare is FREE care for everyone.
  • Do you actually know how Obamacare is funded? You must not.
Wow- talk about opening mouth and inserting foot.

We weren't talking about (Obama)Romneycare, we were talking about single payer UHC. Please read before you post.

Plus, most educated people will not work for companies that do not give them health benefits, so yeah- they have to offer it. Do you do stand up? Are you here all week?
leekohler is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 10:23 AM   #78
classicaliberal
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by leekohler View Post
Wow- talk about opening mouth and inserting foot.

We weren't talking about (Obama)Romneycare, we were talking about single payer UHC. Please read before you post.
Right... because UHC would be free for corporations, right? It's free! It floats from heaven down to the people and to the companies so we no longer need to be burdened by healthcare costs! What a magical system - I can't believe it wasn't implemented sooner! Oh jeez... so, let me get this straight... you HONESTLY think that UHC provides free healthcare to people? Freeing corporations from healthcare cost?

Let me ask you then... who pays the doctors saving lives? Who pays the companies creating life-saving drugs? Who pays the hospitals? Who pays for the MRI machines and stethoscopes? Who pays for the real-estate and the infrastructure treatment requires?

Spoiler alert - individuals and companies will still be paying the bills. Only in UHC it will be filtered through government (via taxation) first.


Quote:
Originally Posted by leekohler View Post
Plus, most educated people will not work for companies that do not give them health benefits, so yeah- they have to offer it. Do you do stand up? Are you here all week?
This is basic math. I'm sorry you don't understand it.

Companies pay employees compensation. This compensation is based on supply/demand economics of the workplace.

(warning, imaginary and simplified numbers ahead, try to stay focused on the issue at hand) Imagine Sally is making $50,000/year + Healthcare Insurance at her salaried job. If Sally had to pay for her own insurance, it would cost her $10,000/year. So, since her employer is paying the insurance for her, her 'total compensation' is ~$60,000.

Now, if instead her employer decided not to pay for her insurance, and instead pay her $65,000 salary... wouldn't this be a better deal for Sally? Sure it would! She'd pay her own insurance, and pocket the extra $5,000/year! So, if a 'smart person' tells you they wouldn't work for a company if they don't offer health insurance... I'd argue they probably aren't as smart as you think they are.

The only reason this is happening less and less is that companies get a deal when they buy insurance in bulk, and so it might only cost a company $6,000 to buy a $10,000 policy. So, as a result it's cheaper for that company to buy Sally $10,000 worth of insurance for $6,000, than to pay her an extra $10,000 to buy it on her own.
classicaliberal is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 10:41 AM   #79
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
(warning, imaginary and simplified numbers ahead, try to stay focused on the issue at hand) Imagine Sally is making $50,000/year + Healthcare Insurance at her salaried job. If Sally had to pay for her own insurance, it would cost her $10,000/year. So, since her employer is paying the insurance for her, her 'total compensation' is ~$60,000.
Right but with UHC it would only cost (say) an extra $2,000 a year, so that of her total compensation her take home pay would be $58,000 rather than $50,000. So she'd do much better.

And under UHC it really would cost only a little more, as the US currently spends a lot of government money on healthcare already.
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 10:50 AM   #80
leekohler
Banned
 
leekohler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
Right... because UHC would be free for corporations, right? It's free! It floats from heaven down to the people and to the companies so we no longer need to be burdened by healthcare costs! What a magical system - I can't believe it wasn't implemented sooner! Oh jeez... so, let me get this straight... you HONESTLY think that UHC provides free healthcare to people? Freeing corporations from healthcare cost?

Let me ask you then... who pays the doctors saving lives? Who pays the companies creating life-saving drugs? Who pays the hospitals? Who pays for the MRI machines and stethoscopes? Who pays for the real-estate and the infrastructure treatment requires?

Spoiler alert - individuals and companies will still be paying the bills. Only in UHC it will be filtered through government (via taxation) first.


This is basic math. I'm sorry you don't understand it.
Oh, I understand it just fine. I'm sorry you don't. Look at the math form countries with UHC, they pay a hell of a lot less. Why? No middleman. No insurance company doing nothing more than pushing paper and wasting money. And at the end of the day, denying payment to those customers needing it most- denying them the product they paid for. It does NOT work- at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
Companies pay employees compensation. This compensation is based on supply/demand economics of the workplace.

(warning, imaginary and simplified numbers ahead, try to stay focused on the issue at hand) Imagine Sally is making $50,000/year + Healthcare Insurance at her salaried job. If Sally had to pay for her own insurance, it would cost her $10,000/year. So, since her employer is paying the insurance for her, her 'total compensation' is ~$60,000.

Now, if instead her employer decided not to pay for her insurance, and instead pay her $65,000 salary... wouldn't this be a better deal for Sally? Sure it would! She'd pay her own insurance, and pocket the extra $5,000/year! So, if a 'smart person' tells you they wouldn't work for a company if they don't offer health insurance... I'd argue they probably aren't as smart as you think they are.

The only reason this is happening less and less is that companies get a deal when they buy insurance in bulk, and so it might only cost a company $6,000 to buy a $10,000 policy. So, as a result it's cheaper for that company to buy Sally $10,000 worth of insurance for $6,000, than to pay her an extra $10,000 to buy it on her own.
Yep- and guess what I get when I freelance? A lot more money than when I'm salaried. Wonder why? You're also making a big assumption about the employer paying Sally $5,000 more a year over the insurance cost.
leekohler is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 11:11 AM   #81
Scrub175
macrumors Demi-God
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Jensen Beach FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
  • Today, companies don't HAVE to pay anything. They choose to offer insurance because their employees value it more than they value comparable cash-only compensation. Basically, companies find by providing insurance instead of monetary compensation, they can provide more perceived value to their employees for less expense... and so many CHOOSE to offer it.
  • After Obamacare is fully enacted, companies will (for the first time) be required (mandated by law) to pay for healthcare.
  • Your ridiculous assertion is that somehow the cost of healthcare will disappear for businesses after the enactment of Obamacare, as if the net result of Obamacare is FREE care for everyone.
  • Do you actually know how Obamacare is funded? You must not.
Sorry to go off topic from the gold question... I wanted to throw out some actual numbers when it comes to health insurance and company costs... I pay $166 a pay period. The company pays $277 a pay period. The opt out of all benefits cash back to me is $35. Not even a dent in the $277 they save by not contributing to my insurance costs, nor could I ever save that cash back to cover even minor routine visits for my children. So the company complains about the cost incurred for offering me a benefit to attract and keep me with the company but offers very little in the opt out plan.

Great discussion and tangent discussions as well.
Scrub175 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 11:26 AM   #82
Scrub175
macrumors Demi-God
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Jensen Beach FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
Right... because UHC would be free for corporations, right? It's free! It floats from heaven down to the people and to the companies so we no longer need to be burdened by healthcare costs! What a magical system - I can't believe it wasn't implemented sooner! Oh jeez... so, let me get this straight... you HONESTLY think that UHC provides free healthcare to people? Freeing corporations from healthcare cost?

Let me ask you then... who pays the doctors saving lives? Who pays the companies creating life-saving drugs? Who pays the hospitals? Who pays for the MRI machines and stethoscopes? Who pays for the real-estate and the infrastructure treatment requires?

Spoiler alert - individuals and companies will still be paying the bills. Only in UHC it will be filtered through government (via taxation) first.




This is basic math. I'm sorry you don't understand it.

Companies pay employees compensation. This compensation is based on supply/demand economics of the workplace.

(warning, imaginary and simplified numbers ahead, try to stay focused on the issue at hand) Imagine Sally is making $50,000/year + Healthcare Insurance at her salaried job. If Sally had to pay for her own insurance, it would cost her $10,000/year. So, since her employer is paying the insurance for her, her 'total compensation' is ~$60,000.

Now, if instead her employer decided not to pay for her insurance, and instead pay her $65,000 salary... wouldn't this be a better deal for Sally? Sure it would! She'd pay her own insurance, and pocket the extra $5,000/year! So, if a 'smart person' tells you they wouldn't work for a company if they don't offer health insurance... I'd argue they probably aren't as smart as you think they are.

The only reason this is happening less and less is that companies get a deal when they buy insurance in bulk, and so it might only cost a company $6,000 to buy a $10,000 policy. So, as a result it's cheaper for that company to buy Sally $10,000 worth of insurance for $6,000, than to pay her an extra $10,000 to buy it on her own.
This basic math is very flawed for a few reasons...

1st the company will never pay a fair enough portion of their savings back to Sally.

2nd the cost for Sally to buy an individual plan would be more costly than the "group plan" and group rated offered to her company.

3rd companies tend to offer items over and above just salary in the form of benefits to attract and retain folks over a longer term. In some fields these benefits are pretty much standard and necessary to be competitive for new talent. In my area of work, relocation is fully paid including movers and packing service, even for entry level. When competing for minimum wage jobs or workers benefits play a lessor role, but in professional or technical jobs benefits help decide where a potential new hire will work. A company that falls behind their sectors standard benefits may struggle to attract top talent in their particular field.
Scrub175 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 12:53 PM   #83
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
  • Today, companies don't HAVE to pay anything. They choose to offer insurance because their employees value it more than they value comparable cash-only compensation. Basically, companies find by providing insurance instead of monetary compensation, they can provide more perceived value to their employees for less expense... and so many CHOOSE to offer it.
  • After Obamacare is fully enacted, companies will (for the first time) be required (mandated by law) to pay for healthcare.
  • Your ridiculous assertion is that somehow the cost of healthcare will disappear for businesses after the enactment of Obamacare, as if the net result of Obamacare is FREE care for everyone.
  • Do you actually know how Obamacare is funded? You must not.
Companies have to pay and they have to pay a lot. Try running a business without health insurance and see what employees you get. If you need skilled labor and you aren't offering health care, you are in trouble.

Where did I ever say I was referring to Obamacare? My comments had nothing to do with Obamacare. That is something completely different. As you yourself noted, companies are being forced to pay for care. This is problematic because there are so many businesses that WANT to offer care, but CAN'T. How the other mandates will affect access to care and access to affordable care we don't know. Everyone has an opinion on the topic, but no one has fact. The only fact we know now is that Obamacare could have outcomes that could go either way, maybe even both ways.

Take a look at who spends the most money on medical care per person. You will be surprised.

As I said previously, I am not against any implementation, orchestration, or management theory. I'm open to a variety of suggestions. However, the need exists for some sort of comprehensive care at a national level. We already spend more than enough on healthcare to do this, and most data suggests it is beneficial to the nation. If you provide comprehensive preventive care to everyone, you reduce spending on chronic disease. Chronic disease accounts for more then 8.5 cents on every healthcare dime. This figure can be greatly reduced through a synergetic and holistic effort.
NickZac is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 12:57 PM   #84
classicaliberal
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrub175 View Post
1st the company will never pay a fair enough portion of their savings back to Sally.
Fair? There's no such thing as 'fair?' This is a perception of your mind - nothing more nothing less. People pay what the market bears.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrub175 View Post
2nd the cost for Sally to buy an individual plan would be more costly than the "group plan" and group rated offered to her company.
As I pointed out earlier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrub175 View Post
3rd companies tend to offer items over and above just salary in the form of benefits to attract and retain folks over a longer term. In some fields these benefits are pretty much standard and necessary to be competitive for new talent. In my area of work, relocation is fully paid including movers and packing service, even for entry level. When competing for minimum wage jobs or workers benefits play a lessor role, but in professional or technical jobs benefits help decide where a potential new hire will work. A company that falls behind their sectors standard benefits may struggle to attract top talent in their particular field.
All these words are meaningless to the conversation... you're merely pointing out what the current state of the market is. The point is that today, companies aren't required to pay healthcare, and with Obamacare (and UHC) they would be. They aren't paying less with UHC, they're paying more... by decree of government.

Back to your irrelevant 3rd point... Steve Jobs worked for $1/year salary. Was this because he was ridiculously generous? Is this because he wasn't aware of his market value? Or instead, is it because he's quite smart and knew that his 'salary' was a meaningless number and that all that really mattered was his 'total compensation'? I'd wage a guess it was the latter.
classicaliberal is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 01:00 PM   #85
leekohler
Banned
 
leekohler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
Fair? There's no such thing as 'fair?' This is a perception of your mind - nothing more nothing less. People pay what the market bears.



As I pointed out earlier.



All these words are meaningless to the conversation... you're merely pointing out what the current state of the market is. The point is that today, companies aren't required to pay healthcare, and with Obamacare (and UHC) they would be. They aren't paying less with UHC, they're paying more... by decree of government.

Back to your irrelevant 3rd point... Steve Jobs worked for $1/year salary. Was this because he was ridiculously generous? Is this because he wasn't aware of his market value? Or instead, is it because he's quite smart and knew that his 'salary' was a meaningless number and that all that really mattered was his 'total compensation'? I'd wage a guess it was the latter.
One more time- we are NOT TALKING ABOUT OBAMACARE. Get that in your head. We are talking about UHC, which would be paid for by taxing citizens- not corporations. Now, can you you stay on that topic, or are you going to continue to deflect?
leekohler is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 01:21 PM   #86
classicaliberal
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by leekohler View Post
One more time- we are NOT TALKING ABOUT OBAMACARE. Get that in your head. We are talking about UHC, which would be paid for by taxing citizens- not corporations. Now, can you you stay on that topic, or are you going to continue to deflect?
The thing you don't seem to understand is that in an economy, nothing happens in a bubble.

For example, when you tax corporations, you're actually taxing citizens... this is because the corporate tax is simply added to the 'cost of goods' and charged back to the consumers plus interest.

When you tax one segment of society, you tax them all. It's as simple as that.

The problem I have with your earlier statements is that you make the current system out to me a 'disaster', while saying that UHC would be far better for companies which I find ridiculous considering one system has mandated expenditures, and the other has optional ones.
classicaliberal is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 01:38 PM   #87
Dmunjal
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
One other point everyone is missing is why do companies provide healthcare to their employees in the first place? Because it is tax deductible. Why not remove that benefit and let individuals buy their own policy with their tax-free dollars? Policies would now be portable and give consumers incentive to shop around. Even the unemployed could get basic policies subsidized by the government.

The other change we need to make is increase the deductibles and therefore lower premiums. Consumers need skin in the game or they will overuse (abuse?) their health benefits.

The pharma, insurance, etc lobbies would never allow this as they would lose the the free money that comes from the government subsidizing healthcare.
Dmunjal is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 04:39 PM   #88
k995
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
Right... because UHC would be free for corporations, right?
Yes, if its done like in most countrys wich have UHC companies dont pay anything, its all deducted from gross salary.



Quote:
This is basic math. I'm sorry you don't understand it.
He actually never said is was free, you made that up to have a point.



You(re little example is pointless. In a UHC prices usualy are set in a range for docters/hospitals in the system . Dont you ever wonder why the USA pays twice as much on health care for a simular quality of care then every other western nation?

Do you like paying double what others pay for the same?
k995 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 04:58 PM   #89
Scrub175
macrumors Demi-God
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Jensen Beach FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
Fair? There's no such thing as 'fair?' This is a perception of your mind - nothing more nothing less. People pay what the market bears.



As I pointed out earlier.



All these words are meaningless to the conversation... you're merely pointing out what the current state of the market is. The point is that today, companies aren't required to pay healthcare, and with Obamacare (and UHC) they would be. They aren't paying less with UHC, they're paying more... by decree of government.

Back to your irrelevant 3rd point... Steve Jobs worked for $1/year salary. Was this because he was ridiculously generous? Is this because he wasn't aware of his market value? Or instead, is it because he's quite smart and knew that his 'salary' was a meaningless number and that all that really mattered was his 'total compensation'? I'd wage a guess it was the latter.
This is a pointless argument as you have your mind that's already made up. When the company cuts insurance you won't recoup the portion they would have paid. So if you lose that portion of benefit and not makeup that cost how is that a net gain in "total compensation". I will answer it, the employee loses money. But have fun in your reality distortion field. I will keep my company sponsored insurance much like you will too.

You sound like a shill for big business and not truly a progressive liberal.

I provided real numbers of how much my salary would be increased without company sponsored health care. I noticed you had no real response to that as that is concrete facts for my company and many others that offer an opt out a cash back option for declining insurance.

Last edited by Scrub175; Dec 27, 2012 at 05:14 PM.
Scrub175 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 05:11 PM   #90
Scrub175
macrumors Demi-God
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Jensen Beach FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
The thing you don't seem to understand is that in an economy, nothing happens in a bubble.

For example, when you tax corporations, you're actually taxing citizens... this is because the corporate tax is simply added to the 'cost of goods' and charged back to the consumers plus interest.

When you tax one segment of society, you tax them all. It's as simple as that.

The problem I have with your earlier statements is that you make the current system out to me a 'disaster', while saying that UHC would be far better for companies which I find ridiculous considering one system has mandated expenditures, and the other has optional ones.
This is trickle down economics at its finest... We have our current state of affairs to prove corporate greed prevents this from working. The part you neglect to mention is as we offer breaks for business they don't in turn pass that on to the consumer.

When economic benefit is given in tax breaks it equates to more profit potential that isn't passed to workers in salary or consumers in prices. So why not expect businesses to put in their share of tax. Let them pass that cost on to consumers until consumer fight back and not buy their products. Checks and balances. Right now there are none for corporations especially ones deemed to big to fail.
Scrub175 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 05:20 PM   #91
leekohler
Banned
 
leekohler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
The thing you don't seem to understand is that in an economy, nothing happens in a bubble.

For example, when you tax corporations, you're actually taxing citizens... this is because the corporate tax is simply added to the 'cost of goods' and charged back to the consumers plus interest.

When you tax one segment of society, you tax them all. It's as simple as that.

The problem I have with your earlier statements is that you make the current system out to me a 'disaster', while saying that UHC would be far better for companies which I find ridiculous considering one system has mandated expenditures, and the other has optional ones.
Look at the world outside of the US. UHC works, period.

Our current system is a massive failure on just about every level when it comes to services delivered and paid for. If our current system worked, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Now, you can stick your fingers in your ears all you want, but the bottom line is this: our system does not work- at all.

You'd rather cling to ideology rather than pragmatism. That doesn't work well for anyone.
leekohler is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 05:30 PM   #92
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
The thing you don't seem to understand is that in an economy, nothing happens in a bubble.
Why, as a right wing guy, do you not want to make markets more efficient?
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 05:33 PM   #93
leekohler
Banned
 
leekohler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
Why, as a right wing guy, do you not want to make markets more efficient?
Because it doesn't suit his ideology. That's the problem I have with many conservatives. You can show them all the facts and numbers in the world and they will refuse to acknowledge them if they conflict with their ideals.
leekohler is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 06:40 PM   #94
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
The problem I have with your earlier statements is that you make the current system out to me a 'disaster', while saying that UHC would be far better for companies which I find ridiculous considering one system has mandated expenditures, and the other has optional ones.
The current situation IS a disaster. Stevie Wonder can see that (no, seriously, he actually has spoken on the issue). Have you ever worked for a small business? Have you ever not been able to get healthcare yourself? The current situation is practically bordering a nightmare for both companies and people. Obamacare could conceivably make it worse because the situation is so bad and because costs have long spiraled out of control.

But we are talking about standardized national care here, not the Obamacare mandates. Obamacare is an orange and UHC is a game of baseball...in other terms, they are far and away from each other. That is, corporations won't be financing health care. It's no longer in their hands, it's out of their hair, it's not coming out of their bottom line. Let's let the private sector be the private sector and not have to single-handedly take on saving the health of the nation (it's hard enough to turn a profit without that burden...) Rather than hitting them with more regulations like Obamacare will, relieve them of having to bother with this, of having to employ tons of people to organize the care (which is stupidly expensive), of having to subtract from wages to pay this in an anticipatory fashion that puts them and their people at risk. Papa John won't have to fire people because this is no longer his problem to deal with and he can go back to making pizza with 100% real cheese and those weird as peppers. If you support trickle-down economics, this is what you should be all about. Give the end consumer the decision on their medical care. Every nation in the world with UHC still has privatized medical care, and UHC in the US would almost surely operate through a system of subcontracting. You give the consumer more choice, more portability, and under trickle-down economics, more money as the company doesn't have to deal with this and they pass the savings on to employees. At the end of the day, it's more flexibility for the end consumer and encourages competition. If a hospital sucks, now you can go to one that doesn't have needles all over the floor because you are managing your care and your care isn't managing you. As of right now, much like how 'car drive you in Russia', 'managed care manage you in US'.

Finally, have you looked at health in the United States compared to every other industrialized nation? It's hard to have an economy with so many sick, dying, or dead people. It's hard to run a business if you are paying for so many people on disability welfare. It's hard to run a company when your employees are always taking off because they or others they care for are sick. It's hard to run a company with a stupidly high corporate tax rate and if we continue on this path, it will absolutely go up (i.e.: Medicare and Medicaid, among others).

As an FYI, the US has about the highest or the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Many European nations that we refer to as socialist states collect half the corporate tax rate collected in the US. We take a stupid amount of money from corporations ("You're doing a great job in this tough economy...now please give us our 40%. Thank you.")...if someone is looking to start a new business, who wants to have that much money taken for them??? On top of that, THEN they get to pay for healthcare and numerous other employee expenses that companies don't have to pay for in some other nations. Furthermore, many nations with a lower personal tax rate have good universal care. So our companies pay a lot, our people pay a lot, and we are getting ??????? People should be banging down the doors in DC screaming "WTF" at their elected officials. This shouldn't be a political issue, it should be a practical one where we ask "where the hell is the money going?", and "can we get a better return on what we pay?".



Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
Why, as a right wing guy, do you not want to make markets more efficient?
He isn't right wing...I'm not sure what he is other than only selectively interested in why American government sucks so much as managing money. Everyone around me neglects the corporate tax rate...and then we wonder why companies are failing left and right
NickZac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2012, 04:52 AM   #95
Happybunny
macrumors 65816
 
Happybunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 's-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
Not true. As much as I'd like to see the defense budget cut, cutting it by 3/4ths would throw us into another recession and bump unemployment up at least a point or two. Where would all those soldiers and defense contractors go to work?

As for our NATO allies, they're smart. While we've been bankrupting ourselves since 9/11, they've all cut their defense spending and are letting us foot the bill. In other words, NATO relies on us, we can't rely on them.
NATO was never a high priority since the 1980's. When the wall fell in 1989 we cut our spending, in what was called the Peace Divided.
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komitee_Kruisraketten_Nee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Greenham_Common

Since then NATO has slowly slipped down the list of importance. There was a slight peak in the early 1990s with the Balkan war.

But the real reason for NATO has long since gone, the old USSR has been replaced with Russia. Russia is now a major trading partner, and very major supplier of energy to the EU.

But it was after 9/11 when somehow NATO troops from Europe ended up in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This was seen a a serious breach of their remit, as a consquence all European countries have cut their defense spending even more.

This all would have happened without the crisis, the crisis here in the EU just made it go quicker.
__________________
'You cannot undo history, but you can learn from it'

Last edited by Happybunny; Dec 28, 2012 at 05:06 AM.
Happybunny is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2012, 07:16 AM   #96
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happybunny View Post
But the real reason for NATO has long since gone, the old USSR has been replaced with Russia. Russia is now a major trading partner, and very major supplier of energy to the EU.
I love the capitalist means of peace. At a certain point you say, "screw war, let's trade!"

As we have seen, in this day and age the one thing that armed conflict is great at is spending tons of money. It's much more economically viable to have a trading partner rather than a military arms competition...
NickZac is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2012, 01:24 AM   #97
jnpy!$4g3cwk
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmunjal View Post
I'm not defending our current healthcare system. Let's say we enact universal health care at 10% of GDP, that's still $1.5T. Where will that come from except with higher taxes?
If we could do healthcare for 10% of GDP, the savings would pay for the entire defense budget and then some. We are already paying 16% of GDP.
jnpy!$4g3cwk is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2012, 01:31 AM   #98
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmunjal View Post
Let's say we enact universal health care at 10% of GDP ...
That would be totally cool ... considering that it currently costs between 15-17% of GDP.
citizenzen is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2012, 12:03 PM   #99
Dmunjal
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
That would be totally cool ... considering that it currently costs between 15-17% of GDP.
That may be less than we are all spending on healthcare and I don't argue that UHC will allow some level of control on rising health care prices.

However, $1.5T is $500B more than the Federal Government is spending on HC today. Someone has to convince the population (not just the rich) that they have to pay higher taxes to achieve it. Yes, their current premiums would go away but no one wants taxes going up on the middle class AT ALL.

I suppose we could cut defense to pay for it.

No one is making this argument. Not even the Democrats.
Dmunjal is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2012, 01:44 PM   #100
chown33
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmunjal View Post
However, $1.5T is $500B more than the Federal Government is spending on HC today. Someone has to convince the population (not just the rich) that they have to pay higher taxes to achieve it. Yes, their current premiums would go away but no one wants taxes going up on the middle class AT ALL.
Give the average person the choice of paying less per year for health care.
It shouldn't be that hard to explain.
  1. Your health insurance payments go to zero.
  2. Your Federal taxes increase by 2/3 of whatever your health insurance payments were.
  3. Your net change per year: you pay 1/3 less for health care.
Note: I chose 1/3 as an illustrative example based on the 15% to 10% of GDP calculation, not because I've done a comprehensive study of health care costs, nor because I have citable references to credible articles.
Most people I know don't really care where their health-care payments go. It's all one big black box, and just shows up on a different line on their paycheck stub if it's for Federal taxes or Fubar Insurance Co. The only thing that matters is take-home pay, and if UHC manages to increase that while maintaining or even improving quality of care, they'd be for it.

Some people might even choose to have more take-home pay if UHC had lower quality, simply because they'd have more in-pocket cash in order to buy supplemental insurance to cover the specific things they care about.

I don't think the big problem would be with the recipients of universal health care, it would be with the health care providers, the insurance industry, and all the other groups that have a vested interest in the status quo.
chown33 is offline   2 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cleave Mighty Gold bumper + GlasT Nano Slim on iPhone 5S Gold! rc0310 iPhone Accessories 9 Nov 11, 2013 07:50 AM
iPad: iPhone 5s in gold is white/gold, how will the iPad 5 look in gold? bobright iPad 1 Oct 18, 2013 11:59 PM
Do you believe in Gold? Gold hits two year low as people move assets into Bitcoin. jnpy!$4g3cwk Politics, Religion, Social Issues 41 Apr 29, 2013 11:18 AM
Geneva Golden Holiday Giveaways - Gold Edition Model S Gold! Opheliax iPhone Accessories 0 Dec 3, 2012 05:44 PM
Gold Rush Mayhem - Gold Combat Free Download GamesTharle iPad Apps 0 Jul 27, 2012 06:52 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:40 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC