Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 16.11.2012, 00:21
Peg A's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 4,422
Groaned at 158 Times in 125 Posts
Thanked 5,428 Times in 2,510 Posts
Peg A has a reputation beyond reputePeg A has a reputation beyond reputePeg A has a reputation beyond reputePeg A has a reputation beyond reputePeg A has a reputation beyond reputePeg A has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Assinine Florida Restauranteur vs "Obamacare"

Quote:
View Post
Again, you miss the point, with your wealth-envy bias. If we pay everyone a "living wage" then the cost of goods and services go up. Then we have to pay more to obtain a "living wage.". So the costs of goods and services go up. Then we have to pay more to obtain a "living wage.". Is that not clear? All you get is inflation. A bum with a million dollars in his pocket, but it can't buy him lunch...
MY wealth envy? You make me laugh. I don't care how much money people have, I care how shitty they treat other people!

Of course the costs of goods and services goes up, that's actually part of the point. We pay too little, we pay people too little.

To cite risks people take with financial investments as a reason for them having "everything" and yet calling it "envy" for someone who lacks the ability to PAY TO SEE A DOCTOR to want to be able to see one is pretty twisted. I'm sorry, but that's so very wrong at the very base of things.


You know why I want this so bad? Because I don't want someone who I work with to come to work sick because they can't pay to see the doctor. Because I don't want to carry that sickness home to my mother, which puts her at risk for more serious problems than "just a cold". Sure, I'm here now and that isn't a risk for me personally anymore - but it is a risk for my sister, and it still is a risk for my mother.

LOL at the fools who think their POOL is worth more than my mother's LIFE. (FYI, my mother HAS insurance through tri-care as the spouse of a career Marine, as well as medicare, so it isn't about her insurance or ability to see the doctor - it is about all the people who she may directly or indirectly come in contact with who may get her sick because THEY don't.)

People deserve to be able to see the doctor when they're sick. End of.

People deserve to be free from the risk of becoming very ill because OTHERS can not see the doctor when they're sick.
__________________
The Joys of Opticianry
Reply With Quote
The following 6 users would like to thank Peg A for this useful post:
  #82  
Old 16.11.2012, 00:30
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Assinine Florida Restauranteur vs "Obamacare"

Quote:
View Post
So you are actually agreeing with me
Does it shock you that I dislike corporate welfare? All those companies should have been forced to deal with the consequences of their decisions, not bailed out. It would have been brutal, painful, and ugly, but stronger companies would've emerged from it (as clients/customers moved from these failed companies, so would they need to hire employees from the failed companies), and it would've served as a warning to these companies to not engage in such foolish behavior. Now, instead, the Imperial Federal Government has set a precedent that there's a safety net underneath every big company. Now, they don't have to fear failure, because Uncle Sam, who's more broke than they are, will bail them out...
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #83  
Old 16.11.2012, 00:35
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Assinine Florida Restauranteur vs "Obamacare"

Quote:
View Post
Does it shock you that I dislike corporate welfare?
Oh yes it does


and now I'm off to bed cause I am posting way too many lolcats
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank for this useful post:
  #84  
Old 16.11.2012, 00:35
olygirl's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: d' Innerschwiiz
Posts: 7,627
Groaned at 416 Times in 279 Posts
Thanked 17,931 Times in 5,545 Posts
olygirl has a reputation beyond reputeolygirl has a reputation beyond reputeolygirl has a reputation beyond reputeolygirl has a reputation beyond reputeolygirl has a reputation beyond reputeolygirl has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Assinine Florida Restauranteur vs "Obamacare"

There are many places in Switzerland who won't hire full time because part-time is cheaper. I was a victim of this when I worked for Migros. They only allowed me a certain amount of hours per week so they could avoid paying benefits.

Last edited by olygirl; 16.11.2012 at 17:16.
Reply With Quote
The following 7 users would like to thank olygirl for this useful post:
  #85  
Old 16.11.2012, 01:07
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Assinine Florida Restauranteur vs "Obamacare"

Quote:
View Post
MY wealth envy? You make me laugh. I don't care how much money people have, I care how shitty they treat other people!
Yet, I've only seen examples of how "rich" people are treating others poorly from you, so there IS a wealth component to your premise.

Quote:
View Post
Of course the costs of goods and services goes up, that's actually part of the point. We pay too little, we pay people too little.
Again, let the people that are PAYING for these things determine this. If the price is too much, they'll go elsewhere; if not, they'll buy. If the price COULD be higher, don't you think these "greedy" business owners would already be charging it?

Quote:
View Post
To cite risks people take with financial investments as a reason for them having "everything" and yet calling it "envy" for someone who lacks the ability to PAY TO SEE A DOCTOR to want to be able to see one is pretty twisted. I'm sorry, but that's so very wrong at the very base of things.
They don't have "everything"; they have only what they've earned. I never called it "envy" to want something for which you cannot pay. Those are your words.

Quote:
View Post
You know why I want this so bad? Because I don't want someone who I work with to come to work sick because they can't pay to see the doctor. Because I don't want to carry that sickness home to my mother, which puts her at risk for more serious problems than "just a cold". Sure, I'm here now and that isn't a risk for me personally anymore - but it is a risk for my sister, and it still is a risk for my mother.
What does the ability to pay have to do with whether a person will actually go and see a doctor or not? We could mandate that there is 1 doctor for every person in the country, and people would still shrug off medical attention. I'm one of them- I don't go to the doctor unless I'm dying or it's time for my annual and this has nothing to do with my ability to pay...

Quote:
View Post
LOL at the fools who think their POOL is worth more than my mother's LIFE. (FYI, my mother HAS insurance through tri-care as the spouse of a career Marine, as well as medicare, so it isn't about her insurance or ability to see the doctor - it is about all the people who she may directly or indirectly come in contact with who may get her sick because THEY don't.)
I never once said that any material possession was worth more than a human life. Didn't imply it, either, so again these are your words. BTW, both my parents have Tricare as retired Navy.

Quote:
View Post
People deserve to be able to see the doctor when they're sick. End of.
Not even close. If they can't pay for the doctor, but the doctor is compelled to work for free to give them healthcare, that's slavery. Why would anyone choose to become a doctor at such an expense of time and money to risk going bankrupt because they can be compelled to provide their service at any time or place, even if they themselves cannot afford to do so?

Quote:
View Post
People deserve to be free from the risk of becoming very ill because OTHERS can not see the doctor when they're sick.
Again, you can have all the doctors in the world. Doesn't mean the sick person will go to see one. Or, are you advocating some sort of "sick police" that will come around to my home and shove a thermometer in my mouth every morning to ensure I don't inadvertently infect someone? If I am a little warm, will they
"arrest" me and take me to the doctor's office to be diagnosed? What if I already have immunity to a disease, but I'm carrying the germ with me?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #86  
Old 16.11.2012, 01:44
Peg A's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 4,422
Groaned at 158 Times in 125 Posts
Thanked 5,428 Times in 2,510 Posts
Peg A has a reputation beyond reputePeg A has a reputation beyond reputePeg A has a reputation beyond reputePeg A has a reputation beyond reputePeg A has a reputation beyond reputePeg A has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Assinine Florida Restauranteur vs "Obamacare"

You've seen examples of rich treating others poorly from me because it is those "rich" people who are putting themselves out, showing themselves to be treating others poorly. (Example being, the gentleman from the article)

I can not see it otherwise than treating someone poorly that a business owner would rather cut hours (and therefore pay) for his employees rather than try a price hike for his product. His is a kneejerk reaction. If people wouldn't pay such a small amount more for food as a 25% increase at Denny's (taken from the article I originally posted), then the restaurants here would be forever empty of Americans. I can tell you for sure this is not so - I've met several here who do dine out. We complain about the prices heartily, but we still pay them.


As far as seeing the doctor or not goes, I do not confuse "can not" with "will not" and would appreciate if you would not either.

I am fully cognizant that not everyone who can go to the doctor will, but there are many who have little to no choice - they can see the doctor and do without something else vital (car payment, food, etc), or they can simply not go. Choice between bad and worse.


I begin to think (or more like, "hope") that you are being purposefully obtuse in order to play devil's advocate, or else perhaps to twist me up. I have a hard time believing that anyone truly does not believe that others deserve to be able to have their health needs seen to in a fair way (such as access to health care in order to avoid going into debt due to illness).

Well, unless they have a stake in how it affects their own pocket anyhow. Idealistic I may be, but I'm not THAT idealistic.
__________________
The Joys of Opticianry

Last edited by Peg A; 16.11.2012 at 02:00.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 16.11.2012, 04:18
M_McPoyle's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: ZG
Posts: 343
Groaned at 4 Times in 3 Posts
Thanked 1,138 Times in 283 Posts
M_McPoyle has a reputation beyond reputeM_McPoyle has a reputation beyond reputeM_McPoyle has a reputation beyond reputeM_McPoyle has a reputation beyond reputeM_McPoyle has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Assinine Florida Restauranteur vs "Obamacare"

Quote:
View Post
need entitles us to nothing. .
Therein lies the great divide. There are those who feel that it is the responsibility of a great and wealthy society to meet the basic needs of poorest and weakest - and that everyone will benefit from this in the long run. Then there are those who feel that meeting these needs of the poorest and weakest will not only create a class of dependents, but stifle growth and success of the rest. I have had moments of believing in either of these camps. But expecting a living wage is not the same as expecting a government hand-out. And some of the Robber Barons (Henry Ford, specifically) and Titans of industry you mentioned were and are smart enough to know that paying fair wages gives people buying power. Likewise, there are also those people out there who are business creators, owners and employers who have the foresight to see that a workforce with good, readily available healthcare is a workforce that is healthy, happy and ready to work.
Reply With Quote
The following 7 users would like to thank M_McPoyle for this useful post:
  #88  
Old 16.11.2012, 04:49
eddiejc1's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Derwood, MD USA
Posts: 1,005
Groaned at 22 Times in 20 Posts
Thanked 684 Times in 372 Posts
eddiejc1 has an excellent reputationeddiejc1 has an excellent reputationeddiejc1 has an excellent reputationeddiejc1 has an excellent reputation
Re: Assinine Florida Restauranteur vs "Obamacare"

Quote:
View Post
a server paid 10$ an hour actually cost the employer 17-18$ depending where you are . with the Obama care it will become more than that obviously. And then if you look at how many employees (useless) these restaurants have you can see his point a bit....
Actually, the wage rate for waiters is much less than 10 USD an hour since they are expected to make tips. I think the actual hourly wage for servers may be as low as 3.50 USD.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 16.11.2012, 09:08
st2lemans's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lugano
Posts: 32,245
Groaned at 2,467 Times in 1,784 Posts
Thanked 39,338 Times in 18,541 Posts
st2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Assinine Florida Restauranteur vs "Obamacare"

Quote:
View Post
I presume you live here where health care is mandated? You enjoy the benefits of a civilized nation, yet critique those of us who would like the same standards
As we have here for the USA...
Personally, I preferred it when health insurance wasn't mandated here!

Also, what is proposed for the US is NOT the same as here.

Also, insurance costs here have SKYROCKETED in the years since health insurance became mandatory here (January 1996).

Quote:
View Post
you can have all the doctors in the world. Doesn't mean the sick person will go to see one.
Indeed.

If I'm well enough to get to a doctor, then I am well enough to get to work (and thus don't need to see the doctor)!

Tom

Last edited by st2lemans; 16.11.2012 at 09:39.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank st2lemans for this useful post:
  #90  
Old 16.11.2012, 09:42
Desert Rat's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Scottsdale, USA/Geneva CH
Posts: 712
Groaned at 15 Times in 9 Posts
Thanked 1,733 Times in 510 Posts
Desert Rat has a reputation beyond reputeDesert Rat has a reputation beyond reputeDesert Rat has a reputation beyond reputeDesert Rat has a reputation beyond reputeDesert Rat has a reputation beyond reputeDesert Rat has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Assinine Florida Restauranteur vs "Obamacare"

Okay all,

I can agree that everyone should be paid a wage that they can live on, and that it's rotten that employers sometime manipulate the system.

I agree that it would be nice if everyone had affordable health care.

However where does the money come from?

I mentioned the other day that my health insurance has gone up as a direct result of Obamacare and I got a snotty reply to the effect of "everybody's healthcare cost is going up, stupid, it's because healthcare is getting more expensive, so what?"

But you know what? I have paid in one way or another for health care for pretty much my entire adult life. Even when I worked for a company that paid the entire premium, I was working toward the profitability of that company so that they could provide benefits for the employees. Likewise, my self employed dad paid for his own insurance until he and mom got old enough for medicare.

I really don't like the fact that someone who never paid into a system at all is now being covered at a rate that makes my overall costs go up.

People who think that healthcare costs are going up "just because" are hopelessly naive. They are going up because those of us who are paying in are now covering a larger portion of people who pay nothing, and because everyone who wants free healthcare also wants to be able to walk into a clinic and get a MRI or other specialized expensive treatment whenever they feel like it (try having that kind of flexibility in a nationalized system!)


I'm all for national healthcare. But it simply cannot work in the US the way it's currently being promoted if you force medical professionals to work for free, or if you try to make a few people pay for everyone.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank Desert Rat for this useful post:
  #91  
Old 16.11.2012, 11:23
Peg A's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 4,422
Groaned at 158 Times in 125 Posts
Thanked 5,428 Times in 2,510 Posts
Peg A has a reputation beyond reputePeg A has a reputation beyond reputePeg A has a reputation beyond reputePeg A has a reputation beyond reputePeg A has a reputation beyond reputePeg A has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Assinine Florida Restauranteur vs "Obamacare"

Quote:
View Post

But you know what? I have paid in one way or another for health care for pretty much my entire adult life. Even when I worked for a company that paid the entire premium, I was working toward the profitability of that company so that they could provide benefits for the employees.
Think about this part for a moment.

You worked for a company that provided health care to some (if not all) of their employees.

The man in the article (and indeed, ALL of the companies I've worked for previously) has a practice of providing (paying fully or partially, it does not say, in the case of the companies I worked for, it was a 1/3-2/3 split) health coverage for SOME employees, but not all.

If you consider that YOU helped pay for your own insurance that your employer provided for you by working for them and adding to their product (and profit) in some way, surely EVERYONE who works for them does the same thing?


Now, of course, having some part time and some full-time employees in that sort of business does make sense. It attracts people who are looking to boost their household income by having a second job, or that the stay-at-home-parent gets out a few times a week and makes some mad money, or a student needs a bit of spending money (or to help finance their own education). BUT to purposefully keep folks below the benefit threshold "artificially", I think that's wrong.

As example I give the hotel where I used to work. They had two night auditors, who, "of course", doubled as night shift desk clerks. They had eight hour shifts, alternating who would work 3 days or 4 days each week. This kept them BOTH under that magical number, even though one needed a full time job (his spouse worked 2 jobs, neither of which provided access to coverage either) and the other (my sis) was still covered under parent's umbrella. Of course, you may think that he should have simply sought work elsewhere, but the way that was set up is very common practice. (Edit to add) I forgot to include this tidbit: All full-time employees had access to health coverage on a 1/3-2/3 split with the company paying part of the cost of health coverage. Some employees covered, some intentionally kept where they wouldn't have to cover them, regardless of need of either the employee or actually the company itself, from a perspective of man-hours needing to be worked.


So, again. Intentionally keeping people in a state of need in order to line one's own pockets... no, purely and simply, that's greed.
__________________
The Joys of Opticianry

Last edited by Peg A; 16.11.2012 at 11:51. Reason: forgotten bit, need coffee or something
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank Peg A for this useful post:
  #92  
Old 16.11.2012, 11:32
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
This is an interesting perspective about obamacare:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/10...n-to-socialism
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank for this useful post:
  #93  
Old 16.11.2012, 13:13
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: suburbs of LA, USA
Posts: 934
Groaned at 11 Times in 10 Posts
Thanked 873 Times in 439 Posts
BrianJW has a reputation beyond reputeBrianJW has a reputation beyond reputeBrianJW has a reputation beyond reputeBrianJW has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Assinine Florida Restauranteur vs "Obamacare"

Quote:
View Post
However where does the money come from?

I mentioned the other day that my health insurance has gone up as a direct result of Obamacare and I got a snotty reply to the effect of "everybody's healthcare cost is going up, stupid, it's because healthcare is getting more expensive, so what?"
Health insurance premiums in the company I worked at rose 15% in both 2007 and 2008, long before Obamacare. Your health insurance premiums may have gone up anyway. We had a large number of employees on health insurance programs so you would think we would have some negotiating power, nope. When the whole economy was crashing and unemployment was rising and revenues falling the healthcare company put their prices up, justification, with higher unemployment we are losing revenue from less people insured so you have to pay more .

The system was broken before Obamacare. Given that healthcare is tied to employment (rightly or wrongly lets go with that for now) if all companies are paying benefits then who is left for you to subsidize? The unemployed. What do you think these people do right now? They go to emergency rooms.

And you can't just go for a fancy MRI because you feel like it. Shit, I couldn't even get Nexium which was prescribed by a doctor for my condition and could only take a cheaper option which made me vomit. Of course just like now and with any insurance someone will try it on but the insurance companies already deal with that. In fact in my experience they withhold genuine claims so they can profit rather than allowing frivolous charges to be passed on to the masses.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 16.11.2012, 13:27
Desert Rat's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Scottsdale, USA/Geneva CH
Posts: 712
Groaned at 15 Times in 9 Posts
Thanked 1,733 Times in 510 Posts
Desert Rat has a reputation beyond reputeDesert Rat has a reputation beyond reputeDesert Rat has a reputation beyond reputeDesert Rat has a reputation beyond reputeDesert Rat has a reputation beyond reputeDesert Rat has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Assinine Florida Restauranteur vs "Obamacare"

Peg,

To clarify, I agree that it's pretty rotten for an employer to intentionally manipulate the system to avoid paying benefits. I said that in my previous post.

You are also correct that in my example, I was talking about an employer that paid a portion of the health insurance premium for all employees. In fact, the company in question had very few part time employees, and paid a proportional benefit package. i.e. work half time, get half benefits paid, which if you are going to have part time employees, seems fair to me.

The point that I'm trying to make here is that by insisting that 300 million plus individuals be covered for the highest level of health care for free, the system is simply not sustainable. It sounds great, and morally it's a wonderful idea, but somebody has to bear the cost.

For the employer I was referring to, I did a rotation as an employment recruiter. It was a aerospace manufacturing company with a union; good benefit package, company pension, double time overtime pay for weekends, insurance, tuition reimbursement, lots and lots of benefits. At that time, the cost to the company for each employee was basically twice their annual wage. I don't know what it is now, but I'm sure it's more. If you start adding additional costs on top of that, something has to give or the company is no longer profitable. If it's no longer profitable, not only do you have no benefits, but you now have no paycheck either.

I think that I understand your point of view, but the problem I have is simply that the math doesn't add up and nobody can seem to offer a real, practical explanation as to how this can work over the long term.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Desert Rat for this useful post:
  #95  
Old 16.11.2012, 13:54
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Assinine Florida Restauranteur vs "Obamacare"

Quote:
View Post
You've seen examples of rich treating others poorly from me because it is those "rich" people who are putting themselves out, showing themselves to be treating others poorly. (Example being, the gentleman from the article)
Or because these people are receiving a disproportionate amount of attention and you're just repeating it on. Again, there are no more and no less immoral people at this place in society than there are at any other place in society, but the "evil rich man" makes for better news and demagoguery than the story about the little poor guy that gets his hand caught in the register. "Greedy bastard" we say with self-righteous indignation for the former, "Poor sod" with a tsk of sympathy for the latter. We then go on to ignore that the former is only changing his offer, while the latter was actually stealing.

Quote:
View Post
I can not see it otherwise than treating someone poorly that a business owner would rather cut hours (and therefore pay) for his employees rather than try a price hike for his product. His is a kneejerk reaction.
What if he has already attempted a price hike? What if he paid someone to do market research and that research tells him that even a small price hike will cost him business and more revenue than he will make up by raising the prices? Or he can raise prices, but his competitor is not going to raise prices, so he's forced into some other option? So now what does he do? Keep the business open at a loss? Slowly lose everything he's worked hard to build? Fire a few people so he can keep the rest on at this new cost? Or try to keep his people employed at some level and maybe things improve in 6 months or a year to where he believes he can offer full-time employment?

Quote:
View Post
If people wouldn't pay such a small amount more for food as a 25% increase at Denny's (taken from the article I originally posted), then the restaurants here would be forever empty of Americans. I can tell you for sure this is not so - I've met several here who do dine out. We complain about the prices heartily, but we still pay them.
Prices are high here compared to the US, but so are salaries, so it kind of offsets your argument there.

Also, there are perceptual factors that go into pricing. In the US, prices often end with ".99" or ".95" because research has shown that having a price under a certain threshold (no matter that its only 1 cent under) creates a huge perceptual difference in the eye of the customer compared to a price that is as little as 1 cent over that threshold.

Quote:
View Post
As far as seeing the doctor or not goes, I do not confuse "can not" with "will not" and would appreciate if you would not either.
I didn't and I don't. You're the one who linked seeing a doctor with means to pay.

Quote:
View Post
I am fully cognizant that not everyone who can go to the doctor will, but there are many who have little to no choice - they can see the doctor and do without something else vital (car payment, food, etc), or they can simply not go. Choice between bad and worse.
These "evil" rich people have to make those "bad or worse" choices too, oftentimes with the horrible knowledge that the choice will impact more than just themselves. Why should only the people who haven't prepared themselves for this be insulated from this fact of life?

Quote:
View Post
I begin to think (or more like, "hope") that you are being purposefully obtuse in order to play devil's advocate, or else perhaps to twist me up. I have a hard time believing that anyone truly does not believe that others deserve to be able to have their health needs seen to in a fair way (such as access to health care in order to avoid going into debt due to illness).
No, I'm pointing out harsh realities that I think you're unwilling to accept because they don't fit into your model of how the world should work. I think that people should be able to see a doctor, but I refuse to discount that this doctor has worked long and hard (as she should) at great expense to develop this expertise that people seek. I don't believe health care is an entitlement, because it is something provided for one individual by another individual or group of individuals. Once you make a good or service an entitlement, you are then, by extension, entitled to the labor required to provide that good or service, independent of your ability to pay for the same. We fought a war 150 years ago in the US to forever abolish the idea that anyone was morally entitled to the free labor of another.

Also, what is "fair" healthcare? Is it all measures necessary to cure an individual? You might see a terminally ill person and believe that doctors have done all they can for this person; however this person may believe there is more that can be done. How do we determine where this line exists? Again, if this is an entitlement, you can compel the doctors and nurses to continue working past the point of being able to save your life, and to the point where it actually causes harm to others, simply because this is your right.

Then, why is it "fair" that someone who freely chooses to engage in unhealthful behavior, such as smoking, excessive drinking, insufficient nutrition and exercise, or gluttony should have the same healthcare costs and benefits of someone who chooses to take better care of themselves? Why should the second person conceivably have to help finance the first person? The second person did things "right," and society rewards him by saying "gimmie money," while the first person did things "wrong" and society rewards him with, "here's some money."

The bottom line to all this is you can't legislate outcomes; you can't define what a "fair" outcome is because nobody two people will entirely agree on what this actually means (I think a "fair" outcome for me is that I should have 10 million francs, a vacation home on Lake Cuomo, and a Lamborghini parked outside. Somebody needs to make a law... Sure, its ridiculous to think I deserve that, but I have seen and read equally ridiculous ideas of what are necessary entitlements...) and no matter how good you make the outcome, somebody will always want more and be unwilling to pay for it. You can't entirely protect people from themselves. You can give people completely free healthcare, and they may never use it, or they may engage in unsafe and unhealthy behavior to the negation of the healthcare benefit. Blanket, one-size-fits-all legislation from Washington, D.C. may have horribly unintended consequences in Peoria, Illinois while working brilliantly in Sacramento, California.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #96  
Old 16.11.2012, 20:40
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: suburbs of LA, USA
Posts: 934
Groaned at 11 Times in 10 Posts
Thanked 873 Times in 439 Posts
BrianJW has a reputation beyond reputeBrianJW has a reputation beyond reputeBrianJW has a reputation beyond reputeBrianJW has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Assinine Florida Restauranteur vs "Obamacare"

Quote:
View Post
The point that I'm trying to make here is that by insisting that 300 million plus individuals be covered for the highest level of health care for free, the system is simply not sustainable. It sounds great, and morally it's a wonderful idea, but somebody has to bear the cost.

For the employer I was referring to, I did a rotation as an employment recruiter. It was a aerospace manufacturing company with a union; good benefit package, company pension, double time overtime pay for weekends, insurance, tuition reimbursement, lots and lots of benefits. At that time, the cost to the company for each employee was basically twice their annual wage. I don't know what it is now, but I'm sure it's more. If you start adding additional costs on top of that, something has to give or the company is no longer profitable. If it's no longer profitable, not only do you have no benefits, but you now have no paycheck either.

I think that I understand your point of view, but the problem I have is simply that the math doesn't add up and nobody can seem to offer a real, practical explanation as to how this can work over the long term.
Who is talking about the highest quality of care for 300 million people for free? A large amount of people are already insured. So we are really talking about at least basic coverage for those without and I haven't seen anyone say it doesn't come with a cost. At the moment these uninsured people either don`t go to use healthcare or do and either fill emergency rooms or just default on their obligation to pay (see the link about the sponsor of the case against Obamacare I posted earlier). So basically to some extent those already paying healthcare are subsidizing those who don`t, use facilities but don`t pay.

Normally total cost of an employee is more like 30% to 40% on top of salary so you guys may have had an abnormal structure, better than average benefits, lots of overtime, don`t know but you are not the norm although for the company I worked for my division which was about 1/5 of all employees in the US spent $2.5m per year on benefits about 3.4% of sales and these costs were going up 15% each year before Obamacare.

In regards to competition if this happens to all America it will be an increase for everyone and passed on to the consumer but of course you have to compete internationally as well in your industry. Europe has healthcare and still manages to compete at least to some level and in the USA you are never going to be able to compete with China, Mexico, etc on costs. Mosts likely this company survives more on quality than on costs.

Reducing the deficit requires difficult decisions with or without health insurance. So we are not needing to fund health care for 300million, take out those who have health insurance already, those who use it in a back door or non paying way (emergency rooms or defaults on Dr bills) and the remainder is what you need to fund.

Some ideas for reducing the deficit;
- Cut defense spending, cut the size not the quality of the military.
- Cut the size of govt, fewer public servants & reform to their pensions (going forward)
- reform taxes so that you don`t have people with more income paying less as a % than the upper middle class wage earners and Corporations offshoring profits.
- I agree with Tort reform if that can reduce the law suit future and costs to Dr
- Reduce cost of education because I believe that`s a right in a civilized country as well. Also the implication on both Doctors and Lawyers, I don`t know why they need so many years of University. Let them specialize earlier.
- Social security needs to be addressed as well with an expansion of 401k the easiest option. The % contributions are currently nowhere near high enough for most people to support themselves in retirement.

I am sure I have missed some but the US has options. I would rather be in the US position then that of a lot of the southern Europeans.

The bigger problem is unemployment. All the initiatives above would not increase employment in fact would probably add to unemployment. Thats a harder puzzle, dealing with China is part of that. While I am not a fan of protectionism what China is doing by artificially keeping their currency low is not right either.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 29.11.2012, 15:30
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Assinine Florida Restauranteur vs "Obamacare"



There you go...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
corporate greed, obamacare backlash, shifty ceo




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
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 Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Loose" vs. "Lose" drmom Complaints corner 74 05.09.2014 13:09
"Tax comparation" vs "Withholding tax" in comparis.ch Lanko Finance/banking/taxation 10 23.11.2012 15:58
Renting on "moving days" vs. off-quarter? RobertS Housing in general 0 15.05.2012 23:06
"L" vs. "B" work permit van_niel Permits/visas/government 8 11.03.2007 13:14


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 15:35.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0