Free Market Health
2402 Dead
Recent study reveals catastrophic failure of US health system
Š Bryan Zepp Jamieson
5/3/06
http://zeppscommentaries.com/S&E/health.htm
For decades, Republicans, libertarians and other right wingers
have been warning us against the perils of what they call "socialized
medicine." "It will be a vast, expensive, ineffective bureaucracy,"
they intone, "heartless, soulless, crushing children and old people,
forcing triage, and denying millions even the basics in an effort not
to bankrupt the nation."
Americans, on cue, went wide-eyed with fright, and swore that
health care would, now and forever, be a free market enterprise.
The decades went by, and nations that had single-payer or
national health not only failed to go bankrupt, but in most such
countries, most of the citizenry seemed to be quite satisfied with the
level and quality of health care they got. And if their taxes were
higher, they never had to shop for doctors, or worry about whether the
insurance company would cover a visit to the ER, or how to afford
medications.
More recently, Americans noticed that they were spending an
awful lot on health care. (As of 2005, the average per capita spent
on health care is $5,200 a year). In return, they were getting a
rather poor return. Fifteen percent of Americans had no health
coverage at all, and nearly half the remainder had poor to barely
adequate coverage. More and more, people were being killed by the
rapidly escalating price of medications (next time you're in the
pharmacy, remember the money you are spending goes, in large part, to
those fancy ads on TV that you so enjoy). And of course, everyone had
to deal with endless paper work, and a maze of conflicting and often
contradictory plans, providers, HMOs, hospital bureaucracies, and
another maze of tax rebates and employer involvement. People were
horrified to discover that insurance companies were dictating to
employers who they could hire, based on health-risk estimates.
But so what if it cost more, delivered less, and suffocated
everyone in a smoggy miasma of rules and regulations? It was a free
people, enjoying the freedom and efficiency of the free market, and if
a Canadian could have a fracture, and get it fixed without questions
and an expense of five dollars out of pocket, no muss and no fuss,
well, that just showed that the Canadian was a slave.
And of course, there was the horrible example of England. Free
marketeers exchanged horrified whispers about the death-camp
conditions of National Health. Children were starved and the elderly
beaten and thrown in the gutter to die. Well, maybe not quite that
bad, but it was pretty horrible. If it wasn't for National Health,
John Lennon could have gotten a decent pair of eyeglasses. Just goes
to show.
During the Newt Gingrich era, Michael Moore had a show called
"TV Nation" which could be best described as "60 Minutes on Acid."
Investigative journalism, with the inimitable Moore style. A
combination of the goofy, and journalism of a quality America hasn't
seen in years. In one show, he compared health coverage between
Canada, Cuba, and the US, using a leg fracture as the test case.
According to Moore, the network pressured Moore on that story, having
him declare Canada to have the best health care response. In fact,
Moore later claimed, Cuba won, both in terms of cost (none) and
quality and speed of health care. Canada was second, the US last.
Even the toned-down "result" was unsettling to people who were used to
accepting the cost and inconvenience of the American system as being a
good trade off for superior health care.
A few years ago, WHO came out with a report that rated the
United States 27th in quality of health care world wide. Given that
Americans were already spending more per capita on health care at that
point, it came as a shock.
Since then, of course, health costs have continued to climb,
the Republicans initiated their disastrous Medicare plan, and the
numbers of people with inadequate or non-existent health coverage have
continued to climb.
But right wingers wove horror stories about desperate
Canadians sneaking across the border to get an inflamed hangnail
treated so as to avoid a ten-year wait (if anything, more Americans
were trying to sneak into Canada, either for lowcost drugs or basic
medical care), and most Americans nodded and agreed that yes, the
sacrifices everyone else was making were worth it if they could get
lucky and have the best medical care in the world.
But yesterday, a study was released that blew the tattered
remnants of smug American certainty of the superiority of the US
medical system right out of the water. The study examined non-Latino
white males in the US and the UK, weighted for socio-economic status
and limited to the ages 55 to 64. The average US male paid out more
than double in insurance and out-of-pocket expenses what his British
counterpart spent in taxes, and so it would be reasonable to expect
that he would be healthier.
He wasn't. He wasn't even close. The differences in the
incidence of various health problems between the two countries was
stunning. The rate of diabetes was over twice as high among the US
subjects (12.5% to 6.1%). The US also had extraordinarily higher
rates of hypertension (42.4% to 33.8%), all heart disease (15.1% to
9.6%), cancer (9.5% to 5.5%), lung disease (8.1% to 6.3%), heart
attacks (5.4% to 4%), and stroke (3.9% to 2.3%). In no category did
the American subjects have a better record than their British
counterparts.
The results were shocking. Newspaper articles reported
inaccurately that smoking rates were about the same in both countries.
In fact, England had and still has a much higher rate of smoking.
Drinking is significantly higher in the UK, and one factor not
mentioned is that one in two Britons lived in major metropolitan
regions, most notably London, and the air quality, especially up
through about 1970, was worse than anywhere in the US.
Brits had National Health, lived in a nasty climate, smoked
like chimneys and drank like fish, and supposedly had a lower quality
of living. By all rational guestimates, they should have been less
healthy than the Americans. At best, they should have been roughly
equal. Nobody expected such a wide disparity.
Socio-economic status was the best predictor of healthiness,
but even there, the results were shocking. Wealthy Americans were, on
average, about as healthy as poor Britons. The authors of the study
suggested that perhaps the far greater economic insecurity that
Americans feel could be a contributing factor. Although that didn't
explain the poorer health of Americans who were lucky enough to have a
personal safety net.
The study doesn't explain why the American system works so
poorly, but it shows, beyond any doubt, that it is the most expensive
failure in history.
If this doesn't move America toward a universal health care
system, then maybe the problem is just that Americans are just too
stupid to avoid extinction.
--
"The FDA says there's no -- zilch, zero, nada -- shred of medicinal value to the evil weed marijuana. This is going to be a setback to the long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking crowd."
-- Rush Limbaugh on his radio show, April 21, 2006, one week before he officially became a drug felon himself.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
nevermore
<zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>Free Market Health
>Recent study reveals catastrophic failure of US health system
>
>Š Bryan Zepp Jamieson
>5/3/06
>http://zeppscommentaries.com/S&E/health.htm
>
> For decades, Republicans, libertarians and other right wingers
>have been warning us against the perils of what they call "socialized
>medicine." "It will be a vast, expensive, ineffective bureaucracy,"
>they intone, "heartless, soulless, crushing children and old people,
>forcing triage, and denying millions even the basics in an effort not
>to bankrupt the nation."
Zepp is hoping against all logic than he can get the rest of us,
through the government, to fund his retirement and his health care a
few years from now when the inevitable coronary hits his 300+ lb, 60
year old hulk.
<snip Zepp's pathetic whines>
Peacenik
news:462j5216mvp2gvoe7...@4ax.com...
>
> For decades, Republicans, libertarians and other right wingers
> have been warning us against the perils of what they call "socialized
> medicine." "It will be a vast, expensive, ineffective bureaucracy,"
> they intone, "heartless, soulless, crushing children and old people,
> forcing triage, and denying millions even the basics in an effort not
> to bankrupt the nation."
And only dupes believe that malarkey.
2410 Dead
Less and less dupes every day....
nospam
> Free Market Health
> Recent study reveals catastrophic failure of US health system
>
> © Bryan Zepp Jamieson
> 5/3/06
> http://zeppscommentaries.com/S&E/health.htm
This is the sad reality. The private health insurance system it is a
lamentable failure. The main reason is very simple: Health insurance it is
incompatible with business practice. There are things that work better as a
private business and things that work better as a public service. Only a
braindamaged fanatic wants everything to be provided one way or another.
Here is an repost of a fragment from another thread:
====================================================
"""
....
2. There are services into a society that are incompatible with business
practice. Police and armed force is an example. Health care is another one.
At philosophical level, health insurance is incompatible with business
practice. Because the aims of provider and customer are opposite.
In the case of food, the farmer will make more money if he sell more food
while customer will eat better if he is sold more food. There is no
contradiction in interest here. The market can work.
In the case of insurance, the sick people's interest is to get as much care
he need while the interest of insurer is to pay as less as he can. He does
not make money proportional with how much he cover, but with how much he
can avoid to cover for a given premium. We have a contradiction in interest
here. The market can not work properly.
This contradiction is the reason why unless in food industry we have here:
copayment, coinsurance, cap limit, deductible, uncovered expenses,
precondition and so on. They are cheat sheets insurer can use to reduce his
payments.
Let imagine you go to a restaurant
Precondition - At the door the waiter ask you: "Are you hungry?"
You say: "Yes I am, this is the reason I want food". The waiters say:
"Sorry hungry people are NOT eligible to receive any food".
Deductible - You have to bring with you salt, pepper, onion and sugar in
order to be eligible to receive food.
Cap Limit - After one plate you can not receive anymore food from this
restaurant. And of course, if you are still hungry you can not enter in any
another restaurant since you have a precondition.
And so on and so on. If the food industry would behave this way, I would
also say that they are incompatible with business practice. But they do not
because your interest (as hungry man) and their interest (food provider)
are into the same direction: more food.
3. Private health insurance and pension systems actually hurt our economy.
Look at GM, Delphi and so on. They had these fixed expenses to pay
regardless if they make or not a proffit. They get into debt because of
these expenses. With an universal health care and pension systems financed
as a tax on proffit, these companies would not had these expenses while
into downturn so they would been able to invest into new technology to
rebound. In meantime, their competition having good proffits would pay more
into the system, to compensate.
Weak minded individuals say: Since pension and health care hurt these
companies just get rid of them. Well, who say that is obviously a loon
idiot. People receiving these benefits have these money to spend in the
economy not just buying cars but keeping a lot of farmers, doctors. nurses
and so on in business allowing them to buy cars, electronics and so on.
Get rid of these payments and the economy slows down.
The only mentally sane solution is to implement health care and universal
pension system here to. Beside the good effects above you get an extra
bonus: You reduce a little from the gap betwen domestic and offshore
manufacturers. Since the importer pay his fair share in profit tax as the
domestic manufacturer. While domestic manufacturer gets something in
exchange for that: healthy and less stressed workers. And maybe better
educated to if you also finance that way university education as any
another civilized society.
At macroeconomic level greed does not pay off. Only primitive minds of
neocons scream: "tax cuts, tax cuts tax, cuts today" and "screw our
children tommorrow with the bills for our party".
"""
nevermore
<zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 4 May 2006 22:39:25 +0800, "Peacenik"
><cnelso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"2402 Dead" <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
>>news:462j5216mvp2gvoe7...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> For decades, Republicans, libertarians and other right wingers
>>> have been warning us against the perils of what they call "socialized
>>> medicine." "It will be a vast, expensive, ineffective bureaucracy,"
>>> they intone, "heartless, soulless, crushing children and old people,
>>> forcing triage, and denying millions even the basics in an effort not
>>> to bankrupt the nation."
>>
>>And only dupes believe that malarkey.
>
>Less and less dupes every day....
Sorry to say, Zepp, that the US government will never pay for your
health care or for any of your other needs. I guess that will
eventually leave you eating dog food along with the werewolf.
"If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
be in jail soon enough."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&
--Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005 demonstrating his earnings status since
the only 1040 form that you cannot report your capital gains on is
the "EZ" form for low income folks.
2402Dead
>2402 Dead wrote:
>
>> Free Market Health
>> Recent study reveals catastrophic failure of US health system
>>
>> Š Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Odd grammar aside, the writer makes an excellent case. I've long
argued that health care and primary pensions have no business in the
private sector, and certainly should not be funnelled through
employers as job benefits.
One problem with private sector pensions is that a lot of companies
that set up pension plans thirty or forty years ago spent a generation
putting as little as possible into it, and now that employees are
retiring, they find they have to make up a shortfall. Meanwhile,
younger companies have sprung up that don't have that end-loaded
burden because they are engaging in the same actuary practices that
the older companies did before, and the older companies find they
cannot compete.
Subsequently, they relieve themselves of the burdan by going bankrupt,
or being bought out, and the employees who paid their share for 30
years are cheated. All quite legally.
>"""
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
nevermore wrote:
>
> On Wed, 03 May 2006 21:53:45 -0700, 2402 Dead
> <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
> >Free Market Health
> >Recent study reveals catastrophic failure of US health system
> >
> >Š Bryan Zepp Jamieson
> >5/3/06
> >http://zeppscommentaries.com/S&E/health.htm
> >
> > For decades, Republicans, libertarians and other right wingers
> >have been warning us against the perils of what they call "socialized
> >medicine." "It will be a vast, expensive, ineffective bureaucracy,"
> >they intone, "heartless, soulless, crushing children and old people,
> >forcing triage, and denying millions even the basics in an effort not
> >to bankrupt the nation."
>
> Zepp is hoping against all logic than he can get the rest of us,
>
...to read his sad screed. Not gonna do it.
--
It isn't folks on the right who are complaining that we aren't switching
to alternative energy sources while simultaneously insisting that the
sorts of prices for energy that are needed to motivate those changes
must not happen. There is simply a manifold disconnect on the left
between their reality and their rhetoric.
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
2410 Dead wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 May 2006 22:39:25 +0800, "Peacenik"
> <cnelso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"2402 Dead" <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
> >news:462j5216mvp2gvoe7...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> For decades, Republicans, libertarians and other right wingers
> >> have been warning us against the perils of what they call "socialized
> >> medicine." "It will be a vast, expensive, ineffective bureaucracy,"
> >> they intone, "heartless, soulless, crushing children and old people,
> >> forcing triage, and denying millions even the basics in an effort not
> >> to bankrupt the nation."
> >
> >And only dupes believe that malarkey.
>
> Less and less dupes every day....
>
Fewer and fewer, Zepp, the functional illiterate.
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
2402Dead wrote:
>
> On Thu, 04 May 2006 11:05:05 -0400, nospam <nos...@example.com> wrote:
> >At macroeconomic level greed does not pay off. Only primitive minds of
> >neocons scream: "tax cuts, tax cuts tax, cuts today" and "screw our
> >children tommorrow with the bills for our party".
>
> Odd grammar aside,
>
To talk.
> the writer makes an excellent case. I've long
> argued that health care and primary pensions have no business in the
> private sector, and certainly should not be funnelled through
> employers as job benefits.
>
You want to enlarge the Social Security system, don't you?
> One problem with private sector pensions is that a lot of companies
> that set up pension plans thirty or forty years ago spent a generation
> putting as little as possible into it, and now that employees are
> retiring, they find they have to make up a shortfall.
>
This doesn't say anything against private pensions. All you'd have to do
is have them contract with an outside party that would be responsible
for paying the retirees. Of course what you should do is pay people in
money and have them put those funds into their own accounts so they can
retire without having to trust that the company set aside anything.
Cory Bhreckan
>
> nevermore wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 May 2006 21:53:45 -0700, 2402 Dead
>><zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Free Market Health
>>>Recent study reveals catastrophic failure of US health system
>>>
>>>Š Bryan Zepp Jamieson
>>>5/3/06
>>>http://zeppscommentaries.com/S&E/health.htm
>>>
>>> For decades, Republicans, libertarians and other right wingers
>>>have been warning us against the perils of what they call "socialized
>>>medicine." "It will be a vast, expensive, ineffective bureaucracy,"
>>>they intone, "heartless, soulless, crushing children and old people,
>>>forcing triage, and denying millions even the basics in an effort not
>>>to bankrupt the nation."
>>
>>Zepp is hoping against all logic than he can get the rest of us,
>>
>
> ...to read his sad screed. Not gonna do it.
>
>
I see that ad hominem attacks still pass for "debate" in right wing circles.
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Oh please, I'll discuss health care issues just fine. It's getting
lectured to by Zepp with his novels of nonsense that I'm not that in to
reading.
2410 Dead
Hey, it just makes my job easier. Who am I to complain?
2410 Dead
no eyes can see')" <john.m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Cory Bhreckan wrote:
>>
>> Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see') wrote:
>> >
>> > nevermore wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Wed, 03 May 2006 21:53:45 -0700, 2402 Dead
>> >><zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>Free Market Health
>> >>>Recent study reveals catastrophic failure of US health system
>> >>>
>> >>>Š Bryan Zepp Jamieson
>> >>>5/3/06
>> >>>http://zeppscommentaries.com/S&E/health.htm
>> >>>
>> >>> For decades, Republicans, libertarians and other right wingers
>> >>>have been warning us against the perils of what they call "socialized
>> >>>medicine." "It will be a vast, expensive, ineffective bureaucracy,"
>> >>>they intone, "heartless, soulless, crushing children and old people,
>> >>>forcing triage, and denying millions even the basics in an effort not
>> >>>to bankrupt the nation."
>> >>
>> >>Zepp is hoping against all logic than he can get the rest of us,
>> >>
>> >
>> > ...to read his sad screed. Not gonna do it.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I see that ad hominem attacks still pass for "debate" in right wing circles.
>>
>Oh please, I'll discuss health care issues just fine. It's getting
>lectured to by Zepp with his novels of nonsense that I'm not that in to
>reading.
Apparently 1,500 words is beyond Bill's abilities.
I don't recall ever seeing Bill make any intelligent points about
health care, but if it's like his other arguments, he'll probably tell
us that the solution to the health care problem is to not get sick.
2410 Dead
no eyes can see')" <john.m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>2402Dead wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 04 May 2006 11:05:05 -0400, nospam <nos...@example.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >At macroeconomic level greed does not pay off. Only primitive minds of
>> >neocons scream: "tax cuts, tax cuts tax, cuts today" and "screw our
>> >children tommorrow with the bills for our party".
>>
>> Odd grammar aside,
>>
>To talk.
>
>
>> the writer makes an excellent case. I've long
>> argued that health care and primary pensions have no business in the
>> private sector, and certainly should not be funnelled through
>> employers as job benefits.
>>
>You want to enlarge the Social Security system, don't you?
Why not? It's the most successful government program in history, and
costs far less than any private pension plan out there.
>
>
>> One problem with private sector pensions is that a lot of companies
>> that set up pension plans thirty or forty years ago spent a generation
>> putting as little as possible into it, and now that employees are
>> retiring, they find they have to make up a shortfall.
>>
>This doesn't say anything against private pensions. All you'd have to do
>is have them contract with an outside party that would be responsible
>for paying the retirees. Of course what you should do is pay people in
>money and have them put those funds into their own accounts so they can
>retire without having to trust that the company set aside anything.
They can do that. The outside party would be the government, which
would administer the pension plan with about a 3% overhead. You know
how I know this?
Cory Bhreckan
Or to be independently wealthy. It's well known that the poor *choose*
to be poor.
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
I figure I'm doing well to stomach your subject lines. Replying to 1500
words of you would take a week since every third word would be fodder.
> I don't recall ever seeing Bill make any intelligent points about
> health care,
>
There is no easy or obvious health care solution staring right at us
like there might be for other problems. Every place in the world has
health issues and people in those places often look elsewhere for their
magic bullets. There just isn't one. You have unlimited demand into a
limited resource and you have trouble.
> but if it's like his other arguments, he'll probably tell
> us that the solution to the health care problem is to not get sick.
>
Obviously if there was a pill that would fix you right up and never let
you get sick, that's the solution. Of course there isn't one so I'm
unlikely to advocate it.
nevermore
<corybh...@maelstrom.net> wrote:
Debate??? It would be silly to debate Zepp. You'd also take the
very slim chance that he'd suddenly see the light and then we'd one
less leftist loon to laugh at.
nevermore
It makes Zepp feel important if he can get someone to "debate" him.
It makes him feel that somebody really cares about his opinions.
nevermore
Zepp has long argues that bottom feeders like himself should have
their health care paid for others.
nevermore
Well, Zepp can blame his poverty on his stupidity, as is the case with
all alcoholics.
nevermore
Zepp is all about having things easy. That's why he want others to
pay for his health care.
George Grapman
>
>
> Zepp is all about having things easy. That's why he want others to
> pay for his health care.
care.
--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
George Grapman wrote:
>
> nevermore wrote:
> >
> >
> > Zepp is all about having things easy. That's why he want others to
> > pay for his health care.
> Like all the members of Congress who oppose employer mandated health
> care.
>
Why should employers pay for health care?
George Grapman
>
>> nevermore wrote:
>>>
>>> Zepp is all about having things easy. That's why he want others to
>>> pay for his health care.
>> Like all the members of Congress who oppose employer mandated health
>> care.
>>
> Why should employers pay for health care?
>
>
yet oppose it for others.
2410 Dead
no eyes can see')" <john.m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>George Grapman wrote:
>>
>> nevermore wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Zepp is all about having things easy. That's why he want others to
>> > pay for his health care.
>> Like all the members of Congress who oppose employer mandated health
>> care.
>>
>Why should employers pay for health care?
Employers should have absolutely nothing to do with health care.
nospam
>>
> Why should employers pay for health care?
Employers should pay taxes. Health care should be tax financed.
ALL the working health program in the world are financed that way.
US is the only advanced nation not having a universal insurance system and
we pay more than double, to get a lower quality health care, and still have
almost an 50 Millions uninsured at all. It is without doubt the biggest
failure off US, and a prof that when corporate lobbyist speak in Washington
the US population suffer.
Lobby Reform Proposal: ANY PAYED LOBBY ACTIVITY IS A FELONY.
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
They should pay their employees in money. I think though that your
"answer" is yet another huge government programme.
George Grapman
of your health care while you rail against socialized medicine and
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
nospam wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see') wrote:
>
> >>
> > Why should employers pay for health care?
>
> Employers should pay taxes. Health care should be tax financed.
>
Why? Why isn't auto insurance tax financed?
> ALL the working health program in the world are financed that way.
>
What working health care programmes?
> US is the only advanced nation not having a universal insurance system and
> we pay more than double, to get a lower quality health care, and still have
> almost an 50 Millions uninsured at all. It is without doubt the biggest
> failure off US, and a prof that when corporate lobbyist speak in Washington
> the US population suffer.
>
Why do you think that "corporate lobbyists" lobby against national
health care? You think GM *wants* to continue its difficulties with
that?
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
George Grapman wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see') wrote:
> >
> > George Grapman wrote:
> >> nevermore wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Zepp is all about having things easy. That's why he want others to
> >>> pay for his health care.
> >> Like all the members of Congress who oppose employer mandated health
> >> care.
> >>
> > Why should employers pay for health care?
> >
> >
> Ask the members of Congress who get their health care paid that way
> yet oppose it for others.
>
I'm not sure what the connection is. Lots of employers pay for health
care or part of it at least. It's considered a "benefit".
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
I'm not a member of congress and members of congress don't individually
decide on these things.
George Grapman
>
> George Grapman wrote:
>> Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see') wrote:
>>> George Grapman wrote:
>>>> nevermore wrote:
>>>>> Zepp is all about having things easy. That's why he want others to
>>>>> pay for his health care.
>>>> Like all the members of Congress who oppose employer mandated health
>>>> care.
>>>>
>>> Why should employers pay for health care?
>>>
>>>
>> Ask the members of Congress who get their health care paid that way
>> yet oppose it for others.
>>
> I'm not sure what the connection is. Lots of employers pay for health
> care or part of it at least. It's considered a "benefit".
>
>
mandated insurance have written laws so that their employer, the evil
government, pays for most of their care.
You previously asked why an employer should pay for it but now say
many employers do ..
2410 Dead
no eyes can see')" <john.m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>2410 Dead wrote:
>>
>> On 4 May 2006 23:31:53 +0200, "Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though
>> no eyes can see')" <john.m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >George Grapman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> nevermore wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Zepp is all about having things easy. That's why he want others to
>> >> > pay for his health care.
>> >> Like all the members of Congress who oppose employer mandated health
>> >> care.
>> >>
>> >Why should employers pay for health care?
>>
>> Employers should have absolutely nothing to do with health care.
>>
>They should pay their employees in money. I think though that your
>"answer" is yet another huge government programme.
As opposed to a vast, scattered, incoherent and immensely expensive
private enterprise system that costs double what it should and is far
more invasive and overbearing than government would ever dare try?
nevermore
<sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see') wrote:
>>
>> George Grapman wrote:
>>> nevermore wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Zepp is all about having things easy. That's why he want others to
>>>> pay for his health care.
>>> Like all the members of Congress who oppose employer mandated health
>>> care.
>>>
>> Why should employers pay for health care?
>>
>>
> Ask the members of Congress who get their health care paid that way
>yet oppose it for others.
They don't oppose it for others, they only oppose forcing employers to
do it.
nevermore
Oh booo hooo hooo, Zepp can't afford health insurance.
George Grapman
But they wrote legislation forcing the government to finance their
health care.
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
George Grapman wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see') wrote:
> >
> > George Grapman wrote:
> >> Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see') wrote:
> >>> George Grapman wrote:
> >>>> nevermore wrote:
> >>>>> Zepp is all about having things easy. That's why he want others to
> >>>>> pay for his health care.
> >>>> Like all the members of Congress who oppose employer mandated health
> >>>> care.
> >>>>
> >>> Why should employers pay for health care?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Ask the members of Congress who get their health care paid that way
> >> yet oppose it for others.
> >>
> > I'm not sure what the connection is. Lots of employers pay for health
> > care or part of it at least. It's considered a "benefit".
> >
> >
> The connection is obvious.. The same people who oppose employer
> mandated insurance have written laws so that their employer, the evil
> government, pays for most of their care.
> You previously asked why an employer should pay for it but now say
> many employers do ..
>
There's no conflict there. Why do they pay for it? Many of them do pay
for it but why? Answer the question.
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
George Grapman wrote:
>
> nevermore wrote:
> > On Thu, 04 May 2006 21:50:49 GMT, George Grapman
> > <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see') wrote:
> >>> George Grapman wrote:
> >>>> nevermore wrote:
> >>>>> Zepp is all about having things easy. That's why he want others to
> >>>>> pay for his health care.
> >>>> Like all the members of Congress who oppose employer mandated health
> >>>> care.
> >>>>
> >>> Why should employers pay for health care?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Ask the members of Congress who get their health care paid that way
> >> yet oppose it for others.
> >
> > They don't oppose it for others, they only oppose forcing employers to
> > do it.
>
> But they wrote legislation forcing the government to finance their
> health care.
>
Who is "they"? When did this happen?
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
You think that capitalism is a vast, scattered, incoherent and immensely
expensive private enterprise system that costs double what it should and
is far more invasive and overbearing than government would ever dare
try.
nospam
> Why? Why isn't auto insurance tax financed?
Driving permit is not a right but a privilege.
Did you missed the first lesson on driving class ?
If you lose your driving privilege, you can try to find a job in walking
distance or public transportation accessible. If you lose your health,
there is no public life support to help you with it.
Only antisocial/primitive minds does not consider access to affordable
health care as a human right.
>> ALL the working health program in the world are financed that way.
>>
> What working health care programmes?
From England In Scandinavia, from France to Canada. Everywhere it
is working just fine. Thanks.
Better care for less than half of the money.
> Why do you think that "corporate lobbyists" lobby against national
> health care?
Because health insurance business have huge interest against.
Because drug manufacturers have huge interest against.
> You think GM *wants* to continue its difficulties with
> that?
GM & Ford and all old good companies are brought down by this disfunctional
system of corporate pensions and health care. They start right now to
figure out that the current system of pensions and health care provide them
with huge expenses that make them incompetitive against newcomers on the
market.
The same situation is with US vs. China/India in global world.
The fixed expenses a US manufacturer have with healthcare and retirement
it is yet another unfair advantage offered to the offshore manufacturer.
If we finance the health care and pensions as a tax on corporate proffits
that tax is payed both by domestic and offshore manufacturer. So the
disadvantage the domestic manufacturer have against the offshore producer
is reduced.
That is. The globalization change everything we know about how economy
works.
In the new globalized world, if US want to survive we need to addapt to the
new realities. We need to increase taxes and use this money to finance
universal health care, national pensions, university education,
extended unemployment CONDITIONED by enrolling into a continue ducation
program, and gov. financed research centers to develop and transfer new
technologies to local small businesses.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>On 4 May 2006 19:13:41 +0200, "Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though
>no eyes can see')" <john.m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>To talk.
>>
>>
>>> the writer makes an excellent case. I've long
>>> argued that health care and primary pensions have no business in the
>>> private sector, and certainly should not be funnelled through
>>> employers as job benefits.
>>>
>>You want to enlarge the Social Security system, don't you?
>
>Why not? It's the most successful government program in history, and
>costs far less than any private pension plan out there.
The Titanic was a big success too, right up until it hit the iceberg.
JSL
>>
>>
>>> One problem with private sector pensions is that a lot of companies
>>> that set up pension plans thirty or forty years ago spent a generation
>>> putting as little as possible into it, and now that employees are
>>> retiring, they find they have to make up a shortfall.
>>>
>>This doesn't say anything against private pensions. All you'd have to do
>>is have them contract with an outside party that would be responsible
>>for paying the retirees. Of course what you should do is pay people in
>>money and have them put those funds into their own accounts so they can
>>retire without having to trust that the company set aside anything.
>
>They can do that. The outside party would be the government, which
>would administer the pension plan with about a 3% overhead. You know
>how I know this?
You probably made it up.
And before you go touting how great SS is just remember that if a
private pension policy was run like SS you would be screaming for the
administrators to be hung.
JSL
nospam
> The Titanic was a big success too, right up until it hit the iceberg.
Do you actually believe you have something to say here, or you just want to
look self important :-)
> You probably made it up.
>
> And before you go touting how great SS is just remember that if a
> private pension policy was run like SS you would be screaming for the
> administrators to be hung.
Private pensions are collapsing. Even into fortune 100 companies they drop
them despite huge proffits. Not only companies in troubles let their
workers without pensions but successfull companies too. Looks like a plan
to hurt our society in purpose.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060503/phw026.html?.v=49
And it is enough to remember the number of horror story with 401k in the
last recession. People believing they had a secure retirement found their
401k savings wiped out. Fresh retirees had to go back to work to survive.
England had also a huge failure with private pension plans, too.
And they had to compensate for the private failure by ..... welfare
subsidized by taxes :-)
So, you are speaking out of ideology and against the reality.
nevermore
<sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>nevermore wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 May 2006 21:50:49 GMT, George Grapman
>> <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see') wrote:
>>>> George Grapman wrote:
>>>>> nevermore wrote:
>>>>>> Zepp is all about having things easy. That's why he want others to
>>>>>> pay for his health care.
>>>>> Like all the members of Congress who oppose employer mandated health
>>>>> care.
>>>>>
>>>> Why should employers pay for health care?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Ask the members of Congress who get their health care paid that way
>>> yet oppose it for others.
>>
>> They don't oppose it for others, they only oppose forcing employers to
>> do it.
>
> But they wrote legislation forcing the government to finance their
>health care.
and their employer, we the people, agreed to do it.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>
>> The Titanic was a big success too, right up until it hit the iceberg.
>
>Do you actually believe you have something to say here, or you just want to
>look self important :-)
>
>> You probably made it up.
>>
>> And before you go touting how great SS is just remember that if a
>> private pension policy was run like SS you would be screaming for the
>> administrators to be hung.
>
>Private pensions are collapsing.
Which has no bearing what-so-ever on the state of social security and
its fiscal health. But thanks for the info.
>Even into fortune 100 companies they drop
>them despite huge proffits. Not only companies in troubles let their
>workers without pensions but successfull companies too. Looks like a plan
>to hurt our society in purpose.
>
> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060503/phw026.html?.v=49
>
>And it is enough to remember the number of horror story with 401k in the
>last recession. People believing they had a secure retirement found their
>401k savings wiped out. Fresh retirees had to go back to work to survive.
Because they were fools to keep to keep their earnings in volatile
vehicles that close to retirement. Diversify.
>England had also a huge failure with private pension plans, too.
>And they had to compensate for the private failure by ..... welfare
>subsidized by taxes :-)
>
>So, you are speaking out of ideology and against the reality.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
JSL
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
nospam wrote:
>
> Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>
> > The Titanic was a big success too, right up until it hit the iceberg.
>
> Do you actually believe you have something to say here, or you just want to
> look self important :-)
>
His point is obvious but then you don't seem to see it, like you are
chasing the record in some North Atlantic fog.
> > You probably made it up.
> >
> > And before you go touting how great SS is just remember that if a
> > private pension policy was run like SS you would be screaming for the
> > administrators to be hung.
>
> Private pensions are collapsing. Even into fortune 100 companies they drop
> them despite huge proffits. Not only companies in troubles let their
> workers without pensions but successfull companies too. Looks like a plan
> to hurt our society in purpose.
>
Social Security doesn't save even a penny that workers put into it.
Isn't that crazy?
> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060503/phw026.html?.v=49
>
> And it is enough to remember the number of horror story with 401k in the
> last recession. People believing they had a secure retirement found their
> 401k savings wiped out. Fresh retirees had to go back to work to survive.
>
Because they put the entire thing into the company they worked for,
Enron. How stupid is that? Your retirement doesn't go into one place and
certainly not all into the company you work for. Why should people who
are so stupid end up with a huge retirement anyway?
sfge...@pacbell.net
When were we asked? They gave it to themselves.
nevermore
You had your chance to vote them out of office unless they changed the
law.
2420 Dead
no eyes can see')" <john.m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>2410 Dead wrote:
>>
>> On 5 May 2006 00:22:16 +0200, "Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though
>> no eyes can see')" <john.m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >2410 Dead wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 4 May 2006 23:31:53 +0200, "Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though
>> >> no eyes can see')" <john.m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >George Grapman wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> nevermore wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Zepp is all about having things easy. That's why he want others to
>> >> >> > pay for his health care.
>> >> >> Like all the members of Congress who oppose employer mandated health
>> >> >> care.
>> >> >>
>> >> >Why should employers pay for health care?
>> >>
>> >> Employers should have absolutely nothing to do with health care.
>> >>
>> >They should pay their employees in money. I think though that your
>> >"answer" is yet another huge government programme.
>>
>> As opposed to a vast, scattered, incoherent and immensely expensive
>> private enterprise system that costs double what it should and is far
>> more invasive and overbearing than government would ever dare try?
>>
>You think that capitalism is a vast, scattered, incoherent and immensely
>expensive private enterprise system that costs double what it should and
>is far more invasive and overbearing than government would ever dare
>try.
I think it's the worst thing in the world for providing social
services, and consider America's pathetic and expensive health care
system proof of that.
nevermore
Translation: Zepp still can't afford insurance.
nospam
> Translation: Zepp still can't afford insurance.
Just today another study:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/infant_mortality;_ylt=Av2dmHvv3i38DAExCGwdNTSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-
"""
CHICAGO - America may be the world's superpower, but its survival rate for
newborn babies ranks near the bottom among modern nations, better only than
Latvia.
Among 33 industrialized nations, the United States is tied with Hungary,
Malta, Poland and Slovakia with a death rate of nearly 5 per 1,000 babies,
according to a new report. Latvia's rate is 6 per 1,000.
"""
Yet another big success of the private health insurance system, "the envy of
the world".
But of course, many fanatic extreme right wingers will pop up screaming that
it is better to have babies die than to "force them to pay for somebody
elses baby". Even the fact that US pay 2.5 times more than in Europe for
less care won't deter them from their greedy behaviour. They are willing to
pay more (2.5 time more) and to receive less HOW LONG their money are not
used to save somebody else life.
This seems to be the standard neocons mindset:
===============================================
"If we can let somebody else die I am willing to pay more for that,
but just don't use my money to save a poor life".
Of course. Propaganda it is the only measure left to prevent people for
asking for a civilized universal health care system. This means billions
over billions over billions in fat proffit for private insurers while
everybody else suffer and even die.
And some idiots are always ready to spew individualist anarchist propaganda
just for the chance to kill some more babies.
nevermore
>nevermore wrote:
>
>> Translation: Zepp still can't afford insurance.
>
>Just today another study:
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/infant_mortality;_ylt=Av2dmHvv3i38DAExCGwdNTSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-
>
>"""
>CHICAGO - America may be the world's superpower, but its survival rate for
>newborn babies ranks near the bottom among modern nations, better only than
>Latvia.
Some people prefer big screen TV's and expensive sneakers to
insurance.
nospam
> Some people prefer big screen TV's and expensive sneakers to
> insurance.
46 Million want health insurance but they were denied because it is not very
proffitable for the businesses.
18000 die each year due to the fact that they can not afford health care.
If you claim that they trade their life for a sneakers you are just a
hypocritical corporate ass licker as all republicans are. ALL OF THEM.