Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's not true at all. Health is primarily a genetic thing. If you isolate for race, the stats look much more consistent.
In other words, Scandinavians living in the US are most likely to have the same health as if they were living in Scandinavia.
The problem with the commonly misused stats is they ignore race, and the countries people like to compare to have almost no blacks and Hispanics. The sad facts are that certain groups of people have better health and health care has nothing to do with it.
Are you saying blacks and hispanics are less healthy, have poorer genes than Scandinavians? Please provide some proof.
Apples? I get your point, but i wouldn't use an agricultural product as an example...considering that apples are probably heavily subsidized.
Good point. And that is another fact that people who criticize free markets don't understand. If you have government intervention all over the place, you really have not given capitalism a chance.
Health care is very much controlled by the government. Mandates have been in place for years and will increase under ObamaCare.
Regarding apples, it appears that subsidies have ended. This is surprising as I have never heard of the government stopping a social service.
That's exactly what caused health care costs to rise far higher than inflation. The same thing happened with college tuition costs. Started being subsidized, up the price went with no bottom in sight. And how much more expensive will health care be when the Fed debases the U.S. dollar because of QE 2?
You are both saying that employer provided health care pushed costs up?
That's not true at all. Health is primarily a genetic thing. If you isolate for race, the stats look much more consistent.
In other words, Scandinavians living in the US are most likely to have the same health as if they were living in Scandinavia.
The problem with the commonly misused stats is they ignore race, and the countries people like to compare to have almost no blacks and Hispanics. The sad facts are that certain groups of people have better health and health care has nothing to do with it.
There is a book you desperately need to read. "The China Syndrome".
That's not true at all. Health is primarily a genetic thing. If you isolate for race, the stats look much more consistent.
In other words, Scandinavians living in the US are most likely to have the same health as if they were living in Scandinavia.
The problem with the commonly misused stats is they ignore race, and the countries people like to compare to have almost no blacks and Hispanics. The sad facts are that certain groups of people have better health and health care has nothing to do with it.
So what? Blacks and Hispanics are here and unless you've come up with one hell of a deportation plan, they're gonna remain here.
Unless of of course, you're saying that we need special health care plans for Blacks and Hispanics. Wonder how well that'll go over. Geez...i thought we were all Americans?
So what? Blacks and Hispanics are here and unless you've come up with one hell of a deportation plan, they're gonna remain here.
Unless of of course, you're saying that we need special health care plans for Blacks and Hispanics. Wonder how well that'll go over. Geez...i thought we were all Americans?
I never said anything about treating Blacks and Hispanics any different than everyone else in the US. That is not an acceptable solution. And that is way off the point of my post.
My point is that you cannot COMPARE health in Finland or Canada with health in the USA because the people are different.
Often, because you have skills they desire and they wish to retain you. As a result perks and job benefits are sometimes included in compensation along with salary. That is almost as silly as asking why should your employer furnish you with a salary.
On a side know I know a bunch of people who get their rent, car, or a portion of their meals covered by their employers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophiasmommy
haha, you really show your age and entitlement mentality with that comment. Your salary is for the work performed, otherwise you're a volunteer or slave.
You have no clue what you are talking about, and besides if someone refused to pay you a salary, you would be neither a slave, nor a volunteer. You would be working for someone else that pays better, pays hourly, on contract. You work for who you can get the most favorable terms from as employers compete against each other for talent...On top of that have you ever worked a job that had benefits, or are you a stay at home mom taking an intellectual foray into the world of employer-employee relations? Prior to even starting your work, or shortly after a trial period you negotiate/determine compensation and terms. That compensation, including any benefits, is what you negotiated for when you took the job and any benefits agreed to are as much a part of what you are working for as your salary/hourly rate is. So again I say asking why should your employer offer benefits is almost as silly as asking why should your employer furnish you with a salary. Obviously if those were the terms reached when you took up your employment that is what you are working for until you renegotiate something, or end your employment That is the way it has has been for every job I have had. To give you some examples, one position I had offered tuition reimbursement for 8 credit hours a semester, another offered a mileage reimbursement for travel as a benefit, and yet another offered a group plan for health insurance. All of these were almost as important as salary to me in taking the jobs. It would be stupid for you to just roll over and give up on benefits that are either offered, or can be negotiated for.
Simply put, benefits are as much a part of what you are working for as salary is if you have a decent job.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 10-26-2010 at 05:55 PM..
Good point. And that is another fact that people who criticize free markets don't understand. If you have government intervention all over the place, you really have not given capitalism a chance.
Health care is very much controlled by the government. Mandates have been in place for years and will increase under ObamaCare.
Regarding apples, it appears that subsidies have ended. This is surprising as I have never heard of the government stopping a social service.
LOL...yea, however how long were they getting subsidized? Fair question i think. If those apple farmers have been loading up on the subsidies for quite a while, they've gained one hell of a business advantage and probably don't need it anymore. However, i'm pretty sure that they were still pissed at losing the welfare.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
