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.
It is pretty obvious that the Bush and Obama Administrations have been very kind to big business interests. TARP, low tax rates, low interest rates,etc. Why don't businesses want to hire people in the country that saved their asses?
Simple question. Discuss.
Large corporations would rather hire workers in Asia. Asian workers work for lower wages, and this increases their corporate profits.
Thats why large corporations build so many US factories in China.
I haven't seen anyone mention that lending hasn't come back at all...especially small business lending. Lack of flexibility of cashflow both corporate and individual is a factor in this thing.
This is why I support Universal Healthcare and removing healthcare from employment. Doing that removes some of the risk of leaving a larger company with a healthplan to pursue small business interests. It is a shame the Republicans shot down that idea.
Precisely. Their hypocrisy is on display for all the world to see. If they really thought that ACA was a problem, instead of part of the solution as it is, they would agree to single-payer and make it reality immediately. Instead, all the right-wingers really are trying to do is to revert our nation back to the place it was when the working poor couldn't afford health insurance, when pre-existing conditions precluded affordable healthcare, and when insurers and employers could dupe their employees into a false sense of security with inadequate health plans.
No way: If folks want to revoke ACA, then do it by replacing it with something that is actually better - better for those less fortunate rather than better for those already doing okay - not reverting back to something worse.
Precisely. Their hypocrisy is on display for all the world to see. If they really thought that ACA was a problem, instead of part of the solution as it is, they would agree to single-payer and make it reality immediately. Instead, all the right-wingers really are trying to do is to revert our nation back to the place it was when the working poor couldn't afford health insurance, when pre-existing conditions precluded affordable healthcare, and when insurers and employers could dupe their employees into a false sense of security with inadequate health plans.
No way: If folks want to revoke ACA, then do it by replacing it with something that is actually better - better for those less fortunate rather than better for those already doing okay - not reverting back to something worse.
Under ACA, the single working poor still wont be able to afford it. Think about it, you work part time for all 52 weeks per year about 30 hours at minimum wage (of say $7.50) you make the poverty line for singles at 11,700. ACA goes to 133% of the poverty line making $15,561 the line in the sand. If you make, $10 an hour and work 30 hours for all 52 weeks per year you make just over it at $15,600. Note working poor goes into around 20K for singles (it is 30K for families) For families because the poverty line is 23,050 for a family of four, the ACA rate is 30,656 which is still UNDER the working poor line.
In my opinion you either increase the percentage to cover more people or you just get rid of the system because it will fail those who it was created to protect because they couldn't get affordable coverage in the first place.
That's funny. I want the for-profit health insurance companies out of our healthcare. Think how much we would all save if we didn't have insurance companies sucking up billions of healthcare dollars.
Health care should be thought of as more of a utility than a consumer good. Because it's not a consumer good. I can decide whether or not to buy a car, or a phone, or even some food products. But I can't choose whether or not to be sick. It's time we stopped treating healthcare as a consumer product.
Here's an interesting question for you..
How many retirement plans have shares or interest in insurance companies and/or healthcare industry, and what would happen to all their combined incomes if "for profit" insurance companies went away?
Here's some of the answer, MOST state and federal retirement..
Removing the healthcare industry from "for profit", hurts more than the healthcare industry, it will hit the pockets of over 75% of all retirement portfolios, maybe even YOURS?
Under ACA, the single working poor still wont be able to afford it.
Yes they could be able to. You simply don't know what you're talking about, like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
ACA goes to 133% of the poverty line
ACA includes subsidies up to 400 FPL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
In my opinion you either increase the percentage to cover more people or you just get rid of the system
In other words, because you cannot save everyone suffering a heart attack you shouldn't try to save anyone. I'm glad you're not my doctor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt
How many retirement plans have shares or interest in insurance companies and/or healthcare industry, and what would happen to all their combined incomes if "for profit" insurance companies went away?
It is a novel argument, but the remedy is to not take the previous poster literally, i.e., perhaps only doing away with for-profit insurance, but leaving service and product providers as profit-making ventures, though applying the buying power of the nation to secure the best rates. It will probably still adversely affect the value of my own personal retirement savings, but as reflection of the restoration of some measure of economic equity in the system. While it will hurt me and others like me a manageable amount, it will help me and others like me to some extent, as well, buffering its impact, and will help many others to better afford the basics, something which they cannot do as effectively now.
anytime you increase the cost of doing business, employers are going to find a way to cut those costs to the bone if they can.
employers are going to find a way to cut costs to the bone whether or not government increases their cost of doing business. it is a moot point... profit is their goal under any regulatory scheme.
Good point. Given that many employers will do nothing to be fair and just to employees without being forced to, forcing them to is the only means of guarding against a conversion of the US labor market into a veritable slave market.
Large corporations would rather hire workers in Asia. Asian workers work for lower wages, and this increases their corporate profits.
Thats why large corporations build so many US factories in China.
Perfectly legal.
Perfectly responsible to shareholders.
Perfectly rational.
I hear that algore is worth $200 million....you would think that he would start a business here in America and hire American workers, pay a "living wage", unionize, full benefits and pensions.
Instead, he was on the board of directors at Apple....who has every product built in China.
The main reason they can charge such high margins is because they're mostly protected from competition or at least competition is extremely limited while the people who get sick often are told "buy this or you die" so they literally can milk every last cent out of desperate people. It's an immoral business which doesn't respond to normal market forces therefor it needs to be regulated like a monopoly or, better yet, run like a public utility with government ownership just like municipal water systems.
Yep, you can thank the American Hospital Association and their lobbyists for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
It is a novel argument, but the remedy is to not take the previous poster literally, i.e., perhaps only doing away with for-profit insurance, but leaving service and product providers as profit-making ventures, though applying the buying power of the nation to secure the best rates.
Yes, because obviously 3.56% is too much profit for insurance companies. The CEO of HCA can make $47 million/year, but if an insurance CEO makes a fraction of that he must be a leech.
Nobody is going to force you to buy insurance and if you don't want their services you can pay cash for medical care.
"I can't afford medical care without insurance" you say
Then, reduce the monopoly power of medical providers
No, that's not the problem, insurance companies are. Let's nationalize them.
That doesn't affect the cost of medical care.
But, look at medicare!
Medicare can't pay for itself as it is. Insurance companies aren't borrowing money to pay bills.
But, it's FREEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!
Nothing is ever free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
employers are going to find a way to cut costs to the bone whether or not government increases their cost of doing business. it is a moot point... profit is their goal under any regulatory scheme.
As it should be, there is a legal and ethical duty to maximize profit for shareholders. The point isn't moot though, small businesses get crushed by unnecessary regulations. Instead of an entrepreneur starting a business they might just stay working for someone else. The reason this is an undesirable outcome is because small companies employ most of America.
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.
The CEO of HCA can make $47 million/year, but if an insurance CEO makes a fraction of that he must be a leech.
