Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-15-2010, 07:33 AM
 
8,602 posts, read 9,097,825 times
Reputation: 5939

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan View Post
Let's look at this one bit at a time. For now, I'd like to focus on this statement;
A few things come to mind. First, tell us what phenomenal employment would be created. It sounds like you are talking about a phenomenal amount of administrative personell to oversee the massive amounts of beaucratic paperwork that will be created. So, where does the money to pay for this phenomenal employment come from? I'm guessing that it will come from increases in premiums for those who actually have to pay premiums. Do you have some other ideas on that?
There are other reasons why new jobs will be created. Small businesses may hire because of the burden of providing insurance to its employees. Those who feel stuck in bad jobs may jump these jobs a strike out on their own and large businesses may be better suited to compete globally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-15-2010, 08:25 AM
 
Location: Martinsville, NJ
6,175 posts, read 12,917,018 times
Reputation: 4020
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmking View Post
There are other reasons why new jobs will be created. Small businesses may hire because of the burden of providing insurance to its employees. Those who feel stuck in bad jobs may jump these jobs a strike out on their own and large businesses may be better suited to compete globally.
If the demand for their product or service has not increased, a small business is going to increase it's staff? Why? So it has yet another employee for which to pay that additional cost? That doesn't make any sense to me. Please explain your thinking here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2010, 09:06 AM
 
3,283 posts, read 5,199,705 times
Reputation: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmking View Post
There are other reasons why new jobs will be created. Small businesses may hire because of the burden of providing insurance to its employees. Those who feel stuck in bad jobs may jump these jobs a strike out on their own and large businesses may be better suited to compete globally.

businesses shouldn't have the burden of providing healthcare in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2010, 11:06 AM
 
Location: London UK & Florida USA
7,923 posts, read 8,834,609 times
Reputation: 2059
Quote:
Originally Posted by 58robbo View Post
businesses shouldn't have the burden of providing healthcare in the first place.
Unfortunately with the current health system in America..... Business health cover is the only way many can get healthcare in America. Sad but true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2010, 11:09 AM
 
Location: London UK & Florida USA
7,923 posts, read 8,834,609 times
Reputation: 2059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan View Post
If the demand for their product or service has not increased, a small business is going to increase it's staff? Why? So it has yet another employee for which to pay that additional cost? That doesn't make any sense to me. Please explain your thinking here.
With increaed employment comes increased spending and many businesses will have bigger demands on their products. Lower outlay by the company because of not having to pay huge health premiums would mean a ability to pay higher wages and lower their prices....Everyone's a winner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2010, 11:11 AM
 
Location: London UK & Florida USA
7,923 posts, read 8,834,609 times
Reputation: 2059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
What coverage do you have? We paid $125/mo for our 20-something daughters after they got kicked off our insurance and before they got their own. They didn't have much coverage at that rate. I can't imagine what you're getting for $60.
Not sure i believe his $60 Dollar a month for health cover story unless he has a minimum cover and HUGE co-pays.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2010, 11:18 AM
 
Location: London UK & Florida USA
7,923 posts, read 8,834,609 times
Reputation: 2059
Quote:
Originally Posted by 58robbo View Post
more than 50% of your beloved nhs are administrators. and drugs are cheap because they're bought in bulk. tell that to this tiny group of people (20000) who slipped through that net

NICE rejects cancer drugs that could have extended patients' lives | Mail Online
NICE rejects drugs when it is shown that existing drugs do the same job or the drugs have NOT been passed by the UK drug administration..... this saves money from being spent on new more expensive drugs that are no better than existing cheaper ones and new untested drugs being released to the public in the UK.
Not sure where you get over 50% from but even if that was true it would still be a lot less than the admin and non medical staff needed to sell and control the American health system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2010, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Martinsville, NJ
6,175 posts, read 12,917,018 times
Reputation: 4020
Quote:
Originally Posted by geeoro View Post
With increaed employment comes increased spending and many businesses will have bigger demands on their products. Lower outlay by the company because of not having to pay huge health premiums would mean a ability to pay higher wages and lower their prices....Everyone's a winner.
Where is that increased employment coming from? You stated earlier that implementing UHC will result in "phenomenal" job gains, but you never showed us how or where.
And there will be no LOWER outlay by companies for health insurance premiums. Every company will be paying MORE than they do now for their employees health insurance. As they are forced to pay more per employee, companies will seek to REDUCE the number of employees, so they can keep their costs from rising.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2010, 11:32 AM
 
Location: London UK & Florida USA
7,923 posts, read 8,834,609 times
Reputation: 2059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan View Post
So you think that there will be PHENOMENAL hiring of all these people? Why? Do we have a gigantic shortage of health care professionals now? Does a change in the insurance company paying for our health care somehow necessitate the building of new facilites? And if so, what happens to all the existing ones?
a UHC would mean new construction of Hosptals etc etc which means a huge boost to the American building trade. New medical staff would be trained in fact many other fields would need staff to be trained and new teachers needed God the Ampunt of employment and the vast range of NEW jobs would be the BIGGEST tonic to the USA that has ever happened. Oh i forgot.... there are some in America who are happy with the way things are now..... Auto industry failing..... Construction failing..... America no loinger has any industries or makes anything anymore ... China makes nearly everything and Japan makes the rest..... You happy with that?????????
A UHC would be the biggest and best investment that America could make unless you like being in the Pocket of China and Big Corporations.

And then, you say, in the same paragraph, that there are no premiums, but there is a tax. This is like the misdirection of a half decent illusionist. Stop following the moving hand with the colorful scarf, and watch as he palms the gold coin. The TAX IS the Premium. You talk about "THE TAX" that pays for all these wonderful benefits, but you seem to have no inkling or concern about who pays that tax, but surely you have to recognize that someone does. Nothing is free. And pointing out that everyone pays it but no one recognizes it for what it is, is NOT a good thing. It's further proof that, if they are sneaky and devious enough, an unchecked government can and will take more from us than we notice. More reason to put a stop to such things, if you ask me.
Lets get the difference between premiums and tax sorted out.
Premiums only pay for your own particular health cover and is only in force while you pay the premiums.
Tax is paid by Tax payers and covers every Citizen. Health cover does NOT stop if you stop paying tax or retire and covers you for your entire life. If you never work you still get health cover. I don't mind paying tax for EVERY American to get health cover. Obviously you do. Pity you don't complain about paying Tax for every Iraqi to get helth cover and a new health system on American tax money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2010, 11:51 AM
 
Location: Martinsville, NJ
6,175 posts, read 12,917,018 times
Reputation: 4020
Quote:
Originally Posted by geeoro View Post
Lets get the difference between premiums and tax sorted out.
Premiums only pay for your own particular health cover and is only in force while you pay the premiums.
Tax is paid by Tax payers and covers every Citizen. Health cover does NOT stop if you stop paying tax or retire and covers you for your entire life. If you never work you still get health cover. I don't mind paying tax for EVERY American to get health cover. Obviously you do. Pity you don't complain about paying Tax for every Iraqi to get helth cover and a new health system on American tax money.
You're attributing to me statements that I never made. Your quote above is partly mine and partly someone elses. Fix that, please, or I'll ask an admin to do it for you.


You may want to avoid the issue by differentiating between taxes & premiums. Whatever you want to call it, however, it's money paid for health insurance. I have no problem paying for my own insurance, and my fgamily's, but I do not feel I should be FORCED to pay for my neighbors, or anyone elses. And if some people, such as you, are generous and well off enough that they want to pay for someone elses, there are many vehicles available by which one can do that. It shouldn't be compulsory and government controlled.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top