Why are there so many snakes in corporate America?

[RomaniGypsy]

Originally Posted by mdovell

I'm not saying I like the guy by any means but how exactly is anyone a "trained minister"? I know some slam Catholism and organized religion but frankly Protestants don't exactly have the same hierarchy i.e. cardinals, bishops, popes etc.

Actually, most Protestant branches do have such a hierarchy. However, I wasn't talking about hierarchy. I was talking about formal theological / ministerial training, the likes of which you'd get at a seminary or other religious institution of higher learning. He does not have a Master of Divinity degree. He is not "Reverend Joel Osteen" because he is not ordained.

Originally Posted by newdixiegirl

First, one could argue that CAPITALISM only works when all members of the system support it.

Not true. Capitalism, if applied in its unadulterated form, works no matter who supports it and who doesn't. That's probably why America has been using capitalism. Capitalism is essentially "every man for himself". The harder and smarter you work, the more money you make. If you don't work, and you don't find any kind-hearted humans to help you, you starve. Simple as that. The only people who wouldn't want that system are those who'd rather be lazy. If we allowed them to eliminate themselves from the gene pool by starving to death, without throwing free money at them just to keep alive resource thieves who have chosen to be useless, there'd be far less lazy people out there. That also has the double benefit of discouraging other potentially lazy people - if someone sees that lazy people don't get help and they will starve to death, then they'll be far less likely to slack off. When it's "sink or swim", chances are, you'll do everything you can to swim.

Originally Posted by newdixiegirl

That it will (and does) begin to fall apart when so-called champions of the system - particularly those who have been its greatest beneficiaries - "dissent," or, more precisely, bastardize the system when it suits them. The banking and auto industries are perfect examples. Bailouts? Of taxpayer's money? Because you're in financial free-fall due to your own corrupt/foolish/myopic/shortsighted business decisions? So, what suddenly happened to the capitalist ideology that the market should decide?

I agree completely. What we have is not true capitalism. It's capitalism on paper but it's more like communism in practice. I do not agree with the bailouts. The banks and big companies that took gambles that didn't pay off, or could not be competitive as is, should have been allowed to fail. If there is any reason why the government hastened their demise, that might change my opinion... but I don't think that happened. The UAW was partially to blame... but nobody said that the companies had to be beholden to the UAW. They could go belly-up, and then the UAW has no more sway. Then they could be resurrected under a different name or under different ownership, using the same people with the same skills to make the same type of product, only without being union-choked. This happened with Hostess, and it could have happened with any other company. I don't mind unions either, at least insofar as their original purpose of protecting workers goes, but unions have also become greedy and as such they should be allowed to fail at the hand of the market as well.

At the same time, we have to keep the playing field fair - as in, enact punitive tariffs or whatever on companies that save money by offshoring their jobs. I don't mind people in China making things for Chinese people... or even the occasional niche item for Americans (like "Oriental rugs"). However, when ordinary consumer goods are made by American companies using cheap foreign labor to get around the cost of manufacturing things in America, we have a major problem. Ultimately the market does balance itself out. Right now we have cheap foreign-made consumer goods, and expensive fuel because now those foreigners we've been employing for so long have entered the market for transportation and petroleum products which raises prices for everyone. We'd be paying the same amount of money for our things, but we'd feel a lot better about it, if we had cheap gas and more expensive American-made consumer goods.

Originally Posted by newdixiegirl

Second, I understand your point about people receiving "free healthcare" when they routinely make poor choices that have the potential to affect their own health. However, one can easily interpret the workings of private health insurance in the same way. Health insurance companies are in the business of health care; that is, their main objective is not the health and well-being of US citizens nor of the public health of the US. No, their main interest is profit. Big, big, and ever-bigger profits.

I don't agree with health insurance. I don't think there should be such a thing as health insurance. Either make it private pay across the boards or make it single-payer, but health insurance is a joke the way it works in today's America. It only serves to prevent people from knowing what their health care really costs and what it should really cost. It's a huge game of smoke and mirrors which even the health care practitioners hate. You should see the discounts I get for being cash pay when I go to the doctor or pharmacy.

Originally Posted by newdixiegirl

The same principles that apply to auto insurance apply to health insurance: no matter how responsible are our own choices, we ALL end up paying for the imprudence and recklessness of the few.

Not necessarily true. Auto insurance is a voluntary thing. You don't HAVE to drive. If you don't drive, you don't have to buy auto insurance. Plenty of people live perfectly good lives not ever driving a car. A lady lived next door to my parents' first house, and this lady lived to be 103 years old... in excellent health up until the very end. She never once operated a motor vehicle. (Maybe there's a correlation.) And this was not an area where there was robust public transportation either... nor was it a densely packed city where bicycling or walking to all necessities was a viable proposition.

By contrast, we're all going to get sick at some point... or in some way need some form of health care. Given that basic health care is therefore a basic necessity of life, which every last one of us will need at some point regardless of how well we live and how healthy our choices are, it should be provided free of charge (or through the outrageous taxes that we all pay) to every person as long as the doctor can attest to how the person hasn't done anything to unduly raise his risk of needing health care. For example, no smokers get free health care. (You want to see the smoking rate drop dramatically? Make health care free for non-smokers only!) We provide free basic education for everyone, we should provide free basic health care for everyone who is taking responsibility as best he/she can for his/her health.

Auto insurers have the option of dropping their high-risk drivers. That reduces the cost of auto insurance for everyone involved. Auto insurance claims are typically very high. But do you know what I'm paying for full coverage, with liability limits well into the six figures, for my wife and myself as drivers? Barely more than $400 PER YEAR... through one of the biggest name insurers in the country... for the lowest deductible they offer! You know why? Because we're excellent risks. We drive safely and we haven't even gotten a speeding ticket in years.

By contrast, in spite of how we're in excellent health, and how neither of us has had any reason to spend more than $500 per year on our health (most of which is "preventative maintenance" such as dental checkups and routine eye exams) since becoming adults, we would probably find that our health insurance premiums would be at least $400 PER MONTH for a policy that carries a gargantuan deductible! Now, again, we're excellent risks. In spite of being "overweight", neither of us has any persistent health problems like high blood pressure, diabetes, etc. Our CBC's show us to be the picture of health. We don't smoke nor drink, and we are active enough with our performing lifestyle. Yet, we don't get the same consideration for health insurance... and why? Because it's not the same type of market. High-risk drivers become "uninsurable". Many states, and now America as a whole, have legislated that NO person be "uninsurable" for health reasons no matter what he/she does. Smoke three packs of cigarettes a day? You're covered! Drink a whole bottle of vodka every day? You're covered! Engage in dangerous contact sports? You're covered! Weigh 500 pounds with diabetes, heart problems, bad knees, and asthma? You're covered!

That's the difference.

Originally Posted by newdixiegirl

So, in order to continually increase their profits, health insurance continue to raise the premiums, deductibles and co-pays of EVERYONE. The thought of helping to pay for universal healthcare that will cover the healthcare costs of irresponsible people ticks YOU off? Well, paying ever-increasing costs for private health insurance because other people choose to eat poorly, drink and smoke excessively, exercise little, and willingly partake in life-threatening pursuits, annoys the heck out of me.

Yeah, it's all the same story. I do agree. This is why I've never had health insurance. I've never NEEDED it. The likelihood that I am going to have a catastrophic health incident that is not covered by some insurance (namely, auto insurance) is extremely slim. I can run rings around most people my age. I get sick maybe once or twice a year... and it's never anything worse than the flu. When I get too heavy, I kick the exercise up a notch and the weight falls off of me. Generally speaking, I'm a really healthy guy. Thus, I don't need to pay hundreds of dollars per month just to have some safety net to catch me if I end up in the hospital. I'm not going to go to the hospital for anything but a car accident, and then either his liability insurance or my uninsured motorists insurance will pay the medical bills.

Originally Posted by mayorofnyc

Socialism while well-intended has many unintended consequences. For one, it wastes resources by forcing everyone to pay for the mistakes and reckless of behavior of others.

Not if others don't behave recklessly, or if they are excluded from the system. The type of need that a socialist system SHOULD pay for is something like "Mike just got laid off because his company downsized"... not "Jack ended up in the hospital with alcohol poisoning". A decent socialist system, operating on the basic principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" would see that Jack was not giving according to his ability - he was being irresponsible and selfish by drinking himself into the hospital. Thus, Jack would not be given anything to cover the cost of his irresponsibility because he did not give of his ability.

Originally Posted by mayorofnyc

Government on the other hand never goes out of business.

Perhaps it's time that this government does go out of business and get replaced with a better form thereof.

[hughbay]

Simple as that. The only people who wouldn't want that system are those who'd rather be lazy. If we allowed them to eliminate themselves from the gene pool by starving to death, without throwing free money at them just to keep alive resource thieves who have chosen to be useless, there'd be far less lazy people out there.

Never gonna happen here. This is the same country where we give pedophiles televisions in prison and where you can incinerate 3,000 people in their office buildings and still have 50% of the electorate fighting to get you pork-free meals and an extra prayer rug at GITMO.

No way we'd have the stomach to actually let the idiots weed themselves out of the gene pool through they're own stupidity. After all, it's society's fault you got addicted to crack anyways.

[UEHelp]

Because human nature is a *****. No matter if it's Big Business or Government, humans just can't seem to act reasonably when they have a little power and wealth. Hasn't changed, won't change.

It doesn't matter what "ism" you use, there is always abuse due to human nature. I seem to recall that those who had wealth and power in the old Soviet Union lived like kings and queens versus the common person.