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.
If one employer started to pay for employee's food in order to attract talent and was more successful in getting top talent, other employers would soon follow and would become the norm.
But the answer to your question is, it isn't their responsibility but they do see it as being in their best interest.
Agreed. In fact, many employers give their employees a discount in the company caf, esp. hospitals, and some give you a "free lunch". Many give you "free" coffee, donuts, etc. I don't get the umbrage over health insurance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter
Don't waste your time. According to these people, you had no damn business getting sick!!
Too true. I already brought up that point. The OP didn't get it. I think there's a lack of understanding about what "pre-existing conditions" are. You get cancer, survive, and forever after, you have a pre-existing condition. You're born with a genetic condition, ditto. Have a chronic disease, eg, asthma, diabetes, ETC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
But it originated when FDR imposed a pay-freeze as a way to compete. It should have reverted back to pay only after the freeze was gone. It did not and now we have this mess of people conditioned not to insure themselves and whine when they lose their job about losing the HC too.
So freaking what if that's how it originated? Why is it so important to some that everyone pay for their health care totally out of pocket? If your employer wants to give you health insurance, the same way they give you vacation pay, or tuition reimbursement, SO WHAT?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
Taking money from some people to pay for other people's health care is also "selfishness and greed". It's amazing how easy it is and how comfortable we have become spending other people's money.
And there is nothing stopping you from using your own money to help your neighbors, so go ahead.
Who is taking money from whom in this situation?
Your last statement is a cop-out. The purpose of insurance, is to spread the cost over a lot of people, so that YOU can be taken care of when YOU have a problem.
Taking money from some people to pay for other people's health care is also "selfishness and greed". It's amazing how easy it is and how comfortable we have become spending other people's money.
And there is nothing stopping you from using your own money to help your neighbors, so go ahead.
If you can figure out how much of your personal tax dollars went into my pocket, let me know. I promise you that if you give me your address, i'll send you a money order for that amount. I live to please people.
However, insurance CEOS and executives have awarded themselves record-setting salaries and bonuses.
Yeah? So what? Unless you're a share-holder in the company, in ain't none of your business how much a CEO gets paid.
An intelligent person would understand that CEO pay increases and bonuses take away profits from the share-holder, but then the share-holders also realize that giving up a few dollars now will result in a gain of a few thousand in the near future, right?
I mean any intelligent person would pay $1,000 to make $100,000.
That's why rich people are rich. They don't do stupid things like poor people do. Poor people pay $250,000 for the privilege of paying $250,000 for a McMansion because they're too stupid to save up money for a down payment and they end up paying an equivalent amount of money interest and then have the unmitigated gall to whine that they ain't got no money.
Yeah? So what? Unless you're a share-holder in the company, in ain't none of your business how much a CEO gets paid.
An intelligent person would understand that CEO pay increases and bonuses take away profits from the share-holder, but then the share-holders also realize that giving up a few dollars now will result in a gain of a few thousand in the near future, right?
I mean any intelligent person would pay $1,000 to make $100,000.
That's why rich people are rich. They don't do stupid things like poor people do. Poor people pay $250,000 for the privilege of paying $250,000 for a McMansion because they're too stupid to save up money for a down payment and they end up paying an equivalent amount of money interest and then have the unmitigated gall to whine that they ain't got no money.
The truly poor don't get mortgages for 250k. Besides, how many working people do you know that can come up with 20% of 250k to put down on a house? Hell, if they could do that, they'd probably be able to afford something more expensive than that.
I don't know where you live, but i live in a town that's fairly well off, and yet i don't know too many working class folks who have 50k sitting in the bank...if i know any at all. Maybe you're from Beverly Hills or something.
Because many people have pre-existing conditions which will not allow them to get individual policies at any price. When you are part of a group employer plan the insurance company has to accept you. It is also presumably less expensive when a group of people are part of an insurance pool (A 20 year old's coverage might cost $100. a month, 60 year old might cost $1000. a month, and a 50 year old $700. A company might be able to pay $400. per employee and come out ahead.)
What's the difference whether an employer pays you in salary or pays you in benefits? If you are a very healthy 25 year old, you might have a different opinion on this than a 50 year old, or someone with a chronically ill child.
But it originated when FDR imposed a pay-freeze as a way to compete. It should have reverted back to pay only after the freeze was gone. It did not and now we have this mess of people conditioned not to insure themselves and whine when they lose their job about losing the HC too.
Funny, I thought a board of directors did all that.
Boards of Directors were supposed to limit the power of the CEO, but they found away around the problem. It is increasingly the case in America's Big Businesses that CEOs sit on each other's Boards of Directors and cooperatively inflate each other's income into the stratosphere.
"The reciprocal interlocking of chief executive officers is a non-trivial phenomenon: among large companies in 1991, about one company in seven was in a relationship whereby the CEO of one company sat on a second company's board and the second company's CEO sat on the first company's board....Our empirical findings are that these reciprocal CEO interlocks primarily benefit the CEOs rather than their shareholders." ScienceDirect - Journal of Corporate Finance : Why do CEOs reciprocally sit on each other's boards?
With 1 in 7 companies breaking this unethical ground in 1991, I shudder to think what percentage does it now. But you can get an idea from the following trend statistics: "In 1965, U.S. CEOs in major companies earned 24 times more than an average worker; this ratio grew to 35 in 1978 and to 71 in 1989. The ratio surged in the 1990s and hit 300 at the end of the recovery in 2000." CEO-to-worker pay imbalance grows and "In 2007, CEOs in the S&P 500, averaged $10.5 million annually, 344 times the pay of typical American workers." Executive pay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And while "American workers earn less in weekly wages than they did in the 1970s (adjusted for inflation)," CEO are rewarded for layoffs and "are rewarding themselves even during periods of bad performance. The same executives that helped bring the company into bankruptcy got a huge bonus for getting through it." You would think that shareholders would have a say in executive compensation, but "federal regulations do not offer shareholders a substantial voice in reviewing and approving executive compensation."
Big Business and Big Government are no friend to the American worker; they work hand in hand to funnel the wealth of the working citizens into their own hands and bank accounts. Small businesses, on the other hand, offer both half the jobs in the economy, and an overall better environment for workers, and a potential escape (through ownership) from wage slavery.
It's already there, for people my age. But I'm never going to retire. I'll work until I die.
If you invest our money NOW you'd be surprise over the course of 20 or 30 years how much money you can accumulate even with modest gains. But you've got to INVEST and the sooner the better.
Romania and Ohio have about the same population, so why don't you compare their unemployment rates?
I mean, seriously, Luxembourg? Do you even have a clue?
Luxembourg is about the size of a typical county in any US state. At one time I had eaten in every single restaurant in Luxembourg City. It was only a 35 minute drive from where I lived in Germany.
Then I started driving to Belgium to have dinner on the weekends since it was only another 15 minute drive past Luxembourg City.
In fact, Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands are half the size of Ohio (or Indiana) and would fit neatly inside Ohio between I-70 and the Ohio River.
That's three countries equal in size and population to about 44 counties in any given state in the US (except Montana or Idaho where no one lives).
Comparisons like that are just idiotic.
Yur post proves nothing except you chose to focus in the smaller countries.
Thanks for sharing!
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.
