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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-22-2009, 02:26 AM
 
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
76 posts, read 146,871 times
Reputation: 33

Advertisements

Cut military spending by not having all these damned pointless wars. Afghanistan and Iraq need to end NOW. Bring home all the troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, Germany, S Korea, and Japan. It is high time we stop being the police of the world. Close all those pointless military bases. Stop spending so much money on developing new weapons when we have enough to blow up half the world all ready. Stop illegal immigration FOR REAL by building a huge wall all along the Mexican American border and deporting all the illegal immigrants. Cut foreign aid to most of the nations we give it too. Most of that money does not actually help people in Africa or any other place. All these things all ready waste trillions in our tax payer dollars. Why not use that money to support American citizens?

Those are just some ideas.

Universal Health Care will solve a lot of problems for 49 million American citizens. The corporate health care system is not willing or able to take care of these people. The time is now to stop this madness with the health care system. It is gutting parts of America and lots of people don't seems to care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-22-2009, 02:45 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,232 posts, read 46,649,845 times
Reputation: 11084
Millions for defense--not one cent for offense?

Nah, that just makes far too much sense. Our military's mission is the defense of our country, not to fulfill the geopolitical aims of our government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2009, 06:32 AM
 
30,063 posts, read 18,660,332 times
Reputation: 20877
Quote:
Originally Posted by alan777 View Post
Cut military spending by not having all these damned pointless wars. Afghanistan and Iraq need to end NOW. Bring home all the troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, Germany, S Korea, and Japan. It is high time we stop being the police of the world. Close all those pointless military bases. Stop spending so much money on developing new weapons when we have enough to blow up half the world all ready. Stop illegal immigration FOR REAL by building a huge wall all along the Mexican American border and deporting all the illegal immigrants. Cut foreign aid to most of the nations we give it too. Most of that money does not actually help people in Africa or any other place. All these things all ready waste trillions in our tax payer dollars. Why not use that money to support American citizens?

Those are just some ideas.

Universal Health Care will solve a lot of problems for 49 million American citizens. The corporate health care system is not willing or able to take care of these people. The time is now to stop this madness with the health care system. It is gutting parts of America and lots of people don't seems to care.


Okay-

Bammer is in charge with a democratic senate and congress. Call him up and have him do just that. He has the power- all he needs is the will.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2009, 06:38 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,771,962 times
Reputation: 24863
Unfortunately the President does not have the power to shut down the military industry boondoggle. In fact to do so now would put the last remnants of well paid industrial labor out of work and make the recession deeper. He and we are caught between a rock and a hard spot at this time.

The time to clip these corporate wings is during his second term.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2009, 06:42 AM
 
30,063 posts, read 18,660,332 times
Reputation: 20877
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
Unfortunately the President does not have the power to shut down the military industry boondoggle. In fact to do so now would put the last remnants of well paid industrial labor out of work and make the recession deeper. He and we are caught between a rock and a hard spot at this time.

The time to clip these corporate wings is during his second term.

Well, now he does.


He has the senate and the congress and the presidency. If it is going to happen, now is the time. I cannot recall a single president that has had such a majority in both houses and the ability to do so much, yet so little is done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2009, 06:45 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,771,962 times
Reputation: 24863
The Military supply/financial industry has the House and Senate. They have since the beginning of WW2.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2009, 06:54 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
37,800 posts, read 41,003,240 times
Reputation: 62189
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleLove08 View Post
With single-payer, it can be paid for in the following way:

Single-Payer FAQ | Physicians for a National Health Program


While I like single-payer, I also like the German health care system.
It's a lot like our "system" except the sickness funds (kind of like health insurance companies) are not allowed to make a profit and this keeps costs down. They only exist to pay claims. They have to accept everyone who wants to join their fund. Employees and employers contribute to the monthly premium and if someone is laid off, the government pays the premium while the worker looks for a job.
Why would a company stay in business if it couln't make a profit?

Like giving to charity when you want to know what percent actually goes to performing the charitable work versus the administration costs, I'd like to know what percent of the final healthcare bill cost is the government agency's cost to run it. Or isn't that number in the cost analysis because normally, that would show up in the agency's annual appropriations bill, right? I'm not asking a rhetorical question. I don't know the answer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2009, 07:22 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
8,998 posts, read 14,785,443 times
Reputation: 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
Why would a company stay in business if it couln't make a profit?

Like giving to charity when you want to know what percent actually goes to performing the charitable work versus the administration costs, I'd like to know what percent of the final healthcare bill cost is the government agency's cost to run it. Or isn't that number in the cost analysis because normally, that would show up in the agency's annual appropriations bill, right? I'm not asking a rhetorical question. I don't know the answer.
Why would you want your life in the hands of someone who has an incentive to deny you care?
Other countries have decided health insurance companies shouldn't be in the business of denying care, making a profit, or denying people access to their pools.

I don't know why some people are so comfortable with their health being left up to Wall Street or some CEO who has an incentive to deny you care.

WHO CARES ABOUT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!! THEY HAVE BEEN SCREWING US AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO UNTIL WE HEAVILY REGULATE THEM!!

Quote:
See, we're confused by that because, to an American, the reason companies compete is to make more profit, but these sickness funds aren't making a profit, are they?
No, they're not permitted to make a profit. Sickness funds do not want to perish. They want to survive and grow, and the management is better paid if the sickness fund is growing. The management is basically losing its job and its prestige if the sickness fund is becoming smaller.
So the idea is that there is enough of an incentive for competition, even if it is nonprofit competition. Not every form of competition that works is for profit, and the nonprofit competition in health care, in my view, is actually a good solution.




Are there then rankings ... by size or number of members and stuff like that?
Yes, there is ranking for contribution rate, so the cheaper sickness funds [with] good quality can both advertise their better quality plus their lower contribution rates and therefore [be] gaining members. We had about 240 sickness funds a couple of months ago; we are now down to 213, I think. In two or three years, only 50 or so will survive.




That's a good thing?
I think so. I think we have too many sickness funds. We started with more than 1,000 sickness funds. But the fewer sickness funds there are, the less bureaucracy and the easier the system is to operate. But it is important that the best sickness funds survive. ...




And so if I'm the chairman of one of these sickness funds, if I can lure more members, my pay goes up?
Definitely. Your prestige and your pay goes up.
Well, those are grounds for competition, I can see that.
I think so. And if you are in business and your fund is successful in comparison to others', then you basically can swallow other funds. So for the management, there is enough opportunity to excel.




Yes, without profit.
Right. Ten percent of the population is in the private system. The private system works like the U.S. private systems, where there is no risk adjustment and there is cherry-picking [of healthy patients]; there is no mandatory enrollment and so forth. And interestingly, the private market ... has a much steeper cost increase than the public system. ...
FRONTLINE: sick around the world: interviews: karl lauterbach | PBS


You have insurance companies in this country denying coverage to a baby because he is "overweight." You have them denying coverage to a little girl because she is "underweight." You have insurance companies saying, "Well give you coverage....if you get sterilized first." You had an insurance company deny a liver transplant to a girl and she ended up dying because they approved it at the last minute. (How convenient for them....) The list can keep going.


YouTube - INSURER TO WOMAN: GET STERILIZED
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2009, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,729,686 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
Why would a company stay in business if it couln't make a profit?

Like giving to charity when you want to know what percent actually goes to performing the charitable work versus the administration costs, I'd like to know what percent of the final healthcare bill cost is the government agency's cost to run it. Or isn't that number in the cost analysis because normally, that would show up in the agency's annual appropriations bill, right? I'm not asking a rhetorical question. I don't know the answer.
Many health care organizations are non-profit. That doesn't mean you can't make enough money to run your business. It means you make enough to meet expenses, period. The excess is put back into the business. Kaiser-Permanete has been a non-profit health care provider since 1945. They have managed to stay in business just fine all these years. Some of the "Blues" are non-profit. Most hospitals are non-profit. They don't have shareholders that they distribute profits to.

Kaiser Permanente - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2009, 02:49 PM
 
Location: S.E. US
13,163 posts, read 1,691,582 times
Reputation: 5132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Many health care organizations are non-profit. That doesn't mean you can't make enough money to run your business. It means you make enough to meet expenses, period. The excess is put back into the business. Kaiser-Permanete has been a non-profit health care provider since 1945. They have managed to stay in business just fine all these years. Some of the "Blues" are non-profit. Most hospitals are non-profit. They don't have shareholders that they distribute profits to.
Why couldn't health insurance companies be "mutual" companies - as, for example, Amica is. I don't know how their life division works, but their auto insurance premiums get collected over the year, then at the end of the year they calculate claims paid and expenses against revenue, and distribute the "profits" back to their policy holders (considered "owners").

I can see the possibilities in not-for-profit health insurance companies being operated that way. With your experience, Katiana, can you see some merit in that?
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:59 AM.

© 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