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 12-23-2009, 02:34 PM
 
Location: West Michigan
12,372 posts, read 9,292,757 times
Reputation: 7364

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayland Woman
Steve Forbes is right. We, as a nation, can't keep completing in the world market with employer based insurance built into the cost of all the goods we produce. A good universal health care program would level the playing field so that our products can be priced more competitively with other industrialized countries that already do have a universal health care in place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu View Post
I begining to see that the fringe left on this forum has NO respect for the Constitution. None. Zero. Ziltch.

What next, you are going to tell me that the government should mandate that my company can't buy new computers for their employees and people must start sharing phone lines so that we can reduce our costs and stay "more competitive".

This entire position is socialism through and through. Government starts controlling the means of production; even if the goal is more viability on the world market... that is socialism.

These socialists are coming out of the wood work lately.
How is it socialistic to want our U.S. products to compete on a level playing field with other countries selling those same products cheaper? Do you want to see our whole manufacturing base be lost, just dry up so we're totally dependent on other countries like we are for oil now?

Companies started offering health care insurance in the first place because there were more jobs than workers at that point in time and they were trying to sweeten the pot. Just because we've been using an employer based insurance method for a few decades doesn't mean it can't be phased out over a few decades and replaced with something else. It would strengthen the U.S.A. if we do. That has nothing to do with the constitution and the so-called slippery slope neo-cons are always crying about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-23-2009, 02:46 PM
 
Location: West Michigan
12,372 posts, read 9,292,757 times
Reputation: 7364
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzie679
Employer provided health coverage is a scam. Employers were never meant to be the provider. This system became popularized by auto unions. They were making money hand over fist so it wasn't an issue. This is a different era. Insurance companies are giving employers double digit increases annually. Employers cannot keep up. This country must save itself and go to a single payer system.
Actually, it wasn't the unions that came up with the idea. It was the auto companies who had to come up with something to offer to lurk workers into their factories and away from cleaner, easier and less dangerous work. At that point in time there were a lot more jobs available than there were workers in the work force. Insurance was also a way to cut down on the turnover of workers which was common in the auto industry back then. But employer based insurance has outlived its usefulness now that we have to compete with the world to keep our manufacturing base in the U.S.A. And for anyone who thinks we don't really need one, don't forget it we can't win wars without one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2009, 02:47 PM
 
6,734 posts, read 9,325,964 times
Reputation: 1857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayland Woman View Post
Actually, it wasn't the unions that came up with the idea. It was the auto companies who had to come up with something to offer to lurk workers into their factories and away from cleaner, easier and less dangerous work. At that point in time there were a lot more jobs available than there were workers in the work force. Insurance was also a way to cut down on the turnover of workers which was common in the auto industry back then. But employer based insurance has outlived its usefulness now that we have to compete with the world to keep our manufacturing base in the U.S.A. And for anyone who thinks we don't really need one, don't forget it we can't win wars without one.
You're right on all counts
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2009, 02:53 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,300 posts, read 22,182,754 times
Reputation: 6552
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleLove08 View Post
But think of how much more they could pay their employees if they didn't have to spend so much money on health care costs.
Do you honestly believe this? Do you really think that corporations will pay out the cost for individuals to get their own health insurance? Oh you mean to buy into a gov sponsored program? Some of us have very little faith in Gov quality control.
Corporations will pay an additional token sum but little more. Where I work the company self manages health insurance. The cost of my insurance is relatively unchanged over the last 15 years. Why would I want to change anything about that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2009, 03:02 PM
 
Location: Reading, PA
4,011 posts, read 4,418,501 times
Reputation: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by domergurl View Post
yea ... well, we won't qualify for medicaid then ...
The level for Medicaid is much, much lower than that. She doesn't understand the difference between CHIP insurance and Medicaid. There is a very big difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2009, 03:02 PM
 
31 posts, read 39,945 times
Reputation: 21
So Forbes a silver spoon idiot who never worked to get where he is, only that daddy owned a business, and how has a trust fund that will pay for anything his heart desires is the one who will tell us to get our own health care? And you fools listen to him. Its like Limbaugh telling us that he never needed health care when he was working and could not afford it. Yah, that’s like saying I never needed a seat belt for all the years I drove so what is the government whining about making it mandatory for seatbelts? You need it when its to late to get it and not everyone needs it, that’s why a national health care system can work. You neocons are to busy talking about the evils of socialism, so lets remove the library’s, Police and Firedepts. Lets remove the public schools and all the other socialize things, Wall Street do not have a problem socializing the losses and privatizing the profits. Fools and idiots following the crooks who have mesmerized you with shiny objects on strings telling you that you to can have this is you just follow them. And you do. Fools.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2009, 03:04 PM
 
6,734 posts, read 9,325,964 times
Reputation: 1857
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleLove08 View Post
But think of how much more they could pay their employees if they didn't have to spend so much money on health care costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
Do you honestly believe this? Do you really think that corporations will pay out the cost for individuals to get their own health insurance? Oh you mean to buy into a gov sponsored program? Some of us have very little faith in Gov quality control.
that's exactly what i've been saying about reduced costs to health insurers. reduced costs will go directly in their pockets and our premiums will continue to skyrocket. there's only one way to reduce and control health insurance costs and that's a single payer system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2009, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
8,998 posts, read 14,762,991 times
Reputation: 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
Do you honestly believe this? Do you really think that corporations will pay out the cost for individuals to get their own health insurance? Oh you mean to buy into a gov sponsored program? Some of us have very little faith in Gov quality control.
Corporations will pay an additional token sum but little more. Where I work the company self manages health insurance. The cost of my insurance is relatively unchanged over the last 15 years. Why would I want to change anything about that?
I am not advocating for employers to pay more money to employees in order for employees to buy their own health insurance.

I am advocating for a single-payer system where the burden of health care costs is lifted from employers.

I would think some people wouldn't want to have their employment status determine whether or not they will have health insurance or will be able to afford health care but that's me. It just sucks for those who are unemployed, work in a job that doesn't offer health care benefits, etc.

You're lucky to have a job that provides health insurance because many employers don't want that burden of providing it anymore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2009, 03:28 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
8,998 posts, read 14,762,991 times
Reputation: 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzie679 View Post
that's exactly what i've been saying about reduced costs to health insurers. reduced costs will go directly in their pockets and our premiums will continue to skyrocket. there's only one way to reduce and control health insurance costs and that's a single payer system.
Yeah, I'm a strong single-payer system and as I was tryng to illustrate in my post to tinman, under a single-payer system employers could afford to pay their workers higher wages because less money will be going towards providing health insurance to employees. Make sense?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2009, 04:09 PM
 
6,734 posts, read 9,325,964 times
Reputation: 1857
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleLove08 View Post
Yeah, I'm a strong single-payer system and as I was tryng to illustrate in my post to tinman, under a single-payer system employers could afford to pay their workers higher wages because less money will be going towards providing health insurance to employees. Make sense?
Yes, that makes sense. I think they could pay a higher wage but they probably won't. Many businesses are in survival mode against foreign competition. A single payer system might just ensure their survival. I'm not sure the employee will see an increase in wage directly related to a single payer system. But rather an increase in job security. It all depends how much of the insurance premium their employer is covering.
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. The time now is 08:46 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