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, 12:36 PM
 
Location: North Alabama
567 posts, read 1,745,448 times
Reputation: 158

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sagran View Post
What does that have to do with anything? If dropping prices is what it takes to compete on the world market, Steve Forbes says they would. My issue is that people who buy those products are paying for the employees insurance. Some of those people will be paying for mandated medical insurance out of their own pockets so they would be paying for their own and helping to pay for the insurance of those who have employer provided insurance. They are paying for their own plus those freeloading rich folks with employer provided insurance.
Wow..My employeer pays for part of my insurance and that makes me a freeloading rich person?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-23-2009, 12:37 PM
 
6,734 posts, read 9,344,746 times
Reputation: 1857
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie View Post
Steve Forbes is just trying to maximize his profit... cause the truth of it is that if he didn't have to provide health insurance then his workers will have to provide it which means he would have to increase their salary... there is no difference between paying now or later, he still ends up paying it... what he is trying to do is push that burden on other people... Citizens pay the most taxes in this country... its a shame that corporatism is alive as ever...
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2009, 01:38 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,300 posts, read 22,229,680 times
Reputation: 6553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sagran View Post
Why? Why would you even bring something like that up?


Why should you freeload on the backs of everyone else? If your employer wants to make sure you can afford insurance, he can pay you more. But once all the cost of insurance comes out of your pocket, you will start thinking of ways to reduce costs. Only then will we have true reform.
Freeloading? How is employer based health insurance freeloading on the backs of everyone else? Its part of our pay, just like paid sick days and vacation time. No different.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2009, 01:40 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,300 posts, read 22,229,680 times
Reputation: 6553
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzie679 View Post
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.
And yet somehow companies like Procter& Gamble are making a good profit while providing good benefits and retirement programs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2009, 01:42 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
8,998 posts, read 14,792,249 times
Reputation: 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
And yet somehow companies like Procter& Gamble are making a good profit while providing good benefits and retirement programs.
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2009, 01:45 PM
 
Location: North Alabama
567 posts, read 1,745,448 times
Reputation: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
And yet somehow companies like Procter& Gamble are making a good profit while providing good benefits and retirement programs.
No matter which health care system we go with either the consumer or the tax payers are going to pay. We cannot afford for the tax payer to pay during a recession. That is common sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2009, 01:46 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
8,998 posts, read 14,792,249 times
Reputation: 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarges Dad View Post
No matter which health care system we go with either the consumer or the tax payers are going to pay. We cannot afford for the tax payer to pay during a recession. That is common sense.
Of course some taxpayers can pay more than others.....namely the top 10%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2009, 01:49 PM
 
Location: North Alabama
567 posts, read 1,745,448 times
Reputation: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleLove08 View Post
Of course some taxpayers can pay more than others.....namely the top 10%.
Life is not fair, and I do not believe in penolizing people who do well, but I do believe in getting rid of the loopoles that keep them from paying their fair share.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2009, 01:51 PM
 
Location: The Great State of Texas, Finally!
5,477 posts, read 12,249,829 times
Reputation: 2825
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzie679 View Post
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.
Unions coming up with a scam idea. Imagine that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2009, 01:53 PM
 
Location: The Great State of Texas, Finally!
5,477 posts, read 12,249,829 times
Reputation: 2825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece View Post
Medical insurance shouldn't be tied to your job. Period. My auto insurance isn't.
You can't equate auto insurance to medical insurance.

Auto insurance is there to protect the other guy against damage, not you. Plus, you don't use your auto insurance as you do your health insurance. You don't charge your auto insurance for oil changes, tire rotation, and basic maintenance.

You do not HAVE to buy auto insurance if you don't drive or own a car.

Medical insurance insures you.

You are mandated to buy medical insurance regardless. Even if you don't need it.

Get it?
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 10:00 PM.

© 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