BF2S Forums Change we can finally believe in!!

JohnG@lt wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

I will not argue the agenda of someone I don't know. But I will say it is one of the highest priorities for our nation. Small businuss is the backbone of this country. They are having to bear the brunt of the health care cost increases. They are not competetive on the global market because of this. Health care costs have been rising at an exponential rate. How long small businuss can coninue to bear this burden is not long.
Yes, people can be seen at an emergency room if it a life threatening condition. But it definatly isn't free. It is passed on down the line. That is the biggest factor in our growing health costs. That is why it does make since to mandate health ins. for everyone. The fact everyone loves ins. companies boggles my mind. Biggest bunch of crooks there are. They rake in billions and deny people for what they have paid for. I feel heathcare should be a government controlled program. Just like edu..

Small businesses aren't forced to give their employees health care coverage. Most don't. In fact, I'd be happier if we moved to a consumer based health care system rather than an employer based one. Why? Because insurance companies would have to fight for a much larger pool of applicants rather than dealing with large employers with pooled employees. Competition drives down prices. The problem with this is too many people would choose to not spend that money on insurance and instead waste it on a new big screen tv and then whine that they don't have access to health care.

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

I will not argue the agenda of someone I don't know. But I will say it is one of the highest priorities for our nation. Small businuss is the backbone of this country. They are having to bear the brunt of the health care cost increases. They are not competetive on the global market because of this. Health care costs have been rising at an exponential rate. How long small businuss can coninue to bear this burden is not long.
Yes, people can be seen at an emergency room if it a life threatening condition. But it definatly isn't free. It is passed on down the line. That is the biggest factor in our growing health costs. That is why it does make since to mandate health ins. for everyone. The fact everyone loves ins. companies boggles my mind. Biggest bunch of crooks there are. They rake in billions and deny people for what they have paid for. I feel heathcare should be a government controlled program. Just like edu..

Small businesses aren't forced to give their employees health care coverage. Most don't. In fact, I'd be happier if we moved to a consumer based health care system rather than an employer based one. Why? Because insurance companies would have to fight for a much larger pool of applicants rather than dealing with large employers with pooled employees. Competition drives down prices. The problem with this is too many people would choose to not spend that money on insurance and instead waste it on a new big screen tv and then whine that they don't have access to health care.

^This

nlsme1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

No our government is. why not make that nickel off of everyone you sell your meds too, and not just the country where you make them? Harder then mine. LMFAO. I work my ass off. They play golf. Jeolous, no just pissed off that they deny deserving people in order to maintain profits yet pillar the coghers.

So you're saying you could be a successful CEO of a multi-billion dollar company?

Your saying someone couldnt without making $57,000 an hour. Yeah I'll bite. I could easily run a multi-billion dollar company. Especially one that has such a stranglehold on its consumers. One where even if I was shit, nobody could really do anything about it because MY company has no competiters in my demgraphic. Hell I would even do it on the cheap, say $1,000/hr. I am sure those savings would mean I could actually approve those claims that are just. That means I could do it BETTER.

JohnG@lt wrote:

And really, health care wasn't much of an issue until the Dems started running it down and telling everyone how bad it was so they could nationalize it.

nlsme1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

And really, health care wasn't much of an issue until the Dems started running it down and telling everyone how bad it was so they could nationalize it.

Healthcare is a big issue because of our aging populace.
As far as a consumer based option, it would fail horribly. Why? As you pointed out a large portion would rather spen their money on materialistic things. Fine, fuck em? Well, as you pointed out they would still be able to go to the ER, but as I pointed out that gets passed on down the line. I don't want to have insurance make a profit off of me, at the same time I am paying for all those people ER visits.
We dont live in a utopia. We have to go with what works. Employers a forced to provide health care. Not by the government, but by their employees. People will not work for you if they feel they could get better benefits down the road. It works both ways. Small businuss is the backbone of this country, workers are the vertabrae of said compsnies.

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

this is also a point. Plenty of big dollar CEO have flushed many companies down the toilet.

The exception, rather than the rule.

Not too sure about that. Would need convincing of that.

Problem is CEO's answer to stockholders who want instant gratification over long haul dividends. Hence lay offs and benefit cuts for instant bottom-line results, not caring about long term morale of the employees and productivity, or public image chipping away over the course of years.

As a manager, I hold my workers morale above everything. Morale equals productivity, and I take care of the company by taking care of those that take care of the company.

Many companies are profitable I believe in part, because of their relationship with employees. Word gets around about what a great place it is, and I am convinced this positive image is reflected in part in the bottom line.

JohnG@lt wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

And really, health care wasn't much of an issue until the Dems started running it down and telling everyone how bad it was so they could nationalize it.

Healthcare is a big issue because of our aging populace.
As far as a consumer based option, it would fail horribly. Why? As you pointed out a large portion would rather spen their money on materialistic things. Fine, fuck em? Well, as you pointed out they would still be able to go to the ER, but as I pointed out that gets passed on down the line. I don't want to have insurance make a profit off of me, at the same time I am paying for all those people ER visits.
We dont live in a utopia. We have to go with what works. Employers a forced to provide health care. Not by the government, but by their employees. People will not work for you if they feel they could get better benefits down the road. It works both ways. Small businuss is the backbone of this country, workers are the vertabrae of said compsnies.

No one is preventing small businesses from banding together to break the state monopolies like the one you described exists in Mississippi. Seriously, enforce the interstate commerce clause and force competition across state lines. It's the best thing they could do.

And yes, I have little faith in the fiscal responsibility of the average American. This doesn't mean I feel bad for them and want to hold their hand through life. It means I want them to take responsibility for their own lives and their own actions. Until then? Yes, fuck 'em.

Healthy Choices

During the 1960s, RAND also expanded its lines of investigation into education, welfare reform, and criminal justice. By the time Richard Nixon took office in 1969, the think tank was an established, independent source for social policy research. So, when the issue of medical insurance sparked a great national debate, Nixon tapped RAND for ideas. At the time, there was little data on the effectiveness of free health care versus coverage plans with co-pays and deductibles. In particular, Nixon wanted to know if free health care made people healthier. To find the answer, RAND’s Health Division spent 10 years acting as the insurance company for more than 5,000 people around the country.

In the end, RAND’s research found that people who paid for health care were just as healthy as people who got it for free. With free health care, people went in for more regular medical screenings, but their other habits—exercise, diet, smoking—were worse. The message was not lost on the insurance industry, nor on the federal government. In 1982, when the study was released, only 30 percent of medical plans had deductibles. Five years later, more than 90 percent did.

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

The exception, rather than the rule.

Not too sure about that. Would need convincing of that.

Problem is CEO's answer to stockholders who want instant gratification over long haul dividends. Hence lay offs and benefit cuts for instant bottom-line results, not caring about long term morale of the employees and productivity, or public image chipping away over the course of years.

As a manager, I hold my workers morale above everything. Morale equals productivity, and I take care of the company by taking care of those that take care of the company.

Many companies are profitable I believe in part, because of their relationship with employees. Word gets around about what a great place it is, and I am convinced this positive image is reflected in part in the bottom line.

Well, a weak CEO that caters to the whims of the stock holders rather than the best long term interests of the company is a bad CEO. I don't disagree. If those weak CEOs weren't the exception, rather than the rule, no company would be profitable. Obviously this is not the case.

You're also making an argument about who ultimately owns the company as well. The share holders are the ones that own the company, not the employees. Expecting ownership to choose the needs and desires of it's employees over it's own needs is not realistic. People don't get into business for altruistic reasons.

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

Not too sure about that. Would need convincing of that.

Problem is CEO's answer to stockholders who want instant gratification over long haul dividends. Hence lay offs and benefit cuts for instant bottom-line results, not caring about long term morale of the employees and productivity, or public image chipping away over the course of years.

As a manager, I hold my workers morale above everything. Morale equals productivity, and I take care of the company by taking care of those that take care of the company.

Many companies are profitable I believe in part, because of their relationship with employees. Word gets around about what a great place it is, and I am convinced this positive image is reflected in part in the bottom line.

Well, a weak CEO that caters to the whims of the stock holders rather than the best long term interests of the company is a bad CEO. I don't disagree. If those weak CEOs weren't the exception, rather than the rule, no company would be profitable. Obviously this is not the case.

You're also making an argument about who ultimately owns the company as well. The share holders are the ones that own the company, not the employees. Expecting ownership to choose the needs and desires of it's employees over it's own needs is not realistic. People don't get into business for altruistic reasons.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/ … full_list/

Probalby need to tell thse guys, cuz they are obviously doing it wrong.

nlsme1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

Not too sure about that. Would need convincing of that.

Problem is CEO's answer to stockholders who want instant gratification over long haul dividends. Hence lay offs and benefit cuts for instant bottom-line results, not caring about long term morale of the employees and productivity, or public image chipping away over the course of years.

As a manager, I hold my workers morale above everything. Morale equals productivity, and I take care of the company by taking care of those that take care of the company.

Many companies are profitable I believe in part, because of their relationship with employees. Word gets around about what a great place it is, and I am convinced this positive image is reflected in part in the bottom line.

Well, a weak CEO that caters to the whims of the stock holders rather than the best long term interests of the company is a bad CEO. I don't disagree. If those weak CEOs weren't the exception, rather than the rule, no company would be profitable. Obviously this is not the case.

You're also making an argument about who ultimately owns the company as well. The share holders are the ones that own the company, not the employees. Expecting ownership to choose the needs and desires of it's employees over it's own needs is not realistic. People don't get into business for altruistic reasons.

A ceo that didnt cater to the whim of the shareholders would soon be a ceo no more. The shareholders are the only thing that can bring a company to its knees overnight on a whim.
As far as you theory on doing away with the law, what would that do? Force MD's to ignore the hipocratic oath? Generally continue down the path we are on as far as an unhealthy populace(workforce). In turn that would destroy our small businuss backbone. Why, well the vertabrae couldnt make product if they are all sick. You are saying that you would have no problem heading to the ER to have care and walking right past 3 people outside that are obviously going to die? Just because they didnt make enough to afford the 932 dollar a month ins. premium? I say 932 because that is what I pay.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-21 08:54:33)

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

I think when Americans have a government handout, they abuse it tbh. America is wayyyy too individualistic rather than community based to have a proper universal health care system, hell even RAND corporation did a study on healthcare and found private healthcare would suit America better. Once Americans start taking responsibility for their health, than you can blabber on about having a national healthcare in America.

This hits the nail on the head. There really is no American society. We're a group of states and sections that are banded together by history more than anything else. People in the northeast have different lifestyles and priorities than people in the south, the west or the midwest. People in California have different lifestyles and priorities than people living in Iowa. It's just the way it is. Our diversity as a nation is one of our strengths, and yes, sometimes one of our weaknesses. One size fits all solutions do not work here. Government mandates for renewable energy sources would work in a place like California or Arizona but would fail horribly in Alaska or Maine.

This is why I feel there is generally such a large backlash whenever the government tries to institute social programs. They can't please everyone because everyone wants something different. Very rarely is there something that is useful to all. Military? Yes. Interstate highways? Yes. Justice system? Yes. There isn't a whole lot beyond that that our government can be expected to manage well because of the sectionalistic differences. If you ask an American where he is from he will tell you the State he lives in.

nlsme1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

I think when Americans have a government handout, they abuse it tbh. America is wayyyy too individualistic rather than community based to have a proper universal health care system, hell even RAND corporation did a study on healthcare and found private healthcare would suit America better. Once Americans start taking responsibility for their health, than you can blabber on about having a national healthcare in America.

This hits the nail on the head. There really is no American society. We're a group of states and sections that are banded together by history more than anything else. People in the northeast have different lifestyles and priorities than people in the south, the west or the midwest. People in California have different lifestyles and priorities than people living in Iowa. It's just the way it is. Our diversity as a nation is one of our strengths, and yes, sometimes one of our weaknesses. One size fits all solutions do not work here. Government mandates for renewable energy sources would work in a place like California or Arizona but would fail horribly in Alaska or Maine.

This is why I feel there is generally such a large backlash whenever the government tries to institute social programs. They can't please everyone because everyone wants something different. Very rarely is there something that is useful to all. Military? Yes. Interstate highways? Yes. Justice system? Yes. There isn't a whole lot beyond that that our government can be expected to manage well because of the sectionalistic differences. If you ask an American where he is from he will tell you the State he lives in.

If you ask an American where is from WHILE in the U.S., sure he will probably say what state. But, if you ask an American where he is from WHILE OUTSIDE the states, I'm sure he would say America. Sure we all have diff lifestyles. But generally what we all care about is the same no matter where you are. Family, education, health, money, and comfort. That pretty much goes for every human on the face of this earth. How is it more important to someone say in Alaska, for me to have an interstate to drive on or a school for my kids to attend than it is for me to be healthy. It's really not.