I hear what you are saying. But, there are people that regardless of what circumstance you put them in will be successful.There are others that regardless of what situation you put them in, will not. There is sacrifice, determination, intelligence required that are possesed in different amounts by everybody. I have no problem with the less fortunate asking for and receiving help from the more fortunate. My problem is when it becomes some kind of entitlement. At this point it is questionable whether the successful in this country can support all the non- successful to the level that they want and the politcians seeking their vote are suggesting.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Socialized Medicine
- Thread starter HarrySchell
- Start date
I hear what you are saying. But, there are people that regardless of what circumstance you put them in will be successful.There are others that regardless of what situation you put them in, will not. There is sacrifice, determination, intelligence required that are possesed in different amounts by everybody. I have no problem with the less fortunate asking for and receiving help from the more fortunate. My problem is when it becomes some kind of entitlement. At this point it is questionable whether the successful in this country can support all the non- successful to the level that they want and the politcians seeking their vote are suggesting.
Just a few of my insignificant observations!
When have you ever seen the Government Run a Program , Like a business?
They seem to forget that the funds they are tapping are not there's! Bottomless buckets so to speak.
The red tape and bureaucracy chokes any thing they are involved in. There are always a bloated enquired over head due to the overseer of the overseer of the overseer that reports to the committee of the overseers!
If you could find a way to loose the law suits, and make it so the doctors didn't have to Carrie $100 million Dollars of insurance a year , Maybe the cost would go down?
I remember a day when you could call the Doctor, tell him your problem and He would come to your home . When he departed, you was on your way to being better or knew what you had to do to get so. Cost, $15.00. Most of the time the meds was administered on the spot or provided.
I know it will never be like that again! I know that A office visit don't need to cost $100.00....
Here in Deming, a ER visit cost $500.00 walking in the door!
Following the institution of insurance, all of this changed.
When have you ever seen the Government Run a Program , Like a business?
They seem to forget that the funds they are tapping are not there's! Bottomless buckets so to speak.
The red tape and bureaucracy chokes any thing they are involved in. There are always a bloated enquired over head due to the overseer of the overseer of the overseer that reports to the committee of the overseers!
If you could find a way to loose the law suits, and make it so the doctors didn't have to Carrie $100 million Dollars of insurance a year , Maybe the cost would go down?
I remember a day when you could call the Doctor, tell him your problem and He would come to your home . When he departed, you was on your way to being better or knew what you had to do to get so. Cost, $15.00. Most of the time the meds was administered on the spot or provided.
I know it will never be like that again! I know that A office visit don't need to cost $100.00....
Here in Deming, a ER visit cost $500.00 walking in the door!
Following the institution of insurance, all of this changed.
The cost of drugs is too dern high! Why? Cuz they can't use a few rats and get it on the shelf in under a year and under a million dollars! It costs many millions if not more and several years. They must recoup the R&D $$$ but after they have why would you drop the price if folks are paying it... like a road toll to pay for the road but after is payed for they NEVER tear down the toll booth! Doctors are faced with abusively high insurance costs as well. The cards are stacked against the drug inventing companies and docs and we foot the expenses...
I doubt we will see a reversal in the restrictions and insurance costs either.
Off topic... done ramblin'
Brent
I doubt we will see a reversal in the restrictions and insurance costs either.
Off topic... done ramblin'
Brent
JuanCarlos
New member
If every employer is offering the same level of medical coverage, then that's par, not sub-par. If you want better health care than what every employer is offering, then that's not necessarily a conspiracy to keep people sick and bleeding money, but possibly some slightly elevated expectations on your part.
Depends on if you're looking at one sector of the job market, or the market as a whole. The health care packages offered to the average engineer are, I'd wager, probably better than what are offered to the average cashier.
Unregistered
Moderator
All this bitching about sub-par employer provided health insurance is assanine. Its a freaking benefit the employer is giving you. It boils down to just another form of income, but one you dont have to pay income tax on. If you want a better plan, go find another job, or buy insurance on your own.
I own my own business. I pay for my own insurance, and the insurance of about 20 employees and families. Our premium is somewhere around $12,000 per month if I am not mistaken.
I own my own business. I pay for my own insurance, and the insurance of about 20 employees and families. Our premium is somewhere around $12,000 per month if I am not mistaken.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
Depends on if you're looking at one sector of the job market, or the market as a whole. The health care packages offered to the average engineer are, I'd wager, probably better than what are offered to the average cashier.
You're probably right. But have you ever asked yourself why that is?
Could it be that qualified engineers are far less numerous than qualified cashiers, that their education is more expensive, and that a good engineer generates more revenue for a company than a good cashier?
You can't look at the market "as a whole", see that engineers are offered better health care plans than cashiers, and then decide that the average cashier benefit package is "sub-par". You have to look at market segments and compare plans within a profession or vocation. Of course the cashier's health benefits are not as good as the engineer's, but that's because the engineer's services are more valuable in pure monetary terms, and because the company needs to attract engineers from a much smaller pool of candidates. Guess what? The engineer draws a much higher salary, too, for the same reasons.
(Actually, as someone else has pointed out, health benefits are part of a salary package--in other words, income. Do you want to argue next that cashier wages are sub-par compared to engineer wages, and that we need a national program to fix that inequity?)
Fairness is not equality of outcome--it's equality of opportunity.
My kids have the choice to become engineers or cashiers, for example. If they choose the cashier path, they'll have spent a lot less time and effort on their education than some kid who chooses to be an engineer, and they cannot expect to get a job with the same kind of paycheck or health plan as an engineer.
Of course, they can always stomp their feet, bitch about how the CEO of Market Basket gets a hundred times more money every paycheck than his cashiers, and whine about fairness and social justice and "the rich getting richer", in which case they'll be prime targets for vote-buying class warfare instigators like John Edwards.
JuanCarlos
New member
(Actually, as someone else has pointed out, health benefits are part of a salary package--in other words, income. Do you want to argue next that cashier wages are sub-par compared to engineer wages, and that we need a national program to fix that inequity?)
Of course not. But I think the problem many people have, including myself, is the commoditization of health care. It's not how big somebody's TV is or how shiny their car is, it affects both how well and how long they live. Which is why I'm not really comfortable just thinking of it as part of a "salary package."
And the whole point I was getting at is that our current system, whereby somebody's healthcare package is largely chosen by their employer (because of the way the system works, it's often prohibitive for reasons already mentioned to go with a different external plan) works to reduce the choice available to people. I consider this a "bad thing." Not as bad as a single universal system, mind you, but not "good" either.
Unfortunately, this is where I say I have no real alternative on that front. The entire point of such plans is to spread the risk of premiums across large groups, and aside from either A) a moderate to large employer or B) a country I'm not thinking of any other handy groups to spread it across. Otherwise all that happens is that when somebody actually gets sick their premiums will skyrocket, because their out-of-pocket premiums are entirely...well, out of pocket (unlike with employer-provided plans).
Since your employer ain't paying a whole lot of your insurance cost it is easy to say "no thanks mr.bossman" and get a quote from blue cross or other providors. Here in florida you can join a Small Business Group and buy insurance at or under that of which yer employer offers.
I chose all my paths in life and most sent me down the risky uninsured road...
SOME ONE SAVE MEEEEE! PAY FOR MY HEALTH CARE PLEASSSSSEEEEE...
Brent
I chose all my paths in life and most sent me down the risky uninsured road...
SOME ONE SAVE MEEEEE! PAY FOR MY HEALTH CARE PLEASSSSSEEEEE...
Brent
Neither the private employer or the government can afford perfect health care for all citizens as the average lifespan creeps upward. There are wildly different levels of treatment that people get because of their ability to pay or proximity to the best hospitals.If everybody got the same health care as Bill Gates can expect, the cost would be unsustainable .The same as SS, Medicare, and Medicaid is unsustainable at current payin/payout levels.
It's hard for me to vote for these "pie in the sky" candidates that prey on the lower classes who are either easily convinced that all we need is a little tweaking,or that "the rich" just need to be taxed more, or if we hadn't spent money in Iraq there would be plenty for this forever.
I honestly don't know the answer.There may be a point where the forward motion of the health industry is stalled because the country simply can't afford it.
It's hard for me to vote for these "pie in the sky" candidates that prey on the lower classes who are either easily convinced that all we need is a little tweaking,or that "the rich" just need to be taxed more, or if we hadn't spent money in Iraq there would be plenty for this forever.
I honestly don't know the answer.There may be a point where the forward motion of the health industry is stalled because the country simply can't afford it.
HarrySchell
New member
The cost of drugs
The US is one of the least regulated drug markets re prices. As noted above, R+D money has to come from someplace, and is recovered in markets where government does not set prices lower than market forces would, as in Europe.
I have not sat down and run the numbers to see the impact, but the fact is US patients are paying a higher drug price so Canadians (and others, particularly Europeans) can have cheaper drugs via government mandated pricing. One component of what makes the socialized systems "less expensive".
I have asthma and my sons, too. We use the same inhaler, which retails in the US for $295 and in Canada for $145. Same company, drug, etc. The difference is government regulation. Has the company recouped its R+D investment? I dunno. Could it recoup at a $145 price, maybe, but the time period would extend out and funds available for current R+D would be slimmer, I would guess. Or no raises for employees. Or no new equipment.
Recall that "profit" and actual cash flow can be wildly different numbers in the same year. I have seen the two measures contradict each other-profit and negative cash flow and the reverse. As a CPA and business owner, the first place I look when making financial and operating decisions is cash flow impact. Profit is a close second, because you cannot run a business at a loss forever, and profit means more taxation, reducing cash flow.
The business and I were functionally bankrupt 2003-6, scraping by because we had enough cash to make payroll and assets to sell for cash (which government got their piece of. No capital gains treatment for companies, so land owned since 1954 and sold in 2005-the entire difference between 1954 cost and 2005 sell price was ordinary income, 45% of which government took. How would you like those rules on the sale of your house?).
I bring this up only because I have been against the wall financially and understand better perhaps than some why making a profit is fundamental to a healthy business...and raises and benefits and tools for employees and new equipment so you can compete so you can continue to employ people instead to tossing them onto the street.
And I pay the healthcare insurance bill. Big number, but it is a choice I have made, and no kudos accepted. That is just the way it is.
The US is one of the least regulated drug markets re prices. As noted above, R+D money has to come from someplace, and is recovered in markets where government does not set prices lower than market forces would, as in Europe.
I have not sat down and run the numbers to see the impact, but the fact is US patients are paying a higher drug price so Canadians (and others, particularly Europeans) can have cheaper drugs via government mandated pricing. One component of what makes the socialized systems "less expensive".
I have asthma and my sons, too. We use the same inhaler, which retails in the US for $295 and in Canada for $145. Same company, drug, etc. The difference is government regulation. Has the company recouped its R+D investment? I dunno. Could it recoup at a $145 price, maybe, but the time period would extend out and funds available for current R+D would be slimmer, I would guess. Or no raises for employees. Or no new equipment.
Recall that "profit" and actual cash flow can be wildly different numbers in the same year. I have seen the two measures contradict each other-profit and negative cash flow and the reverse. As a CPA and business owner, the first place I look when making financial and operating decisions is cash flow impact. Profit is a close second, because you cannot run a business at a loss forever, and profit means more taxation, reducing cash flow.
The business and I were functionally bankrupt 2003-6, scraping by because we had enough cash to make payroll and assets to sell for cash (which government got their piece of. No capital gains treatment for companies, so land owned since 1954 and sold in 2005-the entire difference between 1954 cost and 2005 sell price was ordinary income, 45% of which government took. How would you like those rules on the sale of your house?).
I bring this up only because I have been against the wall financially and understand better perhaps than some why making a profit is fundamental to a healthy business...and raises and benefits and tools for employees and new equipment so you can compete so you can continue to employ people instead to tossing them onto the street.
And I pay the healthcare insurance bill. Big number, but it is a choice I have made, and no kudos accepted. That is just the way it is.