I hope it all gets a lot worse. a few centuries down the road we'll be better off possibly. Either way we have to say fuck off to capitalism. We simply can't continue on with it. Scientists say we've got roughly 70 years before the planets resources are basically mined.
Hmm, no, that is not accurate. 70 years? For all of our resources? No, the only resources that might run out are fossil fuels, but not in 70 years. Nobody knows when because of this whole "green" era. So I wouldn't worry about that at all.
Either way we have to say good bye to capitalism? Do you know what you are even saying? You are trying to suggest that America is better off being communist. Better yet, you support that statement with a made up fact. But if you are thinking of how well China is doing, then think again. They are not pure communist anymore, and have adopted a more capitalism ideal now. Yes, they are still more communal versus the U.S., but not communist.
Why do I tell you about the communists? Because that's what America is becoming. If public healthcare becomes a reality, then more such programs will be put in, and before long, everything that has made this country will be taken away. Such as competition, and the feeling that you can make more money if you work harder.
Another thing: What usually happens in these social programs is abuse. There are going to be hundreds of thousands of people out of America's 330 million people that will be abusing this system, barely working, yet reaping in the benefits. Do you really want to be paying for these people, who have basically lost all drive in the world to be successful?
No. What's happening now will go away, and I'll tell you, if the American government is smart, they'll keep their money, and not go giving it away to banks and upping the inflation, for the sake of hope and change.
The difference is that with insurance companies, you can choose to pay more for better services. With public healthcare, even you are willing to pay alternatively, the government can say no. Surveys show that about 85% of Americans were happy with their healthcare, so it couldn't have sucked that much.
I know this is a bit wordy but please read this and you will see the conundrum of the debate. First I'll say I take no hard position with public or private, I work in the industry and our company has government contracts with Medicaid and Medicare which are both public programs, and both are incidentally running on IOU fumes today. We also have commercial accounts with several of the major private insurance companies
There are severe problems on both fronts, current public healthcare is broke and in debt as I just pointed out, and private is insanely expensive. I'm not sure what source came up with the survey saying 85% of the people are happy with their private healthcare study. I think the study is disingenuous and limited in scope, the debate in the media is a joke focusing on people having fits at town hall meetings and the substance of the issues has taken a back seat.
Over 40 million people are currently uninsured because they can't afford private healthcare (they have no choice), so private healthcare is failing as badly as Medicaid and Medicare. Personally I have private health care and while I am somewhat happy with the services my wife received (I haven't needed it) I am not happy at all with it's cost or my plan, in fact as you will see I have had no good choice at all.
I've been in the work force for about 30 years and have watched my free healthcare provided 100% for me by my employer turn into a small $10.00 a month fee for myself and my family (this is the way it use to be for many), which has now ballooned into $700 a month for my family. The latest plan which incidentally is with one of our commercial customers is one of the worst plans I have had the option of paying for. I now have an HRA plan (Bush's privatization plan) which was sold as the best plan, I pay the first $5,000 upfront and then the insurance company will start to pay after that, which I am paying $700 a month for this plan.
My wife needed to use it up front and so I am paying 100% of her medical bills now, her services just barely exceeded $5,000 (for just tests), and she was told she needed a $20,000 highly intrusive surgery, which of course must be first approved by the private healthcare death squads. She has opted to try a homeopathic treatment first because the surgery is brutal and will not prevent the condition from recurring, our insurance doesn't cover that. So here is the end result, I am paying 100% of her medical bills, plus I am paying $700 a month to a plan that gave me almost nothing, and I am paying 100% of her homeopathic medicine which so far in the last 6 months has been about $1000 out of pocket.
Result:
I got screwed on my private healthcare plan's monthly fee which is $8,400 from my annual salary for nearly zero coverage.
I got screwed on what my plan will cover in alternative treatments, and I'm left paying for everything which to date is about $6500.00 out of pocket.
Total amount I am paying out of pocket $14,900
Total amount my insurance company paid $500
Total amount my insurance company is making from me after paying out my $500 expense $7,900
But remember 85% of those surveyed are happy with their private health care plan because they have a choice.
I hope it all gets a lot worse. a few centuries down the road we'll be better off possibly. Either way we have to say fuck off to capitalism. We simply can't continue on with it. Scientists say we've got roughly 70 years before the planets resources are basically mined.
We don't have true capitalism today, we have cronyism, our government has been turning into an oligarchy for the last 30 years. Powerful people have stacked the deck in their favor and when they get exposed, honest capitalism gets the blame.
I hope it all gets a lot worse. a few centuries down the road we'll be better off possibly. Either way we have to say fuck off to capitalism. We simply can't continue on with it. Scientists say we've got roughly 70 years before the planets resources are basically mined.
What do we and the next 5-20 generations do then? To wish failure on anything is exactly the attitude detrimental to success.
Anyone who has read or knows anything about political theory knows that the progression after feudalism to capitalism is predicted to be capitalism to communism. I for one, work, and pay 1/3 of my wages to federal income taxes another 1/6 to monthly health care premiums, and more on sales tax think we are already getting to close to communism. I know that the money I am spending on taxes is not being reentered into my community, instead it is funding failing public options, supporting people who exploit our system, paying politicians wages at padding CEOs pockets who's annual wages are at least an order of magnitude greater then mine.
Communism is not the way to go, we aren't ready for it and don't want it!
If everyone took ownership for their own actions, worked hard and we stopped tolerating those who don't we can stop the economic downturn. The real reason we are in it is because the majority end up paying for the minority to exploit the systems. The last sentence explains the increase cost of insurance, the increased cost of taxes to support Medicare and Unemployment. Don't get me wrong at points in people's life they may need help and it should be available, but it has gotten out of control.
I know this is a bit wordy but please read this and you will see the conundrum of the debate. First I'll say I take no hard position with public or private, I work in the industry and our company has government contracts with Medicaid and Medicare which are both public programs, and both are incidentally running on IOU fumes today. We also have commercial accounts with several of the major private insurance companies
There are severe problems on both fronts, current public healthcare is broke and in debt as I just pointed out, and private is insanely expensive. I'm not sure what source came up with the survey saying 85% of the people are happy with their private healthcare study. I think the study is disingenuous and limited in scope, the debate in the media is a joke focusing on people having fits at town hall meetings and the substance of the issues has taken a back seat.
Over 40 million people are currently uninsured because they can't afford private healthcare (they have no choice), so private healthcare is failing as badly as Medicaid and Medicare. Personally I have private health care and while I am somewhat happy with the services my wife received (I haven't needed it) I am not happy at all with it's cost or my plan, in fact as you will see I have had no good choice at all.
I've been in the work force for about 30 years and have watched my free healthcare provided 100% for me by my employer turn into a small $10.00 a month fee for myself and my family (this is the way it use to be for many), which has now ballooned into $700 a month for my family. The latest plan which incidentally is with one of our commercial customers is one of the worst plans I have had the option of paying for. I now have an HRA plan (Bush's privatization plan) which was sold as the best plan, I pay the first $5,000 upfront and then the insurance company will start to pay after that, which I am paying $700 a month for this plan.
My wife needed to use it up front and so I am paying 100% of her medical bills now, her services just barely exceeded $5,000 (for just tests), and she was told she needed a $20,000 highly intrusive surgery. She has opted to try a homeopathic treatment first because the surgery is brutal and will not prevent the condition from recurring, our insurance doesn't cover that. So here is the end result, I am paying 100% of her medical bills, plus I am paying $700 a month to a plan that gave me almost nothing, and I am paying 100% of her homeopathic medicine which so far in the last 6 months has been about $1000 out of pocket.
Result:
I got screwed on my private healthcare plan's monthly fee which is $8,400 from my annual salary for nearly zero coverage.
I got screwed on what my plan will cover in alternative treatments, and I'm left paying for everything which to date is about $6500.00 out of pocket.
Total amount I am paying out of pocket $14,900
Total amount my insurance company paid $500
Total amount my insurance company is making from me after paying out my $500 expense $7,900
But remember 85% of those surveyed are happy with their private health care plan because they have a choice.
I'm Canadian and I have government sponsored healthcare. I pay, at least, $5,000 a year in my taxes for a system I don't use. I'd rather use the money otherwise, but I pay and pay and I can't get out. At least with private insurance, if I didn't like it, I could get out. If I withheld what I pay in my taxes for a system I don't use, I'd go to jail.
Government healthcare systems are really great at dealing with stuff that you can deal with at home, like band-aids. However, if you need acute care, like a heart attack, or life-maintanance care, like HIV, you are hooped. So don't expect any changes here on your part.
If you're paying out of pocket with a private system, you're going to pay out of pocket, assuming you'll even be allowed to seek alternative treatments, for the government option.
Once government unions get involved, good luck. It'll be like the education system where Americans pay more per student than many countries combined, for a system that has Americans ranking about 25th in the world.
I think the question needs to be asked, is who are the 40 million who don't have healthcare in the states?
You'll find the majority are either young men, who wouldn't pay if it meant giving up some coin for some beer or paint-ball expedition or they are illegal immigrants who shouldn't expect to get covered for a system they don't contribute to.
We don't have true capitalism today, we have cronyism, our government has been turning into an oligarchy for the last 30 years. Powerful people have stacked the deck in their favor and when they get exposed, honest capitalism gets the blame.
One thing you can't let out of your sight, is that Laissez Faire capitalism is nearly on par with pure socialism with liability for abuse. Where socialistic programs are abused by 'the common man', large businesses are the abusers of capitalism. Some things just need a little bit of government oversight to keep the abuses from happening. In my opinion it is much easier to police a capitalist system, but you also run into the issue of corruption, where businesses have enough capital to "buy off" oversight and commit abuses. However, as you mentioned, there is also a tight line between oversight, and controlling for personal gain.
My favorite example, is the Airline Industry. Everyone knows it is pretty heavily regulated, and for the most part, reasonably safe. What if it was completely laissez faire, governed only by the competition of the business? My money is that we would see many instances of "Ford Pinto Airplanes" with human life sacrificed for bottom lines.
On the insurance issue, competition - the heart of the idea for capitalism - may actually be detrimental to insurance companies. Insurance is a business model based off of probability, they have an average payout figgure that is likely measured over the term of the policy, and what you pay into your insurance plan has to beat that average. If this were not the case, and the average customer payed less than what they receive, the insurance company would collapse or need bankrolling from an external source. Why competition may be bad, is that if there are too many companies the populace gets split into smaller subsets and each subset has a fixed overhead cost, and smaller sample sizes have a greater risk of abnormal performance. Meaning that smaller insurance companies have a greater risk of getting a lot of high cost claims at once, and going under. This would lead to a natural increase in rates, or high fairlure rate of insurance companies.
Now i'm not sure how many health insurance companies there are in America, or if any of their sample sizes are approaching what could be called dangerously low levels. But I do know that a single insurance company or government agency is going to have a much lower overhead cost than many small companies and is going to have a much more stable capital in/out function, leading to some combination of lower costs to all, increased coverage for poor, or both. I just don't think our government has the power to do this, so it is sort of an idle dream
I also have a problem with health insurance as a for-profit business. They do absolutely nothing to increase the quality of care received, but increase the cost. They exist solely as a middle man, who distributes the cost of care over a policy's lifetime. I understand that this business model is employed successfully in many different areas, but I just get touchy when it is used on Healthcare. I think that quality Healthcare should be made as affordable as possible to as many people as possible, and taking out the middle man is one way to begin lowering the costs. There are of course innumerable other things that can be done to lower the costs, and insurance changes are just one among many.
I'm Canadian and I have government sponsored healthcare. I pay, at least, $5,000 a year in my taxes for a system I don't use. I'd rather use the money otherwise, but I pay and pay and I can't get out. At least with private insurance, if I didn't like it, I could get out. If I withheld what I pay in my taxes for a system I don't use, I'd go to jail.
Government healthcare systems are really great at dealing with stuff that you can deal with at home, like band-aids. However, if you need acute care, like a heart attack, or life-maintanance care, like HIV, you are hooped. So don't expect any changes here on your part.
If you're paying out of pocket with a private system, you're going to pay out of pocket, assuming you'll even be allowed to seek alternative treatments, for the government option.
Once government unions get involved, good luck. It'll be like the education system where Americans pay more per student than many countries combined, for a system that has Americans ranking about 25th in the world.
I think the question needs to be asked, is who are the 40 million who don't have healthcare in the states?
You'll find the majority are either young men, who wouldn't pay if it meant giving up some coin for some beer or paint-ball expedition or they are illegal immigrants who shouldn't expect to get covered for a system they don't contribute to.
Sounds like you paid $3,400 less than I did for nothing, of course I can back out of my plan and pay nothing, but if I then have an accident and need emergency care, I will be stuck with 100% of the care and likely refused care if it is too much. Where at least you will probably get the care you need under that situation. But again medicaid and medicare are deeply in debt so that option won't be lasting much longer here either. I'm not seeing any good options at this point, like i said I'm not for or against public health care, both systems are in severe trouble.
One thing you can't let out of your sight, is that Laissez Faire capitalism is nearly on par with pure socialism with liability for abuse. Where socialistic programs are abused by 'the common man', large businesses are the abusers of capitalism. Some things just need a little bit of government oversight to keep the abuses from happening. In my opinion it is much easier to police a capitalist system, but you also run into the issue of corruption, where businesses have enough capital to "buy off" oversight and commit abuses. However, as you mentioned, there is also a tight line between oversight, and controlling for personal gain.
My favorite example, is the Airline Industry. Everyone knows it is pretty heavily regulated, and for the most part, reasonably safe. What if it was completely laissez faire, governed only by the competition of the business? My money is that we would see many instances of "Ford Pinto Airplanes" with human life sacrificed for bottom lines.
On the insurance issue, competition - the heart of the idea for capitalism - may actually be detrimental to insurance companies. Insurance is a business model based off of probability, they have an average payout figgure that is likely measured over the term of the policy, and what you pay into your insurance plan has to beat that average. If this were not the case, and the average customer payed less than what they receive, the insurance company would collapse or need bankrolling from an external source. Why competition may be bad, is that if there are too many companies the populace gets split into smaller subsets and each subset has a fixed overhead cost, and smaller sample sizes have a greater risk of abnormal performance. Meaning that smaller insurance companies have a greater risk of getting a lot of high cost claims at once, and going under. This would lead to a natural increase in rates, or high fairlure rate of insurance companies.
Now i'm not sure how many health insurance companies there are in America, or if any of their sample sizes are approaching what could be called dangerously low levels. But I do know that a single insurance company or government agency is going to have a much lower overhead cost than many small companies and is going to have a much more stable capital in/out function, leading to some combination of lower costs to all, increased coverage for poor, or both. I just don't think our government has the power to do this, so it is sort of an idle dream
I also have a problem with health insurance as a for-profit business. They do absolutely nothing to increase the quality of care received, but increase the cost. They exist solely as a middle man, who distributes the cost of care over a policy's lifetime. I understand that this business model is employed successfully in many different areas, but I just get touchy when it is used on Healthcare. I think that quality Healthcare should be made as affordable as possible to as many people as possible, and taking out the middle man is one way to begin lowering the costs. There are of course innumerable other things that can be done to lower the costs, and insurance changes are just one among many.
I like what Milton Freedman said on greed, capitalism, and socialism
On the insurance issue, since I had to pay the first $5,000, I'm guessing the average is $5,000 per person which means my insurance company effectively on average pays nothing.
Sounds like you paid $3,400 less than I did for nothing, of course I can back out of my plan and pay nothing, but if I then have an accident and need emergency care, I will be stuck with 100% of the care and likely refused care if it is too much. Where at least you will probably get the care you need under that situation. But again medicaid and medicare are deeply in debt so that option won't be lasting much longer here either. I'm not seeing any good options at this point, like i said I'm not for or against public health care, both systems are in severe trouble.
If I need a band-aid or an arm splint, I will get care.
I could probably afford to do that anyway.
If I need something that I can't afford, like treatment for a heart ailment or something, I will not get the care anyway under government. I am paying for something I wouldn't receive.
I understand the side that supports public healthcare. I understand the fantasy of many paying so that the few needing vital and life saving treatments that they can't afford otherwise and the cruel private insurance companies can add to their bottom line.
If I need a band-aid or an arm splint, I will get care.
I could probably afford to do that anyway.
If I need something that I can't afford, like treatment for a heart ailment or something, I will not get the care anyway under government. I am paying for something I wouldn't receive.
And I can't get out.
OK, but I had to pay 100% of the first $5,000 of my wife's medical expenses, no coverage. I then paid an additional $8400 for the chance I might or might not get covered for procedures by my insurance company. On top of that I paid $1,000 for medication they don't cover at all. In all I paid $13,400 for really nothing. Right now a $5,000 tax hike in place of what i just went through seems pretty good to me. But then i have a problem with that too because medicaid and medicare are unsustainable and insolvent, their is no money left in either of these programs. My point is both sides of this private/public argument are full of shit because neither are working well.
We don't have true capitalism today, we have cronyism, our government has been turning into an oligarchy for the last 30 years. Powerful people have stacked the deck in their favor and when they get exposed, honest capitalism gets the blame.
It's the capability of Capitalist countries that creates that vaccume im talking about. As more countries industrialize... more resources are consumed. As the current trends in corporate expansion and general resource use show, we'll basically mine out all metals and deplete other materials. We need to recycle everything or we'll simply kill each other over our needs.
Take a look at the behavior of the US since WW1 and even long before this. We've done it all in the name of preserving our "wants" of life. If we never took on a single ounce of Iron again from another nation or from mines simply because it did not exist in those mines anymore and then we found that a few nations in africa were mining and refining iron into steel and so forth, how do you think we would react? Vietnam had naturally growing rubber when both the Communists and the United States were in a severe rubber shortage (notice that most vehicles in vietnam were tracked.) We all know how that turned out don't we?
My point is that we have to have initatives to manage all the resources. We can argue about it now and for a thousand days from today but regardless the fact is that eventually we'll strip this planet clean of attainable metals and other materials. When that day comes... you'll pay for it with blood. All of us will.
Sut Jhally is the only person I recall who talks about the resource issue. He's more focused on Advertising but he does talk at length about the impact of advertising on resources and the general direction. He's the guy that I got my 70 years till depletion figure from... the rest is from him and other sources. I know there are others who concentrate on the resources factor exclusively though. I just don't know their names.
Ranim absolutely no argument from me on that post, without question there need to be stronger conservation guidelines. Corporations all too often seem to equate environmental responsibility with what is legally required of them. Until the law says so they pay no attention to it. With 7 billion living in a largely industrialized world we can't afford to be acting like we use to. It's angering to see companies who circumvent their obligations by doing their dirt in other countries where laws are not restrictive. McDonald's was one of the worst offenders producing for many years metric tons of polystyrene styrofoam and clear cutting the Amazon to the point where the damage was starkly visible in satellite images.
Ranim absolutely no argument from me on that post, without question there need to be stronger conservation guidelines. Corporations all too often seem to equate environmental responsibility with what is legally required of them. Until the law says so they pay no attention to it. With 7 billion living in a largely industrialized world we can't afford to be acting like we use to. It's angering to see companies who circumvent their obligations by doing their dirt in other countries where laws are not restrictive. McDonald's was one of the worst offenders producing for many years metric tons of polystyrene styrofoam and clear cutting the Amazon to the point where the damage was starkly visible in satellite images.
Well if we can effectively reduce waste by 99% or more we ought to see hope for a better future before we all pass on. That's why I like digital entertainment though. Most of our consumerism is derived from not just the adverts but our desire for culture... We associate culture with physical objects like childhood toys and cars. So if we can eliminate that... we will not only cut down waste, but increase time-tables. Imagine that prospect though, the Internet would practically become the main storyteller of human culture.
If we keep things the way they are we'll have to begin mining the rest of the Sol System in a century.
That's kind of a crazy thought now that I look back at it but what ever... that's what i've got to say =)
I understand the side that supports public healthcare. I understand the fantasy of many paying so that the few needing vital and life saving treatments that they can't afford otherwise and the cruel private insurance companies can add to their bottom line.
But that is not how it works.
Except in Canada, England, France, Denmark, Sweden . . .
America spends, on average, around $7500 per person a year, while England spends around $3400 (converted from pounds), and we don't cover everyone, and our insurance companies reserve the right to deny to pay for pre-approved operations.
And about wait times? Canada, England, and France all have private insurance companies. That's right, after 61 years of completely socialized health care, England still has a strong private insurance sector for those who can't stand "the wait."
Our private insurers are expected to raise their premiums at six times the pay raise rate in the coming years, while continually dropping and denying people from their plans.
No one (except far, far lefties) is suggesting America goes to single payer (like England, where no one has to "buy into" a plan, you already are taxed accordingly), but they are proposing a public option: something no one is forced into (the part of the bill Palin and Limbaugh say forces you into it actually is just for educating people who have lost their insurance to what their options are) and competes, not dominates, with the private sector. Remember, England's fully socialized health plan hasn't put private insurance out of business after 61 years, so why would a less comprehensive plan put the more powerful American health insurance companies out of business.
The next argument is on taxing people to pay for the public plan.
1) 2/3s of the plan is already paid for by rearranging how Medicare and other governmental plans work.
2) The public option is an option that individuals buy into out of pocket, so that will also help pay for the plan
3) No one making a profit of more than $250,000 will get taxed on this at all. Even people who make up to $500,000 can only be charged a tax of up to $1500. If the public option works to lower over all prices by adding competition, people will see savings in their own plan, even if they don't buy the public option.
And about the whole thing where people say it will pamper people who have lost "all will to succeed." Do you really think that people who are on welfare or would buy a public health plan are living it up on tax payer dollars? Most of these people live in sh*t holes with starving families to feed. They are in no way living a half way decent life, even while "milking the system." These people are living at the bottom of America, and no one should ever suggest that they are somehow living fulfilled lives on tax payer dollars, and no one will ever want to be in their position, no matter how many government handouts they get. They may be alive, but they certainly aren't enjoying it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
D3 Pros: Outdoors environment, night time environment, female Barbarian, rune spell system, the Wizard class
D3 Cons: Fantasy architecture, fantasy armor, fanstasy weapons, no shaders.
Except in Canada, England, France, Denmark, Sweden . . .
America spends, on average, around $6500 per person a year, while England spends around $3000 (converted from ?), and we don't cover everyone, and our insurance companies reserve the right to deny to pay for pre-approved operations.
And about wait times? Canada, England, and France all have private insurance companies. That's right, after 61 years of completely socialized health care, England still has a strong private insurance sector for those who can't stand "the wait."
Our private insurers are expected to raise their premiums at six times the pay raise rate in the coming years, while continually dropping and denying people from their plans.
One of the first things you learn in economics is that there is no free lunch. Sure, you pay a higher healthcare premium than those in Britain, but how much less in taxes are you paying as well?
At least you can, in America until Obama takes it away, pick and choose which insurance companies you want to deal with and what they will cover for you.
In Britain, they choose the medicine for you and if that medicine doesn't work, tough. If you know a better treatment, they will not cover it for you if it hasn't been prior approved.
IN socialized healthcare systems, to ration care, they create wait lines so that a person will either die waiting for treatment or just give up and drop out of the que.
At least in America, if an insurance company gives substandard service, you can choose somebody else. You can't in Canada. If you get substandard service, you can't even take your dollars elsewhere.
Once the unions get in on the healthcare, it'll be just like your education system. You'll pay far more and get less results than other countries. Did you know that the US spends far more on education, per student, than many other countries, but stands about 25th place?
That's where your healthcare system is going if you opt for government sponsored.
I am proponent of choice myself, but as you can see I paid for a choice and I really $paid$ for that choice. We as American's have to come to grips with the cold truth, neither our public or private sector is working now. 40 million uninsured American's in this country is a travesty of failure in itself. Medicaid and medicare are bankrupt, another travesty. Health insurance going from a 100% free employer benefit to a monthly expense rivaling a car payment inside 20 years is damn angering. I say find a solution that works, really works and make it happen.
I am proponent of choice myself, but as you can see I paid for a choice and I really $paid$ for that choice. We as American's have to come to grips with the cold truth, neither our public or private sector is working now. 40 million uninsured American's in this country is a travesty of failure in itself. Medicaid and medicare are bankrupt, another travesty. Health insurance going from a 100% free employer benefit to a monthly expense rivaling a car payment inside 20 years is damn angering. I say find a solution that works, really works and make it happen.
Is there any difference between private sector and non-profit companies like Blue Shield?
Is there any difference between private sector and non-profit companies like Blue Shield?
I don't think so, BCBS is my provider, it's certainly no less expensive. The HRA plan we have which was sold as the best is nightmarishly expensive. My monthly payment is $200 more than my car payment.
Peter Schiff is one of the few who gets up and states the truth regardless if people want to hear it or not.
...and there goes the greenshoots, buh bye
In a dramatic reversal to the moderating trend from the past several months, Mass Layoff Events surged from 256,357 in June to a whopping 336,654 in July, a 31% increase, and surprisingly the second highest reading for the year since January's 388 thousand. Actual MLE increased by 21% from 2,519 to 3,054.
I wouldn't be so pessimistic if we just simply took the downturn medicine as we must, then we could actually see light at the end of the tunnel but nope, the politicians are hell bent on fighting taking that medicine in the name of getting elected.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hmm, no, that is not accurate. 70 years? For all of our resources? No, the only resources that might run out are fossil fuels, but not in 70 years. Nobody knows when because of this whole "green" era. So I wouldn't worry about that at all.
Either way we have to say good bye to capitalism? Do you know what you are even saying? You are trying to suggest that America is better off being communist. Better yet, you support that statement with a made up fact. But if you are thinking of how well China is doing, then think again. They are not pure communist anymore, and have adopted a more capitalism ideal now. Yes, they are still more communal versus the U.S., but not communist.
Why do I tell you about the communists? Because that's what America is becoming. If public healthcare becomes a reality, then more such programs will be put in, and before long, everything that has made this country will be taken away. Such as competition, and the feeling that you can make more money if you work harder.
Another thing: What usually happens in these social programs is abuse. There are going to be hundreds of thousands of people out of America's 330 million people that will be abusing this system, barely working, yet reaping in the benefits. Do you really want to be paying for these people, who have basically lost all drive in the world to be successful?
No. What's happening now will go away, and I'll tell you, if the American government is smart, they'll keep their money, and not go giving it away to banks and upping the inflation, for the sake of hope and change.
I know this is a bit wordy but please read this and you will see the conundrum of the debate. First I'll say I take no hard position with public or private, I work in the industry and our company has government contracts with Medicaid and Medicare which are both public programs, and both are incidentally running on IOU fumes today. We also have commercial accounts with several of the major private insurance companies But remember 85% of those surveyed are happy with their private health care plan because they have a choice.
We don't have true capitalism today, we have cronyism, our government has been turning into an oligarchy for the last 30 years. Powerful people have stacked the deck in their favor and when they get exposed, honest capitalism gets the blame.
What do we and the next 5-20 generations do then? To wish failure on anything is exactly the attitude detrimental to success.
Anyone who has read or knows anything about political theory knows that the progression after feudalism to capitalism is predicted to be capitalism to communism. I for one, work, and pay 1/3 of my wages to federal income taxes another 1/6 to monthly health care premiums, and more on sales tax think we are already getting to close to communism. I know that the money I am spending on taxes is not being reentered into my community, instead it is funding failing public options, supporting people who exploit our system, paying politicians wages at padding CEOs pockets who's annual wages are at least an order of magnitude greater then mine.
Communism is not the way to go, we aren't ready for it and don't want it!
If everyone took ownership for their own actions, worked hard and we stopped tolerating those who don't we can stop the economic downturn. The real reason we are in it is because the majority end up paying for the minority to exploit the systems. The last sentence explains the increase cost of insurance, the increased cost of taxes to support Medicare and Unemployment. Don't get me wrong at points in people's life they may need help and it should be available, but it has gotten out of control.
I'm Canadian and I have government sponsored healthcare. I pay, at least, $5,000 a year in my taxes for a system I don't use. I'd rather use the money otherwise, but I pay and pay and I can't get out. At least with private insurance, if I didn't like it, I could get out. If I withheld what I pay in my taxes for a system I don't use, I'd go to jail.
Government healthcare systems are really great at dealing with stuff that you can deal with at home, like band-aids. However, if you need acute care, like a heart attack, or life-maintanance care, like HIV, you are hooped. So don't expect any changes here on your part.
If you're paying out of pocket with a private system, you're going to pay out of pocket, assuming you'll even be allowed to seek alternative treatments, for the government option.
Once government unions get involved, good luck. It'll be like the education system where Americans pay more per student than many countries combined, for a system that has Americans ranking about 25th in the world.
I think the question needs to be asked, is who are the 40 million who don't have healthcare in the states?
You'll find the majority are either young men, who wouldn't pay if it meant giving up some coin for some beer or paint-ball expedition or they are illegal immigrants who shouldn't expect to get covered for a system they don't contribute to.
One thing you can't let out of your sight, is that Laissez Faire capitalism is nearly on par with pure socialism with liability for abuse. Where socialistic programs are abused by 'the common man', large businesses are the abusers of capitalism. Some things just need a little bit of government oversight to keep the abuses from happening. In my opinion it is much easier to police a capitalist system, but you also run into the issue of corruption, where businesses have enough capital to "buy off" oversight and commit abuses. However, as you mentioned, there is also a tight line between oversight, and controlling for personal gain.
My favorite example, is the Airline Industry. Everyone knows it is pretty heavily regulated, and for the most part, reasonably safe. What if it was completely laissez faire, governed only by the competition of the business? My money is that we would see many instances of "Ford Pinto Airplanes" with human life sacrificed for bottom lines.
On the insurance issue, competition - the heart of the idea for capitalism - may actually be detrimental to insurance companies. Insurance is a business model based off of probability, they have an average payout figgure that is likely measured over the term of the policy, and what you pay into your insurance plan has to beat that average. If this were not the case, and the average customer payed less than what they receive, the insurance company would collapse or need bankrolling from an external source. Why competition may be bad, is that if there are too many companies the populace gets split into smaller subsets and each subset has a fixed overhead cost, and smaller sample sizes have a greater risk of abnormal performance. Meaning that smaller insurance companies have a greater risk of getting a lot of high cost claims at once, and going under. This would lead to a natural increase in rates, or high fairlure rate of insurance companies.
Now i'm not sure how many health insurance companies there are in America, or if any of their sample sizes are approaching what could be called dangerously low levels. But I do know that a single insurance company or government agency is going to have a much lower overhead cost than many small companies and is going to have a much more stable capital in/out function, leading to some combination of lower costs to all, increased coverage for poor, or both. I just don't think our government has the power to do this, so it is sort of an idle dream
I also have a problem with health insurance as a for-profit business. They do absolutely nothing to increase the quality of care received, but increase the cost. They exist solely as a middle man, who distributes the cost of care over a policy's lifetime. I understand that this business model is employed successfully in many different areas, but I just get touchy when it is used on Healthcare. I think that quality Healthcare should be made as affordable as possible to as many people as possible, and taking out the middle man is one way to begin lowering the costs. There are of course innumerable other things that can be done to lower the costs, and insurance changes are just one among many.
Sounds like you paid $3,400 less than I did for nothing, of course I can back out of my plan and pay nothing, but if I then have an accident and need emergency care, I will be stuck with 100% of the care and likely refused care if it is too much. Where at least you will probably get the care you need under that situation. But again medicaid and medicare are deeply in debt so that option won't be lasting much longer here either. I'm not seeing any good options at this point, like i said I'm not for or against public health care, both systems are in severe trouble.
I like what Milton Freedman said on greed, capitalism, and socialism
On the insurance issue, since I had to pay the first $5,000, I'm guessing the average is $5,000 per person which means my insurance company effectively on average pays nothing.
If I need a band-aid or an arm splint, I will get care.
I could probably afford to do that anyway.
If I need something that I can't afford, like treatment for a heart ailment or something, I will not get the care anyway under government. I am paying for something I wouldn't receive.
And I can't get out.
But that is not how it works.
OK, but I had to pay 100% of the first $5,000 of my wife's medical expenses, no coverage. I then paid an additional $8400 for the chance I might or might not get covered for procedures by my insurance company. On top of that I paid $1,000 for medication they don't cover at all. In all I paid $13,400 for really nothing. Right now a $5,000 tax hike in place of what i just went through seems pretty good to me. But then i have a problem with that too because medicaid and medicare are unsustainable and insolvent, their is no money left in either of these programs. My point is both sides of this private/public argument are full of shit because neither are working well.
Take a look at the behavior of the US since WW1 and even long before this. We've done it all in the name of preserving our "wants" of life. If we never took on a single ounce of Iron again from another nation or from mines simply because it did not exist in those mines anymore and then we found that a few nations in africa were mining and refining iron into steel and so forth, how do you think we would react? Vietnam had naturally growing rubber when both the Communists and the United States were in a severe rubber shortage (notice that most vehicles in vietnam were tracked.) We all know how that turned out don't we?
My point is that we have to have initatives to manage all the resources. We can argue about it now and for a thousand days from today but regardless the fact is that eventually we'll strip this planet clean of attainable metals and other materials. When that day comes... you'll pay for it with blood. All of us will.
Sut Jhally is the only person I recall who talks about the resource issue. He's more focused on Advertising but he does talk at length about the impact of advertising on resources and the general direction. He's the guy that I got my 70 years till depletion figure from... the rest is from him and other sources. I know there are others who concentrate on the resources factor exclusively though. I just don't know their names.
Well if we can effectively reduce waste by 99% or more we ought to see hope for a better future before we all pass on. That's why I like digital entertainment though. Most of our consumerism is derived from not just the adverts but our desire for culture... We associate culture with physical objects like childhood toys and cars. So if we can eliminate that... we will not only cut down waste, but increase time-tables. Imagine that prospect though, the Internet would practically become the main storyteller of human culture.
If we keep things the way they are we'll have to begin mining the rest of the Sol System in a century.
That's kind of a crazy thought now that I look back at it but what ever... that's what i've got to say =)
Except in Canada, England, France, Denmark, Sweden . . .
America spends, on average, around $7500 per person a year, while England spends around $3400 (converted from pounds), and we don't cover everyone, and our insurance companies reserve the right to deny to pay for pre-approved operations.
And about wait times? Canada, England, and France all have private insurance companies. That's right, after 61 years of completely socialized health care, England still has a strong private insurance sector for those who can't stand "the wait."
Our private insurers are expected to raise their premiums at six times the pay raise rate in the coming years, while continually dropping and denying people from their plans.
No one (except far, far lefties) is suggesting America goes to single payer (like England, where no one has to "buy into" a plan, you already are taxed accordingly), but they are proposing a public option: something no one is forced into (the part of the bill Palin and Limbaugh say forces you into it actually is just for educating people who have lost their insurance to what their options are) and competes, not dominates, with the private sector. Remember, England's fully socialized health plan hasn't put private insurance out of business after 61 years, so why would a less comprehensive plan put the more powerful American health insurance companies out of business.
The next argument is on taxing people to pay for the public plan.
1) 2/3s of the plan is already paid for by rearranging how Medicare and other governmental plans work.
2) The public option is an option that individuals buy into out of pocket, so that will also help pay for the plan
3) No one making a profit of more than $250,000 will get taxed on this at all. Even people who make up to $500,000 can only be charged a tax of up to $1500. If the public option works to lower over all prices by adding competition, people will see savings in their own plan, even if they don't buy the public option.
And about the whole thing where people say it will pamper people who have lost "all will to succeed." Do you really think that people who are on welfare or would buy a public health plan are living it up on tax payer dollars? Most of these people live in sh*t holes with starving families to feed. They are in no way living a half way decent life, even while "milking the system." These people are living at the bottom of America, and no one should ever suggest that they are somehow living fulfilled lives on tax payer dollars, and no one will ever want to be in their position, no matter how many government handouts they get. They may be alive, but they certainly aren't enjoying it.
D3 Pros: Outdoors environment, night time environment, female Barbarian, rune spell system, the Wizard class
D3 Cons: Fantasy architecture, fantasy armor, fanstasy weapons, no shaders.
One of the first things you learn in economics is that there is no free lunch. Sure, you pay a higher healthcare premium than those in Britain, but how much less in taxes are you paying as well?
At least you can, in America until Obama takes it away, pick and choose which insurance companies you want to deal with and what they will cover for you.
In Britain, they choose the medicine for you and if that medicine doesn't work, tough. If you know a better treatment, they will not cover it for you if it hasn't been prior approved.
http://www.burtonreport.com/InfHealthCare/BritNatHealthServ.htm
IN socialized healthcare systems, to ration care, they create wait lines so that a person will either die waiting for treatment or just give up and drop out of the que.
At least in America, if an insurance company gives substandard service, you can choose somebody else. You can't in Canada. If you get substandard service, you can't even take your dollars elsewhere.
Once the unions get in on the healthcare, it'll be just like your education system. You'll pay far more and get less results than other countries. Did you know that the US spends far more on education, per student, than many other countries, but stands about 25th place?
That's where your healthcare system is going if you opt for government sponsored.
I don't think so, BCBS is my provider, it's certainly no less expensive. The HRA plan we have which was sold as the best is nightmarishly expensive. My monthly payment is $200 more than my car payment.
...and there goes the greenshoots, buh bye
In a dramatic reversal to the moderating trend from the past several months, Mass Layoff Events surged from 256,357 in June to a whopping 336,654 in July, a 31% increase, and surprisingly the second highest reading for the year since January's 388 thousand. Actual MLE increased by 21% from 2,519 to 3,054.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/mass-layoff-events-spike
I wouldn't be so pessimistic if we just simply took the downturn medicine as we must, then we could actually see light at the end of the tunnel but nope, the politicians are hell bent on fighting taking that medicine in the name of getting elected.