Printable View
I didn't say the current system was perfect.. or even any good.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
What I said breaks down to ...
How can you expect a system(.gov) that as repeatedly shown it can't do things right.. to "suddenly" do something right ?
You think that medical care won't eventually come to "budget shortfalls" ?
What you get at the DMV has NOTHING to do with budgets. It has everything to do with petty, bitter government employees vying to do as little as possible for their inflated salaries, while using their authority to stroke their self esteem by making life a living hell for those they allegedly serve. There is no better example of people moving at "the speed of government". They have zero motivation to give half a shit, because they are virtually impossible to fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
And you think that turning our health care over to similar .gov troglodytes is going to be an improvement?
I just moved on from a 4 year job with an Italian owned and operated company. One of the head guys of that company told me he pays $5k per month for health insurance for his family of 4. He makes a lot, so he pays a lot. Forklift driver guy in same company that doesn't make a lot (doesn't pay any) gets basically the same healthcare. That's not right.Quote:
Originally Posted by bellavite1
I have no reason not to trust his word. Bellavite, you maybe able to confirm if that sounds right or not.
Bottom line is this: Someone is paying for those that can't afford it one way or another. Granted, right now we all pay higher costs to cover those that go get treatment and can't afford it. Either way we are paying for those that can't. But I would argue that under a universal system the number of people using the healthcare system who can't pay would be much higher. As it is now, most that can't pay don't go. But if it was free???? You bet those same people that didn't go before would if it was free. And those of us that do pay will be covering the higher cost of larger numbers of "non-payers" using the system. It is insane to think that if it was made free for more people, the costs will go down. Absolute bullshit.
As for nynco saying those non-payers should get treated so they don't get the rest of us sick? That's BS. Mr. Fictional TB guy would not have been diagnosed with TB anyway after hours of waiting. The healthcare system is already overloaded. There aren't enough doctors as is. Add more patients because the care is free and you're increasing wait times and costs. Increased costs mean costs must be managed. Managing costs means less care. No xray of his lungs. Only one minute talking to an actual doctor (if you think that's an exaggeration, look it up. With the current patient load of doctors, that's how much you get. Add more patients and the same amount of doctors...you do the math.)
Result? Cough syrup and a door hitting him in the ass. Getting the family sick in the elevator anyway, just costing more money this time. How's that better?
Because nynco is stuck on TB I have one more comment on that. TB may be on the rise again but it is relativity unheard of in the US. At one time it was a bigger problem...but was it Universal Health Care that reduced it so dramatically?
I will say it again, healthcare is a luxury. I pay a hefty price to give that luxury to my family. And I choose to also chip in so other people can have it too. I just want to choose who I help. I donate to Shriners. I donate to Children's. And I like to think I donate to the VA with my tax dollars. If I could make more of my tax dollars go to the VA instead of to studying the effects of global warming on bacteria in the Colorado river, I would.
To those that can't afford that luxury, too bad. Life's a bitch and I feel for you. Work hard to find a new/better job with better insurance, more income or pray hard that others will choose to help you but it's by no means their obligation.
I'll add that I agree health insurance companies generally suck. I don't doubt they screw people or at least make it hard. My insurance has been good to my family of 3 but that may be because I pay $12k out-of-pocket for premiums and my company matches. Get what you pay for I guess. (BTW - This went up like 50% immediately after Obama Care passed...coincidence? Government tried to help and MY costs went up.)
Private, for profit healthcare is significantly better than the alternatives. Just like Private, for profit X is ALWAYS better than government run X.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
But that belies your real problem. You hate capitalism, thus by extension you hate liberty.
America's health care system is the best in the world. Sure it may appear to cost more than some socialized system (because most of the costs of socialized systems are hidden) but you get better care in the US than anywhere else in the world even if you can't afford it.
Also, if you look at everything else in America its more expensive than most of the rest of the world. Cars, hamburgers, computers, bluejeans, beer ... all these things cost more in America than they do in most of the rest of the world. Of course the average American MAKES A LOT MORE than the most people on the planet.
The only reason to change our system is to create a corrupt system where those with political connections are well taken care of and the rest are just screwed.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.Quote:
If you think gov is broke the answer is not all gov is bad.
-George Washington
I'd rather not let this in-eloquent force have control over my body thankyouverymuch.
Government (often by design) is the least efficient means of providing goods or services. The inefficiency is because government decisions are made politically, not based on what is the best practice or the most efficient. You add in the tendency for politicians to try to enforce some form of cosmic justice (often called "social justice") on the people and you end up with inequalities and inefficiencies that are downright malicious.Quote:
Efficiency is key.
Sure there can be inefficiencies in the private system but most of those are creations of government regulations. Those inefficiencies that are the side effect of a free market are small and can be lived with when compared to the evils of government control.
TANSTAAFL
Tho my hatred of the DMV is not nearly as deep seated as TFog's here.. and trust me I hate the DMV more then I hate traffic cops with ticket quotas at the end of the month!( and thats a big bag of hate right there ... ) his point is my point exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
Have you ever thought to yourself " Gee self I really hope my next doctor visit goes just like my last DMV visit".
Heck you can replace DMV with Social Security office, or unemployment office (hmm... both "insurances" run by the .gov) or the court/justice system.
Running with the justice system reference... Would the doctors become like Judges and nurses become the DA's? At least in the courts you have jury's and defense attorneys....
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
When Health Care becomes a right, plenty of people will develop a sense of entitlment and let others work hard to pay for it.
It's human nature.
I'll tell you what: I am tired of getting up at 4:30 AM 6 days a week so I can afford shit.
Where would you like me to send you my bills?
Oh, make sure they are paid in time, after all I am an immigrant, you all owe me![Tooth]
A right CAN NOT exist where it creates an obligation on another. This is the essence of tyranny and slavery.Quote:
Originally Posted by bellavite1
Because if a commodity becomes a right (and health care like any other good or service is simply a commodity) than those that provide it are OBLIGATED to provide it, regardless of the ability or even willingness of the recipient to pay for it.
If healthcare is a right than doctors and nurces can be chained to their clinics and forced at gunpoint (all laws are ultimately enforced at gunpoint) to provide free labor.
This is a system called SLAVERY.
For one I never said gov was to be the only person in the healthcare system. Thats your fear talkin. You will see the whole time that I have said that we need to kill the for profit insurance companies. They should not exits. All insurance should be nonprofit based.
Also the rights of incorporation are not God given. If a company can not afford to pay into some form of healthcare for all its workers then in my opinion that company does not deserve the rights the gov gives under articles of incorporation. Go out of business if you don't do business in the interests of the public. To those that say that is wrong......... My position is right in line with all the founders of this nation. Only the corrupt Supreme Court has ruled Corporations are people. That ruling is so wrong it warrants impeachment for anyone who ruled that way. Corporations are a creation of gov charter. If they can't abide by what ever rules we the people through our gov decide (meaning pay for healthcare for all workers) then they need to close up shop and make way for companies that can get the job done.
Agree! Once it becomes free for everybody that's when it will get impossible to receive care in a timely manner. Everyone will be going all the time because hell, they don't have to pay. We would all pay high costs for those who cannot. Same thing going on right now, welfare! Abused by those who know how to weasel around it, and those of us who want to be honest, productive members of society, well we get stuck with the bill. If I could I'd only pay my share of what goes to Defense, infrastructure, military pay, VA, and civil service. I would love to not pay for the president's $400K/yr salary, or for Shaniqua and her 20 kids to sit around and not do anything, or perhaps so that Juan can go to the ER and get his stuffy nose taken care of without having to pay anything.... Some things just piss me off [Mad] Paying for other people's inability to care for themselves is near the top of the list.Quote:
Originally Posted by bellavite1
So the Bill of Rights is tyranny and slavery?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
Also, healthcare is not a commodity, thats your base mistake. Also the assumption that Dr and Nurses will be chained to their clinics is laughable. Anyone can chose not to take a job. Or are you advocating against the freemarket now?
All laws are not forced at gun point. In a free society you chose your leaders to create your laws. Or do you not understand the fundamentals of America? We are not a kingdom and this is not a theocratic state nor a dictatorship. Now do we need reform to make laws reflect the will of the people more. Heck yea...
You're on a roll today.. Here you say companies should be forced to buy a service for their employees. I'll bet you think this whether the company can afford it or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
But, once again, the people shouldn't have to pay for it themselves..oh, no, that would be crazy...hee hee, people paying for their own shit...what a dumb idea...it's other's responsibility to buy them stuff like health insurance (sarcasm of course).
In another thread you say companies should pay higher taxes ("not get tax breaks" you said. Same thing I say). You really hate businesses don't you...
You may want to check on this again. Pretty sure the founders hated high taxes and the government forcing them to do shit like buy something for someone else.Quote:
My position is right in line with all the founders of this nation.
All business should play by the same base rules. Rules gov and we the people create. If they can't do business within those rules then they don't deserve the rights of incorporation. Man (Gov) created the articles of incorporation not God. Man can take them away for any reason that is a breach of law. Law is determined by the gov we the people elect. Check and balance...Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
Did I say people should not pay for it themselves? Their labor at the job pays for that. This just ensures that all companies play by the same base rules. It distorts the market by allowing some companies to not pay when others must. This is what Germany does all companies pay regardless. So the base cost is the same for all.
Also the founders of this nation did not fight to lower taxes. They fought to gain a form of gov that would reflect the will of the people. The Boston Tea Party was a protest against gov tax breaks for the British East India Trading Company. The corrupt gov on England was trying to rig the market by making the smaller corporations pay taxes that the British East company did not have to pay. This was putting mom and pop businesses out of work. The same thing happens today when we give tax breaks to companies to setup shop in your neighborhood but make others pay the correct non taxbreak rates. Its not the free market any more. Those taxbreaks became market manipulators.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
Do you like paying for some thug in the ghetto to buy a new stereo he doesn't need for his car? Or rims that serve no purpose to help improve his life? That's what welfare is doing!
There is currently no law that requires companies to pay for healthcare for their employees. The company I work at is an Inc. and I don't get healthcare through the company. So should my employer (who happens to be my father) be shut down and go to jail for that? He sees it as his employees get paid better rather than health benefits and can go pick the healthcare plan they choose rather than getting what he provides. It's a free economy we live in, but I feel I'm already paying for other people too much, and that kind of goes against my beliefs that there are no free handouts for me, so why should the lazy people get free stuff? I understand things like Unemployment, as I've had to use that to keep my bills paid and keep gas in my car so I could seek out work. I understand the premise behind welfare and food stamps, but they're meant to be temporary fixes until people get back on their feet, not something people rely and live off of long term. And there is where we have abuse. Healthcare would be abused by those who don't do anything to pay into it. I could see the whole system being lopsided very easily. People like Obama would claim that under a unified healthcare reform, those who make more money pay more money. Those who can't afford to pay in would still get it regardless and the rest of us would be paying. So much for survival of the fittest. Our modern "for the greater good" has stamped out laws of nature. If you can't provide for your family you shouldn't have had kids. Why should it be my responsibility to make sure your family is fed when I'm trying to provide for mine at the same time?Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
Welfare stimulates demand and there are studies that show that the money multiplier from that pays for itself. I don't advocate for a welfare system for life.
As for your father. Society can chose to make a law that mandates he help pay for healthcare as part of the privileged he enjoys under the various articles of incorporation. Notice..... I have said nothing about sole proprietorship or companies who do not incorporate. Those do not enjoy the privileged of immunity and other things that articles of incorporation in various forms provide. Now if your father has to compete with everyone else who has to work under the same rules, then the market will equal out. He would not go out of business, either his profits would diminish or he will raises prices or cut employee pay. That is up to him and other market forces. Free market at work again....
I also don't believe in a society based on survival of the fittest alone. Sorry.... but I don't want America to emulate the dark ages. I have higher standards for my nation and I think a society based on that alone has no honor.
As to those who have more paying more, Yes I believe in a progressive tax system. It was Republican Teddy Roosevelt who first created that and I think it has served this nation well. What broke down is today we have the opposite. If you are a billion dollar investor, like a hedge fund manager, you pay less taxes than a middle class worker. This is part of the reason why we have such a large deficit. So your fears of the rich paying more are unfounded due to them bribing our gov to corruptly create tax structures just for them alone.
You said the company should pay for employee health care. To me that means employees not paying for it, yes. As for their labor paying for it, I would say their labor paid for their PAYCHECK. They can use their paycheck to buy health insurance or care, that's up to them. If the company is forced to buy it, they may, but they're just going to take it out of the employees salary anyway...they WILL NOT increase the salary rate of a job to include health insurance. If a particular job is worth $50k/year and the company is forced to buy $10k worth of insurance for the employee then you can bet the company is not going to spend $60k on that employee, they're still going to pay $50k ($40k to the employee and $10k to insurance).Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
Adding that enormous burden to companies if they couldn't take it out of the employees pay would most certainly hurt the company...especially small ones.
^Agreed, but my point is that gov regulations that force companies to buy their employees health insurance is the very type of tyrannical government control they fought against.Quote:
Also the founders of this nation did not fight to lower taxes. They fought to gain a form of gov that would reflect the will of the people. The Boston Tea Party was a protest against gov tax breaks for the British East India Trading Company. The corrupt gov on England was trying to rig the market by making the smaller corporations pay taxes that the British East company did not have to pay. This was putting mom and pop businesses out of work.
I didn't mean to get you on to taxes here so I will stay with health care...
As it is now, small companies aren't forced to buy insurance for their employees...and although big companies technically aren't either (they are playing by the same rules), in theory they are forced to buy insurance because that's what employees of big companies expect...controlled by the people you might say.
If all were to "play by the same rules" the other way so that all companies had to buy insurance, then that would hurt the mom and pop shops more than it would the big companies...I would say that's government regulations that hurt small businesses...much like the example you mentioned from history.
EDIT: BTW nynco, I appreciate the discussion and you have single-handily reduced the amount of work I got done today...
So in essence, he's got a choice to either pay for his employees' healthcare out of profits that previously would have been used to either grow the business, or as discretionary spending, or he can force the employee to pay for it by cutting wages and redirecting the money to health care. Meanwhile, those that don't contribute to the system continue to reap the benefits of others' labor...Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
A fallacy that most people don't seem to understand is that the market sets the rates of pay. How are you missing that.... an employer knows that he can get someone to do a job for 50k regardless of taxes or other factors he can only get someone to do that job for that pay. Taxes could be at 90% (theoretical point) and unless the employer found a way to pay that person 50K no one would work that job for that pay level. Now this can become distorted when there are too many people for too few jobs. (illegals are destroying the pay rates in trades this way). Now if the employer is making 300grand off that worker do you think he will give a raise out of the goodness of his heart or in his interest to keep a worker of that caliber working? If the worker is happy will he just give money away to him? What employer ever gives away profits for no good reason? They will not stay in business long if they do. Now, if the worker is unhappy and leaves then the employer just found out that 50K was not enough to keep that job filled. Free market at work again...
Taxes... Now taxes for a short period of time. Roughly 2 years will impact the workers pay. But after that 2 years period things will equal out. Either the employer figures out the worker will work for less or the guy quits and finds another job that will pay him 50K in take home pay. Free market at work and taxes when applied the same over each economic earning level make no real impact. This is why Europeans who do have a higher tax system still have a better standard of living than we do in some instances. Free market at work again...
So this correlates to healthcare the same as taxes have. If everyone is playing by the same rules then the market forces are equal.
Now....... here is what I see as the only constitutionally LEGAL way to do this. Medicare for all.... thats the base level paid for by taxes. All health insurance is nonprofit and your are free to buy as much supplemental care as you want. The freemarket is still maintained, but there is just a base floor of greater than zero now.
In short yes.... but the best form of getting people off welfare is a job that will pay a living wage. Don't mix the two issues here. As much as they seem related, I am referring to workers alone. Will all Americans be covered regardless of income? Yes But diminishing the amount of people without a job is a separate issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
Except for the unemployed. Under the system you propose, they get a free ride as far as healthcare goes. Only those that are productive will pay into the system, and they will pay disproportionately. The inequities in the system would likely create an incentive to find more "cheats" in the system, for example, barter and under the table cash transactions, similar to what some people do to evade income taxes...Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
As I said the two issues are not to be mixed. You seem to be still stuck on this. As I laid out before, it costs society more when we don't treat that TB case than it would if we did. We are saving money by treating everyone. As much as you don't like that idea, it costs you less money in the end. So it is in your own selfish best interest for everyone to have healthcare.
They are all already playing equal. No company is currently forced to buy health insurance*. It's an added benefit used to attract employees. Just like paying that $50k in salary as the market rate...health insurance benefits are dictated by what the employee market wants. So government forcing companies to buy health insurance is the same as government controlling the market rate of pay. i.e. US.gov rules say forklift drivers must be paid $100k/yr...should we do that too?Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
*this was true but last I checked Obama care forces companies to buy health insurance for employees or pay a fine...still true? If it's still true, Obama Care sounds right up your ally nynco...
The base rules need to be changed that is the point of reform. Healthcare is not a commodity. It is not a right either. But we as a society can chose to help each other or let others die. Your choice guys...... dark ages or civilization? That is the point of America we can chose.Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
Obama care is unconstitutional because it forces people to buy from a private individual (insurance provider). Hence the reason I said medicare for all and paid for by taxes. You can still buy healthcare on your own and the company can chose to pay for additional coverage or you can too. Free market at work... Obamas biggest mistake was doing Romnie care on the national level. He went against his base and listened to the corporations who bought Washington long ago.
This is the fundamental disagreement. By treating everyone, even those that cannot pay, MORE will use the system...more that can't pay that is. Not being able to pay deters some from seeking care...reducing the load. You can't say they will get other's sick without care, increasing the load. They will get others sick care or no care...Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
This just doesn't make sense.
On top of that, the system can't handle more people so quality of care for ALL will go down.
Unless this bright idea of giving care to all, even those that don't pay, includes some sort of plan to double or triple our healthcare providers, we all lose a lot more than money. The extra patients in the system don't pay so there will be no funds to educate, train, equip and hire new providers to care for those extra patients. So we need to pay both for non-payers' care AND pay for the extra doctors needed to treat them to make this work. That's a big bill to foot...
Government is not a synonym for society, prior to government getting into the charity business real heavily in the 60s there were plenty of church groups, charities and mutual aid societies to take care of the truly downtrodden.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
Once government gets involved it breeds waste and corruption, both on the provider end AND the patient end (you give something away and people that don't need it will likely be the first in line to mooch).
You have created a false dilemma fallacy of logic with your "dark ages or civilization" bushwah. The choice you propose is between effective and free private enterprise or enslavement to government (which will end in WORSE service to the poor).
If you truly want to help people, leave it to private enterprise and private charity ... government is just a mess.
The people are in the system now and if there are more that come into be seen well that means more jobs for workers now doesn't. Wow, you just stimulated the economy. As to providing the best care in the world for all Americans... Well this is up to us to decide what level of care is to be the base level. Today we have death panels run by for profit insurance companies with an incentive to kill you rather than treat you. I would rather take my chances with a panel that I can change through my elected representative than one where I have no say at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
I do choose to help...through donations. My choice. Not forced by government. That's not government's role to tell me how much to pay for others through taxation and medicare. They misuse my funds everyday and I rather send my money direct to those in need. My funds will buy an oxygen tank for 150 bucks when sent directly to a hospital but when sent through medicare...well that tank costs $1000.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
Sure, argue that the system needs to be fixed, that medicare can improve and bring costs down (yeah right, no proof that they can manage that, but in theory sure), but that's still ignoring the fundamental belief that government shouldn't be telling me where to spend MY money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
And those charities were failing miserably.
You yourself are creating a false dilemma. Gov is supposed to be we the people who elect it. Therefore we are only enslaved by gov when gov is corrupted and not longer beholden to the people. Gov is a tool. And in our system, we the people are supposed to be the ones in charge of the tool. Or do not understand our constitution at all?
I say again, they make profits from premiums paid by LIVE people...dead people don't pay. This simply ins't accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
Shriners Hospital for Children is one of the best in the world...run by donations. Free for patients.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
And living people sometimes won't live long enough to make up for the cost...... your childs injury is costing the company 5 million to fix her....... well that is too much let her die.Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
As healthcare is a multibillion dollar industry, I would think the 2 are inextricably linked. Taxes and tax analogs, such as a mandatory universal healthcare payment, universally act as a damper on economic growth.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
Hypothetically, Joe Paycheck earns $40k a year, less 30%ish for income taxes, FICA, etc. This leaves him about $31,500 to pay for his day to day expenses, including healthcare. Now let's say Joe has a pretty decent health plan that covers him, Mrs Paycheck, and Jr. Paycheck, and this costs him $750 a month. That takes $9000 of his income, but it provides good quality coverage. Start adding in his mortgage, a car payment, and living expenses, and Joe basically comes out even at the end of the month. Not getting rich, but living the dream.
Now universal healthcare comes along. Joe's employer is faced with a dilemma: reduce the workforce by a number of workers to cover the cost of providing healthcare, or asking his employees to take a pay cut of $9k per year to cover it. Now that $9k is going to not only cover Joe and his family, but his neighbor Tom Slacker's family as well.
Suddenly, the same amount of money is supposed to provide coverage for twice as many people. Either the cost of care must be reduced %50 somehow, or the quality of care will be degraded. Now I'll be the first to agree that the current system is horribly bloated and wasteful, particularly at the administrative levels, but to believe you can provide quality care for half the cost is naive at best.
Now say that Joe's employer takes the other tack, and decides to axe 10% of his work force to cover the cost instead. Now you have more people out of work, but still covered by the system.
I absolutely agree that insurance companies need to have incentives other than profit, as profit implies a certain level of acceptable loss.
I ask the following: If universal health care is the answer, why do people from France, England, and Canada come to the US for treatment if they can afford it?
And obviously that is not enough to fix the situation either.Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
Joe's employer already knows what Joe is paying that goes back to what Joe is willing to work for in the end. Or are you saying the freemarket won't work? Joe's employer chose to cut back on staff. So either Joe's employer had 10% too many people to begin which means he was not efficient or Joes employer has decided that there is not enough market demand for his goods to justify his previous 10 inefficiency. Now since Joe's employer is choosing to give up his market share, that gives an opportunity for another company to come along and fill the demand that he can not meet. That other company would be playing under the same rules as Joe's employer so the market equals out again. Now Joe's employer can still cut Joe's pay, but Joe can chose to find a new employer who will pay him what he is use to making as his end take home pay to cover his lifes expenses.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
People come to America because they can afford to. Its a free country and our country permits them to come here. Come on in, thanks for the cash. It was their freemarket choice to come here. On the flip side there are more Americans today leaving America to get surgery overseas because they cannot afford to here. My ex's mother always gets her dental care over seas because she cannot afford to here. She returns to see family and promptly goes to the dentist. This is because our system is so broken that it does not serve a vast amount of our own citizens. Serving others from other nations is only permitted if they pay out of pocket. Again, thanks for the cash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tor Larson
Illegals are not US citizens do not confuse the issue or muddy the water. Deal with them separately. Best way to do that is to abolish any company that hires them or to fine any private individual that hires an illegal. No work, no illegals. They walk home on their own dime with that system.
Who decides wages? The employee always does. Because if they can't get someone to work for the wage level they are paying, then they better pay more till they find a worker who is willing to work for that wage level.
As to my previous answers sucking....... so far your reply indicates you can't knock them down. You just called me a name and that shows I win.
Absolute 110% pure grade bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
Private charities ALWAYS do better than government.
I'm done "arguing" with you ... you're a brainwashed kool-aid drinker not worth my time.
And the money to cover the administrative costs comes from?Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
Your supposition that the 10% of the workforce that Joe's employer had to let go was excess fails to recognize that there are such things as seasonal fluctuations, economic fluctuations, and that you can't drive people to work at maximum effort all the time, or they burn out. If you attempt to run a business on the ragged edge of minimum manpower, you make no allowance for sick time, personal days, or vacations. You can't expand your business, or in some cases even keep abreast of current demands.
People who come here for care from other countries do so for one reason: The quality and/or immediacy of the care is significantly better than their money can buy there. Like I said, you can't spread the same resources out over a larger number of people without reducing the quality or quantity of care devoted to each person. Many health care resources are currently finite, so increasing them is not practical.
We the people through gov. decide on the base floor for wages or Min Wage. If a company can not follow those base rules then they have no rights to incorporation. Anything after that base point is decided by the worker who is willing to work for that wage level. Workers make those determination by what it costs to live and that is an after tax dollar reality not a pretax dollar one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tor Larson
As to saying my ideas suck, why don't you step up to the plate more and prove me wrong.
That didn't work last time, wont work this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tor Larson
just throwing that out there
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tor Larson
As to the name calling I apologize for misreading what you wrote. I will try to have better attention to detail in the future.
As to working in a hospital........I have many times over many years in a few different continents and states. Both in uniform and out. I was also working on sept 11th victims that day.
As to Amnesty.... I don't really want to get into that. But I will say that any employer who already breaks the laws by knowingly employing illegals deserves no mercy. Illegals come here because they can find work. Dry up that and they stop coming so fast and so much.
most populations outside the major cities are republican and very conservative. maybe you should expand your world a little bit and research some things. But when the major cities are corrupt, more than outnumber the conservatives, the votes and politicians are going to reflect that, just the same as they do in denver and boulder around here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving