quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

To commercialize a basic need in general means it will get more expensive, not cheaper.
There are many examples outside of healthcare to support my statement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Yeah, as if anyone cared how I got to what I believed before. And, shall we add, this [insurance companies being a huge driver of costs] is what I've been trying to get someone to actually state. I think it was Tweakabelle that made the comment that health care should never have become "for profit." Interestingly enough, I've been calling for a return to the "not for profit" methods in use prior to health care becoming "for profit." Instead, all I hear is that Government is the only answer possible. Obviously, it isn't the answer. That is exactly the point I've been trying to lead people to without stating it myself. I knew no one would believe me if I said it. But, now, others have said what I've believed the whole time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds
Regarding the executive compensation boards, shareholders don't have the power to change the system. Maybe the government could though. How about a law saying that to increase compensation for anyone if they would then be paid more than the President of the US will require a vote of the shareholders on that specific issue.

quote:

quote:


Alan Greenspan:
"Why did corporate governance checks and balances that served us reasonably well in the past break down? At root was the rapid enlargement of stock market capitalizations in the latter part of the 1990s that arguably engendered an outsized increase in opportunities for avarice. An infectious greed seemed to grip much of our business community. Our historical guardians of financial information were overwhelmed. Too many corporate executives sought ways to "harvest" some of those stock market gains. As a result, the highly desirable spread of shareholding and options among business managers perversely created incentives to artificially inflate reported earnings in order to keep stock prices high and rising. This outcome suggests that the options were poorly structured, and, consequently, they failed to properly align the long-term interests of shareholders and managers, the paradigm so essential for effective corporate governance. The incentives they created overcame the good judgment of too many corporate managers. It is not that humans have become any more greedy than in generations past. It is that the avenues to express greed had grown so enormously."

Little understood part of our current situation, right there.
Tax laws were changed in the 1990's, directed at executive compensation. The net result was all the decision makers and power brokers were motivated no longer by profit and loss but by asset and liability. This is a fundamental economic issue with profound implications for the way our economy works.
Profit and loss is readily understood; sell a product or service for something more than it costs and you have a successful business, the world is simple, and makes sense to all.
Asset and liability is a whole other way of looking at the economy and doing business. Products and services can be delivered to customers at a loss and yet the business can still grow and growth means the stock takes off and that is good for people compensated not by profit and loss but my asset and liability.
Balancing the two is good. The tax laws emphasize and promote imbalance in favor of asst and liability.
Our current economic crisis could not have happened before this tax law change.

quote:

Regarding your statement a few days ago that you were young and healthy and didn't see why you should need to pay for insurance... If you don't pay for insurance I have to pay for you. Nuff said?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Then Government-provided security forces are another kind of insurance company, I suppose.
It's fun going down this track, isn't it? Where does supporting the public funding of one kind of service against another stop being an upright, patriotic and true American thing to do, and start being a commie, freedom-hating thing to do? Weird.

See, now, the "Common Defence ... of the United States" is actually in the Constitution. That is what differentiates the two services you are comparing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

If I stated that it was me that was young and healthy, then I apologize for that incongruity. I don't think I did that, though. What I probably did was frame the reference to the young and healthy in a way that it was unclear that I was not in that category.

quote:



If someone doesn't pay for insurance and gets care free (to them), then those who buy insurance are paying for that someone's care. If someone doesn't pay for insurance and pays everything out of his/her own pocket, then the cost of your insurance does not include the cost of that person's care. I do not believe you should have to subsidize my care. You should only subsidize the care for whom you choose. You can not do that via Gub'Mint.

quote:


Ignorant bastards, it becomes a "secured" debt owed to the gubafia and if you own property and the bill meets or exeeds its value kiss that shit bye bye!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

To commercialize a basic need in general means it will get more expensive, not cheaper.
There are many examples outside of healthcare to support my statement.

Thank you Mr Bukani, for putting it so succinctly and so strongly and with words anyone can understand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You get nuttier every day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You do too. I've no idea what you're talking about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You get nuttier every day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Much. And after your attitude here, we have nothing left to discuss.

Well wishes

Welcome to the club, tazzy!.

I reached a similar point of exasperation a while ago following this exchange:

DS:" How do we lower costs?"

tweakabelle: "Very simple. Establish a universal health scheme asap.
They cost about half the cost of the system that operates in the USA currently. "

DS: "How is it we are going to halve our costs? That is why I ignore those things."

What is the point of answering questions if someone chooses to ignore informative answers - it's effectively choosing to wallow in ignorance isn't it? It's pointless trying to communicate with people with such preferences, particularly so when the blinkers are adopted for ideological reasons.