luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
In countries with social medicine, many covered people die from not being able to see specialists or receive treatments in time, or from not having access to the cutting edge treatments we have here - so there is vast collateral damage in those systems as well. In many of those countries, once you hit a certain age, they won''t even treat certain diseases, because it''s considered a waste of resources. So either way, there are going to be people who suffer from the flaws of the system.Date: 3/13/2009 9:30:09 PM
Author: coatimundi
Date: 3/12/2009 8:45:48 PM
Author: vespergirl
I don''t think that we should punish the people who can afford good health insurance by making health coverage equally bad for everyone. I would rather see it work very well for most of the country than poorly for everyone. (The current statistic is that there are 48 million uninsured Americans in a country of 310 million people - that means 262 million are insured).
So you''re ok with collateral damage?
If so, 14,000 Americans die every year from lack of coverage.
Is that an ok number for you?
Date: 3/14/2009 11:37:13 AM
Author: Jas12
Vesper--i am a canadian and can only speak from my own experience, but i have never known of anyone being denied treatment based on age and i have never waited to get care from a specialist (i''ve had a few surgeries for non life threatening issues and waited a few months but this was mostly due to the timing in my schedule and not the health care system.). My grandmother is 88 and just had 3 house calls this week from a doctor due to degenerative neck pain--of course, this was no ''cost'' to her. My dad received life saving heart surgery last year within 30 mins of arriving at a hospital in another province (he was away for work). My sister is type 1 diabetic and sees several specialists a month, just for precaution --no waiting. I live in the north and yes, there is certainly a shortage of Dr''s up here (no one wants to live in the cold) so the government luckily pays for our travel costs to see dr''s in the city. I have no problems with my tax dollars going toward health care--i value this system.
Is our system perfect--far from it, but i have luckily encountered few issues and nor has my extended family. It *is* suffering in canada, and there is talk and movement toward a 2-tier system, but IMO this would be a sad sea change!!! I could not even fathom a private health care system.
Date: 3/14/2009 1:26:35 PM
Author: coatimundi
Single payer is the epitome of the capitalist system.
An insurance company is successful, because the larger the customer base, the less its product costs. Higher quality care is the result.
Currently, the federal government is prevented from operating in this way, because the insurance companies are violating the practices of free trade. The Single Payer system would allow Medicaid to play on the same playing field with the insurance companies. All the same doctors--all the same patients. The result is coverage for everyone.
The crux of the issue is that Single Payer would eliminate for profit health care. Money spent on healthcare would go to healthcare rather than CEO pay, marketing budgets, overhead expenses and perks. Money will go to doctors, nurses, hospitals, labs etc.
Opponents of Single Payer prefer corporate handling of healthcare.
Why do you think a corporation can do it better than a government agency?
Doesn''t the last 8 years suggest that corporations left to their own devices will not, in fact, deliver a better product?. They hoard the wealth. They do not create jobs. If fact, they take jobs away from Americans and ship them overseas--in their pursuit of higher profits which benefit only the top tiers of management.
Who benefits from corporate healthcare? The corporations--not the people.
Coati- I absolutely disagree with this.
I work with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid services (CMS). I''m a compliance officer for my company which provides medical equipment to residents in skilled nursing facilities as well as homecare patients.
This is how our government is running a single payer system today. And these were just two examples of the idiocy that goes on.
I do agree that the system as it stands today is broken. Something needs to be done. I just don’t think a government system is the answer after working within it for ten years.
Date: 3/14/2009 2:58:08 PM
Author: elle_chris
Because no matter what the bureaucrat said, supplying the patients with a new shiley after trach care was done, was necessary. But in the end it wasn't worthwhile.
Date: 3/14/2009 3:35:17 PM
Author: coatimundi
Date: 3/14/2009 2:58:08 PM
Author: elle_chris
Because no matter what the bureaucrat said, supplying the patients with a new shiley after trach care was done, was necessary. But in the end it wasn''t worthwhile.
Instead of ''bureaucrat'' insert ''corporate executive, company administrator etc.'' It''s the same thing. When profit is removed their will be no need to dispute anything between two different bureaucrats, because the doctors will decide.
I fail to see the difference, and I choose non profit.
The profit system is what makes everyone second guess the care provider.
Date: 3/14/2009 4:07:49 PM
Author: LtlFirecracker
The good thing about for profit is that there is some competition. Going back to the military hospital. There are finally starting to update their maternity ward because now the women can go where they want, and they were all going to a very patient focused private hospital. Remember Washington Post article about the VA hospital in Walter Reed? That article was shocking (and this was when a Republican was in power). Yeah the rats were horrible, but what was worse to me was the picture of these brain damaged people walking around alone trying to work through this bureaucracy. The article described a wife doing the paper work only to find out the bureaucrat lost it. She had to do it again, there was not on to complain to about the behavior of this employee (not like they could fire her anyways). That is a really good article to read, it really shows you how ineffective and heartless bureaucrats can be. And no, the doctors will not decide. In the example about the trach, it dose not sound like the doctor had a say, they had to reuse the piece even though it poses a horrible infection risk.
As I said before, it would be nice if insurance companies could be private non-profits, but that will never happen. I don't want to see private hospitals and clinics disappear, those are really the best ones, for both the doctors, nurses, and patients. And as several people said before, we would need to chance our mentally about end of life care as well as start pushing other parts of the world to start sharing the costs of these drugs. 90% of all medical costs are spent in the last year of life. Think about that. We are spending most of our money fighting a battle we can't win, trying to stop death when it can't be stopped. And for the drug companys, all those countires with socialized medicine just tell the drug companies 'hey I know you are charging x for this drug, we will give you half.' Well guess who ends up making the difference? If we could address these 2 issues, this would reduce the cost of medicine without needing to go to a government run system. We would need to address them anyways even if we did go to a government run system.
not true it is because the US consumers pay for the r&d and the drug trials.Date: 3/14/2009 5:03:13 PM
Author: zhuzhu
Do you know why those counties with socialized medicine can bargain to pay less for the brand name drug and we can''t? Because of volume.
I''m not sure where you''re talking about, but I know in NYS that is simply not true. No hospital is allowed to turn away an ER patient due to lack of insurance. http://hospitals.nyhealth.gov/psa.php.Date: 3/14/2009 5:03:13 PM
Author: zhuzhu
Using human behavior (the inherent laziness in some) as an excuse to to not reform the existing healthcare system is not good enough IMO. Undesirable human behavior is not an indication of bad system, rather indication of bad management and education. The organizational objectives have to be set straight for the whole organization, for profit or not. Just because the existing VA system is imperfect does not mean the reformed healthcare system is going to work inefficiently.
Do you know why those counties with socialized medicine can bargain to pay less for the brand name drug and we can''t? Because of volume. If our system requires everyone pay a small part of the health insurance so everyone became insured, we will soon have the same ''volume'' to bargain with pharma to get the same drug for a lot less.
I work with doctors from VA, Scripps hostpital, and US Marines as genetics researcher. I applaud VA for having the electronic system even when I recognize how imperfect it is right now. It is still FAR BETTER than the paper system which takes days and weeks to retrieve some medical record from 5 years ago, and sometimes the doctor''s writing illegible.
Also, the big difference between a non-for-profit and for-profit hospital is the wallet biopsy. Someone said earlier that those who are uninsured can get treated in ER? Not so! At for-profit hospitalz you get a wallet biopsy the first 2 minutes you walk into their ER. If you are not insured - sorry you have to go elsewhere. THIS is why for profit hospital seems so much ''better'' overall. Of course they are performing better, they only select the privileged group of patients to treat, and because so they can afford to keep it small and still pay doctors well and give staff less work to do. However is this elitist mentality appropriate for healthcare, a basic human right to every living person? I personally do not think so.
Date: 3/14/2009 5:54:23 PM
Author: elle_chris
I'm not sure where you're talking about, but I know in NYS that is simply not true. No hospital is allowed to turn away an ER patient due to lack of insurance. http://hospitals.nyhealth.gov/psa.php.Date: 3/14/2009 5:03:13 PM
Author: zhuzhu
Using human behavior (the inherent laziness in some) as an excuse to to not reform the existing healthcare system is not good enough IMO. Undesirable human behavior is not an indication of bad system, rather indication of bad management and education. The organizational objectives have to be set straight for the whole organization, for profit or not. Just because the existing VA system is imperfect does not mean the reformed healthcare system is going to work inefficiently.
Do you know why those counties with socialized medicine can bargain to pay less for the brand name drug and we can't? Because of volume. If our system requires everyone pay a small part of the health insurance so everyone became insured, we will soon have the same 'volume' to bargain with pharma to get the same drug for a lot less.
I am working in an ER right now. This is not true. There are signs everywhere saying that the patient will be seen by a doctor and treated regardless of ability to pay. I am also near the border. We are not allowed to ask any questions about immigration status. Even if the patient states that they were in mexico when an injury happened, we still treat it. When I see a patient, I do not know their insurance status.
I agree the health care needs reform, but I don't think that a government run system is the answer. Addressing the cultural issues and the drug companies would be a more effective first step.
I work with doctors from VA, Scripps hostpital, and US Marines as genetics researcher. I applaud VA for having the electronic system even when I recognize how imperfect it is right now. It is still FAR BETTER than the paper system which takes days and weeks to retrieve some medical record from 5 years ago, and sometimes the doctor's writing illegible.
Also, the big difference between a non-for-profit and for-profit hospital is the wallet biopsy. Someone said earlier that those who are uninsured can get treated in ER? Not so! At for-profit hospitalz you get a wallet biopsy the first 2 minutes you walk into their ER. If you are not insured - sorry you have to go elsewhere. THIS is why for profit hospital seems so much 'better' overall. Of course they are performing better, they only select the privileged group of patients to treat, and because so they can afford to keep it small and still pay doctors well and give staff less work to do. However is this elitist mentality appropriate for healthcare, a basic human right to every living person? I personally do not think so.
zhuzhu- The rest of the world doesn't pay less because of volume. They pay less because like strm said, we pay for the research and development.
Coati- The whole problem is doctors will not deicde. My example above regarding our audit showed that. What a doctor prescribes and what the government wants to pay for, are two very different things. The patients won't win in the end.
Well, I don''t think this is a fair statement to make of most businesses. My husband''s company has been making money hand over fist for the past 10 years. They are an electrical contractor that handles large govt. contracts, and also private contracts. I think part of the reason that they do so well, in fact, is because they are not a union shop. He is a top level executive at the company, but he told me that many of their field electricians make over $100K per year with overtime, so the fact that they aren''t union doesn''t mean that they''re being exploited.Date: 3/14/2009 1:26:35 PM
Author: coatimundi
Single payer is the epitome of the capitalist system.
An insurance company is successful, because the larger the customer base, the less its product costs. Higher quality care is the result.
Currently, the federal government is prevented from operating in this way, because the insurance companies are violating the practices of free trade. The Single Payer system would allow Medicaid to play on the same playing field with the insurance companies. All the same doctors--all the same patients. The result is coverage for everyone.
The crux of the issue is that Single Payer would eliminate for profit health care. Money spent on healthcare would go to healthcare rather than CEO pay, marketing budgets, overhead expenses and perks. Money will go to doctors, nurses, hospitals, labs etc.
Opponents of Single Payer prefer corporate handling of healthcare.
Why do you think a corporation can do it better than a government agency?
Doesn''t the last 8 years suggest that corporations left to their own devices will not, in fact, deliver a better product?. They hoard the wealth. They do not create jobs. If fact, they take jobs away from Americans and ship them overseas--in their pursuit of higher profits which benefit only the top tiers of management.
Who benefits from corporate healthcare? The corporations--not the people.
Date: 3/14/2009 5:54:23 PM
Author: elle_chris
zhuzhu- The rest of the world doesn''t pay less because of volume. They pay less because like strm said, we pay for the research and development.
zhuzhu- We are referring to pharmaceutical research here, which by and large takes place within private institutions or is funded with private (pharma) money. Countries with socialized healthcare do not pay less for new designer drugs because of volume. They pay less because they REFUSE to fund the research, so the cost instead falls to Americans.Date: 3/14/2009 9:41:13 PM
Author: zhuzhu
Date: 3/14/2009 5:54:23 PM
Author: elle_chris
zhuzhu- The rest of the world doesn''t pay less because of volume. They pay less because like strm said, we pay for the research and development.
My work is in the R&D of novel diagnostic tools and treatment strategy, and my salary is paid by the government (NIH), not by any pharmaceutical companies. My European and Asian colleagues who do excellent works are also funded mostly by their government agencies. It is not just US who is ''paying for research''. In fact because of Bush''s policy on stem cell research restriction, US is now behind European nations in many scientific front.
This wouldn''t have anything to do with our obesity and diabetes epidemics, would it? All the money in the world cannot save people who cannot do for themselves.Date: 3/14/2009 12:09:35 PM
Author: Maria D
Here''s an interesting graphic that shows ''healthy'' life expectancy, defined as the average number of years people can expect to live without serious health problems, vs. per capita healthcare expenditure. The bigger the country''s bubble, the larger the percentage share of private healthcare funding (over gov''t funding). The chart compares the U.S. to European countries.
http://www.petersoninstitute.org/images/fig-kirkegaard20090310-1.gif
If health coverage in countries that spend less money and less private money on healthcare than the U.S. does is so bad, why do these countries enjoy better aggregate healthy life expectancy than we do?
Ltl- Too funny, I am in the ED this month too (haaaaaaate it!) Anyway, just chiming in to say that I don't personally know of any states where the Emergency Dept is allowed to turn away uninsured patients. I work in a private hosptial this year and many of our patients don't have insurance. We treat them all (as much as I'd like to toss out some of them.) And they get the same expensive medications as everyone else, even though the hospital will never see a dime from them. So the insured patients have to make up the difference, thus they are charged what seem to be rather high prices.Date: 3/14/2009 6:10:28 PM
Author: LtlFirecracker
Date: 3/14/2009 5:54:23 PM
Author: elle_chris
I'm not sure where you're talking about, but I know in NYS that is simply not true. No hospital is allowed to turn away an ER patient due to lack of insurance. http://hospitals.nyhealth.gov/psa.php.Date: 3/14/2009 5:03:13 PM
Author: zhuzhu
Also, the big difference between a non-for-profit and for-profit hospital is the wallet biopsy. Someone said earlier that those who are uninsured can get treated in ER? Not so! At for-profit hospitalz you get a wallet biopsy the first 2 minutes you walk into their ER. If you are not insured - sorry you have to go elsewhere. THIS is why for profit hospital seems so much 'better' overall. Of course they are performing better, they only select the privileged group of patients to treat, and because so they can afford to keep it small and still pay doctors well and give staff less work to do. However is this elitist mentality appropriate for healthcare, a basic human right to every living person? I personally do not think so.
zhuzhu- The rest of the world doesn't pay less because of volume. They pay less because like strm said, we pay for the research and development.
Coati- The whole problem is doctors will not deicde. My example above regarding our audit showed that. What a doctor prescribes and what the government wants to pay for, are two very different things. The patients won't win in the end.
EDTED: I am not sure what happened, but I lost lost my post
What I had written was something like this. I am rotating in an ER right now, and patients are not turned away based on insurance status or immigration status. In fact, there are signs all over the ER saying this. We as the providers do not ask any questions about their insurance status, and offer everyone treatment. The only exception is the Kaiser patients, because they are supposed to go to their own ED (unless it is life or death), but they have somewhere to go.
I agree that our system needs reform. I do not agree with a government run system as the answer. I think we need to address the culture issues of our health care issues and the drug companies first. These can be both addressed without going to a government run system.
Also, I am not against the electronic medical record. But I think that doctors and nurses should choose the best one for the hospital. There are far superior ones than the ones the VA and military use. Doctors have been fighting this for years, and they still not have won (another example of how Doctors will NOT get the final say).
Date: 3/14/2009 8:03:51 PM
Author: vespergirl
Date: 3/14/2009 1:26:35 PM
Author: coatimundi
Single payer is the epitome of the capitalist system.
An insurance company is successful, because the larger the customer base, the less its product costs. Higher quality care is the result.
Currently, the federal government is prevented from operating in this way, because the insurance companies are violating the practices of free trade. The Single Payer system would allow Medicaid to play on the same playing field with the insurance companies. All the same doctors--all the same patients. The result is coverage for everyone.
The crux of the issue is that Single Payer would eliminate for profit health care. Money spent on healthcare would go to healthcare rather than CEO pay, marketing budgets, overhead expenses and perks. Money will go to doctors, nurses, hospitals, labs etc.
Opponents of Single Payer prefer corporate handling of healthcare.
Why do you think a corporation can do it better than a government agency?
Doesn't the last 8 years suggest that corporations left to their own devices will not, in fact, deliver a better product?. They hoard the wealth. They do not create jobs. If fact, they take jobs away from Americans and ship them overseas--in their pursuit of higher profits which benefit only the top tiers of management.
Who benefits from corporate healthcare? The corporations--not the people.
Well, I don't think this is a fair statement to make of most businesses. My husband's company has been making money hand over fist for the past 10 years. They are an electrical contractor that handles large govt. contracts, and also private contracts. I think part of the reason that they do so well, in fact, is because they are not a union shop. He is a top level executive at the company, but he told me that many of their field electricians make over $100K per year with overtime, so the fact that they aren't union doesn't mean that they're being exploited.
You mention that many large companies are failing - very true of the American automakers, with their inflated union compensation plans. The Japanese automakers with factories in the US are doing very well. It's because their workers are paid salaries and benefits more commesurate with the skill sets.
I heartily believe that businesses become far less efficient when govt. gets involved.
Date: 3/14/2009 10:21:16 PM
Author: coatimundi
Date: 3/14/2009 8:03:51 PM
Author: vespergirl
Date: 3/14/2009 1:26:35 PM
Author: coatimundi
Single payer is the epitome of the capitalist system.
An insurance company is successful, because the larger the customer base, the less its product costs. Higher quality care is the result.
Currently, the federal government is prevented from operating in this way, because the insurance companies are violating the practices of free trade. The Single Payer system would allow Medicaid to play on the same playing field with the insurance companies. All the same doctors--all the same patients. The result is coverage for everyone.
The crux of the issue is that Single Payer would eliminate for profit health care. Money spent on healthcare would go to healthcare rather than CEO pay, marketing budgets, overhead expenses and perks. Money will go to doctors, nurses, hospitals, labs etc.
Opponents of Single Payer prefer corporate handling of healthcare.
Why do you think a corporation can do it better than a government agency?
Doesn't the last 8 years suggest that corporations left to their own devices will not, in fact, deliver a better product?. They hoard the wealth. They do not create jobs. If fact, they take jobs away from Americans and ship them overseas--in their pursuit of higher profits which benefit only the top tiers of management.
Who benefits from corporate healthcare? The corporations--not the people.
Well, I don't think this is a fair statement to make of most businesses. My husband's company has been making money hand over fist for the past 10 years. They are an electrical contractor that handles large govt. contracts, and also private contracts. I think part of the reason that they do so well, in fact, is because they are not a union shop. He is a top level executive at the company, but he told me that many of their field electricians make over $100K per year with overtime, so the fact that they aren't union doesn't mean that they're being exploited.
You mention that many large companies are failing - very true of the American automakers, with their inflated union compensation plans. The Japanese automakers with factories in the US are doing very well. It's because their workers are paid salaries and benefits more commesurate with the skill sets.
I heartily believe that businesses become far less efficient when govt. gets involved.
The opinions expressed in this thread are abhorrent to me, because they place a higher value on an individuals desire to acquire wealth, than a country's ability to provide a standard of living for everyone. That's not a trade off I am interested in.
I am out of this thread.
Date: 3/15/2009 12:26:44 AM
Author: elle_chris
Zhuzhu- All I can say is people need to learn their rights so it wouldn''t happen.
No system is perfect. But for me, after seeing how the government runs just one portion of the populations insurance, the thought of them running the rest of ours- well it''s pretty horrifying.
In response to your highlighted comment, I think the better question would be, why does the government hire private companies for contracts? The reason is because private, non-union companies get the job done better, faster, and more efficiently. If a union shop would have done a better job, then they would have won the bids.Date: 3/14/2009 10:21:16 PM
Author: coatimundi
Date: 3/14/2009 8:03:51 PM
Author: vespergirl
Date: 3/14/2009 1:26:35 PM
Author: coatimundi
Single payer is the epitome of the capitalist system.
An insurance company is successful, because the larger the customer base, the less its product costs. Higher quality care is the result.
Currently, the federal government is prevented from operating in this way, because the insurance companies are violating the practices of free trade. The Single Payer system would allow Medicaid to play on the same playing field with the insurance companies. All the same doctors--all the same patients. The result is coverage for everyone.
The crux of the issue is that Single Payer would eliminate for profit health care. Money spent on healthcare would go to healthcare rather than CEO pay, marketing budgets, overhead expenses and perks. Money will go to doctors, nurses, hospitals, labs etc.
Opponents of Single Payer prefer corporate handling of healthcare.
Why do you think a corporation can do it better than a government agency?
Doesn''t the last 8 years suggest that corporations left to their own devices will not, in fact, deliver a better product?. They hoard the wealth. They do not create jobs. If fact, they take jobs away from Americans and ship them overseas--in their pursuit of higher profits which benefit only the top tiers of management.
Who benefits from corporate healthcare? The corporations--not the people.
Well, I don''t think this is a fair statement to make of most businesses. My husband''s company has been making money hand over fist for the past 10 years. They are an electrical contractor that handles large govt. contracts, and also private contracts. I think part of the reason that they do so well, in fact, is because they are not a union shop. He is a top level executive at the company, but he told me that many of their field electricians make over $100K per year with overtime, so the fact that they aren''t union doesn''t mean that they''re being exploited.
You mention that many large companies are failing - very true of the American automakers, with their inflated union compensation plans. The Japanese automakers with factories in the US are doing very well. It''s because their workers are paid salaries and benefits more commesurate with the skill sets.
I heartily believe that businesses become far less efficient when govt. gets involved.
I''m not talking about most businesses. I am talking about corporations.
If you think businesses become far less efficient when government gets involved, then why is your husband''s company handling large government contracts? Operating off a government contract is, in fact, a government subsidy.
In fact, if you aren''t in a union, you do not have the same leverage in negotiating contracts that a union member does.
The largest corporate bankruptcies in US history have all occurred in the last 8 years.
Foreign auto makers operating in the US are subsidized by the governments of their home countries. Additionally, because they operate in ''right to work'' states, they are given large public tax breaks. Coincidentally, those various states have political representatives that operate on a strictly anti union agenda.
How do you feel about US representatives taking money from foreign countries to put Americans out of work? If you think putting an American out of work is worth reducing an hourly wage by a couple of dollars so the top level executives can make larger salaries, then I would suggest you research the basic tenets of capitalism.
That''s not competition, that''s collusion.
The opinions expressed in this thread are abhorrent to me, because they place a higher value on an individuals desire to acquire wealth, than a country''s ability to provide a standard of living for everyone. That''s not a trade off I am interested in.
I am out of this thread.
Date: 3/15/2009 4:01:20 PM
Author: vespergirl
Date: 3/14/2009 10:21:16 PM
Author: coatimundi
Date: 3/14/2009 8:03:51 PM
Author: vespergirl
Date: 3/14/2009 1:26:35 PM
Author: coatimundi
Single payer is the epitome of the capitalist system.
An insurance company is successful, because the larger the customer base, the less its product costs. Higher quality care is the result.
Currently, the federal government is prevented from operating in this way, because the insurance companies are violating the practices of free trade. The Single Payer system would allow Medicaid to play on the same playing field with the insurance companies. All the same doctors--all the same patients. The result is coverage for everyone.
The crux of the issue is that Single Payer would eliminate for profit health care. Money spent on healthcare would go to healthcare rather than CEO pay, marketing budgets, overhead expenses and perks. Money will go to doctors, nurses, hospitals, labs etc.
Opponents of Single Payer prefer corporate handling of healthcare.
Why do you think a corporation can do it better than a government agency?
Doesn''t the last 8 years suggest that corporations left to their own devices will not, in fact, deliver a better product?. They hoard the wealth. They do not create jobs. If fact, they take jobs away from Americans and ship them overseas--in their pursuit of higher profits which benefit only the top tiers of management.
Who benefits from corporate healthcare? The corporations--not the people.
Well, I don''t think this is a fair statement to make of most businesses. My husband''s company has been making money hand over fist for the past 10 years. They are an electrical contractor that handles large govt. contracts, and also private contracts. I think part of the reason that they do so well, in fact, is because they are not a union shop. He is a top level executive at the company, but he told me that many of their field electricians make over $100K per year with overtime, so the fact that they aren''t union doesn''t mean that they''re being exploited.
You mention that many large companies are failing - very true of the American automakers, with their inflated union compensation plans. The Japanese automakers with factories in the US are doing very well. It''s because their workers are paid salaries and benefits more commesurate with the skill sets.
I heartily believe that businesses become far less efficient when govt. gets involved.
I''m not talking about most businesses. I am talking about corporations.
If you think businesses become far less efficient when government gets involved, then why is your husband''s company handling large government contracts? Operating off a government contract is, in fact, a government subsidy.
In fact, if you aren''t in a union, you do not have the same leverage in negotiating contracts that a union member does.
The largest corporate bankruptcies in US history have all occurred in the last 8 years.
Foreign auto makers operating in the US are subsidized by the governments of their home countries. Additionally, because they operate in ''right to work'' states, they are given large public tax breaks. Coincidentally, those various states have political representatives that operate on a strictly anti union agenda.
How do you feel about US representatives taking money from foreign countries to put Americans out of work? If you think putting an American out of work is worth reducing an hourly wage by a couple of dollars so the top level executives can make larger salaries, then I would suggest you research the basic tenets of capitalism.
That''s not competition, that''s collusion.
The opinions expressed in this thread are abhorrent to me, because they place a higher value on an individuals desire to acquire wealth, than a country''s ability to provide a standard of living for everyone. That''s not a trade off I am interested in.
I am out of this thread.
In response to your highlighted comment, I think the better question would be, why does the government hire private companies for contracts? The reason is because private, non-union companies get the job done better, faster, and more efficiently. If a union shop would have done a better job, then they would have won the bids.
Have you ever lived in a socialist country, where the idea is that ''everyone gets the same standard of living''? My parents have, and they escaped under risk of being shot if they were caught trying to leave. They can tell you that it wasn''t a case of everyone enjoying a nice, middle-class lifestyle. Instead, everyone devolves to the level of the poor, and people are no longer motivated to try and achieve, because any extra effort is not rewarded. Like most federal jobs in this country, mediocrity is rewarded, and exceptional talent is ignored.
There are some socialist countries, like Sweden, where the system seems to be working well. However, that is a homogeneous cultures in a country with a small population, with a culture that values hard work and responsibility towards each other. In Sweden, everyone benefits, but everyone also contributes. In this country, there are millions of people that were raised in a culture of entitlement - they have lived for generations with their hands out, and the entitlement mentality is passed down through the generations. These people do not contribute, but they are the recipients of all the social programs. Socialism only works if everyone contributes, but it''s not fair for the hardworking and educated to have to provide for everyone else - this is a capitalist country, not a socialist one (yet). I will note that in countries like France, that used to have a thriving socialist system, once they started accepting refugees from cultures that are happy to take advantage of entitlements, now the socialist systems are being taxed and no longer working as well.
I think it''s really interesting that some people who espouse the utopian systems of socialist countries have never necessarily lived in one. I know that there are some folks on here who live in Canada or other places with social health care systems who are fine with the health system there, and that''s fine if they are happy with it. However, as an American with a PPO, I don''t want the quality of my health care to be compromised, or not be able to see specialists in a timely manner. It isn''t progress if most people end up with a less efficient and effective system than they have now.