ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[PLAYER57832]

OH, lookie, they got a second amendment solution also.

Only in the military

No, that is a "people's revolution" Phattscotty.. study your history.
The dictatorship by committee is what came afterward because, in truth, the people were really just peons of one set of power players ousting the other.

We had the same thing here, only we were lucky enough to wind up with some leaders who actually agreed to ceding power.. at least until pretty recently.

[PLAYER57832]

How does your above statement equal what you stated earlier?

First explain how your statement equates to anything I have said earlier.

[Phatscotty]

OH, lookie, they got a second amendment solution also.

Only in the military

No, that is a "people's revolution" Phattscotty.. study your history.

wtf are you talking about? I love being insulted about something I was never speaking of, not to mention being corrected about something I never stated. I will study history (for once) if you agree to study communication skills.

staying on topic, "only in the military"

[Phatscotty]

Of course, the whole idea that people can be forced to engage in specific commerce of any form is ludicrous.

Agreed, automobile insurance is for the birds.

Poor comparison.

Not to mention it is a choice to drive. Why you want a money wasting corrupt gov't in charge of something as important as healthcare is beyond me. Get the gov't OUT of it, and watch healthcare become more affordable and more accessable overnight, and we do it all without infringing on Freedom.

[stahrgazer]

Why? If you don't want to pay auto insurance, don't buy a car. If you don't want to pay health insurance, kill yourself.

You're advocating an illegal activity. You see, suicide is against the law.

The real problem with U.S. health care is that, it's a system intended to be employer-based.

Now that owners of companies have decided they should get 400x the salary of the lowest employee (it used to be more like 10x) companies can't afford more employees, much less health insurance for the employees.

So, it becomes really really difficult for folks without jobs to pay for health insurance.

Today's seniors have had it made their entire lives, compared to today's middle-aged and youths. Today's seniors had employer-based healthcare, usually 100% employer-paid, for most of their working careers; got to work for most of their productive pre-retirement lives, and got full social security as early as age 62, plus medicare.. both of those things were designed to pay for 7-10 years, but seniors with medical care began living 30-40 years more, which is why the system is bankrupting the country.

But, without healthcare, maybe many of the middle-age and youths will die early so the remaining 10% who're left alive won't have to worry.

[Phatscotty]

Now that owners of companies have decided they should get 400x the salary of the lowest employee (it used to be more like 10x) companies can't afford more employees

So then the company just stops growing right? Oh yeah, I see that all the time. A business owner who makes 400x the salary of their lowest employee has NO DESIRE AT ALL to make more money.

Obviously, the model the company follows is very profitable. Replicating a profitable model that you built yourself is the easy part. Jobs are created out of thin air. Do you realize all the healthcare that is provided, all the taxes generated, all the pride garnered from having a job and making a living for yourself and your family, all the money that is available now that wasn't before and can be used at other businesses. That's how you grow an economy and jobs.

The truth is, the successful model on year 1 pays x wages, x taxes, x education, x insurance premiums, x insurance, x workers comp, x licensing x profit x matching social security contributions x medicare x state taxes x local taxes x lawyers fees etc.... The model works good enough for the owner to reap huge profits (400x right? Sounds like a lot of jobs too) but then the next year, taxes go up, healthcare goes up, wages go up...the model is compromised. It may still be profitable, but it will not be able to grow as fast as it would have or run as efficiently. "Do more with less" comes to mind.

You should worry more about your own greed in forcing everyone else pay for your healthcare, and less about the greed of the person who is creating all the jobs.

Today's seniors have had it made their entire lives, compared to today's middle-aged and youths. Today's seniors had employer-based healthcare, usually 100% employer-paid, for most of their working careers; got to work for most of their productive pre-retirement lives, and got full social security as early as age 62, plus medicare.. both of those things were designed to pay for 7-10 years, but seniors with medical care began living 30-40 years more, which is why the system is bankrupting the country.

Yeah but then the 60's happened and America leaned more and more socialist and now the government has their hands so deep in companies pockets and so overburdened with regulations that it's impossible to "have it made your entire life"

[Juan_Bottom]

Yeah but then the 60's happened and America leaned more and more socialist and now the government has their hands so deep in companies pockets and so overburdened with regulations that it's impossible to "have it made your entire life"

You need to get your head right boy!
The 1960s is the time when government regulation started eroding. The reason this country sucks ass for workers right now is because of a lack of government oversight, not because of too much. You would think that when a hero like Teddy Roosevelt comes along people would remember him.
You must be thinking of Bush. America experienced an unprecedented time of deregulation under George Bush. Everything was deregulated, business and government.


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131709

http://www.kyklosproductions.com/articles/wages.html

Stagnating Workers' Wages

In 1979 the American worker's average hourly wage was equal to $15.91 (adjusted for inflation in 2001 dollars). By 1989 it had reached only $16.63/hour. That's a gain of only 7 cents a year for the entire Reagan decade.

But wait. Things get worse! By 1995 it had risen to only $16.71, or virtually no gain whatsoever over the 6 years between 1989 and 1995. During the great 'boom years' between 1995 and 2000 it rose briefly to $18.33 per hour. In other words, from 1979 to 2000, even before the most recent Bush recession, after more than two decades the American worker's average wages increased on average only 11.5 cents per hour per year! With nearly all of that coming in the five so-called 'boom' years of 1995-2000, and most of that lost once again in the last three years. And that includes for all workers, even those with college degrees.

The picture is worse for workers who had no college degree. That's more than 100 million workers, or 72.1% of the workforce. For them there was no 'boom of 1995-2000' whatsoever. Their average real hourly wages were less at the end of 2000 than they were in 1979! And since 2000 their wages have continued to slide further.
The Great Productivity Swindle

Management is always quick to say in contract negotiations, 'give us more productivity and we can afford to give you a bigger raise'. But this has been a false promise from 1979 to 2000, and an even bigger lie under George Bush II.

With 1992 as base year, productivity was at 82.2 in 1979. It grew to 94.2 by 1989 and 116.6 by the year 2000. In the past year, moreover, it has exploded, putting it over 120. That's a nearly 40% increase since Ronald Reagan took office nearly 25 years ago!

The 100 million American workers without college degrees, whose real take home pay today is less than it was 25 years ago, certainly can't be said to have shared in that 40% productivity gain. And the other 20 million or so with college degrees whose pay rose modestly at best certainly shared in very little of that nearly 40% productivity gain.

So who got all the money?

Then again, isn't '75 when Union power nationwide peaked?

Also;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/1 ... 37814.html

Ever feel your work isn’t being adequately represented by the final amount on your paycheck?

Turns out that nagging sense of injustice isn’t just a hunch. A recent report by the Economic Policy Institute reveals that benefits and wages haven’t kept up with the increasing productivity of American workers, both in private and public sectors.

Your argument does equate to people in agri-business working for lower wages in less safe environments. Thanks to Unions, and a book about a jungle, meat packagers of the 1950s made a good living wage. Their injury rate had fallen by 50% from the 1930s, to somewhere around 15%. Today, there are few slaughterhouses left. All of them are non-union, and it's one of the most dangerous jobs in the country again.
All of this seems really unfair considering how much more meat is on the bone than in 1950. It's all just more profits for the company.

http://blogs.cfed.org/cfed_news_clips/2 ... 10-un.html

The legislation defines that "level" as the equivalent in today's dollars of what $1.60-an-hour was in 1968 when the inflation-adjusted buying power of the minimum wage peaked. Today, that rate would equal $10.03 per hour.

all the pride garnered from having a job and making a living for yourself and your family,

We haven't had that since the 60s either. Now it takes three people to make a living for a family.

[BigBallinStalin]

How does your above statement equal what you stated earlier?

First explain how your statement equates to anything I have said earlier.

lol, you were dictating when and to whom privately owned goods can be sold while implying that such goods should be sold for a fair price.

Besides, your earlier comment is still irrelevant, but there's no need to get all pissy about it.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah but then the 60's happened and America leaned more and more socialist and now the government has their hands so deep in companies pockets and so overburdened with regulations that it's impossible to "have it made your entire life"

You need to get your head right boy!
The 1960s is the time when government regulation started eroding. The reason this country sucks ass for workers right now is because of a lack of government oversight, not because of too much. You would think that when a hero like Teddy Roosevelt comes along people would remember him.
You must be thinking of Bush. America experienced an unprecedented time of deregulation under George Bush. Everything was deregulated, business and government.


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131709

http://www.kyklosproductions.com/articles/wages.html

Stagnating Workers' Wages

In 1979 the American worker's average hourly wage was equal to $15.91 (adjusted for inflation in 2001 dollars). By 1989 it had reached only $16.63/hour. That's a gain of only 7 cents a year for the entire Reagan decade.

But wait. Things get worse! By 1995 it had risen to only $16.71, or virtually no gain whatsoever over the 6 years between 1989 and 1995. During the great 'boom years' between 1995 and 2000 it rose briefly to $18.33 per hour. In other words, from 1979 to 2000, even before the most recent Bush recession, after more than two decades the American worker's average wages increased on average only 11.5 cents per hour per year! With nearly all of that coming in the five so-called 'boom' years of 1995-2000, and most of that lost once again in the last three years. And that includes for all workers, even those with college degrees.

The picture is worse for workers who had no college degree. That's more than 100 million workers, or 72.1% of the workforce. For them there was no 'boom of 1995-2000' whatsoever. Their average real hourly wages were less at the end of 2000 than they were in 1979! And since 2000 their wages have continued to slide further.
The Great Productivity Swindle

Management is always quick to say in contract negotiations, 'give us more productivity and we can afford to give you a bigger raise'. But this has been a false promise from 1979 to 2000, and an even bigger lie under George Bush II.

With 1992 as base year, productivity was at 82.2 in 1979. It grew to 94.2 by 1989 and 116.6 by the year 2000. In the past year, moreover, it has exploded, putting it over 120. That's a nearly 40% increase since Ronald Reagan took office nearly 25 years ago!

The 100 million American workers without college degrees, whose real take home pay today is less than it was 25 years ago, certainly can't be said to have shared in that 40% productivity gain. And the other 20 million or so with college degrees whose pay rose modestly at best certainly shared in very little of that nearly 40% productivity gain.

So who got all the money?

Then again, isn't '75 when Union power nationwide peaked?

Also;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/1 ... 37814.html

Ever feel your work isn’t being adequately represented by the final amount on your paycheck?

Turns out that nagging sense of injustice isn’t just a hunch. A recent report by the Economic Policy Institute reveals that benefits and wages haven’t kept up with the increasing productivity of American workers, both in private and public sectors.

Your argument does equate to people in agri-business working for lower wages in less safe environments. Thanks to Unions, and a book about a jungle, meat packagers of the 1950s made a good living wage. Their injury rate had fallen by 50% from the 1930s, to somewhere around 15%. Today, there are few slaughterhouses left. All of them are non-union, and it's one of the most dangerous jobs in the country again.
All of this seems really unfair considering how much more meat is on the bone than in 1950. It's all just more profits for the company.

http://blogs.cfed.org/cfed_news_clips/2 ... 10-un.html

The legislation defines that "level" as the equivalent in today's dollars of what $1.60-an-hour was in 1968 when the inflation-adjusted buying power of the minimum wage peaked. Today, that rate would equal $10.03 per hour.

all the pride garnered from having a job and making a living for yourself and your family,

We haven't had that since the 60s either. Now it takes three people to make a living for a family.

Both of y'all are making some broad sweeping statements. I'd love to see you two talk about how the 1960s was either a period of erosion of government regulation or the US becoming more socialist.

[PLAYER57832]

Obviously, the model the company follows is very profitable. Replicating a profitable model that you built yourself is the easy part. Jobs are created out of thin air. Do you realize all the healthcare that is provided, all the taxes generated, all the pride garnered from having a job and making a living for yourself and your family, all the money that is available now that wasn't before and can be used at other businesses. That's how you grow an economy and jobs. "

No, our lives depend upon a functioning earth, not functioning business. Business is just the current economic system. I like, it, but not when it is put above the things that allow us to survive here on earth.

and... without a healthy workforce, exactly what kind of business do you think you can maintain, without money, just who will be your customers... the other factory owners?

[PLAYER57832]

How does your above statement equal what you stated earlier?

First explain how your statement equates to anything I have said earlier.

lol, you were dictating when and to whom privately owned goods can be sold while implying that such goods should be sold for a fair price.

There is no conflict there. Ownership is never completely unlimited. You cannot sell outright fraudulant products, nor can you sell things that are harmful. Every time this comes up, you agree and try to say "well, of course.. those things don't count". They are sensible limits, but they are limits, just the same.

And, some things are too important to be subjected to mere private ownership. The air we breath, for example.

Health insurance as it currently exists adds nothing truly positive to people or our economy outside of those who actually work for the industry. Even many of them are harmed by the insurance company policies, though not always in direct ways.

[Timminz]

Of course, the whole idea that people can be forced to engage in specific commerce of any form is ludicrous.

Agreed, automobile insurance is for the birds.

Poor comparison.

Not to mention it is a choice to drive. Why you want a money wasting corrupt gov't in charge of something as important as healthcare is beyond me. Get the gov't OUT of it, and watch healthcare become more affordable and more accessable overnight, and we do it all without infringing on Freedom.

So how much is the government involved in healthcare in the countries with the lowest costs, and greatest accessibility?

[BigBallinStalin]

How does your above statement equal what you stated earlier?

First explain how your statement equates to anything I have said earlier.

lol, you were dictating when and to whom privately owned goods can be sold while implying that such goods should be sold for a fair price.

There is no conflict there. Ownership is never completely unlimited. You cannot sell outright fraudulant products, nor can you sell things that are harmful. Every time this comes up, you agree and try to say "well, of course.. those things don't count". They are sensible limits, but they are limits, just the same.

And, some things are too important to be subjected to mere private ownership. The air we breath, for example.

Health insurance as it currently exists adds nothing truly positive to people or our economy outside of those who actually work for the industry. Even many of them are harmed by the insurance company policies, though not always in direct ways.

You're saying something different compared to earlier because you're using several completely different examples.

This is fun seeing how your mind operates. You switched to whatever's convenient so that you won't perceive yourself to be incorrect. In actuality, all you're doing is reshaping reality. That's a defense mechanism, and yours is extremely powerful.

[BigBallinStalin]

Of course, the whole idea that people can be forced to engage in specific commerce of any form is ludicrous.

Agreed, automobile insurance is for the birds.

Poor comparison.

Not to mention it is a choice to drive. Why you want a money wasting corrupt gov't in charge of something as important as healthcare is beyond me. Get the gov't OUT of it, and watch healthcare become more affordable and more accessable overnight, and we do it all without infringing on Freedom.

So how much is the government involved in healthcare in the countries with the lowest costs, and greatest accessibility?

Oh, about twenty to eighty percent depending on the country.

[Timminz]

Agreed, automobile insurance is for the birds.

Poor comparison.

Not to mention it is a choice to drive. Why you want a money wasting corrupt gov't in charge of something as important as healthcare is beyond me. Get the gov't OUT of it, and watch healthcare become more affordable and more accessable overnight, and we do it all without infringing on Freedom.

So how much is the government involved in healthcare in the countries with the lowest costs, and greatest accessibility?

Oh, about twenty to eighty percent depending on the country.

Which ones are around 20%?

[BigBallinStalin]

Not to mention it is a choice to drive. Why you want a money wasting corrupt gov't in charge of something as important as healthcare is beyond me. Get the gov't OUT of it, and watch healthcare become more affordable and more accessable overnight, and we do it all without infringing on Freedom.

So how much is the government involved in healthcare in the countries with the lowest costs, and greatest accessibility?

Oh, about twenty to eighty percent depending on the country.

Which ones are around 20%?

Those countries are located somewhere in David Friedman's mind. =D

[PLAYER57832]

How does your above statement equal what you stated earlier?

First explain how your statement equates to anything I have said earlier.

lol, you were dictating when and to whom privately owned goods can be sold while implying that such goods should be sold for a fair price.

There is no conflict there. Ownership is never completely unlimited. You cannot sell outright fraudulant products, nor can you sell things that are harmful. Every time this comes up, you agree and try to say "well, of course.. those things don't count". They are sensible limits, but they are limits, just the same.

And, some things are too important to be subjected to mere private ownership. The air we breath, for example.

Health insurance as it currently exists adds nothing truly positive to people or our economy outside of those who actually work for the industry. Even many of them are harmed by the insurance company policies, though not always in direct ways.

You're saying something different compared to earlier because you're using several completely different examples.

This is fun seeing how your mind operates. You switched to whatever's convenient so that you won't perceive yourself to be incorrect. In actuality, all you're doing is reshaping reality. That's a defense mechanism, and yours is extremely powerful.

Oh, give it a rest.
Or keep on being a jerk... just don't mistake that for intelligence.

[Timminz]

Not to mention it is a choice to drive. Why you want a money wasting corrupt gov't in charge of something as important as healthcare is beyond me. Get the gov't OUT of it, and watch healthcare become more affordable and more accessable overnight, and we do it all without infringing on Freedom.

So how much is the government involved in healthcare in the countries with the lowest costs, and greatest accessibility?

Oh, about twenty to eighty percent depending on the country.

Which ones are around 20%?

Those countries are located somewhere in David Friedman's mind. =D

Nothing to add right now. Just had to fix those quotes.

[Phatscotty]

Obviously, the model the company follows is very profitable. Replicating a profitable model that you built yourself is the easy part. Jobs are created out of thin air. Do you realize all the healthcare that is provided, all the taxes generated, all the pride garnered from having a job and making a living for yourself and your family, all the money that is available now that wasn't before and can be used at other businesses. That's how you grow an economy and jobs. "

No, our lives depend upon a functioning earth, not functioning business. Business is just the current economic system. I like, it, but not when it is put above the things that allow us to survive here on earth.

and... without a healthy workforce, exactly what kind of business do you think you can maintain, without money, just who will be your customers... the other factory owners?

How did a business have a workforce before there was even such thing as a hospital?

Player, if you are gonna respond to me, please just keep it to "no" and then zip it. Your jibberish ruins all logic and reason.

[Juan_Bottom]

Both of y'all are making some broad sweeping statements. I'd love to see you two talk about how the 1960s was either a period of erosion of government regulation or the US becoming more socialist.

I didn't say it was a period of erosion, but rather that the erosion began in the 60s. The 70's - 80s would have been the greatest period of erosion (then again under Bush II).
Our government never really warmed up all that much to socialist hippie culture.

[Phatscotty]

Both of y'all are making some broad sweeping statements. I'd love to see you two talk about how the 1960s was either a period of erosion of government regulation or the US becoming more socialist.

I didn't say it was a period of erosion, but rather that the erosion began in the 60s. The 70's - 80s would have been the greatest period of erosion (then again under Bush II).
Our government never really warmed up all that much to socialist hippie culture.

Wow JB. Doing a lot of fact checking on me lately.

Instead of finding a single opinion on it, perhaps you should look at the chunk that entitelements took of the US budget. the 60's took up a greater % than the 50's, the 70's took a greater % than the 60's and so on, until now, the moment of truth, when entitlement take up suh a large part of the budget we are going to be unable to pay for anything else, in other words, pure redistribution.

These entitelement programs almost seemed meant to bankrupt this country. There is no way around this, and that is why I am against creating a new entitlement program.
Oh yeah, and hippies of the 60's have nothing to do with this.

[PLAYER57832]

Both of y'all are making some broad sweeping statements. I'd love to see you two talk about how the 1960s was either a period of erosion of government regulation or the US becoming more socialist.

I didn't say it was a period of erosion, but rather that the erosion began in the 60s. The 70's - 80s would have been the greatest period of erosion (then again under Bush II).
Our government never really warmed up all that much to socialist hippie culture.

Wow JB. Doing a lot of fact checking on me lately.

Instead of finding a single opinion on it, perhaps you should look at the chunk that entitelements took of the US budget. the 60's took up a greater % than the 50's, the 70's took a greater % than the 60's and so on, until now, the moment of truth, when entitlement take up suh a large part of the budget we are going to be unable to pay for anything else, in other words, pure redistribution.

These entitelement programs almost seemed meant to bankrupt this country. There is no way around this, and that is why I am against creating a new entitlement program.
Oh yeah, and hippies of the 60's have nothing to do with this.

Except, what bankrupted the country was the refusal to demand these things be paid for.

See, you want to take us back to the 1900's, when sure, the government did little... and people suffered. We want to move forward to a time when we decide that what is still the wealthiest nation on earth can actually afford to care for ALL its citizens at a basic level without it somehow meaning the end of economic society.

[Night Strike]

Except, what bankrupted the country was the refusal to demand these things be paid for.

That's because they're impossible to pay for. Social Security was created at an age that was ABOVE the life expectancy at that time. But instead of continuing to move that age up as the life expectancy increased, it was kept the same. So now we have approximately 3 workers for every retiree instead of 20. For Medicare, in 1990 the costs were WAY above what had been projected at the time of passing. For the Affordable Care Act, it relies on 10 years of taxes to pay for 6 years of expenditures, meaning it was in the hole the moment the law was signed. Every single government entitlement system is unsustainable.

[Phatscotty]

Both of y'all are making some broad sweeping statements. I'd love to see you two talk about how the 1960s was either a period of erosion of government regulation or the US becoming more socialist.

I didn't say it was a period of erosion, but rather that the erosion began in the 60s. The 70's - 80s would have been the greatest period of erosion (then again under Bush II).
Our government never really warmed up all that much to socialist hippie culture.

Wow JB. Doing a lot of fact checking on me lately.

Instead of finding a single opinion on it, perhaps you should look at the chunk that entitelements took of the US budget. the 60's took up a greater % than the 50's, the 70's took a greater % than the 60's and so on, until now, the moment of truth, when entitlement take up suh a large part of the budget we are going to be unable to pay for anything else, in other words, pure redistribution.

These entitelement programs almost seemed meant to bankrupt this country. There is no way around this, and that is why I am against creating a new entitlement program.
Oh yeah, and hippies of the 60's have nothing to do with this.

Except, what bankrupted the country was the refusal to demand these things be paid for.

See, you want to take us back to the 1900's, when sure, the government did little... and people suffered. We want to move forward to a time when we decide that what is still the wealthiest nation on earth can actually afford to care for ALL its citizens at a basic level without it somehow meaning the end of economic society.

H'mm sounds nice Player. Freedom.

However, what decade I want to go back to or if I want to go back at all has nothing to do with the previous statement about entitlement spending growing so large that we will not even be able to keep our schools open or have police or fire services.

[PLAYER57832]

Except, what bankrupted the country was the refusal to demand these things be paid for.

See, you want to take us back to the 1900's, when sure, the government did little... and people suffered. We want to move forward to a time when we decide that what is still the wealthiest nation on earth can actually afford to care for ALL its citizens at a basic level without it somehow meaning the end of economic society.

H'mm sounds nice Player. Freedom.

"Freedom" if you happen to be male and of the elite ... otherwise, not.

However, what decade I want to go back to or if I want to go back at all has nothing to do with the previous statement about entitlement spending growing so large that we will not even be able to keep our schools open or have police or fire services.

It is when you are among the most ardent about "no taxes" and when the result of all that will be far worse than even closed schools and police departments.

Also, you were quite fine with cutting those in other threads as "inefficient wastes"