Already noted that's a great idea. Would be a great example of actual leadership.
I must have missed this. Guess we'll see what happens with new legislation. Maybe next year, maybe never.
Already noted that's a great idea. Would be a great example of actual leadership.
How many people, do you know, would spend 6-8 years in university then work long hours for $30 per hour?
Service industry business model is low profit high volume. Pay employees just enough they won't quit.
Personally I don't want the cheapest proctologist, I want the best.,,,having big thick fingers doesn't hurt.
somehow we need to get the profit out of healthcare.
You are all wrong
I have the answer, but I wont tell.
Corporations are here to help you.
If you're not rich, get rich.
What about the constitution?
ACA = shit
Cheers,
Kennith
What I've mentioned is that there are power in numbers. Insurance companies grant affordable Gold Standard plans to large corporations. Why? I'd say it's two fold. Leverage in very large numbers and the high end executives are under the same plan, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. That's what Scott doesn't understand and hopefully he'll read this.
Now, again, without digging into who/what/when and why, what would be your plan? Think middle road. If it's single payer no need to waste my time with a grandiose explanation on how it's the only way forward. I don't think you will ever see single payer in America during our lives, the high court would most certainly strike it down. The only reason we have the ACA is because the penalty the IRS enforces was branded as a tax. Good luck with single payer and eventually forcing every American to buy insurance. It simply won't happen.
I'll go back to my original statement. If we're going to have one insurance option and no private options I'm all in. However, Trump, congressmen, senators and every other bureaucrat inside the beltway better be on the same identical plan. I don't think that's a lot to ask, do you Ray? Good for the Goose?
What exactly is "affordable Gold Standard plans," in your definition? The couple hundred a month you pay?
Well, that's not the real cost; it's subsidized by your employer. Average annual premiums reached $18,764 for 2017, according to National Conference of State Legislatures.
If you are paying your own way, that works out to more than $1500/mo. Just for the premiums.
Is that your definition of affordable?
Or what is it that the large corporations pay for premiums ever year for their employees? I've worked in Fortune 100 companies for the last 17 years. Since 2005, they've been telling me the premium supports they've been paying have been >$10k/year.
Show us some numbers/data that support your contention that "large pools" will make insurance "affordable" or that they are significantly less than the data I posted.
You are like Trump and Dan - you keep making assertions with no data or other information to back it up.
Like my first boss used to say: In God I trust. Everyone else, bring data.
How can you say single-payer is a non-starter, yet you are all-in for "one insurance option and no private options", aka single-payer?
LOL. What are you? The "ideas guy?"Scott, you're a bit crazy, has anyone ever told you that? You don't read between the lines which tells me you're a number cruncher and most likely don't close deals in the real world. I'm not for single payer and never will be. I only said that I would IF our elected officials sign up. How could you not see where I was going there?
The bottom line is that there is power in numbers when negotiating with these companies Scott. I know you find that hard to believe but negotiating does happen in the real world. These companies would not even be in business to begin with if it weren't for their customers. Don't forget that Scott. Think Unions.
Wondering why. A model like we have for car insurance is not the norm. You have to carry some form of it, it is not subsidized by any govt entity and the companies clearly profit and fight for customers. I know it is late but what am I missing here? Auto repair is not like being a doctor, etc, but from an actuarial standpoint the concept is the same?
You keep saying "Power in numbers" Yet, why has this power in numbers not played
It has Scott, every day since the birth of our Nation and embracing capitalism. You are Just to dumb to see it I suppose.
You do know that's a version of the truth right, it's a story-it has elements of fact but isn't actually universally true.
The history is far more nuanced, kinda like discussions of the Constitution, the founding fathers, and a whole bunch of other things we only get but so deep into.
Let?s do this Ray. In regards to capitalism let?s talk Great Recession forward.
Instead of using words like nuanced give it a personal percentage in your own opinion. I?d personally say my version is 75% true (country built on capitiolism) especially if you factor into this successful/failed legislation and also factor in taxes collected in part by successful private business. Where are you at?
On phone again, pardon the typos
WTF does this have to do with you telling me larger groups equal lower insurance costs?It has Scott, every day since the birth of our Nation and embracing capitalism. You are Just to dumb to see it I suppose.
Let?s do this Ray. In regards to capitalism let?s talk Great Recession forward.
Instead of using words like nuanced give it a personal percentage in your own opinion. I?d personally say my version is 75% true (country built on capitiolism) especially if you factor into this successful/failed legislation and also factor in taxes collected in part by successful private business. Where are you at?
On phone again, pardon the typos
Shortened-TFY
Good job. That pretty much covers it.
Cheers,
Kennith
Would you care to point us to your proposed solution or it is too much work to give it a name or link?
WTF does this have to do with you telling me larger groups equal lower insurance costs?
WTF does this have to do with you telling me larger groups equal lower insurance costs?
Cool. This is a great way to actually discuss this. I like the mark in the sand from the Great Recession forward-b/c I took exception to the 'birth of the nation' commentary b/c it is all idyllic. And bullshit.
For the sake of discussion, a few other keytimeframes you could tie back to:
-Birth of the country; would water things down as we effectively played in our own shit for ~100years in terms of real economic power.
-America's industrial revolution; when we started to have true potential, globally.
-When we took over the global financial world (from England)*
-Post WWII, though in many ways this is functionally what you said and I think there is merit there.
*I would pick this timeframe, as even though it was pre-BW it still set the stage for us taking control of global financial markets and becoming the benchmark for all currencies to be measured against.
But you set the mark, so let's discuss off that. I'd say it is half true. I give it 50% because the post Great Depression (That's what you meant, right-not the Great Recession from ~2007-2010ish) our growth as a country was far from just capitalism in execution. WWII saw a centralized economy at near full industrial potential, but it wasn't really capitalism. The destruction elsewhere that allowed us to garner economic advantage, in conjunction with the excess industrial capacity and driven by capitalistic urges (all underpinned by two things, the US established global financial order and the military force backing the US established international order-BTW) made us a superpower.
So about half of that comes back to capitalism. As a rough order of magnitude. The other half is other factors, ones that I alluded to.
If you just want to talk post late 2000's I don't think we have enough data to say it is a great deviation from the preceding years.
How much difference is it between 75% and 50%? Depends on how much faith you put in things.
r-
Ray