Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Why would we have to make it aprt of the government and bury it in beauracracy? I find it much preferable to make it aprt of the expected package of benefits that come with employment. Much like the market wage, and pensions, an affordable health plan is something most people demand from an employer, leaving those with less choice in employment at the mercy of unscrupulous employers like Wal-Mart who don't offer it.

As a society we are as right to villify Wal-Mart for not providing health care as we were to villify Nike for using Asian children working for slave wages.

For someone who claims to be a conservative, you show an amazing lack of appreciation for the fact that in our capitalist society the market participants haqve as great a voice as the government.

You take a similar line as Fringe.

We can't as a society say we expect a job to always come with health care, and 1 we want to buy a foreign car if we want, 2 and we want to shop for the cheapest price for goods and services. There are inconsistant desires. Actually, 2 isn't inconsistant, it'll just be tough to achieve. see Man of La Mancha.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Good to know you are 100% behind national healthcare.

I don't believe the first condition I set out can honestly be met when the second condition so clearly is not.

A right implies an obligation from someone else to fulfill that right.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Why would we have to make it aprt of the government and bury it in beauracracy? I find it much preferable to make it aprt of the expected package of benefits that come with employment.

Why should the availability of health insurance be determined by whether one is employed, or married to someone who is?

As for the market, employer-provided health care is, from what I understand, principally an historical accident resulting from certain tax advantages combined with low costs of providing such years ago. If it were inherently sensibile, why do most countries that provide health care provide it through the government rather than employers?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
What makes it a ridiculous proposition. We have spoken as a society and made clear our expectation that we will be provided with affordable health care. The cost cna be borne either by employers, as a cost of the value of labor, or it can be borne by the state, as the ultimate provider of externalities. Are you suggesting national health care or suggesting that the members of a democracy don't have the right to decide on and demand that their health needs be addressed?

Or it could be borne by the individual . . . you know, if you are of little means, you may actually have to choose between health insurance and cable tv.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Or it could be borne by the individual . . . you know, if you are of little means, you may actually have to choose between health insurance and cable tv.

You pay for cable?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You take a similar line as Fringe.

We can't as a society say we expect a job to always come with health care, and 1 we want to buy a foreign car if we want, 2 and we want to shop for the cheapest price for goods and services. There are inconsistant desires. Actually, 2 isn't inconsistant, it'll just be tough to achieve. see Man of La Mancha.

Not true. If we as a labor force are unwilling to work for employers who don't provide health care then we will actually all buy foreign cars if the American manufacturers can't make money selling cars if they have to pay for health insurance. Similarly, we will find our less durable goods being made overseas if the manufacturers cannot provide both goods and pay health care.

But of course, we know that isn't really the case, don't we Hank? The costs of labor and employee benefits in Germany, Italy, the UK, etc. are much higher than they are in the US. And BMWs, Ferraris, and Bentleys are still better made than Cavaliers and Jeeps.

It isn't the health insurance. It's the multi-millioin dollar compensation packages for CEOs who lose money and the corporate managements who refuse to seriously bargain with the health care industry because it's sheaper and easier to lay off line workers or reincoporate in Bermuda.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's true. Unfortunately, it's the other side of the Kerry coin, which is "The other guy really sucks, so I must be better." C'est la vie

I think you're confusing the Kerry campaign with the media coverage thereof. Kerry has made some relatively detailed policy proposals which do not get much coverage.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why should the availability of health insurance be determined by whether one is employed, or married to someone who is?

As for the market, employer-provided health care is, from what I understand, principally an historical accident resulting from certain tax advantages combined with low costs of providing such years ago. If it were inherently sensibile, why do most countries that provide health care provide it through the government rather than employers?

It is my understanding that these responsibilities were put on (or encouraged to be taken by) employers to get rid of some of the incentives for socialism.

I have bought foreign cars because I like them better and think they are made better. It was not a price issue. Plus, it is my understanding that the Germans, the Swedish and the Japanese all have quite hefty social welfare systems and/or employer-provided benefits.

The car thing is really a bad example because there aren't many decent cars (or cars at all) made in countries that have Hank's ideal perfect structure of the megarich and the serfs.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why should the availability of health insurance be determined by whether one is employed, or married to someone who is?

As for the market, employer-provided health care is, from what I understand, principally an historical accident resulting from certain tax advantages combined with low costs of providing such years ago. If it were inherently sensibile, why do most countries that provide health care provide it through the government rather than employers?

Employer provided health care is a result of the labor unions and the labor movement in the US. The "tax advantage" is a deduction for premiums paid. That's the same "tax advantage" that a corporation gets for paying any other cost of doing business.

Most countries provide health care through government because their health care systems grew out of the growth of Socialism as a governmental form following the end of Monarchy or facism. Those same countries freely acknowledge their systems don't work aqs well as privately funded employer based heath care delivery systems.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think you're confusing the Kerry campaign with the media coverage thereof. Kerry has made some relatively detailed policy proposals which do not get much coverage.

If a soldier is wounded in battle without a videocamera handy, does he make a sound?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
don't work aqs well as privately funded employer based heath care delivery systems.

which creates the improvement, the "privately funded" part or the "employer based" part?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Or it could be borne by the individual . . . you know, if you are of little means, you may actually have to choose between health insurance and cable tv.

In most homes, the choice is usually between rent or food and going to the doctor. People don't make enough to pay $300/month for private health insurance to begin with. But I do appreciate your cavalier wit.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk



It's the multi-millioin dollar compensation packages for CEOs who lose money and

Ah, another example of how corporations are operating in a purely free market.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Or it could be borne by the individual . . . you know, if you are of little means, you may actually have to choose between health insurance and cable tv.

But the people of little means are usually of less intelligence and they will chose cable every time and expect the government to pay for health care.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
In most homes, the choice is usually between rent or food and going to the doctor. People don't make enough to pay $300/month for private health insurance to begin with. But I do appreciate your cavalier wit.

IF, however, each person were provided with a $300 stipend (tax free) with which to purchase health insurace as part of their employment package, how many would use the full $300 for health care?

And if there were no obligation/expectation to pay that $300 stipend, how many more people would the employer hire, either part time or full time?