Backdoor to socialized medicine?

[briansd1]

Ricechex, so explain to me how I’m wrong and how AT&T earnings are being affected immediately in a tangible way when the Health Care Bill has not even been implemented yet.

All you can do is, in a Reganesque way, interject empty expressions that have no substance at all. There you go again. It was just so predictable.

[SK in CV]

[quote=afx114]Why is insurance tied to employment in the first place? Can anyone provide a legitimate reason why it should be? Why isn’t auto insurance tied to employment? Why isn’t my monthly cost of beer tied to employment? It’s a burden on businesses, that much is certain. And of course it becomes a burden on individuals when unemployment is as high as it is now.

But single payer is socialism, right? Wouldn’t single payer free business from the burden of high health insurance costs? Oh, but that would transfer the burden to the tax payers, right?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.[/quote]

I agree with you entirely on the first part. Insurance shouldn’t be tied to employment. That was a well intentioned mistake that unions made beginning 60 years ago. They made a 2nd mistake, beginning in the late 60’s, which I believe directly lead to current health care problems. That was demanding 1st dollar coverage. It inserted insurance companies into the medical decision making process, where they previously had not been involved. It dramatically changed the medical financing model, and as a result, it became irreparably broken.

But on the 2nd part, you are simply wrong. Single payer is not socialism. Canada essentially has single payer but they do not have socialized medicine. Most retirees in this country are covered by a single system. Medicare is not socialized medicine. You may be opposed to a single-payer system, but fearing it because it’s socialism is fearing the boogie man.

[SK in CV]

[quote=afx114]Why is insurance tied to employment in the first place? Can anyone provide a legitimate reason why it should be? Why isn’t auto insurance tied to employment? Why isn’t my monthly cost of beer tied to employment? It’s a burden on businesses, that much is certain. And of course it becomes a burden on individuals when unemployment is as high as it is now.

But single payer is socialism, right? Wouldn’t single payer free business from the burden of high health insurance costs? Oh, but that would transfer the burden to the tax payers, right?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.[/quote]

I agree with you entirely on the first part. Insurance shouldn’t be tied to employment. That was a well intentioned mistake that unions made beginning 60 years ago. They made a 2nd mistake, beginning in the late 60’s, which I believe directly lead to current health care problems. That was demanding 1st dollar coverage. It inserted insurance companies into the medical decision making process, where they previously had not been involved. It dramatically changed the medical financing model, and as a result, it became irreparably broken.

But on the 2nd part, you are simply wrong. Single payer is not socialism. Canada essentially has single payer but they do not have socialized medicine. Most retirees in this country are covered by a single system. Medicare is not socialized medicine. You may be opposed to a single-payer system, but fearing it because it’s socialism is fearing the boogie man.

[SK in CV]

[quote=afx114]Why is insurance tied to employment in the first place? Can anyone provide a legitimate reason why it should be? Why isn’t auto insurance tied to employment? Why isn’t my monthly cost of beer tied to employment? It’s a burden on businesses, that much is certain. And of course it becomes a burden on individuals when unemployment is as high as it is now.

But single payer is socialism, right? Wouldn’t single payer free business from the burden of high health insurance costs? Oh, but that would transfer the burden to the tax payers, right?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.[/quote]

I agree with you entirely on the first part. Insurance shouldn’t be tied to employment. That was a well intentioned mistake that unions made beginning 60 years ago. They made a 2nd mistake, beginning in the late 60’s, which I believe directly lead to current health care problems. That was demanding 1st dollar coverage. It inserted insurance companies into the medical decision making process, where they previously had not been involved. It dramatically changed the medical financing model, and as a result, it became irreparably broken.

But on the 2nd part, you are simply wrong. Single payer is not socialism. Canada essentially has single payer but they do not have socialized medicine. Most retirees in this country are covered by a single system. Medicare is not socialized medicine. You may be opposed to a single-payer system, but fearing it because it’s socialism is fearing the boogie man.

[SK in CV]

[quote=afx114]Why is insurance tied to employment in the first place? Can anyone provide a legitimate reason why it should be? Why isn’t auto insurance tied to employment? Why isn’t my monthly cost of beer tied to employment? It’s a burden on businesses, that much is certain. And of course it becomes a burden on individuals when unemployment is as high as it is now.

But single payer is socialism, right? Wouldn’t single payer free business from the burden of high health insurance costs? Oh, but that would transfer the burden to the tax payers, right?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.[/quote]

I agree with you entirely on the first part. Insurance shouldn’t be tied to employment. That was a well intentioned mistake that unions made beginning 60 years ago. They made a 2nd mistake, beginning in the late 60’s, which I believe directly lead to current health care problems. That was demanding 1st dollar coverage. It inserted insurance companies into the medical decision making process, where they previously had not been involved. It dramatically changed the medical financing model, and as a result, it became irreparably broken.

But on the 2nd part, you are simply wrong. Single payer is not socialism. Canada essentially has single payer but they do not have socialized medicine. Most retirees in this country are covered by a single system. Medicare is not socialized medicine. You may be opposed to a single-payer system, but fearing it because it’s socialism is fearing the boogie man.

[SK in CV]

[quote=afx114]Why is insurance tied to employment in the first place? Can anyone provide a legitimate reason why it should be? Why isn’t auto insurance tied to employment? Why isn’t my monthly cost of beer tied to employment? It’s a burden on businesses, that much is certain. And of course it becomes a burden on individuals when unemployment is as high as it is now.

But single payer is socialism, right? Wouldn’t single payer free business from the burden of high health insurance costs? Oh, but that would transfer the burden to the tax payers, right?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.[/quote]

I agree with you entirely on the first part. Insurance shouldn’t be tied to employment. That was a well intentioned mistake that unions made beginning 60 years ago. They made a 2nd mistake, beginning in the late 60’s, which I believe directly lead to current health care problems. That was demanding 1st dollar coverage. It inserted insurance companies into the medical decision making process, where they previously had not been involved. It dramatically changed the medical financing model, and as a result, it became irreparably broken.

But on the 2nd part, you are simply wrong. Single payer is not socialism. Canada essentially has single payer but they do not have socialized medicine. Most retirees in this country are covered by a single system. Medicare is not socialized medicine. You may be opposed to a single-payer system, but fearing it because it’s socialism is fearing the boogie man.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=afx114]Why is insurance tied to employment in the first place? Can anyone provide a legitimate reason why it should be? Why isn’t auto insurance tied to employment? Why isn’t my monthly cost of beer tied to employment? It’s a burden on businesses, that much is certain. And of course it becomes a burden on individuals when unemployment is as high as it is now.

But single payer is socialism, right? Wouldn’t single payer free business from the burden of high health insurance costs? Oh, but that would transfer the burden to the tax payers, right?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.[/quote]

Your are very right DIYD, DIYD.

But how much of the heath care debate is a long term political power play by the Democrats.

This reform could have been done by simply fully funding state programs such as MediCal. Or providing medical at a subsidized rate of 400 percent of poverty as the new legislation calls for.

Why all the new legislation. Answer: Consolidation of political power and influence.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=afx114]Why is insurance tied to employment in the first place? Can anyone provide a legitimate reason why it should be? Why isn’t auto insurance tied to employment? Why isn’t my monthly cost of beer tied to employment? It’s a burden on businesses, that much is certain. And of course it becomes a burden on individuals when unemployment is as high as it is now.

But single payer is socialism, right? Wouldn’t single payer free business from the burden of high health insurance costs? Oh, but that would transfer the burden to the tax payers, right?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.[/quote]

Your are very right DIYD, DIYD.

But how much of the heath care debate is a long term political power play by the Democrats.

This reform could have been done by simply fully funding state programs such as MediCal. Or providing medical at a subsidized rate of 400 percent of poverty as the new legislation calls for.

Why all the new legislation. Answer: Consolidation of political power and influence.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=afx114]Why is insurance tied to employment in the first place? Can anyone provide a legitimate reason why it should be? Why isn’t auto insurance tied to employment? Why isn’t my monthly cost of beer tied to employment? It’s a burden on businesses, that much is certain. And of course it becomes a burden on individuals when unemployment is as high as it is now.

But single payer is socialism, right? Wouldn’t single payer free business from the burden of high health insurance costs? Oh, but that would transfer the burden to the tax payers, right?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.[/quote]

Your are very right DIYD, DIYD.

But how much of the heath care debate is a long term political power play by the Democrats.

This reform could have been done by simply fully funding state programs such as MediCal. Or providing medical at a subsidized rate of 400 percent of poverty as the new legislation calls for.

Why all the new legislation. Answer: Consolidation of political power and influence.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=afx114]Why is insurance tied to employment in the first place? Can anyone provide a legitimate reason why it should be? Why isn’t auto insurance tied to employment? Why isn’t my monthly cost of beer tied to employment? It’s a burden on businesses, that much is certain. And of course it becomes a burden on individuals when unemployment is as high as it is now.

But single payer is socialism, right? Wouldn’t single payer free business from the burden of high health insurance costs? Oh, but that would transfer the burden to the tax payers, right?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.[/quote]

Your are very right DIYD, DIYD.

But how much of the heath care debate is a long term political power play by the Democrats.

This reform could have been done by simply fully funding state programs such as MediCal. Or providing medical at a subsidized rate of 400 percent of poverty as the new legislation calls for.

Why all the new legislation. Answer: Consolidation of political power and influence.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=afx114]Why is insurance tied to employment in the first place? Can anyone provide a legitimate reason why it should be? Why isn’t auto insurance tied to employment? Why isn’t my monthly cost of beer tied to employment? It’s a burden on businesses, that much is certain. And of course it becomes a burden on individuals when unemployment is as high as it is now.

But single payer is socialism, right? Wouldn’t single payer free business from the burden of high health insurance costs? Oh, but that would transfer the burden to the tax payers, right?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.[/quote]

Your are very right DIYD, DIYD.

But how much of the heath care debate is a long term political power play by the Democrats.

This reform could have been done by simply fully funding state programs such as MediCal. Or providing medical at a subsidized rate of 400 percent of poverty as the new legislation calls for.

Why all the new legislation. Answer: Consolidation of political power and influence.

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1]flu,

First of all, I think that tax treatment should be fair in a proportional, progressive way.

For example, let’s say a company provides $1,000 worth of insurance benefits to a low level employee, untaxed to the employee.

That same company provides a manager $10,000 worth of insurance. Why should that manager get $10,000 worth of compensation UNTAXED? The Cadillac plan should be taxed at $9,000 in my opinion.

Don’t you see the tax fairness issue?

[/quote]

No I don’t see what the issue is…First. You’re think the Cadillac plan doesn’t apply to normal people. I’m going to wonder how UAW members are going feel about this. Because last time I checked, they were pretty pissed about this too. That limit for a definition of a “Cadillac” plan appears to be at a limit which will hit most W-2 employees with any decent health plan.

Second, there is a huge difference between that “low level employee” as you refer to versus say a “manager”…If that low level employee fvcks up, at most it probably costs him his/her job. If that “manager” person running 10-20 people fvcks up, he loses his/her job and most likely costs any of the ones below him/her too directly/indirectly. (For a discussion of this specific topic, I’ll be happy to entertain a separate topic titled “Why did I got pink slipped after I was reorganized into another group when my manager/director got fired…errr…’left for personal reasons'”…

I would add, if that “manager” is really doing his/her job right, I’m pretty sure he/she isn’t just punching in/and out as the “low level employee” is, probably has much more stress that that low level employee, and probably has a bigger risk IF he/she does fvck up in in finding another gig. Now, occasionally, you’ll run into a useless manager or two, or one that who’s only good at ass-kissing upwards and doesn’t do didly shit. But humor me on this one, in that in general, those with more responsbility and generally have more work to do have more responsibilities and hence more risk….If you really think someone who runs a department should be compensated the same as someone how is a entry level person..I don’t know what to say….I think that sounds like communism to me. China proved that doesn’t work.

[quote]
flu, you’re blinded by your ideology. You won’t consider the merits of the Health Care Bill because you’re opposed of the expansion of social benefits. Period.
[/quote]

Brian, I frankly think you’re pretty blinded by your ideology, because it so happens all these changes don’t (currently) impact you..At least that’s what you think…IF they did impact you or you felt would directly impact you, I’m pretty confident you would be singing a completely different tune…..I’m pretty confident if tomorrow, next day, or next week, your employer comes to you and hands you a pink slip, and says, “sorry we had to cut costs because of skyrocketing health costs, and we decided to eliminate your position….Or of some small biz says, sorry I’d like to hire you, but I have a hiring freeze, because I don’t what else the government has in store for us business owners”…would you really think the same way?

If so, please give you your employer’s phone number, I’ll be sure tell your employer what noble person you are in your ideology for willing to sacrifice your own employment for the sake of paying for the some of these expenses of the unemployed…
You’re view on this and many subjects is polarized into an “us versus them” where them seems to be anyone who makes more than you, without even attempting to understand what are the issues with the “them side”. I don’t know, I guess there some personal satisfaction to seeing folks at some same level or something…

[quote]
I think that it’s easy to oppose benefits to the poor who don’t vote. It’s easy to step upon those who have little.

But we are only spending $100 billion per year on this plan. In the second decade we are estimated to save $100 billion per year.

We can definitely find $100 billion to spend on a program that defines the character of our nation.
[/quote]

Nope. My question is if you’re going to give $100billion to the poor. Then fvcking give it to the poor. WTF do you make sweeping/disruptive change to the current working force and the companies along with that? Why must it be give more to the poor and cut from those still working…Where was your protest and outcry to rather take that $100billion from a defense budget or some other pork bullshit that our government wastes?

[quote]
As far as the guiding hand of government is concerned, countries such as Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, China and Germany have governments that are intimately involved (from creating national corporate champions to monetary policy) in their economies; and they are very successful.
[/quote]

For christ sake. I don’t need a history on Taiwan. Hell, I could probably get citizenship there and free healthcare if I needed. Again, I’ll say this again… If Taiwan’s government needs to spend $100billion on helping the poor…It’s not exactly taking $100billion from the working folks you know..It does this from it’s own pockets.. Hell, part of that $100billion would probably be from bribes. Just ask Ex-President Chen Shui-bian. He probably needs some penpals to pass time in jail until he dies there. Hell, you could have been a General in the Taiwanese military for the right amount paid to his wife.

BTW: once again, you only look at one side of the story here (again). Taiwan in particular…Do you really think things are as “fair” as you think they are? Single aristocratic families controlling 1/4 of Taiwan’s GDP alone like the Koo family? Do you think that is better than what we have here if you happen to just be some worker bee? I think several times, folks view on foreigners from these countries are warped. The (false) impression is everyone is wealthy there, because folks only see the ones with the financial means to be in the united states.

China’s majority of the population is piss poor, and while they might have free health care, food isn’t free. And I’m not so sure if you would be interested in “free health care”…For one, you have to question if at all it is adequate….Side note: reusing a new needle to draw blood from patient to patient is optional…(Take note if you ever go to china and get hospitalized and need and IV/shot/blood draw/etc in a remote location….You need to ask them for new needle…And you need to make sure you see the new needle. Most of them are not new, just rinsed with soap and water)…

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1]flu,

First of all, I think that tax treatment should be fair in a proportional, progressive way.

For example, let’s say a company provides $1,000 worth of insurance benefits to a low level employee, untaxed to the employee.

That same company provides a manager $10,000 worth of insurance. Why should that manager get $10,000 worth of compensation UNTAXED? The Cadillac plan should be taxed at $9,000 in my opinion.

Don’t you see the tax fairness issue?

[/quote]

No I don’t see what the issue is…First. You’re think the Cadillac plan doesn’t apply to normal people. I’m going to wonder how UAW members are going feel about this. Because last time I checked, they were pretty pissed about this too. That limit for a definition of a “Cadillac” plan appears to be at a limit which will hit most W-2 employees with any decent health plan.

Second, there is a huge difference between that “low level employee” as you refer to versus say a “manager”…If that low level employee fvcks up, at most it probably costs him his/her job. If that “manager” person running 10-20 people fvcks up, he loses his/her job and most likely costs any of the ones below him/her too directly/indirectly. (For a discussion of this specific topic, I’ll be happy to entertain a separate topic titled “Why did I got pink slipped after I was reorganized into another group when my manager/director got fired…errr…’left for personal reasons'”…

I would add, if that “manager” is really doing his/her job right, I’m pretty sure he/she isn’t just punching in/and out as the “low level employee” is, probably has much more stress that that low level employee, and probably has a bigger risk IF he/she does fvck up in in finding another gig. Now, occasionally, you’ll run into a useless manager or two, or one that who’s only good at ass-kissing upwards and doesn’t do didly shit. But humor me on this one, in that in general, those with more responsbility and generally have more work to do have more responsibilities and hence more risk….If you really think someone who runs a department should be compensated the same as someone how is a entry level person..I don’t know what to say….I think that sounds like communism to me. China proved that doesn’t work.

[quote]
flu, you’re blinded by your ideology. You won’t consider the merits of the Health Care Bill because you’re opposed of the expansion of social benefits. Period.
[/quote]

Brian, I frankly think you’re pretty blinded by your ideology, because it so happens all these changes don’t (currently) impact you..At least that’s what you think…IF they did impact you or you felt would directly impact you, I’m pretty confident you would be singing a completely different tune…..I’m pretty confident if tomorrow, next day, or next week, your employer comes to you and hands you a pink slip, and says, “sorry we had to cut costs because of skyrocketing health costs, and we decided to eliminate your position….Or of some small biz says, sorry I’d like to hire you, but I have a hiring freeze, because I don’t what else the government has in store for us business owners”…would you really think the same way?

If so, please give you your employer’s phone number, I’ll be sure tell your employer what noble person you are in your ideology for willing to sacrifice your own employment for the sake of paying for the some of these expenses of the unemployed…
You’re view on this and many subjects is polarized into an “us versus them” where them seems to be anyone who makes more than you, without even attempting to understand what are the issues with the “them side”. I don’t know, I guess there some personal satisfaction to seeing folks at some same level or something…

[quote]
I think that it’s easy to oppose benefits to the poor who don’t vote. It’s easy to step upon those who have little.

But we are only spending $100 billion per year on this plan. In the second decade we are estimated to save $100 billion per year.

We can definitely find $100 billion to spend on a program that defines the character of our nation.
[/quote]

Nope. My question is if you’re going to give $100billion to the poor. Then fvcking give it to the poor. WTF do you make sweeping/disruptive change to the current working force and the companies along with that? Why must it be give more to the poor and cut from those still working…Where was your protest and outcry to rather take that $100billion from a defense budget or some other pork bullshit that our government wastes?

[quote]
As far as the guiding hand of government is concerned, countries such as Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, China and Germany have governments that are intimately involved (from creating national corporate champions to monetary policy) in their economies; and they are very successful.
[/quote]

For christ sake. I don’t need a history on Taiwan. Hell, I could probably get citizenship there and free healthcare if I needed. Again, I’ll say this again… If Taiwan’s government needs to spend $100billion on helping the poor…It’s not exactly taking $100billion from the working folks you know..It does this from it’s own pockets.. Hell, part of that $100billion would probably be from bribes. Just ask Ex-President Chen Shui-bian. He probably needs some penpals to pass time in jail until he dies there. Hell, you could have been a General in the Taiwanese military for the right amount paid to his wife.

BTW: once again, you only look at one side of the story here (again). Taiwan in particular…Do you really think things are as “fair” as you think they are? Single aristocratic families controlling 1/4 of Taiwan’s GDP alone like the Koo family? Do you think that is better than what we have here if you happen to just be some worker bee? I think several times, folks view on foreigners from these countries are warped. The (false) impression is everyone is wealthy there, because folks only see the ones with the financial means to be in the united states.

China’s majority of the population is piss poor, and while they might have free health care, food isn’t free. And I’m not so sure if you would be interested in “free health care”…For one, you have to question if at all it is adequate….Side note: reusing a new needle to draw blood from patient to patient is optional…(Take note if you ever go to china and get hospitalized and need and IV/shot/blood draw/etc in a remote location….You need to ask them for new needle…And you need to make sure you see the new needle. Most of them are not new, just rinsed with soap and water)…

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1]flu,

First of all, I think that tax treatment should be fair in a proportional, progressive way.

For example, let’s say a company provides $1,000 worth of insurance benefits to a low level employee, untaxed to the employee.

That same company provides a manager $10,000 worth of insurance. Why should that manager get $10,000 worth of compensation UNTAXED? The Cadillac plan should be taxed at $9,000 in my opinion.

Don’t you see the tax fairness issue?

[/quote]

No I don’t see what the issue is…First. You’re think the Cadillac plan doesn’t apply to normal people. I’m going to wonder how UAW members are going feel about this. Because last time I checked, they were pretty pissed about this too. That limit for a definition of a “Cadillac” plan appears to be at a limit which will hit most W-2 employees with any decent health plan.

Second, there is a huge difference between that “low level employee” as you refer to versus say a “manager”…If that low level employee fvcks up, at most it probably costs him his/her job. If that “manager” person running 10-20 people fvcks up, he loses his/her job and most likely costs any of the ones below him/her too directly/indirectly. (For a discussion of this specific topic, I’ll be happy to entertain a separate topic titled “Why did I got pink slipped after I was reorganized into another group when my manager/director got fired…errr…’left for personal reasons'”…

I would add, if that “manager” is really doing his/her job right, I’m pretty sure he/she isn’t just punching in/and out as the “low level employee” is, probably has much more stress that that low level employee, and probably has a bigger risk IF he/she does fvck up in in finding another gig. Now, occasionally, you’ll run into a useless manager or two, or one that who’s only good at ass-kissing upwards and doesn’t do didly shit. But humor me on this one, in that in general, those with more responsbility and generally have more work to do have more responsibilities and hence more risk….If you really think someone who runs a department should be compensated the same as someone how is a entry level person..I don’t know what to say….I think that sounds like communism to me. China proved that doesn’t work.

[quote]
flu, you’re blinded by your ideology. You won’t consider the merits of the Health Care Bill because you’re opposed of the expansion of social benefits. Period.
[/quote]

Brian, I frankly think you’re pretty blinded by your ideology, because it so happens all these changes don’t (currently) impact you..At least that’s what you think…IF they did impact you or you felt would directly impact you, I’m pretty confident you would be singing a completely different tune…..I’m pretty confident if tomorrow, next day, or next week, your employer comes to you and hands you a pink slip, and says, “sorry we had to cut costs because of skyrocketing health costs, and we decided to eliminate your position….Or of some small biz says, sorry I’d like to hire you, but I have a hiring freeze, because I don’t what else the government has in store for us business owners”…would you really think the same way?

If so, please give you your employer’s phone number, I’ll be sure tell your employer what noble person you are in your ideology for willing to sacrifice your own employment for the sake of paying for the some of these expenses of the unemployed…
You’re view on this and many subjects is polarized into an “us versus them” where them seems to be anyone who makes more than you, without even attempting to understand what are the issues with the “them side”. I don’t know, I guess there some personal satisfaction to seeing folks at some same level or something…

[quote]
I think that it’s easy to oppose benefits to the poor who don’t vote. It’s easy to step upon those who have little.

But we are only spending $100 billion per year on this plan. In the second decade we are estimated to save $100 billion per year.

We can definitely find $100 billion to spend on a program that defines the character of our nation.
[/quote]

Nope. My question is if you’re going to give $100billion to the poor. Then fvcking give it to the poor. WTF do you make sweeping/disruptive change to the current working force and the companies along with that? Why must it be give more to the poor and cut from those still working…Where was your protest and outcry to rather take that $100billion from a defense budget or some other pork bullshit that our government wastes?

[quote]
As far as the guiding hand of government is concerned, countries such as Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, China and Germany have governments that are intimately involved (from creating national corporate champions to monetary policy) in their economies; and they are very successful.
[/quote]

For christ sake. I don’t need a history on Taiwan. Hell, I could probably get citizenship there and free healthcare if I needed. Again, I’ll say this again… If Taiwan’s government needs to spend $100billion on helping the poor…It’s not exactly taking $100billion from the working folks you know..It does this from it’s own pockets.. Hell, part of that $100billion would probably be from bribes. Just ask Ex-President Chen Shui-bian. He probably needs some penpals to pass time in jail until he dies there. Hell, you could have been a General in the Taiwanese military for the right amount paid to his wife.

BTW: once again, you only look at one side of the story here (again). Taiwan in particular…Do you really think things are as “fair” as you think they are? Single aristocratic families controlling 1/4 of Taiwan’s GDP alone like the Koo family? Do you think that is better than what we have here if you happen to just be some worker bee? I think several times, folks view on foreigners from these countries are warped. The (false) impression is everyone is wealthy there, because folks only see the ones with the financial means to be in the united states.

China’s majority of the population is piss poor, and while they might have free health care, food isn’t free. And I’m not so sure if you would be interested in “free health care”…For one, you have to question if at all it is adequate….Side note: reusing a new needle to draw blood from patient to patient is optional…(Take note if you ever go to china and get hospitalized and need and IV/shot/blood draw/etc in a remote location….You need to ask them for new needle…And you need to make sure you see the new needle. Most of them are not new, just rinsed with soap and water)…

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1]flu,

First of all, I think that tax treatment should be fair in a proportional, progressive way.

For example, let’s say a company provides $1,000 worth of insurance benefits to a low level employee, untaxed to the employee.

That same company provides a manager $10,000 worth of insurance. Why should that manager get $10,000 worth of compensation UNTAXED? The Cadillac plan should be taxed at $9,000 in my opinion.

Don’t you see the tax fairness issue?

[/quote]

No I don’t see what the issue is…First. You’re think the Cadillac plan doesn’t apply to normal people. I’m going to wonder how UAW members are going feel about this. Because last time I checked, they were pretty pissed about this too. That limit for a definition of a “Cadillac” plan appears to be at a limit which will hit most W-2 employees with any decent health plan.

Second, there is a huge difference between that “low level employee” as you refer to versus say a “manager”…If that low level employee fvcks up, at most it probably costs him his/her job. If that “manager” person running 10-20 people fvcks up, he loses his/her job and most likely costs any of the ones below him/her too directly/indirectly. (For a discussion of this specific topic, I’ll be happy to entertain a separate topic titled “Why did I got pink slipped after I was reorganized into another group when my manager/director got fired…errr…’left for personal reasons'”…

I would add, if that “manager” is really doing his/her job right, I’m pretty sure he/she isn’t just punching in/and out as the “low level employee” is, probably has much more stress that that low level employee, and probably has a bigger risk IF he/she does fvck up in in finding another gig. Now, occasionally, you’ll run into a useless manager or two, or one that who’s only good at ass-kissing upwards and doesn’t do didly shit. But humor me on this one, in that in general, those with more responsbility and generally have more work to do have more responsibilities and hence more risk….If you really think someone who runs a department should be compensated the same as someone how is a entry level person..I don’t know what to say….I think that sounds like communism to me. China proved that doesn’t work.

[quote]
flu, you’re blinded by your ideology. You won’t consider the merits of the Health Care Bill because you’re opposed of the expansion of social benefits. Period.
[/quote]

Brian, I frankly think you’re pretty blinded by your ideology, because it so happens all these changes don’t (currently) impact you..At least that’s what you think…IF they did impact you or you felt would directly impact you, I’m pretty confident you would be singing a completely different tune…..I’m pretty confident if tomorrow, next day, or next week, your employer comes to you and hands you a pink slip, and says, “sorry we had to cut costs because of skyrocketing health costs, and we decided to eliminate your position….Or of some small biz says, sorry I’d like to hire you, but I have a hiring freeze, because I don’t what else the government has in store for us business owners”…would you really think the same way?

If so, please give you your employer’s phone number, I’ll be sure tell your employer what noble person you are in your ideology for willing to sacrifice your own employment for the sake of paying for the some of these expenses of the unemployed…
You’re view on this and many subjects is polarized into an “us versus them” where them seems to be anyone who makes more than you, without even attempting to understand what are the issues with the “them side”. I don’t know, I guess there some personal satisfaction to seeing folks at some same level or something…

[quote]
I think that it’s easy to oppose benefits to the poor who don’t vote. It’s easy to step upon those who have little.

But we are only spending $100 billion per year on this plan. In the second decade we are estimated to save $100 billion per year.

We can definitely find $100 billion to spend on a program that defines the character of our nation.
[/quote]

Nope. My question is if you’re going to give $100billion to the poor. Then fvcking give it to the poor. WTF do you make sweeping/disruptive change to the current working force and the companies along with that? Why must it be give more to the poor and cut from those still working…Where was your protest and outcry to rather take that $100billion from a defense budget or some other pork bullshit that our government wastes?

[quote]
As far as the guiding hand of government is concerned, countries such as Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, China and Germany have governments that are intimately involved (from creating national corporate champions to monetary policy) in their economies; and they are very successful.
[/quote]

For christ sake. I don’t need a history on Taiwan. Hell, I could probably get citizenship there and free healthcare if I needed. Again, I’ll say this again… If Taiwan’s government needs to spend $100billion on helping the poor…It’s not exactly taking $100billion from the working folks you know..It does this from it’s own pockets.. Hell, part of that $100billion would probably be from bribes. Just ask Ex-President Chen Shui-bian. He probably needs some penpals to pass time in jail until he dies there. Hell, you could have been a General in the Taiwanese military for the right amount paid to his wife.

BTW: once again, you only look at one side of the story here (again). Taiwan in particular…Do you really think things are as “fair” as you think they are? Single aristocratic families controlling 1/4 of Taiwan’s GDP alone like the Koo family? Do you think that is better than what we have here if you happen to just be some worker bee? I think several times, folks view on foreigners from these countries are warped. The (false) impression is everyone is wealthy there, because folks only see the ones with the financial means to be in the united states.

China’s majority of the population is piss poor, and while they might have free health care, food isn’t free. And I’m not so sure if you would be interested in “free health care”…For one, you have to question if at all it is adequate….Side note: reusing a new needle to draw blood from patient to patient is optional…(Take note if you ever go to china and get hospitalized and need and IV/shot/blood draw/etc in a remote location….You need to ask them for new needle…And you need to make sure you see the new needle. Most of them are not new, just rinsed with soap and water)…

[Author]

Posts