AAR
Click here for full forums index
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 
A major difference between Democrats and Republicans
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 871
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:27 am    Post subject: A major difference between Democrats and Republicans Reply with quote

This is a very illuminating article regarding the Republicans love of debt.

I have always wondered why Republican Presidents always put us further into debt when they are in office. Now I know why.

Grover Norquist's goal of drowning government in a bath tub could come true if we keep electing Republicans who in turn just spend and spend. Republicans always attack the Democrats on their own biggest weaknesses. So it makes sense when Republicans call Democrats "tax and spend liberals" they are actually talking about themselves.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/10/31-0
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Frosty13



Joined: 04 Oct 2010
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:52 am    Post subject: Difference between Democrats and Republicans Reply with quote

Unfortunately, this holds true for both parties. They have it made, and the only difference between the two is rhetoric. That is -- they have it made unless We the People do something about it, at the ballot box. More than anything, we need Congressional term limits.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LizE



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 253

PostPosted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 7:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Really interesting article, thanks for sharing! I've sent it along to a Republican buddy for her reaction. I do have a couple of quibbles, though...

Quote:
According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, almost ninety percent of Obama's deficits are due to policies and events initiated by George W. Bush: massive tax cuts for the rich; ]two unendable wars; and-once again-the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression. Without these albatrosses Obama's budget would be almost in balance.


The wars are only "unendable" because Obama and congress lack the will to end them. And there aren't only two of them. Obama has expanded into Pakistan and now, from the Atlantic...

Quote:
The U.S. is seriously considering sending elite "hunter-killer" teams to Yemen following the foiled mail bombing plot by militants in Yemen. The covert teams would operate under the CIA's authority allowing them to kill or capture targets unilaterally, The Wall Street Journal reports. Support for an expanded U.S. military effort in Yemen has been growing within the military and the Obama administration, according to The Journal.


We're already using "hunter-killer" teams. To see how well this strategy is working out, here is an interview with Jeremy Scahill who just came back from Afghanistan. I hope everyone will watch this and see what is being done over there in the name of the American people.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/29/killing_reconciliation_military_raids_backing_of

My second quibble...

Quote:
This is what made the recent financial meltdown possible: regulation had been gutted, allowing the predators to run amok through the economy.


That happened under Bill Clinton.

In the end, the "predators" have a hold on both parties. Totally agree that term limits are an important part of the answer...but how are we to get them?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 871
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What social programs will be gutted? I think Medicaid will be the first since it's primarily for the poor and the indigent. There is no place in America for the lower middle class and of course the biggest sin in America is being poor. We use and abuse the poor in this country so eliminating Medicaid is another step in the right direction.

If the Republicans choose to repeal "Obamacare" I think we should go for the gusto and eliminate Medicare too. If Medicare isn't eliminated then it should be radically altered. If a Medicare recipient is over ninety years of age, that person should pay for their own care. What care one receives would of course be determined when one is Medicare eligible. What age will we become Medicare eligible? 68, 69, 70? So we would shorten the number of years for receiving Medicare which would help us provide more money to corporations and the upper 1%. Lord knows they need more money while we the poor middle class deserves nothing.

I actually think the Republicans contempt for middle class Americans is well deserved. We can be manipulated and we're gullible. We scare easily and they are able to convince us to vote against our economic self-interest. How soon will we agree to give up Social Security or at least agree to privatization?

There is a difference between the parties. Not a huge difference but a difference enough to know that one party will at least throw us a bone or two from time to time. The other party gives up lip service while their biggest plan is to extend the Bush tax cuts to the super wealthy which will add additional billions to the deficit. As our national debt rises, they feel compelled to eliminate entitlements. It's a a self-fulfilling prophecy so they have it all figured out. The question is whether we the people will go along.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maryskl



Joined: 25 Apr 2009
Posts: 356
Location: Alabama

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KarenS wrote:
What social programs will be gutted? I think Medicaid will be the first since it's primarily for the poor and the indigent. There is no place in America for the lower middle class and of course the biggest sin in America is being poor. We use and abuse the poor in this country so eliminating Medicaid is another step in the right direction.

If the Republicans choose to repeal "Obamacare" I think we should go for the gusto and eliminate Medicare too. If Medicare isn't eliminated then it should be radically altered. If a Medicare recipient is over ninety years of age, that person should pay for their own care. What care one receives would of course be determined when one is Medicare eligible. What age will we become Medicare eligible? 68, 69, 70? So we would shorten the number of years for receiving Medicare which would help us provide more money to corporations and the upper 1%. Lord knows they need more money while we the poor middle class deserves nothing.

I actually think the Republicans contempt for middle class Americans is well deserved. We can be manipulated and we're gullible. We scare easily and they are able to convince us to vote against our economic self-interest. How soon will we agree to give up Social Security or at least agree to privatization?

There is a difference between the parties. Not a huge difference but a difference enough to know that one party will at least throw us a bone or two from time to time. The other party gives up lip service while their biggest plan is to extend the Bush tax cuts to the super wealthy which will add additional billions to the deficit. As our national debt rises, they feel compelled to eliminate entitlements. It's a a self-fulfilling prophecy so they have it all figured out. The question is whether we the people will go along.


I have never understood why people continue to vote against their own economic self-interest. The middle class is slowly disappearing in this country and wealth is spiraling upward. At the rate we are going we may become a nation of have and have-nots. This state is just as bad for the wealthy as it is for the rest of us. Without a vibrant middle class, there will be fewer and fewer consumers with the funds to buy their products. For example, Dell sending maintenance jobs to India might be a good short term goal, but if jobs continue to go overseas for cost savings, then fewer people in the USA will have enough money to buy their computers.

People were screaming bloody murder about socialized medicine (many of them the recipients of Medicare) without considering that when there is a middle man (i.e., insurance companies), costs are ALWAYS higher. The Pell Grants given out this year were more than in previous years because the government took their administration away from private banks (who charged fees thus taking funds away from students). What purpose do insurance companies serve other than a clearinghouse for doctor and hospital payments? They take their cut off of the top and make a lot of money in the process. That is money that never makes it to your doctor or hospital. Medicare's administrative fees are much lower than private insurance companies. Other countries figured this out years ago, but we continue to be slow on the uptake.

It also amazes me that Republicans continue to claim the identity as the party of fiscal responsibility and that the public believes them! The average increase to the national debt since WWII among Democratic presidents is around 3.2%. The average increase to the national debt among Republican presidents is around 9%. Of the last 10 major recessions, 9 of them came about under Republican presidents. They cut taxes on the wealthy and then spend like crazy (usually on the military). The only two presidents since WWII to have budget surpluses were Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dick



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2510

PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

maryski, I have to agree with you. Damn!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maryskl



Joined: 25 Apr 2009
Posts: 356
Location: Alabama

PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dick wrote:
maryski, I have to agree with you. Damn!


LOL! There is always a first time Dick <g>.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JaneO



Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Posts: 798

PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

maryski wrote:
Quote:
I have never understood why people continue to vote against their own economic self-interest. The middle class is slowly disappearing in this country and wealth is spiraling upward. At the rate we are going we may become a nation of have and have-nots. This state is just as bad for the wealthy as it is for the rest of us. Without a vibrant middle class, there will be fewer and fewer consumers with the funds to buy their products. For example, Dell sending maintenance jobs to India might be a good short term goal, but if jobs continue to go overseas for cost savings, then fewer people in the USA will have enough money to buy their computers.


I agree that the exportation of decent-paying jobs is a disaster for the country as a whole. I loathe the emphasis on a service economy that as far as I can see is dividing us into a nation of servants and masters.

However, I am not at all sure it is the Republicans who are responsible for this and the Democrats who are fighting it.

One could just as well argue that through the tax code the Democrats are making it far more profitable for companies to export jobs (and companies are in business to make a profit). This in turn helps to create an underclass dependent for its survival on government programs, programs supported by Democrats, and and this in turn means an underclass that can be counted on to vote Democrat.

I fear that the difference between the parties is far less important that the similarities: the main concern of all elected officials is to get re-elected.

If this sounds cynical, I confess that the older I get, the more cynical I get. And I am a life-long Democrat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maryskl



Joined: 25 Apr 2009
Posts: 356
Location: Alabama

PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

JaneO wrote:

I agree that the exportation of decent-paying jobs is a disaster for the country as a whole. I loathe the emphasis on a service economy that as far as I can see is dividing us into a nation of servants and masters.

However, I am not at all sure it is the Republicans who are responsible for this and the Democrats who are fighting it.

One could just as well argue that through the tax code the Democrats are making it far more profitable for companies to export jobs (and companies are in business to make a profit). This in turn helps to create an underclass dependent for its survival on government programs, programs supported by Democrats, and and this in turn means an underclass that can be counted on to vote Democrat.

I fear that the difference between the parties is far less important that the similarities: the main concern of all elected officials is to get re-elected.

If this sounds cynical, I confess that the older I get, the more cynical I get. And I am a life-long Democrat.


I don't clothe the Democrats with white hats. I think most politicians if not at first, eventually succumb to the lure of re-election. However, for the most part, Democrats have actually been MORE fiscally responsible than the Republicans. And as far as exporting jobs, the Democrats recently tried to pass a bill giving tax credits to corporations to bring overseas jobs back to the USA. The Republicans filibustered the bill and it died without a vote.

Capitalism must have fuel to drive it. By attempting to gain some type of universal healthcare, the Democrats' goal was to slow and then decrease the cost of that healthcare thereby leaving consumers with more disposable income. When employers have to pay more for premiums, that is less money they have to spend on wages. Premiums have grown exponentially over the past 10 years. Small and medium-size companies are more and more likely NOT to offer insurance to their employees because of the prohibitive cost. Many of those that do still offer it, either make the employees pay a part of the cost or decrease coverage. The piecemeal legislation that Democrats passed is not likely to change much if the Republicans start chipping away at it. The insurance companies that get contracts for government employees (i.e., teachers, police, firefighters, etc.) can dictate what doctors the employees can see, what services will be covered, pre-approval for any surgery or major procedure, etc.). My mother is on Medicare. She has had surgeries covered under private insurance and surgeries covered under Medicare. As I have been with her through all of these surgeries, I can tell you that those covered by Medicare were much easier to navigate as far as the red tape and there was no difference in service. Yet people were led to believe their would be "death panels." What do people think will happen when insurance costs rise to such a point that they are no longer considered a given but a luxury for those able to afford them? There won't be any death panels then; people will just die quietly.

It is NOT in our best interests to let the dream of universal healthcare die. The insurance system we have now is HORRIBLE. Why would we want to save it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LizE



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 253

PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
By attempting to gain some type of universal healthcare, the Democrats' goal was to slow and then decrease the cost of that healthcare thereby leaving consumers with more disposable income. When employers have to pay more for premiums, that is less money they have to spend on wages. Premiums have grown exponentially over the past 10 years. Small and medium-size companies are more and more likely NOT to offer insurance to their employees because of the prohibitive cost. Many of those that do still offer it, either make the employees pay a part of the cost or decrease coverage. The piecemeal legislation that Democrats passed is not likely to change much if the Republicans start chipping away at it.


I'm confused. When did the Democrats attempt to give any type of universal healthcare? As I understand it, the public option was never an option at all, and I don't see healthcare costs decreasing. In fact, I just read an article on Huffington Post--"Health Insurance Profits Soar"--that begins, "Health insurance profits are skyrocketing in 2010 compared to last year's returns."

From what I can tell, the healthcare reform comes down to forcing insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions, to not cut subscribers who get ill, and to allow kids to stay on their parents' policies until they're 26. At least that's all I'm hearing about, though I'm sure there's more. Something had to take up the other 2000 pages of the bill.

I have no idea how forcing people to buy a product from a private company will convince that company to charge less. Maybe I'm missing something in the increased demand equals higher price equation, but it seems that when a customer has no choice but to buy, the seller is calling the shots. Maybe the bill sets specific price limits (though, based on Congress's record in standing up to major contributors and lobbyists, it's hard to believe there aren't plenty of loopholes). But even if I'm wrong and the bill really is designed cut costs and give us more disposable income, insurance companies have three long years to jack up prices before it kicks in. I would love to like the bill (and I do love the things I mentioned) but I don't understand how it will decrease the cost of healthcare--even before Republicans start chipping. If I'm missing some good news here, please let me in on it!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dick



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2510

PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can attest to the contention that Medicare works better than private insurance, at least in my experience. In one instance, when covered by a private carrier, I was assured that an operation to repair a damaged shoulder would be fully covered. Ha! I wound up paying $1200 dollars, even/ though the vice president of that insurance company had assured me that I would pay only the copay. Had it not been going to cost more to hire an attorney than to pay the additional money for the operation, I would have sued. I've never had a similar experience with Medicare, although I've had much more costly surgeries.

Further, I can obtain drugs--exactly the same, manufactured by the same pharmaceutical company--through Canadian drugstores for about 1/3 the cost of the same drugs in the U.S. I presume, although I'm not certain, that the difference has something to do with the Canadian Health Service.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maryskl



Joined: 25 Apr 2009
Posts: 356
Location: Alabama

PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LizE wrote:
Quote:
By attempting to gain some type of universal healthcare, the Democrats' goal was to slow and then decrease the cost of that healthcare thereby leaving consumers with more disposable income. When employers have to pay more for premiums, that is less money they have to spend on wages. Premiums have grown exponentially over the past 10 years. Small and medium-size companies are more and more likely NOT to offer insurance to their employees because of the prohibitive cost. Many of those that do still offer it, either make the employees pay a part of the cost or decrease coverage. The piecemeal legislation that Democrats passed is not likely to change much if the Republicans start chipping away at it.


I'm confused. When did the Democrats attempt to give any type of universal healthcare? As I understand it, the public option was never an option at all, and I don't see healthcare costs decreasing. In fact, I just read an article on Huffington Post--"Health Insurance Profits Soar"--that begins, "Health insurance profits are skyrocketing in 2010 compared to last year's returns."

From what I can tell, the healthcare reform comes down to forcing insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions, to not cut subscribers who get ill, and to allow kids to stay on their parents' policies until they're 26. At least that's all I'm hearing about, though I'm sure there's more. Something had to take up the other 2000 pages of the bill.

I have no idea how forcing people to buy a product from a private company will convince that company to charge less. Maybe I'm missing something in the increased demand equals higher price equation, but it seems that when a customer has no choice but to buy, the seller is calling the shots. Maybe the bill sets specific price limits (though, based on Congress's record in standing up to major contributors and lobbyists, it's hard to believe there aren't plenty of loopholes). But even if I'm wrong and the bill really is designed cut costs and give us more disposable income, insurance companies have three long years to jack up prices before it kicks in. I would love to like the bill (and I do love the things I mentioned) but I don't understand how it will decrease the cost of healthcare--even before Republicans start chipping. If I'm missing some good news here, please let me in on it!


The public option WAS an option at the beginning until the Democrats capitulated under the negative media blitz by the Republicans and the health insurance lobby. I am not happy with what we ended up with. I was for a public option all along, thinking that when people saw what the public option afforded them, they would begin to opt in and eventually we would see universal health care. Now even the small strides that were made in terms of pre-existing conditions, extended coverage for children, etc. are in danger of being rolled back.

My point was that we cannot sustain the current health care system. It will bankrupt companies if the premiums continue to rise at the current rate. If companies begin to drop coverage in droves, then individual bankruptcy looms on the horizon. The mantra we kept hearing during the debates ("We have the best health care in the world.") is simply not true. Ours stinks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 871
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="LizE"]
Quote:
I have no idea how forcing people to buy a product from a private company will convince that company to charge less. Maybe I'm missing something in the increased demand equals higher price equation, but it seems that when a customer has no choice but to buy, the seller is calling the shots. Maybe the bill sets specific price limits (though, based on Congress's record in standing up to major contributors and lobbyists, it's hard to believe there aren't plenty of loopholes). But even if I'm wrong and the bill really is designed cut costs and give us more disposable income, insurance companies have three long years to jack up prices before it kicks in. I would love to like the bill (and I do love the things I mentioned) but I don't understand how it will decrease the cost of healthcare--even before Republicans start chipping. If I'm missing some good news here, please let me in on it!


By spreading the risk and having a large pool of insured people costs are reduced. It eliminates folks from opting out of health care who are too cheap to buy insurance but expect to be treated when they have a health emergency. In the past these deadbeats could get free medical care if they presented themselves for treatment. By making everyone buy into it, we are all paying for our own care as well as for others which brings more people into the pool to share the costs. We no longer have folks taking advantage of the system. Otherwise, if we go back to the old system, I don't think we should treat folks who have no health insurance. If they are too cheap to buy health insurance they shouldn't receive medical care.

I'm a "Medicare for all" kinda gal. Would love to see it too! I really would love to see health insurance companies go out of business. Obama actually is keeping them in business. He's being too generous. I would have cut them at the knees.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Frosty13



Joined: 04 Oct 2010
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had to wait three days to post to get over being so offended by the above post I could barely think. I know this forum is for those who *aren't* easily offended and usually I just shrug and forget about it, but this is beyond any form of good manners. Since when does "lack of insurance" equal "deadbeat?" The last time I looked it up, deadbeat means someone who doesn't pay his or her own bills. I don't have insurance but I sure as heck pay every penny of my bills, and I deeply resent being insulted by someone who has no clue about me or my life. I'm completely, one hundred percent against nationalized health care because not only will my costs go UP, my care will go DOWN. Already doctors around here are going out of business because they won't be able to make ends meet under the health care law and regulations. No matter how you slice it, that's bad.

Not treat people who have no insurance? Regardless of whether they can pay or not? How about people who make payments on their medical bills every month, until the bill is paid off? Should they be refused care? Using that "logic," you shouldn't have a house unless you can pay for it in full, up front. Health care is a commodity you buy, just like a house, a car, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with making monthly payments on it. There IS something wrong with expecting others to pay for your bills. Why not buy everyone in the country a house? Shelter is more important for survival than health care, and without the financial stress of providing a roof over their heads people who actually have the money to pay their medical bills, unless they really are deadbeats, in which case according to the "don't treat them unless they have insurance" argument, they can just suffer and die.

What's really twisted about the health care bill is that the people who already didn't pay . . . still won't pay! Instead the costs will go up for everyone else. I'm scrambling to stay afloat as it is. I'm a small business owner, emphasis on small. Let's say I gross two million dollars a year. I DON'T; far from it, but that's a nice round number and most people would consider that "rich." Okay, right off the top comes 66% in federal, state, and local taxes. That's right. SIXTY-SIX PERCENT. The government hamstrings businesses like you wouldn't believe. That leaves $680,000. Add in the cost of running the business, the overhead, paying my employees who by the way have insurance even though my family doesn't. Throw in two kids in college, which I'm paying for. And now because I'm "rich" I get the privilege of paying "my fair share" even though I'm already in the percentile that pays over ninety percent of the federal taxes paid in this country. If my costs go up any more, you know what's going to happen? I'm going to have to downsize. That means people out of jobs, not paying into the system that you're so sure is going to work. Downsizing means my company automatically produces less. So if my taxes go up at the same time this health care debacle is thrown in, I'm out of business. Then I guess I can really be a deadbeat, and I can join the hundreds of thousands of workers in insurance companies that you blithely want to be unemployed, so they too can be deadbeats.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maryskl



Joined: 25 Apr 2009
Posts: 356
Location: Alabama

PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Frosty13 wrote:
I had to wait three days to post to get over being so offended by the above post I could barely think. I know this forum is for those who *aren't* easily offended and usually I just shrug and forget about it, but this is beyond any form of good manners. Since when does "lack of insurance" equal "deadbeat?" The last time I looked it up, deadbeat means someone who doesn't pay his or her own bills. I don't have insurance but I sure as heck pay every penny of my bills, and I deeply resent being insulted by someone who has no clue about me or my life. I'm completely, one hundred percent against nationalized health care because not only will my costs go UP, my care will go DOWN. Already doctors around here are going out of business because they won't be able to make ends meet under the health care law and regulations. No matter how you slice it, that's bad.

Not treat people who have no insurance? Regardless of whether they can pay or not? How about people who make payments on their medical bills every month, until the bill is paid off? Should they be refused care? Using that "logic," you shouldn't have a house unless you can pay for it in full, up front. Health care is a commodity you buy, just like a house, a car, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with making monthly payments on it. There IS something wrong with expecting others to pay for your bills. Why not buy everyone in the country a house? Shelter is more important for survival than health care, and without the financial stress of providing a roof over their heads people who actually have the money to pay their medical bills, unless they really are deadbeats, in which case according to the "don't treat them unless they have insurance" argument, they can just suffer and die.

What's really twisted about the health care bill is that the people who already didn't pay . . . still won't pay! Instead the costs will go up for everyone else. I'm scrambling to stay afloat as it is. I'm a small business owner, emphasis on small. Let's say I gross two million dollars a year. I DON'T; far from it, but that's a nice round number and most people would consider that "rich." Okay, right off the top comes 66% in federal, state, and local taxes. That's right. SIXTY-SIX PERCENT. The government hamstrings businesses like you wouldn't believe. That leaves $680,000. Add in the cost of running the business, the overhead, paying my employees who by the way have insurance even though my family doesn't. Throw in two kids in college, which I'm paying for. And now because I'm "rich" I get the privilege of paying "my fair share" even though I'm already in the percentile that pays over ninety percent of the federal taxes paid in this country. If my costs go up any more, you know what's going to happen? I'm going to have to downsize. That means people out of jobs, not paying into the system that you're so sure is going to work. Downsizing means my company automatically produces less. So if my taxes go up at the same time this health care debacle is thrown in, I'm out of business. Then I guess I can really be a deadbeat, and I can join the hundreds of thousands of workers in insurance companies that you blithely want to be unemployed, so they too can be deadbeats.


OK...any taxes that you might pay to the federal government for universal health insurance would be offset by the lack of any payment to insurance companies for your employees. The goal of universal health care is for your costs to go DOWN. It is too expensive as it is and the costs are just escalating. My husband and I are self-employed. We have been paying for our own health insurance for nearly 20 years. For the 1st ten years, our costs were between $200-300 per month. Over the last 10 years, that increased to over $1000 per month for LESS coverage. The current system is not sustainable. Cost savings will come from getting rid of the middle man and the profits inherent in that system. More cost savings will come from preventative care and hooking the indigent or non-insured up with primary care physicians/nurse practitioners rather than emergency room doctors (the most expensive medical care).

Current insurance personnel would find jobs in the expanded federal/Medicare system or in the newly emerging industry of supplemental insurance that exists in most European countries. Think of it like cable. There is a basic cable service for say $39 per month. If you want expanded cable you pay more for the premium channels. If people want a private hospital room in Europe, they pay for it with supplemental insurance.

We lose between $70-250 billion dollars per year in employee productivity due to illness (depending upon which statistics you choose). A healthy workforce is a productive workforce. As productivity increases, so does the employer's bottom line. A $25 flu shot will preserve about 5-10 days of worker productivity that would be lost due to the flu. Even if an employer does not provide sick days, the lack of an employee for several days decreases productivity and places more stress on those who try to pick up the slack.

You are worried about your bottom line and I understand that. We all are. I have three kids in college myself. But keeping the current system is not going to help your bottom line. It is only going to get worse if we don't do something to change the rut we are in. Two of the biggest indicators of the health of a nation are the infant mortality rate and the longevity rate. Countries with universal health care beat us every time in both categories. Our rates are at the bottom of industrialized nations. That should speak volumes to anyone who still claims we have the best health care system in the world. We DON'T. We have the most expensive, but certainly not the most efficient or productive.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group