So you're talking about the so-called employer mandate, where an employer of over 50 bodies has an employee who has to go to the goddam Socialist fuckin Commie Exchange for their coverage, then they gotta fork out a 2K "tax" or provide equal cov for all their employees. In essence, the greed grubbers in the Pizza empire never did offer health bennies to their nearly sub-human employees, getting around the law by not hiring full time. What kind of socialist sheep where we all back when, and I am sure you can remember those days, when it was matter of fact that your employer provided the insurance?
So, you didn't like the employer mandate so you Pubs (you will likely deflect responsibility onto your detested reasonable gentlepersons) were virtually tumescent over the individual mandate, which, now you lambast. Just sayin....
So what seems to have happened is that Republicans created the “individual healthcare mandate” as part of their “small government agenda” in 1993 and were still supporting it long after Obama became president. Then once the Obama administration agreed and adopted the “individual mandate” the concept suddenly became tyranny, unconstitutional and part of the “liberal socialist agenda”.
Read more at http://samuel-warde.com/2012/05/the-gop-invented-the-individual-mandate/
Why is Papa John's obligated to hire people full-time or provide their health insurance or anything else in this world? It's a private organization and free to do whatever it wants - at least for now.
You see, the key phrase in your entire comment is "has to." What we champions of freedom will fight with any weapon we have to is this "has to" crap.
Re: 1993: no, we had an internal debate and remembered that we stood for freedom.
Who do you think BP is gonna pass their fines, settlements and adverse judgments onto? It is said that in our litigation nation we each pay a 2K annual "tax."
Anyhow, it sure is a FUBARRed bill, aint it? Can we count on you to help make it more like Canada's or Israel's.
Of course, it will get passed on to us in BP's prices. All the more reason to maybe think twice about making these companies into villains and financially squeezing them for industrial accidents.
Canada and Israel have levels of taxation that no self-respecting American would be willing to pay.
I have catastrophic insurance that does cost a lot, but it's my choice whether or not to have it. Same with my Aflac insurance. Other than that, I live a generally healthy lifestyle and try to stay our ot doctors' offices unless it's unavoidably serious.
You are, as Billy Cunningham would put it: a Great American. Pay the corporation!!! Instead of your country.
And I suppose when you sue BP you are some kind of freedom hater. Perhaps your regime, when it finally arrives, can legislate tort immunity for corporations operating in what you consider the national interest.
Keep shedding those pounds and pursuing that healthy lifestyle. If you get sick its your own damned fault, right? But what about those accidents that, as you know from the Elvis Costello song, will happen. Its all just karma anyhow, right?
My health ins at age 62, self-pay since I am essentially self-employed, even attached to my wife's employer provided coverage ($2000 annual deductible, 20 per cent copay) is $800/mo. For profit free market insurers consider my age alone to be a preexisting condition. And Ivhave never been one to go running to doctors who I have always preferred to avoid. But, since its not a tax I suppose I should pay it all with a smile and go merrily merrily gently down the stream, right. 2.5 yrs. To go till single payer cov. Which of course you freedom lovers are continually attempting to erode and word has it that Obamacare seriously erodes as well. Oh well. Stay free and easy, bro.
Good thing you got that policy before you got any older. The insurance companies have to charge more for them as applicants age in order to make a profit and stay in business.
Exactly. And that is not insurance. Jack Welch of GE started all this when he decided that corporate loyalty is due to the stockholders, not to the employees so he began lopping off employee-related liabilities as much as he could. Other corporate sheep followed suit and, voilla, here we are some 30 years later with health insurance and pension crises. Stay free, bippy...
FIle under "well, duh." Milton Friedman explained this many decades ago. The only responsibility a business has in this universe is to show its owners a return on investment. That's it.
Your St. Ronnie pick and chose what ideas of Friedman he wanted to implement. So a business which used to provide health benefits for its workers cuts the coverage, increases the copay, and often eliminates their obligation entirely, where does that leave the poor bastard worker? Out against the private market where the costs are much higher and of course their main mission is anything but covering health care costs for the individual. But we domn't have a problem now do we? You carp that its late in the day. Yes, this country and many of the towns, large and small that comprise it are shadows of what they once were with a corporate ethos like we had develop in the 70s. It started with steel and has hopefully come full circle. Viva Freedom.
Certainly not what Friedmean had in mind was Ronald Reagan’s Legacy> the Incarceration Nation:
Prison growth is fed politically by the growth of the pro-prison lobby, consisting of the newly empowered prison employees unions and the private prison industry. Mandatory sentencing laws adopted by most states as part of Ronald Reagan’s "war on drugs," assured that our spanking new jails would be full for decades to come. This is Reagan’s legacy. The same people who voted Reagan into office voted for a plethora of state ballot propositions such as "three strikes and you’re out" laws mandating prison without parole for people convicted of three crimes.
In California, progressive’s recoiled in horror not only at the social cost of incarceration, but at the economic impact of filling jail cells at a cost of $20,000 to $60,000 per prisoner per year. The cost of "three strikes" legislation in California, according to a RAND Corporation study, would add nearly $6 billion to the cost of running California’s jails. Horrified that these billions would come at the cost of cuts to education, the arts, parks, environmental programs and social programs, the statewide teachers’ union led a campaign to defeat the resolution. They were outspent many times over, however, by a statewide prison guards’ union whose members were salivating at the thought of thousands of new jobs. The resolution passed in 1994 as did similar laws in state after state including New York. In the 1990s as prisons filled and bills came due, states such as New York placed public universities and school systems on austerity budgets, cutting faculty lines at the same time prison spending grew by epic proportions. For the past 15 years New York hired relatively few college professors, but a hell of a lot of prison guards.
read more at http://mediastudy.com/articles/incarceration.html
Because Milton Friedman, unlike your St. Ronnie, was a champion of social freedoms too. Ronnie called marijuana the most dangerous drug in America, henceforth we became the Incarceration Nation. Your love for freedom extends only to the economic realm. I am convinced that the free market has failed us with health insurance. Reformers ultimately in favot of a universal plan will keep on winning. You have lost all challenges so far but you did succeed in making the Affordable Care Act a quite FUBARRed bill. Onward to MEDICARE AND vA bennies for all. Social insurance, not socialism.
In fact, totally free markets are abysmally bad at delivering health care. That's why every advanced economy, to one degree or another, has given government a large role in providing health care to its citizens.
We've tried the market approach to health care and the result has always been the same: Poor health and poor people.
Read more at, OMG, could it be, the WSJ here at: http://articles.marketwatch.com/2009-08-20/commentary/30781025_1_health-care-care-and-higher-costs-expensive-illnesses
Bottom line of the article, from your beloved WSJ, oh ye who chastiseth all ideas but thou own simplistic and stubborn ones is, just what I have been saying, essentially, where I can buy a new car with cash, annually, on the health insurance premiums being charged at my still certainly young in sprit age with no preexisting conditions. Your politics besmirch your truth.
The failures Health care is fraught with uncertainty. We don't know when or if we'll get sick, or what disease we'll get.
In some cultures, people save vast amounts of money to insure themselves against illness, but such precautionary savings are a drag on the economy. Rather than investing in a new business, or in a child's education, money is put aside to guard against every possible calamity. Too much is saved because of uncertainty.
I call those people wise. Making room in one's budget for health care expenses is the prudent way to manage one's money. You get sick, go see a doctor and pay for it out of pocket. If it's a really serious matter, use your catastrophic-care insurance. End of story.
Now, this only works if medical practices, hospitals, and insurance companies are truly competing for businesses and motivated to offer the best value to the consumer - and if the individual has control over his insurance decisions - that is, they're not tied to his place of work, or the government.
Totally free markets are abysmally bad at delivering health care. That's why every advanced economy, to one degree or another, has given government a large role in providing health care to its citizens.
We've tried the market approach to health care and the result has always been the same: Poor health and poor people.
So you're talking about the so-called employer mandate, where an employer of over 50 bodies has an employee who has to go to the goddam Socialist fuckin Commie Exchange for their coverage, then they gotta fork out a 2K "tax" or provide equal cov for all their employees. In essence, the greed grubbers in the Pizza empire never did offer health bennies to their nearly sub-human employees, getting around the law by not hiring full time. What kind of socialist sheep where we all back when, and I am sure you can remember those days, when it was matter of fact that your employer provided the insurance?
ReplyDeleteSo, you didn't like the employer mandate so you Pubs (you will likely deflect responsibility onto your detested reasonable gentlepersons) were virtually tumescent over the individual mandate, which, now you lambast. Just sayin....
So what seems to have happened is that Republicans created the “individual healthcare mandate” as part of their “small government agenda” in 1993 and were still supporting it long after Obama became president. Then once the Obama administration agreed and adopted the “individual mandate” the concept suddenly became tyranny, unconstitutional and part of the “liberal socialist agenda”.
Read more at http://samuel-warde.com/2012/05/the-gop-invented-the-individual-mandate/
Why is Papa John's obligated to hire people full-time or provide their health insurance or anything else in this world? It's a private organization and free to do whatever it wants - at least for now.
ReplyDeleteYou see, the key phrase in your entire comment is "has to." What we champions of freedom will fight with any weapon we have to is this "has to" crap.
Re: 1993: no, we had an internal debate and remembered that we stood for freedom.
We're Americans. We don't do mandates.
ReplyDeleteWho do you think BP is gonna pass their fines, settlements and adverse judgments onto? It is said that in our litigation nation we each pay a 2K annual "tax."
ReplyDeleteAnyhow, it sure is a FUBARRed bill, aint it? Can we count on you to help make it more like Canada's or Israel's.
how much you paying for how little coverage now, aging freedom lover?
ReplyDeleteOf course, it will get passed on to us in BP's prices. All the more reason to maybe think twice about making these companies into villains and financially squeezing them for industrial accidents.
ReplyDeleteCanada and Israel have levels of taxation that no self-respecting American would be willing to pay.
I have catastrophic insurance that does cost a lot, but it's my choice whether or not to have it. Same with my Aflac insurance. Other than that, I live a generally healthy lifestyle and try to stay our ot doctors' offices unless it's unavoidably serious.
You are, as Billy Cunningham would put it: a Great American. Pay the corporation!!! Instead of your country.
ReplyDeleteAnd I suppose when you sue BP you are some kind of freedom hater. Perhaps your regime, when it finally arrives, can legislate tort immunity for corporations operating in what you consider the national interest.
Keep shedding those pounds and pursuing that healthy lifestyle. If you get sick its your own damned fault, right? But what about those accidents that, as you know from the Elvis Costello song, will happen. Its all just karma anyhow, right?
Big Dick Cheney lives!
My health ins at age 62, self-pay since I am essentially self-employed, even attached to my wife's employer provided coverage ($2000 annual deductible, 20 per cent copay) is $800/mo. For profit free market insurers consider my age alone to be a preexisting condition. And Ivhave never been one to go running to doctors who I have always preferred to avoid. But, since its not a tax I suppose I should pay it all with a smile and go merrily merrily gently down the stream, right. 2.5 yrs. To go till single payer cov. Which of course you freedom lovers are continually attempting to erode and word has it that Obamacare seriously erodes as well. Oh well. Stay free and easy, bro.
ReplyDeleteGood thing you got that policy before you got any older. The insurance companies have to charge more for them as applicants age in order to make a profit and stay in business.
ReplyDeleteExactly. And that is not insurance. Jack Welch of GE started all this when he decided that corporate loyalty is due to the stockholders, not to the employees so he began lopping off employee-related liabilities as much as he could. Other corporate sheep followed suit and, voilla, here we are some 30 years later with health insurance and pension crises. Stay free, bippy...
ReplyDeleteFIle under "well, duh." Milton Friedman explained this many decades ago. The only responsibility a business has in this universe is to show its owners a return on investment. That's it.
ReplyDeleteYour St. Ronnie pick and chose what ideas of Friedman he wanted to implement. So a business which used to provide health benefits for its workers cuts the coverage, increases the copay, and often eliminates their obligation entirely, where does that leave the poor bastard worker? Out against the private market where the costs are much higher and of course their main mission is anything but covering health care costs for the individual. But we domn't have a problem now do we? You carp that its late in the day. Yes, this country and many of the towns, large and small that comprise it are shadows of what they once were with a corporate ethos like we had develop in the 70s. It started with steel and has hopefully come full circle. Viva Freedom.
ReplyDeleteCertainly not what Friedmean had in mind was Ronald Reagan’s Legacy> the Incarceration Nation:
ReplyDeletePrison growth is fed politically by the growth of the pro-prison lobby, consisting of the newly empowered prison employees unions and the private prison industry. Mandatory sentencing laws adopted by most states as part of Ronald Reagan’s "war on drugs," assured that our spanking new jails would be full for decades to come. This is Reagan’s legacy. The same people who voted Reagan into office voted for a plethora of state ballot propositions such as "three strikes and you’re out" laws mandating prison without parole for people convicted of three crimes.
In California, progressive’s recoiled in horror not only at the social cost of incarceration, but at the economic impact of filling jail cells at a cost of $20,000 to $60,000 per prisoner per year. The cost of "three strikes" legislation in California, according to a RAND Corporation study, would add nearly $6 billion to the cost of running California’s jails. Horrified that these billions would come at the cost of cuts to education, the arts, parks, environmental programs and social programs, the statewide teachers’ union led a campaign to defeat the resolution. They were outspent many times over, however, by a statewide prison guards’ union whose members were salivating at the thought of thousands of new jobs. The resolution passed in 1994 as did similar laws in state after state including New York. In the 1990s as prisons filled and bills came due, states such as New York placed public universities and school systems on austerity budgets, cutting faculty lines at the same time prison spending grew by epic proportions. For the past 15 years New York hired relatively few college professors, but a hell of a lot of prison guards.
read more at http://mediastudy.com/articles/incarceration.html
"Where does that leave the poor bastard worker?" Free as always to decide if he wants to keep working there or pursue some other course with his life.
ReplyDeleteWhat's with the digression into prison guards and incarceration levels?
The goal is zero government dollars for the arts and environmental and "social" programs, whatever those are.
ReplyDeleteBecause Milton Friedman, unlike your St. Ronnie, was a champion of social freedoms too. Ronnie called marijuana the most dangerous drug in America, henceforth we became the Incarceration Nation. Your love for freedom extends only to the economic realm. I am convinced that the free market has failed us with health insurance. Reformers ultimately in favot of a universal plan will keep on winning. You have lost all challenges so far but you did succeed in making the Affordable Care Act a quite FUBARRed bill. Onward to MEDICARE AND vA bennies for all. Social insurance, not socialism.
ReplyDeleteThe free market never fails us on anything.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, totally free markets are abysmally bad at delivering health care. That's why every advanced economy, to one degree or another, has given government a large role in providing health care to its citizens.
ReplyDeleteWe've tried the market approach to health care and the result has always been the same: Poor health and poor people.
Read more at, OMG, could it be, the WSJ here at: http://articles.marketwatch.com/2009-08-20/commentary/30781025_1_health-care-care-and-higher-costs-expensive-illnesses
Bottom line of the article, from your beloved WSJ, oh ye who chastiseth all ideas but thou own simplistic and stubborn ones is, just what I have been saying, essentially, where I can buy a new car with cash, annually, on the health insurance premiums being charged at my still certainly young in sprit age with no preexisting conditions. Your politics besmirch your truth.
ReplyDeleteThe failures
Health care is fraught with uncertainty. We don't know when or if we'll get sick, or what disease we'll get.
In some cultures, people save vast amounts of money to insure themselves against illness, but such precautionary savings are a drag on the economy. Rather than investing in a new business, or in a child's education, money is put aside to guard against every possible calamity. Too much is saved because of uncertainty.
I call those people wise. Making room in one's budget for health care expenses is the prudent way to manage one's money. You get sick, go see a doctor and pay for it out of pocket. If it's a really serious matter, use your catastrophic-care insurance. End of story.
ReplyDeleteNow, this only works if medical practices, hospitals, and insurance companies are truly competing for businesses and motivated to offer the best value to the consumer - and if the individual has control over his insurance decisions - that is, they're not tied to his place of work, or the government.
Totally free markets are abysmally bad at delivering health care. That's why every advanced economy, to one degree or another, has given government a large role in providing health care to its citizens.
ReplyDeleteWe've tried the market approach to health care and the result has always been the same: Poor health and poor people.
When have we tried the market approach?
ReplyDelete