List of jobs lost since the Bamster's re-election

[lone wolf]

The problem with healthcare is the same as the problem with car insurance.... When the body man has a virtually unlimited pocket to mine, mine he will....

 

[captain morgan]

I agree with you but by the same token I don't see why we couldn't make it a "right" if the majority of the electorate wants that. Some of us are born lucky and have good health, others aren't as lucky. I'm not generally in favour of taxing the rich just because they are rich, but maybe this has to be looked at carefully. Some people are rich partly because they have good health, so maybe those in the top 10% income bracket could share the cost of what it takes to provide health benefits to the destitute. (I know some people have poor health because of their own bad decisions, but we all make bad decisions so perhaps it best to let go of that "witchhunt")

The top 10% already pay a higher amount to account for a variety of shared societal costs like healthcare.

But we are still back at the same question that has been asked....What is 'adequate' and what is 'accessible'?

The knee-jerk reaction is simple, but when you start to split the hairs, it gets much more complex. Example: in terms of access, urban dwellers have better (physical) access to hospitals and specialists, so does that mean that the rural populations have had their rights violated because they do not have the same access?

Would the solution be to build a hospital, with full compliment of 'X' number of specialists every 10 miles and/or have one standard facility for every 'X' amount of people?

Yes, I know, my example is uber-extreme, but this is the can of worms that gets opened when you start to make everything a 'right'.

The problem with healthcare is the same as the problem with car insurance.... When the body man has a virtually unlimited pocket to mine, mine he will....

A great point.

 

[Locutus]

Company That Donated Millions To Obama’s Re-Election Campaign Announces Layoffs Due To Obamacare…

Obama Donor's Corporation Lays Off Employees Due to ObamaCare - Obamacare - Fox Nation

 

[JLM]

The top 10% already pay a higher amount to account for a variety of shared societal costs like healthcare.

But we are still back at the same question that has been asked....What is 'adequate' and what is 'accessible'?

The knee-jerk reaction is simple, but when you start to split the hairs, it gets much more complex. Example: in terms of access, urban dwellers have better (physical) access to hospitals and specialists, so does that mean that the rural populations have had their rights violated because they do not have the same access?

Would the solution be to build a hospital, with full compliment of 'X' number of specialists every 10 miles and/or have one standard facility for every 'X' amount of people?

Yes, I know, my example is uber-extreme, but this is the can of worms that gets opened when you start to make everything a 'right'.



A great point.

Urban dwelling vs. rural dwelling is mainly a matter of choice. To balance off the disparity rural dwellers generally benefit in that they have better health- on average.

 

[captain morgan]

Urban dwelling vs. rural dwelling is mainly a matter of choice. To balance off the disparity rural dwellers generally benefit in that they have better health- on average.

If we want to take this argument to it's extreme, then rights are rights regardless of where you live, how tall you are, whether you are an alcoholic or are in perfect health.

You can see why I am not in support of the 'rights' argument on this issue

 

[JLM]

If we want to take this argument to it's extreme, then rights are rights regardless of where you live, how tall you are, whether you are an alcoholic or are in perfect health.

You can see why I am not in support of the 'rights' argument on this issue

I hear you Cap't. BUT I think this is an area where we have to deal with situations one by one. Maybe the word "right" is wrong (how's that for an oxymoron?) So maybe we shouldn't let semantics blur the subject. Instead of "right" let's say provision. We try to provide for people as far as getting enough to eat- so let's just extend it to health, and if millionaires have to fork out a few more bucks, it's not the end of the world. A person dying is at the end of his/her world. -

 

[Locutus]

More Layoffs Announced, Including 500 At NBC, Citibank, And One Huge Obama Donor’s Medical Company



More Layoffs Announced, Including 500 At NBC, Citibank, And One Huge Obama Donor’s Medical Company | TheBlaze.com

 

[JLM]

If we want to take this argument to it's extreme, then rights are rights regardless of where you live, how tall you are, whether you are an alcoholic or are in perfect health.

You can see why I am not in support of the 'rights' argument on this issue

I guess this discussion probably belongs in another thread, but regardless of your philosophy and mine and all the discussion, what we should be trying to do if figure out where we want to go with health care and the best way to get there. I have NO problem with everyone having access to healthcare if it's affordable in ANY way.

 

[gopher]

captain,


2 tax rates (0% under the poverty threshold and 'X'% for everyone else including corporations). No deductions for anyone in any form - everyone pays the true cost.

I have always opposed the income tax and much prefer a use tax. That is much more fair and would make it impossible for the government to engage in foreign wars of convenience which generate huge profits for corporations.

taxslave,

I don't know what the tax rules are in the US but here if your employer pays your medical premiums that become a taxable benefit to you.

Not so in the USA:

"Current law excludes health insurance from taxable income, and there's nothing in the health care law that changes that. ""

Always has been that way.

Linda Bergthold: Your Health Insurance Will Not Be Taxed Next Year

Company That Donated Millions To Obama’s Re-Election Campaign Announces Layoffs Due To Obamacare…

Obama Donor's Corporation Lays Off Employees Due to ObamaCare - Obamacare - Fox Nation

Faux is full of sh!t and whoever believes their garbage does as well. Stryker settled a government lawsuit to the tune of $300 million dollars and that is what lowered its profit margin. Not Obamacare.

 

[tay]

Let’s stop pretending bosses have transformed into *******s because of Obamacare



http://freakoutnation.com/2012/11/1...ansformed-into-*******s-because-of-obamacare/




Not all Pizza Chain Owners are Partisan ****s: Papa John’s Vs. Little Caesars



http://freakoutnation.com/2012/11/1...-partisan-****s-papa-johns-vs-little-caesars/

 

[captain morgan]

I hear you Cap't. BUT I think this is an area where we have to deal with situations one by one. Maybe the word "right" is wrong (how's that for an oxymoron?) So maybe we shouldn't let semantics blur the subject. Instead of "right" let's say provision. We try to provide for people as far as getting enough to eat- so let's just extend it to health, and if millionaires have to fork out a few more bucks, it's not the end of the world. A person dying is at the end of his/her world. -

I don't disagree in any way with the base premise you have outlined, but at some point we have to ask a few questions like is the gvt supposed to be 'all things to all people' and secondly, is it reasonable to continually leverage the tax system to achieve these ends.

I guess this discussion probably belongs in another thread, but regardless of your philosophy and mine and all the discussion, what we should be trying to do if figure out where we want to go with health care and the best way to get there. I have NO problem with everyone having access to healthcare if it's affordable in ANY way.

You're right... This discussion does belong in another thread.

That said, in my eyes, it does have a bearing on the overall thread topic, but we're starting to travel down an unintended road

 

[tay]

Shame on Aetna's CEO for cruel language and even crueler threats. American workers are not hostages whose livelihoods can be treated like pawns by ego-maniac CEOs.


"The American people are going to suffer because we'll lay them off--because we know how to respond to these kinds of situations," Mr. Bertolini warned at a Wall Street Journal CEO Council event.

How dare you, Mr. Bertolini, yourself a multi-millionaire CEO, threaten to make hardworking Americans—to which you disdainfully refer to as "them"—"suffer" unless you get your way

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/aetna-ceo-warns-of-layoffs-if-no-debt-deal-struck-2012-11-12



And what's with this "us" (we'll) versus "them" rhetoric? Mmmmmmmmmmm, class wafare............


Mr. Bertolini, you may have the power to fire your employees and drive the sick into bankruptcy with your limited-benefit plans, but this is still a democracy.

 

[taxslave]

The top 10% already pay a higher amount to account for a variety of shared societal costs like healthcare.

But we are still back at the same question that has been asked....What is 'adequate' and what is 'accessible'?

The knee-jerk reaction is simple, but when you start to split the hairs, it gets much more complex. Example: in terms of access, urban dwellers have better (physical) access to hospitals and specialists, so does that mean that the rural populations have had their rights violated because they do not have the same access?

Would the solution be to build a hospital, with full compliment of 'X' number of specialists every 10 miles and/or have one standard facility for every 'X' amount of people?

Yes, I know, my example is uber-extreme, but this is the can of worms that gets opened when you start to make everything a 'right'.



A great point.

Your example isn't all that extreme. I've seen it in two locations where I have lived. Both on Vancouver Island. in the North Island there are three communities within about 30 miles of each other with hospitals for a total population of perhaps 12000. Campbell River and Comox valley have been fighting for years over a new hospital to serve the whole central island area as both need new facilities and currently patients are shuffled back and forth depending on where the specialist they need is located. The government wanted to build a big hospital in the sticks about 15 min from both areas to combine services. Neither community is willing to do this so after years of bickering the long suffering taxpayer is building 2 new hospitals. Neither one is in the best of locations from an emergency access perspective.
Bottom line- We simply cannot afford a medical system that is al things to all people in all locations for free. I bet there are lots more situations like this.

 

[JLM]

Your example isn't all that extreme. I've seen it in two locations where I have lived. Both on Vancouver Island. in the North Island there are three communities within about 30 miles of each other with hospitals for a total population of perhaps 12000. Campbell River and Comox valley have been fighting for years over a new hospital to serve the whole central island area as both need new facilities and currently patients are shuffled back and forth depending on where the specialist they need is located. The government wanted to build a big hospital in the sticks about 15 min from both areas to combine services. Neither community is willing to do this so after years of bickering the long suffering taxpayer is building 2 new hospitals. Neither one is in the best of locations from an emergency access perspective.
Bottom line- We simply cannot afford a medical system that is al things to all people in all locations for free. I bet there are lots more situations like this.

Build it in Campbell River- it's the gateway to the central coast, Gold River, Tahsis and Sayward. With the new highway it's only a hop, skip and a jump for Comox Valley residents.

 

[captain morgan]

Mr. Bertolini, you may have the power to fire your employees and drive the sick into bankruptcy with your limited-benefit plans, but this is still a democracy.

This is what happens when the gvt tries to strong-arm the private sector into assuming the fiscal responsibilities that do not belong to them.

Build it in Campbell River- it's the gateway to the central coast, Gold River, Tahsis and Sayward. With the new highway it's only a hop, skip and a jump for Comox Valley residents.

That still doesn't address the problem that the people in this area have had their 'right' to 'accessible' healthcare violated... Now, I'm also guessing that the local muni taxes will probably rise a bit as a result of the new facilities.. Does this also impact the 'right' to 'affordable' healthcare?

I ask the questions rhetorically, but as you can see, it's a slippery slope when we start to identify this issue as an inalienable right.

 

[taxslave]

We could use the 7-11 approach and put up a hospital on every 4th street corner.

 

[JLM]

That still doesn't address the problem that the people in this area have had their 'right' to 'accessible' healthcare violated... Now, I'm also guessing that the local muni taxes will probably rise a bit as a result of the new facilities.. Does this also impact the 'right' to 'affordable' healthcare?

I ask the questions rhetorically, but as you can see, it's a slippery slope when we start to identify this issue as an inalienable right.

Give us the definition of "accessible healthcare"................Comox Valley would be a bad example, actually you can get from C.V. to C.R. faster than from parts of the Lower mainland to Van Gen. or Royal Columbia.

 

[captain morgan]

Give us the definition of "accessible healthcare"................Comox Valley would be a bad example, actually you can get from C.V. to C.R. faster than from parts of the Lower mainland to Van Gen. or Royal Columbia.

That's exactly what I've asked for, in addition to definitions of 'adequate' and 'affordable' healthcare. No one seems to have the answer, but many seem to demand it as a right.

Funny how that works, eh?

 

[JLM]

That's exactly what I've asked for, in addition to 'adequate' and 'affordable' healthcare. No one seems to have the answer, but many seem to demand it as a right.

Funny how that works, eh?

You're not going to- someone living at Granville & Hastings is going to have a different definition than someone living in Zeballos. But bottom line is you have to locate them where they are accessible to doctors and nurses.

 

[captain morgan]

You're not going to- someone living at Granville & Hastings is going to have a different definition than someone living in Zeballos. But bottom line is you have to locate them where they are accessible to doctors and nurses.

I don't mean to rag on you here JLM; all I'm trying to do is to suggest that the system can't be all things to all people based on each individual's subjective interpretation of the variables.

In the end, the access to capital will be the biggest determinant of all, despite the individual subjective needs of the aggregate of individuals