Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Jeremy Handren
climber
NV
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 12:04am PT
|
"By and large, we have a choice for most private sector suppliers. If we don't like their combination of price, goods and services, we go elsewhere".
If only that were true. Its amazing how little consumer choice, and how little differentiation there is in so many areas.
John, you are very wrong about this bill not having an impact on consumer choice, what better way for a dominant industry player to increase profits than by using legislation to stifle competition.
|
|
Fluoride
Trad climber
Hollywood, CA
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 12:11am PT
|
JE, since when is the health and well being of a person something of a profit mechanism?? You are so far off base it's insane.
Health care should not be a "for profit" industry...it never should have been (thank you Ronald Reagan). What part of that are you not comprehending? That is why it's such a big issue today. People die every day because their insurance companies deny expensive treatment that could save the patient's lives, yet cost the companies. People go bankrupt trying to save their own lives. We are the ONLY first world nation in which that occurs because our health care is placed in the hands of for profit companies.
You are the kind of person who will only comprehend this issue when a close relative gets cancer and your insurer denies them coverage cause it's too expensive and not enough chance they'll survive. Seriously, YOU are that person. Up until then you'll teabag for their rights to cut off patients until all of the sudden it's you that is in that situation. Trust.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 12:15am PT
|
Health care should not be a "for profit" industry...
I guess farming shouldn't be either.
After all,
everyone needs to eat too.
|
|
Fluoride
Trad climber
Hollywood, CA
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 12:19am PT
|
Farmer pays money to grow food, sells it at market, it then sells to consumer. Markup fairly minimal amongst competition from Chile and other agri-counries that import to the US.
Not the same as the US health care industry.
If it was the case, we'd be buying our meds from Canada at cut rate.
Or can I get health care in Chile?
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 12:32am PT
|
TGT wrote: I guess farming shouldn't be either.
After all,
everyone needs to eat too.
You are such are such a smack talking fool.
This year (2000), the government distributed a record $28 billion in direct payments, accounting for half of all the money made by farmers. In eight states, including Montana, government assistance made up 100 percent of overall farm income.
Over the last four years, the top 1 percent of farmers in this county -- about 15 farmers -- received an average of $616,000 each from the government. The top 10 percent -- about 150 farmers -- were paid an average of $308,000 per farmer over the last four years. These numbers do not include the record payout for the year 2000.
"It has created some huge dependencies, no doubt about it," said Wiley Good, a Chouteau County grain farmer and businessman. "It's easy to say, All this cash is out there, now what can I do to farm the government."
Mr. Good lives a comfortable life in a big house, travels to Europe on long vacations, and partakes of the various government programs for most of his farm income. He shrugs at the fact that the free enterprise system has virtually disappeared from the farm economy of Montana, the nation's No. 2 farm state by amount of acreage.
Health care for citizens is a moral issue..one that all the first world nations figured out a long time ago.
|
|
Fluoride
Trad climber
Hollywood, CA
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 12:59am PT
|
JE - I explore this option to you.
Whoever in your family is imperfect and has no insurance, try to get them on it now. Assuming they've never had any history (like diabtetes, or have been a battered woman cause insurance companies deny taking on battered women in thoughts that they'll have to pay out more medical expenditures). Seriously, take the most flawed member of your family and try to get them an AFFORDABLE insurance plan. Go for it!! Good luck brother!!
If your sister had a history of being beaten by her ex-husband (theoretically), she wouldn't qualify for a plan. She's too much of a risk. Or if any nieces or nephews were obese, they would fail to get on any medical plans today.
Guess your world is perfect.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 01:03am PT
|
A very good friend of mine and a very well known climber pays close to $30,000 a year for health insurance for him and his wife. The insurance company has him by the balls as he is afraid that he going to get dropped for a preexisting condition (knee surgery).
JohnL...really...what world do you live in?
Again...Health care for citizens is a moral issue..one that all the first world nations figured out a long time ago.
I also find it funny that the likes of JL, Book, TGT and Fat..having such a big problem with the size of government but not with the size and wealth of corporations to buy and control anything they want. Free speech my ass.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 01:13am PT
|
Apogee..he is worried about getting dropped and then not be able to get insurance..I think they just upped it $400 a month.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 01:13am PT
|
It looks less and less as though people make decisions about money and more as though money makes decisions for people. Making money is by far the most important goal of the corporation and that goal is considered in all decisions made by those who work for the corporate interest.
People have to earn money, too, but they usually have other values as well.
If people are not successful in giving corporations some human values to go along with the legal status corporations enjoy as individuals, then the kind of human we used to be is obsolete except as a support for the life cycle of money.
Money was a great idea, a great invention, but it has a cost.
|
|
Fluoride
Trad climber
Hollywood, CA
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 01:13am PT
|
Money isn't speech and corporations aren't people. The Supreme Court handed this decision to the Right.
This decision will go down in one of the greatest defeats against our Democracy.
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin place
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 01:52am PT
|
If you've watched this before, now is a good time to watch it again, and if you haven't watched it yet I dare you to do so:
http://www.thecorporation.com/
Since the 14th amendment, which was meant to protect freed slaves, was twisted to protect corporations' rights as "persons" we have been heading toward this.
If corporations are "persons", they are "persons" without consciences; essentially sociopaths or psychopaths.
Government regulations are meant to force corporations to act in ways that are less destructive to society while garnering the benefits of market forces.
This SCOTUS decision will have the same effect as if the most violent gangs and supermax inmates were given billions of dollars to spend however they wish--how long until public relation spokespersons, advertisements, media purchases, lobbying, etc. make their every destructive act legal and even heroic?
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 02:51am PT
|
For those who can't concentrate:
In a stunning reversal of the nation’s federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns.
In reaction: Blood is shooting out of Liberals eyeballs across the country!
Why?
The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
So Big Labor can do mudslinging up to election day too. Fun! The weak minded (Liberal) will be easily swayed while those with brains (Conservatives) with be thoughtful.
That's why Obama has blown a gasket over this. Hilarious no? All the years of dumbing down public schools is coming back to bite the Lib's
in the voting booth!
"The First Amendment protects more than just the individual on a soapbox and the lonely pamphleteer," wrote the court in its 5-4 decision.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 07:17am PT
|
so, you all approve of a law that bans political books and movies? that's fascist
if unions are so critical for protecting the little man from the big evil corporations, then why is union membership so low (only 12% nationwide) and why is union membership highest among PUBLIC SECTOR employees...by your reasoning, the GOVERNMENT is the most evil "corporation" since it's workers feel so strongly the need for union representation
unions destroyed the steel industry and the coal industry and have seriously damaged the airline industry...i agree gm should have fought the unions more aggressively instead of caving to their demands for ludicrous health benefits and pensions that far outpaced their revenue, but if you don't think the unions are every bit as powerful and corrupt as "corporations" then explain how they managed to secure an exemption for their own cadillac health plans in the senate bill?
finally, some examples of "corporations": abc, nbc, cbs, msnbc, cnn, nyt, lat, wapo, newsweek, the CORPORATION for public broadcasting, planned parenthood, susan g. komen race for the cure, peta, nea, etc...here's the problem, mccain-feingold applies to ALL corporations except for "media corporations", which means ge--which owns nbc/msnbc--would be exempt...do you approve since their liberal, meaning you only believe in free speech for some? you don't think exxon-mobil won't immediately start a "media corporation"?
you libs are crying because you believe evil corporations are going to support repubs even though they mostly supported barry and their donations are somewhat evenly split...as opposed to unions who donate 98% to dems
corporations are people as much as unions are people except corporations actually give people money rather than taking it away...corporations do not take money from people's paychecks to give to pols but unions use mandatory dues to make political contributions even if their members disagree
there was a time when unions were necessary to stop the excesses of big corporations just like there might have been a time when mccain-feingold might have done some good...but corporations cannot control the political process any more than newspapers can control the flow of information
i'll ask again, do you support a law that allows the government to ban books and movies? the GOVERNMENT'S lawyer argued before scotus that mccain-feingold applied to books, movies, ads, tv shows, etc.
|
|
Fluoride
Trad climber
Hollywood, CA
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 09:36am PT
|
"corporations are people as much as unions are people except corporations actually give people money rather than taking it away...corporations do not take money from people's paychecks to give to pols but unions use mandatory dues to make political contributions even if their members disagree"
You are a f*#king idiot.
Care to explain how the banks needed $700 billion in TAXPAYER bailouts?? Unions never needed it. We paid BILLIONS to bail out the banking system yet they're still giving millions in bonuses to the folks who put TAXPAYERS in this position. Unions never did this.
Better yet, argue with me that corporations are "giving me money" cause they are not. Where's mine?? Seriously, where's my money under your arguement?
|
|
Fluoride
Trad climber
Hollywood, CA
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 09:40am PT
|
"Why are you all so afraid of free speech?"
PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISING is not "free speech." Corporations are not "individual people." What part of this are you not understanding?
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 10:20am PT
|
Fluoride writes:
"Corporations are not "individual people." "
Neither are Labor Unions.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 10:45am PT
|
Chaz, I don't think any of us railing against this decision want to give labor unions any different status than Corporations. We have to limit the power of moneyed organizations to buy politics, and that's what's happening.
Rox, you are going to get on the terror watch list posting like that but thank you for standing up. Your words ring true in many ways in many posts but it will take the common guy a long time to wake up and smell that he's been robbed.
When the spin doctors have science that equates to the fact that with enough money and press, they can manipulate enough people to basically buy votes, then money will absolutely rule us. This is basically happening already and the only reason it hasn't led to the total destruction of the nation is because
1. it would be dangerous for the corporate masters to overstep too far
and
2. they need to keep us alive to milk us.
Peace
Karl
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 10:45am PT
|
Rokjox wrote:Bookworm, after the last few days, I really am begining to doubt your intelligence.
What took you so long??
|
|
Jingy
Social climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 10:52am PT
|
No, Flouride.. Thank you for the healthy dose of reality into this conversation...
"Corniss Chopper, you realize the ONLY reason unions exist is because of the horrible inhumane practices of CORPORATIONS??"
The only reason we are in this mess is becuase of greed, plain and simple. I say we because we have all been effected by the loss of US industry across the board.
Corporations have been able to cut American jobs, sending them to be done at pennies on the dollar out of the country.. though this is good for business, its bad for the US economy and the American worker, which... last I checked.. most of us are.
I shudder at how many in this thread are cheering the loss of a democracy.. a little too gleeful about by some.. not sure if this site has not been hijacked by dumbies!
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2010 - 12:12pm PT
|
^ ^
Interesting stuff. I would have thought your and your family's history would have made you a proponent of free speech, but I guess I'd have been wrong.
It's worth remembering that protection of free speech generally only comes up when many people disagree with the content of the speech (Nazis protesting in Jewish communities, etc.)
Voltaire said it best hundreds of years ago: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Good thing we have a Supreme Court that protects liberty--we won't have that for much longer if Democrats hold on the presidency.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!