Thread: Public Option

Originally Posted by Swoop187

Its an option..

This time the government gets fucked not the hard working folks!

I want privatized heath-care and the government can FOOT THE BILL.

I'm all for fucking this government over... "They have it coming to them like a bitch that hasn't been fucked in years."

I had to go with the Tony Montana quote.

You want the government to "get fucked"? What do you think the government does when it "gets fucked"? Who do you think finances government fuckups?

Originally Posted by jviehe

Why?

skjdf

Without union bargaining, management in many industrial sectors pushes wages down thus markedly reducing the size of the middle class as is the case now.

Without union bargaining, management in many industrial sectors pushes wages down thus markedly reducing the size of the middle class as is the case now.

I have no problems with unions that can be joined freely and left freely, but too often one is forced to join as a condition of employment and is subsequently forced to support antithetical political ideologies. If you truly want to improve the lot of the workers who would otherwise be lower class, push to reduce the supply of lesser-skilled labor by improved border contols and requiring birth control as a condition of welfare payments. That will increase the bargaining position of the working poor regardless of union (non)affiliation.

Originally Posted by gpkantor

Without union bargaining, management in many industrial sectors pushes wages down thus markedly reducing the size of the middle class as is the case now.

Whats wrong with management pushing wages down or reducing the size of the middle class?

Originally Posted by Evil_inKarlate

I have no problems with unions that can be joined freely and left freely, but too often one is forced to join as a condition of employment and is subsequently forced to support antithetical political ideologies. If you truly want to improve the lot of the workers who would otherwise be lower class, push to reduce the supply of lesser-skilled labor by improved border contols and requiring birth control as a condition of welfare payments. That will increase the bargaining position of the working poor regardless of union (non)affiliation.

I understand your point of view, but I do not think that weak unions resulting from voluntary membership have less bargaining power than required membership does. Voluntary membership encourages management to intimidate workers not to join.

Originally Posted by jviehe

Whats wrong with management pushing wages down or reducing the size of the middle class?

A smaller middle class means enhanced class distinction, thereby I believe the democratic vibrancy of our country is destroyed, ending up in a typical European class strucure.

> Guess what, smarty pants, you're already paying for the uninsured, and paying through the nose because of it.
> There is already nothing fair about the fact that ... healthcare costs have gone through the roof over the last decade.
> As long as America decides that the profit motive and sickness are more important than the moral imperative of reducing costs and promoting wellness, the burden that all those with insurance have already will only worsen.

I don't think I've ever said anything to disagree with any of the above.

A faulty argument that is non-sensical was a commentary on your point of view, not mine. What I find to be appalling in America today is how people who are comfortable actually have the gaul to say that the system is broken because of the working poor or the unemployed. That's the argument from the right about how the mortgage crisis occured, when in reality it was the wealthy on Wall St. and elsewhere with their credit derivatives and ponzi schemes that put us in the trouble we have today, not the middle class or working poor.

If I've implied somewhere that they are the sole cause, my apologies and I agree that's not the case. They are not without blame however. Ponzi schemes based on derivatives based on loans that never should have been made, but were because of pressure from politicians and activists allegedly on behalf of poor credit risks who should never have demanded or accepted access to loans they couldn't pay back. There are at least 5 guilty parties/classes/actions there, and I've probably left some out, but you focus purely on one end of the equation, which causes others to perhaps put undo focus on the rest of it.

It's the same with healthcare. The problem isn't that 50 million people aren't insured; the problem is that because of the profit motive for the insurance companies, the country is going bankrupt. Why is it that hundreds of billions of dollars go to a middle-man that stands between you and your doctor? Don't have faith in yourself or in "we the people" to negotiate with healthcare providers one-on-one?

Like the financial issue, the blame is widespread, and you focus only on what you like to demonize. True, insurers want to make a profit, so they like the status quo or anything that will improve their bottom line. And having insurance as the primary payment method removes most cost-savings incentives for everyone except the insurance companies, which does contribute to healthcare inflation. But the main solution put forth by the left is to simply replace the insurance companies with government bureaucrats. Other than some possible savings due to standardization, this does nothing new to reduce costs and actually creates incentives to increase them. If you have a proposal for improving the situation, I'm more than willing to listen, but it seems the currect crop of Dems aren't interested so much in solutions or improvement, just 'change'.

America is the only country with a pimp between the people and their healthcare providers. That is nonsensical for sure, which is why a public option is the best solution for the majority of the nation, since all that money can then be used to actually treat the people instead of making fatcats wealthy.

So you're expecting all the government functionaries to work for free? I don't think their union will let something like that slip into the contract.

And once the country is on the road to wellness, costs will keep going down because people won't put off going to the doctor anymore, which always is worse in the end when people do that because it gets even more expensive when you catch things like diabetes or cancer too late.

Costs in some instances will indeed go down for exactly the reasons you site. But just as you ignore the roles of anybody not on your 'bad side' in these complex issues, you neglect the added costs of things like people going in to the doctor for every little sniffle where the doctor will prescribe nothing but rest and fluids, the costs of having the various administrative functionaries being unionized rather than private workers, and the costs of having decisions made primarily based not on medical need, medical effectiveness, or even financial cost/benefit, but on politics. (Primarily meaning not 'most frequently' but rather 'having highest priority' when applicable - the stupid attempt at Congressional involvement in the Terry Shiavo case being an aborted example of what could become commonplace.)

I do not think that weak unions resulting from voluntary membership have less bargaining power than required membership does.

I would think they would, but that's not my point or even my goal. I won't argue the point, but if you'd like to tell me why you think that, I'm happy to potentially learn something.

Voluntary membership encourages management to intimidate workers not to join.

It also encourages unions to indimidate workers to join. Neither of these is good. But then neither is having the government being required to intimidate workers to join. And I'm sure you'd complain, and rightfully so IMO, if somebody proposed the government be required to intimidate workers not to join (ie outlawing unions in some or all situations). So given that there is no ideal choice available, why would one not promote the one that provides workers with the greatest potential freedom?

This is ridiculous and must be stopped.

Obama Wants Bill to Cover Abortions Bozopelosi

Contact your congressmen and tell them you don't want YOUR money paying for abortions.

Contact your congressmen and tell them you don't want YOUR money paying for abortions.

If one accepts the unconstitutional and immoral policy of governmental healthcare, then such a healthcare system should include both abortions and so-called 'death panels'. The govt takeover of healthcare is bad and should be opposed, but if one assumes such a takeover is a fait accompli, healthcare that does not include abortions or something to the effect of death panels is worse.