VAT on the way?

[Tempest]

Quote:
At Safeway we believe that well-designed health-care reform, utilizing market-based solutions, can ultimately reduce our nation's health-care bill by 40%. The key to achieving these savings is health-care plans that reward healthy behavior. As a self-insured employer, Safeway designed just such a plan in 2005 and has made continuous improvements each year. The results have been remarkable. During this four-year period, we have kept our per capita health-care costs flat (that includes both the employee and the employer portion), while most American companies' costs have increased 38% over the same four years.

Safeway's plan capitalizes on two key insights gained in 2005. The first is that 70% of all health-care costs are the direct result of behavior. The second insight, which is well understood by the providers of health care, is that 74% of all costs are confined to four chronic conditions (cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity). Furthermore, 80% of cardiovascular disease and diabetes is preventable, 60% of cancers are preventable, and more than 90% of obesity is preventable.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476804026308603.html

Free market solutions work. Our current system is NOT a free market system.

 

[Shannow]

But it's more "free market" than mine (your words), and more expensive already.

You talk about people being forced to pay for other people's health care being a bad thing.

Why is OK for the people that your employer sells goods and services to paying higher costs for goods and services for YOUR healthcare ?

While it's not OK for taxes to do the same thing ?

 

[Shannow]

One incident that's made me proud of our system was a workmate who had a serious motor cycle accident when younger.

Over recent years, his back has been getting worse and worse, used up all sick leave entitlements, and finally needed drastic and risky surgery.

Taxpayer paid for his surgery, paid him as an invalid while he got better (not much, and certainly not what he got for working). Workmates threw some money in to help.

He's back, hes working, and functioning way better than when on pain meds.

And he didn't go into bankruptcy as a result of his condition.

What's wrong with a SOCIETY having safety nets and lifelines to keep the worker bees working ?

Why would you want to live in a society that would say "Tough Luck" and lose an entire family to poverty ?

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
How can you justify the US model, with it's higher costs, and poorer overall outcomes ?

Poorer outcomes? Really?


Infant mortality between Croatia and Cuba, and a healthy life expectency a year better than the Czech Republic certainly ain't nothing to write home about.

 

[digitalSniperX1]

ok, infant mortality rates are
US 6.26/1000.
EU 5.72/1000.
AUS 4.8/1000
Czech Republic 3.79/1000
Bermuda 2.46/1000

All these numbers are exceedingly low and if we could solve the crack baby problem (as an example), we'd be lower.

An honest, intelligent discussion that involves the use of statitics as proof without examining the statistics is neither.

You've not done that. Another good example why people don't trust statistics.

Using the same level of reasoning I see several small countries, without the resources of AUS who get better outcomes (in this statistic) than does AUS.

Find some other reasons to pick on us...hopefully some that make sense.

 

[Shannow]

OK, we all (6B of us) hate your "freedoms"...does that work ?

 

[digitalSniperX1]

Well, that clears things up.
Not that it makes any sense, but it does clear things up.

 

[digitalSniperX1]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
OK, we all (6B of us) hate your "freedoms"...does that work ?



Let's make sure everyone has the opportunity to see how you speak for the world in how it hates us.

 

[Gary Allan]

The fact is the coveted freedoms that you allege to promote only benefit the few. That's fine.

You'll sit fine and happy (Tempest will, anyway) if he can just take a large sweeping slice out of those who receive medical treatment.

No ticky ..no washy. FINE

Yet he'll run and hide when it's suggested that you dismantle the INSURANCE that ASSURES that those same people have the choke hold to suck as much money as they can from the "true producers".

The amount of DESERVING receivers of the money will not change. The amount of the PRODUCERS may shrink.

The NON-Free market result will be (under your "half witted" incomplete transition to true free market) more people extracting more revenue from fewer people and doing less for it.

Again, magically do the other half of the equation.

Just like cutting costs BEFORE dispensing tax cuts.

Don't just suck up the alleged benefit and attempt to run and hide from the liabilities when it means some "goody goody = we get 5 years more fleecing to do before they adapt" totally wicked hand wringing ..while jumping up and down with some evil smile of delight at the co-benefit that you just got to willfully cut out a large segment of your population from 'the market'.

 

[digitalSniperX1]

I'm sure all 5,999,999,998 agree with you.

 

[Gary Allan]

 

[digitalSniperX1]

6,000,000,000 - 2 = 5,999,999,998...and I'm half witted, LOL.

 

[Gary Allan]

What does that have to do with both sides of the "free market" equation here in the USA?

In Bangladesh they have no medical insurance. They're "free market" for medical treatment. Now, at any given time they may have floods or famines that can result in 5-10 deaths ..but that's not really of consequence here in this discussion.

That is, some people's interpretations of "free market" are not free market at all. Just how they would like the benefits of free market only to the tune of being advantaged.

 

[digitalSniperX1]

This is a run on sentence.

"Don't just suck up the alleged benefit and attempt to run and hide from the liabilities when it means some "goody goody = we get 5 years more fleecing to do before they adapt" totally wicked hand wringing ..while jumping up and down with some evil smile of delight at the co-benefit that you just got to willfully cut out a large segment of your population from 'the market'."

There must be 6 billion characters in it but only contains your 2 cents.

 

[Gary Allan]

So?

(some other one's rhetorical typical response)

So are you saying that run on sentences are the roadblocks to truth in free market effects ..benefits and liabilities?

 

[Gary Allan]

Here's where I need some differentiation from you or Tempest, digitalsniper.

Look at this definition and tell me the excluded aspects of what you suggest. Note what is included:

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology[1][2][3][4] and a corporatist economic ideology.[5] Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.[6] Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in combat against the weak.

Now just reduce governments role in the whole deal ..and what do you see?

I see private versions of the same thing. Competition for whom gets to combat the weak for the health of the "whatever".

PELLL=EZZZZZ give me the sunshiny version of what I'm getting wrong.

 

[digitalSniperX1]

Intel...Corporate fascist example #1.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/snapshots/672.html

They suck the life blood right out of their customers.

Microsoft, corporate fascist pigs from the CEO to janitor.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Microsoft_Corp/Salary

And of course. the creme-del-a-creme of corporate fascists are XOM:

https://www.exxonmobil-employment.com/exxon/exxemp01.nsf/(vwWebPage)/emp_benefits.htm

But Amsoil, the company of enlightenment has this little tidbit in its dealership offering:

"1. I am of the age of majority in the state in which I reside when I apply for appointment
as a Dealer of AMSOIL products. Upon acceptance of this application by
AMSOIL, I will be an independent Dealer responsible for my own business and not
an employee of AMSOIL INC. I will not be treated as an employee in regard to any
laws covering employees including but not limited to the Federal Insurance
Contribution Act, the Social Security Act, the Federal Unemployment Tax Act and
income tax withholding at source. It is my responsibility to pay self-employment,
state and federal income taxes as required by law."

 

[Gary Allan]

I beg your pardon? All the things you are citing are under our currently flawed and corrupt system that is chaining ..holding back...stifling.

The question was one about a philosophy where one is not only a predator ..but prey. Where there can be no comfort afforded in the form of any security (call it confidence) where the individual is on constant "full alert" and "locked and loaded" to protect himself/herself from the assured constant threat of being legally robbed without recourse.



As Julian so pointed out ..and I think Tempest will confirm in a pocket veto way (so to speak),

.. all that is not specifically excluded ..is 100% mandatory.



..but the question still remains, what are you or Tempest promoting that is so much different than my quoted text??

That is the overbearing subtext that is being transmitted. If you've got a smiley faced side to it ..as in the warm and fuzzy aspects to "culling the herd via economics" ..I'm all for it.

 

[digitalSniperX1]

I don't promote what's in your quoted text.

It's arguable that those who run Amsoil do as one might conclude since they "prey" on people willing to do the dealership thing...that is work for nothing until you produce. No benefits. You're not even an employee.

You could make for more money unionizing these dealers, LOL.

Oh, snap...

 

[Gary Allan]

Sorry ..you're not making sense.

That is, you're not saying what you're saying in a manner that effectively counters the notion that the "free market" as you see it ..and how it would be borne out domestically in a globalized economy where the benefits of expansion are only seen at the top ,and how that (cough-cough) trickles down, and abroad, while the costs here keep on climbing due to the very expansion that facilitates the benefits.

The difference I see is the minor distinction of "combat against the weak" ..to indifference to, as it is borne out in whatever economic lawful manipulation possible, whomever is weaker.

..remember, that which is not absolutely excluded, is 100% mandatory... and but a mere "slight of hand" employed in the Pontius Pilate application of "Rule of Law".

I'm looking for the socially healthy and actions that you can take pride in as shown in the quality of life that the society sees to your philosophy. It's not there on the surface.