|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 09/09/2011 : 12:49:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Originally posted by marfknox
| I ask for policies that would put me at less of a disadvantage as a woman, and he literally tells me I want to have my cake and eat it too. It doesn't bug him that he gets to have his cake and eat it too. |
You are asking for a policy that already exists at the state level. To be fair though I have not studied your state. If your state does not have a program in place then by all means FIGHT for one!
I see the program the my state has in place as being pretty fair.
By the way, I baked my own damn cake so I shall eat it if I wish. Every move I have made that contributed to my success (I have to kind of laugh when I say "success", never thought about myself that way) has been carefully planned and executed. I do not feel guilty about it at all.
|
Shades of the little red hen, no? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 12:59:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Shades of the little red hen, no?
|
I just had to look that one up. More metaphors for my arsenal. Thanks! |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 19:36:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Medicare doesn't have to play by the same rules as private insurers so they don't have the costs associated with it. How about comparing apples to apples for a change?
States have prompt pay laws for medical insurance. Medicare doesn't have to follow them. Most states allow no more than 90 days between the bill being presented and when the bill must be paid.
You are right. It is like comparing apples and oranges. Medicare is so lucky that it doesn't have to set aside money to pay its lobbyists or its CEO and various vice-presidents of this or that millions of dollars.
And now the insurance companies have to worry about the health care reform law making them put 80% of their income back into patient care. the poor dears.. How are they ever going to survive? |
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 19:50:11 [Permalink]
|
| I'm not trying to make you feel guilty, Ebone. I'm trying to get you to put yourself in other peoples' situation. People who additional problems you will never have to deal with. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 19:58:07 [Permalink]
|
Ebone wrote: | You are asking for a policy that already exists at the state level. |
Yeah, did you notice when I wrote: | Looking at the Wisconsin Shares Elligibility Guidelines, depending on how much the co-pays actually are, it seems like maybe Wisconsin is doing an okay job dealing with aid working class families need to get by. |
You say people in states with inadequate state programs should fight for them. But not all states have equal resources. Your argument against a federal requirement and subsidies could be used to argue against federal requirements for public education and many other programs. At the federal level, money from richer states is used to subsidize poorer states. We are supposed to be one unified nation with certain standards. I am simply arguing that providing day care for all should be one of those standards. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 20:04:24 [Permalink]
|
Val wrote: That would be white males.
There are plenty of working poor white males, but they don't count according to you. |
Boy am I getting sick you putting words in my mouth.
| I don't call people on federal assistance lazy or losers unless they have no interest in looking for a job when they are completely able to. |
Nobody said you did.
| Disadvantaged minority...... |
Are you denying that specific and unique disadvantages exist for minorities and women?
| You want to enable corporations to work people like dogs because "they have no cost daycare". |
I'm pretty sure we have labor laws to prevent that. Pretty decent ones, although I think they could always be improved as well.
| Reminds me of the strike we had over the summer. Operating engineers were striking because they weren't getting the hours they wanted even though there wasn't much work being planned. Instead they demanded a raise. They didn't want the bad economy to effect them. |
Given the huge and growing disparity between workers and CEOs, good for them. Of course workers are going to fight to protect themselves. Why shouldn't they?
| You just want everyone else to pay for a perk. I'm through with paying for perks. Especially perks that will ill serve the people they are supposed to. |
I don't consider day care to be a "perk". That's where you and I fundamentally disagree. I think child care should be thought of as a responsibility of the whole community. Of course many parents can stay home, and many families have a grandparent or other relative who is happy to take care of children during the day. But many don't. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2011 : 06:36:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by alienist
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Medicare doesn't have to play by the same rules as private insurers so they don't have the costs associated with it. How about comparing apples to apples for a change?
States have prompt pay laws for medical insurance. Medicare doesn't have to follow them. Most states allow no more than 90 days between the bill being presented and when the bill must be paid.
You are right. It is like comparing apples and oranges. Medicare is so lucky that it doesn't have to set aside money to pay its lobbyists or its CEO and various vice-presidents of this or that millions of dollars.
And now the insurance companies have to worry about the health care reform law making them put 80% of their income back into patient care. the poor dears.. How are they ever going to survive?
|
They already were with some lines of business at a much lesser margin approaching 95% MLR. Heck, my company had a Medicare contract that was between 91-107% MLR.
MLR is the Medical Loss Ratio. That is the amount of money expended on care compared to the premiums recieved. Over all, the MLR has been around 80-90%. Where do you get these numbers that indicate to you that they don't spend at least 80% MLR across all business lines?
They also have to save up money to be able to react to seasonal potential pandemics. The run up to 2009's influenza season required a lot of cash to be on hand. The patient education effort was successful and more people got the flu vaccine which reduced the need for the cash reserve. Premiums were lowered the next year because of that.
They have to pay lobbists so that they don't get screwed on pending legislation. Big Pharma is the major operator. They skate off with a really minor slap on the hand when their product and the patent abuse they commit is a major cost driver in the US. CEO's are overpaid everywhere. What is your point? Should we have all business taken over by the government? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2011 : 06:51:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Val wrote: That would be white males.
There are plenty of working poor white males, but they don't count according to you. |
Boy am I getting sick you putting words in my mouth.
| I don't call people on federal assistance lazy or losers unless they have no interest in looking for a job when they are completely able to. |
Nobody said you did.
| Disadvantaged minority...... |
Are you denying that specific and unique disadvantages exist for minorities and women? |
Females account for 50.7% of the population. That is not a minority. Women are more equal now than any time in the past. It's not 1950 anymore.
| You want to enable corporations to work people like dogs because "they have no cost daycare". |
I'm pretty sure we have labor laws to prevent that. Pretty decent ones, although I think they could always be improved as well. |
Nope. We don't. All the corporation has to do is declare mandatory overtime. They have to pay you for it, but they can work you 80 hours a week as long as they give you one day off. There are no laws which say they have to limit you to 40 hours. Or if you refuse to take on more than 40 hours they can't fire you.
| Reminds me of the strike we had over the summer. Operating engineers were striking because they weren't getting the hours they wanted even though there wasn't much work being planned. Instead they demanded a raise. They didn't want the bad economy to effect them. |
Given the huge and growing disparity between workers and CEOs, good for them. Of course workers are going to fight to protect themselves. Why shouldn't they? |
These guys want raises when everyone else isn't. They want more hours when others are getting their hours cut. They are holding projects hostage so that they can get all sorts of money and want higher taxes to support them. Screw the greedy bastards.
| You just want everyone else to pay for a perk. I'm through with paying for perks. Especially perks that will ill serve the people they are supposed to. |
I don't consider day care to be a "perk". That's where you and I fundamentally disagree. I think child care should be thought of as a responsibility of the whole community. Of course many parents can stay home, and many families have a grandparent or other relative who is happy to take care of children during the day. But many don't.
|
And you complain about me putting words in your mouth.
It's a perk because very few people will be benefit from this. Child raising is the responsibility of the parents. It is not my job to teach your kids manners, responsibility, or morals. That is shifting responsibility for the work that parenting takes onto people whom you would not trust in your own home.
Some parents can stay home. With the corporations wielding larger and larger authority over people through threat of firing and the government granting them these rights, this number is going down. Go for a local solution to the issue. Federalizing it just makes it worse. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2011 : 14:00:24 [Permalink]
|
In response to Val's comment on insurance administrative costs,
This is some of the data and discussion on health care administrative costs (comparing private insurance payers with public payers)
One thing Americans do buy with this extra spending is an administrative overhead load that is huge by international standards. The McKinsey Global Institute estimated that excess spending on “health administration and insurance” accounted for as much as 21 percent of the estimated total excess spending ($477 billion in 2003). Brought forward, that 21 percent of excess spending on administration would amount to about $120 billion in 2006 and about $150 billion in 2008. It would have been more than enough to finance universal health insurance this year.
The McKinsey team estimated that about 85 percent of this excess administrative overhead can be attributed to the highly complex private health insurance system in the United States. Product design, underwriting and marketing account for about two-thirds of that total. The remaining 15 percent was attributed to public payers that are not saddled with the high cost of product design, medical underwriting and marketing, and that therefore spend a far smaller fraction of their total spending on administration.
_______________________________________________________________
Health care "bureaucracy" consists of medical technology, new medical devices and the latest pharmaceuticals, medical malpractice litigation and liability insurance; the uninsured, and administrative costs. The United States spends more on bureaucratic red tape than it would cost to provide full coverage health care coverage to all of the uninsured in America. Administrative expenses consumed no less than $400 billion in 2003. Private insurers raise administrative costs annually at least 10 to 15 percent more than is necessary. These increases, which usually exceed the cost of health care itself, include the cost of underwriting paper, corporate services and marketing; as well as motivational incentives to sales staff for meeting and/or exceeding sales quotas, like luxury vacations and cruises, spa and resort treatments, extra bonuses, jewelry, furs and cars.
______________________________________________________________
To be fair the issue is far more complex than is evidenced by the above examples. Private insurance practices are not the only reason for the cost of healthcare in the US. But I do know that health insurance companies work hard on not paying for treatment or delaying treatment. I think the medicare system is also messed up in different ways.
In summary, it was a mistake on my part to use the healthcare system as an example of whether or not government does a better job then private industry does. The issue is too complicated. However, it is an example that shows that private industry is certainly no better than governement. |
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2011 : 14:44:17 [Permalink]
|
Val wrote:
| Females account for 50.7% of the population. That is not a minority. |
Yes, that would be why I've been consistently saying things like "minorities and women" in this conversation.
| Women are more equal now than any time in the past. It's not 1950 anymore. |
Agreed. Women are more equal now than in the past. Does that mean women are totally equal and have zero disadvantages as a demographic? Because facts about overall trends prove otherwise. Are you suggesting that because women have come an extraordinarily long and wonderful way in achieving greater equality that we should now just stop, shut up, and enjoy what we've got?
Nope. We don't. All the corporation has to do is declare mandatory overtime. They have to pay you for it, but they can work you 80 hours a week as long as they give you one day off. There are no laws which say they have to limit you to 40 hours. Or if you refuse to take on more than 40 hours they can't fire you. |
Yeah, I know about that too. My Uncle's job does that to him all the time. Funny, I was specifically thinking about that when I wrote: "I think they (labor laws) could always be improved" So now you are saying that because our labor laws need improvement, the ones we achieved aren't any good?
| These guys want raises when everyone else isn't. They want more hours when others are getting their hours cut. They are holding projects hostage so that they can get all sorts of money and want higher taxes to support them. Screw the greedy bastards. |
Oh whatever. I'm sure those guys make good money, but they also aren't averaging $11 million like the average CEO. I'm sick of this bullshit where we champion the individual taking care of him or herself and then turn around and tell people they should be willing to sacrifice along with everyone for the good of the whole nation. Given the rising cost of living and declining wages for the middle class, I don't blame anyone in the middle class from protecting themselves and their family any way they can from dipping closer to the incredibly vulnerable working class. It's not enough to just get by, because these days those who just get by are much more likely to end up poor, and then you're really fucked. I'm sure those engineers are thinking about their kids and how they want to invest in them as much as possible to protect them in their future. And I'm sure many of them have relatives who aren't as well-off. These day people in the upper middle class are spending their money helping kids and other relatives who haven't been able to cope as well with the rising costs.
| It's a perk because very few people will be benefit from this. |
I disagree.
| Child raising is the responsibility of the parents. It is not my job to teach your kids manners, responsibility, or morals. |
*rolls eyes* Back to this line of rhetoric. Most parents work. Obviously other adults are also rearing their children. Parents are ultimately responsible and make the decisions about who is rearing their kids in their absence, but they are not the only people involved in children's development. What I am advocating is no different in principle to public schools. Kil even suggested calling it early childhood education. So let's call it that instead. I really don't care. I simply think the financial burden of early childhood care is too much for most middle class parents.
| That is shifting responsibility for the work that parenting takes onto people whom you would not trust in your own home. |
What insanity are you talking about?
| Some parents can stay home. With the corporations wielding larger and larger authority over people through threat of firing and the government granting them these rights, this number is going down. |
And how do you propose this is fixed? | Go for a local solution to the issue. |
Which is? | Federalizing it just makes it worse. |
I find your argument completely unconvincing. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/12/2011 14:44:42 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2011 : 14:48:03 [Permalink]
|
| Ooo, here's a solution. Tax dollars used to pay mothers and other relatives who stay at home to care for pre-school age children. Pay them for their currently unpaid work. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2011 : 17:15:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Val
| Women are more equal now than any time in the past. It's not 1950 anymore. |
But they still can't write their names in the snow.....
|
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2011 : 17:24:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
But they still can't write their names in the snow..... |
You haven't met the right women. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2011 : 05:08:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by alienist
In response to Val's comment on insurance administrative costs,
This is some of the data and discussion on health care administrative costs (comparing private insurance payers with public payers)
One thing Americans do buy with this extra spending is an administrative overhead load that is huge by international standards. The McKinsey Global Institute estimated that excess spending on “health administration and insurance” accounted for as much as 21 percent of the estimated total excess spending ($477 billion in 2003). Brought forward, that 21 percent of excess spending on administration would amount to about $120 billion in 2006 and about $150 billion in 2008. It would have been more than enough to finance universal health insurance this year.
The McKinsey team estimated that about 85 percent of this excess administrative overhead can be attributed to the highly complex private health insurance system in the United States. Product design, underwriting and marketing account for about two-thirds of that total. The remaining 15 percent was attributed to public payers that are not saddled with the high cost of product design, medical underwriting and marketing, and that therefore spend a far smaller fraction of their total spending on administration.
_______________________________________________________________
Health care "bureaucracy" consists of medical technology, new medical devices and the latest pharmaceuticals, medical malpractice litigation and liability insurance; the uninsured, and administrative costs. The United States spends more on bureaucratic red tape than it would cost to provide full coverage health care coverage to all of the uninsured in America. Administrative expenses consumed no less than $400 billion in 2003. Private insurers raise administrative costs annually at least 10 to 15 percent more than is necessary. These increases, which usually exceed the cost of health care itself, include the cost of underwriting paper, corporate services and marketing; as well as motivational incentives to sales staff for meeting and/or exceeding sales quotas, like luxury vacations and cruises, spa and resort treatments, extra bonuses, jewelry, furs and cars.
______________________________________________________________
To be fair the issue is far more complex than is evidenced by the above examples. Private insurance practices are not the only reason for the cost of healthcare in the US. But I do know that health insurance companies work hard on not paying for treatment or delaying treatment. I think the medicare system is also messed up in different ways.
In summary, it was a mistake on my part to use the healthcare system as an example of whether or not government does a better job then private industry does. The issue is too complicated. However, it is an example that shows that private industry is certainly no better than governement.
|
Source? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2011 : 05:19:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Val wrote:
| Females account for 50.7% of the population. That is not a minority. |
Yes, that would be why I've been consistently saying things like "minorities and women" in this conversation.
| Women are more equal now than any time in the past. It's not 1950 anymore. |
Agreed. Women are more equal now than in the past. Does that mean women are totally equal and have zero disadvantages as a demographic? Because facts about overall trends prove otherwise. Are you suggesting that because women have come an extraordinarily long and wonderful way in achieving greater equality that we should now just stop, shut up, and enjoy what we've got? |
Bullshit fucking response, marf.
Your proposal goes far beyond equality into special perks land.
Nope. We don't. All the corporation has to do is declare mandatory overtime. They have to pay you for it, but they can work you 80 hours a week as long as they give you one day off. There are no laws which say they have to limit you to 40 hours. Or if you refuse to take on more than 40 hours they can't fire you. |
Yeah, I know about that too. My Uncle's job does that to him all the time. Funny, I was specifically thinking about that when I wrote: "I think they (labor laws) could always be improved" So now you are saying that because our labor laws need improvement, the ones we achieved aren't any good? |
Way to miss the point, marf.
Point is that the solution you have makes the situation worse by giving corporations a rationalization why they can abuse people more.
| These guys want raises when everyone else isn't. They want more hours when others are getting their hours cut. They are holding projects hostage so that they can get all sorts of money and want higher taxes to support them. Screw the greedy bastards. |
Oh whatever. I'm sure those guys make good money, but they also aren't averaging $11 million like the average CEO. |
Source for the $11 million number?
| I'm sick of this bullshit where we champion the individual taking care of him or herself and then turn around and tell people they should be willing to sacrifice along with everyone for the good of the whole nation. |
Bullshit, marf. Why should they expect something no one else is getting.
| Given the rising cost of living and declining wages for the middle class, I don't blame anyone in the middle class from protecting themselves and their family any way they can from dipping closer to the incredibly vulnerable working class. It's not enough to just get by, because these days those who just get by are much more likely to end up poor, and then you're really fucked. I'm sure those engineers are thinking about their kids and how they want to invest in them as much as possible to protect them in their future. |
Then why did the fuckers cite that they needed newer trucks because theirs were 2 years old in the paper?
And I'm sure many of them have relatives who aren't as well-off. These day people in the upper middle class are spending their money helping kids and other relatives who haven't been able to cope as well with the rising costs.
| It's a perk because very few people will be benefit from this. |
I disagree.
| Child raising is the responsibility of the parents. It is not my job to teach your kids manners, responsibility, or morals. |
*rolls eyes* Back to this line of rhetoric. Most parents work. Obviously other adults are also rearing their children. Parents are ultimately responsible and make the decisions about who is rearing their kids in their absence, but they are not the only people involved in children's development. What I am advocating is no different in principle to public schools. Kil even suggested calling it early childhood education. So let's call it that instead. |
I have zero confidence that this will be an early childhood education. It'll be more like incarceration for toddlers.
I really don't care. I simply think the financial burden of early childhood care is too much for most middle class parents.
| That is shifting responsibility for the work that parenting takes onto people whom you would not trust in your own home. |
What insanity are you talking about?
| Some parents can stay home. With the corporations wielding larger and larger authority over people through threat of firing and the government granting them these rights, this number is going down. |
And how do you propose this is fixed? | Go for a local solution to the issue. |
Which is? |
Have the local community come up with a solution that it tailored to the needs of that community and is sustainable locally.
| Federalizing it just makes it worse. |
I find your argument completely unconvincing.
|
If you insist on federalizing this perk, then what federal program are you willing to terminate to get it. Make it revenue neutral and I'll listen. Otherwise, you just want to pile on another tax to encourage people to be dependent on the federal government. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Day Care Should Be Free
