- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
It depends on how much I was making.
Why? ........
It depends on how much I was making.
It depends on how much I was making. I am self-employed these days via a few different enterprises. In my worldview, labor is the most significant cost that is malleable. I would prefer doctors make less rather than we start running needles through the dishwasher, because that has not worked out so well for places like China. It is not always a matter of cutting what someone today makes. It is a matter of time--having pay scales and not allowing the next generation to shoulder as much of the burden in exchange for lower wages over their career.
How are you going to control the latter three without more of the first one?
It depends on how much I was making. I am self-employed these days via a few different enterprises. In my worldview, labor is the most significant cost that is malleable.Since the topic is the pay of Walmart workers, they should just suck it up to afford the rest of us low prices... correct?
Why? ........
You can reign in 2&4 by protecting doctors in courts. There is a difference between laws and regulations. Overconsumption is more or less a product of the other three.
It depends on how much I was making. I am self-employed these days via a few different enterprises. In my worldview, labor is the most significant cost that is malleable.Since the topic is the pay of Walmart workers, they should just suck it up to afford the rest of us low prices... correct?
Or apparently go to college for all those years, take on all the debt, and become down-trodden doctors. Not every job is a career job and not every employer is one who has a duty to provide for you for life just because you are capable of pushing buggies across the parking lot. These are low skill jobs that merit low wages. It is an incentive for people to seek out better jobs and acquire the skills to get them. Lord forbid somebody take some risk or initiative when they can live forever off the backs of those who did take risks and show initiative if they whine loud enough and often enough to politicians who want to buy their support with other people's money.
"The claim that HMO's are more 'efficient' than the fee-for-service (FFS) plans they replaced is typically based on one of two research errors," said Sullivan. "Either the study didn't take into account higher HMO administrative costs, and only looked at cuts in hospital or doctor care, or it didn't take into account factors like cherry-picking healthier patients or cost-shifting to other payers as an explanation for lower premiums."
Claim That HMO's Save Money Is Little More Than "Folklore," Health Affairs Study Finds | Physicians for a National Health Program
Because if I were getting an insane amount of dough for writing prescriptions, I might would be willing to take a pay cut. It isn't like I never do anything for free or at a loss out of the goodness of my stone-cold heart. If student loans are a burden and that burden could be removed by taking less pay over a career then it seems like a sound exchange to me.
Not that I disagree that salaries in collages are out of control, but although it may be fine for you to espouse cutting your own salary in such an altruistic way, you can only speak for yourself ultimately. Just trying to look at it evenly.
Perhaps you miss the point. It is not "Hey give us a third of your money back". What I am saying is that in a single-payer system for healthcare, you engage in a quid pro quo where the student saves a ton of worry and expense on the front side that will be repaid through their work for the system on the backside. Lawyers who work for the government very often get student loan forgiveness as part of their service or else nobody could afford to work for legal services/public defenders offices at the price they currently do. Teachers will move out to teach in poor areas in exchange for student loan forgiveness. It is what we are already doing in other professions on the backside. If there is a doctor shortage you just do it on the frontside.
Or we could expose the greed, and graft among the Ivory tower keepers that are holding students by the ankles and shaking them....I am not one that believes that increased governmental control over new graduates is a good thing in a free society.
Or we could expose the greed, and graft among the Ivory tower keepers that are holding students by the ankles and shaking them....I am not one that believes that increased governmental control over new graduates is a good thing in a free society.
Fast food workers are rallying in Times Square to show workers' rights solidarity and protest low wages.
It's a pretty large crowd, with megaphones, signs and all.
"We want our $15 and a union, and we want it now," a Burger King worker tells The Nation's Josh Eidelson.
Read more: There's A Large Crowd Of Fast Food Workers Protesting In Times Square - Business Insider
If you only knew that greed and graft is mostly in the private sector, you might have more support among educators.
An animated video produced by a California teachers union uses the crude imagery of a rich man urinating on common folks to decry what narrator Ed Asner claims is rich people’s refusal to pay their share of taxes.The crude footage is part of a “Tax the rich: An animated fairy tale,” an eight-minute video written and directed by California Federation of Teachers’ communications director Fred Glass. In it, Asner describes a mythical land that seems to represent the U.S. and how it financed its services. He says the rich sought to evade taxes and put their money into “Wall Street” – yet another clue to the real identity of the storybook country.
Read more: California teachers union video shows rich man urinating on poor to make taxes case | Fox News
Seems to me your moving to a different issue. Direct me to where i said HMOs were more efficient. I said there would be people who would not be able to afford healthcare absent insurance (third party payers).
It depends on how much I was making. I am self-employed these days via a few different enterprises. In my worldview, labor is the most significant cost that is malleable.
Or apparently go to college for all those years, take on all the debt, and become down-trodden doctors. Not every job is a career job and not every employer is one who has a duty to provide for you for life just because you are capable of pushing buggies across the parking lot. These are low skill jobs that merit low wages. It is an incentive for people to seek out better jobs and acquire the skills to get them. Lord forbid somebody take some risk or initiative when they can live forever off the backs of those who did take risks and show initiative if they whine loud enough and often enough to politicians who want to buy their support with other people's money.
Well at least your consistent. I probably would've trashed you like no tomorrow if you honestly think that the one of the highest skilled professions is overpaid and the most uneducated jobs is underpaid.
If doctors were state employees they might just enjoy some immunity.
Because if I were getting an insane amount of dough for writing prescriptions, I might would be willing to take a pay cut. It isn't like I never do anything for free or at a loss out of the goodness of my stone-cold heart. If student loans are a burden and that burden could be removed by taking less pay over a career then it seems like a sound exchange to me.
Thats what happens when you play with fire.
I do have a say in those decisions. I can say, "my value is more than that, so I will find other work." If I choose to continue to work there, then that is defined as a choice to go along with the decisions being made. And if they choose not to listen to what I have to say, then either I have not made myself valuable enough to have a say or it is up to me to hold myself to a higher standard and seek employment elsewhere.
I do not have to literally vote on my own salary to have a say in how I am paid.
It was also rejected by the Republican Party as a whole. And I agree with them, it is corporate welfare to insurance companies, something Democrats are supposed to be "against."
Those procedures would be less costly without the wasteful spending on insurance companies and malpractice insurance. Plus, because primary care and pharmaceuticals can be provided at a cheaper rate without the insurance companies, those costly procedures would be a lot less neccesary.
It isn't the service that is costly, it is the excessive regulations, fraud, and expensive malpractice costs of the service that is driving up costs. Single payer isn't an awful idea in my opinion, its just not as good as having the doctors running the show.
No, not really, you are way too vague to have any relevance with that sort of snarky answer...I am asking because when the argument is at its hight, those like you that think they know what they are talking about, tend to arrogantly tell those of us arguing against you that we don't understand what socialism is....So I asked. Not surprising that you gave an answer that in any philosophy class would earn you an "F" for uttering such a simplistic, and wrong answer.
Now, in any of those three definitions that I laid out for you, do you see anything in there that is the movement of the hard leftists in the democrat party, and or Obama are aspiring for? I sure do if not all of it.
The republican party rejected it on political grounds, not ideological ... They rejected it because Obama proposed it, but they all were FOR it a couple years earlier ... Personally when Obama scrapped single payer and then fought AGAINST the public option, thats when I realized he was 100% full of ****, He was no better than a republican that doesn't hate gay people, thats basically it.
You're not gonna get me defending Obama care, I oppose the mandate. Insurance companies and malpractice insurance are all part of the capitalist market, so I don't know what your complaining about ... unless you're calling for more government regulation.
Doctors DO run the show under single payer ... its just that cost isn't part of the factor.
What drives up the cost are things like intellectual property, pharmecutical cartelization, the profit motive, insurance gouging, and so on, almost all of it is internal to the capitalist market.
Might I remind you, that health insurance in your country wouldn't be possible without OUR pharmaceutical companies.
But I generally agree that insurance gouging is to blame. Insurance companies really add nothing, except they are able to monopolize and rig the system to drive up costs by forcing people to buy it.
NO.... insurance companies are protected by the government, not the free market.You're not gonna get me defending Obama care, I oppose the mandate. Insurance companies and malpractice insurance are all part of the capitalist market, so I don't know what your complaining about ... unless you're calling for more government regulation.