 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:03:19 -0500, Shay <n@n.n> wrote:
>
>> -Shay
>
>
> Hi Shay,
> Andrel and I were wondering if you were still working offshore. Are you?
>
Not working offshore, but still roughnecking. This will be my last job.
I do not accept promotions (a non-issue at the moment due to the state
of the industry :)) and have no desire to ever again lease my intellect
to an employer or customer.
My wife and I do have a tiny hobby/business, the facetious goal of which
is to make back the $140 a month pay-cut I recently received. More than
that would involve disengaging from intense, but non-$$ personal
endeavors -- I'll report on one of these in November.
Beyond that, I do have the intention of one day owning a coffee shop or
small restaurant, though I won't do this until I can pay cash for the
business. I save aggressively, so this isn't as outlandish as it sounds.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Our presidents *stated* goal is a single-payer government system.
It may be his stated goal, but it's not in any legislation currently
under consideration. Have you actually looked at the proposals?
> What are private insurance rates going to do when the self-insured (and
> by "self-insured" I mean not only the self-employed but also the
> unemployed dependents for whom the employed pay additional,
> out-of-pocket premiums) leave the poisoned private healthcare system?
As for the unemployed dependents, private insurance rates should
(theoretically) go down, since all those deadbeats won't be clogging up
accounts receivable anymore :)
> Our government can poison any industry by providing a "free"
> alternative. This is why we have the tenth amendment.
Nothing is free (hence the humor of my original post). If you don't pay
for it in premiums, you pay for it in taxes.
Besides, the Post Office hasn't killed off UPS or FedEx. Why would a
government healthcare plan do any better at killing off the private
insurers?
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 08:47:23 -0500, Shay wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:03:19 -0500, Shay wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:16:43 -0700, Chambers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Now that it's being socialized in the US, does that mean that I'll
>>>>> get a raise since my company won't have to pay my premiums anymore?
>>>>> :)
>>>> No, because the private insurance option still exists - so you'd have
>>>> to opt out of it in order to not have to pay the premiums.
>>> Or your company could "opt out" of paying private healthcare premiums
>>> as part of your compensation. But why would they do that?
>>
>> Sure, they could do that, but if enough employees wanted it and walked
>> as a result, that might not be a good thing for the employer.
>>
>> Employees still have power.
>>
>> Jim
>
> With 9-15% unemployment?!!
Sure, I know people who have quit their job and taken other jobs in the
last couple of weeks.
> Our presidents *stated* goal is a single-payer government system.
Our president's stated goal is health care reform, because the system is
hopelessly broken. We're the only industrialized nation that doesn't
provide basic health care to all of its citizens. Our costs are nearly
double anyone else, but our quality of care has us rated at #37 according
to the World Health Organization.
> What are private insurance rates going to do when the self-insured (and
> by "self-insured" I mean not only the self-employed but also the
> unemployed dependents for whom the employed pay additional,
> out-of-pocket premiums) leave the poisoned private healthcare system?
Well, the capitalists are going to say "compete", because competition is
supposedly the answer to everything. So an option that actually is
affordable is going to cause the insurance companies to have to compete
or die. The free market at work.
> Our government can poison any industry by providing a "free"
> alternative. This is why we have the tenth amendment.
I don't see how this relates. There's nothing in the 10th amendment that
says anything about the government not being able to provide services to
the people. By that same logic, the TSA shouldn't be controlled by the
federal government, nor should the FCC, nor should we have a federal
highway system.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> Our presidents *stated* goal is a single-payer government system.
>
> It may be his stated goal, but it's not in any legislation currently
> under consideration. Have you actually looked at the proposals?
>
>> What are private insurance rates going to do when the self-insured
>> (and by "self-insured" I mean not only the self-employed but also the
>> unemployed dependents for whom the employed pay additional,
>> out-of-pocket premiums) leave the poisoned private healthcare system?
>
> As for the unemployed dependents, private insurance rates should
> (theoretically) go down, since all those deadbeats won't be clogging up
> accounts receivable anymore :)
Children who, for the most part, do not have chronic illnesses or
workplace injuries but who pay into the system (through their parents)
are deadbeats? That's one of the good things about private insurance vs
taxes: people with children pay *more* into the system.
>
>> Our government can poison any industry by providing a "free"
>> alternative. This is why we have the tenth amendment.
>
> Nothing is free (hence the humor of my original post). If you don't pay
> for it in premiums, you pay for it in taxes.
>
> Besides, the Post Office hasn't killed off UPS or FedEx. Why would a
> government healthcare plan do any better at killing off the private
> insurers?
Because the government hasn't /yet/ decided that I need to pay to ship
your 50 lb box of jelly jars to Aunt Edna. Make shipping a "right" and
see how long FedEx and UPS make it.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 08:47:23 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:03:19 -0500, Shay wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:16:43 -0700, Chambers wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that it's being socialized in the US, does that mean that I'll
>>>>>> get a raise since my company won't have to pay my premiums anymore?
>>>>>> :)
>>>>> No, because the private insurance option still exists - so you'd have
>>>>> to opt out of it in order to not have to pay the premiums.
>>>> Or your company could "opt out" of paying private healthcare premiums
>>>> as part of your compensation. But why would they do that?
>>> Sure, they could do that, but if enough employees wanted it and walked
>>> as a result, that might not be a good thing for the employer.
>>>
>>> Employees still have power.
>>>
>>> Jim
>> With 9-15% unemployment?!!
>
> Sure, I know people who have quit their job and taken other jobs in the
> last couple of weeks.
And I know a dozen who have been laid off. The numbers are the numbers,
our individual anecdotes are nearly worthless.
>
>> Our presidents *stated* goal is a single-payer government system.
>
> Our president's stated goal is health care reform, because the system is
> hopelessly broken. We're the only industrialized nation that doesn't
> provide basic health care to all of its citizens. Our costs are nearly
> double anyone else, but our quality of care has us rated at #37 according
> to the World Health Organization.
We have excessive lifestyles and a large population of indigents. *My*
healthcare is excellent. Hell, as long as we're giving healthcare away
to indigents, why stop at the border? What is other industrialized
nations "provided" healthcare to non-citizens? Should we then?
>
>> What are private insurance rates going to do when the self-insured (and
>> by "self-insured" I mean not only the self-employed but also the
>> unemployed dependents for whom the employed pay additional,
>> out-of-pocket premiums) leave the poisoned private healthcare system?
>
> Well, the capitalists are going to say "compete", because competition is
> supposedly the answer to everything. So an option that actually is
> affordable is going to cause the insurance companies to have to compete
> or die. The free market at work.
My being forced to pay for your healthcare isn't competition or the free
market, it's the tyranny of the majority, the specific threat our
Constitution was authored to protect us from. This is why, beyond a few
quips (and maybe even before that), this argument becomes very dull. A
statist will never see the most powerful entity in the country as a
potential threat and will therefore never understand the value of a
Constitutional Republic over a pure Democracy.
>
>> Our government can poison any industry by providing a "free"
>> alternative. This is why we have the tenth amendment.
>
> I don't see how this relates. There's nothing in the 10th amendment that
> says anything about the government not being able to provide services to
> the people. By that same logic, the TSA shouldn't be controlled by the
> federal government, nor should the FCC, nor should we have a federal
> highway system.
Do you statists hate the Constitution so much that you can't bear to
read it?
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3
In instances where the TSA, FCC, etc. extend beyond this authority, yes,
they absolutely should be stopped.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:15:05 -0500, Shay wrote:
>>>> Employees still have power.
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>> With 9-15% unemployment?!!
>>
>> Sure, I know people who have quit their job and taken other jobs in the
>> last couple of weeks.
>
> And I know a dozen who have been laid off. The numbers are the numbers,
> our individual anecdotes are nearly worthless.
Sure, but my point is to demonstrate that employees still have control.
That's not to say it doesn't have to be exercised more carefully right
now.
> We have excessive lifestyles and a large population of indigents. *My*
> healthcare is excellent. Hell, as long as we're giving healthcare away
> to indigents, why stop at the border? What is other industrialized
> nations "provided" healthcare to non-citizens? Should we then?
We're not talking about just indigents. But the homeless living in our
cities spread disease and they can't get treated. Helping the 46 million
people without health care (many of whom are part-time workers who are
ineligible for benefits) is a good idea.
There was an episode of Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days that showed what living
on minimum wage is like. That comes without health care. These are hard-
working people, but they have to decide between eating and going to the
hospital for necessary care.
You think it's reasonable to just let them die?
> My being forced to pay for your healthcare isn't competition or the free
> market, it's the tyranny of the majority, the specific threat our
> Constitution was authored to protect us from. This is why, beyond a few
> quips (and maybe even before that), this argument becomes very dull. A
> statist will never see the most powerful entity in the country as a
> potential threat and will therefore never understand the value of a
> Constitutional Republic over a pure Democracy.
If you pay insurance premiums, you pay for other people's health care
NOW. I really wish the right would stop saying that what we have is "the
best in the world" and BS like that.
>>> Our government can poison any industry by providing a "free"
>>> alternative. This is why we have the tenth amendment.
>>
>> I don't see how this relates. There's nothing in the 10th amendment
>> that says anything about the government not being able to provide
>> services to the people. By that same logic, the TSA shouldn't be
>> controlled by the federal government, nor should the FCC, nor should we
>> have a federal highway system.
>
> Do you statists hate the Constitution so much that you can't bear to
> read it?
First, I've read it. Second, I understand it.
> Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3
You cited the 10th amendment, not this article before. Please make up
your mind.
Cherry-picking parts of the constitution is like cherry-picking parts of
the bible. If you are referring to:
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,
and with the Indian tribes; " - that's one of many items listed as a
responsibility of the legislative branch. Again, this has nothing to do
with the topic at hand unless you mean to read this clause as being the
only thing Article 1, Section 8 is about.
> In instances where the TSA, FCC, etc. extend beyond this authority, yes,
> they absolutely should be stopped.
And I suppose you think the post office ought to be stopped, too.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Our government can poison any industry by providing a "free"
> alternative.
Why is that bad in this specific case? Would you still think it's bad if an
amendment was passed specifically allowing health care to be government run?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> My being forced to pay for your healthcare isn't competition or the free
> market, it's the tyranny of the majority
So you're OK with the public option being optional? So you're not forced?
What if it's like the USPS, a private regulated non-profit corp? I had a
car insurance company that ran like that, and I got a check back every year
for the premiums they'd collected and hadn't needed to pay out.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I had a
> car insurance company that ran like that, and I got a check back every
> year for the premiums they'd collected and hadn't needed to pay out.
That sounds awesome.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I had a
>> car insurance company that ran like that, and I got a check back every
>> year for the premiums they'd collected and hadn't needed to pay out.
>
> That sounds awesome.
>
http://www.njm.com/
Set up by a bunch of independent manufacturing companies. Was nice. You
never got crap over a claim, either.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
