Jump to content
merrill

Voters should know by now after 70 years politicians have never provided health insurance for the people. Too many on both sides of the aisle take money from the insurance industry, from health care providers and are investors. 

Recommended Posts

The answers to health care without interference and not connected to ones' level of wealth ........

 

Why not put choices on the table? And show veterans and business a little more respect in the process.

 

LET THE VOTERS DECIDE ON A 2020 BALLOT NATION WIDE = voting on the entire package thus providing consumers 3 options for the rest of their lives. Which one works best for YOU


=== ObamaCare which retains the health insurance industry. Sooner or later this group will enroll in single payer.


=== Single Payer Medicare for ALL = excellent coverage for those who wish to enroll. The absolute best choice on planet earth. https://www.healthcare-now.org/docs/spreport.pdf

 

WE know that using the existing medicare template to service Medicare for All Single payer saves lots and lots of dollars over reinventing the wheel. http://www.healthcare-now.org/docs/spreport.pdf

 


=== Self financed health care for those able to do so aka opt out. 


 

=== ALL Disabled vets should receive Medicare with a 100% benefit so they and their families can receive medical care immediately upon discharge. Make it retroactive.

 

=== Business should not be forced to provide health insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, peter45 said:

Your most gracious reply shows that you have absolutely no idea what the issue that I am discussing is.

The issue is THE COST OF THE HEALTH INSURANCE THAT A COMPANY IS CLAIMING THAT THEY ARE FURNISHING AS A BENEFIT, FREE OF CHARGE, TO AN EMPLOYEE.

And specifically,

FROM A SELF INSURED COMPANY.

 

Of course, that would assume that you know what a self insured company actually is,

and since the article quoted claims that they are 40% of the providers,

they are not that uncommon.

Whether a company is buying the insurance from another company or is self-insured is completely irrelevant to the question at hand, dimwit.  In either case, the employer will be forced by the market to give their employees a raise equal to the value of the insurance they were providing such that the total compensation (wages + benefits) is the same as it was, if they were to stop providing this benefit (again- assuming they were not being overpaid to start with).

 

Let's see if I can dumb this down what will happen if companies stop providing insurance benefits even further for you-

 

total compensation before = total compensation after

 

If am not sure if I can make this any simpler for you than this.

 

Quote

 

And since the company is claiming that it is providing the health insurance as a benefit to the employee,

and since that insurance benefit would no longer be required if single payer health insurance was provided by the government,

it would be a reasonable expectation for the employee to receive an increase in financial compensation equal to the cost that the company is already incurring for the employee.

 

Of course it is "reasonable", which is why I answered your question above by explaining why it will absolutely be the case that this will happen.   No fucking duh...

 

Quote


Of course, the employee would have no way of knowing what the actual cost of the benefit is,

unless the employee had access to the company's internal cost accounting system.

 

Now, did you notice how politely I explained that to you?

And did you notice how I very clearly explained to you why there is no reason whatsoever for the employees to have to know any of that information, numbskull?

 

And tough shit for you, but I don't suffer fools lightly.  If you want me to be polite, then quit making stupid posts.  Problem solved. 

 

Good luck.

 

Quote

 having an inflated ego.

That tends to happen when no idiot lib on this forum has ever come remotely close to ever proving me wrong.  Guilty as charged.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Nighthawk said:

Whether a company is buying the insurance from another company or is self-insured is completely irrelevant to the question at hand, dimwit.  In either case, the employer will be forced by the market to give their employees a raise equal to the value of the insurance they were providing such that the total compensation (wages + benefits) is the same as it was, if they were to stop providing this benefit (again- assuming they were not being overpaid to start with).

 

Let's see if I can dumb this down what will happen if companies stop providing insurance benefits even further for you-

 

total compensation before = total compensation after

 

If am not sure if I can make this any simpler for you than this.

 

Of course it is "reasonable", which is why I answered your question above by explaining why it will absolutely be the case that this will happen.   No fucking duh...

 

And did you notice how I very clearly explained to you why there is no reason whatsoever for the employees to have to know any of that information, numbskull?

 

And tough shit for you, but I don't suffer fools lightly.  If you want me to be polite, then quit making stupid posts.  Problem solved. 

 

Good luck.

 

That tends to happen when no idiot lib on this forum has ever come remotely close to ever proving me wrong.  Guilty as charged.

 

 

So,

you seem to be saying that the "market" will motivate these companies to be COMPLETELY HONEST about the amount of the cost of the insurance that they are providing to the employees.

Because corporate executives have such a fine record of not attempting to cheat employees out of compensation.

So,

ERISA was a completely unnecessary law?

And,

the Wisconsin Steel case never happened?

 

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/681/512/1800035/

CONCLUSION

Defendant International Harvester Company's motion to dismiss the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's amended complaints against it is granted as to count III in both complaints, but is otherwise denied.

 

Wanna buy a bridge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, peter45 said:

So,

you seem to be saying that the "market" will motivate these companies to be COMPLETELY HONEST about the amount of the cost of the insurance that they are providing to the employees.

Because corporate executives have such a fine record of not attempting to cheat employees out of compensation.

So,

ERISA was a completely unnecessary law?

And,

the Wisconsin Steel case never happened?

 

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/681/512/1800035/

CONCLUSION

Defendant International Harvester Company's motion to dismiss the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's amended complaints against it is granted as to count III in both complaints, but is otherwise denied.

 

Wanna buy a bridge?

Had a friend I met in the 1960s.

We both worked in management.

He suffered from a severely inflated right wing ego.

Lost touch with him for a few years,

ran into him in the early 80s.

He had taken a job in management at Wisconsin Steel in the interim.

He had seen first hand the manipulations that Wisconsin Steel management had attempted to cheat 30+ year employees out of their pensions.

Didn't personally affect my friend, he had not worked there very long, and left after a short term.

By the 80s,

his right wing ego had tempered a bit.

Seeing evil sometimes does that to people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, peter45 said:

Had a friend I met in the 1960s.

We both worked in management.

He suffered from a severely inflated right wing ego.

Lost touch with him for a few years,

ran into him in the early 80s.

He had taken a job in management at Wisconsin Steel in the interim.

He had seen first hand the manipulations that Wisconsin Steel management had attempted to cheat 30+ year employees out of their pensions.

Didn't personally affect my friend, he had not worked there very long, and left after a short term.

By the 80s,

his right wing ego had tempered a bit.

Seeing evil sometimes does that to people.

One of my better anecdotes is about the VP who fired me because I refused to move the factory to Mexico.

 

Years later, he was heard to be complaining that the company had screwed him out of part of his pension,

(after the factory was closed)

because he had been transferred to a subsidiary,

and his time there was not credited.

 

He was the same guy that had fired a guy that was dying of cancer,

and chewed out the guy's boss for keeping him on.

Since the guy worked on a computer in the office,

just how much could his work have slipped, because he was weak?

 

Sometimes,

what goes around,

comes around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, peter45 said:

So,

you seem to be saying that the "market" will motivate these companies to be COMPLETELY HONEST about the amount of the cost of the insurance that they are providing to the employees.

No, I never said anything of the sort, you illiterate cretin.  It has absolutely nothing whatsoever about companies being "HONEST", dunce.  It only has to do with competition from other companies forcing them to pay fair market value for labor or suffer the consequences.  I explained this very, very, very clearly above.  What part are you having such a hard time comprehending?

 

An evil company could lie out their fucking ass about how much their health insurance was worth, and the gullible employees could even completely fall for it, but it would not do the employer a damn bit of good if their competition offered those employees higher wages and thus steals them out from under the evil company afterwards, twit.
 

Quote

 

Because corporate executives have such a fine record of not attempting to cheat employees out of compensation.

So,

ERISA was a completely unnecessary law?

And,

the Wisconsin Steel case never happened?

 

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/681/512/1800035/

CONCLUSION

Defendant International Harvester Company's motion to dismiss the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's amended complaints against it is granted as to count III in both complaints, but is otherwise denied.

 

Wanna buy a bridge?

 

Why do you keep trying to change the subject and argue against positions that I have never taken, you damn retard?  Is it because you can't disprove anything I actually post, so you just make up some idiotic bullshit, pretend that it is my position, and then just disprove that instead?  Lol...

 

I have never, ever stated that there should not be various types of laws that are against people committing FRAUD or breaching contracts, dumbass.  Of course these things should be illegal.  But this has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I have posted thus far regarding total compensation with or without health insurance benefits, you damn idiot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, peter45 said:

Had a friend I met in the 1960s.

We both worked in management.

He suffered from a severely inflated right wing ego.

Lost touch with him for a few years,

ran into him in the early 80s.

He had taken a job in management at Wisconsin Steel in the interim.

He had seen first hand the manipulations that Wisconsin Steel management had attempted to cheat 30+ year employees out of their pensions.

Didn't personally affect my friend, he had not worked there very long, and left after a short term.

By the 80s,

his right wing ego had tempered a bit.

Seeing evil sometimes does that to people.

Allowing someone evil to "cheat" people by committing theft,  FRAUD, and/or breach of contract is not a "right wing" position, you brainless fucking imbecile.

 

Damn, you really are quite stupid, aren't you?  Lol...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, merrill said:

The answers to health care without interference and not connected to ones' level of wealth ........

 

Why not put choices on the table? And show veterans and business a little more respect in the process.

 

LET THE VOTERS DECIDE ON A 2020 BALLOT NATION WIDE = voting on the entire package thus providing consumers 3 options for the rest of their lives. Which one works best for YOU


=== ObamaCare which retains the health insurance industry. Sooner or later this group will enroll in single payer.


=== Single Payer Medicare for ALL = excellent coverage for those who wish to enroll. The absolute best choice on planet earth. https://www.healthcare-now.org/docs/spreport.pdf

 

WE know that using the existing medicare template to service Medicare for All Single payer saves lots and lots of dollars over reinventing the wheel. http://www.healthcare-now.org/docs/spreport.pdf

 


=== Self financed health care for those able to do so aka opt out. 


 

=== ALL Disabled vets should receive Medicare with a 100% benefit so they and their families can receive medical care immediately upon discharge. Make it retroactive.

 

=== Business should not be forced to provide health insurance.

 

Former Lawmakers and Congressional Staffers Hired to Lobby At A Cost Of $1.4 million health care $$$$$ a day to provide misinformation about IMPROVED Medicare Single Payer for ALL.

 

Has this changed? Of course not. 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502770.html

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/26/747191/-

 

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/profile2.html

 

http://www.commoncause.org/press/press-releases/legislating-under-the-influence.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Nighthawk said:

No, I never said anything of the sort, you illiterate cretin.  It has absolutely nothing whatsoever about companies being "HONEST", dunce.  It only has to do with competition from other companies forcing them to pay fair market value for labor or suffer the consequences.  I explained this very, very, very clearly above.  What part are you having such a hard time comprehending?

 

An evil company could lie out their fucking ass about how much their health insurance was worth, and the gullible employees could even completely fall for it, but it would not do the employer a damn bit of good if their competition offered those employees higher wages and thus steals them out from under the evil company afterwards, twit.
 

Why do you keep trying to change the subject and argue against positions that I have never taken, you damn retard?  Is it because you can't disprove anything I actually post, so you just make up some idiotic bullshit, pretend that it is my position, and then just disprove that instead?  Lol...

 

I have never, ever stated that there should not be various types of laws that are against people committing FRAUD or breaching contracts, dumbass.  Of course these things should be illegal.  But this has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I have posted thus far regarding total compensation with or without health insurance benefits, you damn idiot.

 

Your lack of actual experience is showing.

 

Anti-trust prosecutions have not occurred for years.

 

NONE of the companies will break the unwritten rules,

and pay the employees what it was actually costing.

Competition is a fantasy that occurs only in a "conservative's" mind.

 

Stock prices are currently inflated by executive buybacks.

The executives divert a portion of dividends into paying artificially high prices for the stocks,

so that the executive's stock options raise in price.

That has been occurring for over 20 years.

That is EXACTLY what "conservatism" is about.

 

Not all,

but far, far too many corporate managers have absolutely NO PROBLEM posting phony results to obtain their "performance" bonusses.

It has been a growing problem,

ever since Reagan dignified creative accounting.

 

FYI,

it is logically impossible to disprove a speculation.

It is only possible to anticipate behavior, based on previous behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, peter45 said:

Your lack of actual experience is showing.

 

Anti-trust prosecutions have not occurred for years.

 

NONE of the companies will break the unwritten rules,

and pay the employees what it was actually costing.

Competition is a fantasy that occurs only in a "conservative's" mind.

 

Stock prices are currently inflated by executive buybacks.

The executives divert a portion of dividends into paying artificially high prices for the stocks,

so that the executive's stock options raise in price.

That has been occurring for over 20 years.

That is EXACTLY what "conservatism" is about.

 

Not all,

but far, far too many corporate managers have absolutely NO PROBLEM posting phony results to obtain their "performance" bonusses.

It has been a growing problem,

ever since Reagan dignified creative accounting.

 

FYI,

it is logically impossible to disprove a speculation.

It is only possible to anticipate behavior, based on previous behavior.

I retired after 50+ years in corporate management,

at various companies,

at various levels.

 

I have personally seen $millions of shareholder dollars improperly "distributed".

 

Wake up,

and embrace reality.

You can have an honest career,

and be proud of the work that you have done,

in your later years.

Or,

you can embrace "conservatism".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, peter45 said:

I retired after 50+ years in corporate management,

at various companies,

at various levels.

 

I have personally seen $millions of shareholder dollars improperly "distributed".

 

Wake up,

and embrace reality.

You can have an honest career,

and be proud of the work that you have done,

in your later years.

Or,

you can embrace "conservatism".

Corporate manager's salaries are partially based on the number of corporate dollars they are responsible for spending.

 

In other words,

if the manager builds a new facility this year,

knowing that it won't be needed by the time it is completed.

Then tears it out,

and builds another one next year,

that actually suits the needs of the company,

he gets 2 bonusses.

And it is ALL completely within the rules.

And, multiple managers were aware that it was unnecessary.

 

An even better one was the year end "load" between TWO companies.

Company 1 paid bonusses on quarterly sale PERCENT INCREASES.

Company 2 withheld orders UNTIL THE FOURTH QUARTER.

Company 2 ordered THE FULL YEAR'S PRODUCT IN THE FOURTH QUARTER.

The management at Company 1, ALL received enormous year end bonusses.

It could be speculated that someone at Company 2 received something for not spreading the cash flow evenly through the year.

 

The arrangement ended when Company 1 became the victim of "private equity".

The Private Equity firm "recapitalized" Company 1,

meaning that they just went out and borrowed government dollars,

based on rewritten asset "values".

In other words,

they gained control for free.

And, of course, the debt load could not be met, so they liquidated the assets,

for about 10 cents on the dollar,

and transferred the production to the competitors' facilities.

FYI

The competitors employ mostly people WHO LOOK SUSPICIOUSLY LIKE ILLEGALS.

 

These are the types of things that would probably not have occurred in the years before Reagan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, merrill said:

 

Insider Trading should be off limits to elected officials and all elected officials who have investments should recuse themselves from any vote regarding health insurance.

 

When will elected officials be prosecuted?

 

I repeat .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, peter45 said:

Your lack of actual experience is showing.

 

Anti-trust prosecutions have not occurred for years.

And your complete lack of intelligence is showing, dunce.  There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for any moronic anti-trust laws in the first place, shit-for-brains.  All that is needed is a free market, as this will eventually CRUSH any type of cartel that foolishly attempts to significantly price their goods or services above fair market value.  The ONLY way they can successfully do this is via the use of FORCE, which would not be a free market, by definition.

 

Quote

NONE of the companies will break the unwritten rules,

and pay the employees what it was actually costing.

Competition is a fantasy that occurs only in a "conservative's" mind.

 

Oh really?  Then let's see if you can answer this simple question that you idiot libs always cowardly dodge-

 

If evil employers really have some magical power that lets them pay their workers whatever the fuck they feel like paying without the help of government or unions to put a stop to their dastardly deeds, as in your ignorant little fantasies, then why in the holy hell do any non-union workers make more than the MW?  Why do these supposedly greedy companies pay their non-union accountants, engineers, computer programmers, managers, etc.. one single penny more than they are required to pay them by law?

 

Will you be the first idiot lib to give a rational answer to this question, or will you cowardly dodge it like all the rest?

 

Good luck.

 

Quote

 

Stock prices are currently inflated by executive buybacks.

The executives divert a portion of dividends into paying artificially high prices for the stocks,

so that the executive's stock options raise in price.

That has been occurring for over 20 years.

That is EXACTLY what "conservatism" is about.

 

Unless you are a shareholder, then why the hell do you give a shit?  It should be none of your fucking concern.

 

Quote

 

Not all,

but far, far too many corporate managers have absolutely NO PROBLEM posting phony results to obtain their "performance" bonusses.

It has been a growing problem,

ever since Reagan dignified creative accounting.

 

And as I clearly stated above, there should obviously be laws again people committing FRAUD, dumbass.  If they are truly getting away with this, then this just shows the ineptitude of your precious government in doing its job.


 

Quote

 

FYI,

it is logically impossible to disprove a speculation.

It is only possible to anticipate behavior, based on previous behavior.

 

What the hell are you babbling about, moron?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Nighthawk said:

And your complete lack of intelligence is showing, dunce.  There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for any moronic anti-trust laws in the first place, shit-for-brains.  All that is needed is a free market, as this will eventually CRUSH any type of cartel that foolishly attempts to significantly price their goods or services above fair market value.  The ONLY way they can successfully do this is via the use of FORCE, which would not be a free market, by definition.

 

Oh really?  Then let's see if you can answer this simple question that you idiot libs always cowardly dodge-

 

If evil employers really have some magical power that lets them pay their workers whatever the fuck they feel like paying without the help of government or unions to put a stop to their dastardly deeds, as in your ignorant little fantasies, then why in the holy hell do any non-union workers make more than the MW?  Why do these supposedly greedy companies pay their non-union accountants, engineers, computer programmers, managers, etc.. one single penny more than they are required to pay them by law?

 

Will you be the first idiot lib to give a rational answer to this question, or will you cowardly dodge it like all the rest?

 

Good luck.

 

Unless you are a shareholder, then why the hell do you give a shit?  It should be none of your fucking concern.

 

And as I clearly stated above, there should obviously be laws again people committing FRAUD, dumbass.  If they are truly getting away with this, then this just shows the ineptitude of your precious government in doing its job.


 

What the hell are you babbling about, moron?

 

The phoney Free Market concept like Wreckanomics has zero foundation which instead drives up the cost of living and increases taxes.

 

Monopolies are financed with borrowed money which indicates reckless lending and eliminates choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Universal Single Payer Health Care would not only provide 24/7 care no matter what but would also create about 2.5 million new jobs throughout the USA.

 

Universal Single Payer Health Care would in effect reduce the cost of vets care significantly in addition to improving a disabled vets and their families quality of life significantly.

 

Universal Single Payer Health Care would in effect reduce the cost of government across the board significantly.

 

Universal Single Payer Health Care would in effect reduce the cost of public education significantly.

 

Universal Single Payer Health Care would in effect reduce the cost of higher education significantly.

 

Universal Single Payer Health Care would in effect reduce the cost of groceries significantly.

 

Universal Single Payer Health Care would in effect reduce the cost of local government significantly.

 

Universal Single Payer Health Care would in effect reduce the cost of cars significantly.

 

Universal Single Payer Health Care SHOULD in effect reduce the cost of just about all consumer products  significantly.

 

Consider that the federal government spends more than $4 trillion tax dollars annually on healthcare which in reality would likely cover all in the USA under a Universal Single Payer Health Care program.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI:

Universal Single Payer Insurance for ALL would cover every person for all necessary medical care 24/7 to include:

    

Wellness /prescription drugs / hospital / surgical / outpatient services /  primary and

preventive care / emergency services / dental / mental health / home health / physical therapy / rehabilitation (including for substance abuse) /

vision care /  hearing services including hearing aids / chiropractic / medical equipment / palliative care / long term care 

 

No deductibles / No Co-pays

 

The above is not free medical care just merely using our tax dollars more efficiently and effectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Nighthawk said:

And your complete lack of intelligence is showing, dunce.  There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for any moronic anti-trust laws in the first place, shit-for-brains.  All that is needed is a free market, as this will eventually CRUSH any type of cartel that foolishly attempts to significantly price their goods or services above fair market value.  The ONLY way they can successfully do this is via the use of FORCE, which would not be a free market, by definition.

 

Oh really?  Then let's see if you can answer this simple question that you idiot libs always cowardly dodge-

 

If evil employers really have some magical power that lets them pay their workers whatever the fuck they feel like paying without the help of government or unions to put a stop to their dastardly deeds, as in your ignorant little fantasies, then why in the holy hell do any non-union workers make more than the MW?  Why do these supposedly greedy companies pay their non-union accountants, engineers, computer programmers, managers, etc.. one single penny more than they are required to pay them by law?

 

Will you be the first idiot lib to give a rational answer to this question, or will you cowardly dodge it like all the rest?

 

Good luck.

 

Unless you are a shareholder, then why the hell do you give a shit?  It should be none of your fucking concern.

 

And as I clearly stated above, there should obviously be laws again people committing FRAUD, dumbass.  If they are truly getting away with this, then this just shows the ineptitude of your precious government in doing its job.


 

What the hell are you babbling about, moron?

Anti-trust laws

Your complete lack of historical knowledge is embarrassing.

Except that your ego is much too thick and immature to even be able to feel that emotion.

 

Wage competition

The discussion IS NOT ABOUT WAGE COMPETITION.

THE DISCUSSION IS ABOUT ACCESS TO A COMPANY'S INTERNAL COST ACCOUNTING RECORDS.

 

Inflated stock market prices

As seen in the Bush Depression,

the stock market affects EVERYBODY,

NOT JUST SHAREHOLDERS.

 

Laws against fraud

Since the general industry trend,

as a result of the corruption of "conservatism",

is for a management team to accept AS A GROUP,

the fraud perpetrated against the shareholders,

there is no one to "press charges".

Many companies keep multiple sets of books,

as has been shown by various scandals over the years,

such as Enron, WorldCom, et al.

 

It will be interesting to see if you actually ever get into a position in which you are able to observe "conservative" management in action.

While the vast majority of corporate managers are ethical, the entire tone of a management can quickly change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, merrill said:

FYI:

Universal Single Payer Insurance for ALL would cover every person for all necessary medical care 24/7 to include:

    

Wellness /prescription drugs / hospital / surgical / outpatient services /  primary and

preventive care / emergency services / dental / mental health / home health / physical therapy / rehabilitation (including for substance abuse) /

vision care /  hearing services including hearing aids / chiropractic / medical equipment / palliative care / long term care 

 

No deductibles / No Co-pays

 

The above is not free medical care just merely using our tax dollars more efficiently and effectively.

I still firmly believe that Single Payer will be fiercely fought against by many/most employers.

Not HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES,

BUT,

THE EMPLOYERS THEMSELVES.

 

Single Payer would require that employer based health insurance financial arrangements be exposed to the employees.

There MAY BE disparities between what the employees have been told regarding the value of the benefit the employer has been claiming is provided,

versus,

the actual value of that benefit.

The managers of the corporations may not want that information made available to employees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, peter45 said:

I still firmly believe that Single Payer will be fiercely fought against by many/most employers.

Not HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES,

BUT,

THE EMPLOYERS THEMSELVES.

 

Single Payer would require that employer based health insurance financial arrangements be exposed to the employees.

There MAY BE disparities between what the employees have been told regarding the value of the benefit the employer has been claiming is provided,

versus,

the actual value of that benefit.

The managers of the corporations may not want that information made available to employees.

About 20 years ago,

I was working as a consultant for a company.

I was taking home more than most of the managers who were directly employed by the company.

 

I was offered a direct position with the company,

at a lower salary.

The company HR rep claimed that their benefit package was worth $18,000 per year.

I purchased the equivalent for about $6,000.

 

Uniquely,

they kept me on,

on and off,

for the next 20 years,

during which I still took home more than most of their direct managers.

 

And yes,

I had access to their internal cost accounting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, peter45 said:

Anti-trust laws

Your complete lack of historical knowledge is embarrassing.

Except that your ego is much too thick and immature to even be able to feel that emotion.

Then it should be extremely easy for you to prove me wrong and put me in my place.  You would be the very first idiot lib on this forum to ever do so.  So what the fuck are you waiting for, dumbass?  Give me some of your supposed "history" on the need for moronic anti-trust laws that were more appropriate than what simply having a free market would have achieved instead.

 

Good luck.

 

Quote

 

Wage competition

The discussion IS NOT ABOUT WAGE COMPETITION.

 

What?!?!   You mean that you did not make this statement in the post above?

 

Quote

 

NONE of the companies will break the unwritten rules,

and pay the employees what it was actually costing.

Competition is a fantasy that occurs only in a "conservative's" mind. 

 

If not, then apparently someone has stolen your password and is posting under your username.  Either that or you are a fucking lunatic.  I am betting on the latter...

 

Now, can you answer my simple question from above or are you just another sniveling liberal coward?  Here it is again for you-

 

If evil employers really have some magical power that lets them pay their workers whatever the fuck they feel like paying without the help of government or unions to put a stop to their dastardly deeds, as in your ignorant little fantasies, then why in the holy hell do any non-union workers make more than the MW?  Why do these supposedly greedy companies pay their non-union accountants, engineers, computer programmers, managers, etc.. one single penny more than they are required to pay them by law?

 

Good luck.

 

Quote

THE DISCUSSION IS ABOUT ACCESS TO A COMPANY'S INTERNAL COST ACCOUNTING RECORDS.

And as I have repeatedly explained to your ignorant ass, this is completely irrelevant as there is absolutely no need to have that information.

 

Again- this is completely irrelevant as there is absolutely no need to have that information.

 

If you still don't get it, please tell me which word is confusing you, dimwit.

 

Quote

 

Inflated stock market prices

As seen in the Bush Depression,

the stock market affects EVERYBODY,

NOT JUST SHAREHOLDERS.

 

What the hell are you babbling about?  If some company inflates their stock price, how the hell does that hurt you?

 

Quote

 

Laws against fraud

Since the general industry trend,

as a result of the corruption of "conservatism",

is for a management team to accept AS A GROUP,

the fraud perpetrated against the shareholders,

there is no one to "press charges".

 

You seriously cannot be this fucking retarded.  Have you really never heard of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which is an agency of your precious, beloved government, you damn moron?

 

Quote

 

Many companies keep multiple sets of books,

as has been shown by various scandals over the years,

such as Enron, WorldCom, et al.

 

Which just goes to show how pitifully inept your precious government is at one of the very few legitimate functions it has.  And you damn idiot libs want to give even more responsibilities to them???

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nighthawk said:

Then it should be extremely easy for you to prove me wrong and put me in my place.  You would be the very first idiot lib on this forum to ever do so.  So what the fuck are you waiting for, dumbass?  Give me some of your supposed "history" on the need for moronic anti-trust laws that were more appropriate than what simply having a free market would have achieved instead.

 

Good luck.

 

What?!?!   You mean that you did not make this statement in the post above?

 

If not, then apparently someone has stolen your password and is posting under your username.  Either that or you are a fucking lunatic.  I am betting on the latter...

 

Now, can you answer my simple question from above or are you just another sniveling liberal coward?  Here it is again for you-

 

If evil employers really have some magical power that lets them pay their workers whatever the fuck they feel like paying without the help of government or unions to put a stop to their dastardly deeds, as in your ignorant little fantasies, then why in the holy hell do any non-union workers make more than the MW?  Why do these supposedly greedy companies pay their non-union accountants, engineers, computer programmers, managers, etc.. one single penny more than they are required to pay them by law?

 

Good luck.

 

And as I have repeatedly explained to your ignorant ass, this is completely irrelevant as there is absolutely no need to have that information.

 

Again- this is completely irrelevant as there is absolutely no need to have that information.

 

If you still don't get it, please tell me which word is confusing you, dimwit.

 

What the hell are you babbling about?  If some company inflates their stock price, how the hell does that hurt you?

 

You seriously cannot be this fucking retarded.  Have you really never heard of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which is an agency of your precious, beloved government, you damn moron?

 

Which just goes to show how pitifully inept your precious government is at one of the very few legitimate functions it has.  And you damn idiot libs want to give even more responsibilities to them???

 

 

Anti-trust history

Are you sure that you even know what a trust/monopoly is?

Do you understand that rather than compete, the companies CHOSE to fix prices at NON-COMPETITIVE rates?

That is what happened.

No amount of "conservative" lying can change history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nighthawk said:

Then it should be extremely easy for you to prove me wrong and put me in my place.  You would be the very first idiot lib on this forum to ever do so.  So what the fuck are you waiting for, dumbass?  Give me some of your supposed "history" on the need for moronic anti-trust laws that were more appropriate than what simply having a free market would have achieved instead.

 

Good luck.

 

What?!?!   You mean that you did not make this statement in the post above?

 

If not, then apparently someone has stolen your password and is posting under your username.  Either that or you are a fucking lunatic.  I am betting on the latter...

 

Now, can you answer my simple question from above or are you just another sniveling liberal coward?  Here it is again for you-

 

If evil employers really have some magical power that lets them pay their workers whatever the fuck they feel like paying without the help of government or unions to put a stop to their dastardly deeds, as in your ignorant little fantasies, then why in the holy hell do any non-union workers make more than the MW?  Why do these supposedly greedy companies pay their non-union accountants, engineers, computer programmers, managers, etc.. one single penny more than they are required to pay them by law?

 

Good luck.

 

And as I have repeatedly explained to your ignorant ass, this is completely irrelevant as there is absolutely no need to have that information.

 

Again- this is completely irrelevant as there is absolutely no need to have that information.

 

If you still don't get it, please tell me which word is confusing you, dimwit.

 

What the hell are you babbling about?  If some company inflates their stock price, how the hell does that hurt you?

 

You seriously cannot be this fucking retarded.  Have you really never heard of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which is an agency of your precious, beloved government, you damn moron?

 

Which just goes to show how pitifully inept your precious government is at one of the very few legitimate functions it has.  And you damn idiot libs want to give even more responsibilities to them???

 

 

Your "simple" question about employers

Do you acknowledge, or are you even aware that there are different categories of businesses?

You talk about companies paying skilled professionals at higher rates.

Do you understand that the pay scales for larger companies differ substantially for those of smaller companies? 

And that many of those pay scales are antiquated?

As the "conservative" movement has pushed many of those previously good paying jobs offshore,

the older workers often have maintained their salaries,

because they have the knowledge of the history of the business.

 

I remember hiring some young degreed people, in the years before I retired,

for salaries that surprised the heck out of me.

These were people with degrees from NAME universities, that were being paid in the realm of $30,000 per year.

I remember one guy was living with his mother.

He was actually very good at what he did, and happy to have the job.

These were jobs that the data says should start at $60,000 - $80,000 per year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nighthawk said:

Then it should be extremely easy for you to prove me wrong and put me in my place.  You would be the very first idiot lib on this forum to ever do so.  So what the fuck are you waiting for, dumbass?  Give me some of your supposed "history" on the need for moronic anti-trust laws that were more appropriate than what simply having a free market would have achieved instead.

 

Good luck.

 

What?!?!   You mean that you did not make this statement in the post above?

 

If not, then apparently someone has stolen your password and is posting under your username.  Either that or you are a fucking lunatic.  I am betting on the latter...

 

Now, can you answer my simple question from above or are you just another sniveling liberal coward?  Here it is again for you-

 

If evil employers really have some magical power that lets them pay their workers whatever the fuck they feel like paying without the help of government or unions to put a stop to their dastardly deeds, as in your ignorant little fantasies, then why in the holy hell do any non-union workers make more than the MW?  Why do these supposedly greedy companies pay their non-union accountants, engineers, computer programmers, managers, etc.. one single penny more than they are required to pay them by law?

 

Good luck.

 

And as I have repeatedly explained to your ignorant ass, this is completely irrelevant as there is absolutely no need to have that information.

 

Again- this is completely irrelevant as there is absolutely no need to have that information.

 

If you still don't get it, please tell me which word is confusing you, dimwit.

 

What the hell are you babbling about?  If some company inflates their stock price, how the hell does that hurt you?

 

You seriously cannot be this fucking retarded.  Have you really never heard of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which is an agency of your precious, beloved government, you damn moron?

 

Which just goes to show how pitifully inept your precious government is at one of the very few legitimate functions it has.  And you damn idiot libs want to give even more responsibilities to them???

 

 

The SEC

Not sure if you are under the impression that the SEC is supposed to protect the shareholder from the company management,

or, protect the country from the artificial inflation of the stock prices.

Whatever,

because of the "conservative" effect, the SEC will do neither.

Again, if the company management is defrauding the shareholder, somebody needs to alert the shareholders.

The official mechanism is SUPPOSED TO BE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

It is extremely unlikely that the Board will do anything.

 

I remember being at a board meeting where they helped the very senior citizen majority owner walk in.

He couldn't make it on his own.

It is unlikely that he had any idea what we were talking about.

Seemed like a nice guy.

He shook our hands as we were leaving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...