quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The origins of employer sponsored insurance was a result of wage caps placed by government. To attract the talent a business wanted, the business had to find a way to offer more than the next business. This ended up being in the form of perks, like profit-sharing, pensions, and health insurance. Yes, an employer can gain the benefit of being a large group, which allows them to get better pricing. That helps make medical care more affordable for the employer, and the employee.

quote:

Government isn't as concerned with being miserly, since it's not spending it's own money.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

There is no freedom for religion for legal fictions. How could there possibly be such. When was the last time a corporation prayed or worshipped?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY
You are talking wants vs needs. Some TV's are expensive, but if it they are too expensive I can get a cheaper model or do without it. I can choose cheaper food. I can choose to grow my own food. (which I do to some extent). I can hunt or buy venison from a hunter. I cannot choose give myself an appendectomy. If my daughter needs her asthma medications to stay alive, there is no way to change that other than letting her die (obviously not an option.)

You stated: "I totally agree about healthcare being too expensive. That is the way anything that is driven by Capitalism is. Especially when you are selling people their "needs" rather than their wants."

"anything driven by Capitalism is [too expensive]"

"Especially when ... selling ... "needs" ..."

The "especially" word indicates that it's true to a greater degree for one thing compared to another. I chose to refute your claim. Please note that food is definitely a "need," and not just a "want." The rest are definitely wants, but the underlying rules still come into play.

quote:

Collusion, profiteering or whatever it is; there is obviously something causing inflated prices in the US healthcare industry. That does not change the fact that prices charged to Americans are much higher for the same procedures and medications in foreign countries. (We all know this) Where or to whom the money is going is debatable. (shareholders? Monopolies? Politicians? I really don't know.) But it could not be dishonest people because providers would never do something like rip off Medicare or their own patients. [8|]

On what do you base your description of "outrageous" fees, then? If there is collusion, there is basis for a lawsuit. Collusion is illegal in the US.

quote:

I am not sure if single payer or nationalization will work either. I am not sure if either are constitutional; but we have got to start finding out what will work and what is constitutional (or even beneficial). Sometimes that takes trial and error. The ACA may or may not turn out to be a failure; but if it fails, at least that will be one thing we know does not work. Then we can try something else; but we cannot continue to ignore the problem. We have to at least try.

If you don't know what is making prices high, then how can you come up with an adequate solution?

I don't think single payer will work without nationalization, to be frank. The Constitutionality issue has to be first and foremost. If it's not Constitutional, the Federal government is prohibited from doing it. If it's not Constitutional, but is a damn good idea, then we need to pass an Amendment, making it Constitutional. I do believe that, because of Obamacare, there will be a more precise definition of phrase, "General Welfare of the United States." Personally, I don't believe it has any application to the individual, as an individual, but to the USA as one unit. Your health insurance and/or care costs are individual, and do not come under anything applied to the Nation as one unit.

The SCOTUS is going to be hearing a couple more cases here pretty soon. There will be more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The origins of employer sponsored insurance was a result of wage caps placed by government. To attract the talent a business wanted, the business had to find a way to offer more than the next business. This ended up being in the form of perks, like profit-sharing, pensions, and health insurance. Yes, an employer can gain the benefit of being a large group, which allows them to get better pricing. That helps make medical care more affordable for the employer, and the employee.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

So now you're going to pretend that you've never heard of religious corporations, like a hospital or a church school?   Oh wait, that's right, that was in the Supreme Court cases that I already brought up, and Supreme Court rulings don't exist once you  handwave them away, right?
[8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

There is no freedom for religion for legal fictions. How could there possibly be such. When was the last time a corporation prayed or worshipped?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The origins of employer sponsored insurance was a result of wage caps placed by government. To attract the talent a business wanted, the business had to find a way to offer more than the next business. This ended up being in the form of perks, like profit-sharing, pensions, and health insurance. Yes, an employer can gain the benefit of being a large group, which allows them to get better pricing. That helps make medical care more affordable for the employer, and the employee.

Not in any history I've ever seen. The only peacetime wage controls ever instituted was by Nixon in 1971 and health insurance as an employer benefit goes back much further, into the 1950's at least, and those wage controls only stayed in place a couple of years not nearly long enough to have the effect you describe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The origins of employer sponsored insurance was a result of wage caps placed by government. To attract the talent a business wanted, the business had to find a way to offer more than the next business. This ended up being in the form of perks, like profit-sharing, pensions, and health insurance. Yes, an employer can gain the benefit of being a large group, which allows them to get better pricing. That helps make medical care more affordable for the employer, and the employee.

Not in any history I've ever seen. The only peacetime wage controls ever instituted was by Nixon in 1971 and health insurance as an employer benefit goes back much further, into the 1950's at least, and those wage controls only stayed in place a couple of years not nearly long enough to have the effect you describe.

As I've often said - you really should read more. Wage and price controls were also instituted the depression and in WWII - where Rooseveldt also suspended the right to strike.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

So now you're going to pretend that you've never heard of religious corporations, like a hospital or a church school?   Oh wait, that's right, that was in the Supreme Court cases that I already brought up, and Supreme Court rulings don't exist once you  handwave them away, right?
[8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

There is no freedom for religion for legal fictions. How could there possibly be such. When was the last time a corporation prayed or worshipped?

So a religious corporation worships? Really?

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

It's right there in the appellate ruling that you claim rejected the Supreme Court...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

So now you're going to pretend that you've never heard of religious corporations, like a hospital or a church school?   Oh wait, that's right, that was in the Supreme Court cases that I already brought up, and Supreme Court rulings don't exist once you  handwave them away, right?
[8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

There is no freedom for religion for legal fictions. How could there possibly be such. When was the last time a corporation prayed or worshipped?

So a religious corporation worships? Really?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY
Okay. I stand corrected. "That is the way unchecked capitalism is when you are selling people their NEEDS rather WANTS and they have no other options to what you are selling. That is why price gouging during emergencies is illegal in most states."
I am sure that the definition of "outrageous prices" is debatable but my personal definition is when the same medicine that costs hundreds of dollars in the US is $50-100 dollars in Canada or when you literally lose your house because you got sick. (your definition may vary)
I am well aware that collusion is illegal that is why I did not say it WAS collusion. I only said that "something" is causing inflated prices and the money is going somewhere. It is not my intent to come up with a solution. There is really little or nothing you or I can do other than vote in officials and voice our opinions.
Like I said before I don't know if single payer will work either. But most Americans agree that what we have had up til now has not worked for years. No one seems to be happy with healthcare as it is and no one seems to be happy with any options that are presented. The debate could go on until the end of time, but in the meantime, people still need access to affordable healthcare.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The origins of employer sponsored insurance was a result of wage caps placed by government. To attract the talent a business wanted, the business had to find a way to offer more than the next business. This ended up being in the form of perks, like profit-sharing, pensions, and health insurance. Yes, an employer can gain the benefit of being a large group, which allows them to get better pricing. That helps make medical care more affordable for the employer, and the employee.

Not in any history I've ever seen. The only peacetime wage controls ever instituted was by Nixon in 1971 and health insurance as an employer benefit goes back much further, into the 1950's at least, and those wage controls only stayed in place a couple of years not nearly long enough to have the effect you describe.

quote:

The authors begin by discussing the history of ESI. While its origins can be traced back to 1929, when a group of Dallas teachers contracted with a hospital to cover inpatient services for a fixed annual premium, the link between employment and private health insurance was strengthened by three key government decisions in the 1940s and 1950s. First, during World War II the War Labor Board ruled that wage and price controls did not apply to fringe benefits such as health insurance, leading many employers to institute ESI. Second, in the late 1940s the National Labor Relations Board ruled that health insurance and other employee benefit plans were subject to collective bargaining. Third, in 1954 the Internal Revenue Service decreed that health insurance premiums paid by employers were exempt from income taxation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

It's right there in the appellate ruling that you claim rejected the Supreme Court...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

So now you're going to pretend that you've never heard of religious corporations, like a hospital or a church school?   Oh wait, that's right, that was in the Supreme Court cases that I already brought up, and Supreme Court rulings don't exist once you  handwave them away, right?
[8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

There is no freedom for religion for legal fictions. How could there possibly be such. When was the last time a corporation prayed or worshipped?

So a religious corporation worships? Really?

The one that sited CU? It doesn't discuss religious corporations at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The origins of employer sponsored insurance was a result of wage caps placed by government. To attract the talent a business wanted, the business had to find a way to offer more than the next business. This ended up being in the form of perks, like profit-sharing, pensions, and health insurance. Yes, an employer can gain the benefit of being a large group, which allows them to get better pricing. That helps make medical care more affordable for the employer, and the employee.

Not in any history I've ever seen. The only peacetime wage controls ever instituted was by Nixon in 1971 and health insurance as an employer benefit goes back much further, into the 1950's at least, and those wage controls only stayed in place a couple of years not nearly long enough to have the effect you describe.

Then I suggest you start looking at more history.

http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/2009no2/w14839.html

quote:

The authors begin by discussing the history of ESI. While its origins can be traced back to 1929, when a group of Dallas teachers contracted with a hospital to cover inpatient services for a fixed annual premium, the link between employment and private health insurance was strengthened by three key government decisions in the 1940s and 1950s. First, during World War II the War Labor Board ruled that wage and price controls did not apply to fringe benefits such as health insurance, leading many employers to institute ESI. Second, in the late 1940s the National Labor Relations Board ruled that health insurance and other employee benefit plans were subject to collective bargaining. Third, in 1954 the Internal Revenue Service decreed that health insurance premiums paid by employers were exempt from income taxation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The origins of employer sponsored insurance was a result of wage caps placed by government. To attract the talent a business wanted, the business had to find a way to offer more than the next business. This ended up being in the form of perks, like profit-sharing, pensions, and health insurance. Yes, an employer can gain the benefit of being a large group, which allows them to get better pricing. That helps make medical care more affordable for the employer, and the employee.

Not in any history I've ever seen. The only peacetime wage controls ever instituted was by Nixon in 1971 and health insurance as an employer benefit goes back much further, into the 1950's at least, and those wage controls only stayed in place a couple of years not nearly long enough to have the effect you describe.

Then I suggest you start looking at more history.
http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/2009no2/w14839.html

quote:

The authors begin by discussing the history of ESI. While its origins can be traced back to 1929, when a group of Dallas teachers contracted with a hospital to cover inpatient services for a fixed annual premium, the link between employment and private health insurance was strengthened by three key government decisions in the 1940s and 1950s. First, during World War II the War Labor Board ruled that wage and price controls did not apply to fringe benefits such as health insurance, leading many employers to institute ESI. Second, in the late 1940s the National Labor Relations Board ruled that health insurance and other employee benefit plans were subject to collective bargaining. Third, in 1954 the Internal Revenue Service decreed that health insurance premiums paid by employers were exempt from income taxation.

Your own source says employer provided health insurance goes back to at least 1929. Long before there were any WW2 wage controls. And considering the employment situation during the war I really doubt that that period contributed much at all. What really got the ball rolling was the NLRB ruling that fringe benefits were subject to collective bargaining.

quote:

I just double checked, the only peacetime wage controls were in 1971. Why must you lie?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

I just double checked, the only peacetime wage controls were in 1971. Why must you lie?

Anything said in the name of his causes is truth, anything against, falsehood.

-------------

I tend to agree with the following:

2. Regarding corporate spending swamping citizen voices
It defies reality to suggest that millions of dollars in slick television and Internet ads – put out by entities whose purpose and expertise . . . is to persuade people to buy what’s being sold – carry the same weight as the fliers of citizen candidates and the letters to the editor of John and Mary Public. It is utter nonsense to think that ordinary citizens or candidates can spend enough to place their experience, wisdom, and views before the voters and keep pace with the virtually unlimited spending capability of corporations to place corporate views before the electorate. In spending ability, bigger really is better; and with campaign advertising and attack ads, quantity counts. In the end, candidates and the public will become mere bystanders in elections.

http://www.demos.org/publication/top-10-nelson-take-downs-citizens-united

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Obama and allied groups out raised romney 2:1.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Obama and allied groups out raised romney 2:1.

Nasty little thing you tried to pull there.
Romney and allied groups out raised Obama and allied groups by a substantial margin.

You really didn't think anyone would fall for your bullshit did you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Obama and allied groups out raised romney 2:1.

Nasty little thing you tried to pull there.
Romney and allied groups out raised Obama and allied groups by a substantial margin.

You really didn't think anyone would fall for your bullshit did you?

Mcclatchy:

Obama’s campaign has raised more than $632 million in the 2012 election, 62 percent more than Romney’s $389 million. Even when including money raised by the Democratic and Republican national committees, Obama has an edge: $924 million for the president’s re-election team, versus $758 million for Romney and the Republicans.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/10/30/173114/outside-groups-have-spent-840.html#storylink=cpy

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69
...or at the very least denying certain types of health care coverage for women.

Regardless of the religious bend, why should a corporation have to supply a woman with "certain types of health care coverage" if they don't want to?

Why should a corporation be able to tell an insurance provider to ignore the law that everyone else has to follow? Why should the corporation be allowed discriminate against women solely based on the corporation's religious beliefs?

For that matter why should "a separate entity, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of the law" (text book definition of a corporation) even be allowed to have religious beliefs?