RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Edwird -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/28/2017 11:46:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

Single payer insurance would be payment to the state, thus creating a monopoly


No, fuckwit, single-payer would be a monopsony, whereby the buyer, not the seller, has (supposedly) absolute power in obtaining the services and the pharmaceuticals at a favorable price. The AMA as exists is a monopoly.

Believe it or not, the "here's the deal, take it or leave it" proposition works to advantage of the consumer side when there is only one buyer and no other alternative for the sellers, the opposite of a monopoly.



Kirata -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/28/2017 11:50:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

Wonder how it is going to be paid for?

Well you know, when it comes to insurance, the more widely you spread the risk the fairer the premiums become for everyone, and if you take profit out of the equation then you get the lowest premium cost possible in the bargain, all of which would seem to make single payer pretty much a no-brainer.

But for it to actually work you have to balance the amount of money available, the fees that can be charged for the services provided, and the availability of medical personnel, each of which will have interaction effects on the other two. That would require a bureaucracy to administer, with all the associated additional costs, which will predictably expand until they consume any gains.


And since there is no bureaucratic element at all existing in corporations, we can see where the edge lies there, as evidenced by the US' most expensive system in the world by 50 % above the next-most.

I didn't say that corporations had an edge. But since you mention it, a corporation at least has a motive to limit its administrative costs. If profits slip, investment will follow and its stock value will fall. A government agency feeding on tax dollars has no such incentive.

K.



Edwird -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 12:32:01 AM)

You clearly implied in your comment I quoted that there is no bureaucracy in the corporate world. I merely apprised the readership otherwise, along with pointing out empirical evidence regarding one system vs. numerous others.

"I didn't say that corporations had an edge. But since you mention it, a corporation at least has a motive to limit its administrative costs. If profits slip, investment will follow and its stock value will fall. A government agency feeding on tax dollars has no such incentive."

That's the fairy tale we've all been told and sold.

So how come the roads and traffic lights are not privatized? The air traffic towers and airports? The primary schools? Of course the private schools show a better grade average when they can be selective and not have to accept everybody and the parents are already predisposed to begin with. How come phone service in Puerto Rico went seriously downhill when going from public to corporate? How many privately run parks are better than state/national parks? No question, Dollywood and Disneyland have better roller coasters than Yosemite or Yellowstone or Nantahala, but if looking for the sound of the falls or the incomparable sound of nature far away from anything else and nothing else, the private sector comes up short.

The mandate of corporations is to provide only what the marketing department can convince people to buy, and no more, at as little cost as possible (monstrous executive bonuses aside).

As much sizzle with as little steak possible.

The public sector providing some service or another because there's no money in it for the private sector does not automatically mean that rearranging things so 'there is money in it' for the private sector that the latter will do it better in every case.




Kirata -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 1:39:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

You clearly implied in your comment I quoted that there is no bureaucracy in the corporate world. I merely apprised the readership otherwise...

Well I'm sure everyone is grateful, but you need to stop listening to your lamp-socket.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

The mandate of corporations is to provide only what the marketing department can convince people to buy...

Nobody needs a marketing department to convince them that they need care when they're sick.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

at as little cost as possible

In other words (stop me if this sounds familiar) a corporation has a motive to limit its administrative costs.

K.




Edwird -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 1:48:11 AM)

So it's "a lamp socket" that tells me there is bureaucracy in the corporate world, and not anything from my and anybody else whose been there's firsthand experience.

Okay, I can see where this is going.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Nobody needs a marketing department to convince them that they need care when they're sick.


Nobody needs a marketing department to tell you if you want a phone or a car. The companies spend millions to convince you to buy theirs' if you want that in the first place. The hospitals have billboards everywhere and have numerous TV adverts to convince you to go to their hospital when the issue comes up.

You're new to all this, I can see.




Kirata -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 2:09:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

So it's "a lamp socket" that tells me there is bureaucracy in the corporate world...

No, it was your lamp-socket that told you my post "clearly implied" that corporations don't have bureaucracies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

Nobody needs a marketing department to tell you if you want a phone or a car. The companies spend millions to convince you to buy theirs' if you want that in the first place. The hospitals have billboards everywhere and have numerous TV adverts to convince you to go to their hospital when the issue comes up.

Yeah, that part of my reply was weak., but you responded before I could edit it out. The fact remains, however, that balancing, "the amount of money available, the fees that can be charged for the services provided, and the availability of medical personnel, each of which will have interaction effects on the other two," is no simple matter, and government bureaucracies feeding on tax dollars have no incentive to limit how much they suck up.

K.



Edwird -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 2:18:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
ORIGINAL: EdwirdORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:


But for it to actually work you have to balance the amount of money available, the fees that can be charged for the services provided, and the availability of medical personnel, each of which will have interaction effects on the other two. That would require a bureaucracy to administer, with all the associated additional costs, which will predictably expand until they consume any gains.


-And since there is no bureaucratic element at all existing in corporations-, we can see where the edge lies there, as evidenced by the US' most expensive system in the world by 50 % above the next-most.


I'm looking and not seeing where I said anything about administrative costs.



Edwird -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 2:21:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

So it's "a lamp socket" that tells me there is bureaucracy in the corporate world...

No, it was your lamp-socket that told you my post "clearly implied" that corporations don't have administrative costs.
K.



Caught you before your edit. Sorry.



Kirata -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 2:33:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
ORIGINAL: EdwirdORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:


But for it to actually work you have to balance the amount of money available, the fees that can be charged for the services provided, and the availability of medical personnel, each of which will have interaction effects on the other two. That would require a bureaucracy to administer, with all the associated additional costs, which will predictably expand until they consume any gains.


-And since there is no bureaucratic element at all existing in corporations-, we can see where the edge lies there, as evidenced by the US' most expensive system in the world by 50 % above the next-most.


I'm looking and not seeing where I said anything about administrative costs.

You're too fast for me. I always read over what I said after I post, and often edit. But even so, let's not play semantic games. Read the pretty red words. The bureaucracy that would be required for single payer entails administrative costs, and government bureaucracies feeding on tax dollars have no incentive to limit how much they suck up. That doesn't mean (let alone "clearly imply") that corporations don't have bureaucracies or administrative costs.

K.



Kirata -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 2:37:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

So it's "a lamp socket" that tells me there is bureaucracy in the corporate world...

No, it was your lamp-socket that told you my post "clearly implied" that corporations don't have administrative costs.

Caught you before your edit. Sorry.

It's okay, I caused the problem!

K.



Edwird -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 2:40:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

So it's "a lamp socket" that tells me there is bureaucracy in the corporate world...

No, it was your lamp-socket that told you my post "clearly implied" that corporations don't have bureaucracies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

Nobody needs a marketing department to tell you if you want a phone or a car. The companies spend millions to convince you to buy theirs' if you want that in the first place. The hospitals have billboards everywhere and have numerous TV adverts to convince you to go to their hospital when the issue comes up.

Yeah, that part of my reply was weak., but you responded before I could edit it out. The fact remains, however, that balancing, "the amount of money available, the fees that can be charged for the services provided, and the availability of medical personnel, each of which will have interaction effects on the other two," is no simple matter, and government bureaucracies feeding on tax dollars have no incentive to limit how much they suck up.K.


Well now, good thing the CEOs and their accomplices don't spend all day figuring out how to to suck up any national wealth and company net earnings with their $20 million bonuses and golden parachutes for wrecking the company and wrecking the economy, right?

Good thing that never happens.



Kirata -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 2:56:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

Well now, good thing the CEOs and their accomplices don't spend all day figuring out how to to suck up any national wealth and company net earnings with their $20 million bonuses and golden parachutes for wrecking the company and wrecking the economy, right?

Good thing that never happens.

Somehow I don't think there are many CEOs getting $20 million bonuses for wrecking their companies. And in any case, it wouldn't be an argument in favor of a bloated government bureaucracy wrecking single payer too.

K.




Edwird -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 3:57:03 AM)

http://www.stltoday.com/business/columns/david-nicklaus/pay-for-performance-coal-ceos-get-bonuses-as-companies-lose/article_a26af8d5-731b-57f8-9ec8-f9b140174285.html

Only $2.8 million compensation there, granted.

The CEOs at Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns and their top traders might or might not have gotten a bonus in the last year of their companies' existence, and Goldman Sachs and AIG and CitiGroup and others would be gone if not for the bail out, but yes, they all got yearly $20+ million in compensation in the years leading up to and as reward for driving that fully loaded bus off the bridge.

And then . . .

Golden Parachutes of $100 Million for Fired CEOs Outlive Outrage

And what "value added" are Ichan and Ackman doing for corporations aside sucking every bit of cash wherever found off the efforts of others who did the real work?

You're new to all this, aren't you?

So is the larger part of the media, apparently.





Kirata -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 4:36:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

You're new to all this, aren't you?

So is the larger part of the media, apparently.

How lucky we are to have you to rely on.

K.




Edwird -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 4:44:45 AM)

What am I supposed to do, waste my college ed and work experience?

Whatever your own other experience, I can't imagine your thinking that the media tells us everything we need to know?



Kirata -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 5:08:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

What am I supposed to do, waste my college ed and work experience?

Whatever your own other experience, I can't imagine your thinking that the media tells us everything we need to know?

I don't, but I also don't think that your limited education and personal experience has told you everything you need to know either.

K.




Edwird -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 5:23:43 AM)

And your education and work experience is less limited than mine on the subject of corporations, how?

This from someone who says CEOs never get compensated for driving the company into the dirt?

The OECD stats on cost of healthcare among countries said all I needed to know, which I've posted here before.

Cover your eyes and ears all you want.




Kirata -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 5:51:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

This from someone who says CEOs never get compensated for driving the company into the dirt

And that in response to this....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Somehow I don't think there are many CEOs getting $20 million bonuses for wrecking their companies.

You and your lamp-socket have a nice day.

K.



Edwird -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 6:14:33 AM)

Sorry you missed it;

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
http://www.stltoday.com/business/columns/david-nicklaus/pay-for-performance-coal-ceos-get-bonuses-as-companies-lose/article_a26af8d5-731b-57f8-9ec8-f9b140174285.html

Only $2.8 million compensation there, granted.

The CEOs at Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns and their top traders might or might not have gotten a bonus in the last year of their companies' existence, and Goldman Sachs and AIG and CitiGroup and others would be gone if not for the bail out, but yes, they all got yearly $20+ million in compensation in the years leading up to and as reward for driving that fully loaded bus off the bridge.

And then . . .

Golden Parachutes of $100 Million for Fired CEOs Outlive Outrage

And what "value added" are Ichan and Ackman doing for corporations aside sucking every bit of cash wherever found off the efforts of others who did the real work?


If nothing else, you've got stamina on the "monkey no see, monkey no hear" thing.

In any case, Richard Fuld (Lehman Bros.), Stanley O'Neal (Merrill Lynch), Jimmy Cayne (Bear Stearns), Martin Sullivan (AIG), etc. all walked away with a lot more than $20 million each after running the ship aground.

A book or two or three for each episode. Books, library, factual accounts, etc. Just throwing that out there. You don't have to read it if you don't wanna. Just throwing it out there is all.




Kirata -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (4/29/2017 7:10:53 AM)


Nobody ever got a $20 million bonus for wrecking their company. Maybe it was contractual, maybe it was cronyism, but it wasn't for wrecking the company. I mean seriously, you're just making shit up left and right, even claiming that I said things I never said. What the hell is the matter with you?

K.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0546875