That's only for employees on an hourly rate though. That doesn't apply for salaried people for the most part
John McCain's universal health care proposal
- Thread starter The Ozzman
- Start date
Mort Divine
Shrine Maiden of the In-Crowd
Einherjar86
Active Member
I think it's unfair to compare workers' rights under the robber barons to workers' rights today. We've established the fact that we live in a society now where workers are treated generally well, and if they aren't they have the right to an attorney who can represent their case. Now that the government has imposed regulations upon businesses regarding the treatment of their workers, I believe that it can safely keep its distance.
There's already an implied contract between the worker and the employer though because, if the employer treats workers poorly, who is going to want to work for that employer for an extended period of time? Also, who would work for the employer after hearing negative things about the business via word of mouth?
No government intervention is really needed in that case
No government intervention is really needed in that case
Mort Divine
Shrine Maiden of the In-Crowd
People will work for anyone if they need the money.
Your manner of thought leads to those in power preying upon the poor and needy who have no choice but to work in those terrible conditions.
Your manner of thought leads to those in power preying upon the poor and needy who have no choice but to work in those terrible conditions.
Anyone else see the PBS Frontline special on health care around the world? There's problems with any form of healthcare but I think a change is needed here in the US.
If you have the time the episode "Sick Around the World" is streaming here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
If you have the time the episode "Sick Around the World" is streaming here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
Einherjar86
Active Member
Well, yes... isn't that the point?
Look, these stereotypes of big business aren't warranted most of the time. There are plenty of business owners who have morals like the rest of us human beings. Most business owners don't have the resources to operate in such crass and inhumane ways anymore, and hopefully a lot of them actually would be ashamed to do so. Oppression and persecution can go both ways, and if this fear of big business is taken too seriously it can be detrimental to the success and achievement of some companies.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
Why is it okay for the government to bail out corporations and have various other means of manipulating the 'free' market economy if it's so free? If you really want a truly 'free' market economy, don't you have to allow for corporations to fail? Isn't your reasoning against this position that not bailing out a large corporation will have a massive negative impact? If so, I don't see how millions and millions and millions of people without health insurance doesn't have some kind of significant impact.
No, maybe the government was not designed to intervene in more social matters, but sometimes it has been called for and it has benefited greatly. With the current state of affairs, I don't think anyone can disagree that something needs to be done, and it will most likely 1) need to be multi-faceted and 2) involve the government overstepping what most of you seem to be are its bounds.
No, maybe the government was not designed to intervene in more social matters, but sometimes it has been called for and it has benefited greatly. With the current state of affairs, I don't think anyone can disagree that something needs to be done, and it will most likely 1) need to be multi-faceted and 2) involve the government overstepping what most of you seem to be are its bounds.
I would agree with you here if the market was truly 'free' (which it isn't), but in the case of Bear Stearns, something had to be done in order to avoid worldwide financial meltdown
Einherjar86
Active Member
Correct, we don't have a true free market economy.
Government intervention has benefitted in the past, but it has also led to horrible cases of power abuse and totalitarianism. The guise of beneficial intervention is very persuasive, and is often used to distract citizens from the reduction of human rights.
I just don't think governments should mingle in economic affairs, especially not in this day and age. It does more harm than good.
Government intervention has benefitted in the past, but it has also led to horrible cases of power abuse and totalitarianism. The guise of beneficial intervention is very persuasive, and is often used to distract citizens from the reduction of human rights.
I just don't think governments should mingle in economic affairs, especially not in this day and age. It does more harm than good.
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
I sure as hell do not want to live in any the country where the government is so crippled. Governments are for providing for the welfare of their people. In the United States, which, despite being the richest nation, has the lowest rates of social welfare per capita, the rich-poor divide is huge. As Feathers & Flames so eloquently put it, the US is a shitty place to be poor. Reducing the government would only harm this more. People need to be protected from the fluctuations of the free market. It is hopelessly naive to think that a unregulated free market would benefit anyone besides the wealthy.
Actually neoliberal economic policy as espoused by the United States has caused a lot more harm than say, Scandinavian style social democracy. Read up on the IMF and how they force developing nations to cut healthcare and education in their countries to reduce taxes and allow multinational corporations easier access to cheap labor.
100+ Exactly!! that people still don't get this and only think about themselves still boggles the mind...
Hence why the GOP is known for helping the rich get richer at the expense of the poor... Later when the Greed gets out of hand then it's usually the Left who clean up the mess...
Oh, really. Below is some interesting reading for you, as for being unfair in the comparison I can name numerous lawsuits against big corporations to the contrary as well as criminal charges. Most popular would be against the biggest retailer in the world, Wal-Mart.
http://hrw.org/reports/2005/usa0105/index.htm
Fear of big business is warranted as history has shown. Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Big business is first and foremost about Greed. If it's not regulated it will run amok. It happened in the 80's with Reagan's laizze-faire attitude towards Big business. It led to be called the Decade of Greed. Most owners have morals till greed steps in then they start cutting corners, violating labor laws, fraud etc.. etc.. To deny that this has happened and will happen is to be ignorant. This happened most famously with the Robber Barons (Vanderbilt, Rockefellers, Carnegie etc.) and has happened ever since then when the Gov't takes a Laizze-Faire attitude towards Big Business.Well, yes... isn't that the point?
Look, these stereotypes of big business aren't warranted most of the time. There are plenty of business owners who have morals like the rest of us human beings. Most business owners don't have the resources to operate in such crass and inhumane ways anymore, and hopefully a lot of them actually would be ashamed to do so. Oppression and persecution can go both ways, and if this fear of big business is taken too seriously it can be detrimental to the success and achievement of some companies.
100+ exactly... boggles my mind as well people don't get this... but like I said people in this country only care about themselves & not the population in general...
Actually no it wouldn't cause a worldwide Financial meltdown... it didn't happen when Barings Bank collapsed in the 1990's as well as other examples and didn't happen with the latest case: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_...1-25_french_bank_loses_7b_in_trade_fraud.html
If you truely believe in the Gov't not interfering with Big Business then practice what you preach because Big Business should not be bailed out. It should be survival of the Fittest. That would be a true "FREE" market. It's funny, Big Business is like a little whiny child where it wants it's parent to leave them alone but when it gets in trouble wants the parent to bail them out of jail lol Hyprocrisy if you ask me.
Unlike the reduction of Human rights whenever Big Business is allowed to run amok due to their Greed? This day and age? The stock market scandals of the 80's as well as other examples from that period ring a bell? Enron? Worldwide MCI? Archer Daniels Midland price fixing Scandal? and on and on and on... sorry my friend but Big Business has shown that it needs regulation because it can't regulate itself... simple as that... whenever you give it a little leeway they spit in your face and get out of hand...
As for this issue of health insurance, I am going to assume most of you are teenagers and/or still in college and do not pay your own insurance nor get insurance from your part time jobs wherever you work. Most of you get insurance via your parents up to a certain age of course.
So I will tell you a couple of things about Insurance. Right now in NY for a single person with no kids or wife and no dependents, such as myself it is $350 per month for insurance whether you pay for it yourself or via your company who doesn't contribute to it. That is $4,200 per year. My own manager pays about $10,000 per year to have him and his family insured and he was just informed his premiums will be going up. Though most of you are intelligent enough to talk about this issue, imo you do not know how it affects peoples lives till it affects your own. By the way I'm currently uninsured because I cannot afford it via my employer or directly and have to pay my other living expenses as well.
And also, competition amongst the insurance companies will not work because in certain states (NY being one of them) there are certain laws that says insurance companies must provide insurance to all regardless of their age, health condition etc. Therefor they keep insurance premiums up high to weed out those who are insurance risks to them. Now if those laws were repealed then there would be competition but the companies would deny certain people based on their health condition, age etc.. So in either case there will be people not insured either due to high premiums or because of their health condition/age etc. My guess is that if those laws didn't exist there would be more uninsured people then there already is & we would have much bigger problems with the healthcare issue then we currently have.
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
Your a wise person Cookie man... I gree with everything you said... I pretty much said the same thing but you said it shorter and better... my friends from other countries are correct when they say the U.S. has no culture other then money culture... but I would call it more neoconservatism then neoliberalism...
Einherjar86
Active Member
Interesting. I hadn't heard anything about that, and I admit to recognizing the necessity of government involvment in this situation.
However, my previous statement still stands. We live in a society today where human rights violations such as this can be detected by organizations such as Human Rights Watch. Now these lawyers have the attention of the nation and will no doubt be represented in a court of law. This is exactly how the problem should be solved. What I do not support is constant regulation and supervision of businesses by the government.
There's this stereotype abound that big business is heartless and evil. Human rights violations work both ways. Government regulations hurt costs and place burdens on taxpayers. I understand your sympathy for workers and recognize that you have good intentions; but eventually all you're doing is restricting the rights of business owners. It will not "run amok" without government intervention. Plenty of business owners just want to make a living. Those who abuse their wealth and power (as shown in the article you posted) will be found out and stopped due to the influence of non-governmental groups such as the Human Rights Watch.
So does government intervention.
This generalization is unfair to the majority of business owners.
I don't want competition among insurance companies. I want no insurance companies. I want direct, one-on-one time between physicians and patients. I want patients to have control over their health care decicions. I want no government restrictions on what doctors can charge patients. All these things drive costs up. Insurance companies increase the amount of paperwork, and government regulations give doctors no incentive to curb their use of services. This places a burden on taxpayers and drives the cost of health care up. If we created a system of health care where people could meet with their physicians, create their own health care plan, and pay up front, costs would decrease drastically. More people could afford health care, and it would be easier to assist those who couldn't.
I am sorry for your predicament regarding health care, and I understand your frustration. But I think you should be more accepting of big business and its intentions.
I agree. There are ways to do so without instituting a universal health care system.
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
Having unregulated health care without insurance is ridiculous. It would only mean that rich people would get good treatment and everyone else would get poor or no treatment.
You also said that businesses will not run amok without regulations. To be frank they are running amok in the third world right now.
You also said that businesses will not run amok without regulations. To be frank they are running amok in the third world right now.
I would of replied to ya but Cookie already said what was on my mind below. But I will say something, that if you think Doctors won't jack up the price of their services as well as the supplies and equipment they use then you are living in a dream world. Doctors are just as greedy as the insurance companies and will make healthcare cost just as high if not higher. And to have insurance companies not exist etc. would be ridiculous. Not everyone can afford to pay for surgery, high prescription drugs (wish we could get them from Canada), hospital stay etc. if doctors were allowed to set the prices etc. This is not like in the 1800's with the friendly country doctor who worked things out with you over price and such.... besides imo Insurance companies for healthcare came to be because of doctors and their costs...
100+ wish i could say all I want to say in short sentences like you lol
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
As far as the whole "forcing others to help others" aspect is concerned, I view a policy of universal health care or a similar strategy which relies on taxpayers' money the same way that I view all public services. Most likely, you will never have your house burned down. Most likely (depending on where you live), you will never be robbed. This can be said for a great number of social services for which you pay taxes. However, you pay taxes for these services so that they are available to you should you ever need them. The same would be the case for universal health care. I'm sorry that you make too much money to the point where you don't need to rely on universal health care, but you should just be happy that you don't have to while millions of others do. Just like you most likely will never need to call the fire department because your house is burning down while millions of others have had to do the same, and yet those are your tax dollars at work. It's all about a personal reliability net just as much as it is about helping the poor. You never know, you might be poor one day. The whole point is just that: you never know.
Long Term Capital Management
Though, that was more the banks intervening than the government, but the government still had its hand in it.
Similar threads
