Company Dumps Healthcare Plan

[bripat9643]

Freedom is the last thing they have in third world nations. Those governments have all adopted the policies you favor. Take Venezuela and Cuba, for instance.

lol

Hilarious, right?

The hilarious part is the belief on the part of you and Dad2three that you disagree with what I posted.

 

[Listening]

True. Brainless, stupid, ignorant and worthless just wasn't for me. That's why you get your ass pwned every time.

ONly a matta time fer The Rab to call you a racist, because he is gettin his ass kicked.

Rab has been off his meds more and more lately.

I've never called RDD a racist. I've never called you a racist either.
Sorry to see you back. I was hoping your vacation was permanent.

The brain damage certainly is.

 

[bripat9643]

Place? State OR nation? EVER? lol

The United States before 1914, for one.

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.




Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.


Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.


The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.


American School of Economics
American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You posted left-wing propaganda. None of that is true. England practiced mercantilism in the 18th Century, not the policies advocated by Adam Smith. In fact, The Wealth of Nations was a detailed criticism of the English mercantilist system.

Any honest economist would agree. Only a brainwashed troll believes the stuff you posted.

 

[JakeStarkey]

True. Brainless, stupid, ignorant and worthless just wasn't for me. That's why you get your ass pwned every time.

ONly a matta time fer The Rab to call you a racist, because he is gettin his ass kicked.

Rab has been off his meds more and more lately.

I've never called RDD a racist. I've never called you a racist either.
Sorry to see you back. I was hoping your vacation was permanent.

Yeah, you have, and yours will be.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The United States before 1914, for one.

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.


Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.


The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.


American School of Economics
American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You posted left-wing propaganda. None of that is true. England practiced mercantilism in the 18th Century, not the policies advocated by Adam Smith. In fact, The Wealth of Nations was a detailed criticism of the English mercantilist system.

Any honest economist would agree. Only a brainwashed troll believes the stuff you posted.

bripat is failing to tell you that he does not believe in the American constitution, republicanism, or democracy.

he is an admitted anarcho-commie, so keep that in mind when talking with him.

 

[JoeB131]

The US prior to WW2.
Next.
You're such an easy win. Every time. It's that low information/low intelligence thing you've got going.

US Life expectancy in 1930- 59.7 years.
US Life expectancy in 2010- 78.7 years.

Life Expectancy at Birth by Race and Sex, 1930?2010 | Infoplease.com

Got to love that Free Market system we had before World War 2.

Infant Mortality Rate in 1950 - 29.2 per 1000 live births. (I'm sure it was worse before the war.)
Infant Mortality Rate in 2010 - 6.1

Infant Mortality Rates, 1950?2010 | Infoplease.com

You have a funny definition of "Successful".

Joe, proving he can't understand math.

I understand math perfectly well.

Let's recap. You said that we had a wonderful "Free Market' health care system before World War II before the "socialists" fucked it up.

Well, no, not really. People died early and they frequently died in infancy. And there wasn't a lot of research into medical innovation because there was no money to be made keeping old people alive.

Then the government forced private companies to provide health insurance and established medicare and medicaid and the VA and suddenly, people started living longer and we got around to curing things because the government gave grants to universities to find cures to things like Polio.

Bunch of fucking commies.

 

[The Rabbi]

US Life expectancy in 1930- 59.7 years.
US Life expectancy in 2010- 78.7 years.

Life Expectancy at Birth by Race and Sex, 1930?2010 | Infoplease.com

Got to love that Free Market system we had before World War 2.

Infant Mortality Rate in 1950 - 29.2 per 1000 live births. (I'm sure it was worse before the war.)
Infant Mortality Rate in 2010 - 6.1

Infant Mortality Rates, 1950?2010 | Infoplease.com

You have a funny definition of "Successful".

Joe, proving he can't understand math.

I understand math perfectly well.

Let's recap. You said that we had a wonderful "Free Market' health care system before World War II before the "socialists" fucked it up.

Well, no, not really. People died early and they frequently died in infancy. And there wasn't a lot of research into medical innovation because there was no money to be made keeping old people alive.

Then the government forced private companies to provide health insurance and established medicare and medicaid and the VA and suddenly, people started living longer and we got around to curing things because the government gave grants to universities to find cures to things like Polio.

Bunch of fucking commies.

Poor Joe. The fallacy of what he just posted will escape him forever.
Libs are bad at math and logic!

 

[KissMy]

The company I worked for 15 years ago was paying $255 a month per employee. 45% was charged to employees like me. The corporate officer who was in charge of selecting our insurance got season tickets for front row seats at every major stadium in the city plus free meals at the finest restaurants in the area all courtesy of our insurance company. The CEO was likely in on the action as well. When I left that place & bought my own insurance I was paying 80% less.

 

[The Rabbi]

The company I worked for 15 years ago was paying $255 a month per employee. 45% was charged to employees like me. The corporate officer who was in charge of selecting our insurance got season tickets for front row seats at every major stadium in the city plus free meals at the finest restaurants in the area all courtesy of our insurance company. The CEO was likely in on the action as well. When I left that place & bought my own insurance I was paying 80% less.

I'm sure that's all interesting to someone somewhere.

 

[KissMy]

The company I worked for 15 years ago was paying $255 a month per employee. 45% was charged to employees like me. The corporate officer who was in charge of selecting our insurance got season tickets for front row seats at every major stadium in the city plus free meals at the finest restaurants in the area all courtesy of our insurance company. The CEO was likely in on the action as well. When I left that place & bought my own insurance I was paying 80% less.

I'm sure that's all interesting to someone somewhere.

It's likely why your friends company is paying double the average for healthcare. The fewer people handling money between you & your doctor, the lower the cost.

 

[The Rabbi]

The company I worked for 15 years ago was paying $255 a month per employee. 45% was charged to employees like me. The corporate officer who was in charge of selecting our insurance got season tickets for front row seats at every major stadium in the city plus free meals at the finest restaurants in the area all courtesy of our insurance company. The CEO was likely in on the action as well. When I left that place & bought my own insurance I was paying 80% less.

I'm sure that's all interesting to someone somewhere.

It's likely why your friends company is paying double the average for healthcare. The fewer people handling money between you & your doctor, the lower the cost.

You know its double the average because 15 years ago you worked in a company somewhere?
I agree witht he second part. Which is why Obamacare sucks and single payer would be worse.

 

[saveliberty]

Seems to me the free market system helped develop a whole host of new medicines which companies benefit from and reinvested into even more new drugs. Of course government viewed that as a taxable and regulatory opportunity which will most likely reduce new advancements as there is less profit.

Work conditions, technology advancements, CPR and the Hemelich have probably added more to lifespan than health insurance.

 

[KissMy]

I'm sure that's all interesting to someone somewhere.

It's likely why your friends company is paying double the average for healthcare. The fewer people handling money between you & your doctor, the lower the cost.

You know its double the average because 15 years ago you worked in a company somewhere?
I agree witht he second part. Which is why Obamacare sucks and single payer would be worse.

If Obamacare is only setting the ground rules it may not be so bad after a while, but the healthcare exchange system with the government directly between insurance companies & insureds has been a disaster. The same way mandating employers get between insurance companies & insureds has always been a disaster.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's likely why your friends company is paying double the average for healthcare. The fewer people handling money between you & your doctor, the lower the cost.

You know its double the average because 15 years ago you worked in a company somewhere?
I agree witht he second part. Which is why Obamacare sucks and single payer would be worse.

If Obamacare is only setting the ground rules it may not be so bad after a while, but the healthcare exchange system with the government directly between insurance companies & insureds has been a disaster. The same way mandating employers get between insurance companies & insureds has always been a disaster.

They set the ground rules, which include provisions making people more dependent on insurance rather than less.
A better approach would have been encouraging MSAs combined with catastrophic policies, which is what people mostly need.

 

[KissMy]

You know its double the average because 15 years ago you worked in a company somewhere?
I agree witht he second part. Which is why Obamacare sucks and single payer would be worse.

If Obamacare is only setting the ground rules it may not be so bad after a while, but the healthcare exchange system with the government directly between insurance companies & insureds has been a disaster. The same way mandating employers get between insurance companies & insureds has always been a disaster.

They set the ground rules, which include provisions making people more dependent on insurance rather than less.
A better approach would have been encouraging MSAs combined with catastrophic policies, which is what people mostly need.

That is one reason why my personal HSA insurance is 75% less than average workplace insurance. It's high deductible keeps the insurance company out from between me & my doctor unless something major & expensive happens. I also pay my company directly keeping an employer & government out from between me & my insurance company.

 

[KissMy]

The employer only mandate should simply make employers pay $135 a week tax free to all employees working more than 30 hours. It would remain tax free if the employee puts it into their HSA account or buys insurance, otherwise they get taxed on it.

 

[JoeB131]

Seems to me the free market system helped develop a whole host of new medicines which companies benefit from and reinvested into even more new drugs. Of course government viewed that as a taxable and regulatory opportunity which will most likely reduce new advancements as there is less profit.

Work conditions, technology advancements, CPR and the Hemelich have probably added more to lifespan than health insurance.

Okay.

Except most medical research is funded by - wait for it- the government!

Who insisted on improving work conditions! The government in the form of that bleeding heart liberal Richard M. Nixon.

 

[The Rabbi]

Seems to me the free market system helped develop a whole host of new medicines which companies benefit from and reinvested into even more new drugs. Of course government viewed that as a taxable and regulatory opportunity which will most likely reduce new advancements as there is less profit.

Work conditions, technology advancements, CPR and the Hemelich have probably added more to lifespan than health insurance.

Okay.

Except most medical research is funded by - wait for it- the government!

Who insisted on improving work conditions! The government in the form of that bleeding heart liberal Richard M. Nixon.

Proof most research is funded by the gov't? A lot is. Whether it should be or not is a different question.

 

[JoeB131]

Seems to me the free market system helped develop a whole host of new medicines which companies benefit from and reinvested into even more new drugs. Of course government viewed that as a taxable and regulatory opportunity which will most likely reduce new advancements as there is less profit.

Work conditions, technology advancements, CPR and the Hemelich have probably added more to lifespan than health insurance.

Okay.

Except most medical research is funded by - wait for it- the government!

Who insisted on improving work conditions! The government in the form of that bleeding heart liberal Richard M. Nixon.

Proof most research is funded by the gov't? A lot is. Whether it should be or not is a different question.

You mean the government might decide that finding a cure for AIDS or Cancer is a little more important than a pill that makes an old guy's dick hard for an hour?

Perish the thought.

 

[The Rabbi]

Okay.

Except most medical research is funded by - wait for it- the government!

Who insisted on improving work conditions! The government in the form of that bleeding heart liberal Richard M. Nixon.

Proof most research is funded by the gov't? A lot is. Whether it should be or not is a different question.

You mean the government might decide that finding a cure for AIDS or Cancer is a little more important than a pill that makes an old guy's dick hard for an hour?

Perish the thought.

Yeah because the company that discovers a cure for AIDS or cancer wouldn't make anything off the discovery.
You're such a fucking toolbag Joe. You never have anything constructive to contribute and most posts after yours are spent demonstrating that your information is wrong.