National Healthcare for the USA

by sammielee24 348 Replies latest jw friends

  • frozen one
    frozen one

    Hi Sailor,

    I had to look back at the thread to see where union came in. It had to do with outsourcing jobs because of benefit packages. I suggested that the same unions that negotiated those benefit packages with deep pocket employers now want those benefit packages paid for by another entity, namely the feds, with even deeper pockets.

    I do agree that unions are not for every employer. Eventually the agreements can become virtual tomes with numerous contradictions in the language. If an effort is made by both labor and mgmt, contracts can be cleaned up to reflect current realities in the marketplace and technology changes. The last contract negotiated where I work did just that. Yes, when some job titles were eliminated because they were combined to make a new title, some of the old timers were appalled. The days of "not my job" were over and the work force became much more flexible.

    I, along with a lot of my union brothers and sisters in the Local, do not support national health care because we suspect if national care came to be our current health care benefits, benefits the union fought long and hard for, would be seriously compromised. If that makes us selfish pricks, then so be it. The International does support national care but those people endorsed Howard Dean for President too.

  • FlyingHighNow

    We hashed all this out on a thread by Prophecor. Health Care: A Right or a Privilege? 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 19 20 21

    I made a lot of comments to that thread. I don't have the energy to discuss it again, but here is a link to a book that all of you should read. It's written by two investigative reporters.

    Critical Condition: How Health Care in America Became Big Business--and Bad Medicine

  • sammielee24
    As for Swife and Swalker, try to ignore. They like media sound bites but don't know how to answer questions with credible information

    ..or it could just be that some people who like to define themselves of 'not of the stupid class' simply don't have the ability to actually listen or read and therefore they shrug their shoulders and decide that credible is only their own point of view. I try to remain focused and avoid name calling - you've been provided with a lot of information from personal stories, to debates, media articles, arguments, political agendas and sound debate. swife

  • sammielee24
    No Slacker Doctors, which will certainly be produced by not-for-profit.

    Sailor - did you watch CSPAN lately? There was a symposium on health care on and I watched it and no - it wasn't a 'left' or 'right' thing. It was the government policy on changing the way that the standards are set and delivered as they apply to Medicare. There have been no standards set for doctors - you don't have any criteria or rating on who is good and who isn't. This is one thing that the government is trying to change and believe me - a lot of doctors don't want to participate. What the Bush administration has said is that if you want to do business with us - ie get paid by us - then play by our rules. Hospitals have been asked to streamline their systems. There are a lot of changes coming and its taken a long time. Obviously, by stories on this board, you can see that some hospitals and doctors don't want to play by these rules so they simply cut off patients who are on medicare and/or medicaid. So your thinking of not for profit creating slacker doctors - you haven't had any criteria up to this point to determine who is and who isn't slacking. In addtion, the national healthcare systems I'm aware of have standards and ratings in place whereby doctors and hospitals must maintain those standards or they will not be paid. If you knew that more heart surgeries were performed than needed simply because the doctor and hospital made more profit doing those, would you call that unethical? If more scans and tests were being done than needed because there was more profit in those tests for the doctor and hospital would you support that - lack of ethics for profit? It happens. So slacker or ethics? swife.

  • sammielee24
    Critical Condition: How Health Care in America Became Big Business--and Bad Medicine

    Thanks for the reminder Flying High - I read this book. It's excellent. The problem is that anyone determined to ignore the facts will never read it. There is another book out (can't recall the name of it at this moment) that explains how the pharmaceutical industry creates the illness to promote the drug. A nation that has to drug it's little children with prozac to the tune of millions should all have to read how the drug industry sells the product and markets it. sammieswife.

  • sammielee24

    Frozen One - I've worked in both. As an employee in a union with a spouse in non union management. I also worked in a unionized environment but in the non union sector for over 20 years. I believe that when employees are treated with a certain degree of respect and acknowledgement for the services they provide to the employer, you don't need unions. I've seen more arrogrance within management when dealing with unions than I cared to. Lies, manipulation, favouritism - right down the line to actual dislike of the union and all it stood for.

    When the union was held to a 1% raise a year (and these are not highly paid positions) and at times 2% over 3 years, with no extra benefits the management worked differently. Not only did non union also get the same benefits but unbeknownst to the union members, every management employee was receiving bonus checks of at least 4-6% a year. I know, because I was in finance.

    I recall when the union tried to organize and management called all non union employees (office staff) and threatened them with immediate dismissal if they so much as spoke to anyone they thought had one thing to do with it. Management tried to scheme and scream their way through by intimidating employees to back down - had they shown some compassion and respect prior to the organization, things would not have gone that far.

    There are good and bad, but at least a union will do it's best to protect the members - and with a difficult employer that can be enough to justify their existence.


  • LDH
    you've been provided with a lot of information from personal stories, to debates, media articles, arguments, political agendas and sound debate.

    Personal stories mean nothing. You can always find someone at either end of the spectrum.

    You've been provided with credible information which you have chosed to ignore.

    Our healthcare system is broken.

    We just don't want to trade it in for a more broken one.

    Frozen I will PM you, I would love to talk to you offline about Unions.


  • FlyingHighNow
    A nation that has to drug it's little children with prozac to the tune of millions should all have to read how the drug industry sells the product and markets it. sammieswife.

    My doctor is furious with the drug companies. What they practice borders on extortion.

    this nimrod will not even acknowledge the existence of the USDOL (Department of Labor) Pension and WELFARE Benefits Administration.

    Did you notice that you didn't start this sentence with a capital??? You resorted to name calling, (nimrod) something you accuse others of doing when they have no solid argument.

    We were not discussing the USDOL Pension or Welfare Benefits Administration as the main topic of discussion. I'll agree that we did get a little off topic on the Union issue.

    By the way, I have been President of a company of 300 employees. I've had plenty of experience in management, thankyou.

  • funkyderek


    That's where a company decides whether it can achieve a break-even point, or where it may still retain it as a loss-leader, especially if the customers' expectations have been raised and it's commonplace. One of the few exceptions to cutting back on such an expectation is perhaps Easyjet et al who cut back on inflight service in exchange for a no-frills branding.

    That's not an exception. There is always a payoff between quality and price. Despite the fact that Easyjet and Ryanair are cheaper, some people still choose to fly with other airlines and even to fly first class. But it costs more.

    A supermarket could offer personal shoppers to every customer, but they would have to put their prices up or go out of business. If a service can't be offered profitably - and even "loss leaders" must lead to a profit - then a well-run business will not offer it.

    That would be a subjective notion. Why is it misguided to believe that one occupation is worthy of breadline wages and another above or below it?

    Because any occupation is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. It's nice to have someone bag my groceries but there is a limit to how much I am willing or able to pay for it. I'd like an extra inch of legroom and a free meal when I fly, but if it's significantly more expensive I will forego those luxuries. If both buyer and seller are agreed on price, then why should there be any objections?

    If the community is faring well, why shouldn't eveyone be permitted to at least eat, if they are willing to put in a days work?

    Because they won't be able to find work if they price themselves out of the market. Isn't paying someone $6 an hour better than not paying them $10 an hour? (If you're not sure, look at France.)

    While I have no difficulty with the Capitalist idea that certain professions are more desirable and are recompensed accordingly, I do have difficulty with the idea that taking an ethical stance is "misguided". IMHO it's merely being responsible.

    It's definitely responsible. Responsible for higher prices and higher unemployment rates. It fails to acheive it's goal, that's why it's misguided. People are never able to get on the employment ladder because nobody is willing or able to pay a 16-year-old with no skills and no experience $10 an hour. It's fine for the middle and upper classes who can go straight from school to college and from there to a comfortably-paid job, but poorer people suffer because they're charging more than their market value.

    I agree that market forces often drive companies to seek cheaper labour, but it's that the whole ethos of "fairtrade", which brings us back to Six's comparison to sweatshops. If the Western world wants goods but also wants to meet the ethical challenges of letting their labour force eat, then there's a cost attached which most people are willing to pay.

    That's why people should vote with their wallets. If you wish to pay more for a better or a "fairer" product, you should be free to do so. If a company acts illegally, it will be punished accordingly. If it acts against your ethics, you can boycott or even protest it. The market will respond to the demands of consumers.

Share this