Reply With Quote
Most fast food and retail businesses operate at 1.5 to 3% profit from revenue, its been that way since the 80´s, maybe sooner. They are able to do that and maintain wealth because of quan y.
You're conflating two different points: abortion and who pays for healthcare. Having a single-payor system like Canada doesn't mean Roe vs Wade has to go away. They're actually not connected at all.
Most fast food and retail businesses operate at 1.5 to 3% profit from revenue, its been that way since the 80´s, maybe sooner. They are able to do that and maintain wealth because of quan y.
They read it, it was passed with intent. Obama administration has sold out to big financial en ies just the same as any Republican. You have to corrupt yourself in this manner to get elected.
large financial en ies have screwed over this county and are hardly suffering for it. The mere fact you guys are arguing about it is a clear sign who go the short end of the stick. Thats exactly what the two parties want, you guys argue while they rob the country blind.
That´s why the vast majority of time in the media and from politicians is spend discussing personnel individual income tax. That way, they can slip nice benefits where people aren´t looking.
if obama 'sold out to soulless corporations', then why are these same 'soulless corporations' trying everything they can to cir vent Obama care?
http://wendellpotter.com/2012/12/the...ert-obamacare/And now, insurers have turned once again to the Chamber, this time to wage a behind-the-scenes campaign aimed at state insurance commissioners. If they succeed, insurers will be able to sell a highly profitable insurance product to a highly targeted group of small employers—those with mostly young and healthy workers. By buying this product—stop-loss insurance—those small employers would be able to avoid using the planned state insurance exchanges to obtain coverage for their workers.
Here’s why that’s important. Because of the way the Affordable Care Act is written, by avoiding the exchanges those small businesses would be exempt from having to comply with many of the most important consumer protections in the health law.
It’s complicated—so complicated that unless you are a reader of obscure insurance industry newsletters, you’ve probably never heard about this, even though it has the potential to cause the collapse of the exchanges and completely cir vent to intent of Congress. The intent of Congress was to make coverage more affordable and available to all of us, not just the young and healthy.
The key to this fight are those state insurance commissioners. Their organization, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, just wrapped up its fall meeting in Washington, where consumer advocates were pitted against lobbyists for big insurers and their old friend, the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber has taken the lead in pressuring the NAIC to make it easy for insurers to sell stop-loss coverage to small businesses wanting to avoid many of the ACA’s consumer protections. Those protections aren’t a small matter; they would, among other things, prohibit insurers from charging people higher premiums because of their gender, age and health status. Buying stop-loss coverage would also allow employers to largely side-step any regulation at the state level.
The Chamber of Commerce has officially become a wing-nut tax-payer subsidized en y...
proof is in the puddin...
and...
Private health care is the driving force behind inflation and the national debt....as a matter of national health and security, why do we evaluate teachers yearly, but not our insurance providers?
Why does private business get a pass?
War on employees...
LOL... Bull .
Supply and demand.
We have been on this negative value of work ever since families insisted on two breadwinners, and now it takes both parents working to provide as well as when it was traditional that only the father worked. It is even worse yet with the number of illegal aliens we have working, keeping no skill, jobs at artificially low wages.
There should be no tax on a home's profit unless it is indexed to inflation, and accounts for improvements.
If I buy a new home for $200k, have to buy topsoil, plant grass, trees, etc. Let them grow 15 years, have a fence, and other improvements like central heating/AC, etc. Sell the home for $300k, they expect me to pay taxes on the $100k gain. However, what is the increased value of mature trees, fence, yard, and other improvements also?
If I'm wrong, please, someone correct me.
women went to work in the 1980s to maintain a standard of living due stagnation of real household income (as executive/financial sector income exploded), esp hit hard by the inflation of the early 80s, NOT because families "insisted".
undo ented aliens do work that US citizens won't do, just like Turks, Greeks, Italians, Maghreb do in Europe, and don't take work away from citizens.
If you're single, you would not be taxed on the profit on the sale of the home unless the profit exeeded $250k.
You are wrong as evidenced by the post that YOU quoted.
This is a fantastic graph that plainly illustrates the diminishing marginal returns on additional health care expenditure. Spending more money on health care won't make us healthier. There are some cultural dynamics at play that need to be address in the long run... but god forbid we make students receiving subsidized lunches eat something healthy!!!
"Spending more money on health care won't make us healthier"
That was never the priority for decades. The priority is FOR-PROFIT.
I think that the choices should all be healthy. Your sides? Broccoli. Don't like broccoli? Steamed veggies. 2nd side? potatoes (mashed, cubed (baked)), usw.
"some cultural dynamics"
There's almost no chance that the pathogenic US/corporate food culture can be changed.
And take away my in' liberty? Over my dead body.
No one is going to stop your mom from sending you with a case of ding dongs and a vat of crisco for lunch.
the best way to get Americans to change their diet/lifestyle is with money, which is their priority.
Rather than penalize greasebags with higher insurance premiums, insurers, including a govt insurer, should measure people's health and give serious reductions in premiums for "good numbers", including further reductions for maintaining good numbers for years (just like auto insurance coming down for no-claim drivers).
The costs of the testing would probably be cheaper than paying many $100Bs/year for self-inflicted lifestyle diseases.
Being fat is a pre-existing condition. You want to charge people with pre-existing conditions more?
RIF
I said no malus, only bonus for meeting/beating the numbers. greasebags would pay 100%, no discount. they don't pay "more", they pay 100%. If the greasebags get their numbers down, they also pay less than 100%.
Damn, even you can't be blind enough to realize that this is just a semantic argument.
no, it's not semantic. Everybody pays 100%, no discrimination. If you make your numbers, you pay less than 100%.
Nobody's forcing anybody to pay a malus or do anything (except pay what you owe).
You know that this is exactly how the insurance industry has worked for ages, just in the opposite. Right?
It is semantic.
I LOL'd at Boo endorsing a plan identical to the current insurance pricing he screams about. Thats why I tweaked him on the pre-existing condition and he didn't even get it. Younger, healthier people pay less.
with the explosive obesity epidemic, sub-30 people now have middle age diseases of stroke, diabetes, heart disease.
So then you want to roll back the pre-existing condition clause of the ACA to fight this, no?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
