Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#91
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:33:38 -0500, Marty said: Toyota and Honda have been able to provide a very competitive health care package for their employees, (isn't that pretty much a legal requirement?) Nope. An employer can provide no health benefits at all if he so chooses. The system of linking health benefits to employment is an outgrowth of wage an price controls of WWII. Most do offer them to be competitive in hiring. "Most" - yes... down from 69% to 60%. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...UG8OENLE61.DTL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
#92
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
Whooopeee!!!!!
Dave wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:33:38 -0500, Marty said: Toyota and Honda have been able to provide a very competitive health care package for their employees, (isn't that pretty much a legal requirement?) Nope. An employer can provide no health benefits at all if he so chooses. The system of linking health benefits to employment is an outgrowth of wage an price controls of WWII. Most do offer them to be competitive in hiring. Ah, so Toyota has no health care plan for its' workers? Cheers Martin |
#93
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
Whooopeee!!!!!
Dave wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 23:58:25 -0500, Marty said: Nope. An employer can provide no health benefits at all if he so chooses. The system of linking health benefits to employment is an outgrowth of wage an price controls of WWII. Most do offer them to be competitive in hiring. Ah, so Toyota has no health care plan for its' workers? What is your basis for that conclusion? The four letter word "Nope" that opens your previous post. Cheers Martin |
#94
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:55:15 -0500, Martin Baxter said: Nope. An employer can provide no health benefits at all if he so chooses. The system of linking health benefits to employment is an outgrowth of wage an price controls of WWII. Most do offer them to be competitive in hiring. Ah, so Toyota has no health care plan for its' workers? What is your basis for that conclusion? The four letter word "Nope" that opens your previous post. Most interesting and quite revealing. It suggests you believe businesses answer only to government requirements--that market forces such as the need to compete with other potential employers in setting wages and benefits, and the need to compete with other sellers in product pricing, has no influence in those businesses' decisions. That assumption may be true in a command economy. Maybe that's why command economies fail. It's one of the answers. Certainly, the "free market" (which isn't free of course) has a role also. However, left to only the free market, healthcare costs would go up. This has already happened, so it's not really in dispute. Private companies have little incentive to lower costs. They're in it for the shareholders. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
#95
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:32:25 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: However, left to only the free market, healthcare costs would go up. This has already happened, so it's not really in dispute. Nonsense. A market in which the guvmint throws massive amounts to sellers via various subsidies is not a free market. In a free market without massive guvmint intervention, sellers of medical products and services would have to adjust their prices based on what buyers are willing to pay. Except it's a fact. It's not a buyers' market. People have no choice to pay or die. This isn't a carwash. Private companies have little incentive to lower costs. They're in it for the shareholders. A very good argument for correcting the error made 65 years ago when we decided to subsidize employer prepayment of medical expenses. ?? Costs would be even higher. Bush wanted to move everything to the private sector, even social security in the stock market. That would have been just great wouldn't it. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
#96
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:05:23 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: People have no choice to pay or die. This isn't a carwash. I suppose that if one is in a delicate condition, every sniffle and sore throat is potentially life-threatening. For most of us that's not the case. Dude... are you really that heartless? Do you think a stomach ache can be an indication of too much food but not a ruptured appenedix? Get real. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
#97
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
Whooopeee!!!!!
It's one of the answers. Certainly, the "free market" (which isn't free of course) has a role also. However, left to only the free market, healthcare costs would go up. This has already happened, so it's not really in dispute. Note the faulty liberal logic, a deceptive trick: If A then B {A = healthcare left to free market, B = prices will go up} We have B, so then A is true ===FALLACY If Gaynz let syphillis go to his brain, he will become crazy. Gaynz is crazy, so he has syphillis. No dispute! Private companies have little incentive to lower costs. They're in it for the shareholders. Look at the cost of computers. The computer industry is a virtually unregulated free market and over the years the costs have soared. Healthcare costs have gone up by extraordinary measure! 50 years ago an MRI costs $0.00. Today it costs about $1500. 1550/0 = infinite! There's the free market at work! Private companies have little incentive to lower costs. They're in it for the shareholders. Yet the Fed acts to head off deflation - falling prices! Why can't these evil private companies take it upon themselves to shore up prices to keep their greedy shareholders fat and happy? |
#98
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
Whooopeee!!!!!
wrote in message ... On 25 Nov 2008 11:45:01 -0600, Dave wrote: On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:32:25 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: However, left to only the free market, healthcare costs would go up. This has already happened, so it's not really in dispute. Nonsense. A market in which the guvmint throws massive amounts to sellers via various subsidies is not a free market. In a free market without massive guvmint intervention, sellers of medical products and services would have to adjust their prices based on what buyers are willing to pay. Unless, of course, they all get together and collude to jack prices up, rather than compete against each other. That, of course, could NEVER happen! Happens all the time. That's why Unions are exempt from anti-trust laws. |
#99
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Capt. JG" wrote in message easolutions... "Dave" wrote in message ... On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:32:25 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: However, left to only the free market, healthcare costs would go up. This has already happened, so it's not really in dispute. Nonsense. A market in which the guvmint throws massive amounts to sellers via various subsidies is not a free market. In a free market without massive guvmint intervention, sellers of medical products and services would have to adjust their prices based on what buyers are willing to pay. Except it's a fact. It's not a buyers' market. People have no choice to pay or die. This isn't a carwash. People do have a choice to take care of their health, thus lowering the cost. Obesity, smoking, lack of exercise and drug abuse all contribute heavily to health care cost. Private companies have little incentive to lower costs. They're in it for the shareholders. A very good argument for correcting the error made 65 years ago when we decided to subsidize employer prepayment of medical expenses. ?? Costs would be even higher. Bush wanted to move everything to the private sector, even social security in the stock market. That would have been just great wouldn't it. I guess it's better to get healthcare from the same system that runs the Post Office. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
#100
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Capt. JG" wrote in message easolutions... "Dave" wrote in message ... On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:05:23 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: People have no choice to pay or die. This isn't a carwash. I suppose that if one is in a delicate condition, every sniffle and sore throat is potentially life-threatening. For most of us that's not the case. Dude... are you really that heartless? Do you think a stomach ache can be an indication of too much food but not a ruptured appenedix? Get real. A ruptured appendix has specific pain in the lower right quadrant. A stomach ache is central and much higher. Hope this saves you several trips to the emergency room. |