Do You Support The ObamaCare Requirement

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

That regulates insurance companies to require them to spend 85% of revenue on patient care?

Would you have any objection if we applied the same standard to ALL tax revenue?

So, if it was welfare- 85% had to go to the people welfare supposedly helps.

If it is Social Security- 85% had to be paid out to beneficiaries.

If it is education, 85% has to go to classroom instruction.

If it is housing, 85% has to be spent on actually putting a roof over the heads of those low income people housing programs are designed to help.

And so on.

BTW- welfare? 37 cents on the dollar gets to the actual recipients. This hasn't changed since Ronald Reagan gave his famous "A Time For Choosing" speech in 1964. Pathetic.

If we're going to have the government regulate private, for-profit companies and tell them what they can spend out of the money they earn, then government can abide by the same rules with the money they take from us by force.

[privateinvestor]

Do You Support The ObamaCare Requirement


I am still studying it so can I take a pass??

[Deleted]

I think that's not a bad idea.

For education, for instance, would transporation count? Obviously teachers count as instruction? Would a curriculum director though? Would food service, which is about nutrition and goes with education, but maybe not the same goals, be a different program, or under the same?

Do you have a link to your welfare numbers please? Thanks.

[vonnie6200]

I like it so far.

[EVT1]

Second that- a link for the welfare numbers- sounds fishy.

[hello fromWarsaw]

When it's a necessity that private companies are handling, yes. Next: Big oil. CEO's etc and advertising, etc are too DAM* high!!. School sounds good. Welfare stat sounds like fishy pub mythology.

[hello fromWarsaw]

Actually, the rest is nuts. SS is better than that already, you have to build schools etc,

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Mar 24, 2011 21:08:33 GMT -5 hello fromWarsaw said:

Actually, the rest is nuts. SS is better than that already, you have to build schools etc,

And there it is. I knew one of you liberals would oblige- thank you.

Insurance companies have overhead, too.

[hello fromWarsaw]

At the moment, 27% DOESN"T go to care...TOO GD HIGH!!

[hello fromWarsaw]

For example- so much for advertising that makes us WAY overmedicated....ALL CEOs are ridiculous. 300-350x average workers. One dam* good reason for higher taxes on them.

[EVT1]

Overhead- ha ha- I'd say they do when they have to cough up 10-20 million bucks for ONE PERSON"S SALARY! Then you have to pay for lobbyists, PR campaigns to try and convince people you care about your customers, lawyers to fight customers' claims you don't want to pay,etc.

The hell with them. As I put on another thread- VT is giving them the finger for good- single payer is going into law there- can't wait to see the fight from the right.

www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2011/03/24/vt_house_resumes_debate_on_health_care_bill/

[formerexpat]

That regulates insurance companies to require them to spend 85% of revenue on patient care?

The stupidity behind this requirement is that as a whole, the industry already complies with this requirement.

Some companies are slightly lower than the 85%.

Actually, the rest is nuts. SS is better than that already, you have to build schools etc,

I'm not going to get 0.85 on the dollar and most people over $30k will not when compared to a deferred annuity that could be purchased on the private market.

This is before further changes that will be made to the system are made to make the system more welfaric [yep, my own word] in nature.

For example- so much for advertising that makes us WAY overmedicated

And how does this have anything to do with health insurance companies? Perhaps there should be something against advertising by the Pharma industry in the bill. Probably would have been if Obama weren't in their back pocket.

[/size]

[hello fromWarsaw]

The important thing is getting a start on regulating all of them- we'll add more later. And the stat I've seen is they were spending 27% on non care.

[Bluerobin]

Bout time the money went where it could do some good. Too much cash is going into the pockets of fat cat CEO's who really don't deserve it. Look how well the bankers got paid and what a wonderful job they did. It is a great idea for all companies, although I am not sure is should be government mandated. As far as our social programs, they could use some tough standards.

[Deleted]

"And there it is. I knew one of you liberals would oblige- thank you."

So you really didn't want to have a serious discussion on this topic? ... You just wanted to 'catch out' some 'liberal' in some way...

[Bluerobin]

You want CEO's with big buck salaries? Then I demand competence. I really do think the 85% rule is a good idea.

[magichat]

Mar 25, 2011 8:06:53 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

You want CEO's with big buck salaries? Then I demand competence. I really do think the 85% rule is a good idea.

As a share holder of a large corporation you can demand competence at any and all share holders meetings. The money paid to CEOs is not taken at the point of gun from my family.

[Deleted]

Do You Support The ObamaCare Requirement

So far I don't support anything that President Obama has come up with. In all fairness though I haven't seen the White House menu's.

Side note: Are all of the programmers for this board Republicans? If just one of them was a Democrat you would think that they would have added President Obama's name to the spell check program.

[Bluerobin]

magichat, Yes, it is. My small number of shares just don't matter. I support say on pay provisions and always vote against compensation packages. Yep, I know how well that works. Like trying to stop a canon ball with your bare hands. They line their own pockets while taking from mine. The company owners deserve better!

[magichat]

Then sell your shares in that company, or buy more. Again I am not forced to give money to corporations are you?

[Bluerobin]

Yep, we are all forced. It is a thing called needs. Since we cannot produce it ourselves, we must pay someone to make it for us. Enter the corporations.
If you are going to demand the salary, I demand competence. At present salary levels, too many fools are getting paid too much for not knowing enough. I have no problem with that if you are a private company. However, public companies should have a competence standard. The 85% rule would be good. Maybe this would make a good shareholder proposal.

[magichat]

Mar 25, 2011 8:42:59 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

Yep, we are all forced. It is a thing called needs. Since we cannot produce it ourselves, we must pay someone to make it for us. Enter the corporations.
If you are going to demand the salary, I demand competence. At present salary levels, too many fools are getting paid too much for not knowing enough. I have no problem with that if you are a private company. However, public companies should have a competence standard. The 85% rule would be good. Maybe this would make a good shareholder proposal.

I had not realized that all products were produced by a monoply. I buy private health insurance and am able to choose among 5-10 different companies.

[marjar]

Yes, I do.

[floridayankee]

Mar 25, 2011 8:42:59 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

If you are going to demand the salary, I demand competence. At present salary levels, too many fools are getting paid too much for not knowing enough. I have no problem with that if you are a private company. However, public companies should have a competence standard. The 85% rule would be good. Maybe this would make a good shareholder proposal.

You honestly think the government should limit ALL publicly traded companies to 15% gross profit?

LMAO...gonna be a lot of companies closing their doors. That'll really help the unemployment numbers.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Mar 24, 2011 22:26:02 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Overhead- ha ha- I'd say they do when they have to cough up 10-20 million bucks for ONE PERSON"S SALARY! Then you have to pay for lobbyists, PR campaigns to try and convince people you care about your customers, lawyers to fight customers' claims you don't want to pay,etc.

The hell with them. As I put on another thread- VT is giving them the finger for good- single payer is going into law there- can't wait to see the fight from the right.

www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2011/03/24/vt_house_resumes_debate_on_health_care_bill/

Whoa!!! If that's ONE person's SALARY, imagine what their corporate TAX BILL must have been!!! Maybe we need to free up all that tax on profits for patient care?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Mar 25, 2011 9:54:26 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Mar 25, 2011 8:42:59 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

If you are going to demand the salary, I demand competence. At present salary levels, too many fools are getting paid too much for not knowing enough. I have no problem with that if you are a private company. However, public companies should have a competence standard. The 85% rule would be good. Maybe this would make a good shareholder proposal.

You honestly think the government should limit ALL publicly traded companies to 15% gross profit?

LMAO...gonna be a lot of companies closing their doors. That'll really help the unemployment numbers.

I'm going to stop making the analogy that a discussion with liberals is like talking to children. It's insulting. To the children.

[Bluerobin]

FY, reread my original comment. Then I will accept your apology.
magic, don't twist words like the Tea Partiers. I said nothing about monopolies -just competence.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Mar 25, 2011 8:50:33 GMT -5 @magichat said:

Mar 25, 2011 8:42:59 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

Yep, we are all forced. It is a thing called needs. Since we cannot produce it ourselves, we must pay someone to make it for us. Enter the corporations.
If you are going to demand the salary, I demand competence. At present salary levels, too many fools are getting paid too much for not knowing enough. I have no problem with that if you are a private company. However, public companies should have a competence standard. The 85% rule would be good. Maybe this would make a good shareholder proposal.

I had not realized that all products were produced by a monoply. I buy private health insurance and am able to choose among 5-10 different companies.

Imagine if you could choose between 1,000 or more companies? Did you know you could, IF your STATE WOULD GET OUT OF THE WAY?

It's a fact.

The government prevents competition across state lines-- and in irony of ironies-- they use the "commerce clause" which actually makes this very practice ILLEGAL and UNCONSTIUTIONAL to uphold the practice.

Here's a woman that explains this and other problems pretty clearly:

"There are 1,300 insurance companies in the United States, but I can only use 6 in California"

[magichat]

All this discussion is really proving is that left leaning people feel the need to control the private sector, and another discussion later will prove that right leaning people feel the need to control morals and values. It really gets tiresome, how about we don't control either of them.

[Bluerobin]

magic, the first time I agree with you. But I feel strongly both ways.
PBP I want the plan that Congress gets and I want to pay the same they do.