Discussion in 'Online & DL Teaching' started by graymatter, Apr 26, 2013.
And USPTO is?
Patent and Trademark Office.
If this is in response to me, I'm not following. I'm not advocating the privatization of anything and everything. I'm wondering why multiple employers would feel that they are under an obligation to fund healthcare insurance for someone who already has it.
Brainwashing commencing as planned .... government is good .... government takes care of you .... government is your world ...
Compared to similar jobs in the private sector. Fact.
Government workers have no trade-off. They get everything. High pay, pensions, vacations, personal leave, health care, job security. E-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g.
I've had a lot of jobs as well and I've worked with/for a lot of government agencies and I stick by what I have said. Sometimes the truth hurts.
I'm not going to disagree on this point, but it is Obamacare forcing me to use these organizations.
YMMV - The guys who do the same job as me (19 year Active Duty SNCO) are making more than me on the outside as contractors after getting out out at the end of their first enlistment and don't have the added headaches of deployments, frequent reassignments, non-standard duty days/weeks, etc.
Wait a minute. President Obama and the democrats got everything they wanted in Obamacare. The republicans couldn't and didn't stop anything. Are you trying to plant the seed that when it fails to blame the republicans? Come on now.
I understand and agree with your paragraph on "externalities," but where do we draw the line. Every time we force people to do things, no matter how small, we take away their freedoms. There are many things we could do to reduce health care costs but they're not politically advantageous.
Are you just comparing base pay to base pay or are you factoring in all your benefits with all theirs? What does an SNCO do? I'm sure there are some government jobs that pay less, nothing is ever 100%.
Factoring in everything that I get (we get a handy "this is what you would need to make in the civilian world to equal all your benefits" sheet every year), there are young guys getting out at the end of a four year enlistment who start out with a paycheck 10% larger than what I get for doing basic technician work. As a SNCO (senior noncomissioned officer) in my current specialty which deals with flight operations, I do the technician work (have to maintain proficiency) but primarily manage the technicians (currently slightly over 200) in an operations management role.
"Wait a minute. President Obama and the democrats got everything they wanted in Obamacare. The republicans couldn't and didn't stop anything. Are you trying to plant the seed that when it fails to blame the republicans? Come on now. "
That you don't know this is very revealing, and indicates to me that it isn't worth deconstructing your other, unsupported arguments.
I didn't "blame the republicans" (sic). I just attributed the idea to them, which is very true. (The Heritage Foundation, followed by many GOP politicians.)
Look it up.
Yes, this is a fact. Remember why Romney had to run away from his own record? It was Romneycare before it was Obamacare.
I realize I'm late to the party, and I'm not going to debate the merits or Obamacare. I just wanted to add a little blurb about my own employer. At least in my opinion, I think this limiting of adjunct hours can be a good thing. For us it'll force us to expand our pool of adjuncts. Getting exposure to different teaching styles (particularly if they're better) will probably be a good thing in the long run.
1. Everyone needs and uses healthcare.
2. We all pay for it somehow.
3. The debates are around who and how much.
4. Mitigating risk is smoothest when the risk pool is largest. Having everyone in it smooths out the cost-sharing for everyone.
5. Almost all healthcare is managed health care. The question is who does the managing--a single-payer system or a oligopoly of insurance companies?
6. If you don't like your provided healthcare, you can add your own, just like you can with primary and secondary education. But just as you don't get to opt out of the taxes that pay for education, the taxes that pay for Medicare, the taxes that pay for Social Security, you should not be allowed to opt out of paying for healthcare insurance.
7. Medicare for everyone would have been a lot easier. Then we, as a society, could better manage down healthcare costs. But if you think the insurance companies are going to take their hands off our wallets and purses, you're mistaken. I'm surprised we were able to implement Romneycare.
But some people need a lot more than others, and typically when someone's not paying the cost of something they use more of it than necessary.
Indeed, since "we" before and after are two different sets.
The smoothest thing is the way you gloss over that "cost-sharing" really means that what you want is for people paying for other people's healthcare to be the rule rather than the exception. I believe we should help those in trouble, that doesn't mean that the world owes anyone a living. Charity should be available, and no one should be unable to get the care they need, but if you're accepting charity you should be grateful, not expectant.
This is a false dichotomy. Markets don't have magic powers, but a freer system in which people tended to pay out of pocket for day to day needs, and insurance was only for catastrophes, would restore the way that markets can keep prices low for primary care. As part of that, we should take more steps like the ones taken to allow PAs and nurse practitioners to be a patient's first point of contact.
Steve brings up an important point: are we willing to pool the risk and share the costs of healthcare? Or should each of us be on our own? I submit that either model is fine and has merits. But we already pool the risk on healthcare in many ways, from Medicare to Medicaid, from health insurance to self-pay, from community hospitals to charities.
My point is that we all share the costs, no matter the model. Even if you opt out of health insurance, society is on the hook to take care of you. That's why we mandate auto insurance (including medical coverage). That's why we pay for public schools. Collecting and spending for the collective good is a large part of what governments do. Just as you can't opt out of using the roads, you can't opt out of using healthcare. It may sound Darwinian to leave it up to individuals--if you are strong enough to earn you're also strong enough to pay; if not, so be it. Except it isn't true. If you have the means to pay for your own healthcare, you can. But if you don't, we all pay for you.
We've decided, as a society, that everyone has to chip in for health care (Medicare/Medicaid taxes), education (property taxes, mostly), infrastructure (mostly income and sales taxes), Social Security (FICA), and the rest of what government provides (FITW and the state-equivalent). We provided (ideally, even if it is lacking sometimes) universal education, universal safety, universal security, universal access to the infrastructure, etc. Why is healthcare even a question? Because some very rich insurance companies would like to keep it that way.
We could have a complete pay-as-you-go system. But then we'd have to dump Medicare, Medicaid, the VA health system, and the insurance companies. Just don't be the unfortunate one who gets catastrophically ill (or not even that bad). If you do, you will be a bankrupt, indentured servant the rest of your life. Good luck with that.
So why again does this keep me from being able to raise my family on multiple part-time jobs because of the fear that I'll work 30 hours for one and require that multiple employers fund healthcare coverage when my family is already covered?
'cause that's the part I don't get.
We are on page four of this thread and not a single well crafted response that makes sense!
I'm basically reiterating a point that has already been made in this thread, but I do question whether ACA is really to "blame" for this.
One of my employers provides healthcare benefits for anyone who works at least 20 hours per week. Yet I'm uninsured. Yep :fing02: Would it surprise you to find out that I average just about 19 hours per week for them? :yikes:
It sounds like the situations differ. In your case, that's your employer's policy. In Graymatter's case, he and his employer were happy with an arrangement, then ACA came along and forced them to behave differently. How is ACA not to blame?
This political scientist says Health Care is a basic human right. Ultimately, the government by not providing universal health care when it can afford to do so is violating your human rights. They would rather spend your money on the military industrial complex. Passing this onto employers is just a red herring. Obama or Romney, two sides of the same coin folks.
And yet those in government have to take my stuff to be able to pay for your healthcare, which violates my human rights.
You make it sound like those in government can make it happen without passing it on to anyone.
I do agree, at least, that handing that money over to defense contractors, prison companies, agricultural conglomerates, and other corporatist parasites is just as much a violation of my rights, and with even a worse outcome. I also don't see a significant difference between the current administration and the one that preceeded it, so it sounds like we're on the same page there as well.
Separate names with a comma.