The End of Corporate Healthcare...

[daybrown]

is coming as corporations will want to dump that cost onto the government in order to increase profit. That is the American way, and is bad news for the GOP, and why Hillary is such a shoe in.

Sure, that will lead to higher taxes... on the people, not the corporations. And they will therefore be able to sell into the global market at more competitive prices. Driving down the value of the dollar helps... them.

[Carl G]

The greatest prisoner escape of the war was at Sobibor, in eastern Poland, October 14, 1943. It was led by the alpha male Rutger Hauer, who won an Emmy for it.

In the grasslands of Ethiopia -- where during the war, BTW, the beta Italians could not shoot their way out of a wet pasta box -- young bucks were pushed out of the group to run around nekkid on their own, while the females were kidnapped, one tribe by the other, and some catnapped by lions. This spread the DNA around and created socialized herdly women and independent men. Thus you have today the bimbo and stalwart Ozark farmer.

Best of all worlds: a bimbo on acid in the back seat of my '57 Chevy.

Thar's your Genius filosophy *wink wank*

[Kevin Solway]

You'll have to be careful Carl . . . You might not be able to stop writing like that.

[Faust]

I'm a fan of competitive healthcare. Atleast it has liability and a real concern for its patients. Public healthcare has increasingly become some sort of non-liable monopoly institution. Bad service? Careless doctors? Too bad, can't do anything about it. The next time you come we'll make sure to wipe you out once and for all.

Daybrown, since when did corporations NOT dump the cost onto the government? I thought corporate healthcare requires subsidies from the government because it doesn't have enough money to start on its own? That's one bad side to corporate healthcare, the government subsidies.

[daybrown]

<Daybrown, since when did corporations NOT dump the cost onto the government? I thought corporate healthcare requires subsidies from the government because it doesn't have enough money to start on its own? That's one bad side to corporate healthcare, the government subsidies.>

IIRC, it was Kaiser aluminum that really started it. Course, back then, the population was lots younger, and they didnt offer triple bypass. You died instead. But as each new technology developed, there was a kind of bracket creep, as the costs for treatment rose way beyond what the neighborhood family practice could offer.

The corporate negotiators worked out kickbacks and sweetheart deals with insurers, who in turn simply raised the premiums on individual policies. But now, as outsourcing reduced middle class incomes, policies have lapsed, and the insurers have had to raise premiums even more to cover their overhead costs as well as catastrophic treatment costs. Which has become a feedback loop driving more or more people to drop coverage.

I dont think we have accurate data to evaluate the government subsidies to corporations, other than to look at the stock price, the ROI, and the ratio of unfunded liabilities in terms of pensions and healthcare to the real asset base of the corporation. It dont add up, and some big corporations have a negative net asset value. They'd be in bankruptcy but for the political ramifications and the domino effect of all their suppliers also going out of business.

One thing they have done is spoken with Hillary. If they give her the liberal Democratic congress needed, they'll pass a defacto national healthcare, taking the liability off the hands of business, and adding it to the national debt. The health insurers also have a deal cooking with Hillary, that just like Bush did with the pharmaceuticals and his prescription drug plan, have the government pick up the tab for your insurance.

So- ya, you'll still have the same health insurance card you always did, but the money behind it will be the US government. But government bureaucrats, not health insurance employees, will decide what will be covered. And the electorate is so stupid they wont even notice the diff.

[Faust]

but how did private hospitals begin in the first place without government funding?

[daybrown]

but how did private hospitals begin in the first place without government funding?

If you think you can get the corporate mass media to organize charities to take over American healthcare like they started the hospitals, I dont have a problem with it.

It aint upta me. I'm just looking at the way the corporate CFOs think. They can see that corporations they compete with all over the world dont have to fund the healthcare of their employees, and are therefore able to have lower prices in the market. That the citizens of those nations have to pay higher taxes is not their problem.

It was different back when they only competed with other American companies that also had to fund their own healthcare. But now we have free trade, and they are getting hammered. This is not about what we would like to see, but what they want to see. And I am just looking at that, and seeing it coming. As far as we are concerned, the decisions are already in the works, and all we can do is get over it and move on.

You have free speech, and you can present the case here; you can say whatever you like, but whatever you say does not matter. All that matters is what corporate speech, which has bought the media, says, and the sheeple will buy it.

[hsandman]

You'll have to be careful Carl . . . You might not be able to stop writing like that.

I think he is getting better...