Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Corporations that kill are no different than the terrorists.

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 2, 2012, 3:37 p.m. EST by 99PercentFriendly (31)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Corporations should not be allowed to make money off of the pain and suffering of the 99 percent, those that do and the politicians that support them should be identified and charged with crimes against humanity.

Its one thing for a company or business to make money if it is helping to improve the quality of life for the 99 percent (provided that it doesn’t damage our health and the environment in the process), but those that prey on the 99 percent while their executives and shareholders become millionaires are more dangerous to the humanity and this planet than any terrorists that we are supposed to be fighting.

-

33 Comments

33 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.

According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 98 percent of Americans, saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.

The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009.

Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.

Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated 44 percent of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the lower majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.

Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a public works program, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some US wealth was gradually transferred back down to the majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the richest 1 percent held less than 20 percent. The lower majority held the rest. And rightfully so. It was the best year ever for the middle and lower classes. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.

Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own over 40 percent of all US wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. If there is no redistribution, there will be no recovery.

Note: A knowledgable and trustworthy contributor has gone on record with a claim that effective tax rates for the rich were considerably lower than book rates during the years of redistribution that I have made reference to. His point was that the rich were able to avoid those very high marginal rates of 70-90% under the condition that they invested specifically in American jobs. His claim is that effective rates for the rich probably never exceeded 39% and certainly never exceeded 45%. My belief is that if true, those effective rates for the rich were still considerably higher than previous lows of '29'. Also that such policies still would have contributed to a partial redistribution by forcing the rich to either share profits and potential income through mass job creation or share income through very high marginal tax rates. This knowledgable contributor and I agree that there was in effect, a redistribution but disagree on the use of the word.

One thing is clear from recent events. The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. Book rates for the rich remain at all time lows. Their corporate golden geese are heavily subsidized. The benefits of corporate welfare are paid almost exclusively to the rich. Our Federal, State, and local leaders are sold out. Most of whom, are rich and trying to get even richer at our expense. They won't do anything about the obscene concentration of wealth. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.

For the good of society, stop giving so much of your money to rich people. Stop concentrating the wealth. This may be our last chance to prevent the worst economic depression in world history. No redistribution. No recovery.

Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, use any portion, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=XgygaG87rZY

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

You know whats ugly? This goddamned post. Shit gets old man. At least the Catholic Church spews new shit every so often. Its like eating the same food everyday for 3 weeks. If you haven't done it, you get sick of it.

[-] 0 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

The hell with your entertainment. I'ts the substance that matters.

Next.

[-] 0 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Next post? Here let me help me spread you self righteous and misguided BS.

The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN. According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 98 percent of Americans, saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively. The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009. Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s. Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated 44 percent of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the lower majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed. Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a public works program, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some US wealth was gradually transferred back down to the majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the richest 1 percent held less than 20 percent. The lower majority held the rest. And rightfully so. It was the best year ever for the middle and lower classes. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth. Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own over 40 percent of all US wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. If there is no redistribution, there will be no recovery. Note: A knowledgable and trustworthy contributor has gone on record with a claim that effective tax rates for the rich were considerably lower than book rates during the years of redistribution that I have made reference to. His point was that the rich were able to avoid those very high marginal rates of 70-90% under the condition that they invested specifically in American jobs. His claim is that effective rates for the rich probably never exceeded 39% and certainly never exceeded 45%. My belief is that if true, those effective rates for the rich were still considerably higher than previous lows of '29'. Also that such policies still would have contributed to a partial redistribution by forcing the rich to either share profits and potential income through mass job creation or share income through very high marginal tax rates. This knowledgable contributor and I agree that there was in effect, a redistribution but disagree on the use of the word. One thing is clear from recent events. The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. Book rates for the rich remain at all time lows. Their corporate golden geese are heavily subsidized. The benefits of corporate welfare are paid almost exclusively to the rich. Our Federal, State, and local leaders are sold out. Most of whom, are rich and trying to get even richer at our expense. They won't do anything about the obscene concentration of wealth. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible. For the good of society, stop giving so much of your money to rich people. Stop concentrating the wealth. This may be our last chance to prevent the worst economic depression in world history. No redistribution. No recovery. Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, use any portion, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.

Help at all?

[-] -1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

I prefer the version with paragraph breaks.

Next.

[-] 0 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

I prefer people who aren't self righteous ass holes.

[-] 0 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

I prefer people who don't dismiss the ugly truth based on some cop-out petty excuse that the messenger is a self righteous ass hole.

Say that reminds me.

"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society." -Albert Einstein 1949

"The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions." -Albert Einstein 1949

"The United States economy is like a poker game where the chips have become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and where the other fellows can stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit runs out the game will stop." -Mariner Eccles Chairman of the Federal Reserve under FDR

You're probably wondering. If these guys were right and the wealth was heavily concentrated just prior to the Great Depression, how did we recover?

That's simple but not well known. There was a partial redistribution from the mid '30's to the mid '70's.

So why are we in this mess all over again?

It's the same problem. Relatively simple.

"The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide and is growing so fast that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself." Allen Greenspan testifying before congress in the spring of '05'.

Robert Reich and a dozen more prominent economists have gone on record with similar views.

According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 98 percent of Americans, saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.

The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009

All that progress made after the Great Depression has been reversed over the last 35 years. The richest one percent now own over 43% of America's financial wealth. That's way too much. Its causing hardship for ordinary (decent) people and economic instability. But the rich refuse to accept any responsibility. They are never satisfied. They always want more. They absolutely will not stop.

It's very similar in Europe. The rich are too rich. Period.

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=XgygaG87rZY

This site is being ruined by trolls. It's no accident. It's no game. It's about money and PR. The rich don't want our messages read. They don't want people to understand. They don't want to accept responsibility for any of this. They will say or do anything to divert our attention.

Don't let them get away with it.

Search the AM dial day and night for local call in talk radio shows. There are dozens of them. Call in and be heard by thousands at once. Its easy. I've done it over 800 times. Just don't bother with Limbaugh, Hanity, Levin, Beck, Ingraham, Savage, Doyle, Harley, Mcnamera, Bortz, or Bruce. Those guys are a waste of time. The others are ok. You are welcome to use anything I post. The quotes and statistics are accurate.

[-] 2 points by Menton (26) from New York, NY 2 years ago

...like a private profitable health care system for some....run by an insurance industry ....as found in the U.S.?

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

This kind of hyperbole doesn't really help our cause. It only resonates with the extremists, and it alienates the 99%.

[-] 0 points by desklamp (2) 2 years ago

Our cause is helped thru education the worlds people, as to there oppression by corporate power.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

This is not education, it's propaganda.

[-] 3 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

Strongly disagree on this one, Thrasymaque. Sure a little bombastic or maybe just provoking but still valid.

I can't make all the arguments, but I can see a point. Seriously, this is not the post to take to task. This is a poker that goes in a good direction.

Peace

ps; I have not been to the link because I generally do not go to unsolicited sites, that may be the disconnection.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

There is nothing at the link but the author's web-site. As it stands, the site is empty except for the ads which earn him some revenue when we click on his link.

[-] 0 points by desklamp (2) 2 years ago

A Time to Occupy The Occupation of Public Space and the Balance of Power in the Marketplace of Ideas By Daniel Mark 2011


epub http://www.multiupload.com/0L3PTW53Y7


mobi http://www.multiupload.com/8RHZDYCL3K


pdf http://www.multiupload.com/XMAFH6DEXK


Forward The worldwide financial crisis that began in 2008 could seemingly be lumped into a large collection of issues of protest. Unjust wars, climate change, the education crisis, and poor public transportation are just some that come to mind. Yet, it is the financial crisis alone that seems to have spurred a worldwide movement. Though movements have always been aplenty, worldwide movements are harder to come by. Of course, this is not the first time that economic collapse spurred worldwide protest. Following the Great Depression, the protest movement was noteworthy. In the end, policy makers were forced to make significant policy changes, embodied in the New Deal enactments of the 1930’s.point to the “reserves of the unemployed” as the reason why circumstances of economic depression are so ripe for protest. After all, 14 million people with no jobs are a lot of people with nothing to lose. Furthermore, a economy is not merely an abstract injustice – it directly affects nearly everyone. However, economic injustice and widespread protest are even more intimately connected. To understand how, one needs to understand that protest – no matter the issue – is always additionally a critique of society’s information infrastructure. After all, if media were doing its job, the injustices of the moment would already be exposed. It is the lack of exposure which fuels the need for protest in the first place.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Indulge me while I inject some fact. I promise it won't take too long or be too boring.

Profits generated in various healthcare segments are what funded the development of the MRI scanner, a vaccine for cervical cancer, and myriad other advances. Anyone proposing to remove profit from healthcare better have an answer for R&D if we are to continue advancing medicine.

People who come armed with fact, identify real issues, and propose viable solutions do more to help the movement than those adding yet another shout to the cacophony of shouts declaring they've been wronged and placing blame without a solid factual basis or solution.

If you're interested in helping rather than just joining a witch-hunt, try to become intimately familiar with the data at https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/01_Overview.asp#TopOfPage , http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/about_meps/survey_back.jsp , http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/dhcs.htm , http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/health_nutrition/health_expenditures.html and others.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

you've been indulged rico. how do your facts negate what modestCapitalist wrote about the increasing gap in income between the rich and poor? these are facts that will make people wake up and see what is actually happening in america. we are not solely dependent on private industry as far as research goes, there other ways to fund and implement it, government projects and university research institutes for example, which i'm sure you are well aware of.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4512) 2 years ago

Hi 99Percent, Good post. Best Regards, Nevada

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

Two months ago when Mattel Toys recalled 10,000,000 lead painted toys I suggested we arrest the "Person" of Mattel Toys under the Citizen United ruling and charge them with treason and attempted murder.

Did not get too many replies :( lol

http://occupywallst.org/forum/mattel-toys-commits-treason-with-lead/

[-] 2 points by 99PercentFriendly (31) 2 years ago

Behind every corporation that is killing us there is someone in the government that has betrayed the 99 percent.

-

[-] 1 points by JimBeam (152) 2 years ago

Because it's not a realistic suggestion, that's why you didn't get many replies.

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

TY for seeing that it was not a realistic suggestion. It should be seen as farcical.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

MC-

MC-you’ve admitted that you are not an “expert” in economics but that you “know the basics”. I'm not an expert either, so I consulted some experts.

Here are some “experts” in Economics and some expert analysis of research done on economic findings in America that say that “the poor are not getting poorer”.

A report of income mobility in America that proves that the vast majority of“the poor” do not stay poor” and the vast majority of “the rich” do not stay rich.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr180.pdf

The next link is from an article written by David R. Henderson in 1998. (I realize that’s 13 years ago, but it proves that you are historically wrong about “the poor getting poorer” PRE 1998 as well. Henderson is a research fellow with the Hoover Institution. He is also an associate professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6416

Here’s a blog by Michael Smith MBA, CFP®-Not only the article, but the discussion in the comments section details how incorrect it is to view the “wealth” in America as some kind of “pie” and not an “open system”.

http://www.financialfinesse.com/blog/2011/08/are-the-rich-really-getting-richer-and-the-poor-really-getting-poorer/

Here’s an article by Walter E. Williams who holds a bachelor's degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master's degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles.

In 1980, he joined the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and is currently the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics. He has also served on the faculties of Los Angeles City College (1967-69), California State University (1967-1971) and Temple University (1973-1980)

His conclusion in the following article? –“The bottom line is, the richer are getting richer and the poor are getting richer.”

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2007/10/31/are_the_poor_getting_poorer/page/full/

Here’s an article by Mark Thoma-a Professor of Economics at the University of Oregon

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/11/inequality-and-.html

An article by Mark J Sperry, Professor of Economics and Finance http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/11/when-you-do-time-lapse-analysis-instead.html

And an article from the Daily Caller: "According to the research, published at The Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, from Cornell economist Richard Burkhauser, Joint Committee on Taxation economist Jeff Larrimore, and Indiana University economist Kosali Simon, while the rich have indeed been getting richer, for the last 30 years so too have the poor and middle class."

“The bottom line is [conventional wisdom] asks what’s been happening to private personal income over time and they are right if you look at that for tax units, things do not look very good for the middle class,” he said. “But if you take other things into account, the reason the country has not gotten in a civil war is because things are not that bad. In fact everybody has done better.”

http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/26/economic-study-despite-obamas-claim-the-poor-are-not-getting-poorer/#ixzz1iLYYTZND

And the last is a blog post by some guy debunking the “rich get richer the poor get poorer argument” using arguments (which he calls myths) “ based on the US gini coefficient increasing by about 10% since WWII.”

http://critiquesofcollectivism.blogspot.com/2011/07/rich-get-richer-and-poor-get-poorer.html

Argue with their stats and conclusions, not mine.

[-] 0 points by horsefly (2) 2 years ago

Corporate power and influence is the cause of most of the deaths and suffering on this planet-- its explained best here---------------------------------------------------------------- Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins


pdf http://www.multiupload.com/1JJQK17UOB


mp3
part # 1 http://www.multiupload.com/GNHSWX02RR part #2 http://www.multiupload.com/A3PHDXJYQ4


In this shocking memoir, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins tells of his own inner journey from willing servant of empire to impassioned advocate for the rights of oppressed people. Covertly recruited by the United States National Security Agency and on the payroll of an international consulting firm, he traveled the world—to Indonesia, Panama, Ecuador, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other strategically important countries. His job was to implement policies that promoted the interests of the U.S. corporatocracy (a coalition of government, banks, and corporations) while professing to alleviate poverty—policies that alienated many nations and ultimately led to September 11 and growing anti-Americanism. Within a few weeks of its release , Confessions of an Economic Hit Man landed onThe New York Times Bestseller List, then 19 other bestseller lists including the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post. The author has been interviewed repeatedly on national radio and television shows, including Amy Goodman's Democracy Now, CSPAN's Book TV, and PBS' Now with David Brancaccio. And now the book is being published in 9 languages around the world. According to John Perkins, "It is accomplishing an important objective in inspiring people to think and talk and to know that we can change the world."

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

Which ones are killing us?

[-] 4 points by 99PercentFriendly (31) 2 years ago

The insurance companies and politicians who stand in the way of the 99 percent from getting adequate and timely healthcare are committing crimes against humanity.

40,000 people die in America each year because of lack of adequate and timely healthcare, even those who have insurance will find out the hard way that they still have to fight the insurance companies in order to get the necessary medical procedures if they get a serious illness.

1.000.000 families go bankrupt in America each year and in many cases lose their homes because they get hit with huge medical bills that they can’t afford (even those who have insurance).

-

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

I had a friend not too long ago who injured his shoulder playing football. He started taking pain killers. After a few months, he was on pain killers, sleeping pills, bipolar pills, and seizure pills. I watched this guy go from being a strong athlete to a shell. He lost 30 or 40 pounds. He gave up sports alltogether. I witnessed him having a seizure. He was completely helpless. I had to drag him up a hill, put him in the car, and take him to the hospital. The next day, he was on another prescription drug. Then one day, he told me that he was referred to a neurologist. I went off. I told him that the whole thing was a god damn train wreck caused by pharmaceuticals.

He gave up all pharmaceuticals right then and there. That was almost 3 years ago. Now, he is drug free, in perfect health, and in better shape than ever serving in the US Army.

True story.

Anyone who can't see that doctors are in bed with the pharmaceutical industry is blind. My mother once attended an 'educational' seminar with a doctor. The event was held at a yacht club. They spent 30 minutes watching a video. Then it was out on the yachts. The entire event was catered and covered by the pharmaceutical industry. That sort of thing happens all the time. These aren't just perks. Its outright bribery.

The doctors are in bed with the pharmaceutical industry. The hell with ethics. The hell with responsibility. THE HELL WITH HEALTH. Pharmaceuticals are prescribed like candy. It shouldn't be that way. Pharmaceuticals should be prescribed only for excruciating pain or serious conditions that don't improve with proper diet, excercise, and other responsible healthy lifestyle choices. Side effects should never be treated with more pharmaceuticals unless the primary condition absolutely requires medication and the side effect is too serious to leave untreated. Otherwise, the patient might end up like my friend did before he finally came back to his senses.

[-] 2 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

Keep typing my friend!!!

Hear, Hear!

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

What types of things do you propose be done in order to make healthcare more affordable?

[-] 4 points by 99PercentFriendly (31) 2 years ago

The healthcare system should be run as a not for profit organization. Corporations should not be allowed to make money off of the pain and suffering of the 99 percent.

I have nothing against those who are making a modest living in the healthcare industry, but I do have a problem with the present system where the profits and interest of the one percent stand in the way of the average people getting adequate and timely healthcare.

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Perfect answer. Not too dismissive. Not too radical. A balance of logic and compassion.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

"40,000 people die in America each year because of lack of adequate and timely healthcare"

"1.000.000 families go bankrupt in America each year and in many cases lose their homes because they get hit with huge medical bills that they can’t afford (even those who have insurance)."

Please provide evidence to prove the validity of these two statements.

[-] -1 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

Wow, if I had some actual links to those statements I could really show my conservative relatives who think I'm a raving, lunatic, nutter, far left wackadoodle!