Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: What Else Should Government Make Employers Buy You With Your Paycheck?

Posted 2 years ago on March 9, 2012, 7:34 p.m. EST by shamefuldays (-42)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Leftist moonbats demand that government make employers provide healthcare insurance for employees. But employees don't get anything they haven't earned, so whatever the employer spends on healthcare is done with the employee's pay. Well, unless this is yet something else that comes out of thin air as the bedwetters believe.

But if we should make employers take part of what you earn and buy you healthcare, then why not make them take part of what you earn and buy your housing, clothes, transportation, vacations, exercise equipment and anything else some bureaucrat thinks you should buy? Why not just hand over all of your buying decisions to some goon in government? Then government could pass rules on the exact type of housing, clothes, transportation, vacations, exercise equipment that you should buy, just like with healthcare. That's a better world because they know better than you do. LOL.

Or how about if we just let people buy what they want with what they earn? Yeah, radical, I know if you're a freedom crushing leftist moonbat.

116 Comments

116 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by demarquis (15) 2 years ago

Actually, the fact that we force people to rely on employers for basic necessities like Health Care is a big problem, thanks for pointing that out. But it's a problem because it shafts the poor, and gives employers too much leverage over employees: "Make me angry and you will lose more than just a job!"

You're right, we should switch to public funded programs right now.

[-] -1 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

No, you should spend your pay as you see fit. Losing your freedom to a government is not an improvement.

But answer the question. What else should government make your employer buy you out of your pay check?

[-] 1 points by demarquis (15) 2 years ago

Insurance. Because if everyone isnt in it, then only sick people will buy it, which means that no insurance company will be able to offer it, except to the rich.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Funny, the few times (I was mostly self employed throughout my career) I had employer provided insurance, I had the option whether or not to accept it...even funnier, the employer DID NOT provide me with the difference if I refused said 'employer provided insurance' in my wages.

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The terms leftist moonbat, bedwetters, etc., lowers the quality of your argument. It violates the most basic rules for free and open discussion. No wonder you are feeling shame.

[-] -3 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

But they fit.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Could you define moonbat? I've never heard the expression before, While it's not explicitly a leftist movements OWS makes no demands at all on anyone or on any institutions. Indeed one of the major criticisms of OWS from erstwhile friends and foes alike is that it makes no demands. Further the home page of this very web site explicitly states that we don't need Wall Street or politicians to build a better world, What could be less demanding than that?

[-] 2 points by Chimptastic (67) 2 years ago

Moonbat is a fairly old term for, essentially, a "crazy person" or a person that makes silly points. Initially it was used by both the left and right denigrate each other, but the left, for whatever reason, ceased to use the term, while the right, also for whatever reason, continued to use it. I personally find it to be a stale, ineffectual, and tired pejorative, but there's sometimes an emotional attachment to phrases and other coinage that keep people from letting them go.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

OK, but you didn't respond to the rest of my comment. You seem to be concerned with the "demands" of a "left." Whether or not it is a left, this is essentially an OWS sponsored enterprise and much to the chagrin of both supporters and opponents of OWS it makes no demands. What are you to make of that? I'd also dispute that there is any left in the US in any meaningful sense, Certainly not a mass left. Most Americans are stuck in the extremely narrow Democratic Republican binary, essentially a discourse between a conservative Democratic Party and a more conservative Republican Party. Only in the United States after all would someone like Nancy Pelosi be considered a leftist. The most exciting thing about OWS is that it creates the possible potential for the creation of a left, but so far even it is rather inconsequential. After all, while very occasionally several tens of thousands of people might be called out for a demonstration on any given night at any given encampment there were probably never more than a couple of hundred people there. I personally am completely supportive of OWS but one can hardly call such a manifestation a mass movement, at least not yet.

[-] 1 points by Chimptastic (67) 2 years ago

I'm sorry, I think I gave you the wrong impression. I'm not the OP, I was just answering your question about the term "moonbat." I can definitely agree that there is no "Left" in the U.S. (though I'm a socialist so my pov would likely be similar even in slightly more favorable conditions). I consider people like Pelosi, along with the majority of other Dems, to be uncomfortably right-wing. And I definitely agree that OWS had (ok, perhaps still has) the potential to become a legitimate "left" in the country. The cold war sent our population careening to the right, and now they are apprehensive about letting go of the fear and ignorance they found there. There is also the dreary phenomenon of the increased likelihood of holding reactionary ideas as you get older (age makes cowards of us all), and the elderly are currently a large portion of the politically self-conscious electorate (think baby-boomers). So perhaps the absence of an actual "left" in this country is only temporary anyway.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Actually I've recently become semi-retired and upon beginning to collect social security i feel considerably braver and more liberated than when I was in the work force and constantly concerned about the possibility of loosing my job,

[-] 1 points by Chimptastic (67) 2 years ago

Mark Twain, too, got considerably more radical as he got older, but still the tendency is the other way, in general.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I'm not especially more or less radical than I was 48 years ago at the age of 21 when I joined the Socialist Party. I simply feel like I have more freedom of action than when I was in the work force full time and that is a very liberating feeling,

[-] -2 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

Sure. It's a liberal in full-on reality detachment.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You say that as if you believe (R)epelican'ts are attached to reality.

They aren't, nor are the libertarians.

You aren't either, so I guess we are all detached in your book, but only in your book.

Perhaps you need a more accurate book to read. I would recommend "Deadly Spin".

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I don't know of any liberals. As a significant social movement liberalism died more than 100 years ago and was subsequently displaced by progressivism, which itself is increasingly anachronistic. The significance of OWS is that it shows the potential at least of moving considerably beyond those anachronistic categories.

[-] -2 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

It's just another version of the same old thing, but with a bunch of twenty-somethings that lack knowledge of the past.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I've been active at OWS since September 17 and I'm 69 years old. The average age of an occupier at Zuccotti Park is 33 so the charge that they are all or mostly 20 somethings is simply unfounded. While they are a minority the initiators and dominant political tendency in OWS is strongly influenced by the anarchist intellectual tradition and they would deeply resent being characterized as liberals. Even from the point of view of someone who is hostile to liberalism, progressivism, socialism and or anarchism it makes sense to know your enemy and to understand that while you may oppose all of this they are by no means all the same thing. I have a graduate level education in history and I have been astonished at the breath of knowledge of OWS activists. Only someone who has never been to a general assembly could take issue with that.

[-] -2 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

Visit London. It was a bunch of misfit 20-somethings and a few other maladapted older people, quite a dysfunctional group. They're just blind advocates of the welfare state. Greed to them is what someone else feels when they dont want govt taking what they've earned and giving it to them. LOL.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I've not been to London, but my understanding of the Occupy movement there is that it is clearly to the left of the Labour Party which itself is very clearly to the left of the Democratic Party in America. I'm not sure what would make it disfunctional, but as an encampment it's survived longer than most American encampments which strikes me as something not easily accomplished by a group one would characterize as disfunctional.

While I've not personally been to London, I do have some contact with the movement there and since I know that they are clearly to the left of social democracy in Britain I do not think it at all fair or even true to characterize them as blind advocates of the welfare state. For the most part they are they are anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-communists, council communists and libertarian socialists quite hostile to any state, much less a welfare state.

[-] -2 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

Not my view at all. They love the state as long as it's fulfilling their rationized redistribution to them.

Anorher funny one in London. A washed out older guy was pushing socialism. His signs were calling for strikes. I against against whom the strikes wouxld be called. His reply, "David Cameron". I asked if they weren't really just against. Other people that don't hapen to work for government because they're the ones paying for it. His reply, No, the bankers are going to pay for it". You can't make this stuff up.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Never heard of company towns then, eh?

The company went in and bought a town. Owned the grocery store, the houses, and everything else so that the check came back to the company in one form or fashion. It allowed the company to keep a close watch on the employees and they were able to charge more rent.

This is almost mind numbing ignorance. The library is your friend.

[-] 0 points by Newspeak1 (39) from Mt Shasta, CA 2 years ago

What's your point? The past.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

That the OP had a crap argument.

[-] -3 points by shamefuldays (-42) 2 years ago

That's voluntary. Can you moonbats even remember the difference?

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Not necessarily. In order to work for a particular company then you had to live inside the town. The rent was much more expensive than any neighboring town. Once some workers rights were established which left more time available then the companies were determined to get that money back as well.

The point is that this direction has already been taken and it makes your entire attempt at an argument lame. You should have gone for universal health care. You didn't want that either. All you have is a kick rocks hissy fit. Companies do not engage in anything unless there is a profit in it. Never have.

We will have affordable accessible health care. You will cry.

[-] -2 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

Here's a secret: You can work for someone else. You making a decision and a company making a decision is different than government making the deciision for both of you. It's a simple idea that simply no longer occurs to people like you.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Takecareofyourself No Profile Information

Private Messages

send message

Information

Joined March 11, 2012


Certain jobs actually create medical conditions.

Grow up.

[-] -2 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

Funny how the grow up statement comes from someone that continually wants government to make her decisions and send other people the bill. LOL

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

So says the rightwing fascist.

[-] -1 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

Not a denial. LOL.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

You think that I am going to repeat information that we have already discussed elsewhere? Go fuck your self. You are a waste of time and space.

[-] -1 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

Is there a government program for that?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

wants to make decisions for the government

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

companies have too much power over their employees

[-] -2 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

Government had too much power over both.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

I'd love to know what "hard work" you do to "earn" your money. What do you do? Who got you your "job?"

[-] -1 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

It's possible, I swear, despite the belief system of OWS. LOL.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Another dodge. Zero substance. What "hard work" do you do? How do you "earn" your precious dollars? Spill the beans, coward.

[-] -1 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

No, the substance is all there for your moonbat eyes. Cowards ask the government to take what they want from someone else and to make their decisions for them.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

You are clearly ashamed to admit to whatever hellish bullshit you do to enrich yourself, but I am sure you drive to work on roads you shouldn't have to pay for, polluting the air we all breathe, safe from roving bands of thieves thanks to a police force you shouldn't have to pay for. You buy safe products kept safe by a government you shouldn't have to fund, you should just be able to live in this country and reap the benefits without contributing or giving anything back, all that hard earned money that you are ashamed to admit is ill gotten.

[-] 0 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

Get a job, it's ok. It's less shame than living off of your neighbor.

[-] 2 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

I have a job, I work hard, I support my family, what do you do? Who do you live off? I find it ironic that Takecareofyourself refuses to describe how he/she TAKES CARE OF HIM/HERSELF.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I already did that. Now Libertarians and (R)epelican'ts are maneuvering to take away what I've earned over 45+yrs in the work force.

Freakin' teabaggers even raised my taxes.

So, what did you say you do for a living?

[-] 0 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

What do suppose the fleabaggers would do?

It doesnt matter. Whatever i wrote could just be made up or not believed anyways. I'm a doctor, a lawyer, a business owner, a recent graduate, a retired marine, an investor, an engineer, a stay at home dad or mom, you decide.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

FLAKESnews caster wanna be.

That's exactly what you are.

No more and no less.

Just as truth challenges too.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

So you're finally on our side?

Those cowardly moonbats on WallStreet do exactly what you are saying.

To lazy to work, they scream for more government aid, while they extract wealth and value from the working man.

[-] 0 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

I've heard the propaganda. Maybe it was on a bumper sticker.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You've passed out the propaganda, so I guess you would know.

It says so "right" in your username.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (26518) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Version of the company store. Mining town slavery.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Exactly.

I don't get the let's go backwards in time deal.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26518) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Of coarse not - YOU ARE NOT CORRUPT or GREEDY.

Thank you for being here and taking part. The light seems to shine brighter in unity.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I want government hospitals with government doctors not insurance

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the government should provide walk in healthcare for check ups and medicine like local libraries

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Moonbats, bedwetters??

Sounds like any number of FLAKESnews on air personalities.

Next thing you know, you're going to be telling me (R)epelican'ts are all about small government.

One would have to wonder, by the tenor of this post, if you've ever had a job at all.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (26518) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Only supporting others for pay not belief. Just a guess.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The best ways to cut healthcare costs is to cut demand for services. Take care of ourselves, eat right, exercise, stop smoking. All supermarket shelves are stocked with 50% garbage. The more it is packaged, the worse it is for you.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

You're absolutely right, it's ludicrous that our health coverage is tied to our jobs. Every other western industrialized nation on earth has socialized medicine, because it's the right way for people to live.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

That is the fault of the federal government. The Wage Stabilization Act of 1942 prohibited companies from attracting workers with higher pay so larger companies started giving benefits instead. Other nations that hadn't tried to control wages and prices made the natural transition to nationalized health care. Here business was doing it for the government to a large extent.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Your argument is meaningless because you are arguing from the point of view that health care should be big business. It is the fault of every American that we accept an untenable, inhumane and corrupt system because out of control Capitalist greed trumps common decency.

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

No, I believe the only intelligent way to provide health care is a government run single payer system. It's become big business partly because of the history though. When insurance was cheep it didn't matter who paid, now businesses look to cut expenses. The insurance industry has a profit motive and raises premiums to protect profits. People are caught in the middle and have developed the attitude that health insurance meant free care, when it actually means sharing costs most people pay so that a few use.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

A lot of people are getting rich off of the suffering and misfortune of others. It's a disgrace.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I may be cynical, but I see that as human nature, people, not just corporations, do what they think will profit them the most.

[-] 2 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Right, like selling drugs or operating sweat shops. The government is there to draw the fucking line.

[+] -7 points by DKAtoday (26518) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Interesting perspective. There truly is no one cause that brings us all here today. This has been a multipronged attack on society that has been waged for decades.

People are starting to become aware and are starting to ask good questions and receiving poor answers or none at all and are getting angry.

The sleeping Giant ( The People ) is waking-up.

We move forward - Together.

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I agree, there isn't one factor that led us to where we are now. There was little need for health insurance in the 40's, costs didn't begin to climb unreasonably until maybe late in the 80's. By then a pattern of thought was set that businesses should provide insurance. It's a poor way to insure people and we seem to cling to it because it's what we're used to, not because it is efficient. The people don't seem to care as long as you devise a system where it looks like someone else is paying. Insurance only works if most people pay in and don't use it. We should have pushed harder for a government health care plan.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the government runs a government healthcare facilities for it's soldiers and veterans

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

It would be a simple matter to extend medicare coverage everyone and set a reasonable premium. They already have in place a new requirement for doctors to file claims electronically. There are a lot of ways to do it if there was the will to make it happen.

[-] -3 points by shamefuldays (-42) 2 years ago

No, it isn't. It's for you to buy, not your neighbor.

[-] 2 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Look up the meaning of the word "neighbor," idiot. mine mine mine is not neighborly. Helping a sick or injured person and then handing them a bill for 100,000 dollars is not neighborly. You support rampant greed and unbridled selfishness. What is a country if not a collective of people, in it together? What is a community? Your attitude is disgraceful.

[-] -2 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

Be sure to tell your neighbor that as you take his things. LOL. I'm sure he'll understand.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

By asking my neighbor to contribute to the country and the community for the common good I am taking things? What is a country without taxes? You must hate America and Democracy if you think it is wrong to ask people to contribute. People like you think you should be able to take advantage of all of the opportunities afforded you in this country, all of the luxuries you take for granted, but you shouldn't be asked to help make any of it possible. Look at our school system, it is an underfunded disgrace because selfish greedy scum like you hold yourselves as priority number one, you don't believe in a strong, vital America with a bright future, you focus only on yourself and whatever personal gain you can leach from the system. It's a disgrace.

[-] -1 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

In London, the Occupy goons had some signs. Two were especially interesting. One demanded welfare. Another quoted Pres Kennedy's "ask "not" speech. I asked their media person if he could see the contradiction. I just got a hazy look back. LOL. Greed is what you say of those not willing to have their things taken, not for those that want to take it.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

You had to avoid addressing any of the actual substance of what I wrote, your response was an obvious dodge. What does a sign you supposedly saw in London have to do with what I wrote? What do you do to "earn" your money, sit on your ass at a desk crunching numbers?

[-] -1 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

No dodge, it's just not important. The world is full of options for you to do the same thing. OWS wants to take, not give. Greed can be equally applied to those wanting to take.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

WHAT DO YOU DO!!!!???? You are completely anonymous, I have no idea who you are or where you are, why are you ashamed to admit to what you do for a living? You came here to this forum to spew your hate, BACK IT UP.

[-] -1 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

No more so than you.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

I pick orders in a warehouse, WHAT DO YOU DO anonymous hypocrite?

[-] -1 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

Maybe you do, maybe you don't.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

No, that's what I do, greedbot. What do you do? Do you work for Daddy's business? Is that how you "take care of yourself?" Are you a "public servant," nursing at the government teet you profess to despise? Do you even work, or do you live off great grand-dad's pile of cash made off the back of exploited workers? How do you "take care of yourself?" You named yourself that, so how do you do it? What are you ashamed of?

[-] 0 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

Nope, i dont work for dad and dont nurse at the tit. Nope, I don't live on inherited money.

It's simply not relevant. Believe it or, there are countless ways to do it. It makes no difference what I do. You must know some real losers if it seems so impossible to you.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Why do you intentionally misrepresent my intentions? What are you trying to hide? I've made it clear I want to know what you do because I suspect you of being a hypocrite and a scumbag. What the fuck does that mean that it seems impossible to me? You just talk around the issue, you tell me to get a job and accuse me of I don't know what, when it's all very simple, if you take care of yourself, then HOW? Why won't you answer the question? It's extremely relevant. You hypocritical fuck. Was AMerica found on the concept "take care of yourself?" What the fuck does "country" mean to you? What does Democracy mean to you? You are governed by your own selfishness, and it's pathetic.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

I do not want to pay for a bloated Military.I do not want to pay for Corporate welfare. I do not want to pay for corporate Goverment.I do not want to pay for george Bushes Retierment.I do not want to pat the fcc to give our airwaves to the corporate media.I do not want to pay for a secret service to protect known war criminals.I do not want to pay a cia fbi etc to spy on American citizens etc.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

What military would you be willing to pay for?

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

id like to form our own voluntary military that keeps our government in check.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

A well regulated malitia.

[-] -3 points by shamefuldays (-42) 2 years ago

Great, then stop voting for government to get bigger and for higher taxes.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Big goverment is not the problem corrupt corporate goverment is the problem.From the middle class to the goverment.Military#1Corporate welfare#2Corporate theft and destruction of our natural resources.#3Theft of middle class jobs#4 The list is endless.Take your Ronald Regan Drug Store Cowboy outlook and sell it to some Scab that is dumb enough to buy that CRAp!

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

You hate America and everything America stands for, and yet you probably think you're a patriot. You're a selfish, greedy prick. What kind of evil shit do you do to "earn" your precious dollars? I bet you work really "hard."

[-] 0 points by Frank (19) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

Employer provided health insurance started in WWII thanks to government interference in the free market. They froze wages and employers had to offer something else as an incentive.

Everyone complains about pre-existing conditions but never stops to ask why we don't have insurance from birth.

[-] -1 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

We also have 50 state regulators that make it illegal to buy across state lines. I can buy a car or a TV from another state, but bizarrely govt makes it illegal for insurance. That makes for more interruption in coverage events as people move and artificially concentrates markets.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Sounds like a call to reduce government by reducing the number of States.

I'm with you on that. It's far to easy to corrupt State government.

It would be an incredible savings to the tax payer!

[-] -2 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

We over-regulate and then solve problems with more regulation. We should have the ability to buy insurance across state lines. Now it's illegal and that's wrong. Leftists cry about acess over $6 birth control out of hatred for Cathoilics, but then ignore this.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Part of the problem is state laws...take automobile insurance for example...the amount of liability minimums vary drastically from state to state, for example minimum liability in MN is $100,000.00 where as in MO the minimum is $25,000.00...

Obviously insurance obtained in MO is not adequate coverage for MN according to the laws of the two states.

Obviously, automobile insurance costs less in MO than in MN, so there would likely be an influx of insurance buyers in MO from other states, resulting in motorists who are underinsured for the state in which they most likely would be doing the majority of their driving.

Other forms of insurance, health, life etc are subject to the same criteria, the differences in state laws.

So what's the solution?

[-] -1 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

States getting together to conform their laws so multi-state policies are legal. It would reduce chrurn and widen competition.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

You see this and I see this, get the politicians and insurance companies to agree is another story.

[-] -1 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

And liberals. They're so bent on a socialist outcome, they don't give the obvious a second thought. Look how fast they're willing to trample the freedom of Catholics, and over $6 in healthcare in trumped nonesense about "access". They think nothing of real issues of access.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Actually it is a liberal stance to desire standardization of services etc.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Why??

There's just too darn many state lines.

It just creates confusion.

Health care(sic) insurance is a failed business model anyway.

Who needs a race to the bottom on health care anyway.

Reduce the States and mend the system.

[Removed]

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (26518) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

There should be one governing body that sets the standard. Others should be able to enhance the standard by adding coverage, they should not be allowed to diminish or with - hold coverage.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Hi DK....:)

Not sure if you caught this the other day, so I'll repost it.

They are starting to realize that they've sucked the teet dry.

http://wendellpotter.com/2012/03/the-end-of-health-insurance-as-we-know-it/

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (26518) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

GOOD MORNING - shooz. It looks to be a fine day. Thanks for the update I'll have a look right now.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (21378) 2 years ago

I'm for universal healthcare managed by the government and not greedy insurance companies and employers. I don't think healthcare should be tied to employment at all. How's that for leaning left?

[-] 1 points by bemindful (23) 2 years ago

You are right, our elected representatives in the House & Senate are so not greedy, the government unions are so not greedy and our government spends our money so wisely. And women like Ms. fluke who is 30 years old and already is going to a top law school where she can expect to make $150K in her first year out of school but plays the victim is so not greedy. We don't have to have our healthcare attached to our jobs without having to have Obamacare "shoved down our throats" and "free birth control for all"

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

And you're not greedy either, you just want to benefit from all the opportunities this nation afforded you, you want to take advantage of everything this country has to offer, but you don't think you should have to contribute anything or give anything back, you think you should be able to take, take, take. What kind of "hard work" do you do to "earn" your money? I bet it's some hellish bullshit.

[-] 1 points by bemindful (23) 2 years ago

I've been a registered nurse since 1987- I work two jobs- one in labor and delivery and the neonatal ICU and I also work in pain management. I see a lot of suffering in the ICU and in working with people who live with chronic pain syndromes and diseases of the nervous system for which there is currently no cure. I commented on this thread because Ms. Flukie hit a nerve with me. I didn't like how she was playing the victim as she described her and her classmates "situations". I didn't appreciate her hyperbole as she spoke of "the look that she sees in the faces of her classmates because they can't afford birth control" and how she exaggerated how much it costs for birth control, increasing the figure by about half. It costs about $9 to $30 per month for birth control pills. I think its ridiculous for a woman of Ms Fluke's stature to expect her birth control to be paid for by someone else. I've been a "starving" student and it never, not once, occurred to me to ask for someone to pay for my birth control. And really the whole issue is moot anyway because we already have the Title X program which provides individuals access to comprehensive family planning, contraceptive services and other related preventive health services to all who want and need them (with priority for the uninsured and the poor). In approximately 75% of U.S. counties, there is at least one clinic that receives Title X funds and provides services as required under the Title X statute and there is over 4500 community clinics providing these services throughout the country. Its fine to want social medicines Listen End, I got sarcastic with beautifulworld because I just found it absurd that someone would think that the government will do a better job managing healthcare than "greedy insurance companies".

BTW, in your mind what is a "hellish bullshit job"?

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

A hellish bullshit job would be one where you shill for Enfamil, coaxing new mothers into taking the easy way out and enriching your hospital's benefactors instead of passing along the vital nutrients in breast milk. You work in labor and delivery, so you see women induced or cut open instead of giving birth naturally in order to open up a room as quickly as possible so the hospital can make more and more money. It sounds like you work hand in hand with the drug companies who reap enormous profits from the pain and misfortune of others. Hellish bullshit like that.

[-] 1 points by bemindful (23) 2 years ago

What, do you just come to this forum to spew a bunch of shit, to mess with people? Why do you intentionally misrepresent my intentions?

1st of all I am a lactation educator, so your Enfamil tirade, while entertaining, is wasted on someone who helps women and babies get off to a good start breastfeeding and helps keep lactation/breastfeeding going when their are problems, but then you only seem to speak "tirade". For the women who don't want to breastfeed, (and they HAVE THAT RIGHT - its their CHOICE) and since there are not a whole lot of wet nurses in our society, formula is what some women choose. To me its sad when a women chooses not to breastfeed- I educate women on the benefits and offer her support, but ITS HER CHOICE, we are not breast milk Nazi's. Most women have already made up their minds before they go into labor as to what they plan on doing, we don't coax them towards formula.

2nd of all, you don't know what you are talking about, you make a ton of assumptions, judgements and accusations as if you know the first thing about what goes on in family centered labor and deliver - if every women in America wanted a home birth, then they would have a home birth- lots of women do- there are plenty of midwives to help them out, its a perfectly wonderful choice, BUT, the majority of women don't, because THEY CHOOSE not to. Most women like the idea that if anything goes wrong, their baby & themselves will have the emergency care they need. But no one forces them to give birth in a hospital. Some women want a natural, unmedicated birth, that is their first choice. Some women start out wanting a natural birth and change their mind during labor. Many women don't want a natural birth right from the start, they want an epidural so they don't have to experience such pain. And who the hell are you to judge any of those options- except for yourself and If you choose natural , then good- you can have a natural birth. It is still a free country. No one should judge you and you need to stop judging others.

And I doubt you know the first thing about pain management- and the misfortune of people who live with intractable pain. There is a lot more to chronic pain management then just drugs. The majority of people with chronic pain need to use various mind-body therapies and other alternative approaches, as well as medications and other medical modalities too. For many people with chronic pain, the medications made by those "drug companies who reap enormous profits from the pain and misfortune of others", are the only thing that provides any relief and gives them any quality of life what's so ever. They are thankful when the drugs are there when they need them.

3rd, and this is the only reason I am responding to you, is you seem like a very sad and angry and emotionally distraught person, who might benefit from some therapy, yoga, mindfulness training, exercise and some sex to help deal with the rage, and irrational thought process you have going on

OR

if you're totally just messing around and your posts are a bunch of BS just to get a reaction, then that's a extremely sad too

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

You're full of shit. You work in the hospital, you are perfectly aware of how evil a place it is, and you are complicit in that evil. I love your defense--hey, they CHOSE to give birth in the hospital, so that gives us every right to induce labor or carve the baby out instead of letting nature take its course because we need to open up that room.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

How do you know that "insurance companies" are greedy? Their profits are around 8-13%. It's not the insurance companies that's the problem it's the "healthcare providers" that ring up the massive charges

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21378) 2 years ago

Okay. They're all greedy. See shooz's thread re: health insurance.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/death-of-a-business-model/

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

I don't know about being greedy but they sure charge the hell out of people who require their services.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21378) 2 years ago

True. That would be greedy, I think.

[-] -2 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

No point in this post. While I agree with you the commies are just going to call you names. Liberalism is not rational. It is poison.

[-] -3 points by shamefuldays (-42) 2 years ago

Yeah, you're right, I know it too. Approaching them with reason is a dead-end, but I'm somehow drawn to try.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

How do you "earn" your money?