Wal-Mart supports employer mandated health care

[JS80]

Originally posted by: JKing106
Definitely a compromise. The Neocons are terrified. This is the company who was teaching it's employees how to collect Medicaid and food stamps. Employees they wouldn't employ full time, and made work off the clock, by the way.

You obviously have no idea what a "neocon" is.

If you guys think Wal-mart is supporting this out of the goodness of their hearts I laugh at your naivete.

 

[JS80]

This is like Goldman Sachs pretending to be green and supporting Cap and Trade. Yet they aim to gain billions from running the trading of it.

 

[BurnItDwn]

About the clinics, Walmart, Walgreens, CVS all have on site clinics in some of their stores .... They are usually much lower cost than going to see an MD. I have been to the Walgreens ones when I had an ear infection and when I had strep. They are great for not having to call ahead and make an apointment, etc. It's not a substitute for having a Dr, but it is a very valuable supplement. Employer mandated health care will help all the big chains with similar programs, but it will put even more stress on independents and small chains.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
I'm not going to support this.

UHC or bust, and I will write all my representatives to say they are getting voted against if that doesn't happen.

More like UHC and THEN bust.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: TruePaige
I'm not going to support this.

UHC or bust, and I will write all my representatives to say they are getting voted against if that doesn't happen.

More like UHC and THEN bust.

It never ceases to amaze me that you can see every other industrialized nation on the planet able to implement UHC and have systems far more efficient than ours, but then think that America, the most powerful country in the world is simply helpless and unable to do it. Every time I ask why we are so uniquely pathetic people rattle off ideas like illegal immigrants, lawsuits, etc that comprise tiny tiny fractions of our spending.

Maybe you can explain why the US will go bankrupt from it when no other country has?

 

[sapiens74]

As long as the services are performed in Chinese State run Hospitals 🙂

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: TruePaige
I'm not going to support this.

UHC or bust, and I will write all my representatives to say they are getting voted against if that doesn't happen.

More like UHC and THEN bust.

More like Republicans saying 'UHC and then bust', just like they said 'Clinton's 1993 tax hike on the top 2% and then bust', and being proven wrong, and then on to the next error.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: TruePaige
I'm not going to support this.

UHC or bust, and I will write all my representatives to say they are getting voted against if that doesn't happen.

More like UHC and THEN bust.

It never ceases to amaze me that you can see every other industrialized nation on the planet able to implement UHC and have systems far more efficient than ours, but then think that America, the most powerful country in the world is simply helpless and unable to do it. Every time I ask why we are so uniquely pathetic people rattle off ideas like illegal immigrants, lawsuits, etc that comprise tiny tiny fractions of our spending.

Maybe you can explain why the US will go bankrupt from it when no other country has?

Of course they didn't because they have higher taxes.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: TruePaige
I'm not going to support this.

UHC or bust, and I will write all my representatives to say they are getting voted against if that doesn't happen.

More like UHC and THEN bust.

It never ceases to amaze me that you can see every other industrialized nation on the planet able to implement UHC and have systems far more efficient than ours, but then think that America, the most powerful country in the world is simply helpless and unable to do it. Every time I ask why we are so uniquely pathetic people rattle off ideas like illegal immigrants, lawsuits, etc that comprise tiny tiny fractions of our spending.

Maybe you can explain why the US will go bankrupt from it when no other country has?

Of course they didn't because they have higher taxes.

But they are spending less money on health care total, so that's a net positive for their economies.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: TruePaige
I'm not going to support this.

UHC or bust, and I will write all my representatives to say they are getting voted against if that doesn't happen.

More like UHC and THEN bust.

It never ceases to amaze me that you can see every other industrialized nation on the planet able to implement UHC and have systems far more efficient than ours, but then think that America, the most powerful country in the world is simply helpless and unable to do it. Every time I ask why we are so uniquely pathetic people rattle off ideas like illegal immigrants, lawsuits, etc that comprise tiny tiny fractions of our spending.

Maybe you can explain why the US will go bankrupt from it when no other country has?

Of course they didn't because they have higher taxes.

A lot of people already have this tax on their check called "Health Insurance". Once UHC takes place and eliminates some of the overhead they will get a "Tax Cut".

I thought you republicans liked those?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Of course they didn't because they have higher taxes.

A lot of people already have this tax on their check called "Health Insurance". Once UHC takes place and eliminates some of the overhead they will get a "Tax Cut".

I thought you republicans liked those?

For some reason most people don't understand that they are already being taxed at this 'higher' rate in our country today, they just pay the tax in the form of higher prices for goods and services. The whole 'higher tax' for health care thing is extremely dishonest.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Of course they didn't because they have higher taxes.

A lot of people already have this tax on their check called "Health Insurance". Once UHC takes place and eliminates some of the overhead they will get a "Tax Cut".

I thought you republicans liked those?

For some reason most people don't understand that they are already being taxed at this 'higher' rate in our country today, they just pay the tax in the form of higher prices for goods and services. The whole 'higher tax' for health care thing is extremely dishonest.

lol - speaking of dishonest... Do you really think prices for goods and services will go down with UHC? The only way I see that happening is if the quality and availability of said goods and services goes way down. There is ZERO possibility of having UHC without increasing taxes - only ignorant/blind fools believe it'll be cheaper.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Of course they didn't because they have higher taxes.

A lot of people already have this tax on their check called "Health Insurance". Once UHC takes place and eliminates some of the overhead they will get a "Tax Cut".

I thought you republicans liked those?

For some reason most people don't understand that they are already being taxed at this 'higher' rate in our country today, they just pay the tax in the form of higher prices for goods and services. The whole 'higher tax' for health care thing is extremely dishonest.

lol - speaking of dishonest... Do you really think prices for goods and services will go down with UHC? The only way I see that happening is if the quality and availability of said goods and services goes way down. There is ZERO possibility of having UHC without increasing taxes - only ignorant/blind fools believe it'll be cheaper.

if ($paycheck - $HealthCare + $UHCTax < $paycheck + $HealthCare )
{echo "UHC is a net gain";
}

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Of course they didn't because they have higher taxes.

A lot of people already have this tax on their check called "Health Insurance". Once UHC takes place and eliminates some of the overhead they will get a "Tax Cut".

I thought you republicans liked those?

For some reason most people don't understand that they are already being taxed at this 'higher' rate in our country today, they just pay the tax in the form of higher prices for goods and services. The whole 'higher tax' for health care thing is extremely dishonest.

lol - speaking of dishonest... Do you really think prices for goods and services will go down with UHC? The only way I see that happening is if the quality and availability of said goods and services goes way down. There is ZERO possibility of having UHC without increasing taxes - only ignorant/blind fools believe it'll be cheaper.

Yes I think the prices for goods and services will go down with UHC. If the percentage of our GDP that we spend on health care goes down, the total price society pays for it will also go down. Specifically if companies are relieved of the (approximately) 10% of their operating costs that they spend on health care, prices will go down. I don't know how you don't see that we already pay a health care tax for every car we buy, every TV we buy, etc.

Yeah, silly me for looking at every single other industrialized nation on the entire planet and seeing them spending between about 50-75% of what we do. Only a blind fool would discount the high probability of it being much cheaper.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Of course they didn't because they have higher taxes.

A lot of people already have this tax on their check called "Health Insurance". Once UHC takes place and eliminates some of the overhead they will get a "Tax Cut".

I thought you republicans liked those?

For some reason most people don't understand that they are already being taxed at this 'higher' rate in our country today, they just pay the tax in the form of higher prices for goods and services. The whole 'higher tax' for health care thing is extremely dishonest.

lol - speaking of dishonest... Do you really think prices for goods and services will go down with UHC? The only way I see that happening is if the quality and availability of said goods and services goes way down. There is ZERO possibility of having UHC without increasing taxes - only ignorant/blind fools believe it'll be cheaper.

Yes I think the prices for goods and services will go down with UHC. If the percentage of our GDP that we spend on health care goes down, the total price society pays for it will also go down. Specifically if companies are relieved of the (approximately) 10% of their operating costs that they spend on health care, prices will go down. I don't know how you don't see that we already pay a health care tax for every car we buy, every TV we buy, etc.

Yeah, silly me for looking at every single other industrialized nation on the entire planet and seeing them spending between about 50-75% of what we do. Only a blind fool would discount the high probability of it being much cheaper.

I understand exactly what you are saying, and it seems fairly obvious.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

For some reason most people don't understand that they are already being taxed at this 'higher' rate in our country today, they just pay the tax in the form of higher prices for goods and services. The whole 'higher tax' for health care thing is extremely dishonest.

lol - speaking of dishonest... Do you really think prices for goods and services will go down with UHC? The only way I see that happening is if the quality and availability of said goods and services goes way down. There is ZERO possibility of having UHC without increasing taxes - only ignorant/blind fools believe it'll be cheaper.

Yes I think the prices for goods and services will go down with UHC. If the percentage of our GDP that we spend on health care goes down, the total price society pays for it will also go down. Specifically if companies are relieved of the (approximately) 10% of their operating costs that they spend on health care, prices will go down. I don't know how you don't see that we already pay a health care tax for every car we buy, every TV we buy, etc.

Yeah, silly me for looking at every single other industrialized nation on the entire planet and seeing them spending between about 50-75% of what we do. Only a blind fool would discount the high probability of it being much cheaper.

I understand exactly what you are saying, and it seems fairly obvious.[/quote]

Well he's just making the same old argument that the lunatic fringe of the right always makes. "Prices can't go down unless quality/availability go down!" Of course if this were the other way around and we were going from a government solution to a free market one, they would make the exact opposite argument, that prices could in fact go down while offering the same (or superior) quality due to the virtues of competition, etc... etc. Then they turn around and ignore the savings from the economies of scale in this case, the value of expanded preventative medicine, things like that.

They do it only because the source of these savings is from the government, and they are blinded by ideological rage on the subject. If you told them they could save 25-50% going from a govt. to a free market solution they would jump all over it... based on the exact same evidence available to us about UHC today. Only because this runs contrary to what their brains tell them MUST BE RIGHT, do they fight against it. Unfortunately for quite a long time now we've all been paying for their ideology, I for one have had enough.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

For some reason most people don't understand that they are already being taxed at this 'higher' rate in our country today, they just pay the tax in the form of higher prices for goods and services. The whole 'higher tax' for health care thing is extremely dishonest.

lol - speaking of dishonest... Do you really think prices for goods and services will go down with UHC? The only way I see that happening is if the quality and availability of said goods and services goes way down. There is ZERO possibility of having UHC without increasing taxes - only ignorant/blind fools believe it'll be cheaper.

Yes I think the prices for goods and services will go down with UHC. If the percentage of our GDP that we spend on health care goes down, the total price society pays for it will also go down. Specifically if companies are relieved of the (approximately) 10% of their operating costs that they spend on health care, prices will go down. I don't know how you don't see that we already pay a health care tax for every car we buy, every TV we buy, etc.

Yeah, silly me for looking at every single other industrialized nation on the entire planet and seeing them spending between about 50-75% of what we do. Only a blind fool would discount the high probability of it being much cheaper.

I understand exactly what you are saying, and it seems fairly obvious.

Well he's just making the same old argument that the lunatic fringe of the right always makes. "Prices can't go down unless quality/availability go down!" Of course if this were the other way around and we were going from a government solution to a free market one, they would make the exact opposite argument, that prices could in fact go down while offering the same (or superior) quality due to the virtues of competition, etc... etc. Then they turn around and ignore the savings from the economies of scale in this case, the value of expanded preventative medicine, things like that.

They do it only because the source of these savings is from the government, and they are blinded by ideological rage on the subject. If you told them they could save 25-50% going from a govt. to a free market solution they would jump all over it... based on the exact same evidence available to us about UHC today. Only because this runs contrary to what their brains tell them MUST BE RIGHT, do they fight against it. Unfortunately for quite a long time now we've all been paying for their ideology, I for one have had enough.

Exactly. Some mentality ingrained into them screams constantly that if a liberal figure holds power, and wants to cut cost by using the:

1) Bulk buying power of the government
2) Legislative powers of the government
3) The virtue of NOT being in it for profit

even if backed up by evidence that the same type of program has been implemented with great success across the world in the nations most similar to our own, that it cannot be true.

Honestly the savings from a:

1) Decrease in cost of care
2) Increase in preventative services
3) Decrease in emergency services
4) Lower burden upon our GDP
5) Increase in viability of corporations due to a lower cost burden

should, though not a comprehensive list, be more than enough proof. If you bring into account our overall inefficiency compared to the rest of the world (providing worse or equal care for far greater amounts of money), you have all you need to see this is a good path to take, if you only look at it.

 

[alphatarget1]

Wal-mart only supports this because it benefits themselves.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
lol - speaking of dishonest... Do you really think prices for goods and services will go down with UHC? The only way I see that happening is if the quality and availability of said goods and services goes way down. There is ZERO possibility of having UHC without increasing taxes - only ignorant/blind fools believe it'll be cheaper.

Yes I think the prices for goods and services will go down with UHC. If the percentage of our GDP that we spend on health care goes down, the total price society pays for it will also go down. Specifically if companies are relieved of the (approximately) 10% of their operating costs that they spend on health care, prices will go down. I don't know how you don't see that we already pay a health care tax for every car we buy, every TV we buy, etc.

Yeah, silly me for looking at every single other industrialized nation on the entire planet and seeing them spending between about 50-75% of what we do. Only a blind fool would discount the high probability of it being much cheaper.

I understand exactly what you are saying, and it seems fairly obvious.

Well he's just making the same old argument that the lunatic fringe of the right always makes. "Prices can't go down unless quality/availability go down!" Of course if this were the other way around and we were going from a government solution to a free market one, they would make the exact opposite argument, that prices could in fact go down while offering the same (or superior) quality due to the virtues of competition, etc... etc. Then they turn around and ignore the savings from the economies of scale in this case, the value of expanded preventative medicine, things like that.

They do it only because the source of these savings is from the government, and they are blinded by ideological rage on the subject. If you told them they could save 25-50% going from a govt. to a free market solution they would jump all over it... based on the exact same evidence available to us about UHC today. Only because this runs contrary to what their brains tell them MUST BE RIGHT, do they fight against it. Unfortunately for quite a long time now we've all been paying for their ideology, I for one have had enough.

[/quote]

No, just because healthcare spending as part of GDP would go down doesn't mean that it'll cost us less. Much of our spending is R&D and other such things and UHC(depending on implementation) would drive much of that away.
Again - there is no inherent "saving" from UHC, but there is a huge power grab inherent in UHC - which goes against Conservatism regardless of money. And yes, conversely, the gov't power grab fits perfectly with you leftist's ideology - so trying to suggest it's a money thing is rather silly. There is much more to this issue than money. I'd rather keep quality care than save an imaginary dollar that you people claim I'll save.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No, just because healthcare spending as part of GDP would go down doesn't mean that it'll cost us less. Much of our spending is R&D and other such things and UHC(depending on implementation) would drive much of that away.
Again - there is no inherent "saving" from UHC, but there is a huge power grab inherent in UHC - which goes against Conservatism regardless of money. And yes, conversely, the gov't power grab fits perfectly with you leftist's ideology - so trying to suggest it's a money thing is rather silly. There is much more to this issue than money. I'd rather keep quality care than save an imaginary dollar that you people claim I'll save.

Actually health care spending decreasing as a part of our GDP nearly certainly means it would cost us less. A tip for you: be careful what you argue here. If you're going to argue that lower costs on businesses don't lead to savings for the consumer, there goes a huge part of the argument for tax cuts on business.

Anyways, like I said, you ignore piles of evidence from around the globe because it conflicts with your ideology.

 

[Vic]

Why wouldn't Wal-Mart support this? They can easily afford the mandate while most of their competitors cannot (especially their small business competitors). And by raising a new barrier to market entry, they solidify their own position at the same time.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No, just because healthcare spending as part of GDP would go down doesn't mean that it'll cost us less. Much of our spending is R&D and other such things and UHC(depending on implementation) would drive much of that away.
Again - there is no inherent "saving" from UHC, but there is a huge power grab inherent in UHC - which goes against Conservatism regardless of money. And yes, conversely, the gov't power grab fits perfectly with you leftist's ideology - so trying to suggest it's a money thing is rather silly. There is much more to this issue than money. I'd rather keep quality care than save an imaginary dollar that you people claim I'll save.

Actually health care spending decreasing as a part of our GDP nearly certainly means it would cost us less. A tip for you: be careful what you argue here. If you're going to argue that lower costs on businesses don't lead to savings for the consumer, there goes a huge part of the argument for tax cuts on business.

Anyways, like I said, you ignore piles of evidence from around the globe because it conflicts with your ideology.

I didn't say a thing about "costs on businesses" - so next time I suggest you be a bit more careful when you read. 😉

Yeah, piles of evidence...

Need more be said? (psst - the list source is irrelevant - it's a collection of headlines)

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No, just because healthcare spending as part of GDP would go down doesn't mean that it'll cost us less. Much of our spending is R&D and other such things and UHC(depending on implementation) would drive much of that away.
Again - there is no inherent "saving" from UHC, but there is a huge power grab inherent in UHC - which goes against Conservatism regardless of money. And yes, conversely, the gov't power grab fits perfectly with you leftist's ideology - so trying to suggest it's a money thing is rather silly. There is much more to this issue than money. I'd rather keep quality care than save an imaginary dollar that you people claim I'll save.

Actually health care spending decreasing as a part of our GDP nearly certainly means it would cost us less. A tip for you: be careful what you argue here. If you're going to argue that lower costs on businesses don't lead to savings for the consumer, there goes a huge part of the argument for tax cuts on business.

Anyways, like I said, you ignore piles of evidence from around the globe because it conflicts with your ideology.

I didn't say a thing about "costs on businesses" - so next time I suggest you be a bit more careful when you read. 😉

Yeah, piles of evidence...

Need more be said? (psst - the list source is irrelevant - it's a collection of headlines)

If you didn't say 'costs on businesses' then you weren't meaningfully replying to my original post that you commented on. Speaking of being careful when you read...

And yes, piles of evidence.

EDIT: Ahh, your collection of anecdotes really competes well with empirical scientific studies.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No, just because healthcare spending as part of GDP would go down doesn't mean that it'll cost us less. Much of our spending is R&D and other such things and UHC(depending on implementation) would drive much of that away.
Again - there is no inherent "saving" from UHC, but there is a huge power grab inherent in UHC - which goes against Conservatism regardless of money. And yes, conversely, the gov't power grab fits perfectly with you leftist's ideology - so trying to suggest it's a money thing is rather silly. There is much more to this issue than money. I'd rather keep quality care than save an imaginary dollar that you people claim I'll save.

Actually health care spending decreasing as a part of our GDP nearly certainly means it would cost us less. A tip for you: be careful what you argue here. If you're going to argue that lower costs on businesses don't lead to savings for the consumer, there goes a huge part of the argument for tax cuts on business.

Anyways, like I said, you ignore piles of evidence from around the globe because it conflicts with your ideology.

I didn't say a thing about "costs on businesses" - so next time I suggest you be a bit more careful when you read. 😉

Yeah, piles of evidence...

Need more be said? (psst - the list source is irrelevant - it's a collection of headlines)

If you didn't say 'costs on businesses' then you weren't meaningfully replying to my original post that you commented on. Speaking of being careful when you read...

And yes, piles of evidence.

EDIT: Ahh, your collection of anecdotes really competes well with empirical scientific studies.

It's okay. He didn't touch on the points or foundations of the argument and simply diverted it to some anecdotes he found to attempt to make an argument he believes he can defend much easier.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No, just because healthcare spending as part of GDP would go down doesn't mean that it'll cost us less. Much of our spending is R&D and other such things and UHC(depending on implementation) would drive much of that away.
Again - there is no inherent "saving" from UHC, but there is a huge power grab inherent in UHC - which goes against Conservatism regardless of money. And yes, conversely, the gov't power grab fits perfectly with you leftist's ideology - so trying to suggest it's a money thing is rather silly. There is much more to this issue than money. I'd rather keep quality care than save an imaginary dollar that you people claim I'll save.

Actually health care spending decreasing as a part of our GDP nearly certainly means it would cost us less. A tip for you: be careful what you argue here. If you're going to argue that lower costs on businesses don't lead to savings for the consumer, there goes a huge part of the argument for tax cuts on business.

Anyways, like I said, you ignore piles of evidence from around the globe because it conflicts with your ideology.

I didn't say a thing about "costs on businesses" - so next time I suggest you be a bit more careful when you read. 😉

Yeah, piles of evidence...

Need more be said? (psst - the list source is irrelevant - it's a collection of headlines)

If you didn't say 'costs on businesses' then you weren't meaningfully replying to my original post that you commented on. Speaking of being careful when you read...

And yes, piles of evidence.

EDIT: Ahh, your collection of anecdotes really competes well with empirical scientific studies.

Nice try junior - I replied to your lame GDP argument. A reduction in GDP doesn't mean it'll cost less - it just means less is being spent. I'm sure that will sail right over your head, but it's true none the less.

No, not anecdotes- headlines. I don't want those sorts of things to happen here as they do in places where your "piles of evidence from around the globe" come from.