patrick.net

mickrussom says

Think: how does the USA compete with India and China where healthcare isnt even a glimmer?
If you want to work, you best think about what entitlements did to GM and how they could strangle the USA to the point of second world living.

In India you have the option of going to a government run hospital. If you are rich and would rather like to go to a private doctor it is your choice. Nobody stops rich from going to private doctors, but government run hospitals exist for the poor and those who cannot afford private hospitals.

American system is okay as long as you work for some good employer who provides health insurance. Moment you lose your job, you are screwed. This is a free country where people think they are the most free people in the world, but you need to slave your life for an employer before you can get a health insurance.

And forget about buying health insurance on your own, it is only for those with no pre-existing conditions. Recently I was out of work and was trying to buy health insurance on my own. I was willing to pay as much as 400 dollars a month, but I was denied coverage because my wife has some pre-existing conditions. ...

Welcome to the most free country in the world !!!!!!

Bap33,

as I have already said, it is very likely that the difference, if any, is more than made up for by what conservatives pay to churches for their services.

But is that a true charity that helps *other* people? I think they are only to a much lesser degree than, say, Red Cross. To give you an analogy: If conservatives want to count what they give to church, liberals should get to count their union dues as well.

I'm done discussing charities. All anyone has to do is read the facts, and either agree or disagree. Drfelle distorting my statements and bringing up red herrings does not add anything to the matter. That is just plain intellectual dishonesty.

I work in the finance dept in one of the largest hospitals in San Francisco. One item that people really seem to disregard in why health care isn't working in the US is the Unions. Lets take a look at how Unions in the auto industry and in Health Care have literally bankrupt their systems. You have inefficient workers that can't be fired, insane health and retirement benefits that no one in the private sector would even dream of, and salaries for health care workers with Associates degrees that match those of Masters degrees in the private sector. So you have overpaid, inefficient, incompetent unionized employees that you can hardly ever fire. And what do you get a sadly inefficient system. Remove the choke hold of the Unions on healthcare and bring in more competition and you will get a cheap more effective health care system. Introduce a guaranteed government payer and you have pretty much locked in a sad system self feeding system. Obama won't touch the unions in Healthcare just like he wouldn't with the auto makers. In fact they were the winners in GMs colapse despite the fact that they were the main reason for its demise.

MeanGreen says

I work in the finance dept in one of the largest hospitals in San Francisco. One item that people really seem to disregard in why health care isn’t working in the US is the Unions. Lets take a look at how Unions in the auto industry and in Health Care have literally bankrupt their systems. You have inefficient workers that can’t be fired, insane health and retirement benefits that no one in the private sector would even dream of, and salaries for health care workers with Associates degrees that match those of Masters degrees in the private sector. So you have overpaid, inefficient, incompetent unionized employees that you can hardly ever fire. And what do you get a sadly inefficient system. Remove the choke hold of the Unions on healthcare and bring in more competition and you will get a cheap more effective health care system. Introduce a guaranteed government payer and you have pretty much locked in a sad system self feeding system. Obama won’t touch the unions in Healthcare just like he wouldn’t with the auto makers. In fact they were the winners in GMs colapse despite the fact that they were the main reason for its demise.

Are health care workers in Europe, Japan, etc. less unionized than in the US?

bdrasin,

>>Are health care workers in Europe, Japan, etc. less unionized than in the US?

Very good and pertinent question, of course the answer is NO, they are not. Ont the contrary. But you knew that :-).

The single most important difference between unions in the US and Europe is that in the US unions are very narrow and exclusive, whereas in Europe they are wide and inclusive.

The latter system tends to prevent that certain more-or-less blue collar subgroups advance their cause at the expense of everyone else. Because all the different sub-unions keep each other in check, the system works well.

MeanGreen says

I work in the finance dept in one of the largest hospitals in San Francisco. One item that people really seem to disregard in why health care isn’t working in the US is the Unions. Lets take a look at how Unions in the auto industry and in Health Care have literally bankrupt their systems. You have inefficient workers that can’t be fired, insane health and retirement benefits that no one in the private sector would even dream of, and salaries for health care workers with Associates degrees that match those of Masters degrees in the private sector. So you have overpaid, inefficient, incompetent unionized employees that you can hardly ever fire. And what do you get a sadly inefficient system. Remove the choke hold of the Unions on healthcare and bring in more competition and you will get a cheap more effective health care system. Introduce a guaranteed government payer and you have pretty much locked in a sad system self feeding system. Obama won’t touch the unions in Healthcare just like he wouldn’t with the auto makers. In fact they were the winners in GMs colapse despite the fact that they were the main reason for its demise.

Canada, the UK, Australia, and even Japan have medical industry unions as well.

Bap33 says

...programs that illegally transfer wealth..

Which of these programs are illegal? Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it illegal. You could try the tired old "unconstitutional" argument, but the supreme court has ruled on the issue several times already and decided that the 16th amendment was valid.

justme says

The latter system tends to prevent that certain more-or-less blue collar subgroups advance their cause at the expense of everyone else. Because all the different sub-unions keep each other in check, the system works well.

A very valid point. The police and firefighters unions in CA are another great example of how poorly structured unions can screw things up badly.

Tenpound, I think your post is directed at MeanGreen and not Kevin?

My point is unions are the major problem in health care costs. You think someone with an AA degree should be making $100k a year running an MRI machine? Do you think you should be able to fire someone for getting in a fist fight in front of a patient (true story)? Well since the unions have such a ridiculous strangle hold you'll continue to get community college grads making $100k/year and you'll just have to forget about ever having an efficient effective workforce capable of bringing down healthcare costs when you can't fire them for such a ridiculous infraction such as a fist fight at work. I am not sure why everyone is up in arms about high health care are, but no one wants to know why. Oh yes, everyone deserves a high paying job no matter what kind of tard you are if you are in a union. While all the rest of the private sector workers have to pick up the slack and do the real work.

Tenpoundbass says

Labor prices are only a small part of the grand picture, as any time a Union gets higher wages granted, the said company absorbs the cost by increasing the price to what ever the Union is asking for three times, they always use the opportunity to further profit from the misfortune. That is business, misfortune = opportunity to charge more plus plus.

I'm a software engineer. In my line of work, labor is virtually the only cost, which is why software companies routinely rake in 25% profit margins. This is becoming more and more true of the U.S. as a whole.

I don't blame unions as a whole -- I blame poorly run unions who harm the public for the benefit of their members only. The CA fire and police are a prime example of this.

Bap33 says

So, it is my firmly held belief that in America it is absolutly against constitutional law for the gov to force one voter to add to the wealth of another voter.

What you "believe" is wrong. Taxation is absolutely constitutional, and by claiming otherwise you're just showing everyone that you're ignorant.

The constitution clearly states that the government may levy taxes and fees as long as they are proportioned equally amongst the states. There have *ALWAYS* been taxes in the US, from day one.

The Federal income tax was originally deemed unconstitutional, but in 1912 the people voted and passed an amendment to the constitution permitting it.

Again, I ask -- what is illegal? All you've said is that you don't agree with it, which is a fine stance to take, but claiming that it is illegal is absurd. Peter Schiff's dad thought it was "illegal" too, and now he's in jail for not paying when the court told him he was wrong.

zetabeos1 says

We need to encourage more business owners with local lower cost labor to compete with other global competition. There is no other solution.

That's not entirely true. If we're willing to sacrifice a little bit, there's absolutely no reason why the U.S. needs any international trade at all. I'm not a big fan of isolationism myself, but it's certainly "an alternative".

Furthermore, competing for jobs with wealthy countries isn't an issue. Transportation costs pretty much guarantee that labor is not the deciding factor, which is why japanese and german auto companies make their vehicles in the US when they're targeting US consumers.

It's only when you're dealing with countries like China or India, who have virtually no protections for their workers, that the situation changes.

So, yeah, we could lower working standards to that of China, but who wants to live in a world like that? I'd rather die than work in some sweat shop 18 hours a day.

Bap33m

>>Kevin, in the basic - very basic - understanding of the founding of America it is very clear that we were to avoid the system left in Britian.

You may have that "understanding", but nowhere in the constitution does it say so. One cannot just extrapolate law from some idea of some unwritten "understanding" that some people have. That is a big problem.

To offer a twist on and old saying that is popular in right-wing-nutjob circles, I would say: Stop Legislating from The Peanut Gallery.

MeanGreen,

I'm loathe to agree with you about anything, but what I said about narrow and abusive unions may apply also to certain positions in healthcare. I'd like to see some more carefully collected wage numbers for different job descriptions before I weigh in on one side or the other. I've certainly heard about some nurses who seem to make way too much for the job they do, but we should look carefully at the complete picture.

When it comes to police and fire personnel, I have very little doubt they are overpaid (and over-pensioned), as I have said many times.

That being said, I disagree completely with the people who lump auto-workers who make 15-30/hour in with fire and police unions.

I have posted extensively about the lies and propaganda that is circulated by the main-stream media and right-wing propaganda machine about UAW, an if you want to know the facts, use Patrick's nifty new search function.

From SJMN today:

"All told, San Jose's $100,000-plus pension club includes 256 retired officers and firefighters and 34 other city workers."

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12804646?source=most_viewed

Tenpoundbass says

Those fresh unaltered foods are now sold for a premium at Wholefood mega stores and the like with a 1000% mark up. Most certainly out of affordability for most poor to lower middle class Americans.

Your understanding of the American food system is grossly inaccurate. Fresh produce and quality meat (not the garbage that they're peddling at safeway) aren't any more expensive, adjusted for inflation, than they have been for the last 50 years. In most cases, they're actually cheaper thanks to better refrigeration and transportation.

It's just that every other food item has gotten cheaper.

In 1940, the average American household spent 20% of income on food. In 1980 we spent about 15%. Today we spend less than 10%.

Blame the farm bill and it's bizarre drive to give as much money as possible to corn, wheat, soy, and other grain farmers over everyone else.

The simple fact of the matter is that Americans eat more poorly today because there are cheap food alternatives that are not as healthy as real food. Sure, nobody is "forcing" anyone to eat this garbage, but back 40 or 50 years ago, you were essentially "forced" to eat semi decent food. A soda was a once in a month treat (a desert, really), and now it's more common than water. Anything with added sugar was reserved for deserts and special occasions -- now we put twinkies in the kids lunch boxes. Beef was something that you ate two or three times a week, and now you eat corn-fed genetically modified frankenburgers for every other meal. Restaurants were something for birthdays and anniversaries, and now we have breakfast at mcdonalds.

Want to eat healthy? Go ahead and continue spending 15 or 20% of your income on food. Want to die a fat, bloated, diabetes-hobbled drain on society? Eat the crap that you buy at most resturaunts.

...I think it also fair to add that, back in the good ol' day, people GREW their food. Canning was big, even in suburbia, and having a chicken or two wasn't that outrageous. It's making a comeback.

Austinhousingbubble says

…I think it also fair to add that, back in the good ol’ day, people GREW their food. Canning was big, even in suburbia, and having a chicken or two wasn’t that outrageous. It’s making a comeback.

You actually have to go back pretty far before that was 'common' in cities or suburbs (at least the 30s for the most part). It's very difficult to grow crops in a city.

I think the bigger problem are the super markets that have replaced butchers, bakeries, and produce markets.

Kevin,

Kerr jars and canning sheds were the order of the day long after the thirties. It was popular from the time of Hoover right through to the Victory Gardens of WW2 and is still very much a going concern today -- especially in the Mid West, where folks look at you with genuine pity for spending 2 bucks on a tomato. Indeed, gardening is presently enjoying a big resurgence, including community gardens. As far as inner city gardens -- you just gotta know what you're doing.

Back to you initial point - food prices have increased in this country, esp. if we go by conventional Farm Bureau inflation readings, as opposed relying on the Boskin Commission method.