Hodge Podge

YOu cant.  Other than being a vegetable, the rest of humanity has to LIVE and that means RISK and that means sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose.  it is called LIFE.

If you want to be a vegetable, go plant yourself.  Otherwise, try living.

Probably because those who provide the medical care have to pay up the ying yang to get the cetification necessary to provide this service and the fact that just like those who provide the service are interested in making money (enough to satisfy their personal desires and more), those who seek the medical help would not ignore the chance to make money (enough to satisfy their personal desires and more) if the person providing the medical help screws up in some way by their fault or by result of a margin of error.

It would be great if our health was priority and that we should all get it just because we all deserve to be healthy every moment of our lives but that is not how our society (or the world for that matter) works because everything is based around money. The education to become a doctor, the equipment necessary to perform the test to determine the medical needs, the medicine necessary to cure or control the medical problem, the location where the medical service is provided and even the lifestyle outside the medical jobs of those who work in the medical field. If college, x-rays machinces and all other medical items and equipment, medicine, rent and personal things like lunch, personal vehicles, personal rent, bills, etc, were all fre then doctors would not need to charge people for their services.

Everything in life needs money. You can't even sleep out in the streets without breaking some kind of law and these days you need utilities to survive so money is a must to live even semi-decently in this country.

 

No one should be in the poorhouse because of disease--it's called humanity.

Of course, there are tangible and intangible costs to health. Nevertheless, profiteering off sickness should end; and yes, by regulation if need be.

 

No, it is called living.  I CHOSE to gamble and  not carry insurance when I was young.  To maximize my earnings.  I gambled that at my age, I would not have larges expenses, and I won.  Some win, some lose. It is called life. A co-worker lost.

You cannot legislate life (at least under our current constitution).  That is what this is all about.  regulating every breath we take.

 Duke Wayne, did you also not have auto and life insurance?

Please tell me in your mind where it is ok to make a profit and where it is not ok?

Thanks for the name!

No on Life, and no on Auto - until I bought a car.  but no one forced me to buy one to live either.

I thought it was the Republicans that were the party of "Anti-Choice" and the Democrats were the party of "Pro-Choice"?  I guess that's only because they get to choose what our choices are?

Ever hear of Vaugn Meader?  if you were not around when JFK was president probably not as he did an imitation of JFK that was spot on!  And his career died when kennedy did.

But he use to have a joke - "Vote for the Kennedy of your choice, but vote!"

The democrats have never forgotten that - "Choose the option we select, but choose!".

My parents were weeee lil ones during JFK's presidency.  I'm only 30

I got corns older than you!

Hmmm, I'm gonna go with eww. 

 

 

Well you seem well adjusted AD.

In my mind profit is defined by the net gain after total costs. The problem, however, is that along the money trail everyone dips into the till under the guise of costs rather than theft, causing costs to skyrocket and profits to diminish or artificially  inflated. I'm simply asking for a economic system of greater integrity whereby prifits are real and then used for modest compensation and mostly for reinvesting in the same system that created the wealth. 

Theft is illegal.  Costs are not.  You are confusing the 2.  If I walk into a store, and grab money out of the till, that is theft.  if the owner walks in and takes money out, that is not. If the owner tells an employee to take money out, again that is not theft.

Now for tax purposes, he better have receipts for that money.  But that is a whole other matter.

You have just explained the problem with bureaucracies and explained why the gov't cannot and will not ever reduce costs (if they do it's a false reduction because of subsidies).

...and what is the best way to accomplish this? Competition. Two or more (preferably) insurance companies selling the same thing ensures costs will be reduced and profits minimized. Notice these health care boondoggle in congress doesn't open up competition over state lines. Also, if government is the sole provider, what gives them incentive to keep costs down? They would be the only game in town, and charge whatever they want.

Again back to my question:  Please tell me in your mind where it is ok to make a profit and where it is not ok?

what defines this 'greater integrity' for profits?

And what is your definition of 'modest compensation?

and who gets to decide what they are and why?

 

Even in charities there is overhead which many perceive as perks which should really only be a fair compensation for servicing the common good.

Obviously, enlightened altruistic sharing after the company's horizons are met to sustain its entity.

I know you're pulling my leg but I'll answer it anyway by denying Wall Street bonuses. Most probably its structured on minimal salary because they work on commission--that's sufficient. A Christmas bonus might be in the works but a $100 will do nicely. 

This is but the standard, trite cut to the quick--you know, "who made you God?" Still, we the people muddle along and try to the best we can in decisionmaking. Alas, we are light years away from a body of philosopher kings. 

Not really, Medicare and Medicaid have a history of keeping down costs. That's why physicians resist. Yet doctors make more money than they ever did before enactment.

You're joking right? LINK and here

The truth is that there is no "person" or "cabal" dictating the bonuses.  It is competition.  Simply put, you do not go to work for the employer who pays you the least (otherwise everyone would be working for McDonalds), you seek to maximize your worth.  So employers who want to get the best people pay for it - and that comes in many different forms.  On wall street, that is mega bonuses - due to competition.

And why is there competition?  because so few can do what they do well.  If everyone could, then the job would be worth nothing and McDonalds would be competing with them.

Cream rises to the top (along with some crud - cant be helped).  If you try to artificially restrict it in one area, it will just move to another.  Even in the most totalitarian states, some are more equal than others.  regardless of mind set.  The simple fact is that there has never been a society (beyond a village of a few dozen people) where everyone gets the same.  The only difference between Capitalism and communism/Socialism is that capitalism (for the most part - nothing is absolute) rewards productivity, the other rewards corruption.

And what is the 'fair compensation for servicing the common good.'  What is the standard of 'fair compensation'?

Can you give me something tangible or objective to work with here?   What you refer to is like a sharing a subjective utopia.  Please give me something besides just using another subjective way to say the same thing you said in the first place.

Actually I'm not trying to pull your leg.  I want to put some objectability to your answers.  So far all I've heard from you is similarly to the Miss America pagent's classic response of, "World Peace."  While intentions are all great but no one explains what they mean by World Peace in a obejectifiable way. 

As I understand what you are saying, Wall Street bonuses are limited to $100 for Christmas?  Is there room for inflation adjustment or only cap of $100?

So if we are light years away from a body of philosopher kings how then do you see what you refer to as actually something attainable?

Interesting link but merely indicates the more left uninsured the greater growth of Medicaid--growth is not the same as cost cutting. Ditto for Medicare--the more aged, the more growth. The wild west is over, the more compassionate and enlightened concerning the common good, the greater the expense.

 

Why do you persist in comparing our capitalism with a  dead system that proved ninety years ago that a system designed for philosophers could not be run by thugs. But thugs are in Wall Street, too, and should be treated as such, not rewarded.