Universal Health Care?

[TxRepresent]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/25/democrats.healthcare.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Just read this, thought it was interesting. I would be completely down with universal health care, but I am interested on whether or not he could get legislation like this passed. For all the Americans out there without health care I sure hope so. Anyways, thoughts? comments? I know Tate should have something to say about this since it's Obama.

[Jason Tate]

I think it's about time a politician starts making big calls.

As for the idea, I'm behind it as a self-employed individual health-care costs FUCKING SUCK.

[TxRepresent]

I think it's about time a politician starts making big calls.

As for the idea, I'm behind it as a self-employed individual health-care costs FUCKING SUCK.

Yeah they do suck, my dad was self-employed for a long time and I had to go to the hospital one time for 6 days and we pretty much had to pay for all of it b/c we couldn't afford quality health-care. I actually think my mom just got done paying it off and that was when i was in the 7th grade lol.

[icameonherface]

I think it's about time a politician starts making big calls.

As for the idea, I'm behind it as a self-employed individual health-care costs FUCKING SUCK.

freelancers union?

edit: nevermind, that is just for ny's tri-state area.

http://www.freelancersunion.org/insurance-home/

they are trying to expand though.

[Jason Tate]

freelancers union?

edit: nevermind, that is just for ny's tri-state area.
I'm not a freelancer.

[icameonherface]

I'm not a freelancer.

yeah I made it...

You're not an independent worker?

Independent Workers are defined as individuals who work as freelancers, independent contractors or consultants, or who are self-employed, employed part-time, temporary workers, or work for multiple companies at the same time.

You will not be considered an independent worker if, at the time of application, you are working full-time as a W-2 employee and have been for the last 18 months for the same employer. The only exception to this is if you work for a temporary or placement agency.

[aminorthreat55]

Despite the general notion, this is certainly possible, as our current patchwork system is wholly inefficient and grotesquely expensive. If we were to create universal health care from scratch and remove all prior health care legislation, we would most likely be able to pull it off with only minimal increases in taxation.

[icameonherface]

Despite the general notion, this is certainly possible, as our current patchwork system is wholly inefficient and grotesquely expensive. If we were to create universal health care from scratch and remove all prior health care legislation, we would most likely be able to pull it off with only minimal increases in taxation.

I'm not so sure about a minimal increase percentage wise - - the middle class would still be paying the same for health care as they are hurt the most with tax increases.

[dw1003]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/25/democrats.healthcare.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Just read this, thought it was interesting. I would be completely down with universal health care, but I am interested on whether or not he could get legislation like this passed. For all the Americans out there without health care I sure hope so. Anyways, thoughts? comments? I know Tate should have something to say about this since it's Obama.

It's time that the old republican guard's loyalty to HMO's and insurance companies gets fucking buried... this would revolutionize our country there is no reason why this can't happen other than corruption and bribery...

by the way a short list of countries who have universal health care:

Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Cuba, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, South Korea Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, The Republic of China (Taiwan),and the United Kingdom are among many

[dw1003]

I'm not so sure about a minimal increase percentage wise - - the middle class would still be paying the same for health care as they are hurt the most with tax increases.

explain.

[icameonherface]

It's time that the old republican guard's loyalty to HMO's and insurance companies gets fucking buried... this would revolutionize our country there is no reason why this can't happen other than corruption and bribery...

by the way a short list of countries who have universal health care:

Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Cuba, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, South Korea Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, The Republic of China (Taiwan),and the United Kingdom are among many

how many of those countries consistently create new medicine, technology, and procedures? I'm just asking. I cannot find the answers.

Also, what is the quality of their programs? I know some places have close to 50% tax brackets.

[aminorthreat55]

I'm not so sure about a minimal increase percentage wise - - the middle class would still be paying the same for health care as they are hurt the most with tax increases.
That is only the case with the social security portion of the tax, not the medicare portion. Unless you're talking about something else. Either way, I'm confused by your vague response.

[aminorthreat55]

Also, what is the quality of their programs? I know some places have close to 50% tax brackets.
We are not far behind the 50% however when you combine all of the hidden taxes we pay in addition to our income taxes.

For example, consider the highest tax bracket of 35% for income taxes. Plus state taxes which vary from state to state plus 7.65% for FICA plus any state sales tax plus the de-facto value-added taxes on gas, cigarettes and other consumer goods. Plus property taxes and other assorted dues. We're not too far behind, we're just more inefficient (and greedy).

[Love As Arson]

The middle class endures far more hardship when taxes are decreased for the top ten percent, as they are forced to pay an increase in property taxes to make up for the income lost.

[aminorthreat55]

The middle class endures far more hardship when taxes are decreased for the top ten percent, as they are forced to pay an increase in property taxes to make up for the income lost.
Correct.

[dw1003]

how many of those countries consistently create new medicine, technology, and procedures? I'm just asking. I cannot find the answers.

Also, what is the quality of their programs? I know some places have close to 50% tax brackets.

Problem #1 "I cannot find the answers" not my fault.

Citizens have a right to have health care provided for them by their governments.

From wikipedia....

"Some advocates of universal health care assert that single-payer systems save money that could be used directly towards health care by reducing administrative waste. For instance, according to the Drum Major Institute, a public policy, non-profit organization founded by Harry Wachtel, lawyer and advisor to Martin Luther King Jr., the estimated amount the U.S. would save each year on paperwork if it adopted single-payer health care is $161 billion. Denmark, Sweden, and Canada are some of the countries that currently employ single-payer financing of health care."

as far as the taxes are concerned, it depends on how it is structured... the above quote illustrates that paper waste alone could cover a huge amount of the cost.

[dw1003]

how many of those countries consistently create new medicine, technology, and procedures? I'm just asking. I cannot find the answers.

Also, what is the quality of their programs? I know some places have close to 50% tax brackets.

As far as health care is concerned, Italy ranks among the World Health Organization’s top 10 countries for quality health care services (by contrast, the U.S. only holds 37th place, despite being the highest spender.)

[icameonherface]

explain.

Cause when you think about an increase in taxes, it is still money out of the pocket.

Also, right now you can deduct your taxes for premiums paid on insurance.

if you take that into consideration - it'll be close to the same price.

Sorry, I am late on this, I had some shit to deal with while I was in the middle of typing this.

Say a family has taxable income of 40,000.

Their taxes would be $5,245.

Now, take away that deduction of close to 7,000 for decent coverage.

you're taxable income is now 47,000

Their taxes would be $6,295. This also does not include the percentage hike. Now say there is an 5% increase in taxes.

With the standard brackets now and a 5% increase for married filing jointly, their taxes would look like this.

15,100 * .15 = 2,265
47,000-15,100 = 31,900 * .20 = 6,380

=8,645.

Their taxes have gone up 3,400, and their coverage is less.

The problem is a 5% increase will probably not what will happen. It'll probably be more.

Of course these are all assumptions.

I ask to not be attacked personally by other members or those in charge.

[icameonherface]

We are not far behind the 50% however when you combine all of the hidden taxes we pay in addition to our income taxes.

For example, consider the highest tax bracket of 35% for income taxes. Plus state taxes which vary from state to state plus 7.65% for FICA plus any state sales tax plus the de-facto value-added taxes on gas, cigarettes and other consumer goods. Plus property taxes and other assorted dues. We're not too far behind, we're just more inefficient (and greedy).

Yeah, but federal income taxes are 35% at the top.
You'll still have those other taxes.

[icameonherface]

The middle class endures far more hardship when taxes are decreased for the top ten percent, as they are forced to pay an increase in property taxes to make up for the income lost.

How do you figure when property taxes goto their municipalities more than the state?

Property taxes are how cities pay back municipal bonds -- tax free bonds.

[icameonherface]

Problem #1 "I cannot find the answers" not my fault.

Citizens have a right to have health care provided for them by their governments.

From wikipedia....

"Some advocates of universal health care assert that single-payer systems save money that could be used directly towards health care by reducing administrative waste. For instance, according to the Drum Major Institute, a public policy, non-profit organization founded by Harry Wachtel, lawyer and advisor to Martin Luther King Jr., the estimated amount the U.S. would save each year on paperwork if it adopted single-payer health care is $161 billion. Denmark, Sweden, and Canada are some of the countries that currently employ single-payer financing of health care."

as far as the taxes are concerned, it depends on how it is structured... the above quote illustrates that paper waste alone could cover a huge amount of the cost.

wikipedia is not the best source.

[70x7]

It's time that the old republican guard's loyalty to HMO's and insurance companies gets fucking buried... this would revolutionize our country there is no reason why this can't happen other than corruption and bribery...

by the way a short list of countries who have universal health care:

Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Cuba, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, South Korea Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, The Republic of China (Taiwan),and the United Kingdom are among many

A lot of people in Canada have to come to the US to get certain care simply because the wait in Canada is too long. A friend of mine is from Germany and she said that a lot of people actually pay for their own private doctor because the health care provided by the government is awful. It takes forever to see a doctor and when they finally do, the offices are dirty and the equipment is outdated.

On a side note, did anybody see the house that John Edwards just bought?

[Jason Tate]

A lot of people in Canada have to come to the US to get certain care simply because the wait in Canada is too long. A friend of mine is from Germany and she said that a lot of people actually pay for their own private doctor because the health care provided by the government is awful. It takes forever to see a doctor and when they finally do, the offices are dirty and the equipment is outdated.

On a side note, did anybody see the house that John Edwards just bought?
1) The option to pay for your own private doctor is still open, go for it if you want to. That option's available now.

2) We have Canadian posters here, I'll be interested to see their thoughts.

3) Because it's "dirty and outdated equipment" in Germany does not mean that's what will happen in America.

4) You seem to be saying that the wait is long -- why is the wait long? Well, because everyone can have health care. Therefore more people are getting it. So the wait's long. Simply logic. Do you really think we should decide who gets health care based on the ability to pay? "Survival of the richest?" :rolleyes:

5) Who cares about politician's houses. He's not even one of the top 25 richest in Congress.

[dw1003]

wikipedia is not the best source.

You're not the best source.

[70x7]

1) The option to pay for your own private doctor is still open, go for it if you want to. That option's available now.

2) We have Canadian posters here, I'll be interested to see their thoughts.

3) Because it's "dirty and outdated equipment" in Germany does not mean that's what will happen in America.

4) You seem to be saying that the wait is long -- why is the wait long? Well, because everyone can have health care. Therefore more people are getting it. So the wait's long. Simply logic. Do you really think we should decide who gets health care based on the ability to pay? "Survival of the richest?" :rolleyes:

Ha, I would love to pay for my own doctor, but based on the two salaries I just got offered that week, that would happen never.

No, I think everybody should be able to get it.

The reason I bring up Germany, aside from it's an example, is because it's genreally considered one of the more first world countries, as far as I know.

Having to wait for surgery though will cause some people major issues though. Not that it's life threatening to wait, but just the pain people have to endure waiting. That being said, I still think everybody should have the opportunity to receive healthcare.

[dw1003]

A lot of people in Canada have to come to the US to get certain care simply because the wait in Canada is too long. A friend of mine is from Germany and she said that a lot of people actually pay for their own private doctor because the health care provided by the government is awful. It takes forever to see a doctor and when they finally do, the offices are dirty and the equipment is outdated.

On a side note, did anybody see the house that John Edwards just bought?

You've got to understand the premise... the goal is that everyone has decent healthcare...

If this means that your wait time increases, than so be it. Hopefully we'll reach our goal, and every citizen can be treated for his or her illness. Working under the assumtion that the more money you have entiltles you to better care is ludicris... or that the rich or afluent have a larger stake in the issue than the poor and the homeless...
the working assumtion should be that each and every citizen has the right to have healthcare provided to them by their government. How are we going to accomodate this?

Also universal healthcare would be a modification of our current healthcare system... so the equipment found in hospitals now, will not suddenly be outdated or dirty.

[Jason Tate]

Cause when you think about an increase in taxes, it is still money out of the pocket.

Also, right now you can deduct your taxes for premiums paid on insurance.

if you take that into consideration - it'll be close to the same price.

Sorry, I am late on this, I had some shit to deal with while I was in the middle of typing this.

Say a family has taxable income of 40,000.

Their taxes would be $5,245.

Now, take away that deduction of close to 7,000 for decent coverage.

you're taxable income is now 47,000

Their taxes would be $6,295. This also does not include the percentage hike. Now say there is an 5% increase in taxes.

With the standard brackets now and a 5% increase for married filing jointly, their taxes would look like this.

15,100 * .15 = 2,265
47,000-15,100 = 31,900 * .20 = 6,380

=8,645.

Their taxes have gone up 3,400, and their coverage is less.

The problem is a 5% increase will probably not what will happen. It'll probably be more.

Of course these are all assumptions.

I ask to not be attacked personally by other members or those in charge.
Your math is horrible.

[70x7]

You've got to understand the premise... the goal is that everyone has decent healthcare...

If this means that your wait time increases, than so be it. Hopefully we'll reach our goal, and every citizen can be treated for his or her illness. Working under the assumtion that the more money you have entiltles you to better care is ludicris... or that the rich or afluent have a larger stake in the issue than the poor and the homeless...
the working assumtion should be that each and every citizen has the right to have healthcare provided to them by their government. How are we going to accomodate this?

Also universal healthcare would be a modification of our current healthcare system... so the equipment found in hospitals now, will not suddenly be outdated or dirty.

Who is to say in 5 years that our equipment and facilities will not be that way. I'm not saying they will be, I was just merely using an example that illustrates a con in a country that has universal health care.

[Love As Arson]

How do you figure when property taxes goto their municipalities more than the state?
Local government is pressured to increase property taxes because of a lack of federal aid due to the significant tax cuts given to the rich.

[Love As Arson]

Cause when you think about an increase in taxes, it is still money out of the pocket.[/B]
Who are we increasing taxes for? Corporations and the top ten percent are paying less in taxes than ever in US history. I imagine a great deal of wealth may be extracted from them by increasing taxes upon them.

[icameonherface]

Your math is horrible.

Please tell me oh wise one how it is horrible?

[icameonherface]

Who are we increasing taxes for? Corporations and the top ten percent are paying less in taxes than ever in US history. I imagine a great deal of wealth may be extracted from them by increasing taxes upon them.

I'd assume all taxes would be increased.

[icameonherface]

Local government is pressured to increase property taxes because of a lack of federal aid due to the significant tax cuts given to the rich.

It was a STRAIGHT TAX CUT. Don't make people think it was just given to the rich, that is incredibly false.

[StuGrimson]

I havent been to a doctor in a long time but as a Canadian I will chime in. Emergency services you are fine as basically everyone is treated on the importance of how badly they need treatment. If you are in an emergency situation there wont be a wait. For elective surgeries, that is generally where the long wait times kick in. Knee surgery and things like that are not generally top priority and those are the surgeries that often people from Canada go to the US for.

Often hospitals are backed up yes, especially in major markets, where wait times can exceed 5 hours. I happen to have a family doctor so I dont find myself needing to go to the hospital for whatever reason, my family doctor is also obviously covered under this system. There are also urgent care clinics for cases that are not considered emergencies which have generally a much shorter wait time.

In all honesty I cant say that the system is good or bad because luckily I have really never had to use it. I have been told though that if you want fast service you are sometimes better to drive to a hospital an hour away in a smaller town than go to one that is right around the corner from your house.

[icameonherface]

I havent been to a doctor in a long time but as a Canadian I will chime in. Emergency services you are fine as basically everyone is treated on the importance of how badly they need treatment. If you are in an emergency situation there wont be a wait. For elective surgeries, that is generally where the long wait times kick in. Knee surgery and things like that are not generally top priority and those are the surgeries that often people from Canada go to the US for.

Often hospitals are backed up yes, especially in major markets, where wait times can exceed 5 hours. I happen to have a family doctor so I dont find myself needing to go to the hospital for whatever reason, my family doctor is also obviously covered under this system. There are also urgent care clinics for cases that are not considered emergencies which have generally a much shorter wait time.

In all honesty I cant say that the system is good or bad because luckily I have really never had to use it. I have been told though that if you want fast service you are sometimes better to drive to a hospital an hour away in a smaller town than go to one that is right around the corner from your house.

Thanks for the input.

We definitely need some sort of change here. There will have to be loads and loads of regulation and I think we'll find more and more companies moving their main "holding" companies to the Virgin Islands and so forth.

[Love As Arson]

It was a STRAIGHT TAX CUT. Don't make people think it was just given to the rich, that is incredibly false.
It was a giveaway to the rich, essentially, as 2/3 of the tax cut benefitted the rich, while the working and middle class received little in return.

[icameonherface]

It was a giveaway to the rich, essentially, as 2/3 of the tax cut benefitted the rich, while the working and middle class received little in return.

Because they paid in less?

I mean I understand the tax cuts were a fairly stupid idea, but the fact that the total amount cut benefited the rich more, you can say you don't understand they also essentially pay 2/3 of our taxes.

The idea in a perfect world where tax cuts would work is if the rich would invest into businesses and buy products to provide for more jobs to create higher income and increase higher taxes paid. But that is in an ideal world using a grass roots theory of economics.

[Love As Arson]

Because they paid in less?
Because the corresponding development is a shift of the burden on to the middle and working class.

I mean I understand the tax cuts were a fairly stupid idea, but the fact that the total amount cut benefited the rich more, you can say you don't understand they also essentially pay 2/3 of our taxes.
They also benefit from a number of tax loopholes and other giveaways by government.

The idea in a perfect world where tax cuts would work is if the rich would invest into businesses and buy products to provide for more jobs to create higher income and increase higher taxes paid. But that is in an ideal world using a grass roots theory of economics.
The rich are, in actuality, the least likely to spend the money for purposes of reinvigorating the economy.

[icameonherface]

Because the corresponding development is a shift of the burden on to the middle and working class.

They also benefit from a number of tax loopholes and other giveaways by government.

The rich are, in actuality, the least likely to spend the money for purposes of reinvigorating the economy.

Is it their fault they research loopholes? The loopholes are there for everyone. Deductibles/Credits are there for everyone. Its not like well these are only for the rich.

I assume you've taken a tax accounting course before, correct?

And I disagree with your last statement as the rich or more likely to invest their money or put it in banks to allow for the little man to take out loans to start small businesses and so forth.

People in mid to lower classes benefit foreign economies more than our own.

[Jason Tate]

Is it their fault they research loopholes? The loopholes are there for everyone. Deductibles/Credits are there for everyone. Its not like well these are only for the rich.

I assume you've taken a tax accounting course before, correct?

And I disagree with your last statement as the rich or more likely to invest their money or put it in banks to allow for the little man to take out loans to start small businesses and so forth.

People in mid to lower classes benefit foreign economies more than our own.
Actually, they are there only for the rich.

And his last statement is 100% correct.

[Love As Arson]

Is it their fault they research loopholes? The loopholes are there for everyone. Deductibles/Credits are there for everyone. Its not like well these are only for the rich.
They are only applicable to corporations and those with massive amounts of wealth.


I assume you've taken a tax accounting course before, correct?
No.

And I disagree with your last statement as the rich or more likely to invest their money or put it in banks to allow for the little man to take out loans to start small businesses and so forth.
They are more likely to put it in banks where US tax laws do not apply. Or, they simply allow capital to accumulate, without reinvesting it.

People in mid to lower classes benefit foreign economies more than our own.
The middle and working class are forced into competition with foreign economies.

[Sleepaway]

Not having free health care = stupid.
Having free health care = smart.

We have long waiting times, and the NHS has large debts, but people cannot afford to pay for health care. The Conservative party were going to put privatization of the NHS in their manifesto, but swiftly turned around on that decision.

Its just conveinient to get it for free, although taxes are high to pay for it.

[icameonherface]

Actually, they are there only for the rich.

And his last statement is 100% correct.

Actually they're not. I assume you took a tax accounting class too?

[icameonherface]

They are only applicable to corporations and those with massive amounts of wealth.

That is incorrect.

No.

Then how do you know what you're saying is correct regarding tax laws?

They are more likely to put it in banks where US tax laws do not apply. Or, they simply allow capital to accumulate, without reinvesting it.

How does capital accumulate without reinvesting it? Do they keep all their money just in safes in their homes and fuck bothering to worry about inflation?

What is wrong with putting it in banks? This allows the banks to give out more loans and/or buy securities to keep our inflation down.

The middle and working class are forced into competition with foreign economies.[/quote]

As unions' sometimes ridiculous requests and rising wages drive up costs of American products - I'll use the same example I've used before.

An American car company pays $1500 per car for union pensions, benefits, and so forth.
An Asian car company pays $175.

Everything will always come down to supply and demand.

[Jason Tate]

Actually they're not. I assume you took a tax accounting class too?
Yes, I have. I also have a very expensive accountant. You're flat out wrong on this. As someone whose family files lots and lots of taxes, and who myself pays more taxes than you probably ever will -- I'm telling you right now: YOU'RE WRONG.

[Jason Tate]

That is incorrect.



Then how do you know what you're saying is correct regarding tax laws?



How does capital accumulate without reinvesting it? Do they keep all their money just in safes in their homes and fuck bothering to worry about inflation?

What is wrong with putting it in banks? This allows the banks to give out more loans and/or buy securities to keep our inflation down.

The middle and working class are forced into competition with foreign economies.

As unions' sometimes ridiculous requests and rising wages drive up costs of American products - I'll use the same example I've used before.

An American car company pays $1500 per car for union pensions, benefits, and so forth.
An Asian car company pays $175.

Everything will always come down to supply and demand.
You're one of the "rising wages" drives up costs kids? Dude -- you realize how many times that's been debunked? The studies are now common literature (http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_raising_mini mum_wage_2004).

:rolleyes:

[icameonherface]

You're one of the "rising wages" drives up costs kids? Dude -- you realize how many times that's been debunked? The studies are now common literature (http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_raising_mini mum_wage_2004).

:rolleyes:

When you raise above what the market's supply and demand says it should be it is bad. However, it should be adjusted for inflation.

Yes, I have. I also have a very expensive accountant. You're flat out wrong on this. As someone whose family files lots and lots of taxes, and who myself pays more taxes than you probably ever will -- I'm telling you right now: YOU'RE WRONG.

Learn what I do for a job before you question my tax status.

So deductions and credits are only for the rich?

[Jason Tate]

When you raise above what the market's supply and demand says it should be it is bad. However, it should be adjusted for inflation.



Learn what I do for a job before you question my tax status.

So deductions and credits are only for the rich?
Read the article before looking stupid.

I don't need to know your job to know my above statements are true.

No, the "loop holes" you talked about earlier are.

[Love As Arson]

That is incorrect.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/tax-j18.shtml


Then how do you know what you're saying is correct regarding tax laws?
I keep myself informed.


How does capital accumulate without reinvesting it? Do they keep all their money just in safes in their homes and fuck bothering to worry about inflation?
Accumulation by dispossession.


What is wrong with putting it in banks? This allows the banks to give out more loans and/or buy securities to keep our inflation down.
It does not lead to economic recovery, as those who need loans have had their finances compromised and can no longer receive them, or if they do get a loan to start a business, the large businesses then crush them.


As unions' sometimes ridiculous requests and rising wages drive up costs of American products.
Workers must have a say in the way in which business functions.


An American car company pays $1500 per car for union pensions, benefits, and so forth.
An Asian car company pays $175.
Everything will always come down to supply and demand.
Profit is the motive.

[icameonherface]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/tax-j18.shtml
Can you show me a source not from a Socialist Website?


I keep myself informed.


Accumulation by dispossession.

Because Harvey feels that way, it must be true.


It does not lead to economic recovery, as those who need loans have had their finances compromised and can no longer receive them, or if they do get a loan to start a business, the large businesses then crush them.

No one has full capital, sorry.


Workers must have a say in the way in which business functions.

Yes, they should, but sometimes they get overly greedy. We have many jobs that are overvalued. They strike and stop production and put companies against the wall in lose-lose situations.


Profit is the motive.

Actually, no, it is largely due to the UAW.

[Love As Arson]

Can you show me a source not from a Socialist Website?
I find that it is a bit weak to be critical of the source, rather than attacking the actual content.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0705-26.htm


Because Harvey feels that way, it must be true.
It can be evidenced in the market.


No one has full capital, sorry.
Irrelevant. The tax cuts and benefits given to the rich adverse effect the ability of the middle and working class to have a stable economic situation, while also using their economic power to destroy the ventures of the middle class.


Yes, they should, but sometimes they get overly greedy. We have many jobs that are overvalued. They strike and stop production and put companies against the wall in lose-lose situations.
Twelve percent of Americans are in unions, and many businesses have worked to eliminate them, so it can increase profit, and decrease wages. Moreover, pushing companies against the wall is the only way in which one may be sure to force bargaining.


Actually, no, it is largely due to the UAW.
As I said, profit is the motive, as the impetus is to locate a place where one can find workers that will work for less.

[Mitch]

Need to learn more about this.

[loveisdead]

hell of a bump, Mitch.

[Praetor]

Need to learn more about this.
Same. If you find a good resource let me know. :-)

[aesopsphere]

there are not enough republicans to fillibuster. universal health care will be a reality

[Duexy]

ok

[aoftbsten]

The NHS is a pretty crap service, but still I'm glad there's at least something here. I know people wouldn't be alive right now if it wasn't for the care provided by the NHS because they couldn't afford private health insurance.