How the rich keep geting richer,look over there!

[Argus]

And what on that long list of mutual benefits could not be better delivered by someone other than government?

Well, health care for one. Studies show that the US pays much more than we do, but gets results which are the same or worse. Furthermore, their private sector health systems have a much higher administrative cost than their or our public sector systems.

Nor would I like to see police or firefighting, or, for that matter, taxation decisions made by the private sector. Do you want Rogers deciding what level of tax you're going to be paying?

[eyeball]

Ya, lousy working conditions, burnout, sickness, injuries, all of which get added to public costs ... while the rich predators get richer and whine louder about paying their fair share of taxes.

Don't forget the whinging about accounting for their environmental costs and liquidation of our nation's natural capital.

[Canuckistani]

What does healthcare do for business - only that American businesses tried to sue Canada under NAFTA callilng our system a subsidy because in the US employer paid healthcare premiums are so high.

What does education do for business - this from someone who purports to be an economics expert? It is to laugh. Cry. actually.

[WWWTT]

That's part of the reason the rich are getting richer, because their money is made off the backs of the middle and poor classes. Less benefits, contracting work, part time work, low wages... plus many other factors.

Yep that's pretty much it.

I never said the rich are staying rich.I said the rich are getting richer and there's a difference.

But there is nothing wrong with achieving more and gaining financial independence or becoming wealthy.

Doing so by suppressing others and the benefit of society?Well that's something different.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Ya, lousy working conditions, burnout, sickness, injuries, all of which get added to public costs ... while the rich predators get richer and whine louder about paying their fair share of taxes.

Oh and don't forget temporary foreign workers at 15% less pay!

Canadian companies don't want to pay fair market value for the services they require!

But when it comes to CEO wages,the market is doing well in setting a fair market value!!!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

What does health care do for business? Most employees are retired by the time they start excessively using the health care system.

Health care is one of the biggest,if not the biggest contributors to workers efficiency/productivity!

WWWTT

[jacee]

Health care is one of the biggest,if not the biggest contributors to workers efficiency/productivity!

WWWTT

Ya, you gotta wonder how successful an employer could be who doesn't comprehend that.

It may explain the bitterness of some anti-worker comments from some who don't grasp the basics of productivity.

[CPCFTW]

Health care is one of the biggest,if not the biggest contributors to workers efficiency/productivity!

WWWTT

Cite.

I'd like a cost/benefit analysis please. Not just benefit analysis. That's the problem with you people.. You skip half the equation.

[WWWTT]

No site required my friend

Health care is for the benefit of our society.

And corporations/businesses that wish to make money from our society must contribute to it.

It's just that simple

The better the society,the better the profit,the more you pay,very simple.

WWWTT

[guyser]

No site required my friend

Of course not required !

You couldnt find anything that would agree with you. In other words, you are wrong.

[jacee]

I'd like a cost/benefit analysis please. Not just benefit analysis. That's the problem with you people.. You skip half the equation.

I'd have to say that if you don't grasp the link between a healthy workforce and productivity, you might not be very successful in business.

Jobs, productivity and innovation: How health care drives the economy

[WWWTT]

Of course not required !

You couldnt find anything that would agree with you. In other words, you are wrong.

LOL yes this quote is very humorous!

I did not even check because I feel there is a couple good reasons to not even bother.

The first reason is because public healthcare is a fabric within Canadian society.

Corporations or anyone else can not opt out of contributing into our society while still doing business within our jurisdiction.

Furthermore,anything that benefits the employees of any company,benefits the company!You want me to provide a link that shows that a happy healthy employee is good for the company?

LOL!

WWWTT

[roy baty]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone in here remember how Socialism worked out for the "average Joe" in the now defunct Soviet block nations in Eastern Europe? Just ask an immigrant who came over to Canada for a better life after the wall fell just how much he/she liked it. The left camp in here who want more and more distribution of wealth like this video suggests are living in ignorance just as CPCFTW stated. Exactly how much should our government take from the rich for the "so-called" benefit of the "greater good"? What % is enough? If you take and take, you eventually leave no reason for free enterprise to even exist anymore and eventually you get Eastern Europe all over again before you know it.

Funny how some lefties talk about the rich needing to contribute much more to the community, yet the mere whisper of the words "work for welfare" as a way many of those who are the recipients of this distribution of wealth can equally contribute back into their community causes an outrage from the left. God forbid if contributing to a community worked both ways... I remember in ON in the 90's when they tried to push for the work for welfare gig. It didn't take long for them to back down because it was considered a human rights violation to make someone work for what others worked for to provide for them. Yet it seems that taking more from the rich without their permission is completely acceptable. Double standard? Humm...

Over the the past couple years we saw what has happened to countries with huge entitlement programs and social programs in Spain, Greece and now Cyprus and there's people who want more of that here? Obviously people who have this mentality don't seem to care if it happens to us in North America. I for one do care so yes, this video is "drivel".

Edited April 24, 2013 by roy baty

[jacee]

No need to go all extreme, roy.

There's a balance needed but it's gotten out of whack with too much money flowing to too few people.

[August1991]

Some people may have seen this clip before.

And I was not sure as to where to start this thread,but this is as good as place as any.

Kind of hard to fight the logic behind in this one.

http://www.moveon.org/share/72e232/hollywood-legend-ed-asner-has-outraged-republicans?rc=share-810f39

WWWTT

Several hundred million people in China live far better now than three decades ago, another several hundred million or so in India - and this clip entirely misses the point.

First, the clip is very American-centric.

Second, the clip ignores the fact that government spending in the US is larger now than it was five decades ago. Moreover, US government regulation is far more extensive than it was in the past. In fact, the US today has more of everything the clip wants more of. (WTF?)

Third, the clip seems so 19th century, and vaguely absurd in the 21st century. A youtube rant against the rich - how limousine liberal. The irony!

Finally, its cardinal sin is that the clip has a zero-sum view of life (often a mistake of the left). The clip implicitly assumes that the world is a fixed pie and assumes that if there are rich people with more, it's because poor people must have less. (Even Belinda Stronach understood how wrong this concept is, and used a different metaphor.)

-----

Message for Leftists in America: If people in China/India/Vietnam/Korea/Taiwan are richer, this does not mean that Americans are poorer.

Similarly, if the top 1% of Americans get more, this does not mean the other 99% have less.

Life ain't a casino, or a football match. It's not win-lose.

Edited April 24, 2013 by August1991

[eyeball]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone in here remember how Socialism worked out for the "average Joe" in the now defunct Soviet block nations in Eastern Europe?

Yup. It ultimately collapsed for the same reason Capitalism is now going up in flames. The system always ends up getting rigged against the average Joe no matter what end of the spectrum you go.

That's why I don't see any reason to give up on socialism or pass final judgement on it's utility yet, we haven't seen how it works under a government that cannot evade accountability and transparency. The same is true of capitalism. I have little doubt a mix of both would probably work best but without proper oversight neither is worth a pinch of coon shit to anyone in the end.

[CPCFTW]

I'd have to say that if you don't grasp the link between a healthy workforce and productivity, you might not be very successful in business.

Jobs, productivity and innovation: How health care drives the economy

The conclusion tells you all you need to know:

Despite its escalating costs, the health care sector may be creating more value than it consumes.

After all that effort the author still can't conclude that the health care sector creates more value than it consumes, and yet you and WWWTT ridicule anyone who disputes that public health care does not pass a cost/benefit test.

The arguments in the article are pretty weak too.

1. Arguing that the health sector "creates jobs". Those jobs would exist in a private system as well, but people could choose to use/pay for them. The money taxed and distributed by the state to public health care would not disappear... it could be used to reduce taxes (lower tax rates on middle class anyone?), or transferred directly to individuals through some sort of health care savings vehicle (eg. RHSP Registered Health Savings Plan), or employ people in other industries (eg. finally constructing some freakin' better subways in Toronto).

2. Arguing that workers are more productive when healthy. This requires one to assume that workers would be unhealthy if we didn't subsidize health care or provide public health care. The increase in life expectancy in modern economies is a result of better medicine and the rule of law (less crime), not because of public health care. Wealth is far more correlated to life expectancy than the existence of public health care is.

3. Arguing that the health care sector is a pillar of science and research. Government can still take a role in research by providing funding grants... this is not an argument for a public health system.

Edited April 24, 2013 by CPCFTW

[CPCFTW]

Furthermore,anything that benefits the employees of any company,benefits the company!You want me to provide a link that shows that a happy healthy employee is good for the company?

LOL!

WWWTT

There you go again only looking at one side of the equation. Yes there is a benefit to socialized health care.. There is also a cost which you continue to ignore.

Edited April 24, 2013 by CPCFTW

[Bonam]

There you go again only looking at one side of the equation. Yes there is a benefit to socialized health care.. There is also a cost which you continue to ignore.

There is indeed a cost, but the evidence points to that cost being lower than employer-paid healthcare. In fact, putting the onus on employers to not only pay for health insurance but also handle the vast amounts of bureaucracy and paperwork involved drives up employer costs substantially. It also limits the mobility of the labor force and thus its ability to adapt to changing market conditions, since employees must consider not only their pay, job, and location, but also their healthcare situation. Almost any system of payment would be better. Now, one can argue for private healthcare, where everyone buys their insurance directly, but tying healthcare to employment is about the dumbest thing you could possibly do.

[CPCFTW]

There is indeed a cost, but the evidence points to that cost being lower than employer-paid healthcare. In fact, putting the onus on employers to not only pay for health insurance but also handle the vast amounts of bureaucracy and paperwork involved drives up employer costs substantially. It also limits the mobility of the labor force and thus its ability to adapt to changing market conditions, since employees must consider not only their pay, job, and location, but also their healthcare situation. Almost any system of payment would be better. Now, one can argue for private healthcare, where everyone buys their insurance directly, but tying healthcare to employment is about the dumbest thing you could possibly do.

I never argued for employer-paid healthcare.

[Bonam]

I never argued for employer-paid healthcare.

Well, you asked someone for a cost-benefit analysis. When one does such an analysis, it should include all the available options, and the costs and benefits of each. If one considers the alternative to be employer-based healthcare, as exists in the US, then suddenly the cost/benefit ratio of a public system starts to look a lot better, even though it may still leave much to be desired compared to some other theoretical possibilities.

[CPCFTW]

Well, you asked someone for a cost-benefit analysis. When one does such an analysis, it should include all the available options, and the costs and benefits of each. If one considers the alternative to be employer-based healthcare, as exists in the US, then suddenly the cost/benefit ratio of a public system starts to look a lot better, even though it may still leave much to be desired compared to some other theoretical possibilities.

Yes if you make the faulty assumption that the only alternative to our system is that of the US then I guess your comment makes sense. I don't see why anyone would make that assumption based on what I've written so far though.

My initial argument was that health care doesn't benefit employers substantially, so why would I want to increase the cost to them?

Edited April 24, 2013 by CPCFTW

[jacee]

I never argued for employer-paid healthcare.

So what are you arguing for ... no health care?

[Bonam]

Yes if you make the faulty assumption that the only alternative to our system is that of the US then I guess your comment makes sense. I don't see why anyone would make that assumption based on what I've written so far though.

My initial argument was that health care doesn't benefit employers substantially, so why would I want to increase the cost to them?

When you say increase the cost to employers... increase in what context? In Canada, healthcare is already publicly funded, so there is no "increase". In the US, taking the paperwork burden off employers and funding healthcare out of other revenue streams including income tax rather than direct payment by employers would reduce the cost for employers, not increase it. So where is the increase?

[CPCFTW]

So what are you arguing for ... no health care?

Private health care. People who want health care can pay for it. Employers who want to provide insurance as a benefit can do so if they choose. Freedom.

Governments can provide tax incentives to save for health care, or just use the savings to slash taxes on the low to middle class. People making 0-50k contribute very little to government coffers.. Dump public health care and we could cut taxes on that class dramatically.