An example of why a public option would be nice in the United States

[Platapus]

The confusion is the intermixing of two definitions. The first being the economic definition of a profit and the other a legal definition of profit in the context of distribution of profit. This is a common confusion.

NPOs have to make an economic profit (income > expenses). However, NPOs can't distribute profit to shareholders and the like. NPOs must reinvest their economic profit back into the organization. Where a for profit corporation does not have to. The "non profit" in Non Profit Organizations deals with the legal definitions of profit in the context of distribution.

I work for a NPO and I knock down six figures and I am one of the minions. I do make a little less than a counter part in a For Profit Corporation, but not by much. NPO does not mean volunteer nor starvation wages. My NPO has to make an economic profit in order for us to grow. Growth is an important factor in NPOs.

In operation, there is actually little difference between an NPO and a for profit corporation other than restrictions on how economic profits can be distributed. NPOs must distribute economic profits within the organization and For Profit organizations can distribute profits outside the corporation.

Short summary: NPOs have legal restrictions on how they can use Profit.

The use of the term "Profit" in Non-Profit Organizations is confusing and can mislead the public into thinking that they don't make a profit like the other money-grubbing for profit corporations. NPOs are just as money grubbing as the rest.

They have to be in order to stay in business.

So if we were to make all hospitals Non-profit organizations, they would still be able to pay doctors the same salary they get in For Profit hospitals.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Two points here mookie. First - if something is not for profit - then it can't make a profit. Meaning it cannot GROW. So the local doctor...

Health care providers (doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc) ≠ health insurance industry (Aetna, Wellpoint, Cigna). Again, you're mis-characterizing the argument and the rest is a strawman.

But you can't do that - there won't be enough money to pay the bills, so the difference gets lumped on everybody, without any of us having a choice.

Exactly. And that's fine.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Exactly. And that's fine.

And this is where you and I have to agree to disagree. You think its "ok" for everyone to be made to pay for "helping" others. I view it as stealing from me to pay for someone else. You see it as acceptable, I see it as criminal. We differ.

At least there is still some civil discussion possible.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

And this is where you and I have to agree to disagree. You think its "ok" for everyone to be made to pay for "helping" others. I view it as stealing from me to pay for someone else. You see it as acceptable, I see it as criminal. We differ.

At least there is still some civil discussion possible.

*hat tip*

[CaptainHaplo]

Heck mookie - maybe we should run both run for office. We could hang out, yell and cuss and then say screw it and play silent hunter. They just need multiplayer!

Tax dollars at work! We'd still get more done that any of the clowns in washington now - regardless of party!

Ya know... there maybe something to this. How about having the letter (s) beside the name. For the subsim party. We don't have a unified plank except for subsims in every home!

You think its "ok" for everyone to be made to pay for "helping" others. I view it as stealing from me to pay for someone else. You see it as acceptable, I see it as criminal. We differ.

What is funny there is that one of those views is expressed by someone who claims to be a Christian preacher yet it is contrary to both the NT and OT.
I am sure there was some little baldy Indian fellow in glasses who made a very telling comment about such things.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I am sure there was some little baldy Indian fellow in glasses who made a very telling comment about such things.

That Ajaj Chopra has something to say about everything

[Growler]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The view expressed was ridiculous. The emphasis that was put on with BIG LETTERS were the elements which were most incorrect.


It refelects the hilarity of the claims that had been made, especially when Haplo raises a mention of "morals" for good measure

As for good arguements?
How about them charities eh, not for profit by definition so how on earth do they grow?

Jeez, lad. You are clearly an intelligent person with legitimately thought out and reasoned views, which is why I don't understand why you can't see how the tone you strike undermines the delivery of your content. The view expressed was ridiculous - to you (and perhaps others) - which is an opinion, not a universal truth (Were it so, this discussion wouldn't be happening). I can't figure out why you seem to choose to denigrate rather than educate - and education by denigration may be an effective means of teaching school yard bullies, but you are clearly above that level.

OT: Not-For-Profit means that, at the end of the year, the business may not post a profit. That's all. I've worked for NFPs, and am familiar with their operations. In many cases, funds that would be considered "profit" at the end of the year are instead placed into funds for other business-related expenses - for example, where I worked, a fund for the maintenance of the historic ships. It's usually not much money, unless something amazing happens during the year. Payroll, insurance, production costs, etc - all the expenses that any business, for or not-for profit - incur are part of the NFP bailiwick; the only major difference is the NFP's profit line at the end of the fiscal year must read -0-.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Platapus

The confusion is the intermixing of two definitions. The first being the economic definition of a profit and the other a legal definition of profit in the context of distribution of profit. This is a common confusion.

NPOs have to make an economic profit (income > expenses). However, NPOs can't distribute profit to shareholders and the like. NPOs must reinvest their economic profit back into the organization. Where a for profit corporation does not have to. The "non profit" in Non Profit Organizations deals with the legal definitions of profit in the context of distribution.

I work for a NPO and I knock down six figures and I am one of the minions. I do make a little less than a counter part in a For Profit Corporation, but not by much. NPO does not mean volunteer nor starvation wages. My NPO has to make an economic profit in order for us to grow. Growth is an important factor in NPOs.

In operation, there is actually little difference between an NPO and a for profit corporation other than restrictions on how economic profits can be distributed. NPOs must distribute economic profits within the organization and For Profit organizations can distribute profits outside the corporation.

Short summary: NPOs have legal restrictions on how they can use Profit.

The use of the term "Profit" in Non-Profit Organizations is confusing and can mislead the public into thinking that they don't make a profit like the other money-grubbing for profit corporations. NPOs are just as money grubbing as the rest.

They have to be in order to stay in business.

So if we were to make all hospitals Non-profit organizations, they would still be able to pay doctors the same salary they get in For Profit hospitals.

Someone has a brain...

NPO's pay almost exactly the same as for profits to employees, have benefits, ect. What it stops is the rape of executives to pay themselves millions in salary and millions more in bonuses and profit, yet the controlling members are always paid very well.

Take Pharma..

"Many companies have even put their marketers in charge of their laboratories. At Pfizer, there was a program called CRAM, which stood for Central Research Assists Marketing. The name made it clear that the marketers were in charge.
The whole focus of the industry has changed. The drug companies center their efforts on medicines for chronic conditions that affect large portions of the American public — and therefore have vast potential markets — things like heartburn, depression, allergies, blood pressure. Even inside the labs, the scientists are told to focus only on drugs that could become billion-dollar sellers. That’s why we have six drugs to lower cholesterol that all work in the same way. And yet millions of very sick patients have no treatments."

They're several studies showing now big Pharm ignores studying medicines that actually heal and put their effort in meds to treat symptoms of chronic illness, the goal to keep someone sick as long as possible on as many pills as possible....very profitable.

Why we see a commercial every second scaring us that we need this pill for gas, depression, ect...Always some happy beautiful person taking the pill.

In the last several years since marketers run the labs, death due to over or incorrect prescription use have gone up 400% in 10 years. Many Doctors have little clue what the meds they give out do now. Studies show over 70% of americans take too many or wrong presciptions. Why, because health is tied to profit. Also Pharm has stopped making many meds that work well, because no profit in them.

Should our government not protect us from this?

Tort reform...would correct itself if health wasn't for mass profit.

Insurance corps work basically the same way. This is why were in such a mess.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

No. Not even close. The Right To Life means that no one has the right to take your life, unless you forfeit that right through some crime. It does not mean that you have the right to force someone else to pay for your problems. You can argue that people should do so, and that it's a moral obligation, but a Right is something you are born with, not something the government assigns to you.

Since it was Jefferson who enumerated those Rights in the Declaration, let's look at another of his quotes to see what he really felt:

"Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."
-Thomas Jefferson; first inaugural address, March 4, 1801

And another:

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
—Thomas Jefferson to M. L'Hommande, 1787

Ahh more libertarian magic dust.
Im not saying the governemnt has to have universal health care (although it would be a good idea). I'm saying the government ought to do something about spiraling healthcare costs, and insurance companies screwing their customers. I think thats something we can agree on. But you seem to be dead set on jumping right to universal health care, and going off on some "don't take my money" tangent.

which is ironic, because many of you have no problem paying for other socialized programs that help other people. Under your rational, I should be incensed that i'm made to pay for the cops. I mean, I've never had call the police...so why should i have to pay for all those people who can't defend their own homes, or are just so "stupid" to live in a bad area.

on the subject on the Jefferson quotes, If those men thought everything they said was perfect in every way, we couldn't amend the constitution. Jefferson says something about "refraining men from injuring each other" I'm sure if he say an insurance company doing everything they could to deny coverage, when they needed it to get better, he would classify that as helping to injure somebody

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

Ahh more libertarian magic dust.

No, just an historical observation. I wasn't trying to discuss the benefits or problems with nationalized health care, as I don't consider myself educated enough on the subject to adequately argue it. My comments were based specifically on your statement that "It's the governments job to make sure this right isn't being denied by things like extreme medical costs." All I said was that that was never intended to be the Federal Government's job. Your jibe about "Libertarian magic dust" shows your own ultra-liberal bias and willingness to give labels to anything you don't like.

Im not saying the governemnt has to have universal health care (although it would be a good idea). I'm saying the government ought to do something about spiraling healthcare costs, and insurance companies screwing their customers. I think thats something we can agree on. But you seem to be dead set on jumping right to universal health care. And going off on some "don't take my money" tangent.

You're confusing me with someone else. I said nothing about any kind of health care; just that you're wrong in your statement about the "Government's job".

which is ironic, because many of you have no problem paying for other socialized programs that help other people. Under your rational, I should be incensed that i'm made to pay for the cops. I mean, I've never had call the police...so why should i have to pay for all those people who can't defend their own homes, or are just so "stupid" to live in a bad area.

Not really. We agree to pay taxes for the police because a volunteer police or fire department doesn't work in anything other than a small community, and a "per hire" version of those services could be a disaster. Also, those things are done at the State and Local levels. The Constitution doesn't provide for a national police force either.

As I said, I don't feel qualified to have an opinion on health care, universal or otherwise. It may be feasible on a state-by-state basis - I don't know. All I did was contradict a single erroneous statement. No "magic dust" at all.

on the subject on the Jefferson quotes, If those men thought everything they said was perfect in every way, we couldn't amend the constitution. Jefferson says something about "refraining men from injuring each other" I'm sure if he say an insurance company doing everything they could to deny coverage, when they needed it to get better, he would classify that as helping to injure somebody

The exact quote you're stretching for is from the Notes on the State Of Virginia: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."


And you conveniently ignore Jefferson's comments on "a wise and frugal government". I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying you shouldn't be trying to pervert what those men said about how they felt to reflect what you "are sure" they really meant.

And you say that if they thought it was perfect they wouldn't have made amending it a posibility. Fine. It says nothing about Federal Health Care. Go ahead and amend it then. Good luck.

I can't figure out why you seem to choose to denigrate rather than educate

In this particular case both the wages and nonprofit issue have been thoroughly dealt with on several occasions by numerous people, the very same claims are then repeated by Haplo again in a few weeks as an attempt to build the same strawman in an effort to justify views that have already been well explained as rubbish.
That suggests that plain education is unable to penetrate his political/economic ideology which in turn is in contradiction of another ideology he claims to follow which leaves only denigration of his views as an avenue to explore.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You're confusing me with someone else. I said nothing about any kind of health care; just that you're wrong in your statement about the "Government's job".

yes you did steve, you steve, you said: "It does not mean that you have the right to force someone else to pay for your problems"

Legislation to control health care costs will not cost the american, but you were talking about government programs: ie health care programs.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Not really. We agree to pay taxes for the police because a volunteer police or fire department doesn't work in anything other than a small community, and a "per hire" version of those services could be a disaster. Also, those things are done at the State and Local levels. The Constitution doesn't provide for a national police force either.

As I said, I don't feel qualified to have an opinion on health care, universal or otherwise. It may be feasible on a state-by-state basis - I don't know. All I did was contradict a single erroneous statement. No "magic dust" at all.

no national police force? FBI? nobody complains here. Also, why is it bad for our police force to be a private organization for hire when your life is in jeopardy, but when your life in in danger when you need health care...its all a-ok?

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The exact quote you're stretching for is from the Notes on the State Of Virginia: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

ok, so he's talking about freedom of religion. that quote seems pretty irrelevant now.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

And you conveniently ignore Jefferson's comments on "a wise and frugal government". I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying you shouldn't be trying to pervert what those men said about how they felt to reflect what you "are sure" they really meant.

so it's ok for you to quote Jefferson for your own agenda...but not for me? Things go both ways. the only person who is sure what they really meant is those men. not us. So, you are doing the exact same thing when you assume Jefferson is on your side.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

And you say that if they thought it was perfect they wouldn't have made amending it a posibility. Fine. It says nothing about Federal Health Care. Go ahead and amend it then. Good luck.

But we have that ability. to do so. There are many very good ideas that have been added later, like oh i dunno the abolition of slavery, womens suffrage, the barring of poll taxes, etc.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

yes you did steve, you steve, you said: "It does not mean that you have the right to force someone else to pay for your problems"

And I meant it. I was, however, not talking about health care, but the general liberal concept that it's okay to steal from someone else to fix any problem you deem worthy.

Legislation to control health care costs will not cost the american, but you were talking about government programs: ie health care programs.

And I stated that I can understand that, but it is not the Federal Government's job.

no national police force? FBI? nobody complains here. Also, why is it bad for our police force to be a private organization for hire when your life is in jeopardy, but when your life in in danger when you need health care...its all a-ok?

I thought you might try to squeeze that in. The FBI was created to handle the investigation of cases that ran through multiple jurisdictions, again adhereing to what I said earlier about "arbitrating between the states". It was emphatically not created to be a police force.

ok, so he's talking about freedom of religion. that quote seems pretty irrelevant now.

Yep.

so it's ok for you to quote Jefferson for your own agenda...but not for me? Things go both ways. the only person who is sure what they really meant is those men. not us. So, you are doing the exact same thing when you assume Jefferson is on your side.

Not really. I assume they meant what they said. The quotes I used are not ambiguous at all. You, on the other hand, quoted out of context and assumed it to mean what it did not. I don't assume Jefferson is on my side; I take him at his word. In areas where he was more liberal (and he was) I quote him as well.

But we have that ability. to do so. There are many very good ideas that have been added later, like oh i dunno the abolition of slavery, womens suffrage, the barring of poll taxes, etc.

By Amendment, not by legislation that tries to bypass both the Constitution and the Process. If the Constitution were amended to support a form of national health care I might oppose the idea, but I would certainly support the act itself, as that's the way it was meant to be done. Have I ever said that I opposed that?

[yubba]

The U.S Government can't run a cementary, you really want them to run your health care ?