The Great Healthcare Debate

mainWSJlogoWhite.gif


ELECTION 2006

Class Struggle
American workers have a chance to be heard.

Jim+Webb.jpg

BY JIM WEBB
Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:01 a.m.

The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.

Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.

In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future. Trickle-down economics didn't happen. Despite the vaunted all-time highs of the stock market, wages and salaries are at all-time lows as a percentage of the national wealth. At the same time, medical costs have risen 73% in the last six years alone. Half of that increase comes from wage-earners' pockets rather than from insurance, and 47 million Americans have no medical insurance at all.

Manufacturing jobs are disappearing. Many earned pension programs have collapsed in the wake of corporate "reorganization." And workers' ability to negotiate their futures has been eviscerated by the twin threats of modern corporate America: If they complain too loudly, their jobs might either be outsourced overseas or given to illegal immigrants.

This ever-widening divide is too often ignored or downplayed by its beneficiaries. A sense of entitlement has set in among elites, bordering on hubris. When I raised this issue with corporate leaders during the recent political campaign, I was met repeatedly with denials, and, from some, an overt lack of concern for those who are falling behind. A troubling arrogance is in the air among the nation's most fortunate. Some shrug off large-scale economic and social dislocations as the inevitable byproducts of the "rough road of capitalism." Others claim that it's the fault of the worker or the public education system, that the average American is simply not up to the international challenge, that our education system fails us, or that our workers have become spoiled by old notions of corporate paternalism.

Still others have gone so far as to argue that these divisions are the natural results of a competitive society. Furthermore, an unspoken insinuation seems to be inundating our national debate: Certain immigrant groups have the "right genetics" and thus are natural entrants to the "overclass," while others, as well as those who come from stock that has been here for 200 years and have not made it to the top, simply don't possess the necessary attributes.

Most Americans reject such notions. But the true challenge is for everyone to understand that the current economic divisions in society are harmful to our future. It should be the first order of business for the new Congress to begin addressing these divisions, and to work to bring true fairness back to economic life. Workers already understand this, as they see stagnant wages and disappearing jobs.

America's elites need to understand this reality in terms of their own self-interest. A recent survey in the Economist warned that globalization was affecting the U.S. differently than other "First World" nations, and that white-collar jobs were in as much danger as the blue-collar positions which have thus far been ravaged by outsourcing and illegal immigration. That survey then warned that "unless a solution is found to sluggish real wages and rising inequality, there is a serious risk of a protectionist backlash" in America that would take us away from what they view to be the "biggest economic stimulus in world history."

More troubling is this: If it remains unchecked, this bifurcation of opportunities and advantages along class lines has the potential to bring a period of political unrest. Up to now, most American workers have simply been worried about their job prospects. Once they understand that there are (and were) clear alternatives to the policies that have dislocated careers and altered futures, they will demand more accountability from the leaders who have failed to protect their interests. The "Wal-Marting" of cheap consumer products brought in from places like China, and the easy money from low-interest home mortgage refinancing, have softened the blows in recent years. But the balance point is tipping in both cases, away from the consumer and away from our national interest.

The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of "God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag" while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet. But this election cycle showed an electorate that intends to hold government leaders accountable for allowing every American a fair opportunity to succeed.

With this new Congress, and heading into an important presidential election in 2008, American workers have a chance to be heard in ways that have eluded them for more than a decade. Nothing is more important for the health of our society than to grant them the validity of their concerns. And our government leaders have no greater duty than to confront the growing unfairness in this age of globalization.

Mr. Webb is the Democratic senator-elect from Virginia.

Featured Article - WSJ.com
 
Here is how Care the program will not be self sustaining, Those that cannot afford the "public option" but tax dollars will be collected to help pay for their permiums. Thats just one little hole in that sort of thing. I'm not anti-reform Care you know that, but I am just completely stunned that the democrats have choosen to go about it in this way when they could do so in a manner that would solve this issue and give everyone what they wish, access to affordable quaility healthcare. The other thing that concerns me is the path our nation is on when it comes to spending, and before anyone injects Bush again here, don't think for one moment I approved of what Bush was doing and you know this too Care, because my postings back then when they proposed TARP , I was totally against that too.

god almighty navy....affordability credits FOR THOSE TOO POOR to buy it completely on there own is a separate issue AND these people WOULD HAVE THE CHOICE to buy any insurance plan on the exchange...for goodness sakes, what is it about CHOICE that YOU ARE SO AGAINST?

those affordability credits for the poor that come from our taxes can be used on PRIVATE companies insurance IF THEY WANT and if YOU cut out the public option then ALL OF OUR TAX MONIES given to the poor FOR affordability credit, go to lining the pockets of the insurance companies who absolutely do nothing in giving you the medical care one needs, they ONLY PASS PAPER???

DO YOU have a problem with that as well...giving ALL of our tax monies for the poor to them???

you are making no logical sense navy???????????

care

Affordability Credits Care are taxes that shoot a massive hole in the self-sustaining aspect of a "public option", it does not mean as I stated above there is not an already available "public option" that can be used without having to create another massive department within the Federal Govt. Please Care not all our taxes go to help Insurance companies and you know it. The poor deserve access to low cost affordable quality healthcare every bit as much as anyone else that can afford it. In order to get there congress has the ability to make that happen without mandates on Citizens. Let's say for a moment I believe these Insurance companies are the boogy man that some of you think they are, then why not direct this legislation at the Insurance companies and start to regulate them rather than citizens? Further, just by creating another duplicate entity within the Federal Govt. i.e. "Public Option" to compete with the Insurance Companies will not do one thing to actually bring down costs. If you want to fix high Insurance costs regulate the Insurers!!. I don't disagree with you for one second and you know it that healthcare costs are too high and they need to be reformed, but this "public option" along with mandates is just a totally moronic way to go about holding these Insurance companies feet to the fire and get to the point where there are affordable choices for the poor.

SIGH....

the people poor with affordability credits DO NOT HAVE TO BUY IN TO THE PUB;IC OPTION.

NONE OF THEM are REQUIRED to buy in to the public insurance plan navy??????

They can buy a private insurance plan.... they have a CHOICE.

is there ANYTHING in any of the plans that you are NOT against...because when we show you how you are wrong on certain things, you just seem to move on to the next one, then again, proof is given to you on another mistaken thing and you move on to another issue.....those goal posts keep movin for some reason....:lol:
 
god almighty navy....affordability credits FOR THOSE TOO POOR to buy it completely on there own is a separate issue AND these people WOULD HAVE THE CHOICE to buy any insurance plan on the exchange...for goodness sakes, what is it about CHOICE that YOU ARE SO AGAINST?

those affordability credits for the poor that come from our taxes can be used on PRIVATE companies insurance IF THEY WANT and if YOU cut out the public option then ALL OF OUR TAX MONIES given to the poor FOR affordability credit, go to lining the pockets of the insurance companies who absolutely do nothing in giving you the medical care one needs, they ONLY PASS PAPER???

DO YOU have a problem with that as well...giving ALL of our tax monies for the poor to them???

you are making no logical sense navy???????????

care

Affordability Credits Care are taxes that shoot a massive hole in the self-sustaining aspect of a "public option", it does not mean as I stated above there is not an already available "public option" that can be used without having to create another massive department within the Federal Govt. Please Care not all our taxes go to help Insurance companies and you know it. The poor deserve access to low cost affordable quality healthcare every bit as much as anyone else that can afford it. In order to get there congress has the ability to make that happen without mandates on Citizens. Let's say for a moment I believe these Insurance companies are the boogy man that some of you think they are, then why not direct this legislation at the Insurance companies and start to regulate them rather than citizens? Further, just by creating another duplicate entity within the Federal Govt. i.e. "Public Option" to compete with the Insurance Companies will not do one thing to actually bring down costs. If you want to fix high Insurance costs regulate the Insurers!!. I don't disagree with you for one second and you know it that healthcare costs are too high and they need to be reformed, but this "public option" along with mandates is just a totally moronic way to go about holding these Insurance companies feet to the fire and get to the point where there are affordable choices for the poor.

SIGH....

the people poor with affordability credits DO NOT HAVE TO BUY IN TO THE PUB;IC OPTION.

NONE OF THEM are REQUIRED to buy in to the public insurance plan navy??????

They can buy a private insurance plan.... they have a CHOICE.

is there ANYTHING in any of the plans that you are NOT against...because when we show you how you are wrong on certain things, you just seem to move on to the next one, then again, proof is given to you on another mistaken thing and you move on to another issue.....those goal posts keep movin for some reason....:lol:

The point is you have zero choice if your going to pay a penality for not having health insurance. Where have I been wrong? I wish you would show me where this bill did not mandate individuals have healthcare , or show me where this so called "public option will be self sustaining. While it does say that the premiums collected will go to pay for healthcare costs. What do you think an Affordability credit is? It's a tax collected from someone that is able to pay it. Therefore, the program is not self-sustaining. The other question that I have to ask is this, how can the same party that was calling Republicans immoral 3 years ago for wanting to cut 6 billion from Medicare now want to cut 500 Billion to pay for this and think it's just fine? To be honest with you, there is NOTHING in the healthcare bill that I would support period, because A. It bankrupts this nation B. It takes money from Seniors to pay for healthcare for people who could otherwise afford it. C. It allows acces with tax dollars to Govt. Healthcare for those here illegally. D. It mandates that all Americans participate or pay a penality for not doing so.

While I tend to agree with the goal, the way that it is proposed at least to me Care is a complete farce. Do I think Health Insurance firms are great? answer , no. So do I think that doing nothing to regulate them and creating a new massive Trillion dollar unfunded mandate is a way to motivate them to change their ways? No I do not. I completely agree that health insurance costs are too high and ..

EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE

I put that in bold no one can misunderstand me here, and stand by my original statement and that is this..

If you can show me where this "public option" is self sustaining, covers it's own Administrative costs and Infrastructure costs as well as does not have mandates and does not cover those here illegally. Then I will have no opposition to it. So far you have not done that. *smiles*
 
These healthcare companies don't make anything? next time you take a Tylenol which by the way is made by Johnson & Johnson you may want to reconsider that. One more thing you might want to consider here too how many people does Hollywood empoly vs. say the healthcare industry? I would say the several million people that work in the healthcare industry that represents 1/6th of our economy might tend to think that they produce a little more than hollywood does. All that aside, the point was not to compare the two the point was to show when you single out compensation for one industry as somehoe implied to be evil based on a dollar amount then you must use that same logic for every industry including hollywood. I wonder what your thoughts are on a 40 million dollar signing bonus for a NFL Quarterback? See what I mean?

Movies? Football? I'm guessing you are about 14?

Public Citizen | Congress Watch | Congress Watch - Drug Industry Most Profitable Again

Perhaps do some research? Some of those companies do make drugs, but most of them are health care. That means they have no doctors, no nurses, no hospitals, no medicine.

Everything is "licensed", not owned. How you can justify a 100 million dollar salary from a company that makes NOTHING is beyond me. Think. How many insurance policies do you have to skim to take a million dollars? How many surgeries do you deny? Claims cancelled?

Forest Labs;
Forest has well-established franchises in the therapeutic areas of the central nervous and cardiovascular systems, and we are always exploring new product opportunities that address a range of health conditions. Our principal brands include Lexapro®(escitalopram oxalate), Namenda®(memantine HCl), Bystolic® (nebivolol), and Savella® (milnacipran HCl).
Forest Laboratories – Innovative Pharmaceutical Therapies

Abbot Labs;

Abbott Laboratories (NYSE: ABT) is a diversified pharmaceuticals health care company. It has 72,000 employees and operates in over 130 countries.[1] The corporate headquarters are in Abbott Park, Illinois, located near North Chicago, Illinois.

Abbott Laboratories was founded by Chicago physician Wallace Calvin Abbott in 1888. In 2008, Abbott had over $29 billion in revenue.
Abbott Laboratories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Johnson & Johnson;

Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) is a global American pharmaceutical, medical devices and consumer packaged goods manufacturer founded in 1886. Its common stock is a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the company is listed among the Fortune 500. Johnson & Johnson is known for its corporate reputation, consistently ranking at the top of Harris Interactive's National Corporate Reputation Survey,[2] ranking as the world's most respected company by Barron's Magazine,[3] and was the first corporation awarded the Benjamin Franklin Award for Public Diplomacy by the U.S. State Department for its funding of international education programs
Johnson & Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can keep going if you like, but when you post salaries and then try to make them seem showhow bad because they belong to healthcare companies, then further state that they produce no product I might suggest you read what you post. I might also suggest, you try to understand that compensation is the result of what these companies wish to pay their executives regardless of what you may think. One of the reasons I put salaries of Entertainers, and a Football player up there is to show you that your original posting must apply to everyone that makes a high salary if the implication is that people who dare to make something of themselves are somehow evil for doing so. As for your assertion on Insurance companies,...

Aetna;
Aetna, Inc. (NYSE: AET) is an American diversified health insurance company, providing a range of traditional and consumer directed health care insurance products and related services, including medical, pharmaceutical, dental, behavioral health, group life, long-term care, and disability plans, and medical management capabilities. Aetna is a member of the Fortune 100.

United Heatlh;

UnitedHealth Group Incorporated NYSE: UNH is a managed health care and health insurance company. According to its company literature, UnitedHealth Group is a diversified health and well-being company dedicated to making health care work better. Headquartered in Minnetonka, Minnesota, UnitedHealth Group offers a broad spectrum of products and services through seven operating businesses: UnitedHealthcare, Ovations, AmeriChoice, Uniprise, OptumHealth, Ingenix, and Prescription Solutions. Through its family of businesses, UnitedHealth Group serves approximately 70 million individuals nationwide. In 2008, the company posted a net income of $3 billion


So lets use your logic then , they produce nothing and therefore because they produce nothing executive compensation is somehow evil...

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc. paid its chief executive a package with a current value of $23.3 million, the company said in a regulatory filing late Thursday.

Chief Executive Lee Scott's paychecks, bonuses and perquisites, including use of the company's plane, totaled $6.3 million last year. He also received restricted stock and options grants worth $17 million, but potentially more valuable by the time they vest in the next three to seven years
Wal-Mart CEO pay package exceeds $23 million - MarketWatch

At $74 million a year, Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein may be a Wall Street bargain.

The 53-year-old Blankfein caught a lot of flak when Goldman unveiled it had paid him about $314,894 each working day in fiscal 2007. Investors, quickly forgetting that Blankfein had successfully steered Goldman through the subprime storm, producing profits that were the envy of Wall Street, staged a rebellion of sorts. A proposal that would give shareholders a say in CEO pay captured a stunning 43% of the shareholder vote at the investment bank's recent annual meeting. The usually unflappable Blankfein was forced to go on the offensive. Endearing himself to investors, he said he didn't want anyone "less sophisticated" in the financial industry making decisions on his pay.
A $74 Million Bargain - Forbes.com

So whats your real issue here? the fact your a supporter of "single payer" healthcare? great come out and say it then. You don't have to mince words with me or try to make a "see those mean people make too much" argument with me. If you don't like high compensation for companies that do not produce something then have the courage of your convictions and advocate it across the board rather than just the one industry you don't happen to like.

I can't put a link to it because I was watching it on the news. They said the pharmaceutical companies received 220 billion last year in revenue. 70 billion was used for advertisement. 32 billion for research. Defend that. Man, you're gonna get me started. When I start dropping facts on Republicans they scream dirty words as me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
America's Most Philanthropic Companies
Company 2001 Cash Donations (As A % Of 2000 Income) 2001 Cash-Giving ($mil) 2000 Operating Income ($mil)
Target (nyse: TGT - news - people ) 2.51% $85.8 $3,418
Aetna (nyse: AET - news - people ) 1.94 21.5 1,104
J.C. Penney (nyse: JCP - news - people ) 1.58 14.0 885
Kroger (nyse: KR - news - people ) 1.56 39.0 2,497
Bank One (nyse: ONE - news - people ) 1.46 40.2 2,762
Best Buy (nyse: BBY - news - people ) 1.31 9.4 720
Johnson & Johnson (nyse: JNJ - news - people ) 0.98 78.6 7,992
Lockheed Martin (nyse: LMT - news - people ) 0.98 25.4 2,582
Boeing (nyse: BA - news - people ) 0.98 48.7 4,996
Wal-Mart Stores (nyse: WMT - news - people ) 0.94 116.5 12,392
America's Most Philanthropic Corporations - Forbes.com

We understand that many Americans — particularly the millions of people without health insurance — are concerned about their healthcare costs. We have joined together to provide immediate help while policymakers and key opinion leaders work to resolve the larger issue of health coverage for the uninsured. We’re committed to being part of the solution and believe the Together Rx Access Program is a step in that direction.

We believe all Americans deserve access to quality healthcare, including prescription medicines, and that improving access to that care for the uninsured ultimately requires collaboration between the public and private sectors. We are committed to working with others to address this national public health issue.
Drug Card Sponsors | Save on Prescription Medications | Prescription Savings Program

You know while these healthcare companies need to be better regulated and offer low income people better choices. Your assertion that the amounts of profits they make are somehow bad doesn't fly with me because these industries also employ a lot of Americans and is one of the only healthy industries in this nation and frequently the good things they do are often over-shadowed by the "talking points " put out by agenda based groups . I bet you had not idea most of these drug companies offered free medicines to low income people, and have done so for many years. Further, most of these companies are primary providers of medicines and services for world health organizations. Yes, people deserve to have accesss to low cost health insurance, and if thats the case and people have such an aversion to a profitable healthcare industry then perhaps you need to advocate for making them a "public utility" so they can be more heavily regulated. You like to say republicans call you names? Well you will never hear this one call you a name, You also like to state that you post facts and I have given you several to chew on that you don't happen to like. Here is another one..

As the largest industry in 2006, health care provided 14 million jobs—13.6 million jobs for wage and salary workers and about 438,000 jobs for the self-employed.
7 of the 20 fastest growing occupations are health care related.
Health Care

So as I hear you, providing jobs for 14 Million people is not a good thing because 8 Million people do not have health insurance. Yes, you heard me correctly 8 million because the 47 million number that the WHO tosses around has already been debunked many many times over. It would seem to me if you wished to have Health Insurance refrom , then rather force an entire industry to collapse moving even more average americans to the unemployment line you would want to actually reform healthcare by asking that congress finally do their job and begin to regulate the health insurance industry like they should have been doing all along.
 
You need to separate out healthcare providers from health insurance. By and large healthcare delivery is generally not concerned with profit. Doctors, nurses, technicians and ancillary staff are paid salaries. There is no profit involved. Some states don't allow for profit insurance. The profit from insurance isn't paying the health care deliverers any more money. Salaries/wages aren't profits.
 
Affordability Credits Care are taxes that shoot a massive hole in the self-sustaining aspect of a "public option", it does not mean as I stated above there is not an already available "public option" that can be used without having to create another massive department within the Federal Govt. Please Care not all our taxes go to help Insurance companies and you know it. The poor deserve access to low cost affordable quality healthcare every bit as much as anyone else that can afford it. In order to get there congress has the ability to make that happen without mandates on Citizens. Let's say for a moment I believe these Insurance companies are the boogy man that some of you think they are, then why not direct this legislation at the Insurance companies and start to regulate them rather than citizens? Further, just by creating another duplicate entity within the Federal Govt. i.e. "Public Option" to compete with the Insurance Companies will not do one thing to actually bring down costs. If you want to fix high Insurance costs regulate the Insurers!!. I don't disagree with you for one second and you know it that healthcare costs are too high and they need to be reformed, but this "public option" along with mandates is just a totally moronic way to go about holding these Insurance companies feet to the fire and get to the point where there are affordable choices for the poor.

SIGH....

the people poor with affordability credits DO NOT HAVE TO BUY IN TO THE PUB;IC OPTION.

NONE OF THEM are REQUIRED to buy in to the public insurance plan navy??????

They can buy a private insurance plan.... they have a CHOICE.

is there ANYTHING in any of the plans that you are NOT against...because when we show you how you are wrong on certain things, you just seem to move on to the next one, then again, proof is given to you on another mistaken thing and you move on to another issue.....those goal posts keep movin for some reason....:lol:

The point is you have zero choice if your going to pay a penality for not having health insurance. Where have I been wrong? I wish you would show me where this bill did not mandate individuals have healthcare , or show me where this so called "public option will be self sustaining. While it does say that the premiums collected will go to pay for healthcare costs. What do you think an Affordability credit is? It's a tax collected from someone that is able to pay it. Therefore, the program is not self-sustaining. The other question that I have to ask is this, how can the same party that was calling Republicans immoral 3 years ago for wanting to cut 6 billion from Medicare now want to cut 500 Billion to pay for this and think it's just fine? To be honest with you, there is NOTHING in the healthcare bill that I would support period, because A. It bankrupts this nation B. It takes money from Seniors to pay for healthcare for people who could otherwise afford it. C. It allows acces with tax dollars to Govt. Healthcare for those here illegally. D. It mandates that all Americans participate or pay a penality for not doing so.

While I tend to agree with the goal, the way that it is proposed at least to me Care is a complete farce. Do I think Health Insurance firms are great? answer , no. So do I think that doing nothing to regulate them and creating a new massive Trillion dollar unfunded mandate is a way to motivate them to change their ways? No I do not. I completely agree that health insurance costs are too high and ..

EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE

I put that in bold no one can misunderstand me here, and stand by my original statement and that is this..

If you can show me where this "public option" is self sustaining, covers it's own Administrative costs and Infrastructure costs as well as does not have mandates and does not cover those here illegally. Then I will have no opposition to it. So far you have not done that. *smiles*

So what do we do from here...?

-NO more tax subsidies to Employers for their employee health care...

-No more tax deductions for health care given to employers or to individuals, for their insurance and or any medical costs they may incur.

-No more subsidies and grants given to Prescription Drug companies for research and development.

-No more subsidies given for medical research and development.

-No more grants given to those who go to medical school.

-No more subsidies given to medical universities, for research or anything else.

-No Regulations put in place to stop the purchase of prescription drugs from Canada or other foreign countries we feel are safe.

-No Regulations put in place to stop the negotiation of medicare for bulk discounts with PHARMA.

-No FDA?

-No subsidies given to Cancer research, or Diabetes research or stem cell research, or Breast Cancer research societies.

-Dissolve medicare and let the seniors fend for themselves?

-NO MEDICAID for the indigent or poorest, or disabled.

-NO subsidies to Hospitals for Emergency Room Care

-No Military or government health insurance benefits for their employees, or retired employees...everyone is on their own, just as in the general public.

-I'm certain there are another dozen health care things that our taxes go for that I missed...feel free to add.


CAN WE REALLY go back to where we need to be, in order for the true "free market" to work to keep our Health Care costs down to an affordable price that we all, from the poorest to the wealthiest, can pay?

Just fuel for thought Navy...;)

Care
 
You need to separate out healthcare providers from health insurance. By and large healthcare delivery is generally not concerned with profit. Doctors, nurses, technicians and ancillary staff are paid salaries. There is no profit involved. Some states don't allow for profit insurance. The profit from insurance isn't paying the health care deliverers any more money. Salaries/wages aren't profits.

The right doesn't seem to understand that Health Care companies have no doctors, nurses, hospitals, or medicine. They are strictly "middlemen" and their money is skimmed off insurance policies.

I previously put up a link showing that the top 25 CEOs from Health Care companies salary plus compensation plus stock options total more than 15 billion over a 5 year period.

Also a link showing that 5 of the top 100 highest paid executives in the US come from Cigna. Cigna makes nothing.

For some reason, the right thinks that skimming money from people buying insurance is "captialism", even though they make nothing and provide no service.

How many insurance policies does it take to pay a million dollars in salary? How many missed operations or cancelled policies?

Congress makes it legal, but it's not ethical or moral. With all their vaunted self proclaimed knowledge of "morals", how come conservatives don't seem to get this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Corporatists are about making money, not about "free" markets or social compacts or a healthy America. And the stoopidcons buy in because they are stoopid.
 
I haven't heard the antis arguing on behalf of the rank and file who work for the insurance companies. I wonder why that is? Maybe it's because their skill set isn't terribly unique or hard to come by. Besides, all those autoworkers and steel workers had to find new gigs, it's just the way it is, changing for the better and finding more profitable ways of importing and outsourcing, right?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top