UPS to drop 15,000 spouses from insurance; cites Obamacare

[DaLincolnJones]

This is why privatization is so scary to humans with souls: If profit is the only goal, people suffer. We wouldn't be in this problem if health care wasn't so stupidly tied to employers.

would you care to explain this?

 

[blazerboy30]

This is why privatization is so scary to humans with souls: If profit is the only goal, people suffer. We wouldn't be in this problem if health care wasn't so stupidly tied to employers.

HAHA. Wow. Hyperbole much?

 

[BlazerCaravan]

would you care to explain this?

I'll probably get some details wrong (at work and should be working), so cut me some slack:

The private sector is really good at a few things, the best of which is making money. But the way they do this makes them bad at "serving public good" because that generally costs money without direct return. Making sure every child gets an education isn't directly optimal for the private sector, for example, because the ability to pay is a barrier to some families. So, the private sector would be best at making sure the people who can pay are well-educated (competition takes care of that), but some families will never be able to beat the barrier to entry. In that respect, the private sector is ill-suited to the task (making sure everyone is educated) because it's not in their wheelhouse. One way to get around this is to have "the government" act as the surrogate customer, and purchase an education for everyone, because they have (in the closed system of the physical bounds of the country) the most buying power. You can't beat their volume, so you accept their prices.

To bring it back to health care: "health insurance for everyone" is a similar goal as "education for everyone", but there's the added wrinkle of the current situation which is where people aren't buying health care directly. The employers have been using their buying power as leverage to entice workers. Of course, unless you replace a medium-sized surrogate buyer (employers) with a large-sized surrogate buyer ("the government"), you're left with individuals with little buying power again facing barriers to entry, because private industry and competition are not good at solving the "absolutely everyone" problem, they're good solving at the "best for what you pay" problem. By compromising and keeping employers involved in the buying market for insurance without also adding a single payer option where the government acts as a buyer with superior negotiating power, the current healthcare law gives us potentially the worst of both worlds.

Now, as I understand it, the state-run markets are meant to act as surrogate buyers for individuals, but by letting states opt in or out, people in opt-out states have no buying power, and can't negotiate a good deal for themselves. And why should the insurance companies deal with small fry when their goal isn't to insure eveyone, but to make the most money? That's their purpose.

Basically, every concession made to pass the bill made the bill worse, because conservatives also don't have public good in mind; their goal is to ensure that corporations can act unfettered, without thinking about whether unfettered privatization will lead to greater public good or not.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

HAHA. Wow. Hyperbole much?

Nope; corporations (if they are indeed people) are sociopathic, and often are run by real sociopaths. Fans of corporations generally have a certain lack of empathy that makes imagining concepts like greater public good impossible.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'll probably get some details wrong (at work and should be working), so cut me some slack:

The private sector is really good at a few things, the best of which is making money. But the way they do this makes them bad at "serving public good" because that generally costs money without direct return. Making sure every child gets an education isn't directly optimal for the private sector, for example, because the ability to pay is a barrier to some families. So, the private sector would be best at making sure the people who can pay are well-educated (competition takes care of that), but some families will never be able to beat the barrier to entry. In that respect, the private sector is ill-suited to the task (making sure everyone is educated) because it's not in their wheelhouse. One way to get around this is to have "the government" act as the surrogate customer, and purchase an education for everyone, because they have (in the closed system of the physical bounds of the country) the most buying power. You can't beat their volume, so you accept their prices.

To bring it back to health care: "health insurance for everyone" is a similar goal as "education for everyone", but there's the added wrinkle of the current situation which is where people aren't buying health care directly. The employers have been using their buying power as leverage to entice workers. Of course, unless you replace a medium-sized surrogate buyer (employers) with a large-sized surrogate buyer ("the government"), you're left with individuals with little buying power again facing barriers to entry, because private industry and competition are not good at solving the "absolutely everyone" problem, they're good solving at the "best for what you pay" problem. By compromising and keeping employers involved in the buying market for insurance without also adding a single payer option where the government acts as a buyer with superior negotiating power, the current healthcare law gives us potentially the worst of both worlds.

Now, as I understand it, the state-run markets are meant to act as surrogate buyers for individuals, but by letting states opt in or out, people in opt-out states have no buying power, and can't negotiate a good deal for themselves. And why should the insurance companies deal with small fry when their goal isn't to insure eveyone, but to make the most money? That's their purpose.

Basically, every concession made to pass the bill made the bill worse, because conservatives also don't have public good in mind; their goal is to ensure that corporations can act unfettered, without thinking about whether unfettered privatization will lead to greater public good or not.

This just isn't true.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

This just isn't true.

Well, since you put it that way...

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

I'm confused why people think UPS should cover health insurance for employees' spouses that are otherwise able to get coverage (as noted in the article) for themselves?

My work covers my kids, which is great. But, I work for a small company, and I imagine in some way, that is somehow considered/factored into my compensation.

 

[MickZagger]

You guys do realize that only effects non-union management positions right?

Fail.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

You guys do realize that only effects non-union management positions right?

Fail.

If only there existed a mechanism with which these exploited workers could band together to increase their negotiating power!

 

[MickZagger]

My non-union supervisors are probably pissed.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

ok..I wanted to make sure I did not say anything without understanding your point.

so QT Caravn " We wouldn't be in this problem if health care wasn't so stupidly tied to employers. "

you almost tried to answer this..I was giving you credit en though point for point I do not agree with you...so I did not call bullshit

then I got tothis 'Basically, every concession made to pass the bill made the bill worse, because conservatives also don't have public good in mind; their goal is to ensure that corporations can act unfettered, without thinking about whether unfettered privatization will lead to greater public good or not. "

to blame this on conservatives is too much...you have pegged the meter with this..in short, bull shit

 

[Denny Crane]

Well, since you put it that way...

It isn't true.

With little government, we got railroads, automobiles, the light bulb/electricity, theory of Evolution, theory of Relativity, steel, newspapers, farms that grow enough food to feed the world, etc.

If it were up to the government to do these things, you'd be in line on tuesdays at a warehouse to get a free ration of cheese.

 

[blazerboy30]

Nope; corporations (if they are indeed people) are sociopathic, and often are run by real sociopaths. Fans of corporations generally have a certain lack of empathy that makes imagining concepts like greater public good impossible.

No. People that aren't anti-corporation have the ability to think for themselves.

If you take your little nonsensical rant and replace "corporation" with "monopoly", you'd be getting closer.

 

[magnifier661]

It isn't true.

With little government, we got railroads, automobiles, the light bulb/electricity, theory of Evolution, theory of Relativity, steel, newspapers, farms that grow enough food to feed the world, etc.

If it were up to the government to do these things, you'd be in line on tuesdays at a warehouse to get a free ration of cheese.

Bingo!!!! Well said

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

You guys do realize that only effects non-union management positions right?

Fail.

This was mentioned earlier in the thread.

Reading comprehension FAIL.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

No. People that aren't anti-corporation have the ability to think for themselves.

If you take your little nonsensical rant and replace "corporation" with "monopoly", you'd be getting closer.

Unregulated capitalism (made up of corporations acting only in their interests) in any industry leads directly to monopoly. If A =B and B = C then A = C. Corporations want to become monopolies.

 

[blazerboy30]

Unregulated capitalism (made up of corporations acting only in their interests) in any industry leads directly to monopoly. If A =B and B = C then A = C. Corporations want to become monopolies.

I'm curious...do you work for the government, a corporation (large or small) or not at all?

 

[BlazerCaravan]

It isn't true.

With little government, we got railroads, automobiles, the light bulb/electricity, theory of Evolution, theory of Relativity, steel, newspapers, farms that grow enough food to feed the world, etc.

If it were up to the government to do these things, you'd be in line on tuesdays at a warehouse to get a free ration of cheese.

Kind of like those wait times for customer service with credit card companies. Don't flout government inefficiency when corporate inefficiency can be as bad, and on top of that, corporations have much smaller customer bases than governments; corporations have it easy compared to governments.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I'm curious...do you work for the government, a corporation (large or small) or not at all?

I work for a very very large corporation.

 

[PapaG]

No. People that aren't anti-corporation have the ability to think for themselves.

If you take your little nonsensical rant and replace "corporation" with "monopoly", you'd be getting closer.

Or replace "corporation" with government, with the difference being that the government writes the rules, controls the money, and is accountable to no one.

I wonder how people who can be so anti-corporation, while at the same time being so pro-government. I've never received a good explanation on how this can be.

 

[PapaG]

Unregulated capitalism (made up of corporations acting only in their interests) in any industry leads directly to monopoly. If A =B and B = C then A = C. Corporations want to become monopolies.

Whose interest does government act for in its actions?

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Or replace "corporation" with government, with the difference being that the government writes the rules, controls the money, and is accountable to no one.

I wonder how people who can be so anti-corporation, while at the same time being so pro-government. I've never received a good explanation on how this can be.

Who does the government serve though? In the last 30 years, they have let corporations influence them to the point where tax codes don't improve because the tax preparation lobby makes to big a stink about it. If you think the government writes the rules in a vacuum, you're not seeing the whole context.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Whose interest does government act for in its actions?

Currently? Corporations. the only difference between the two parties is in how much.

 

[PapaG]

Currently? Corporations. the only difference between the two parties is in how much.

I completely disagree. The government I see acts primarily in its own interest. "Corporations" are a bogeyman served up to distract and divide.

 

[blazerboy30]

Who does the government serve though? In the last 30 years, they have let corporations influence them to the point where tax codes don't improve because the tax preparation lobby makes to big a stink about it. If you think the government writes the rules in a vacuum, you're not seeing the whole context.

So you're point is:

Corporations are bad. The government is bad. Profit is bad.

Even though you work for a corporation. How can you live with yourself???

 

[blazerboy30]

I completely disagree. The government I see acts primarily in its own interest. "Corporations" are a bogeyman served up to distract and divide.

A perfect example:

The government passes Obamacare. And then proceeds to make deals to exempt themselves from provisions that they don't like.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I completely disagree. The government I see acts in its own interest. "Corporations" are a bogeyman served up to distract and divide.

Well, currently we have a government slightly less enamored of corporations (the whole 2008 thing did help that); but if republicans can win the presidency and congress, it'll get back to being more enamored of corporations.

I don't necessarily disagree that each entity acts in effectively its own interest; it's just that, sometime in the past, the interests of government changed from overlapping with the needs of individuals to the needs of corporations. The tug of war now is over an overlap that shifts between "mainly corporate" and "mostly corporate". there's not much room to move in the "towards the needs of corporations" direction left, though... it's fighting over the last 10% of influence, really.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

So you're point is:

Corporations are bad. The government is bad. Profit is bad.

Even though you work for a corporation. How can you live with yourself???

I live with myself by recognizing that I am a hypocrite, and giving away as much money as I can realistically afford to friends and family members who need it. Mostly my life is pretty devoid of meaning or direction, but I do feel light and warmth from my relationship with my wife, my family, and (in October) my son. I do enjoy doing my work, because it makes my co-workers a little happier. That it helps a giant corporation sell product more efficiently is a side effect that itself is neutral.

I don't hate corporations out of hand, but I do recognize that they are animals, more akin to tigers than people. I would prefer the tiger stay on a chain or in a cage. I'm fine with the cage being large and spacious, but I do not want to live (and would not live long) in a place where the tiger is completely free.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I completely disagree. The government I see acts primarily in its own interest. "Corporations" are a bogeyman served up to distract and divide.

I see the exact opposite. "Government" is a bogeyman, and corporations act only to further themselves.

 

[Denny Crane]

Unregulated capitalism (made up of corporations acting only in their interests) in any industry leads directly to monopoly. If A =B and B = C then A = C. Corporations want to become monopolies.

So what?

No monopoly hurt anyone.