Affordable Care Act

Dan, you keep saying executives do this or that, get it through your head, they won't and never will and the government can't force them. This is how life is. The middle class, like I, Sturg, you, have to pay for the poor and there is not getting around it.

When the hospitals decide not to bend those who pay REAL insurance over the better ACA will be. Until then, it is not good, it only helps those, which I agree, with already existing conditions. Before no insurance would take you on if you had cancer, or cerebal palsy or any other things you couldn't avoid. I know Sturg thinks differently and I shudder how he feels but in a Utopian Society, he would have gotten his wish.
 
let's consider this was 2011 -- 4 years ago. A lot has happened since then but anyway.
...................
from the USA article

"A year ago, the president signed legislation ending subsidies for private banks giving federally guaranteed student loans—

making the federal government,not banks, the lender of choice for most students.

You can still get private bank loans for your college education,

but

since they no longer are backed by the U.S. government, private loans aren't as good a deal anymore;

most are variable rate loans that require a co-signer and are difficult to qualify for.

So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why most kids take out federal student loans from the Department of Education now, and leave the bank loans as a last resort."

....

how many sides of this argument are you on.

Fed govt suspends subsidies which I take from reading your posts you would favor.

Capitalism at work. The banks have to make their bones
Yet people still want to go to college

So, since the banks have to , by definition, make a profit, the best deal was the Fed Govt.

Young people need co signers for loans -- which puts you on the wrong side of the Civil Rights debate because inner city dwellers don't usually own property to use as collateral. That is documented - you can look it up

"So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why most kids take out federal student loans from the Department of Education now, and leave the bank loans as a last resort."
 
AerchAngel said:
Dan, you keep saying executives do this or that, get it through your head, they won't and never will and the government can't force them. This is how life is. The middle class, like I, Sturg, you, have to pay for the poor and there is not getting around it.

When the hospitals decide not to bend those who pay REAL insurance over the better ACA will be. Until then, it is not good, it only helps those, which I agree, with already existing conditions. Before no insurance would take you on if you had cancer, or cerebal palsy or any other things you couldn't avoid. I know Sturg thinks differently and I shudder how he feels but in a Utopian Society, he would have gotten his wish.
Click to expand...

Covering pre-existing conditions, which sounds good, will be a catastrophic business model over the long term that will likely collapse the system financially
 
57Brave said:
let's consider this was 2011 -- 4 years ago. A lot has happened since then but anyway.
...................
from the USA article

"A year ago, the president signed legislation ending subsidies for private banks giving federally guaranteed student loans—

making the federal government,not banks, the lender of choice for most students.

You can still get private bank loans for your college education,

but

since they no longer are backed by the U.S. government, private loans aren't as good a deal anymore;

most are variable rate loans that require a co-signer and are difficult to qualify for.

So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why most kids take out federal student loans from the Department of Education now, and leave the bank loans as a last resort."

....

how many sides of this argument are you on.

Fed govt suspends subsidies which I take from reading your posts you would favor.

Capitalism at work. The banks have to make there bones
Yet people still want to go to college

So, since the banks have to , by definition, make a profit, the best deal was the Fed Govt.

Young people need co signers for loans -- which puts you on the wrong side of the Civil Rights debate because inner city dwellers don't usually own property to use as collateral. That is documented - you can look it up

"So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why most kids take out federal student loans from the Department of Education now, and leave the bank loans as a last resort."
Click to expand...

This is not the right thread for this.

But as the Fed government pumps more and more money into the system, college will (and have) keep raising their tuition to profit from that opportunity.

If the fed government stayed out of it - students would need to take unsubsidized loans from banks - and many wouldn't do so bc the cost would be too prohibitive. Thus colleges would need to lower tuition rates in order to make it more appealing.

It's not that complicated
 
sturg33 said:
Yes because they lose they're jobs if if their not returning capital to share holders. I know that is hard for you to understand
Click to expand...

is taking huge bonuses on top of huge salaries "returning capital to shareholders"? well i guess it is when they're a shareholder themselves.
 
Then your friends fiance would be back to slinging wings at Hooters till she cant stand anymore.
The quote came from the USA article you posted when I asked for a show of how Fed Govt was the source of high college cost

Not only would she be a Hooters girl for life -- she wouldn't be making $52K and probably couldn't afford HC at all before ACA
 
sturg33 said:
Covering pre-existing conditions, which sounds good, will be a catastrophic business model over the long term that will likely collapse the system financially
Click to expand...

Depends on how much the care is. I spent $800 out of a $2100 dollars on a 15 minute pep talk and pills waiting 7 hours. They will always do this. This is how they pay for it. I don't like it, but letting them die without any care is worse. I can't live with that. I know you can, survival of the fittest is your motto and there is nothing wrong thinking like that.
 
sturg33 said:
This is not the right thread for this.

But as the Fed government pumps more and more money into the system, college will (and have) keep raising their tuition to profit from that opportunity.

It's not that complicated
Click to expand...

Schools know the game.

Wisconsin is good that you can go to JC or tech schools to do your Frosh and Soph classes and every school including Madison will accept them, only Madison will be more scruple in analyzing your acceptance due to their standards. I think Minnesota has adopted the same standards.

You can save a lot of money going this route, a LOT of money.
 
Their CEO made $33,687,000 last year. So, I'm thinking that's not necessary. But she's worth it, right? And lowering that to help out their worthless liabilities (employees) isn't worth it, right? blame the poor people, not her! how could she live on $20 mil?!?!
 
Their CFO got a 50% pay raise from 2013 to 2014. How many lower-level, worthless liabilities (employees) got more than 3%? 5%?
but it's the poor hoarding all the resources!!!
 
yeezus said:
Their CFO got a 50% pay raise from 2013 to 2014. How many lower-level, worthless liabilities (employees) got more than 3%? 5%?
but it's the poor hoarding all the resources!!!
Click to expand...

But there is nothing you, I or the government can do about it. Barking up the tree is not going to change it. Don't buy their product or service is the only route but then you going to have people lose their jobs. You have to take the bad with the good. I don't like it either but I gave up trying to force those way above me to take a pay cut and give it to me, the worker. But in the same vein, that person way above me say, if you don't like you can work somewhere else as well.
 
AerchAngel said:
But there is nothing you, I or the government can do about it. Barking up the tree is not going to change it. Don't buy their product or service is the only route but then you going to have people lose their jobs. You have to take the bad with the good. I don't like it either but I gave up trying to force those way above me to take a pay cut and give it to me, the worker. But in the same vein, that person way above me say, if you don't like you can work somewhere else as well.
Click to expand...

i'm not going to throw my hands in the air and say "oh well, what can you do?!" for the rest of my life. the anger at poor people is totally misplaced.
 
yeezus said:
Their CEO made $33,687,000 last year. So, I'm thinking that's not necessary. But she's worth it, right? And lowering that to help out their worthless liabilities (employees) isn't worth it, right? blame the poor people, not her! how could she live on $20 mil?!?!
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question
 
like how the courts said about porn "i know it when i see it"

i know when i see enough money to live off of

obviously they just needed another tax break to keep those workers.

it's weird to fight for an oligarchy instead of the people to be able to get living wage etc etc etc
 
goldfly said:
like how the courts said about porn "i know it when i see it"

i know when i see enough money to live off of

obviously they just needed another tax break to keep those workers.

it's weird to fight for an oligarchy instead of the people to be able to get living wage etc etc etc
Click to expand...

Also - I'm not fighting for an oligarchy. I'm fighting the people's rights to earn what they are valued at. You travel a lot - I guess I can safely assume you "make too much money." You're money should be going to poorer folks.

By the way - the majority of lockeed's money is coming from the government... so you should be picking the fight with them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top