@kimmiemae wrote:

I was not referring to you nor was I chastising. I'm just really sick of the theatrics on this forum and those who cause them.

@CureMS wrote:

@kimmiemae wrote:

Not when there is a pot stirrer among us.

@CureMS wrote:

I thought this was a forum that I could come to and not be faced with "Politics". I thought this was a mystery shopping forum, I hope we can get back to that.

I'm sorry for voicing my opinion kimmiemae. It was certainly not my intention to "stir the pot". Had it been my intention to do that, surely I could have come up with something (right or wrong) to attack both the OP and the candidate, even if personally I agree with both the OP and the candidate, which I may or may not. And you may feel it's appropriate to chastise me for this reply, which is certainly within your right, note that I'm already apologizing if you feel that way

kimmiemae - I am SO SORRY! Not enough just to say this was "my bad". I apologize to you for misinterpreting your comment. I totally agree with your point. My interpreting radar is on the fritz and needs an adjustment. But then again, so do I sometimes

@MFJohnston wrote:

However, I did not like the idea of the ACA, but the democrats passed it under Obama. And... my premiums continued to rise. I'm not convinced that it was a great move, but I have to give the democrats credit for trying to solve something.

Personal bankruptcies are down significantly due to Obamacare. You will see some people say as much as 50% but I think that's a bit high. While bankruptcies are down 50% from the peak in 2010 through 2016 most people who cite the 50% rate for some odd reason are starting it in 2010 when Obamacare was passed. It was 3 years before it was enacted and I see no reason it would have affected bankruptcies before then. However, it's down significantly still from when it was enacted and while you might attribute it to other things as well, it is undisputable that Obamacare had a significant impact on the decrease. It's been estimated that more than 50% oft he bankruptcies in the US are due to medical bills.

ah, ok, so you like your mystery shop earning taxed at 90%. MAGA!

That would only apply to the top marginal tax rate, as in only the income you earn above ten million dollars per year. The first ten million would be taxed at a lower rate. There are shoppers earning over ten million per year? That's a hustle!

(And the top marginal tax rate proposed is 70%, not 90%... it does not apply to me, anyway.)

@jlovesnyc wrote:

ah, ok, so you like your mystery shop earning taxed at 90%. MAGA!

Oh cute. 70% would be so much better (yikes). So it sounds like the top dogs would simply stop building wealth thru income (to avoid crazy bernies taxes) that they earn by way of having people like me mystery shop their companies, thus having no need for mystery shoppers like me, and now I kiss my ms shop income goodbye. Socialism stinks.

The first ten million per person per year is at a lower tax rate. I am curious how many MSP owners make in excess of ten million dollars, per year, each. If that was the case, maybe some of that could trickle down though the fee structure?

Employers benefit from Universal Health Care. For starters, they do not have to negotiate a contract for health insurance for their employees every year. Those smaller employers, who do not benefit from lower premiums due to a large group, (risk pool,) are not at the disadvantage they are with the current system.

Employers, under Universal Health Care, do not have to find ways to limit staff to part time hours to avoid providing benefits. They will be covered. Part time, full time, students, the elderly, the young... covered. Employers do not have to pay for retiree health care plans because the retirees would be covered.

Entrepreneurs do not face the risk of leaving their employer's health plan if they choose to follow their dream to start their own business. They will not be hit with a huge premium for private coverage. If they grow to need to hire an employee or two, they will come pre-insured. The entrepreneurs family will also be covered.

Employers, under Universal Health Care, do not have to approve of what will be covered under their plan. If it is against their religious beliefs to directly provide family planning care, for example, that moral weight is lifted.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2019 03:26AM by heartlandcanuck.

Love this topic! One question: what are the projected short-term and long-term costs for the so-called Medicare for Everyone, or Universal Health Care? While I appreciate the apparent ease of use and some of the suggested options, I cannot identify the reliable revenue streams for the plans. How will the US government be able to fund this type of system over time? One concern is that after the so-called baby boom bulge dissipates, there may be a so-called baby bust which results in considerably fewer babies born. Fewer babies means that a smaller number of adults will pay the taxes. Meanwhile, all costs including health care will increase. The smaller number of users will pay a higher tax price. Considering that all their expenses will increase, will the future taxpayers be able to afford the necessary taxes to provide a universal health system for everyone in the country? Yes? No? Other? tia.

Keep in mind that employees would no longer have deductions from their pay for group medical, and employers would not be forking out double again that, like they currently do. Public taxes already cover Medicaid, Medicare, CHIP, and various plans for government employees. It is a double-dip in the cheque: a deduction for your own medical plan plus one for the ones you don't qualify for on account of having the one you pay for.

Having that one extra deduction, for the universal medical plan, would be lower than the combined deductions we currently have for many, if not most, people. (I experienced this when I moved to the States from Ontario. I thought my take-home would be more because I had bought into the concept of taxes being lower. My take-home was a bit less, proportionally, and yet I still had co-pays and the employer's plan had lists of providers they would cover in-network. In Canada, I never put off a trip to the doctor when I was sick becaue I was waiting for pay-day for my co-pay. You see that all the time, here.

One hidden cost of the current system is administrative. Next time you go to your doctors office, see if you can count the number of people dedicated to "insurance administration". It is paper pushing at a high expense. Even doctors have to spend part of their time being "insurance savey" rather than practicing medicine. How do we pay for it? Don't know. But if we can find money to build a wall then certainly we can find money for our health.

Nice posts!

I have another question. This one concerns wait times for health care. I linked an article from December, 2018. The Fraser Institute expresses concerns and statistics regarding the wait times for medically necessary services. How does this compare with comparable situations in the US? (Please do not include the recently chastised VA in your response. That information is only for some persons and improvement is a work in progress.)

[www.fraserinstitute.org]

Supply and demand determines wait times, just like in the States. Where you live and how many specialists work in a given field are important.

When my stepfather in Ontario had a heart attack, he had to wait at his local hospital long enough to be stabilized before being moved to another for surgery. It was weeks, not months.

Here in Iowa, our three year old, who has Down Syndrome, needed to see an endocrinologist about his failing thyroid at a year old. It is common in babies with DS, and his pediatrician here in town was was doing routine tests and started to treat the failure as we waited six months to see the specialist in Omaha. (Now that he is a regular patient we are looking at weeks, not months, for non-emergencies.) It takes about four or five months to get into his ophthalmologist. (I haven't checked, but I suspect it might take that long to get into a pediatric ophthalmologist for a routine checkup in Toronto, too. People would have to drive in from the smaller towns, just like we do in the Midwest.)

I met a family from California in the cafeteria of Omaha Children's hospital. Their daughter had a rare disorder for which there were only half a dozen specialists on the planet. One was in Omaha. Their insurance deemed the specialist to be "out of network." For two years, until the insurance company gave in, they flew to Japan for treatment because it was cheaper out of pocket for them than in Omaha.

Aw...No worries, CureMS! Perhaps your interpreting radar needs a mocha latte. **Passing Cure a nice, hot mocha latte with whipped topping and chocolate drizzle.**

@CureMS wrote:

@kimmiemae wrote:

I was not referring to you nor was I chastising. I'm just really sick of the theatrics on this forum and those who cause them.

@CureMS wrote:

@kimmiemae wrote:

Not when there is a pot stirrer among us.

@CureMS wrote:

I thought this was a forum that I could come to and not be faced with "Politics". I thought this was a mystery shopping forum, I hope we can get back to that.

I'm sorry for voicing my opinion kimmiemae. It was certainly not my intention to "stir the pot". Had it been my intention to do that, surely I could have come up with something (right or wrong) to attack both the OP and the candidate, even if personally I agree with both the OP and the candidate, which I may or may not. And you may feel it's appropriate to chastise me for this reply, which is certainly within your right, note that I'm already apologizing if you feel that way

kimmiemae - I am SO SORRY! Not enough just to say this was "my bad". I apologize to you for misinterpreting your comment. I totally agree with your point. My interpreting radar is on the fritz and needs an adjustment. But then again, so do I sometimes

@PaulinMI wrote:

I don't see anything offensive about putting your beliefs out there in the general chat forum. The title is clearly labeled as political, so if you're not into that, don't read it. Unless we start getting into calling each other names, I see no harm in laying out your beliefs and reasons for them in an open forum. I supported Bernie in 2016 but so far I am leaning towards Julian Castro, Cory Booker, or Kamala Harris in the upcoming contest. It is still way early, but is shaping up to be a an interesting political season to say the least. Most importantly, no matter what your political ben is, every vote counts, so please participate.

Julian Castro has about a .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of winning the Dem. primary in 2020, PaulinMI.

And that's being generous!

I don't like how they voted about babies. That was the deal breaker.

See my siggy and the one after it.

None of those individuals will get my vote, my money, or my consideration.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2019 02:25PM by Shop-et-al.

@PaulinMI wrote:

@meanviking, I agree. It would be better if the OP had stated some policy positions he/she supported. I may, as it gets closer to election day, and some positions become clearer, post some of my own. My post was to encourage the posting of similar messages in this forum. If you have some opinions on the early race, I would certainly be interested in hearing them.

@meanviking wrote:

I opened it to see some reasons, but there are none. Free stuff, I guess?

Medicare for All
Free College (the college degree is the new high school diploma...won't get a decent job without one)
Taxing the Rich More
Climate Change Reversal
Money OUT of Politics - the bane of everyone's political existence...no more buying/rigging elections and politicians by the uber rich
Ending the Drug War and Criminal Justice Reform
Ending Unnecessary Wars Overseas
Rebuilding the U.S. Infrastructure that Gets a D+ Grade from Civil Society of Engineers...also, why are we giving so much money to places like Saudi Arabia when people in Flint, Michigan don't even have clean water?
Paid Maternity Leave
Cracking Down on Wall Street and Reinstating Glass Steagall
Affordable Drug Prices (Bernie had a huge bill for this back in like 2017)...of course, corrupt politicians bought by Big Pharma rejected it (including Corey Booker - one of the biggest big money sellouts in the Dem. Party)...basically, he said he just wanted to be able to import drugs from Canada, which sell them cheaper (and these are often OUR OWN DRUGS made in USA!!!!! that we pay more for HERE, b/c of laws allowing price gouging).

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2019 03:14PM by shoptastic.

Got my Bernie t-shirt today

I don't mind political posts as long as we arent bashed for our political beliefs or canidates we might be voting for. I'm at the point now where I'm still undecided. I'm curious who the dems will decide on for the actual 2020 race..

@shoptastic wrote:

Medicare for All
Free College (the college degree is the new high school diploma...won't get a decent job without one)
Taxing the Rich More
Climate Change Reversal
Money OUT of Politics - the bane of everyone's political existence...no more buying/rigging elections and politicians by the uber rich
Ending the Drug War and Criminal Justice Reform
Ending Unnecessary Wars Overseas
Rebuilding the U.S. Infrastructure that Gets a D+ Grade from Civil Society of Engineers...also, why are we giving so much money to places like Saudi Arabia when people in Flint, Michigan don't even have clean water?
Paid Maternity Leave
Cracking Down on Wall Street and Reinstating Glass Steagall
Affordable Drug Prices (Bernie had a huge bill for this back in like 2017)...of course, corrupt politicians bought by Big Pharma rejected it (including Corey Booker - one of the biggest big money sellouts in the Dem. Party)...basically, he said he just wanted to be able to import drugs from Canada, which sell them cheaper (and these are often OUR OWN DRUGS made in USA!!!!! that we pay more for HERE, b/c of laws allowing price gouging).

Please don't use the word FREE anywhere when discussing this stuff. Anything, and I mean ANYTHING the government does, from military to healthcare comes from taxpayer dollars. To fund everything you posted above, we will probably be at a 70% tax rate even for the "average" income, ie. middle class worker. This takes into account taxes coming and going. Because we are taxed on the income, and then taxed when we purchase anything, like gas, clothes, food, etc. You have to look at every tax and fee, because they are all going to the government.

I can now understand why the left supports legalization of marijuana: you must be high to accept their policies. Free this, free that; it sounds like a perfect world wish list for the lazy, irresponsible, and immoral.

@oteixeira wrote:

Please don't use the word FREE anywhere when discussing this stuff. Anything, and I mean ANYTHING the government does, from military to healthcare comes from taxpayer dollars. To fund everything you posted above, we will probably be at a 70% tax rate even for the "average" income, ie. middle class worker. This takes into account taxes coming and going. Because we are taxed on the income, and then taxed when we purchase anything, like gas, clothes, food, etc. You have to look at every tax and fee, because they are all going to the government.

This would be a big money bonfire and would require massive additional tax dollars .... also known as "feel your money berning." Bernie is very popular with the very young, still in school, haven't worked long or much. They actually believe it's FREE.

i am happy to be a part of a forum that includes all things... even things that i may not agree with

For those of us who have escaped some of the socialist nations to come to America, this is really shocking. Aside from costs (which, of course, nothing is ever free!!!), please consider the government bureaucracy controlling many aspects of your life (healthcare, education, even diet). Who here likes to go to the DMV and deal with that? That is going to be your doctor's office, your college and your supermarket. When government takes control of more things, the quality of life inevitably goes down. It may not happen in 1-5-10 years, but eventually it does. It's been tried many times and proven to fail.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2019 04:43PM by shop-a-holic.

The removal of all government is known as "anarchy," a state in which unregulated individuals who have access to money and weapons rule at their own whim. The result is eternal chaos and instability.... Just as you complain about the "government' having control over various aspects of our lives, it is just as bad to give private industry, whose primary motivation is profit, such control.

I would suggest that we need to find a balance.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2019 05:16PM by MFJohnston.

@heartlandcanuck wrote:

I am curious how many MSP owners make in excess of ten million dollars, per year, each. If that was the case, maybe some of that could trickle down though the fee structure?

First, some MS companies are international conglomerates, with the MS division just a small part of their business. Second, just because you are willing to do a parking shop for $9, in 12F degrees, and walk 15 minutes back and forth to the closest covered area, stay there for 30 minutes and return to retrieve your car, or you are willing to evaluate a mall for $7, it does not mean that the MS also makes peanuts for the same shop.

@shop-a-holic wrote:

For those of us who have escaped some of the socialist nations to come to America, this is really shocking. Aside from costs (which, of course, nothing is ever free!!!), please consider the government bureaucracy controlling many aspects of your life (healthcare, education, even diet). Who here likes to go to the DMV and deal with that? That is going to be your doctor's office, your college and your supermarket. When government takes control of more things, the quality of life inevitably goes down. It may not happen in 1-5-10 years, but eventually it does. It's been tried many times and proven to fail.

I was doing a hotel in Moscow last year (that I found sitting on a board and it was not the well known MS that has multiple hotel shops there) and thought that the staff was just mocking me as dumb American when I called to ask how to use the thermostat and set it higher when they set the government has not turn up the heat yet. Irritated and freezing went to the front desk and learned that in Russia there is a government agency at each city and region and decides when to turn on the central-for the entire city- heat and that it has to be five consecutive dates of temperatures around ~38F degrees, before the heat is turned on for the winter! We were in mid October, and I had a down parka on outside, while inside the hotel I had to go around the room with an electric heater that the hotel staff were kind to bring. Only new skyscrapers and some new buildings have their own independent hot water and heating and it is very expensive.

We should not forget China as well where now people are prevented from purchasing airline and train tickets, etc based on their social credit score!

I think that all of us appreciate that our local governments regulate utility costs - making it very difficult for utility companies to raise our rates...... We also all are thankful that we do not live in a nation under a communist dictatorship.

I love how people who want to scare people away from socialism always use "socialist" countries that use it to fatten their oligarchy's pockets as examples.

@bgriffin wrote:

I love how people who want to scare people away from socialism always use "socialist" countries that use it to fatten their oligarchy's pockets as examples.

Well which is the well ran socialist country? I do not see anything beyond China, Cuba, Russia, Venezuela, some hybrids like Bulgaria, Nicaragua, Angola, Albania, etc. None of the Scandinavian countries have socialism and if we applied some of the immigrant and welfare policies they have, people would scream.

According to Wikipedia:

Socialism
Political ideology
Description
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management, as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.

@bgriffin: if you don't like the examples above, why not provide other examples of when/how Socialism works or fails? Please?