We Need Universal Health Care Now!

[Martha]

Poor Ruger. Came to late to the party.

Ruger, there are many here who believe national health care is the way to go. We don't have a health care system in the US, we have a fragmented health care sector. This fragmentation leads to higher costs and far too many people falling through the cracks. It leads to confusion about what options a person has and the risk of missing out on an option available to you. And if you miss out, it is your own fault.

But, we have been around and around on the forum on this issue. A few here may have even changed their minds on the issue as a result of our many debates. If you care, write your congressmen and senators. And write the candidates as well, both democratic and republican.

 

[mikex]

I see you have no solution. Very well. Unfortunately, it's going to get very bad before it gets better. The employment landscape is being changed by a force most people are completely unprepared for and don't think much about, and it isn't China et. al., its Robotics and Artificial Intelligence, and the fact that the old equation Labor = Money will be trashed to an extent not imaginable. That will happen because the labor we are talking about is human labor, and that, within 30 -50 years, is going the way of the dinosaur. I encourage everyone to read this fairly short article online:

Robotic Nation by Marshall Brain

Robotic Nation, by Marshall Brain

You are only just seeing the beginning, as the self-checkout kiosks begin to eliminate checkout workers.

Quoting:

Right now, a majority of people in America trade their labor for money, and then they use the money to participate in the economy. Our entire society is built around a simple equation: labor = money. This equation explains why any new labor-saving technology is disruptive -- it threatens a group of people with joblessness and welfare.
Autonomous humanoid robots will take disruption to a whole new level. Once fully-autonomous, general-purpose humanoid robots are as easy to buy as an automobile, most people in the economy will not be able to make the labor = money trade anymore. They will have no way to earn money, and that means they end up homeless and on welfare.
And -
Nearly every construction job will go to a robot. That's about 6 million jobs lost.
Nearly every manufacturing job will go to a robot. That's 16 million jobs lost.
Nearly every transportation job will go to a robot. That's 3 million jobs lost.
Many wholesale and retail jobs will go to robots. That's at least 15 million lost jobs.
Nearly every hotel and restaurant job will go to a robot. That's 10 million jobs lost.
If you add that all up, it's over 50 million jobs lost to robots. That is a conservative estimate. By 2050 or so, it is very likely that over half the jobs in the United States will be held by robots.
All the people who are holding jobs like those today will be unemployed.
American society has no way to deal with a situation where half of the workers are unemployed. During the Great Depression at its very worst, 25% of the population was unemployed. In the robotic future, where 50 million jobs are lost, there is the potential for 50% unemployment.

If you think this is far-fetched, read the article and be shocked.

The solution can be found there, but only after a period of time that will cause tremendous turmoil.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

I see you have no solution.

Guess we better beef up our free education system, because we're gonna need a lot of mechanical engineers to design all those robots, a lot of systems engineers to design the logistics systems, and a lot of doctors to take care of all of the unemployed people who need free healthcare.

 

[FinanceDude]

Poor Ruger. Came to late to the party.

Ruger, there are many here who believe national health care is the way to go. We don't have a health care system in the US, we have a fragmented health care sector. This fragmentation leads to higher costs and far too many people falling through the cracks. It leads to confusion about what options a person has and the risk of missing out on an option available to you. And if you miss out, it is your own fault.

But, we have been around and around on the forum on this issue. A few here may have even changed their minds on the issue as a result of our many debates. If you care, write your congressmen and senators. And write the candidates as well, both democratic and republican.

Great post, Martha, per usual..........

No real answer, however I'm leery of the US govt running universal health care, given their track record.........

 

[MasterBlaster]

Mikex:

The end is near !

maybe the robots could fix the health care system.
Or at least they could wash my car and bring me a cold one.

Are health care robots only for the rich ? Or should we increase taxes now so that health care robots can be made to work on poor people ?

Will humanoid health care robots look slim and sexy, or will they look middle aged and dowdy ? Will the sexy ones wear those tight little nurse outfits ?

 

[mikex]

Guess we better beef up our free education system, because we're gonna need a lot of mechanical engineers to design all those robots, a lot of systems engineers to design the logistics systems, and a lot of doctors to take care of all of the unemployed people who need free healthcare.

Oh dear, I feared this would happen - you didn't read the article did you. It isn't going to work like that. Well, when you get time or are interested - read it, otherwise your comment is invalid I'm afraid.

 

[mikex]

Mikex:
The end is near !

The end of a certain lifestyle, yes.

maybe the robots could fix the health care system.

Not directly, no. But they will put the menial hospital jobs in the trash heap.

Or at least they could wash my car and bring me a cold one.

Yes they will.

Are health care robots only for the rich ? Or should we increase taxes now so that health care robots can be made to work on poor people ?

They will be for everybody.

Will humanoid health care robots look slim and sexy, or will they look middle aged and dowdy ? Will the sexy ones wear those tight little nurse outfits ?

Sure, you can get whatever look you want. Just no hanky-Panky, at least with the first few generations. But later ...

 

[ruger]

So by shipping jobs out of this country it is best for the........the mmmm... not the worker. Oh ya, the rich corporation. Yep thats how it helps.
When you let the corporations run the country they will do what is best for themslef, not the country.
I watched bush today at his press con, and I mean con.
When asked if he thought the coming housing problem was going to send the country into a ressission. He said he was smart enough to know he was not samrt enough to comment on the problem.
WHAT AN IDIOT, THIS IS THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD. I WISH I BELIEVED IN GOD SO I COULD SAY GOD HELP US.

When asked if he would support raising taxes on gas to rebuild the nations bridges, he said " I would as congress to...........mmmmmmm....pause pause pause pause put to priortise what needs to be done.
Do we have a chimp in the white house or what?
Calling this guy an idiot being nasty to iditos.

 

[MasterBlaster]

Didn't they have Bar Girl Robots in that movie Westworld ?

Will they be kind of like that ?

 

[mikex]

Didn't they have Bar Girl Robots in that movie Westworld ?

Will they be kind of like that ?

Sure, why not? They can do more than serve you a drink too.

Oh and mykidslovedogs, I take it you are in the insurance industry? Well, your kind will be out of a job too, because the robots don't need health care, and the rest, the people, won't be able to afford it. Hey, it's only your job going away, no big deal right?

 

[kcowan]

Let's take this a step further. Let's say that Microsoft decides to only employ Americans. They must pay minimum wage and they are expected to provide rich health insurance benefits to each employee. This costs, perhaps, two, three, four or more times as much as it does to outsource. We can't expect Microsoft to cut back on making profits for the common good, so they have two choices. They can either cheapen the quality of their products to compensate for the additional cost, or they can charge more for their products. Let's assume they can make up for the extra cost by charging more for their products. I don't know too many business in America that don't count on Microsoft products to maintain productivity. Now that it costs, perhaps, twice as much, to buy office equipment & technology, other businesses are forced to either cut back on employment or charge more for their products or services, which ultimately has an impact on the overall economy. Is this all worth making minimum wage jobs available to more Americans?

You don't know much about MS do you? They started out with only Americans. Then they started combing the world for the best minds and moved them to Redmond WA. Gradually they have responded to government pressure to establish centers in other countries. Just the interest earned on their cash reserves would put them in the Fortune Top 50. None of their employees has ever qualified as minimum wage.

The manufacture of PC components has always been done in the far east. Only assembly has been performed on these shores.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Oh dear, I feared this would happen - you didn't read the article did you. It isn't going to work like that. Well, when you get time or are interested - read it, otherwise your comment is invalid I'm afraid.

I'll read it tonight, I promise.. Right now, I'm working so I can contribute to the free education system, Medicaid and Medicare.

 

[mikex]

I'll read it tonight, I promise.. Right now, I'm working so I can contribute to the free education system, Medicaid and Medicare.

That's cool, I know we all have stuff to do.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Then again, if it weren't for Microsoft, you wouldn't have a high-tech computer or mouse

Sigh.

Microsoft had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the "high tech computer". Many early personal computers were created when Bill Gates was still in high school, and IBM and Apples original offerings had no microsoft content. The original IBM PC offered microsofts PC-DOS, Digital Research's far superior CPM/86, or UCSD's p-system. Since the latter two were about a hundred bucks more expensive, most chose the microsoft OS.

Had Microsoft never existed, CPM/86, IBM's OS/2 and Apples Mac OS, none of which contained a line of microsoft code, would have fit in perfectly and since both CPM/86 and OS/2 were fundamentally faster, more powerful and a lot less buggy...we'd probably have advanced far further in a shorter time frame.

And the mouse and graphical user interfaces were invented by Xerox and used heavily in apple and other products for years before microsoft ever adopted the technology.

Microsoft also has very little influence over the cost of a computer. The primary cost components are the microprocessor, disk drive, motherboard, memory and display screen. None of which are made by microsoft.

I guess at this point I'm simply shocked at how many times a poster can be so horribly wrong and not run away from sheer embarrassment.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

You don't know much about MS do you? They started out with only Americans. Then they started combing the world for the best minds and moved them to Redmond WA. Gradually they have responded to government pressure to establish centers in other countries. Just the interest earned on their cash reserves would put them in the Fortune Top 50. None of their employees has ever qualified as minimum wage.

The manufacture of PC components has always been done in the far east. Only assembly has been performed on these shores.

Then, what's Mike complaining about?

 

[MasterBlaster]

The bigger point though, is what effect would take place when and if corporations (like Microsoft) were run for the employees interest rather than for the stockholders.

Some of the posters evidently think that would be great. Others of us know better. Just take a look at France to see how their socialistic system is struggling. And even they realize that they have to change to a more growth oriented model.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Sigh.

Microsoft had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the "high tech computer". Many early personal computers were created when Bill Gates was still in high school, and IBM and Apples original offerings had no microsoft content. The original IBM PC offered microsofts PC-DOS, Digital Research's far superior CPM/86, or UCSD's p-system. Since the latter two were about a hundred bucks more expensive, most chose the microsoft OS.

Had Microsoft never existed, CPM/86, IBM's OS/2 and Apples Mac OS, none of which contained a line of microsoft code, would have fit in perfectly and since both CPM/86 and OS/2 were fundamentally faster, more powerful and a lot less buggy...we'd probably have advanced far further in a shorter time frame.

And the mouse and graphical user interfaces were invented by Xerox and used heavily in apple and other products for years before microsoft ever adopted the technology.

I guess at this point I'm simply shocked at how many times a poster can be so horribly wrong and not run away from sheer embarrassment.

Sorry Cute...guess I'm just too young to know about pre-microsoft times. I didn't have time to research before my comment 'cuz I'm too busy right now doing other more important things (like planning for all the taxes I'm going to have to pay for early retiree healthcare). You are right, and as always, I am ashamed and embarrassed. Bill Gates lacks intelligence and had nothing to contribute to today's computer technology. Microsoft s****s and we should all boycott their technology and their employees should go on strike until they agree to go non-profit (as I am sure Apple and IBM would have done if they had the largest share of the market.)

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I didn't have time to research before my comment

Seems to be a common problem.

'cuz I'm too busy right now doing other more important things (like planning for all the taxes I'm going to have to pay for early retiree healthcare).

Ah yes, the hatred of the parasitic early retiree rises to the surface again...

Coming from having spent two weeks trying to get doctors offices billing departments to return my calls about getting copies of office visit statements, approximately four hours filling out blue cross reimbursement paperwork, and a two hour trip to the pharmacy to get prescription forms filled out for submission...I think I have a fresher perspective on the ridiculous costs of health care.

All this because BC never bothered to send me my coverage cards and I had to pay out of pocket.

About 15-20 hours of my time to get reimbursed for three office visits and 7 prescriptions.

And ten bucks says I get back all of the forms with notes scribbled all over them and have to redo them again. Practically guaranteed.

Gosh, and I suppose by your rationale...microsoft could have solved all of this for all four billion people in the US!

 

[FinanceDude]

Sigh.

Microsoft had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the "high tech computer". Many early personal computers were created when Bill Gates was still in high school, and IBM and Apples original offerings had no microsoft content. The original IBM PC offered microsofts PC-DOS, Digital Research's far superior CPM/86, or UCSD's p-system. Since the latter two were about a hundred bucks more expensive, most chose the microsoft OS.

Had Microsoft never existed, CPM/86, IBM's OS/2 and Apples Mac OS, none of which contained a line of microsoft code, would have fit in perfectly and since both CPM/86 and OS/2 were fundamentally faster, more powerful and a lot less buggy...we'd probably have advanced far further in a shorter time frame.

And the mouse and graphical user interfaces were invented by Xerox and used heavily in apple and other products for years before microsoft ever adopted the technology.

Microsoft also has very little influence over the cost of a computer. The primary cost components are the microprocessor, disk drive, motherboard, memory and display screen. None of which are made by microsoft.

I guess at this point I'm simply shocked at how many times a poster can be so horribly wrong and not run away from sheer embarrassment.

However, if Microsoft hadn't blatantly stolen Apple's operating system, and convinced all of us we need computers, then Intel would be much smaller, and they would have had no use for your services, no??

The one thing Apple was BAD at was marketing, the ONLY thing Bill Gates is good at is marketing........Bill Gates is still a crook, but a very good one.........

 

[kcowan]

... as always, I am ashamed and embarrassed. Bill Gates lacks intelligence and had nothing to contribute to today's computer technology.

For once I heartily agree with you MKLD. You should be.

And once again, you go on to prove it again in your very next sentence...

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

However, if Microsoft hadn't blatantly stolen Apple's operating system, and convinced all of us we need computers, then Intel would be much smaller, and they would have had no use for your services, no??

The one thing Apple was BAD at was marketing, the ONLY thing Bill Gates is good at is marketing........Bill Gates is still a crook, but a very good one.........

Well, actually it was IBM that did most of the convincing, not microsoft. Microsoft had a very small and not particularly active role until they broke with IBM and asserted Windows 3.0 as the successor to PC-DOS vs OS/2. It was a lot less Bill Gates' genius and a lot more of IBM somehow turning from the most powerful marketing machine in the US into a bunch of nincompoops that couldnt stop stepping on their own dicks.

In both the PC-DOS over CPM/86 and Windows over OS/2 bonanza, it was more a function of cost and availability. IBM wanted to adopt the machine back and own the hardware, operating system, applications software, communications, consulting, service and support. Microsoft just wanted to fap an operating system on you for $99 and let you figure it out on your own.

Cheap and simple won.

Its a marvel. Really, it is. PC-DOS sucked. Windows sucked until about SP2 for XP. Microsofts language products sucked and still suck. Microsofts office products are decent but slow and hugely bloated.

Cheap and easy won. IT departments and individuals found that they didnt want their OS from one company, their word processor/spreadsheet/database/presentation graphics all from different people. It was too expensive and too hard to work out problems when they happened. Quality didnt really matter.

Hmm, is there a parallel between this and what we're seeing with product and service quality across the board today?

So in the end, microsoft got to sell their customers almost exactly what IBM wanted to achieve...minus the hardware. And its a shame. OS/2 version 2.0 released in 1992 may have been a better product in almost every way than any Windows OS until XP.

Conversely, Apple is and for most of its history...been brilliant at marketing. At least when Steve Jobs was there. They sell a routine product with no special hardware and a decent software offering, get people to pay double for it, and then all those customers become missionaries for the product.

 

[mikex]

Then, what's Mike complaining about?

I started off by stating Microsoft, on the bottom of it's mice, has a label saying "Designed in U.S.A." instead of "Made in China". This, while true, is a ploy to avert the buyer from the global economy of cheap overseas labor building most all high tect stuff. If you don't quite think about what you really are reading on that label, you can get a warm fuzzy feeling when what you should feel is more like a cold, slimy feeling.

Of course building computer mice isn't the kind of jobs we need, but how about HDTV manufacturing? People, you know what is next - Chinese cars and trucks. They are coming, and they will blow away the prices of U.S. made vehicles, see ya later. Oh yes, we lost the TV manufacturing jobs to Japan, next is our automobile jobs. Pray tell, what are we going to build to support our lifestyles - Oh I forgot, Bush said to start a small business and bake bread, silly me!

 

[FinanceDude]

I started off by stating Microsoft, on the bottom of it's mice, has a label saying "Designed in U.S.A." instead of "Made in China". This, while true, is a ploy to avert the buyer from the global economy of cheap overseas labor building most all high tect stuff. If you don't quite think about what you really are reading on that label, you can get a warm fuzzy feeling when what you should feel is more like a cold, slimy feeling.

Of course building computer mice isn't the kind of jobs we need, but how about HDTV manufacturing? People, you know what is next - Chinese cars and trucks. They are coming, and they will blow away the prices of U.S. made vehicles, see ya later. Oh yes, we lost the TV manufacturing jobs to Japan, next is our automobile jobs. Pray tell, what are we going to build to support our lifestyles - Oh I forgot, Bush said to start a small business and bake bread, silly me!

Show me whose willing to buy a Chinese car? Somehow, Honda and Toyota have found a way to profit........

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Unless i'm mistaken, Honda is the one doing the importing. Been a while since I looked at it.

Heck, people bought Yugo's. They'll buy chinese cars too if they're cheap enough.

All I know is that all the chrome is going to peel off of them in 3 months.

 

[mikex]

Unless i'm mistaken, Honda is the one doing the importing. Been a while since I looked at it.

Heck, people bought Yugo's. They'll buy chinese cars too if they're cheap enough.

All I know is that all the chrome is going to peel off of them in 3 months.

Yes, the chrome will peel off the first ones in 3 months, just like the first Datsuns and Toyotas. But they will get better just like Toyota and Honda did. Oh by the way, I bought an American (designed) vehicle last year - a Chevy HHR. Guess where it was built?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Mexico - no jobs for that model here.