As usual, absolutism and broad brush painting dominates the discussion. So many people aren't arguing about the issue, they are arguing about the views of the world that they developed long ago and have firmly placed the world into.

Anyhoo, I'm as business oriented a guy as anyone here, and firmly believe in meritocracy, which is easy for me of course since I figure I have more merit than everyone else :-) But still, I believe in getting compensated in return for what you accomplish, and that the lure of such compensation is the ultimate power source for our economy.

OTOH, the obsession about the fact that some people in the world might actually game the system and benefit in some way from your work, to the point that you'd rather destroy the system and the benefits it could provide to honest folks, seems niggardly at best (and no, that's not a racial slur, for the linguistically challenged.) God knows that business itself is one of the most gamed systems out there, providing questionably legal benefit to many people at our expense.

And I have to point out how stupidly difficult it is to have health insurance if you want to start a small business. That in and of itself is a huge negative pressure on innovation and wealth creation in this country. If I'd had dependents, I couldn't have started my company certainly. Clearly the existing system, which has had decades to prove its efficacy, wasn't doing anything to change that. And I don't see how it is going to change on that front.

And I would also have to point out that if good health insurance is only available via large companies, then that gives those large companies a level of de facto control over people's lives that probably most of us would not want. What better way to lock you in than to make it almost impossible for you to leave because of health insurance issues? Then they really aren't to blame for that lock-in, they just get to benefit from it.

If I was you guys I'd be more concerned with how 3% of the population ended up with 95% of the wealth in this country...

I have family in the UK and they seem pretty happy with the system, even if not perfect.
Before you speak on their behalf, ask them if they would swap it for your system?
It's one thing to gripe about what they have but it's completely another to compare them.

As long as a company/corporation performs, most people didn't care about how much the CEO made relative to the company's bottom line. When people are looking for a reason to hate the wealthy, which never really stops, they look at the compensation for the CEOs and other officers of the companies. I doubt they strong-armed the board of directors to get that much- the directors are responsible for this as much as anyone, but nobody thinks to blame them.

How many people with 401k, personal stock/bond/mutual fund accounts gave a minute's thought about how much the CEO/fund manager was paid, as long as they made a killing in the market? Not many, that's for sure. Only when the market takes a dump do the pitchforks and torches come out with the angry mobs who are looking fro someone to blame.

Is it fair? Depends- did the CEO bring the company/corporation back from the brink and make it profitable? Throw them a big bone. Did they take over and sell it off in pieces, leaving a trail of unemployed workers, empty factories that may take decades to fill, unpaid loans and TIF districts/lower tax base and cities or states left holding the bag? Stockholders may be OK with this, but the affected people are hardly going to be in a good position.

I'd like to see and hear past comments from people when their 401k and other investments were outperforming in the past, but are now pissed about CEO compensation because they're not seeing the returns they want.

I'm moving to Cuba. Free healthcare.

Julie, and excellent education. You might find internet speed issues troubling, and a couple other points as well.

Still, when I've been there, the people I stayed with were happy.

And worth every peso they paid.

Cool old cars, too.

Haha, you are either being funny, or don't research the news you read on Facebook.

For Mac:

"Socialism is just communism with foreplay"
The Irish type of foreplay.

When you think about the core premise of the insurance business model, it is just a huge game of chance and risk, not unlike the gambling industry. And as we know, Vegas is supported by losers...literally.

Haven't bothered to read this entire thread - I don't have the stamina - but to me it's helpful to remember these points.

1) Is healthcare a right or a privilege in wealthy (i.e., most OECD member countries)? But if it's a privilege, what/who decides who gets health care? Therefore, I believe:

2) Healthcare is DIFFERENT than everything else - it is NOT the same as selling cars, TV's, vacations, or anything else. In other words, wouldn't it be OK if THIS ONE THING wasn't a part of our capitalist/market-driven society? In other words, why can't healthcare be a not-for-profit endeavor, part of a basket of services provided by the government, like highways and airports and national defense?

3) Lastly - many seem to think a national healthcare program means healthcare delivered with the efficiency/empathy/service quality of the IRS, TSA, or (name your bureaucratic nightmare federal agency). WRONG! That would be like thinking that our fighter jets (bought and paid for by the US Government) are BUILT by the US Government - and of course, they are not - they are constructed by skilled private subcontractor companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc.

To bring it all home: I live in San Francisco, and receive healthcare via the non-profit foundation Kaiser Permanente. Is it perfect? No - but what is and it CERTAINLY IS GOOD ENOUGH!!! I and my wife have both had moderately serious health issues recently that were handled just fine. So tell me this: why can't the US Government simply contract out to K-P (and others with the same HMO/non-profit model), and provide healthcare to all? Please save the "we can't afford it" ignorance, and the "I want to pick my own doctor" thing is a luxury that needs to priced accordingly for those that want it.

And lastly: can anyone out there really convince me that the biggest problem in the United States is that poor people have too much power/have it too easy? Anyone that says that doesn't know anyone that's poor.

Yep

It exists and works in other capitalist countries. Everyone gets looked after and if you wan't a higher level of service or choice, you can still pay extra and get it if you wish to.

This is an important point. It's become an industry in this country to portray the poor as livin' easy on all our backs. But, somehow I don't see too many people volunteering to go live easy on our backs if they have an alternative. I've experienced semi-poverty all I need to in my efforts to start a business, and I know it ain't no fun. The stress is ridiculous. And I know that, had I been born in the FFB type circumstances that so many people are, that I'd probably have ended up a sad statistic (if not a dangerous one.)

Are there psychopaths who are happy to use everyone and everything to get by without lifting a finger? Obviously there are. But they are the far and away exception, not the rule. And of course plenty of them are not among the poor either.

Look at the reasons many people are 'dirt poor', as Hillary called herself and Bill when they left the White House- lack of schooling, lack of good parenting, generational poverty because nobody in the family bothered to move to find work, dropping out of school and being bad students, drug/alcohol addiction, the feeling that there's no reason to bother trying, mental illness, long-term involvement in gang activity and reaching an age where the gang no longer needs them.....

Then, there are examples of people who gamed the system- we (Milwaukee area) have had many people who demanded that their daughters start having kids at an early age, so they can bring in more benefits. We have had many adults who collected benefits under several names, we have had day care operators filing claims that they had far more kids enrolled than they did and most of the ones who were there were the children of relatives, who also worked at the day care- they were being paid to care for their own kids and those of their close relatives and may have cared for them even if that day care didn't exist. Food stamp fraud, collecting rent assistance when it wasn't theirs to collect, Social Security fraud, Welfare fraud, criminal activity- if these people had put this much effort into their own education, they could have done something constructive in their lives.

Watch the interviews with the families and friends after someone kills or is killed in an inner city- many of them seem to be poorly educated and if it's because their school systems are doing a piss poor job, it needs to change- not only for the people who aren't being educated, but also for the relief of tax payers. Romney made a comment during his run for POTUS about 47% of the population not paying any taxes and it played a large role in costing him the election, but it's true. At the current rate, we'll eventually have more people collecting benefits than paying for them and no society can, or should have to, be in that position.

Many schools stopped their shop classes over the years and where do we find ourselves? With a serious shortage of welders, carpenters and people who can work in several other trades. Granted, the entry-level workers can become a journeyman fairly soon, but how many decide that those jobs aren't for them? These aren't glamor jobs- people don't think of these as little kids as "This is what I want to be when I grow up", possibly because they never saw their parents doing DIY things or having those jobs.

I would bet that many poor people would be able to work in construction, but they may not live where they're needed.

Easy living? Not by a long shot. All someone needs to do is go into the inner city and they'll see just how easy that life is.

It is possible to get out of that cycle, though.