3 ms·
- Do you think people should receive necessary medical treatment based on ability to pay? That's the alternative universe where health insurance companies charg
by kalvin 17y ago
- Do you think people should receive necessary medical treatment based on ability to pay? That's the alternative universe where health insurance companies charge based on cost.
- Should the government should try to hire younger, less educated, part-time employees to bring pay down? Your chart links to an actual explanation:
"In 2008, only 14 percent of federal workers were on part-time schedules, compared to 26 percent in the private sector. Federal workers were far older on average: 55 percent were between the ages of 45 and 64, compared to 36 percent of private-sector workers. Furthermore, 45 percent of federal workers held a college degree or higher educational credential, compared to 29 percent of private-sector workers.
Federal workers are more likely to receive employer-paid health benefits than private sector workers — 77 percent compared to 56 percent."
...
"The biggest difference between private and federal employment, illustrated in the graph above, lies in the proportion of jobs paying less than $25,000 a year. In 2008 more than 43 percent of private-sector workers earned less than $25,000 a year. Most federal employees fell squarely in the middle earnings brackets, making $25,000 to $75,000 a year."
- anamax 17y ago> Do you think people should receive necessary medical treatment based on ability to pay? Do you think that someone who has paid (via taxes) for other people's medical care should be denied govt-funded medical care? That's the reality of govt systems. Which reminds me, what's "necessary"? Seriously. Does it include pacemakers for 95 year olds? How about yearly mamograms for 40 year-old women? There will be govt "death panels" in the US, just like there are in every other "national health system". That's why the bill has 2k pages.