Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Interesting. leftofcool Sep 2015 #1
We are the biggest best ever nation! Human101948 Sep 2015 #2
OK. So why should we worry about those manufacturers? DanTex Sep 2015 #3
Manufacturing in most cases is productive... Human101948 Sep 2015 #8
Paper pushing is also productive. You can't have an economy without administrative and DanTex Sep 2015 #12
If paper pushing was efficient we would have the best damn healthcare ever... Human101948 Sep 2015 #16
I'm not saying that the current system is efficient, but I am saying that paper pushers DanTex Sep 2015 #20
So you would rather throw people out of work in the U.S. so you can have a bigger TV... Human101948 Sep 2015 #26
I wouldn't rather anything. DanTex Sep 2015 #30
Healthcare insurance companies are useless... Human101948 Sep 2015 #37
Well, no they aren't useless. They provide health insurance. DanTex Sep 2015 #38
I happen to have many acquaintances in the business... Human101948 Sep 2015 #41
US health insurance companies are literally death panels. n/t Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #74
Are you familiar with the dystopian parable of the shoe gnome? Chan790 Sep 2015 #71
Is he the same as the free trade gnome, the one that damages DanTex Sep 2015 #72
Their populations are 1/10th of ours. SonderWoman Sep 2015 #4
And?........ Armstead Sep 2015 #75
Except that health care still gets administered under any system and even countries with single Bluenorthwest Sep 2015 #5
Regardless of the details, there is no doubt that large numbers of jobs will be lost in DanTex Sep 2015 #17
That was many words to simply repeat an unsupported assertion. Bluenorthwest Sep 2015 #24
If there isn't a loss of jobs dsc Sep 2015 #49
The point being made is that private insurande would not necessarily disppear Armstead Sep 2015 #77
The real point is that those legions of people are employed to deny healthcare... Human101948 Sep 2015 #19
Why is it okay to lose IT jobs to either H-1B visa holders or to outsourcing? djean111 Sep 2015 #6
It's not an objection to single payer. It's a parallel between single payer and FTAs. DanTex Sep 2015 #10
H-1Bs are not for efficiency, they are for paying less in salaries. djean111 Sep 2015 #40
true to some extent portlander23 Sep 2015 #7
It's a dislocation in both cases. DanTex Sep 2015 #9
Efficiency portlander23 Sep 2015 #15
"The efficiency engendered by free trade is not shared by workers." DanTex Sep 2015 #18
But without jobs or with wages curtailed they lose out in the end... Human101948 Sep 2015 #21
Sure, as would health administrators under single payer. DanTex Sep 2015 #22
What are they, libertarians who would refuse to work for public health care? Bluenorthwest Sep 2015 #28
That's because most doctors in the UK work for the government, NHS isn't just administrators. DanTex Sep 2015 #32
My suggestion is that all Americans get a guaranteed annual income... Human101948 Sep 2015 #29
This is the efficiency assumption portlander23 Sep 2015 #25
Your first claim, that most of the gains go to profits, I highly doubt. DanTex Sep 2015 #43
A little off topic portlander23 Sep 2015 #57
Of course the cost of manufacturing is tied to the price. DanTex Sep 2015 #58
This is a common misconception portlander23 Sep 2015 #59
Cost affects supply. If it costs more to produce something, then less people are willing DanTex Sep 2015 #60
Price is not directly related to cost portlander23 Sep 2015 #63
Call it indirect if you want, but cost affects price. Other things affect price too, for example DanTex Sep 2015 #66
Harvard Business Review portlander23 Sep 2015 #68
Yes, demand is part of the equation. As is supply. DanTex Sep 2015 #69
Way off topic portlander23 Sep 2015 #70
without resorting to "Magical Thinking" Capn Sunshine Sep 2015 #11
If we're counting on an infrastructure boom, then there isn't any reason to worry DanTex Sep 2015 #13
I guess not That seems to be the perception Capn Sunshine Sep 2015 #14
Which jobs are you expecting us to lose and how many can be made by stopping outsourcing TheKentuckian Sep 2015 #23
According to a quick google, there are about 500K health insurance workers in the US. DanTex Sep 2015 #27
Except health care and administration of it continues. The UK has about 64 million people and Bluenorthwest Sep 2015 #31
The NHS is not just administrators, also doctors. DanTex Sep 2015 #34
We can cry for them and nothing will change, just like the 5-6 million manufacturing jobs gone... Human101948 Sep 2015 #36
Why do you think that most of the same jobs won't still be needed? TheKentuckian Sep 2015 #44
Well, if all the same jobs were still there and paid the same amount, then there wouldn't DanTex Sep 2015 #46
I suggest savings would be generated from uppermanagement, marketers, and shareholders TheKentuckian Sep 2015 #48
"Suggest" whatever you want, but when it comes down to numbers, either there's a massive DanTex Sep 2015 #50
Where do you get the idea that only labor costs contributes to systemic inefficiency? TheKentuckian Sep 2015 #65
Administrative costs are one of the common cost benefits that SP proponents cite. DanTex Sep 2015 #67
I think that is not one of the big sellingpoints of single payer. djean111 Sep 2015 #51
the lower level employees will still be needed. It is the PROFIT that will take the hit, all those msongs Sep 2015 #33
Profit is a small part of the costs. Without reducing the workforce, or at least cutting their pay, DanTex Sep 2015 #35
You keep making these assertions with no sources... Human101948 Sep 2015 #39
The only response I can give here is essentially a moral one... ion_theory Sep 2015 #42
The answer is pretty clear in my opinion TubbersUK Sep 2015 #45
The negatives of NAFTA extend far beyond the loss of US jobs. Garrett78 Sep 2015 #47
double take DonCoquixote Sep 2015 #52
Single payer and universal health care are not the same thing. Obviously. DanTex Sep 2015 #53
you still dodge the fact DonCoquixote Sep 2015 #54
What? I'm not denying that, I'm just denying that single payer is the only way to make DanTex Sep 2015 #56
way to push those gop talking points. nt restorefreedom Sep 2015 #55
Democrats who enjoy criticizing Obama, are seldom consistent in how they view things when Hoyt Sep 2015 #61
Assholes United. Thats why. GeorgeGist Sep 2015 #62
This is a telling quote: TubbersUK Sep 2015 #64
Well, that's one of the causes, there are a lot of them. DanTex Sep 2015 #73
Grasping for straws... n/t Skwmom Sep 2015 #76
One obvious difference... ljm2002 Sep 2015 #78
You are correct, the jobs are moved elsewhere. DanTex Sep 2015 #81
The global argument is a ruse... ljm2002 Sep 2015 #83
Calling it a ruse is not a rebuttal. DanTex Sep 2015 #84
I'm not trying to rebut... ljm2002 Sep 2015 #85
Everyone knows that corporations only care about profit. That's a given. DanTex Sep 2015 #86
A large non government, nonprofit sector that is highly regulated with strong oversight TheKentuckian Sep 2015 #87
Let;s say nothing changes in halthcare. Those jobs could well be outsourced thanks to free trade Armstead Sep 2015 #79
single payer and displaced insurance workers Roy Ellefson Sep 2015 #80
Free trade agreements include that also. DanTex Sep 2015 #82
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»An interesting parallel b...»Reply #75