• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Why do people have the right to MY EXPERIENCE and MY LABOR?

Melensdad

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
Just curious, but why is that some folks believe they have the right to tell me how much I can charge for my experiences, my labor, and my efforts?

I'm not picking on anyone on the ForumsForums.

But in reading the newspaper I constantly find professionally written editorials, as well as reader submitted editorials that profess the opinion that if someone NEEDS or WANTS my services they have the right to them and they have the right to 'fix' my price.

Now last time I checked Hollywood actors could charge what they could get, and sports figures could do the same. If they are good they charge above the market level and get away with it, easily. Not only do they get away with it there is typically a bidding war to get them. In a similar vein fine gunsmiths, clothing designers and cabinet makers can set their own prices and people line up for their work. Ditto car restorers, home builders and master cigar blenders. All these people charge extra for their reputation, their experience, their time, their labor.

Why is this allowed for these trades but not for others? Like the medical profession . . .
 
Who says anyone has a "right" to anyform of healthcare?

But this is kind of an interesting question. Lets say you entered my hospital. You swallowed a bee and were turning blue and dying because your throat is swelling shut. Realtively inexpesively we could give you a couple of meds and stick a tube down your throat and you would be fine in an hour or two. If you dont intubate you, you die. Does the person who swallowed the bee have a right to mediacal care? If he hsa no insurance or money do we point down the street? Might he just be trying to get "free" healthcare?

My answer is no, he doesnt have the right. But I am duty bound by my being a good person to take care of him. Not for him, but for me.

Legally it is a completely different story. I am sure we will have time to discuss it.
 
Melensdad said:
Just curious, but why is that some folks believe they have the right to tell me how much I can charge for my experiences, my labor, and my efforts?

I'm not picking on anyone on the ForumsForums.

But in reading the newspaper I constantly find professionally written editorials, as well as reader submitted editorials that profess the opinion that if someone NEEDS or WANTS my services they have the right to them and they have the right to 'fix' my price.

Now last time I checked Hollywood actors could charge what they could get, and sports figures could do the same. If they are good they charge above the market level and get away with it, easily. Not only do they get away with it there is typically a bidding war to get them. In a similar vein fine gunsmiths, clothing designers and cabinet makers can set their own prices and people line up for their work. Ditto car restorers, home builders and master cigar blenders. All these people charge extra for their reputation, their experience, their time, their labor.

Why is this allowed for these trades but not for others? Like the medical profession . . .
Click to expand...

I'm glad you included "master cigar blenders". I was starting to feel left out...:unsure:
 
mak2 said:
Who says anyone has a "right" to anyform of healthcare?

But this is kind of an interesting question. Lets say you entered my hospital. You swallowed a bee and were turning blue and dying because your throat is swelling shut. Realtively inexpesively we could give you a couple of meds and stick a tube down your throat and you would be fine in an hour or two. If you dont intubate you, you die. Does the person who swallowed the bee have a right to mediacal care? If he hsa no insurance or money do we point down the street? Might he just be trying to get "free" healthcare?

My answer is no, he doesnt have the right. But I am duty bound by my being a good person to take care of him. Not for him, but for me.

Legally it is a completely different story. I am sure we will have time to discuss it.
Click to expand...

My issue is more of what I've (unfortunately) experienced lately. Emergency rooms are clogged up with what "appears" to be illegals and indigents who simply "Don't feel too good [sic]" and demand to see a physician and receive medications. I show up with my daughter (besides the point we either have insurance or I pay the bill), who recently had brain surgery and is experiencing one of the listed symptoms that says "Immediately go to the nearest emergency room".

When the rather bored and disinterested nurse/receptionist simply says "Take a seat. It may be several hours". I then feel that these people do NOT have a right to derail our current health system because they do not have health ins. (or they'd NEVER be in an emergency room for a cold/runny nose) and our 'top priority' area for treatment at a hospital has become a total joke. In this situation, no, I absolutely do not feel they have a right to receive free health care in my local hospital's emergency room.
 
I knew an experienced lady who charged whatever rate she wanted for her "talents and experience". If you were as good as her folks would not want it for free.:whistling::yum::yum:
 
I agree with Dargo, there needs to be barriers to healthcare or any service. If you give it away for free then it gets abused. Those on welfare or that qualify for free government health care have lower co-pays than those of us that are paying for private insurance. There needs to be minimum co-pays for healthcare. Heck, if these people can afford their cell phones then they can afford a $20 co-pay. Oh yeah, a lot of them are getting free cell phones too. :pat:

So many people are getting away with not paying for anything that they are increasingly demanding more and more. It's a slippery slope and we are already sliding down it.
 
Dargo said:
I'm glad you included "master cigar blenders". I was starting to feel left out...:unsure:
Click to expand...
A better question about those master cigar blenders. Why does the government think thep have a right to a part of the profit for no input of labor or skill, from those cigars?
 
Thats crazy, why the hell is there free cell phones? I am busy right now but I gotta read this.
 
I guess this started under Reagean and is for poor people utilizing other programs, not necessarily for Mexicans, in fact it says only for certain Americans. It is not tax funded nor an Obamaphone. Still dont like this though. I am sure we are paying for it somehow.

LIFELINE/SAFELINK FACT SHEET
There is no "Obama phone" or other newly created federal program to provide free cell phones. As you may know, this is a myth that is now circulating on the Web via email and blog sites. It has been thoroughly debunked by independent groups. (See for example: FactCheck.org at http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/, which notes: "Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it."
The federal "Lifeline" program was created during the Reagan Administration. Lifeline is a federal program created by the Reagan era Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1984. The program was enhanced under Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was supported on a broadly bipartisan basis in Congress. The FCC’s Low Income Program of the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), is designed to ensure that quality telecommunications services are available to low-income customers at just, reasonable, and affordable rates. Lifeline support reduces eligible low-income consumers' monthly charges for basic telephone service.
Thanks to SafeLink, Lifeline support is now available for wireless phones. Traditionally, the Lifeline program was only available as a discount on a consumer’s landline telephone bill. SafeLink Wireless was created by TracFone Wireless, Inc. when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently approved the company to offer Lifeline -- a public assistance program that ensures telephone service is available and affordable for low-income subscribers. SafeLink Wireless applies the Universal Service Fund subsidy to an allotment of free airtime minutes and TracFone provides the wireless handset at the company’s expense. Instead of receiving a subsidized monthly telephone bill for Lifeline service, SafeLink converts the total amount of discounted service into minutes each month for one year. The cell phone offers in-demand features: voicemail, text, three-way calling, call waiting, caller ID and access to 911.
SafeLink phones are not paid for by taxpayers or the federal government. TracFone Wireless pays for the phones and also the cost of promoting its SafeLink program to make sure that eligible consumers know about the program.
SafeLink Wireless is making the vision of universal access to telecommunications services for all Americans a reality. As of October 2009, SafeLink has over 2 million customers and is available in 33 states - Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, DC, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Today, there are over 1,700 companies in the United States currently providing discounted telephone service. But, thanks to its extensive outreach promoting SafeLink, TracFone Wireless is one of the largest providers of Lifeline services in the United States, second only to AT&T.
Only certain Americans are eligible for SafeLink. Eligibility guidelines vary by state but in general individuals qualify if they participate in a public assistance program such as Food Stamps, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), National Free School Lunch, Federal Housing/Section 8 Assistance, or if they do not receive any of these public assistance programs, they may also qualify based on total household gross monthly income. Customers can learn more or apply by calling 1-800-SAFELINK or visiting www.SafeLink.com
 
Regardless of how the program is funded, my original point is that these people are getting a lot of stuff for free. I bet their cell phones are better than my wife's (she barely uses hers) and I know their health care coverage is better than ours. They even get more money to spend on food than we spend on average for our family of four.
 
Melensdad said:
Just curious, but why is that some folks believe they have the right to tell me how much I can charge for my experiences, my labor, and my efforts?

I'm not picking on anyone on the ForumsForums.

But in reading the newspaper I constantly find professionally written editorials, as well as reader submitted editorials that profess the opinion that if someone NEEDS or WANTS my services they have the right to them and they have the right to 'fix' my price.
Click to expand...

What services of yours are people wanting or need or is this a lead in on the medical profession?:whistling:
 
Triage nurse should send them packin, and tell them to see their primary care provider int he morning.
 
Why doesn't the government "fix" prices for services like building homes?

Or fix prices for goods like cans of corn, green beans, and pounds of hamburger?


If people can't afford shelter there are programs that provide assistance, but it is tailored to individual state markets and the government provides subsidies. If people can't afford food there are "food stamps" that pay for goods. These things are even indexed for inflation but these things don't limit the income of the grocer, farmer, landlord, or builder.

Are these not necessities? Don't people spend 99% of their lives healthy? Don't they need shelter 100% of their lives? Don't they also require food daily?

We limit doctors but we don't limit baseball players. We limit doctors but we don't limit grocers.

I don't understand the inconsistent thoughts. We are mandating limits on some services but not on others. Is it not MORE likely that housing prices/collapses/unaffordability can cripple a family more than medical bills since not everyone even uses catastrophic medial care but obviously everyone needs shelter?
 
SShepherd said:
medicare already limits what doctors can make
Click to expand...

Medicare doesn't limit what Physicians make. Medicare defines the reimbursement for Medicare services. The MD can charge $200 for a service but Medicare has pre-defined limits for a service and only pays up to that limit.
 
bczoom said:
Medicare doesn't limit what Physicians make. Medicare defines the reimbursement for Medicare services. The MD can charge $200 for a service but Medicare has pre-defined limits for a service and only pays up to that limit.
Click to expand...

and thats not the same how?

if my price on a widget is $30 , and medicare says they're only paying $18

or better yet, medicaid will only pay $12
 
I know where you're coming from. If it were just Medicare, a Doctor's compensation could be where he needs it to be based on reimbursement from other insurers. Unfortunately, many insurers now tie their contractual reimbursements on percentages/limits set by Medicare. So, to tie in with the OP, yes, MD's and providers hands are somewhat tied since they're only getting a percentage on reimbursement.
 
bczoom said:
I know where you're coming from. If it were just Medicare, a Doctor's compensation could be where he needs it to be based on reimbursement from other insurers. Unfortunately, many insurers now tie their contractual reimbursements on percentages/limits set by Medicare. So, to tie in with the OP, yes, MD's and providers hands are somewhat tied since they're only getting a percentage on reimbursement.
Click to expand...

RIGHT.

But if you own a "rent controlled" apartment building the rents are subsidized and if you don't like that you can remove the building from the rent control rolls and open it up for the market rates.

And if you are a grocery store you can choose to accept food stamps or not, but either way you can charge whatever price you want for a can of corn or a pound of steak.

So the doctor is limited in his income. Which means that SOMEONE has chosen to place his time, his education, his expert opinion, his experience, his labor above the human needs for shelter and food.
 
SafeLink Wireless applies the Universal Service Fund subsidy to an allotment of free airtime minutes .

SafeLink phones are not paid for by taxpayers or the federal government. TracFone Wireless pays for the phones and also the cost of promoting its SafeLink program to make sure that eligible consumers know about the program.
Click to expand...
And where does the money for the Universal Service Fund come from? It's mandated that the providers contribute to it. But if you look at your home phone bill and your wireless bill, you might find that YOU are paying it. Both of mine show a Federal Universal Services Fee.
 
OhioTC18 said:
And where does the money for the Universal Service Fund come from? It's mandated that the providers contribute to it. But if you look at your home phone bill and your wireless bill, you might find that YOU are paying it. Both of mine show a Federal Universal Services Fee.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I think that originally the program was absorbed by the companies, which means it was included with the bill. If I understand the procedure correctly, carriers can still do that, but most itemize the cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top