<p>Companies can do a lot of things but those things can still be creepy and cross the line. </p>
<p>I see a slight difference in buying life insurance compared to having my employer know my info. Maybe I am seeing something that isn’t there. </p>
<p>I understand why CVS wants to do what it wants to do. Maybe it will save health cate costs. Is the trade off (giving up privacy and the results of that) worth it?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I don’t see any choice given the direction of costs. Either your company does it or the government does it and both have incentives to reduce costs. I could argue that the government will have better access to information on you because they can do it with the force of law.</p>
<p>It would be nice if everyone took care of their health but that isn’t happening right now. Carrots, sticks and education are the options out there.</p>
<p>I know a lot if people would prefer that corporations do it and not the government, but I am not in that camp.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It doesn’t matter who does it. If the costs are high enough, then it will get done.</p>
<p>I look at Singapore with healthcare costs at 3% of GDP. That’s with universal or without. If you’re overweight in school, they put you on special diet and exercise programs. They have a media focus on health in the form of public-service ads. When’s the last time you saw an ad on tv or radio telling you to watch your calories?</p>
<p>We have far more in the way of freedoms in this country than in some other asian countries - we’re wealthy enough to shell out a ton of money to fix the problems that we get ourselves in. But that can’t last forever. So either we control it ourselves or someone else does it for us. If we want healthcare.</p>
<p>Let’s say that CVS doesn’t manage your healthcare. Some government agency does. Do you think that they will want you to do something about your weight, BP, cholesterol, etc.?</p>
<p>The government agency might. But with a large segment of voters overweight, that might be a tough sell.</p>
<p>I think the choice between corporations or government does matter. Other posters think so too. Many would choose corporations to have the info. Some of my friends would put their trust in corporations instead of the government. I can understand why people have issues with government bodies, but I don’t understand the lack of concern about corporations. </p>
<p>Corporations are not altruistic.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It’s a tough sell right now for corporations trying to control costs. But they keep trying. I don’t really think all of those people want to be overweight anyways. Where is the overweight people lobby?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Corporations are people. Governments are people. People screw up. People make bad decisions.</p>
<p>I do think that behavioral health concerns are an issue for whoever is paying the bills.</p>
<p>I think you are very wrong for grouping government and privately owned corporations in the same category. They operate on completely different principles. Corporations are self interested, and they want what’s best for their business, and in turn, their employees. This is generally true. On the other hand, public policy makers don’t really care about the public anymore than they care about themselves, because like everyone, they’re also self interested. Two completely different dynamics.</p>
<p>But I wholly disagree with this micromanagement strategy by this stupid company. Monitoring credit card activity for junk food? ***? I mean if this was nutrishop, I can see where they’re coming from. but your average private company? that’s like the epitomy of poor management. You’re not managing monkeys. They’re human beings, just like you… this is wrong.</p>
<p>Where was it stated that CVS monitors your junk-food purchases?</p>
<p>CVS itself does sell junk food.</p>
<p>“On the other hand, public policy makers don’t really care about the public anymore than they care about themselves, because like everyone, they’re also self interested. Two completely different dynamics.”</p>
<p>Is there something different about policy makers in the United States compared to other countries? I ask this because other countries have more government involvement in health care than we do and these countries have vastly cheaper health care than the United<br>
States.</p>
<p>Ok…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>see the first post.</p>
<p>As far as I can tell, that’s all hyperbole.</p>
<p>Yes, a private approach can save money but people that can’t pay for it will use services that are then cost-shifted to private providers.</p>
<p>Corporations may not have altruism as their primary purpose, but pleasing consumers is their primary goal, because without producing a quality product at a competitive price, they will not achieve profit levels that will attract and retain investors. For a company like CVS, that provides both products and services, happy employees are going to be an important component of pleasing customers. </p>
<p>I shop mostly at a different drug store, and I have to say that the employees there seem rather apathetic towards their jobs and their customers. I always assumed this was because they were unionized, so their jobs are secure regardless of their outward attitudes. I actually dislike shopping at the drug store for this reason. My grocery store, on the other hand, has very outgoing, friendly checkers who remember me and always make a nice effort to be pleasant. I think they are probably unionized, as well, so perhaps it is a function of particular management at each location.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Workplaces with unions presumably had a big enough labor problem in the past that annoyed employees enough to form a union because they did not trust the management. Of course, once management has lost the trust of the rank and file, it is very hard to get the trust back.</p>
<p>Bay, an equally plausible explanation for the difference between the atmospheres at your two stores is that at the grocery store, management voluntarily treats its employees with respect, which includes decent pay and benefits. That tends to promote a pleasant workplace with happy employees.</p>
<p>you get lazy, disgruntled employees everywhere. The guy I sit next to at work, for instance. That’s not exclusive to any type of employment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>cost-shifting is the principle behind socialized healthcare, not privatized healthcare… First of all, with privatization, there will be companies out there providing for lower income, and less fortunate individuals. they probably won’t get as good a service as other people, but if there’s a market, then someone’s going to capitalize on it. But if there’s no profit in such a market, and people end up not being able to afford it, then you gain some you lose some. I’m not going to go out of my way to try to convince you, but I’ll just say this. why are private corporations growing so much, and why are publicly owned companies growing not so much? The difference is market freedom, being able to do what you want with your company to attract customers, and make bank, as opposed to having someone else dictate what they think is best for everyone’s interest, which isn’t really in anyone’s best interest, except probaly the poor. I don’t mean to mimic Mitt Romney, but in America, anybody has the ability to get out of poverty, provided they have the initiative. Yes, even in this type of economy. But if people are not taking the initiative, and relying on the government as their financial crutch, then we’re going backwards as a nation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How exactly will private companies “provide for lower income and less fortunate individuals”? Where is the company which wants to lose money by providing insurance to people who can’t afford it? </p>
<p>“They probably won’t get as good a service?” So poor people deserve sub-standard health care?</p>
<p>“You gain some, you lose some?” You are talking about human beings here, human beings who have health care needs. What do you propose should be done about the people who “lose” in your profit-oriented vision? They’re just out of luck?</p>
<p>In [Poor</a> Economics by Bannerjee and Duflo](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Poor-Economics-Radical-Rethinking-Poverty/dp/1610390938][i]Poor”>http://www.amazon.com/Poor-Economics-Radical-Rethinking-Poverty/dp/1610390938), the situation of public and private health care for the poor in poor countries is discussed. Quality of such health care is not good.</p>
<p>Some of the behaviors of the poor in poor countries are not all that different from what has been observed in the US, such as preferring expensive cures over cheap prevention, and preferring treatment over mere diagnosis of something that will likely go away on its own (treatment might be harmful, such as unneeded antibiotics causing resistance, or reused unclean needles spreading diseases, as well as costing money that poor people have little of).</p>
<p>spectastic, clearly you are not familiar with the concept of the “working poor.” Do you know how many people work full-time–often more than that, with two or more minimum wage jobs–and still fall below the poverty level? Do you know how many companies intentionally keep employees’ hours below the number that would force them to offer benefits?</p>
<p>Also, I don’t think you want to get into the “47%”-type comments unless you want the thread shut down. I will say this, though–I for one am very tired of people who have never struggled telling the rest of us how to just “take initiative” and “rise up” as if it’s as simple as getting out of bed in the morning. It’s insulting.</p>