| What aspect or your small business operations would you gladly do without if you could? |
|
What aspect or your small business operations would you gladly do without if you could?
Click to vote
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
Asked 2 years ago
by rlch89  United States |
|
About
Entreprenuer/Business Owner
Advanced Books & Payroll Services (AB&P)
|
| 3 Points |
All 4 are detrimental to a business being in any way successful.
??
How is taking care of your customers detrimental to your business? Having employees to do the work? Keeping good records so you can see how the money is going? Letting people know you are there?
Without customers, what business do you have? Without customer satisfaction, there are no customers. I thought that was obvious.
You need all of them. Customers, customer service, good accounting procedures, a way to reach your market, and employees that you can trust who can do the job. I have been in business for myself twice, and tell you that without any ONE of the things mentioned, you do not have a business, not for more than it takes to go into debt over your head.
I still dont understand how taking care of your customers is DETRIMENTAL to business. Unless you are a monopoly, or engage in monopolistic practices like price-fixing.
Taxes.
Maybe vital is a better word than detrimental, since these aspects can also be extremely beneficial as well. However, I knew what you meant lalebakis ;-).
I'm looking for what you feel is the most troubling or disliked aspect, the one that if you could, you would eliminate. My business is built on the time consuming drudgery of record keeping (Books, Payroll, Taxes). Employees, Marketing, and Customer Care are simply other areas that can be outsourced. I could have also used IT if another button was available.
Thanks for you votes, your interest, and your comments.
I wish I was paying a million or even more in taxes...
Interesting, how come?
Imagine that I would pay half my income in taxes ;)
Muhahahaha, I see, I see ;0)
*******
Number Two: Why not use your knowledge of the future to play the stock markets? We could make trillions.
Dr. Evil: Why make a trillion when we could make... billions?
Scott: A trillion's more than a billion, numbnuts.
Seriously, I always wonder why people have a problem paying taxes, sure a lot gets wasted, but anything I make over 50k gets wasted as well. And I do like to live in a society where people are free, well educated, healthy and happy (or at least content).
Tax revenue does indeed get wasted, maybe it would be a better and a more constructive idea for those in power to also find ways to use those funds in the best and most efficient ways BEFORE having to ask for more and more so we can be free, well educated, healthy, and happy and dare I say even content. I for one have no problem paying taxes under such circumstances :0)
In the current political climate? you have to be kidding! You guys spend about 600 tax dollars more per person per year then Canada on health care. However none of the politicians, nor the major news outlets seem to bother to mention that.
Yes, and goes right to the point. If we have 600 more tax dollars per person on health care what is going on I ask? Again, I take it like a parent who gives their child 600 dollars for textbooks and school supplies right, and then the child uses that money for an I Pod or something, and comes back asking for more money. I think instead of asking why the government doesn't spend more, ask what does the government spend the money they already have on exactly.
Lovely analogy. I used to tell people I never voted Yes on any bond issue not for education. Why? Because if you give your teenager an allowance and it is spent on drugs, you don't say, "oh, poor thing, can't go to the movie with your friends" and give him more money.
Precisely, if I won't reward my child for "misappropriation of funds," why should I reward government for the same behavior.
It's why Social Security is bankrupt. It's full of IOUs from Congress so they could get their hands on your and my pension funds to spend as THEY pleased.
And lest we forget Medicare is in trouble too. It just seems rather difficult for me to want to hand over health care to government right at this moment, granted I know the current system is in trouble, but I don't think a government takeover would be responsible right now while there is a mess with Social Security and Medicare to be taken care of, not to mention a little economic crisis. For goodness sake the White House is being cautions on Afghanistan but runs careening into a health care plan during this economy, I just don't get it.
You can't call it careening, the push for major reform started (but failed) under Clinton and was scuttled by the Republican congress.
When 45,000 people die each year from lack of health insurance. then yes there is urgency. -- http://wordpress.asc.upenn.edu/2009/09/dying-from-lack-of-insurance/
But I am afraid that what is being proposed now will not even come close to fixing your problems, at best it is a baby step in the right direction. As for me, I think the best way would be to seriously improve and gradually expand Medicaid. That would require an increases in taxes as well as the government able to negotiate discounts.
You (as a nation) can also chose not to care about those deaths, that is a valid option, but not the choice I would make.
My choice isn't to saddle future generations with more and more deficit, that is unconscionable as well. This truly is a situation I feel there is no solution that is workable until the economy is in full recovery. Taxing more now just makes no sense to me, trying to get blood from stones and nothing more.
The alternative is to do nothing and let 125 people die each day from lack of insurance. :(
Changing the system to socialized health care would save a lot of money for both employers and individuals if only part of those payments would be converted to taxes. But the insurance industry would loose a lot of jobs (many of them outsourced)
There is no doubt we can afford health care. WE already spend more per capita than any other country in the world.
The problem is not funding universal health care. The problem is that people who are making a LOT of money out of Americans dying don't want it to change.
Well my suspicion is the government would be no better at stopping "Americans dying" than the insurance bureaucrats. I fully believe everyone should have access to affordable health care, but I will be damned if more of my tax money will be wasted until the government can get Social Security corrected; hell, if they could get our postal service to run more efficiently I would be impressed.
Your suspicion is unfounded, people in the U.S. over 65 (on medicare) seem to do better in word wide health care comparisons...
Hum, and yet it is brought up that our life expectancy here, in the US, is lower?
Because fewer people make it to 65 (on for profit health care) then in other countries I guess.
http://www.suite101.com/blog/maryan/us_population_more_older_people_but_fewer_medical_specialists
Interesting, but we still have more older Americans then ever before, baby boomers are reaching such milestones don't forget. Care might not be so awful.
Are suggesting that fewer people should be allowed to live to over 65?
Just pointing out we have many people making it over the age of 65 and that our care might not be so sub par if that is the case. In fact, it is raises the issue we might need more doctors who understand geriatrics and aging.
Like I was saying, medicaid seems to give better results when compared with other countries who score better overall.
You might find this interesting -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared
I read it, had actually taken a look at that beforehand on my own, and see it is inconclusive that the differences in superiority of care when despite life-expectancy being higher and infant mortality being lower in Canada, deaths from certain diseases remain higher in Canada. Clearly, this is a debate that has no easy fix, since both systems face difficulty.
You are right, there are no easy solutions. The key facts are that the U.S. overall health care score is ranked 7 places lower then Canada but that the cost in the U.S. are much higher. (both in tax dollars spend and private spending) -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO%27s_ranking_of_health_care_systems
I am not suggesting you guys follow the Canadian (or any) system. But socialized health care in Canada is cheaper and shows better results then the system the U.S.has right now. The CBC had an article today with a cost comparison based on age groups that might be relevant to the medicare we were talking about earlier (I always get medicaid and medicare mixed up) -- http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/11/19/health-care-spending-canada.html
What I find annoying is that politicians (and many people on this site) do not debate the issues, but use misinformation to further their political ideology. From what I can see I think that your health care reform is not going to have a big enough impact to fix the issues. There is a legitimate debate to be had if people who can not afford health care should receive it at tax payer expense or should they be left to die in extreme cases (if no charity will take care of them) This is the first issue that each individual needs to evaluate for themselves and then go on from there. There is no need to claim that there will be death panels, they do not exist here in Canada, but there is a limit (I guess) what can be done in order to save a life...
Interesting thing too is that there are among the uninsured young people who choose not to take insurance, it isn't only about those who can't afford it. I know when I had changed jobs a few years back COBRA was very expensive but I found a reasonable plan that I took instead of COBRA and had that until I started a new job. I think insurance should start at least 30 days into a job if employers provide it, pre-existing garbage should be done away with, medical malpractice issues should be under better control (that litigation is ridiculous, cost wise for sure). I think the pharmaceutical industry needs some changes too. Those reps and the garbage they waste money on like slick ads and the pens, notepads, etc. should be done away with, that might be one thing to consider to bring down drug costs. I know developing new drugs is expensive, don't think I am not aware, but it makes no sense to then spend money on stupid trinkets to advertise when you still need a prescription and your doctor might not prescribe it, so just spend money on advertising when trying to recoup money from the development stage. Especially true of drugs that people don't use for a few doses like antibiotics, but heart medications and such that people always need so there is always a clientele. Besides companies have exclusive rights for 10 years before generic drugs hit the market, that should be enough time to recoup losses I would think, could be wrong I guess. But maybe that shouldn't be the case, and cheaper generics should be available sooner to compete. Just a few thoughts of one things to do in that area.
Like I said, the FIRST thing you should look at is if you WANT all people covered, if you chose to do so then the next issue is how you will attempt to accomplish this. and how to deal with any inefficiencies. If you chose for profit health care then this is up to the companies.
Instinctively I would have guessed that private health care would be more efficient and better, practise shows that it is not and part of me wants the U.S. to continue this way as an example to the rest of the world there are times that capitalism is not the perfect answer (just like communism is not always the perfect answer)
Wanting everyone to be covered and adequately getting everyone covered are difficult things. Do I think it is adequate coverage when people wait for specialists or for tests in the government funded systems because of shortages on the resources, no, especially when it is touted as health care for all and taxpayers are flipping the bill and then when I go to use it I get put on some waiting list and need-based schedule. In a for profit system should there be outlets for people to get care when they can't afford to, yes, expand that by all means, but don't throw us into some greater government bureaucracy.
I hope Americans don't choose a system of further waste in government and see the Canadian and European systems as not for us. Do we really want to spend more of our income on a system of government sponsored doctors and hospitals, that aren't always there when we need it. Especially when life expectancy isn't 10 or 20 years more in those systems, but only 3 years or so. Sorry, but that really is not much of a selling point for to have a government system.
It is your right to be selfish and only allow the healthy and those who can afford to pay for health care to live. Just be honest about it and stop spreading lies about socialized health care.
Maybe the (European) systems are not for you, I can not decide that for you. But you can not argue that they are more wasteful or show worse outcomes then the system you currently have as the facts show that ALL are cheaper and 36 of them have BETTER results.
I guess you could claim that the U.S system is better and more efficient as many dishonest Republicans do, but the facts do not support those arguments.
Ah, selfishness, truly in the eye of the beholder. I don’t think I have ever expressed a longing for state run this or state run that, so to think I would not be accepting of state health care is not a hard assumption to make. In my view it is quite unselfish of me to not want government to give me more, or to feel owed anything more by the government, or entitled to more. I don’t look for any of the “unscrupulous” businesses to give me anything, any shady businessmen to share with me, so I won’t look to government to give me my share either. Selfishness, maybe, not to me. I hope that is honest enough, and honestly I don’t want people to die, but do I want to owe government more, or take more from government, no, even if they could give me healthcare and every other human being on the planet.
As for dishonest Republicans, from where I sit I am not getting the whole story from Democrats either. Deficit-neutral plan, I doubt that very much, of course the will be money need to fund it, how could it not impact the deficit, common sense pure and simple if you ask me. No taxes for it, well, how can it be paid for; I know they say savings from the system, but that just isn’t realistic. People were sold that story with Social Security and the system is in collapse.
Look, I don't really care how inefficient they are, if ONE MORE child dies because she couldn't get needed vaccinations, ONE MORE child dies of pneumonia, ONE MORE child dies because of no access to insulin. IF Congress is doing bad things, it is OUR fault, not the child's.
I do care if government is inefficient. Inefficient leadership will not get ONE LESS child to die because how will inefficiency bring those children the vaccines or insulin they desperately need? You are right, it is OUR fault, not the child's, that we let government get bloated and inefficient.
Take a look at the H1N1 vaccine shortage. Poor planning has lead to people not getting access to a vaccine, this is a worldwide issue that just rings of inefficiency in dealing with a pandemic. Who do I blame, US for not demanding better of the leadership to prepare if need be.
Refusing to provide health care KILLS people. It doesn't matter which specious reason you choose. If you refuse it on the grounds of government inefficiency, you are approving those deaths as surely as any fictional conservative 'death panel.'
I never said we should refuse to provide health care. The current state of the economy, world wide economy, is not some specious reason to have pause for our government taking on health care at this particular moment. People are in need of jobs, what good is medical care going to do for anyone without jobs or a stable economy to support it by people being able taxes for any government health care initiated. If people don't work and pay taxes, how will they pay for health care, even government run?
As for these conservative "death panels," that has not been something I have mentioned I believe, for the record. Funny, you support health care but do not support education initiates, isn't that depriving children of an education?
"what good is medical care going to do for anyone without job" ?
Maybe keep them alive and or healthy enough to GET a job if things ever get better--which it won't until we rein in big business like insurance companies. COme to think of it, its a two-fer that way.
I didn't SAY you believed in death panels. I SAID they were a conservative fiction.
Ah, but if no one is working, how do we pay for it if no one can pay taxes if they don't work. Actually, as I type that I realize I am getting into "which came first, the chicken or the egg territory," funny that happened.
Oh, and I know insurance companies are in need of some major changes, but do I think our government will be any better or end up any less corrupt, think of all the Medicare/Medicaid fraud that goes on, very sad and doesn't bode well for government running things any better.
Good to know you aren't say I believe in death panels, just wanted to clear up my thoughts on those.
you are frankly not old enough to remember an America where our governmental safeguards worked. The ones left (like FDA, Dept Ag) have been corrupted beyond salvaging by--being run by Big Business.And the deregulation of business that allowed insurance, banking, utilities, and big oil, to name a few, to gouge the average American unmercifully kinda put the cherry on top.
True enough, I was born during the oil shortage, stagflation, etc. under Carter, not great times in America. But we have seen several Democratic administrations come and go, a heavily Democratic Congress for the better part of the years since the New Deal; and they contributed to the problem as much as any Republican administration or Congress.
You expect private companies to make the vaccine manufacturing facilities? It is wasteful when they are not used, so we pay for it by government ownership/subsidies (taxes), or through higher prescription charges. Right wingers here have argued the H1N1 was a hoax and the governments shouldn't do anything, they are quiet now or blaming Obama for the lack of planning....
I certainly don't expect the companies to build the facilities, however, I wonder now that there is a vaccine why there is the hold up on production in November of this year. I for my part do not think H1N1 is a hoax, in fact I believe I talked about the historical context of the timing for such a pandemic to occur. Historically the evidence of such pandemics occurring is there, and the flu is a disease that provides fertile ground for mutations like we have seen with H1N1.
As for this crazy right winger blaming Obama, nah, he was just too busy meeting with the SEIU leader Andy Stern 22 times (about twice a month if my math is correct), I completely understand (said with tongue firmly planted in cheek). Hum, Bush and his relationship with oil executives, Obama and his relationship with labor leaders, what is the difference? How is one vilified and the other just shrugged off I wonder, crazy right winger girl again just pondering, please forgive me as I have a too right wing moment there, I do try to keep those to a minimum.
I think you need spend 30 minutes and look into how the vaccine is made and who makes it. They knew they wouldn't be able to make this Northern hemisphere flu season even before they identified the strain.
I think Bush was a sad excuse for a president and made the world a more dangerous place.
Wouldn't that be the WHO?
Just pointing out had Bush meet with anyone like Obama did 22 times in the span of 10 months, well, I could only imagine. Bush, bad, good, evil, whatever, he is no longer president and as such now it is time we focus on what the current administration is doing. Blaming Bush, well, let's take a look at policies and mistakes from all previous administrations, again we can be sure to find things to vilify about many previous presidents.
Like I said, have a look what goes into making the flu shot and then think what you want your government to do to make vaccines faster next time and at what cost. There will be another virus more deadly then H1N1 could be this year, could be next century, no one knows...
Very true, viruses prove to be adaptive suckers for sure. It certainly shouldn't be a hide the vaccine so someone can get rich thing for sure, but have you received the H1N1 vaccine in Canada? What did the Canadian government do that the US government failed to do in this instance.
The vaccine is here, I believe about 1/4 of the population has been vaccinated. Canada chose a single supplier that makes the vaccine here in Canada, so that no foreign nation could confiscate the vaccine, that Canada ordered, for it's own people. There is still a shortage and I wish we had the vaccine available when H1N1 was first reported. As for me, I might take my son in next week as they just made it generally available to every one this week. It means we will get two flu shots this year, although I suspect I might already have just had H1N1 earlier this week. The flu shots are free to us (well paid by our taxes, so not totally free)
I know here there obviously there is a shortage as well, and high risk people are the only one's able to get the H1N1 shot that is available now, although our government ordered so much for us. I am going to get vaccinated as soon as I can. In fact I actually got my first regular seasonal flu shot this year, $10 bucks at Walgreens with my insurance ($25 without), so I didn't do badly. I asked and Walgreens said the H1N1 vaccine will actually be cheaper, about $18 without insurance and probably $10 or so with insurance.
There are many things wrong with your system and there is no perfect solution.
For instance "Currently, the U.S., as a purchaser of pharmaceuticals, negotiates some drug prices but is forbidden by law from negotiating drug prices for the Medicare program due to a Medicare bill passed by the Republican-controlled 109th Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2005." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#Prescription_drug_prices
So much for Republicans wanting a more efficient system... And the Democrats who are now in power are not even trying to reverse that law, yet Obama somehow was given a 80 billion dollar discount by the pharmaceutical companies...