Big 3

[dr_mabeuse]

DOC

There is a roll for government in all of this without government becoming the provider of services.

No one is suggesting that the government become the provider of services, damn it!

The government gets the bill, that's all. The Government isn't going to be running hospitals or clinics. You'll keep your same old doctor. You and he make the decisions. It's your insurance that will change. You'll be insured by the U.S. Government instead of Blue Cross or Humana or whoever you have. You can't be turned down and your premiums will come out of general revenues and will cost you much less than what you're paying now.

 

[jeninflorida]

I have to say that Chris Doll said something that impressed me, why are we demanding cuts from the big 3 but nothing from AIG and the others?

from one of my friends

"Even after the collapse of AIG the executive committee at AIG has set aside $600 million dollars for bonuses. Goldman Sachs has set aside $6.8 billion dollars, Morgan Stanley set aside $6.4 billion, and Merrill Lynch has set aside $6.7 billion dollars. There was no uproar in congress about these bonuses even though these companies enjoyed robbing the American taxpayer for a combined one trillion dollars in “The Bail Out.” Where was the Media, they always focused on the negative but failed to mention the tidal wave of bonus! In a way this money for the bonuses came out of the tax payer pocket and into the pocket of corrupt or ignorant Wall Street CEO’s. Does the CEO of Morgan Stanley need a three million dollar bonus when he issued the orders to terminate three thousand employees? Why didn’t the media pick up on the bonus issue after all each of these people were responsible in some way for this mess to begin with? Guess that the media was focused on other negative issues which helped fuel fears and destroyed consumer confidence."

JEN

Union officials dont care about unemployment. Union membership exists to be exploited by union officials. Sometimes union officials play both sides, that is accept bribes from companies to work against union demands for pay increases etc. The union I belonged to stole the pension fund.

 

[jeninflorida]

on the flip side, if i take my own money and start a business....hire someone and realize that i made a mistake, I want the right to let the person go. I don't have a million dollars sitting in a checking account so every dollar would count.

Unless management takes a dislike to them. Or just happens to be in a pissy mood that day. Or decides to make an example of someone pour les encouragment les autres.

'Right to Work' means 'Right to be property'.

 

[jeninflorida]

is it really a southern issue? or that jack ass Ron Gettelfinger? GM is in a world of hurt...

But zoot, many southern politicians don't have to try to destroy a union...that's what I meant in my post. Unions implode here. You're attributing motives to them that don't exist.

Until laws change here (like, when hell freezes over), there's no benefit to joining a union in a Right to Work state, since even if a union does manage to organize a shop, someone who doesn't join gets the same benefits without paying the exorbitant dues, and can't be shut out of a job.

 

[jeninflorida]

I work with a bunch of guys from the Ukraine and they are making fun of us. As their country moves from socialism America is moving to socialism.

DOC

Let's examine your thesis for its vitality.

Everyone loves Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security. The government manages all three programs. And all three are going bankrupt because of government malpractice. That is, the government borrowed all of the money that these programs collected in excess of operating expenses. They work okay now, but the piper must be paid when my generation retires. Unemployment is bankrupting my state because more people now qualify for Medicaid.

These programs are, for all intents and purposes, Ponzi Schemes that are illegal if you or I try and do the same thing.

BAILOUTS.

Since Spring the US Government has spent more money on bailouts for banks and Wall Street than it spent fighting World War II. In today's dollars WWII cost 3.5 Trillion. The bailouts will total 7 Trillion.

NOW!

There is a roll for government in all of this without government becoming the provider of services.

Governor Crist recently did what I suggested be done long ago. He created a program to provide uninsured residents with affordable insurance. Here's how it works:

Insurance companies furnished the State with 25 different policies that range in cost from $23 to $310 per month. The $23 policy is basic medical care...ONE physical, TWO E/R visits, FIVE primary care appointments, 80% inpatient. A family of 4 gets coverage for less than $100. All the state does is manage the program and deal with the insurance companies. The state doesnt decide what care you get. You decide THAT.

The problem with insurance is employers dont want you to get it because it costs them money. If comapnies actually offered workers affordable insurance, people might sign up for it. So companies offer expensive plans, betting that you wont take it. And most young people dont.

 

[xssve]

I'd rather see money going into healthcare taht would help American business becoem more competitive, than into bailouts that are unlikely to change anything, and most likely just set us up for the next big bubble.

Yes, there is always fraud, it's an ongoing problem in any system of government or business - what the hell was the mortgage meltdown about other than widespread, rampant fraud in the private sector?

I didn't hear any conservative screaming about that while it was happening, they were gushing about profits and growth as usual, while we can presume they'll follow healthcare fraud like hawks, and that's pretty much what you have to do, there is no sort of investment you can make on a large scale that you can afford to assume will not require constant monitoring, there is no such thing as "set and forget", the assumption behind deregulation, it's a conservative myth, and we've recently seen the all too predictable result.

Sorry, it's never either simple or easy: ignoring the complexities and pretending it is generally just makes the eventual mess even more disastrous, it's never as simple as it looks, and the areas where I look for developing crisis's are the areas where everybody has stopped paying attention.

When the Cat's away...

 

[jeninflorida]

yikes socialist health care....will this end up being the next social security nightmare? how short is the fund for social secuirty? the last thing we need is for the goverment to get its hands on health care

I'd rather see money going into healthcare taht would help American business becoem more competitive, than into bailouts that are unlikely to change anything, and most likely just set us up for the next big bubble.

Yes, there is always fraud, it's an ongoing problem in any system of government or business - what the hell was the mortgage meltdown about other than widespread, rampant fraud in the private sector?

I didn't hear any conservative screaming about that while it was happening, they were gushing about profits and growth as usual, while we can presume they'll follow healthcare fraud like hawks, and that's pretty much what you have to do, there is no sort of investment you can make on a large scale that you can afford to assume will not require constant monitoring, there is no such thing as "set and forget", the assumption behind deregulation, it's a conservative myth, and we've recently seen the all too predictable result.

Sorry, it's never either simple or easy: ignoring the complexities and pretending it is generally just makes the eventual mess even more disastrous, it's never as simple as it looks, and the areas where I look for developing crisis's are the areas where everybody has stopped paying attention.

When the Cat's away...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DOC

No, sir!

I worked for the government. When the government runs things they can change the rules when they want to and however it suits them. A few examples:

The government changed the number of work credits we needed for vestment in the pension.

The government reduced the number of work credits employees could cash-out at retirement or use as annual leave .... that is, the government awarded compensatory annual leave in lieu of overtime pay, then confiscated the annual leave when your fund of annual leave reached a specific amount. If your fund of annual leave was at the maximum amount, then overtime was for free. When I retired the government kept almost 1000 hours of my accrued leave....6 months pay. At my level of seniority, I was acquiring annual leave faster than I could use it....5 weeks per year.

The government changed the age people can retire and collect social security.

Government will do the same with medical benefits....change things to suit itself.

 

[jeninflorida]

James, I'm glad that you have a stable job and wish you nothing but the best....

what irks me about our local government is how fat they became in the past 5 years. Property values went thought he roof and so did the taxes....now as the market has collapsed the government is trying to keep takes at the same rate. florida voted to reduce taxes and some scum bags found loop holes keeping takes inflated....

DOC

No, sir!

I worked for the government. When the government runs things they can change the rules when they want to and however it suits them. A few examples:

The government changed the number of work credits we needed for vestment in the pension.

The government reduced the number of work credits employees could cash-out at retirement or use as annual leave .... that is, the government awarded compensatory annual leave in lieu of overtime pay, then confiscated the annual leave when your fund of annual leave reached a specific amount. If your fund of annual leave was at the maximum amount, then overtime was for free. When I retired the government kept almost 1000 hours of my accrued leave....6 months pay. At my level of seniority, I was acquiring annual leave faster than I could use it....5 weeks per year.

The government changed the age people can retire and collect social security.

Government will do the same with medical benefits....change things to suit itself.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JEN

I'm not working.

Government exists to take money from YOU and give it to political patrons who fund election campaigns. So far as the politicians care, citizens are accounts receivable, and special interests are accounts payable.

 

[jeninflorida]

god i hate it when your are right.

I just don't understand goverment, i.e. in florida we have a state standard called the fcat...for better or wrose. most of the school year kids study for the fcat. since no school dist. has much input in what kids are taught, why not combine all the dist into 1? talk about savings, 1/2 can go back into the school system and 1/2 can go back to the tax payer!

JEN

I'm not working.

Government exists to take money from YOU and give it to political patrons who fund election campaigns. So far as the politicians care, citizens are accounts receivable, and special interests are accounts payable.

 

[R. Richard]

yikes socialist health care....will this end up being the next social security nightmare? how short is the fund for social secuirty? the last thing we need is for the goverment to get its hands on health care

There is NO MONEY in the Social Security fund. The government takes the mone out of the SS fund and apends it on people who will vote for them. The SS money comes out of the General Fund. When there's not enough money to pay the retirees, the government either has to raise taxes a bunch or cut SS payments.

The government can't raise taxes on the poor, they don't have the money. The government can't practically raise taxes on the rich. The rich will pay only a certain amount of taxes before they either legally/illegally cheat or leave the high tax area. That means the long suffering middle class will either have to pay bigtime or abandon the elderly to eat dog food.

 

[jeninflorida]

Can't wait for universial health care!

There is NO MONEY in the Social Security fund. The government takes the mone out of the SS fund and apends it on people who will vote for them. The SS money comes out of the General Fund. When there's not enough money to pay the retirees, the government either has to raise taxes a bunch or cut SS payments.

The government can't raise taxes on the poor, they don't have the money. The government can't practically raise taxes on the rich. The rich will pay only a certain amount of taxes before they either legally/illegally cheat or leave the high tax area. That means the long suffering middle class will either have to pay bigtime or abandon the elderly to eat dog food.

 

[jeninflorida]

Can't wait for universial health care

There is NO MONEY in the Social Security fund. The government takes the mone out of the SS fund and apends it on people who will vote for them. The SS money comes out of the General Fund. When there's not enough money to pay the retirees, the government either has to raise taxes a bunch or cut SS payments.

The government can't raise taxes on the poor, they don't have the money. The government can't practically raise taxes on the rich. The rich will pay only a certain amount of taxes before they either legally/illegally cheat or leave the high tax area. That means the long suffering middle class will either have to pay bigtime or abandon the elderly to eat dog food.

 

[off2bed]

What makes you think there's money for universal health care?

Taxes are not a static thing. Raising taxes ( I assume that means increasing the percentage they take from us) is inflationary and dampens the whole economy, which in the end reduces the amount of income available to tax; it's counterproductive. Supply and demand. Raise prices and you get fewer customers. It's not just rich people finding loopholes, they actually do earn less due to reduced dividends on investments, reduced bonuses, and reduced salaries.

You can collect a dollar from ten million people, or collect a thousand dollars from ten thousand people. What makes more sense? Which is better for everyone?

Taxation as practiced in America is not about raising revenue, it's about acquiring and keeping and expanding political power.

 

[jeninflorida]

it pisses me off when I look at what we pay in taxes. first we have income tax...then property tax. what really sucks is having two homes in the same county as you pay double the taxes for little bennies. when i bitched to the tax office...well they just had glass eyes. i can see if someone rents out a second home then yes, that rental house should pay the same local taxes. hoever, if one does not rent out a second home in the same county then why should they pay full taxes?

I'm starting to understand all the snow birds upset about school taxes. the taxes for the school dist are totally out of hand....yes this is coming from someone with no kids.

What makes you think there's money for universal health care?

Taxes are not a static thing. Raising taxes ( I assume that means increasing the percentage they take from us) is inflationary and dampens the whole economy, which in the end reduces the amount of income available to tax; it's counterproductive. Supply and demand. Raise prices and you get fewer customers.

You can collect a dollar from ten million people, or collect a thousand dollars from ten thousand people. What makes more sense? Which is better for everyone?

Taxation is not about raising revenue, it's about acquiring and keeping and expanding political power.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JEN

No democracy can survive once a nation's financial policies are determined by politics.

Washington is playing with fire because most people know there will be no bailout for them and the government has abandoned them to whatever fate awaits them.

Right now, most Americans act like Jews waiting to be gassed and cremated.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

DOC

No, sir!

I worked for the government. When the government runs things they can change the rules when they want to and however it suits them. A few examples:

The government changed the number of work credits we needed for vestment in the pension.

The government reduced the number of work credits employees could cash-out at retirement or use as annual leave .... that is, the government awarded compensatory annual leave in lieu of overtime pay, then confiscated the annual leave when your fund of annual leave reached a specific amount. If your fund of annual leave was at the maximum amount, then overtime was for free. When I retired the government kept almost 1000 hours of my accrued leave....6 months pay. At my level of seniority, I was acquiring annual leave faster than I could use it....5 weeks per year.

The government changed the age people can retire and collect social security.

Government will do the same with medical benefits....change things to suit itself.

Yeah. And private insurers don't do this?

Give me a fucking break. At least we can vote the lawmakers who change the rules out of office.

There's not a thing we can go about private health insurance except take it up the ass.

Try and get private health insurance with a pre-existing condition. You can't. So much for the fucking free market.

 

[jeninflorida]

I agree with you, if you have a pre-existing condition finding insurance .... is impossible....the only way is if you go to work for a larger company. my husband has a pre-existing condition but we still want to keep our private insurance. i do know that its hard, Cobra killed us for 4 months this year

Yeah. And private insurers don't do this?

Give me a fucking break. At least we can vote the lawmakers who change the rules out of office.

There's not a thing we can go about private health insurance except take it up the ass.

Try and get private health insurance with a pre-existing condition. You can't. So much for the fucking free market.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DOC

Covering pre-exisiting conditions isnt insurance, is it? I cant name an insurance company that will cover a house thats destroyed by fire or a car wreck after the fact. You are mixing insurance up with charity.

I mean, we could be covering medical needs rather than helping fat cat bankers and auto execs.

 

[ishtat]

DOC

Covering pre-exisiting conditions isnt insurance, is it? I cant name an insurance company that will cover a house thats destroyed by fire or a car wreck after the fact. You are mixing insurance up with charity.

I mean, we could be covering medical needs rather than helping fat cat bankers and auto execs.

If all the insurers were required to provide cover for pre existing conditions it would work well like it does in OZ ,Switzerland, Germany, Singapore and many others. A rational approach might be to have the existing insurance industry act as fund administrators for the government and require them to issue a policy with a specified set of minimum benefits. They the insurers can then compete on service differentiation and extras coverage.

A major problem in the USA is that much of insurance regulation is the responsibility of the states rather than the federal government. The cost of putting in a new infrastructure without utilising the insurance companies and the states would be prohibitive.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ISHTAT

The Founders organized America as a bi-sovereign nation. The Federal Government would handle all interstate and foreign affairs, and the States would handle all their internal concerns. There wasnt much overlap until the end of our Civil War. Constitution Framer James Madison made it clear there was nothing in the Constitution pertaining to General Welfare, the US wasnt a commonwealth at that time.

The dual sovereignty works because it allows minorities to create social policies at odds with the national polity. Thus States like Massachusetts and others can legalize gay marriage though a majority of Americans oppose it. That is dual sovereignty allows America to test pilot programs before theyre adopted or rejected by the Federal Government. The same idea holds for insurance.

If the nation adopts universal healthcare you can bet that the coverage will be significantly less than many people want, and a lot more than others prefer.

 

[jeninflorida]

one thing that I wish we would learn from Germany, if the Dr says that you can work you must work...

If all the insurers were required to provide cover for pre existing conditions it would work well like it does in OZ ,Switzerland, Germany, Singapore and many others. A rational approach might be to have the existing insurance industry act as fund administrators for the government and require them to issue a policy with a specified set of minimum benefits. They the insurers can then compete on service differentiation and extras coverage.

A major problem in the USA is that much of insurance regulation is the responsibility of the states rather than the federal government. The cost of putting in a new infrastructure without utilising the insurance companies and the states would be prohibitive.

 

[jeninflorida]

I have two neighbors from the UK, they live here part time...sure they come for the weather but the big part is for our health care system. they are able to get in to the dr asap and have better care then they would get in the uk. granted these are people with means....

maybe that is the point, for those that have means he or she wants private health care....maybe that will be part of the plan, where you can purchase additional coverage...but if we put in socialst health care and a Dr. pay is cut from $600,000 down to $120,000 will that Dr. stay in America? what if they could move to another country and earn the same $600,000? wonder how many Dr.'s would leave?

ISHTAT

The Founders organized America as a bi-sovereign nation. The Federal Government would handle all interstate and foreign affairs, and the States would handle all their internal concerns. There wasnt much overlap until the end of our Civil War. Constitution Framer James Madison made it clear there was nothing in the Constitution pertaining to General Welfare, the US wasnt a commonwealth at that time.

The dual sovereignty works because it allows minorities to create social policies at odds with the national polity. Thus States like Massachusetts and others can legalize gay marriage though a majority of Americans oppose it. That is dual sovereignty allows America to test pilot programs before theyre adopted or rejected by the Federal Government. The same idea holds for insurance.

If the nation adopts universal healthcare you can bet that the coverage will be significantly less than many people want, and a lot more than others prefer.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JEN

Take it to the bank, if we go to universal healthcare the politicians and fat cats will get better care than everyone else, regardless of the rules. I cant imagine Hillary or Nancy Pelosi getting in line and waiting patiently to see the MD.