Agree, but those obscene bonus should be controlled through regulations not some economics major working for the government deciding on what and when they should get paid. Maybe put into law that all publicly held companies are to notify each and every stock holder at least 90 days in advance before any raise or bonus is given and to whom... Then when stock holder voting time comes around all officers and what they have been paid year to date are listed and the same for people wanting those positions, the stock holders can kick their butts out... If I own a stock and it hasn't been performing well and the CEO is getting a 10 million dollar bonus....he's outta here.. That is the American way! PS: And for campaign finance and the lobbyist...only one answer...TERM LIMITS.
Sorry that is American Capitalism like it or not! That is what makes the world revolve around us. But I do not worry about that at all, cause, whats the saying? Oh!, the market will balance itself!!! Oh, and don't worry about those imported tax free items, most are going to US companies anyway, and they will with their profits they will invest in more jobs for the the US (lol, wink wink, jus keeeding, etc) Real americans must have faith in our capitalist society. Oh, and I am a yay vote for the Health Care, even though my employer pays 100% for my PPO.
That wily bastard Obama. No matter what happens we are going to have a change in healthcare which is exactly what he wants Have a plan, multiply it by 10 to just short of ludicrous, float the idea and everyone gets their panties all in a wad, debate and debate, counterproposal and counterproposal and everyone gets there say and we get some sort of health insurance for those that don't have any. Brilliant.......classic negotiation
Couple thoughts.. every time I see this thread, I just want to say "NAY" to healthcare! Just to be contrary..... But then I have a two year old who is already close to uninsurable now. Under the current system, as soon as she's out from under the protective wings of our family health plan she's screwed. she had a form of cancer this summer, the mother of all pre-existing conditions. This means that if a re-currence occurs later in life, it will all be out of pocket or if she has to buy her own insurance out of a large pool it will both exclude the recurrance and be massively expensive. Either way she'd be locked out of even the possibility of getting any type of coverage. To put it bluntly, if things don't change, she's screwed. I really like the idea of the social contract, shared sacrafice for shared benefit (heck, that's what got us all to start forming groups in the first place!). Seems to be a lost concept now. Oh well. Matt
you know we are going to pay for this one way or the other. Whether it's from added taxes on whatever congress comes up with or all the indirect costs we are all paying now which if unchecked will just continue to escalate. Sorry to hear about your daughter. In your shoes like allot of other americans they have to be pulling for this. Present system leaves those like your daughter in the shitter.
Matt - yikes. Personally, I'm all for: * creating true insurance portability (breaking the tie to employment), so an individual / family unit has the ability to keep the same insurance "forever", once enrolled * eliminating cancellations and pre-existing conditions, with practical controls (e.g. no gaming the system), and creation of groups with a manageable blend of high risk and lower risk enrollees. Part of this is reducing existing regulation (employer tax code incentives for employer-provided insurance) and part is adding a bit of regulation, which will drive rates up a bit (yes, I really said that). What I'm *not* for is making any of this "compulsory" at an individual level. If an individual wants to take their chances, and face the consequences later (20 years of medical bills, garnished wages, etc.) then so be it. Yes, that means that we don't get to subsidize the aging and the chronically ill using dollars from all the healthy twentysomethings. It's a free country. Let them enjoy their reckless, greedy youth - the harsh reality of middle age will catch up with them quick enough - no need to tax them to death during the "happy" years. I'm also fine with extending an existing program such as Medicaid to cover *catastrophic* costs for those who are otherwise not insurable - like perhaps your daughter. I'm not *that* much of a cold hearted bastard. This is part of the social contract that I can live with. And, after all, catastrophic expenses are what "insurance" is intended for - not routine medical expenses. Yes, that will cost money. But at least then, we're actually focusing on the small percentage of folks where there is a legitimate problem in the current system, vs. re-engineering the bulk of the system to address these cases.
There is to much gaming of the system. Recently read this article in Forbes while enjoying a drink on the veranda... Unhealthy Health Savings Accounts - Forbes.com This is the crap that's killing us all financially. Wall Street figures yet another little plan that looks harmless till you realize what the details are and that in the end you ain't making squat cause others are eating away at gains with management fees and kickbacks.
I'm all for taking steps to prevent these shenanigans... leveraging the free market to prevent it - uncoupling HSAs from insurance companies, and allowing companies to compete for my HSA account just like they compete for my checking account and my IRA. Personally, my HSA is FANTASTIC. No complaints. My healthcare premiums, while certainly not as low as I'd like, are significantly lower than they would be otherwise, I use the HSA to fund my first $2000 out of pocket every year, and have some extra funds accumulating in the HSA to handle costs beyond what my insurance would cover. Not earning a ton of returns - but I don't have a big balance there, either. And it's not an investment account - it's a healthcare "rainy day" fund. My biggest concern is portability - considering a change in employer after many years... and hate the prospect of how that will impact my insurance, HSA, etc.
Learned something today... So, there wasn't employer provided health care till WWII. During the war, there was a wage freeze. Giving health insurance was a way to attract talent, and didn't violate the wage freeze. When congress made the benefit tax free, it pretty much cemented the empoyer provided health care system into the US economy. At it's peak, it covered about 60% of our population, now it's down to about 40%. But the consiquece of how we ended up where we are (which wasn't by intelligent planning, but rather accident) is that we've gotten a system where people get locked into jobs because they can't change jobs without getting screwed by health insurance constraints. Really if you think about it, commercial insurance isn't about the most efficient delivery of services to the population, nor the national health, nor minimizing costs. It's about maximizing profits. If that is in conflict with the national goals of a low cost accessible health care, so be it, their duty is to the shareholders. So now we have a system where the providers of health care are not alligned with the desired interests of the population, cost minimization or any other communal interest. What do we do? How can a market construct of private interests be alligned with the national good? Is it even possible? Is the assumption that allowing the market to maximize efficiency through competition netting enough efficiency that the profits generated don't offset the savings generated by competitive forces justifiable? Based on the numbers that we've seen through our existing system, personally I don't think that this is working out to well for us. It is an open question if any of the proposed options can actually make things better or whether this is some sort of optimal situation. Comparing what we have to what other nations seem to be able to manage makes a compelling case that there are better ways to get it done. That's not to say that other systems don't have problems, but it seems that those that want to protect the status quo are using the arguement that change doesn't create perfection so it's not worth trying. We're screwed. Matt
Nothing is perfect, some things are just less bad than others. Whats wrong with working towards a less bad solution that we can take a look at a few years out and tweak to make even more less bad. All these scare tactic ad's are taking the worst of worst and twisting them to suit their needs. A real honest debate is whats needed, not parading a Canadian that got screwed cause of some weirdness. Then we have the people or entities that are making the biggest profits right now, They sure don't want to see their model changed. The CEO's might make a few million less and have to settle for a 90ft yacht instead of the 120ft one.
i currently am not on any health insurance. reason being, insurance company says they have to terminate my insurance (oct31, already passed) because i do not have a full class schedule, aka 12 units at Mt. SAC. so because i am not enrolled in 12 units, i dont get health insurance until i am enrolled in 12 units of classes, which wont be until next spring semester (late feb-mid june). BUT. i was not able to enroll myself in 12 units this fall semester BECAUSE of this insane ridiculous budget cut that the colleges have suffered. specifically at Mt. SAC, 50% budget cut. its freakin terrible. so, anyways, if i was able to add that one math class that i so desperately need, i'd have my 12 units and i'd be insured. but sadly enough, people had an earlier priority registration date than me and therefore beat me to it. leaving me with ony 7 units this semester, whicih also leaves me with no health insurance. and because i have no health insurance, i couldnt get my physical that i was suppose to have today, which doesnt help my chances of getting any vaccinations i might possibly need, including the infamous H1N1 pandemic flu. i dont want to get sick, i can't afford to get sick or physically hurt from now until march. :cryin:
Well, I wish that question would have been on the Pew Poll, because I already knew where employer health insurance came from, and I would have outscored you. :lol: I'm not going to argue for one second that the system can't be improved. It clearly can. The whole employer-based system needs to be blown up and restructured as individuals buying into group pools, interacting directly with the insurers (and HSA managers), and with "insurance" actually being "insurance" - protection against unexpected and catastrophic expenses. Insurance should NOT be paying for my allergy meds, or physical exams, or scraped knees, or antibiotics for sinus infections. That's what HSA's are for. If I get cancer, or have a heart attack, or fall off a building... different story. I hear what you're saying about "profit motive" vs. "national good". But, Matt, seriously, I'm trusting that your profit motive is going to yield a good and effective top-down circuit for my cabrio. I trust that your profit motive is an incentive for you to make a product that works, and that you care about your reputation in the market and thus will stand behind the product if it has a problem. The reason this works is that there is a direct relationship between me and you (or me and your reseller); there is complete transparency regarding how it works, what it does, what it costs, what it does NOT do, etc.; and I personally am paying for it with my funds, not magically getting it for free, or having someone else worry about what it costs and paying for it on my behalf. This system works quite well for many things - the food you eat at a restaurant, the vegetables you buy at the farmers' market, your automobile, your automobile insurance, your property insurance, your home, your clothing, air travel, my kid's Tae Kwon Do lessons, and many more. Many of these are complex and/or vitally important things. The current insurance AND healthcare systems have largely eliminated the three fundamentals I listed above: direct relationship, transparency, and direct payment. And this breaks the market dynamics that balance profit motive of the producer with the interests of the consumer. And you get what we have as a result - with all its warts. But reforming the system to solve these problems doesn't require 1900 pages of new law, over 100 new federal bureaucracies, me subsidizing healthcare costs for those making up to 400% of the poverty level, creating a new federal entitlement with a 10 year cost of $1.8 trillion while the nation is in a deep recession, further growing the national debt that either our children will repay or we will default on, and laying the groundwork for our benevolent government to be able to tell me what I must eat, how much I can drink, how much I must weigh, how much I must exercise.... in the interest of the "national good". I don't want any part of that - it's not liberty. And there's no reason the IRS should be extracting a fine from me if I refuse to take part in it. I agree - plenty of dishonesty on both sides of this "debate" in Washington. But our President talking about what "my plan" will and won't do... when he has NO plan... and when Pelosi's plan (who he outsourced this business to) does exactly the things he says "his" plan "won't do".... it's disingenuous at best... and a lie at worst. "if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance".... true, if my employer doesn't dump it because the fines/public option contributions are less than they pay for my private coverage today. Profit motive says "dump it"! at which time, since insurers will be prohibited from selling individual policies, and i'm required by law to have insurance, I have one option.... the "public option". That's not liberty.
I think we're screwed With the lobbying strength of the insurance industry I cannot see the US Congress pass anything to pull us out of this system. It's too profitable
How about the lobbying strength of the attorneys? The Pelosi bill invalidates existing state tort reform laws (like those in Texas, which have lowered healthcare costs relative to other states...
The politicians only talk about our health care not their health care. I propose they adopt it for them selves and try it out for the rest of their careers in elected public office. We on the other hand get their coverage that they enjoy or keep what we have.
I like the way you think, Norm. Only one problem - we can't afford the healthcare they buy for themselves - would bankrupt the country if we bought it for everyone, it's such a gold-plated plan. Which, by the way, is a private plan - not run by the government. Hmmmmm.