More from Carol

This is an ongoing discussion with Carol. It originated as a healthcare discussion, but tends to deviate somewhat into a more general political discussion. My comments are in italics.


ACS


Well, yes, for example, Clark Air Base was closed and the volcano did erupt. But, I wouldn't blow it off as a "project," as many lives and planes...were saved. Cushy is not the right word to explain this type of work.

In business terms, it was a "project". A cushy job has a high resistance to being fired, a high salary, and little absolute responsibility for results. I don't know whether your job was cushy or not.




Wall Street, read greed, originated the sub-prime market crisis; the
government's lack of regulatory prowess at that point in time,
influenced those decisions. It was like the S&L crisis in the 80s; same reason; same type of administration "believing" the market will police itself. Not where there's serious money to be made. Temporary profitsmay never come ahead of destroying the economy. Under the previous administration, the same executives that contributed to the crash were financially rewarded. I hope you don't hold those travesties on an equal footing with the average union worker. However, our whole economic base has changed with most manufacturing companies relocating in foreign
 areas, with tax breaks, where the environmental laws and pay scales are less "challenging." The buck always stops at the top. Your statement about government controllers is unclear. Whom do you mean and what role did they play?

I generally agree with all you say here. Don't chastise greed too much. It is a motivator to progress. Government has a regulatory responsibility to control the excess, and it has shown itself to be very poor in this respect. No. The average union worker does not have the same control for his financial remuneration as corporate executives. He must do this through his union bosses, but his motivation is the same. It is human nature and an innate fundamental of capitalism. I don't remember what I said about government controllers, but it is the same as regulatory agencies. It's the same people who we have agreed have not done their job in the past, and will likely not doing well in the future.

Who is most of us that don't believe what President Obama says and writes?

Look at Glenn Beck and Huckabee on TV and listen to "talk radio".

Any person has to prove themselves untrustworthy, mostly by
actions. What has he done (or said) to garner that type of distrust?

He and Congress have put us into horrible debt. He has done the preliminary part of taking over private enterprise in banking and automotive manufacturer. He is now striving hard to take over private enterprise in healthcare insurance.

The majority of Americans elected him; the majority of Americans want health care reform to fix a very broken system.

The majority of Americans elected him for several reasons. He is an excellent speaker. His speeches give hope and promise to the masses for the new Shangri-La. People generally like fairy stories and many believe them. The previous administration was a bust. Bush did a few good things but most of what he did was foolish. Congress was equally inept. Many whites had guilty consciences for previous persecution of blacks in which to make restitution. Young whites generally wish to show their open-mindedness by favoring blackness. The total time was right for a black president, and Obama is it. Americans don't want health care reform. They want free stuff and many still believe Pres. Obama will give it to them.

If you analyze your comments thus far, there is an underlying...."government is bad; business is good." Hmmm, not always in my experience. And, no I don't know what my future opinions will be, but it will be based on actions taken by the government.

Yes. Business is generally good. It has provided for our superior standard of living. Plenty of food. Good housing. Nice automobiles to travel in. Money for comfortable living in retirement. And, a bunch of other things. Think about it. Government is generally restrictive. It tends to invade areas where restriction is not necessary, and it does not do a good job in areas where restriction is necessary. It does not provide transportation, food, housing, etc. It is not supposed to. Its function is to oversee so that businesses can run smoothly to supply the various goods and services.

Wow, the fundamental difference between private and public money is socialism?

I believe you may have missed the point here. Perhaps an example will explain it. If I have $10 and wish to contribute it to my church, that is my use of private money. If I have the same $10 and government says that they will now collect it so that it will be a part of paying off the national debt, welfare subsistence, health care for all, or whatever, my $10 then becomes public money. That is, I am forced to give it to the government. I have no choice in the matter of giving it, nor do I have a choice in how it is spent. That is socialism

Public money is being dispersed, including the bail-outs, as
economic survival money. I would much rather see Bob get funded than AIG executives. At least Bob will make a public impact for the good of all.

Economic survival money for whom? I have had no part in the collapse of anything, why should my money be confiscated to help the incompetent or the abusive? Neither Bob nor AIG are entitled to my money confiscated by government and distributed to them.

Your comment is laced with cynicism.

No. I am not a cynic. I am a pragmatist. I clearly understand what is going on. Who is suckering who. How it is being done. And, how people are brainwashed into being dupes.

As to government employees not agreeing on its disposition, the parameters of the grant preclude their opinions. And, since we write grants, we know the difference between foundation and public money.

Writing grants for public money is somewhat like stealing the gold teeth of the dead. It's there. Why not take it?

Political suicide=cutting off social security payments.

You confuse me on this one.

Unfortunately, some major insurance companies have gotten a lot of publicity lately for NOT paying in accordance with their contracts and for dropping the seriously ill. If these reports were not based in fact, I would expect the insurance companies to provide counter-arguments.
What happens? The spokespersons for the insurance companies cannot be reached for comment.My grandfather and his oldest son...eventually his oldest grandson, own Webster Insurance Agency, so the mechanisms were in our family to observe. The way the insurance business works is that risk is spread among all premium holders, not a single holder with a pre-existing condition as you imply. Many insurance holders rarely use their insurance, which helps pay for those that do.


Insurance companies must abide by the terms of their contracts and can be forced to do so by appropriately placed lawsuits. There are plenty of lawyers around who can force insurance companies to pay according to contract and also be granted damages by juries. I'm also quite familiar with the way insurance companies work. It is a pool operation to distribute the risk among a number of clients. The insurance companies profit is a fee for running the pool.

The analogy between Australia and New Zealand was drawn because you mentioned the US is headed for socialized medicine. It isn't, because the major insurance companies playing 95% of their role under health care reform are private. In Australia and New Zealand medicine is socialized.

The US is headed for socialized medicine, equivalent to Australia and New Zealand, with your support.

Individuals are not under an edict to take advantage of the choices
offered; but, technically, small businesses are.
In Australia and New Zealand, there is no way to pay for services. BTW,
I worked in both countries and paid their taxes. So, they were not
stupid in not sending a bill. In addition, I had health insurance from
an American company, which would have covered most of the expenses should a bill have been sent to the company. And, no, it did not make me feel like a leech. Do I detect some bitterness in your responses? Do you really understand that all situations have a multiplicity of variables that especially you, as a PhD, are required to analyze before drawing conclusions?

You did not receive the bill for your treatment in Australia, because the cost was paid by Australian citizens  and you as  a taxpayer . Perhaps you feel comfortable in letting Australian citizens pay part of your bill. I see people in the supermarkets buying exotic foods on food stamps, with apparently no remorse for having had other American citizens pay the cost of the food stamps. I'm not bitter about anything. I just said it's unfair for people to take an unreasonable advantage of others. I routinely look at all sides of the situation. Sometimes I miss something.

Well, having majored in pre-med and still having a lot of friends in the profession, they are not as unaware as you think. Most that I personally know understand quite a bit about the political process and how to handle their finances. Of course, there are exceptions. There is a great deal of deviousness in the political and financial arena that have ooled many sophisticated people. But, this deviousness is eventually discovered and becomes a learning experience.

This was a nice statement to which I generally agree.

You left the subsidies out of your discussion for small businesses.
Already, small businesses with employees deduct taxes, worker's comp., etc, so the idea of supporting (if you can afford it) a pool for the public option is miles ahead of taxing every American worker to support the system. Those business people without employees that pay for private insurance currently do not want to pay twice. Companies that currently offer health benefits probably don't have any employees that reject that option and pay high rates for private insurance. What is your suggestion?

There should be no government subsidies for small or large businesses. Business should be able to stand on its own feet of offering a satisfactory product or service for free which the consumer finds acceptable. When taxation is a completely different matter. Private companies owned by individuals. Corporations are owned by stockholders, who are individuals. In both cases, government taxes first the organization and then again taxes the owners of the organization. Does that double taxation seem reasonable to you? I have just you a separate e-mail explaining that in my nephew's company, he has many people who reject the offer of paying $35 every two weeks for health insurance. Based on their salaries they can well afford it. I suppose it is your opinion that my nephew should be paying the $35 as well as the much larger portion that he is already eating. This is not to say that I look with disdain upon those not willing to pay the $35. It should be their choice of freedom.

The President left the door open for viable solutions. If
you have one, contact your congressman/woman, and pass it on.
The number of private insurance holders that may leave their insurance companies for the Public Option would probably cause the present private insurance company to be more competitive rather closing its doors.
That's what usually happens when the private companies' monopoly is challenged.

Yes, I have some proposed solutions. Avoid establishing a Public Option. A Public Option will aid in propelling the US into its continued headlong spiral into complete socialism. Socialism/Communism establishes a public mindset of "gimme", with little incentive to take personal responsibility toward growth and development. Primary examples of recent failures were the USSR, Tito's Yugoslavia, the Laotian massacre, etc. I contact my Representative and Senators with suggestions almost daily. Use of a Public Option will cause private insurance companies to be more competitive, until competition becomes so extreme that they leave the business to only one remaining company, Government Health Insurance. At that point, Government Health Insurance has eliminated all competition, and will do whatever it wishes with respect to service and how it collects its operational funds.

Carol