Are you sick of health care threads yet?

[theresatwist]

I'm not happy with the current system. Too much gvt intrusion and too many ridiculous lawsuits.

 

not usually. again --gvt intrusion/ malpractice insurance are insanely high.

 

altho there is one doc that doesn't take ANY medical coverage and charges $40 for an office visit. That's pretty inline w/ many other sevices offered.

 

 

nope. neither did my fil when he had 5-way bypass surgery a dozen years ago.

 

no. we only go if it's something i can't handle at home: maybe once a year.

 

 

 

i oppose the new bill for the same reasons i oppose the current practice: too much gvt intrusion and forced redistribution of funds. i do understand that many believe that taking money at the point of a gun from person A and giving it to person B is not only right and ethical and moral but also civilised, although i continue to disagree with it.

 

just because it benefits me does not mean i have a right to it.

 

Peek a Boo:

 

I don't know where to start! I think we agree on too many basic premises to possibly get anywhere. Basically I don't think people should have to go into unbelievable amounts of debt or look for alternative treatments (which I would not choose in the case of any serious ailment because I don't believe they work, although I thoroughly support allowing others to have that option) when they are facing some serious disease or injury. Yes, I think society should help to take care of you in that situation because we're all human. Now I do think there should be a limit to what taxpayers are helping with. I don't think you should be able to get a nose job on the taxpayer's dime. I agree with you in that I don't believe the Constitution defines health care as a right. (Although I don't believe the Constitution outlaws it either.) Needless to say, I believe it is a basic human right.

 

Perhaps the fact that you're not dealing with an insurance company explains why we have different views there. I don't trust insurance company executives any more than I trust politicians. They earn their living trying to find loopholes so they won't have to pay for the care I already paid for many times over. Insurance companies have gotten in between me and my doctor countless times. Years ago I spent a semester in school when I was in extreme pain much of the time because the insurance company wouldn't cover the continued treatment I needed or the drugs I was on unless I was a full-time student. I needed the (outrageously expensive) medical care and so I muddled my way through the semester. I did the best I could, but it was a waste of my tuition money.

Edited August 6, 2009 by theresatwist

[dangerdad]

Danger Dad: I'd love to know which polls you've been looking at.

Kaiser Family Foundation, ABC News and USA Today, October 2006 (Oh, and it was 89%, not 80%.)

 

The current bill(s) are not my ideal either, although I think they have the potential to be a slight improvement over the status quo.

I find it to be a complete menace. It would disallow my HSA straight away, and any time your plan changes, you're forced to the public option.

 

I don't know about your point about Canada. From what I understand a huge chunk of what I'm paying goes to insurance executives who are making far larger salaries than both the average general practioner and the average politician and I don't believe they earn it.

From where do you understand it? I find it amazing how quickly people are to judge a job they don't do. Their job is necessary, and will be performed by a beaurocrat rather than an executive. What's the difference?

Edited August 6, 2009 by dangerdad

[Lovedtodeath]

DangerDad... do you have both insurance and a HSA? Does one have to have both?

[BalanceSeeker]

 

Perhaps the fact that you're not dealing with an insurance company explains why we have different views there. I don't trust insurance company executives any more than I trust politicians. They earn their living trying to find loopholes so they won't have to pay for the care I already paid for many times over. Insurance companies have gotten in between me and my doctor countless times. Years ago I spent a semester in school when I was in extreme pain much of the time because the insurance company wouldn't cover the continued treatment I needed or the drugs I was on unless I was a full-time student. I needed the (outrageously expensive) medical care and so I muddled my way through the semester. I did the best I could, but it was a waste of my tuition money.

 

I hope the day comes in the near future where U.S. citizens realize it's not the insurance companies causing these problems you describe (although they aren't perfect). We are being sold a bill of goods. Govt intrusion and frivolous lawsuits are the cause of escalating costs. There are so many govt mandates which makes health care ridiculously expensive. And, it has been proven (in TX) that torte reform lowers overall health care costs. Torte reform is not addressed in the current bill(s) :confused1:. This alone would mean HUGE health care reform. One has to wonder why the thought isn't even entertained when they are selling us on the virtues of cost-containment.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

And, it has been proven (in TX) that torte reform lowers overall health care costs.

sources please?

[dangerdad]

 

DangerDad... do you have both insurance and a HSA? Does one have to have both?

Yes. HSA = Health Savings Account. It has to be paired with a high-deductible insurance plan. My plan is zero copay for doctor visit, but then pay for pharmaceuticals and other things up to an annual maximum. I can pay from the HSA account, and I can contribute to the HSA account before taxes.

[Peek a Boo]

Perhaps the fact that you're not dealing with an insurance company explains why we have different views there. I don't trust insurance company executives any more than I trust politicians. They earn their living trying to find loopholes so they won't have to pay for the care I already paid for many times over. Insurance companies have gotten in between me and my doctor countless times. Years ago I spent a semester in school when I was in extreme pain much of the time because the insurance company wouldn't cover the continued treatment I needed or the drugs I was on unless I was a full-time student. I needed the (outrageously expensive) medical care and so I muddled my way through the semester. I did the best I could, but it was a waste of my tuition money.

 

ah.... but the fact that i don't have insurance at this point doesn't mean I have no experience dealing w/ insurance companies. :) We have had insurance in the past, and I've had to work through The System too. Insurance Company execs are trying to do their job w/ hands tied behind their backs w/ tons of gvt red tape. Why is it we realize that tying of hands w/ red tape with teachers, but refuse to see it w/ other areas that gvt has welded legislative anchors to?

 

Years ago i helped a friend track down dozens of different charitable sources to help fund some issues her insurance company wouldn't cover. It was a lot of work, but it was doable. I'm sorry someone wasn't there to help you track some sources down too. :(

 

I think we agree on too many basic premises to possibly get anywhere. Basically I don't think people should have to go into unbelievable amounts of debt or look for alternative treatments... when they are facing some serious disease or injury.

 

I don't like that some things cost a lot of money either. I'd like to see the industry freed up to make those services more affordable. Red tape is expensive.

 

Yes, I think society should help to take care of you in that situation because we're all human. Now I do think there should be a limit to what taxpayers are helping with. ... Needless to say, I believe it is a basic human right.

 

Someone offered a good definition that a basic right is not dependent on forcing another person to do something to you.

 

The right to life is based not on the premise that you won't die, but on the premise that another does not have the right to intentionally kill you. A right is based on your freedom to act, not on what another person must do TO you. You have a right to SEEK healthcare and to treat yourself; you do NOT have a right to force someone else do something TO you. A right is not a guarantee of success.

A right to healthcare means that if there's one doctor in the city, he would be forced to treat everyone for free-- if indeed healthcare is a RIGHT.

 

 

Society DOES help people facing horrible medical bills, but many that need the help either can't or won't look for it. Plenty refuse help due to pride. There are so many people out there who WANT to help and will give to organizations, but they aren't mind readers: they need to be notified of needs they can meet. How about funneling spending from ART and send it to LIVES instead? We had art loooooong before federal funding......:glare:

 

many doctors volunteer their services to people in countries much poorer than we are. We might have to go into debt to pay for life-saving treatment, but others don't even HAVE the opportunity, even tho they would gladly sacrifice everything they have to obtain such treatment.

[theresatwist]

Kaiser Family Foundation, ABC News and USA Today, October 2006 (Oh, and it was 89%, not 80%.)

 

I find it to be a complete menace. It would disallow my HSA straight away, and any time your plan changes, you're forced to the public option.

 

 

From where do you understand it? I find it amazing how quickly people are to judge a job they don't do. Their job is necessary, and will be performed by a beaurocrat rather than an executive. What's the difference?

 

I will look for that poll. Thanks! (I do hope we have more up-to-date statistics available. 2006 was already three years ago. I know my insurance rates have gone way up since then.)

 

On the bureaucrat vs. executive question: I do not think these folks should be paid nearly as much as they are. My bone is not with the nature of the work they do, but how little work they do and the quality of their work given how much they earn.

 

This is from forbes.com: "The chief executive of health insurer Cigna Corp. received a compensation package worth $22.7 million in 2007, boosted by a big bonus awarded during a year of lackluster stock performance, according to a regulatory filing made late Friday.H. Edward Hanway received a salary of $1.11 million, a performance-based bonus of nearly $18 million, and other perks worth $32,021 including the use of company aircraft. He received $3.57 million worth of stock and option awards, the value on the day they were granted, a Securities and Exchange Commission filing showed."

 

We don't pay the president or any of our elected officials nearly that much, we don't pay our doctors nearly that much...not to mention our teachers, our firefighters, our policemen, our armed forces. I understand that somebody needs to be doing this job. But do you really think this man is working that hard? Then I call my insurance company to ask a simple question and spend an hour (at least) waiting for someone to assist me (after listening to endless menus).

 

Sidenote: Bureaucrats is a dirty word with a lot of folks around here. Yet, I often see it spelled "beau...." Nope, it's bureau. There's nothing so beautiful about these folks! :tongue_smilie:

[Peek a Boo]

On the bureaucrat vs. executive question: I do not think these folks should be paid nearly as much as they are. My bone is not with the nature of the work they do, but how little work they do and the quality of their work given how much they earn.

......

We don't pay the president or any of our elected officials nearly that much, we don't pay our doctors nearly that much...not to mention our teachers, our firefighters, our policemen, our armed forces. I understand that somebody needs to be doing this job. But do you really think this man is working that hard?

 

that depends on how important you think it is to have someone in charge that is risking his career. Even failed Presidents still get speaking engagements ;) An exec who screws up badly can go to jail. We don't pay our Presidents that much, but they sure get lots of money from other sources, don't they?!!

 

People get paid for what they know and what they risk, not just for output. Pilots get paid a lot for being glorified taxi drivers, but when you gotta land a plane in the Hudson, all of a sudden everyone remembers why they are paying you more than the average taxi driver and setting aside golden parachutes to keep you around. That golden parachute is CHEAP compared to the lawsuits from lives lost. Those exec salaries are CHEAP compared to what it would cost to see the company go under.

 

How much would those execs off Forbes' list make if the company had gone bankrupt?? They get paid to keep those companies afloat AND turn a profit.

"a year of lackluster stock performance" says NOTHING about how much work or real profit they gave the company. It just makes the deal sound greedy. ;)

[Peek a Boo]

Sidenote: Bureaucrats is a dirty word with a lot of folks around here. Yet, I often see it spelled "beau...." Nope, it's bureau. There's nothing so beautiful about these folks! :tongue_smilie:

 

I like our bureaucrats in my little town.... i don't always like the things they pass. :)

[theresatwist]

that depends on how important you think it is to have someone in charge that is risking his career. Even failed Presidents still get speaking engagements ;) An exec who screws up badly can go to jail. We don't pay our Presidents that much, but they sure get lots of money from other sources, don't they?!!

 

People get paid for what they know and what they risk, not just for output. Pilots get paid a lot for being glorified taxi drivers, but when you gotta land a plane in the Hudson, all of a sudden everyone remembers why they are paying you more than the average taxi driver and setting aside golden parachutes to keep you around. That golden parachute is CHEAP compared to the lawsuits from lives lost. Those exec salaries are CHEAP compared to what it would cost to see the company go under.

 

How much would those execs off Forbes' list make if the company had gone bankrupt?? They get paid to keep those companies afloat AND turn a profit.

"a year of lackluster stock performance" says NOTHING about how much work or real profit they gave the company. It just makes the deal sound greedy. ;)

 

Peek a Boo:

 

Well, we had at least one private investment bank this year that went under, the taxpayers bailed them out, and now their employees are getting huge bonuses (to entice them to stay on, or so their reasoning goes). Now you could say the government choose to bail the banks out, but I didn't see very many banks refusing those funds. In terms of lawsuits, I believe we need some serious tort reform as well (you and I actually agree on that).

 

Yeah, an executive who screws up badly can go to jail. But so can other professionals/workers who screw up and, unlike the executive, they won't have the best team of lawyers money can buy. I'm not saying different people shouldn't make different salaries. I just think the difference in salary, for example, between my dentist and my insurance company executive is much larger than is should be. He doesn't work that much harder or take that much more risk than my dentist. Meanwhile, I'd love to know what percentage of my monthly insurance bill goes to his pocketbook because when I call wanting one of my medical needs covered they almost always have some excuse. (Acne medication for instance, is classified as a cosmetic want, not a medical need. Uh, no! Talk to a doctor. Acne is caused by bacteria. Nothing more medical than bacteria.)

 

I would just love to know how much cheaper insurance would be if these executives were to make mere six figure incomes.

 

Meanwhile, I think it is absolutely ridiculous what former presidents get paid to give speeches (and write books, etc.). I wonder if any of them ever think here I am making millions off a book a ghostwriter wrote for me. The ghostwriter gets a one-time small payment and I get millions upon millions.

[dangerdad]

On the bureaucrat vs. executive question: I do not think these folks should be paid nearly as much as they are. My bone is not with the nature of the work they do, but how little work they do and the quality of their work given how much they earn.

 

...

 

We don't pay the president or any of our elected officials nearly that much, we don't pay our doctors nearly that much...not to mention our teachers, our firefighters, our policemen, our armed forces. I understand that somebody needs to be doing this job. But do you really think this man is working that hard? Then I call my insurance company to ask a simple question and spend an hour (at least) waiting for someone to assist me (after listening to endless menus).

 

The president and legislature get their bonuses in corruption. Note that nearly every senator is hugely wealthy, via campaign donation tricks, land deals, pay-for-play, etc. The Clintons are now tremendously wealthy, only a few years after office, etc. It's just as ridiculous to compare the pay of a firefighter to the pay of the head of a company as it is to compare an entry-level employee's salary to the company head's.

 

My first job out of college was at Intel, where Andy Grove was paid millions, and I was paid less than $50K. I didn't have a problem with it, and I'm always suspicious of someone who judges what other people are worth.

 

You may not agree that I'm worth my salary. That's not your place. In the private sector, we get to negotiate our salaries, and we typically negotiate for the highest we can get. And it works pretty well, typically (at least until the gov't starts bailing companies out).

[theresatwist]

The president and legislature get their bonuses in corruption. Note that nearly every senator is hugely wealthy, via campaign donation tricks, land deals, pay-for-play, etc. The Clintons are now tremendously wealthy, only a few years after office, etc. It's just as ridiculous to compare the pay of a firefighter to the pay of the head of a company as it is to compare an entry-level employee's salary to the company head's.

 

My first job out of college was at Intel, where Andy Grove was paid millions, and I was paid less than $50K. I didn't have a problem with it, and I'm always suspicious of someone who judges what other people are worth.

 

You may not agree that I'm worth my salary. That's not your place. In the private sector, we get to negotiate our salaries, and we typically negotiate for the highest we can get. And it works pretty well, typically (at least until the gov't starts bailing companies out).

 

And people in the private sector never enrich themselves through corruption? The Clintons made their money in the private sector as did Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and John Edwards.

 

As a citizen/voter and a member of our free market economy having an opinion on how much I believe people's labor is worth is absolutely part of my role. Hence, I voted for a candidate who I thought might have a chance of passing UHC.

 

I'm not arguing that everyone should get paid the same amount. An executive should make more than an entry-level worker, absolutely. Should he make hundreds of millions more? No, not in my view, I think that's unconscionable.

 

If these bank executives really believed in the power of the free market they should have refused the government assistance.

[dangerdad]

As a citizen/voter and a member of our free market economy having an opinion on how much I believe people's labor is worth is absolutely part of my role. Hence, I voted for a candidate who I thought might have a chance of passing UHC.

 

I'm not arguing that everyone should get paid the same amount. An executive should make more than an entry-level worker, absolutely. Should he make hundreds of millions more? No, not in my view, I think that's unconscionable.

 

If these bank executives really believed in the power of the free market they should have refused the government assistance.

 

I don't think you understand the free market. If the company can provide your service, and you have choices, choose who you want. But you shouldn't give a rip about what anyone makes, rather you should care about the cost and quality of your service. Now, in health insurance, guess why choices are limited? (Answer: gov't intervention)

 

Yes, the bank execs should have refused. However, there is ample evidence that the previous administration threatened them with gov't investigations if they did refuse. The thugs have been driving the system for at least a year.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

By Dangerdad I don't think you understand the free market. If the company can provide your service, and you have choices, choose who you want. But you shouldn't give a rip about what anyone makes, rather you should care about the cost and quality of your service. Now, in health insurance, guess why choices are limited? (Answer: gov't intervention)

 

As a stockholder and a consumer I do care about what top executives make. As a stockholder, IMHO, it is truly a rip-off for stockholders the way compensation is often handled for top executives IMO. How is it these so-called superstars of executives can make so much money while some of their companies go broke or the stock prices plunge?

 

Frankly, I do not think that these over-paid CEO's (not all of them) are so much more experienced or worth the millions of dollars they are paid. Instead, I think it is often a matter of sweetheart deals that has given them the outlandish salaries that they have IMHO. I also believe that there would be plenty of more than qualified takers for these top level executive jobs at a more reasonable and fair salaries.

 

In regards to limited choices, private health insurance companies already do a great job at that;) Private health insurance companies dictate what doctors I can see, medicines I can use, and even procedures that I can have done all for the bottom line. The CEO of Cigna from I understand makes 12.2 million dollars a year and has a 70 million dollar golden parachute. I guess Cigna better keep limiting the choices of their customers so they can pay these exhorbitant salaries.

 

My 2 cents:001_smile:

[dangerdad]

As a stockholder and a consumer I do care about what top executives make. As a stockholder, IMHO, it is truly a rip-off for stockholders the way compensation is often handled for top executives IMO. How is it these so-called superstars of executives can make so much money while some of their companies go broke or the stock prices plunge?

You shouldn't care as a consumer. Why would you? If the price of the good or service is acceptable, you pay for it, irrespective of the internal machinery. As a stockholder, that's different--you have an ownership stake and you can vote with other stockholders.

 

Frankly, I do not think that these over-paid CEO's (not all of them) are so much more experienced or worth the millions of dollars they are paid. Instead, I think it is often a matter of sweetheart deals that has given them the outlandish salaries that they have IMHO. I also believe that there would be plenty of more than qualified takers for these top level executive jobs at a more reasonable and fair salaries.

Based on what? How much market experience do you have? What do you know about what it take to manage a company of thousands of people?

 

In regards to limited choices, private health insurance companies already do a great job at that;) Private health insurance companies dictate what doctors I can see, medicines I can use, and even procedures that I can have done all for the bottom line. The CEO of Cigna from I understand makes 12.2 million dollars a year and has a 70 million dollar golden parachute. I guess Cigna better keep limiting the choices of their customers so they can pay these exhorbitant salaries.

 

How many people does Cigna insure? If you split that salary up among those people, what would the change be?

 

The reason insurance companies limit drug choices is because of actuarial tables telling them what they can do without going bankrupt. The reason they don't list a doctor is because that doctor chose not to accept their insurance. The reason there aren't more insurance companies is because of government mandates. I'd love to be in a group that excluded things like (say) chiropractic or childbirth, but California gov't mandates that any company that offers insurance has to insure all stated conditions in the law. That limits my choice, drives out competition and leads to the problems people complain about.

 

The kind of envy I see about executive salaries is no different from the emotional drive behind socialism, that I should decide the compensation of someone else, rather than that person and his employer.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

You shouldn't care as a consumer. Why would you? If the price of the good or service is acceptable, you pay for it, irrespective of the internal machinery. As a stockholder, that's different--you have an ownership stake and you can vote with other stockholders.

 

 

As a consumer I do care if they are making outrageous salaries while at the same time jacking up the rates. In regards to stockholders, there are many stockholders incensed over CEO pay and compensation packages which is why there are many who hope to see stockholders have a real say in executive compensation packages which they do not have at the present time.

 

 

Based on what? How much market experience do you have? What do you know about what it take to manage a company of thousands of people?

I have seen plenty of mediocrity in the highest levels of administration in the places where I worked as well as some stars. Again, I firmly believe that there would be plenty of very qualified takers for more reasonable and fair rates. As a stockholder, I propose they try and see what happens;).

 

 

 

 

How many people does Cigna insure? If you split that salary up among those people, what would the change be? I think that is irrevelant since the pay is outlandish in my book and I would posit how much does Cigna jack up the rates every year?

 

The reason insurance companies limit drug choices is because of actuarial tables telling them what they can do without going bankrupt. The reason they don't list a doctor is because that doctor chose not to accept their insurance. The reason there aren't more insurance companies is because of government mandates. I'd love to be in a group that excluded things like (say) chiropractic or childbirth, but California gov't mandates that any company that offers insurance has to insure all stated conditions in the law. That limits my choice, drives out competition and leads to the problems people complain about.

 

 

A group that excludes childbirth would exclude half the human race:confused:. This to me sounds like to a good reason to mandate that certain things be covered like childbirth;).

 

The kind of envy I see about executive salaries is no different from the emotional drive behind socialism, that I should decide the compensation of someone else, rather than that person and his employer.

 

I am not envious of un-called for salaries since no one needs that much money to live on period. I also firmly believe in capitalism and hope my dh earns quite a bit. However, I know that we will never need that much money nor $6000.00 shower curtains or $20,000 handbags:)

 

In 1980 CEO's made about 45 times average employee and today CEO's make about 400 times average employee. I highly doubt they have increased their intrinsic value to companies by so much in that time frame.

Edited August 6, 2009 by priscilla
spelling

[Peek a Boo]

Now you could say the government choose to bail the banks out, but I didn't see very many banks refusing those funds.

 

i only saw a couple banks actually refuse funds. There was a list online that showed which companies rec'd how much. pretty sad. But i find it quite telling that the gvt chooses to support failures while the [truly] free market will support success. It lends little credibility to OTHER venues the gvt chooses to fund/bailout. including healthcare. The precedence of gvt supported entities' failure rates is horrifying.

I would just love to know how much cheaper insurance would be if these executives were to make mere six figure incomes.

 

I don't think it would be much cheaper: you still have gvt intrusion and lawsuits.

 

i don't *care* what people make, because when they MAKE more, they are encouraged by our tax code to GIVE AWAY more to charities, foundations, and other organizations.

[Peek a Boo]

I am not envious of un-called for salaries since no one needs that much money to live on period. I also firmly believe in capitalism and hope my dh earns quite a bit. However, I know that we will never need that much money nor $6000.00 shower curtains or $20,000 handbags:)

 

or $500 tennis shoes to visit poor people. ;)

 

perspective is a funny thing. Many would consider your lifestyle *right now* as one of greedy consumption and that you don't need that much to live on, period. And that's without knowing a THING about your personal finances.

In 1980 CEO's made about 45 times average employee and today CEO's make about 400 times average employee. I highly doubt they have increased their intrinsic value to companies by so much in that time frame.

 

without even checking to back myself up, I'll bet there's 20 times the amount of gvt intrusion and laws, 20 times the amount of malpractice lawsuits, and at least a little rise in intrinsic value. ;) But if someone wants to fact check me on that, i'm prepared to be proven wrong. :D

 

and I'm assuming you're ready to nail other billionaires to the wall too, right? You're an equal-opportunity income capper?

So why don't start w/ recreational jobs first? Entertainment, sports, etc?

 

the thing w/ stockholders is that you can always sell your stocks. Vote w/ your wallet.

 

and don't forget: private healthcare doesn't limit what doctors you can see anymore than the proposed healthcare coverage --but at least w/ private insurance, the money isn't being forcefully taken at the point of a gun from anyone. the issue of force is a biggie for me.

[JennC]

I will look for that poll. Thanks! (I do hope we have more up-to-date statistics available. 2006 was already three years ago. I know my insurance rates have gone way up since then.)

 

On the bureaucrat vs. executive question: I do not think these folks should be paid nearly as much as they are. My bone is not with the nature of the work they do, but how little work they do and the quality of their work given how much they earn.

 

This is from forbes.com: "The chief executive of health insurer Cigna Corp. received a compensation package worth $22.7 million in 2007, boosted by a big bonus awarded during a year of lackluster stock performance, according to a regulatory filing made late Friday.H. Edward Hanway received a salary of $1.11 million, a performance-based bonus of nearly $18 million, and other perks worth $32,021 including the use of company aircraft. He received $3.57 million worth of stock and option awards, the value on the day they were granted, a Securities and Exchange Commission filing showed."

 

We don't pay the president or any of our elected officials nearly that much, we don't pay our doctors nearly that much...not to mention our teachers, our firefighters, our policemen, our armed forces. I understand that somebody needs to be doing this job. But do you really think this man is working that hard? Then I call my insurance company to ask a simple question and spend an hour (at least) waiting for someone to assist me (after listening to endless menus).

 

You may be right about how much executives make. Who Cares. It is not the government's job to regulate this. If you hate your insurance, right now you do have a choice. The choices may both be distasteful to you, whatever. Fact is, if this healthcare plan goes through ---You will no longer have the choice. You will have the federal government's plan - or pay a penalty tax.

 

As far as the polls go, no, I don't have a citation, but most honest people who use the figures admit that 45 million uninsured is a too high number. It is more like 30-35 million. A lot, yes. But that means that 90% of Americans have health insurance. The other 10% includes homeless; non-working; self-insured or uninsured by choice, and healthy 20 somethings that don't want or need insurance. (Among others , I know). Where is the crisis?? If you are : elderly, indigent, single mom unable to make ends meet, or children of working poor (defined in MT at making 250% of poverty, hardly poor:confused:) you qualify for subsidized health care already. And, recent polls have shown that 80% are happy with their current insurance situation. Again I ask, where is the crisis??

We can complain about insurance execs getting too much $. But compare once $27 million to $2 or more TRILLION. There are a thousand millions in a billion and a thousand billions in a trillion.

The outrage really should be leveled at the government spending a MILLION times that "evil, lazy" exec's salary on something 90% of Americans don't need or want.

I am so sick of a very small minority of people getting what they want at the expense of the vast majority a la the government.

It is not the government's job to level the playing field or spread the wealth - that is an "-ism" we reject in this country. Certainly not capitalism.

[TravelingChris]

There is one giant government health program that I have not heard about what will happen under these plans. That is Tricare and the VA system. Does anyone have any idea what is happening to the military, the retired military, and the veterans under these proposed plans?

 

I can't see why anyone who gets a decent plan would want to take a chance on this. It will bankrupt our children if not us. It will lead to much less freedom of choice. You may not get your naturopathic or chiropathic practioners and my daughter would maybe not get proper treatment for osteoporosis since she isn't the typical patient with it and not even the typical child with it. THe people who are exempt from this plan is Congress. That's nice for them. I don't understand why anyone needs more funding for right to die counseling. When I was in the hospital and each time I have ever undergone even a relatively minor procedure, they come out with advanced directive papers and hand you booklets about this. The only problem is that there is no checkmark for living. That is why one of the things on my to do list this Fall is to get a health power of attorney designating my husband who is as strong a right to life person as I am. None of this, well I am sure she would like to starve to death here.

[dangerdad]

Based on what? How much market experience do you have? What do you know about what it take to manage a company of thousands of people?

I have seen plenty of mediocrity in the highest levels of administration in the places where I worked as well as some stars. Again, I firmly believe that there would be plenty of very qualified takers for more reasonable and fair rates. So just based on your opinion then. I like to make decisions with more information than that.

 

How many people does Cigna insure? If you split that salary up among those people, what would the change be?

I think that is irrevelant since the pay is outlandish in my book and I would posit how much does Cigna jack up the rates every year? If it insures 1 million people, that's $12 / person / year or $1/month. That's why it matters. If you refuse to make health insurance decisions based on the numbers, what are you basing it on?

 

A group that excludes childbirth would exclude half the human race

But would be perfect for families that have passed their childbearing years.

 

I am not envious of un-called for salaries since no one needs that much money to live on period. I also firmly believe in capitalism and hope my dh earns quite a bit. However, I know that we will never need that much money nor $6000.00 shower curtains or $20,000 handbags:)

This is the essence of envy. It's ugly, and it's counterproductive.

 

In 1980 CEO's made about 45 times average employee and today CEO's make about 400 times average employee. I highly doubt they have increased their intrinsic value to companies by so much in that time frame.

I'd love to know where you got this information. I'd also like to know what the sizes of the companies are, how many assets they have, people they employ, etc.

 

 

If you reject the numbers (or don't even care what they are) to decide on health insurance, then you have to choose based on fundamental principles. And I prefer the principle of freedom over envy.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

By Dangerdad This is the essence of envy. It's ugly, and it's counterproductive.

 

Frankly, you are making assumptions on my own thought processes and you are wrong. My opinion is based my belief system not envy.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

By Peek a Boo nd I'm assuming you're ready to nail other billionaires to the wall too, right? You're an equal-opportunity income capper?

So why don't start w/ recreational jobs first? Entertainment, sports, etc?

 

I was always taught that assumptions were not always wise. Actually, I can cite Warren Buffet and Bill Gates as 2 billionaires I admire for their great philanthropy. I am not an income capper as you say, but I do believe in appropriate taxes and rescinding the tax cuts that were given to the ultra rich. Even Warren Buffet believes that he should have to pay more taxes:).

 

Just my 2 cents:)

[theresatwist]

There is one giant government health program that I have not heard about what will happen under these plans. That is Tricare and the VA system. Does anyone have any idea what is happening to the military, the retired military, and the veterans under these proposed plans?

 

I can't see why anyone who gets a decent plan would want to take a chance on this. It will bankrupt our children if not us. It will lead to much less freedom of choice. You may not get your naturopathic or chiropathic practioners and my daughter would maybe not get proper treatment for osteoporosis since she isn't the typical patient with it and not even the typical child with it. THe people who are exempt from this plan is Congress. That's nice for them. I don't understand why anyone needs more funding for right to die counseling. When I was in the hospital and each time I have ever undergone even a relatively minor procedure, they come out with advanced directive papers and hand you booklets about this. The only problem is that there is no checkmark for living. That is why one of the things on my to do list this Fall is to get a health power of attorney designating my husband who is as strong a right to life person as I am. None of this, well I am sure she would like to starve to death here.

 

CNN tonight estimated that 4% of Americans would end up on the government plan--that is the projection. You can keep the insurance you have now. Our current system is unsustainable. Studies have shown that the costs will continue to rise and more and more people will be dropped.

[BalanceSeeker]

sources please?

 

I don't know if this is allowed, but here's one. It's easy to find other sources.

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/05/19/doctors-flock-to-texas-after-tort-reform/

[theresatwist]

Frankly, you are making assumptions on my own thought processes and you are wrong. My opinion is based my belief system not envy.

 

:iagree:Danger Dad: According to that line of thinking I could argue that your views are based on greed. It's a weak line of argument.

[OHGrandma]

CNN tonight estimated that 4% of Americans would end up on the government plan--that is the projection. You can keep the insurance you have now. Our current system is unsustainable. Studies have shown that the costs will continue to rise and more and more people will be dropped.

We currently have about 18% without health insurance in the USA. Even assuming the 4% that gets the gov't plan all come from the uninsured ranks, that leaves 14% still uninsured. I thought BO was promising everyone would be insured?:confused: And no, what you stated, "You can keep the insurance you have now.", is not true. The bill that is currently being discussed expressly states you can keep what you have, until it changes, then you must get the gov't plan.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

We currently have about 18% without health insurance in the USA. Even assuming the 4% that gets the gov't plan all come from the uninsured ranks, that leaves 14% still uninsured. I thought BO was promising everyone would be insured?:confused: And no, what you stated, "You can keep the insurance you have now.", is not true. The bill that is currently being discussed expressly states you can keep what you have, until it changes, then you must get the gov't plan.

 

This is untrue. I recommend the following government web siteshttp://www.healthreform.gov/:

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care/

[OHGrandma]

This is untrue. I recommend the following government web siteshttp://www.healthreform.gov/:

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care/

 

I'm sorry, I couldn't find the actual bill linked on either of these two websites. Please, read page 16 of the bill for yourself. It states what I said, you can keep your own insurance until the plan changes, then you must get the gov't plan.

[dangerdad]

Frankly, you are making assumptions on my own thought processes and you are wrong. My opinion is based my belief system not envy.

Any belief system that includes telling other people (not in your employ) what they should make is based on some degree of irrationality. If not envy, then what? Pride? You know better?

 

 

According to that line of thinking I could argue that your views are based on greed. It's a weak line of argument.

 

That's silly. If my views were based on greed, I'd want to take your stuff. Freedom means keeping my own stuff and using it how I see fit.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

By dangerdad Any belief system that includes telling other people (not in your employ) what they should make is based on some degree of irrationality. If not envy, then what? Pride? You know better?

 

 

My thoughts are quite rational on this matter and frankly I am a bit dismayed on your insulting remarks. Insults are not necessary in a debate. Actually my beliefs are based on my thoughts on justice and my faith.

[theresatwist]

Any belief system that includes telling other people (not in your employ) what they should make is based on some degree of irrationality. If not envy, then what? Pride? You know better?

 

 

 

 

That's silly. If my views were based on greed, I'd want to take your stuff. Freedom means keeping my own stuff and using it how I see fit.

 

 

I was being sarcastic. (I should just stop attempting sarcasm on message boards because it never does come across.) I don't think you're greedy as much as I disagree with your viewpoint.

[BalanceSeeker]

 

If these bank executives really believed in the power of the free market they should have refused the government assistance.

 

We must also be aware of the fact that some of these banks are trying to pay back the loan, and Obama is refusing to allow them to do so. I don't think I can post links, so just a google on "Obama refusing banks to pay back loans" will pull up some additional information if anyone is interested. I find this sort of thing crucial to the topic at hand.

[theresatwist]

We must also be aware of the fact that some of these banks are trying to pay back the loan, and Obama is refusing to allow them to do so. I don't think I can post links, so just a google on "Obama refusing banks to pay back loans" will pull up some additional information if anyone is interested. I find this sort of thing crucial to the topic at hand.

 

From the NYTimes profile of Goldman Sachs:

 

"On June 17, Goldman Sachs became one of 10 banks to repay about $68 billion in bailout funds received from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Goldman repaid $10 billion, and was allowed to do so after it earlier passed the stress test. Such a step should probably enable Goldman to free itself from government-imposed restrictions on compensation."

[dangerdad]

 

My thoughts are quite rational on this matter and frankly I am a bit dismayed on your insulting remarks. Insults are not necessary in a debate. Actually my beliefs are based on my thoughts on justice and my faith.

The present them (preferably in a s/o thread). You might just convince me.

[BalanceSeeker]

From the NYTimes profile of Goldman Sachs:

 

"On June 17, Goldman Sachs became one of 10 banks to repay about $68 billion in bailout funds received from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Goldman repaid $10 billion, and was allowed to do so after it earlier passed the stress test. Such a step should probably enable Goldman to free itself from government-imposed restrictions on compensation."

 

Yet, stories like these are a dime a dozen (this one happens to be from Warriors for Truth):

 

"Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.

 

Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics."

[theresatwist]

Yet, stories like these are a dime a dozen (this one happens to be from Warriors for Truth):

 

"Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.

 

Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics."

 

Point taken. But if that makes my source illegitimate, doesn't it also make your source illegitimate?

 

Also, your piece appears to be an opinion piece. What I cited is from a liberal-leaning newspaper, but it is reporting, not commentating.

[BalanceSeeker]

Point taken. But if that makes my source illegitimate, doesn't it also make your source illegitimate?

 

Also, your piece appears to be an opinion piece. What I cited is from a liberal-leaning newspaper, but it is reporting, not commentating.

 

Your point taken as well. However, I no longer depend on liberal-leaning newspapers as reporting the facts, either.

[theresatwist]

Your point taken as well. However, I no longer depend on liberal-leaning newspapers as reporting the facts, either.

 

Well, I could say the same about conservative ones. To me, the piece you cited read like an opinion piece. I do read the WSJ frequently (and often pencil in my objections in the margins). However, I only read the opinion page when my blood pressure is on the verge of dipping too low.;)

[Peek a Boo]

I was always taught that assumptions were not always wise. Actually, I can cite Warren Buffet and Bill Gates as 2 billionaires I admire for their great philanthropy. I am not an income capper as you say, but I do believe in appropriate taxes and rescinding the tax cuts that were given to the ultra rich. Even Warren Buffet believes that he should have to pay more taxes:).

 

Just my 2 cents:)

and under the system now, he is absolutely able to voluntarily pay more taxes in the form of donations to the gvt.

 

have you researched the philanthropic contributions of the CEOs and companies you mentioned earlier? Or are you assuming they have done nothing?

 

wait a sec:

first you want to limit what CEOs can make --that IS capping income, is it not?? so how can you then say that you are NOT an income capper? :confused:

 

and again --are you willing to cap ALL "excessive" incomes, or only this particular industry?

 

I agree your opinion may be based on your idea of justice, but your idea of justice involves quite a bit of control and use of force against other humans.

[dangerdad]

Is 12 million. Took a while for me to find, but that's how many are currently on their program.

 

So, how much should a person running such an organization make? And how would it affect premiums?

 

BTW, the last time gov't got involved in CEO compensation, they created the current situation. Search for "How Bill Clinton Helped Boost CEO Pay".