s/o small raise: Realignment of entire Economy

[asta]

We don't have a problem with a 1% raise, but then our health insurance premiums have not gone up in years and taxes have gone down so his take home pay still goes up. If ins. kept going up, then I would be peeved.

 

I'm not picking on you, but this segues into what I'm going to say.

 

* From the economist's point of view, the pay cut / no pay raise / small pay raise thing is simply part of a much larger shift that is occurring in the world economy.

 

* Housing prices have plunged, and no, they will not be returning to their "irrational exuberance" levels. The 'market forces' that placed them there weren't market forces at all, but instead, illegal and backroom deals combined with a sense of entitlement and greed on the part of some (not all) purchasers. What society is going to begin seeing (again) is the shift away from a house as an investment vehicle back to a place in which to simply live. There will be no more "flip this house", and, one can hope, the cruddy construction that many contractors have been allowed to get away with (ever hear of the 30 year house? It is designed to last as long as the loan) will go the way of the Dodo.

 

* We are / will be seeing a shift from two earner to one earner families, as people start to realize that, unless there is a significant amount of money coming in, it is not economically feasible to continue paying for day care, dry cleaning, extra eating out, convenience foods - even two cars (or at least two "highly reliable" cars).

 

* Even without public / socialized healthcare/medicine, we will begin to see a decline in the price of medical services, as demand simply drops. Supply follows demand. If no one can afford that "extra test", it simply doesn't get ordered. Much of what is going on in medicine right now is "applease the patient" rather than "this is absolutely necessary". A perfect example is the patient who comes in demanding the drug they saw in the magazine ad. No amount of convincing on the doctor's part that "new drug B" is no better than "old drug A" for the patient's condition will sway some people. What happens? Insurance pays for new drug B. Sure, the person pays a higher copay, but the rest is still borne out by us, the rest of the insured. Stuff like that ceases to happen when people can't afford the extra copay, or don't make adjustments in their life unless new drug B is absolutely necessary.

 

Another example is endless, useless tests when a diagnosis has been established. I can't TELL you how many EEGs I have been ordered to have. It has already been established I have epilepsy. It is genetic, exacerbated by illness and a head injury. It isn't going away, there is nothing that will change it. Yet every time I move, they insist on doing more to "prove to themselves..." To the last doctor, I simply said STOP! No more! This is a waste of time and money. All of you neurologists are simply peeing on trees to establish dominance. (yes, I really said that)

 

* While we won't be seeing a return to a world that never really existed (some people seem to think the 1950s were exactly like Smallville), we *will* be seeing a seismic shift away from an economy that moved from production to producing practically nothing. A country cannot survive that cannot provide for its citizens. That is a good way to go broke (sound familiar?). Globalization is all wonderful and great until other countries begin to go insolvent (hello? Greece?), tipping lines of dominoes that eventually land on one's own doorstep. A nation needs to be ready to feed its own people, defend it's own borders, and build its own buildings (jeez, I'm starting to sound like the John Birch society - that wasn't my intent, believe me!).

 

As I said, we are in the middle of a seismic shift, and that includes wages adjusting downward to match. It is painful. And the other sectors of the economy have yet to catch up. But catch up they will (wholesale firing of unionized industries anyone?), or they will be left behind.

 

Just my .02 from what I remember of that dusty old degree from 20 years ago.

 

 

asta

[Renee in NC]

:iagree:

 

On so many levels. Wages are shifting down and costs are rising. I think what we will see is a change to a more reasonable standard of living (as a whole) than the rampant over-consumption that we have seen in the past decade or two.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Yep. ITA

 

This will be the third year dh doesn't recieve a pay raise. We are just thankful he has a job. We are also thankful we bought an older house 11 years ago and that we know how to live on one income. I admit I haven't always been thankful for these things, but now I feel soooo blessed.

 

I see many signs around me that people in this country are still in denial and just waiting for things to turn around. It ain't goin' to happen.

 

Don't get me started on the corruption that led us to this point. :-P

[asta]

Yep. ITA

 

This will be the third year dh doesn't recieve a pay raise. We are just thankful he has a job. We are also thankful we bought an older house 11 years ago and that we know how to live on one income. I admit I haven't always been thankful for these things, but now I feel soooo blessed.

 

I see many signs around me that people in this country are still in denial and just waiting for things to turn around. It ain't goin' to happen.

Don't get me started on the corruption that led us to this point. :-P

 

I think this is the crux of the issue.

 

 

a

[laughing lioness]

:iagree:Excellent post.

[My3Boys]

Great post! I think, on the whole, these changes will be better for us as a society.

 

An interesting side note to this that I heard recently is that since the economy has taken a turn downward, the divorce rate has dropped. You would think the opposite would happen, but apparently with less disposable income people are spending more time at home with their families, like game night and DVDs, eating dinner at home with the family instead of eating out, etc. I heard this on the radio and would like to find the source of that report.

[Mergath]

:iagree:completely with the op. Great post.

[laughing lioness]

Well, those things and the fact that it's expensive to get divorced;). I also wonder if having more disposable income gives rise to a sense of entitlement while having less money = having a more correct (rather than inflated) sense of self.

[stripe]

I was just listening to a piece on Morning Edition this morning about how doctors themselves don't even know the relative effectiveness of different drugs -- is the latest drug better than the old one, or what? And how this is a really important measure that isn't known. Doctors themselves tend to stick with what they know about OR what has been promoted to them OR what patients are asking for, instead of what works the best.

 

I can't tell you how many times I've had my blood type tested (most recently it seemed to cost about $50). As I said to the nurse the last time I was "informed" of my blood type, "Oh, well, that hasn't changed since last time." She looked at me as if she couldn't decide if I was really stupid or hilarious. It was sort of funny.

[RegGuheert]

Nice post, Asta.

I see many signs around me that people in this country are still in denial and just waiting for things to turn around. It ain't goin' to happen.

Unfortunately, many of those in denial are lawmakers in Washington. They are working feverishly to prop up failed institutions using the Ponzi-scheme based financial approaches which have lead us to where we are today.

[asta]

That all sounds theoretical to me rather than the reality I am seeing around me. And what else do I have to go by than that?

 

All economics is theoretical. There has been a push the last, oh, 50 years or so to make it into a "science", but it never has been and never will be.

 

Maybe because I wasn't caught up in all of that when it was supposedly going on I am not feeling what you are saying.

 

During the housing boom, we were pretty much priced out of the market. We are now buying our first house because we can comfortably afford it.

 

 

I would say that you are probably correct in your assumption.

 

 

a

[hornblower]

I think you guys would enjoy reading Cluster**** (ahem, something that sounds like a duck) Nation - the weekly blog of James Howard Kunstler, author of The Long Emergency. He updates every Monday with his views on how it's all playing out & how reality will continue to intrude on our delusions of economic recovery.

 

http://www.kunstler.com/blog/

 

The Long Emergency is also an excellent book.

[usetoschool]

:iagree:with the op. I was doing economics with my older kids when this all started and we had some discussions about how the boom was all just built on sand and credit and had to collapse at some point. We never thought of our house as an investment so for a while we were "millionaires" because the housing prices went up soooo high around here. Now were are back to our regular old middle class selves. Funny thing, nothing ever changed in reality - just on paper.

 

We are seeing a good example of the whole trickle down idea with my husbands industry. He is a structural engineer and is only working 4 days/week and taken a pay cut just to try to keep the office open. No one is building, so construction workers are out of jobs and engineers have nothing to design and everyone we know associated with the industry in any way is laying people off or closing down.

 

I like that things are falling back to a normal level, but I am a little nervous about government debt and the 24/7 monetary printing presses running in Washington and what that means for future inflation.

[lea1]

:iagree: also. Great post. Did you know all of our money is put into circulation based on debt? And did you know the Federal Reserve is a cartel of private bankers?

 

This is a great web site for learning more about it:

http://economicedge.blogspot.com/

 

There is a quickly growing group of people trying to do something about changing our debt-based system before it all comes tumbling down. They have a plan called Freedom's Vision. You can find out more about it at the blog above.

 

Let's hope that someone does something about it before it's too late.

[HRAAB]

Yup! :iagree: The last job dh had, it was understood there wouldn't be any raises. He negotiated and got his salary increased initially. Three years, no raises. He lost that job last April. Since then he's a contract job for a couple months. Everything he has applied for pays less than what he was making. All the while medical insurance costs are increasing at an alarming rate.

 

Fortunately, we are debt free, and we have always tried to live frugally. Due to this, we are okay. It's not fun, we worry on occasion, but we're okay. The biggest worry for us is health insurance. The feds extended the COBRA subsidy, thankfully. After that, dh might be looking at going without or at least with a very, very high deductible. Most of the jobs he has applied for are contract positions, no benefits.

[Cera]

What I find interesting is the people trying to "fix" things and return the economy to its previous state (which was obviously unrealistic). Yes, it is going to hurt for a lot of people as the economy resets but it is much better in the long run than to continue artificially inflating it and pushing us along at an unsustainable pace.

[stripe]

But there's plenty of CEOs laughing all the way to the bank (after they stop for a relaxing beach vacation, er, business meeting)! And despite the fact that corporations chose bankruptcy over paying for retiree's health care benefits, it's supposed to be some wacky liberal issue to acknowledge that health care costs are out of control.

 

Going to the lowest common denominator and hiring desperate people who will work for nothing, and having the pay rate constantly decrease is just not a realistic way of life.

[LizzyBee]

.....

A perfect example is the patient who comes in demanding the drug they saw in the magazine ad. No amount of convincing on the doctor's part that "new drug B" is no better than "old drug A" for the patient's condition will sway some people. What happens? Insurance pays for new drug B. Sure, the person pays a higher copay, but the rest is still borne out by us, the rest of the insured. Stuff like that ceases to happen when people can't afford the extra copay, or don't make adjustments in their life unless new drug B is absolutely necessary.

 

asta

 

I agree with your post and in fact, it echoes a lot of what I've been saying to my irl friends. But I'm going to nitpick this drug example. :001_smile: The reality I see is that drug companies spend unbelievable amounts of money wining and dining doctors, taking lunches to them and their staff, sending them on trips to Disney, etc. All this to convince the doctor to prescribe the newest drugs. Patients are getting hit with huge co-pays they can't afford, but they don't always think to ask if there's an alternative drug that will work just as well. So they do without decent food and clothes to afford their meds.

 

Hmm, my post sounds anti-drug company, but I'm not. I'm against doctors not fully informing their patients of their choices.

[Mrs Mungo]

* While we won't be seeing a return to a world that never really existed (some people seem to think the 1950s were exactly like Smallville), we *will* be seeing a seismic shift away from an economy that moved from production to producing practically nothing. A country cannot survive that cannot provide for its citizens. That is a good way to go broke (sound familiar?). Globalization is all wonderful and great until other countries begin to go insolvent (hello? Greece?), tipping lines of dominoes that eventually land on one's own doorstep. A nation needs to be ready to feed its own people, defend it's own borders, and build its own buildings (jeez, I'm starting to sound like the John Birch society - that wasn't my intent, believe me!).

 

I would totally agree with you, many Democrats/liberals would. The South ultimately lost the Civil War because they didn't have an economy based on manufacturing. The allies won WWII largely because of US manufacturing might, the US had a huge economic boom post-WWII because of manufacturing. Without manufacturing all you will wind up with is low-paying service jobs. Our engineers and doctors will eventually start to leave the country and follow the money. It's a huge problem.

 

However, I disagree with much of this post:

 

Not so long ago, employees were taking advantage of the shortage of workers, and were demanding high salaries with generous benefits, and getting them. Companies were even paying new college graduates ridiculously high starting salaries, and signing bonuses to boot. That was when the worker had the upper hand, and everybody took advantage of the companies who were fighting over workers.

That's not *exactly* what was going on then and it's not what is going on now. When workers and the working/middle classes are doing well through regulation, unions, etc companies shirk on corporate perks and salaries. When unions are busted and companies are de-regulated the working and middle classes take a huge hit and only the tippy-top of the corporate pyramid benefits. This is done by a cultural sleight of hand that makes working class people think they are middle class and middle class people think they are upper class.

 

Here's an example from my family history: my dad worked for a huge company for 30 years. The first 20+ years they had frugal executives that had worked their way from nothing and wanted to have a successful company with good employees. They had no company jets but had yearly Christmas parties for its workers and such. As those executives retired younger executives took their place.

 

These executives had seen Wall Street one too many times and had a different idea of what corporate culture should look like. They starting fighting the union on monetarily piddly issues. They bought 6 corporate jets. They bought corporate boxes at the race-track and ball field. They started cutting jobs but get named to Fortune's best companies to work for because of their incredible corporate perks. Right-to-work hits (thank you, "Clinton Democrats").

 

They close the warehouse because they want to "move" it an hour away but it's really the only way they can fire all of their union employees who have contracts. It's illegal but the Republican head of the labor board doesn't care. The people who worked there are told they can apply for jobs at the new warehouse. They are then told they don't have enough references to apply for the new jobs because they've only worked one place for their entire lives.

 

What the low-totem pole corporate employees don't realize at the time is that it's only a matter of time before that mindset is looking to cut their pay and their jobs. Eventually, that's what happens. Now, everyone is running scared, everyone has to watch their own backs. Guess what happens next? Bankruptcy and corporate "restructuring."

 

Ultimately, all the workers lose. Only the very, very top people benefit.

 

Many companies are currently sitting on huge stacks of cash but they are going to play the bad economy card as long as they can possibly get away with it.

 

This is the real story of what is happening in corporate America. Small businesses and corporations, many of them are honestly hurting, I'm not talking about most of them, it's not the same world as big business.

 

But there's plenty of CEOs laughing all the way to the bank (after they stop for a relaxing beach vacation, er, business meeting)! And despite the fact that corporations chose bankruptcy over paying for retiree's health care benefits, it's supposed to be some wacky liberal issue to acknowledge that health care costs are out of control.

 

Going to the lowest common denominator and hiring desperate people who will work for nothing, and having the pay rate constantly decrease is just not a realistic way of life.

 

 

:iagree:

Edited March 10, 2010 by Mrs Mungo
clarity

[StartingOver]

I'm not picking on you, but this segues into what I'm going to say.

 

* From the economist's point of view, the pay cut / no pay raise / small pay raise thing is simply part of a much larger shift that is occurring in the world economy.

 

* Housing prices have plunged, and no, they will not be returning to their "irrational exuberance" levels. The 'market forces' that placed them there weren't market forces at all, but instead, illegal and backroom deals combined with a sense of entitlement and greed on the part of some (not all) purchasers. What society is going to begin seeing (again) is the shift away from a house as an investment vehicle back to a place in which to simply live. There will be no more "flip this house", and, one can hope, the cruddy construction that many contractors have been allowed to get away with (ever hear of the 30 year house? It is designed to last as long as the loan) will go the way of the Dodo.

 

* We are / will be seeing a shift from two earner to one earner families, as people start to realize that, unless there is a significant amount of money coming in, it is not economically feasible to continue paying for day care, dry cleaning, extra eating out, convenience foods - even two cars (or at least two "highly reliable" cars).

 

* Even without public / socialized healthcare/medicine, we will begin to see a decline in the price of medical services, as demand simply drops. Supply follows demand. If no one can afford that "extra test", it simply doesn't get ordered. Much of what is going on in medicine right now is "applease the patient" rather than "this is absolutely necessary". A perfect example is the patient who comes in demanding the drug they saw in the magazine ad. No amount of convincing on the doctor's part that "new drug B" is no better than "old drug A" for the patient's condition will sway some people. What happens? Insurance pays for new drug B. Sure, the person pays a higher copay, but the rest is still borne out by us, the rest of the insured. Stuff like that ceases to happen when people can't afford the extra copay, or don't make adjustments in their life unless new drug B is absolutely necessary.

 

Another example is endless, useless tests when a diagnosis has been established. I can't TELL you how many EEGs I have been ordered to have. It has already been established I have epilepsy. It is genetic, exacerbated by illness and a head injury. It isn't going away, there is nothing that will change it. Yet every time I move, they insist on doing more to "prove to themselves..." To the last doctor, I simply said STOP! No more! This is a waste of time and money. All of you neurologists are simply peeing on trees to establish dominance. (yes, I really said that)

 

* While we won't be seeing a return to a world that never really existed (some people seem to think the 1950s were exactly like Smallville), we *will* be seeing a seismic shift away from an economy that moved from production to producing practically nothing. A country cannot survive that cannot provide for its citizens. That is a good way to go broke (sound familiar?). Globalization is all wonderful and great until other countries begin to go insolvent (hello? Greece?), tipping lines of dominoes that eventually land on one's own doorstep. A nation needs to be ready to feed its own people, defend it's own borders, and build its own buildings (jeez, I'm starting to sound like the John Birch society - that wasn't my intent, believe me!).

 

As I said, we are in the middle of a seismic shift, and that includes wages adjusting downward to match. It is painful. And the other sectors of the economy have yet to catch up. But catch up they will (wholesale firing of unionized industries anyone?), or they will be left behind.

 

Just my .02 from what I remember of that dusty old degree from 20 years ago.

 

 

asta

 

:iagree:

 

I think it will be a very good thing for us in a lot of ways, to get back to basics.

[Heather in WI]

A nation needs to be ready to feed its own people, defend it's own borders, and build its own buildings ... I'm starting to sound like the John Birch society ...

 

 

Heh. heh. heh. Asta sounds like a John Birch Society member. Let me go look outside my window for the flying pigs. :lol:

 

ITA with your post, btw. :)

[Pippen]

Great post! I think, on the whole, these changes will be better for us as a society.

 

An interesting side note to this that I heard recently is that since the economy has taken a turn downward, the divorce rate has dropped. You would think the opposite would happen, but apparently with less disposable income people are spending more time at home with their families, like game night and DVDs, eating dinner at home with the family instead of eating out, etc. I heard this on the radio and would like to find the source of that report.

 

I'd also heard that some of the drop in divorce rate is because people's mortgages are underwater. Keeping the house no longer is the prize it once was.

[laughing lioness]

Heh. heh. heh. Asta sounds like a John Birch Society member. Let me go look outside my window for the flying pigs. :lol:

 

ITA with your post, btw. :)

:lol::lol:

Can China afford to come and get thier money? The are still a devloping country where the majority of the population lives on dollars a day.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

:iagree:

 

I think it will be a very good thing for us in a lot of ways, to get back to basics.

 

I agree with you that we should get back to basics. My dh and I felt that there was a lot of smoke and mirrors going on prior to the bust:(

 

 

I also hope that the new robber barons, aka the CEOs of many, not all, large businesses, get back to basics as well:glare:

[hornblower]

:lol::lol:

Can China afford to come and get thier money? The are still a devloping country where the majority of the population lives on dollars a day.

 

Their power IMO comes from several sources:

1. the sheer size of their population

2. greater ability to withstand hardship than western countries are currently used to

3. their export power. We are very vulnerable to find other sources for many materials and items which we no longer manufacture.

 

 

Of course China needs us to buy things from them because they need that money for their citizens. But I would posit that if they decided to cut off supplies until we met some terms they had set, while it would hurt us both, the west would suffer more & would whine more about it. My sense is that we are soft.

[Parrothead]

 

 

Many companies are currently sitting on huge stacks of cash but they are going to play the bad economy card as long as they can possibly get away with it.

 

 

:iagree:

 

Speaking of doctors that don't get it. The last time I went to the endocrinologist (the 4th one I was trying out), she wanted me to have a CAT scan. When I started questioning the need and the cost to me, she said, "Well. you have insurance, don't you?"

 

Yeah, I have insurance. It costs me $100 in copays when I have blood drawn. I can imagine what the copay is for a CAT scan. OY!

[Jackie in NE]

I'm not picking on you, but this segues into what I'm going to say.

 

* From the economist's point of view, the pay cut / no pay raise / small pay raise thing is simply part of a much larger shift that is occurring in the world economy.

 

* Housing prices have plunged, and no, they will not be returning to their "irrational exuberance" levels. The 'market forces' that placed them there weren't market forces at all, but instead, illegal and backroom deals combined with a sense of entitlement and greed on the part of some (not all) purchasers. What society is going to begin seeing (again) is the shift away from a house as an investment vehicle back to a place in which to simply live. There will be no more "flip this house", and, one can hope, the cruddy construction that many contractors have been allowed to get away with (ever hear of the 30 year house? It is designed to last as long as the loan) will go the way of the Dodo.

 

* We are / will be seeing a shift from two earner to one earner families, as people start to realize that, unless there is a significant amount of money coming in, it is not economically feasible to continue paying for day care, dry cleaning, extra eating out, convenience foods - even two cars (or at least two "highly reliable" cars).

 

* Even without public / socialized healthcare/medicine, we will begin to see a decline in the price of medical services, as demand simply drops. Supply follows demand. If no one can afford that "extra test", it simply doesn't get ordered. Much of what is going on in medicine right now is "applease the patient" rather than "this is absolutely necessary". A perfect example is the patient who comes in demanding the drug they saw in the magazine ad. No amount of convincing on the doctor's part that "new drug B" is no better than "old drug A" for the patient's condition will sway some people. What happens? Insurance pays for new drug B. Sure, the person pays a higher copay, but the rest is still borne out by us, the rest of the insured. Stuff like that ceases to happen when people can't afford the extra copay, or don't make adjustments in their life unless new drug B is absolutely necessary.

 

Another example is endless, useless tests when a diagnosis has been established. I can't TELL you how many EEGs I have been ordered to have. It has already been established I have epilepsy. It is genetic, exacerbated by illness and a head injury. It isn't going away, there is nothing that will change it. Yet every time I move, they insist on doing more to "prove to themselves..." To the last doctor, I simply said STOP! No more! This is a waste of time and money. All of you neurologists are simply peeing on trees to establish dominance. (yes, I really said that)

 

* While we won't be seeing a return to a world that never really existed (some people seem to think the 1950s were exactly like Smallville), we *will* be seeing a seismic shift away from an economy that moved from production to producing practically nothing. A country cannot survive that cannot provide for its citizens. That is a good way to go broke (sound familiar?). Globalization is all wonderful and great until other countries begin to go insolvent (hello? Greece?), tipping lines of dominoes that eventually land on one's own doorstep. A nation needs to be ready to feed its own people, defend it's own borders, and build its own buildings (jeez, I'm starting to sound like the John Birch society - that wasn't my intent, believe me!).

 

As I said, we are in the middle of a seismic shift, and that includes wages adjusting downward to match. It is painful. And the other sectors of the economy have yet to catch up. But catch up they will (wholesale firing of unionized industries anyone?), or they will be left behind.

 

Just my .02 from what I remember of that dusty old degree from 20 years ago.

 

 

asta

 

.... so here I go:

 

What you're describing here is a deflationary economy, i.e. a period of falling prices, wages, and interest rates. But that isn't really what's happening here. Yes, wages have fallen, but interest rates have been kept artificially low. The current low rates are more a result of monetary policy designed to boost borrowing and spending than a true reflection of the cost of money. The feds will not be able to keep this up, and print money at the same time. It is not a matter of if, but a matter of when, inflation will hit.

 

Falling wages are due to the "tightening of belts" going on with most of business. Even those companies that have cash available are tightening their belts because they're not sure how long this downturn is going to last. They want to be sure that they can meet their fixed costs for the long term, so they are trimming away at their variable costs (like wages and salaries). So I really hope that other sectors of the economy won't "catch up". I hope that all sectors of the economy will be able to work back into a profitable position so that they'll then have the confidence to hire more people, and stabilize the wages of their existing employees.

 

Health Care: I take issue with your premise that socialized healthcare will lead to a decline in health costs. The thing that will cause a decrease in health care costs is for people to stop acting like it's free!! I hate the mindset that says "well, if the insurance pays for it, I'll have that test done, or take that medicine." There is no free lunch!! People need to stop acting as though insurance is a right. It is not a right. If it is made to be a right, then there is no incentive to live a healthy lifestyle, i.e. refrain from smoking, eat right, exercise, etc. I do those things. I have insurance (which I pay for out of my own pocket) with a ridiculously high deductible, because it is TRUE INSURANCE. It is not there to subsidize my Dr. visits. (Therefore I don't go to the Dr. unless I absolutely have to). It is there in the case of a true emergency, or an illness or injury that would otherwise break us. I pay my own way in life, + just a little bit more. It makes me angry beyond measure to have to pay the way of everybody else against my will. I could go on and on about why the cost of medicine is so high, but I have to move on to other things right now. So, suffice it to say that our technology has outrun our ability to pay for it. Those Dr.s have to pay for all that high-priced equipment somehow, so they schedule tests, because, well, usually "the insurance will pay for it", so people don't complain. That is changing, thank goodness.

 

One last comment about "getting back to basics". That is fine and dandy for whoever chooses to do so. But I would never say that it is a good thing for everybody, or "it's about time we got back to the good ole days", or anything like that. All those unemployed people don't feel like its such a good idea.

 

What we're dealing with here are good old fashioned consequences. The consequences of poor lending, and poor oversight, and lousy government policy, and yes, greed. It is not going to change the world, or human nature. It's just going to set us all on our ear for a bit.

 

And that's just my .02.:001_smile:

[Mrs Mungo]

The thing that will cause a decrease in health care costs is for people to stop acting like it's free!! I hate the mindset that says "well, if the insurance pays for it, I'll have that test done, or take that medicine." There is no free lunch!! People need to stop acting as though insurance is a right. It is not a right. If it is made to be a right, then there is no incentive to live a healthy lifestyle, i.e. refrain from smoking, eat right, exercise, etc. I do those things. I have insurance (which I pay for out of my own pocket) with a ridiculously high deductible, because it is TRUE INSURANCE. It is not there to subsidize my Dr. visits. (Therefore I don't go to the Dr. unless I absolutely have to). It is there in the case of a true emergency, or an illness or injury that would otherwise break us. I pay my own way in life, + just a little bit more. It makes me angry beyond measure to have to pay the way of everybody else against my will. I could go on and on about why the cost of medicine is so high, but I have to move on to other things right now.

 

Are you saying you only have catastrophic medical insurance and you pay everything else out of pocket? If that's the case, I'd suggest you and your family have been very lucky not to have a medical condition that requires constant monitoring and/or medication. Not everyone is so lucky and once there is such a problem, you cannot get insurance and it's impossible to pay out of pocket.

[Jackie in NE]

Are you saying you only have catastrophic medical insurance and you pay everything else out of pocket? If that's the case, I'd suggest you and your family have been very lucky not to have a medical condition that requires constant monitoring and/or medication. Not everyone is so lucky and once there is such a problem, you cannot get insurance and it's impossible to pay out of pocket.

 

You assume incorrectly that we have not had a medical condition that requires constant monitoring and medication. I have two children with severe asthma. They are each taking 3 medications/day plus inhalers and nebulizer treatments as necessary. (The nebulizer meds are relatively inexpensive). We visited the emergency room, I think 3 times, before we got the meds worked out. We have also had major surgeries requiring hospital stays. We have had to pay for those things. It requires that we do without other things. I certainly wouldn't ask YOU, or anyone else, to pay MY bills. You probably have enough bills of your own. I cannot get insurance for my female gynecological problems. I will probably have to have more surgery for those. We will save the money for it. We will work out a payment plan. But if something hits us out of the blue, we do have our catastrophic insurance. So we won't be a burden on society.

[Mrs Mungo]

You assume incorrectly that we have not had a medical condition that requires constant monitoring and medication. I have two children with severe asthma. They are each taking 3 medications/day plus inhalers and nebulizer treatments as necessary. (The nebulizer meds are relatively inexpensive). We visited the emergency room, I think 3 times, before we got the meds worked out.

 

My son has a lung condition that is not asthma. His medications run about $600/month. He's had 2 hospital stays, one in a civilian hospital and would have cost us $12,000+ without insurance. This is the sort of problem I'm talking about, not a couple of ER visits or minimal medication costs.

 

We have also had major surgeries requiring hospital stays. We have had to pay for those things. It requires that we do without other things. I certainly wouldn't ask YOU, or anyone else, to pay MY bills. You probably have enough bills of your own. I cannot get insurance for my female gynecological problems. I will probably have to have more surgery for those. We will save the money for it. We will work out a payment plan. But if something hits us out of the blue, we do have our catastrophic insurance. So we won't be a burden on society.

 

If you want to choose not to have insurance, that's fine. However, most people with insurance realize it's a collective-both payment wise *and* collective-bargaining wise. It's a choice, either way and there are compromises on either side.

 

The problem with health care not being seen as a "right" is that some people have medical conditions that preclude them paying out of pocket or getting insurance.

[Jackie in NE]

My son has a lung condition that is not asthma. His medications run about $600/month. He's had 2 hospital stays, one in a civilian hospital and would have cost us $12,000+ without insurance. This is the sort of problem I'm talking about, not a couple of ER visits or minimal medication costs.

 

 

 

If you want to choose not to have insurance, that's fine. However, most people with insurance realize it's a collective-both payment wise *and* collective-bargaining wise. It's a choice, either way and there are compromises on either side.

 

The problem with health care not being seen as a "right" is that some people have medical conditions that preclude them paying out of pocket or getting insurance.

 

I'm glad your ds can get the meds and medical procedures he needs. It sounds like you are part of a group that in total is paying its own way. That's great. I have no problem with that. It also sounds, since you used the word "civilian" that your are part of the armed services? And that they pay your health care needs? If so, thank you for your service to our country. I have no problem with that either, since it is our government's job to provide for our country's defense.

 

Our medication costs are not minimal. The scrips for my 2 dc are about the same as your 1 dc. Also, my hospital stays have been nothing to sneeze at, financially.

 

I understand collective bargaining. Our catastrophic coverage is our "group" plan. I am thankful for it. It gives me peace of mind. So I do have insurance. I do not "choose not to have insurance". All of our conditions are pre-existing. I don't have a problem with that either. You could say we were dealt a less-than-favorable hand medically speaking. So we make choices that allow us to have the capacity to pay for what we need, medically speaking.

 

Why is that a problem? I am handling my own bills, plus a little, since we have not needed the catastrophic insurance.

 

Payment of medical expenses by someone else is not a right. And that's how many people view insurance these days. They think it is a right for them to have all of their medical bills paid "by the insurance". Where do they think that is coming from? Again, it is fine if it is by a group that is paying its own way, as a whole. But that's not what the new healthcare would be. It would force people to pay for other people's medical costs against their will. It will not lower healthcare costs, it will raise them. And I do have a problem with that.

[hornblower]

Gosh, another health care debate! Yipppeeee! :001_rolleyes:

 

Personally, I heart Tommy Douglas, the father of universal public healthcare & that's strange since as a rule I'm not overly fond of Baptist ministers :lol:

[RegGuheert]

What you're describing here is a deflationary economy, i.e. a period of falling prices, wages, and interest rates. But that isn't really what's happening here.

IMO, that is EXACTLY what is happening here. I believe the next leg down will be much worse than the last one. Time will tell.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I'm glad your ds can get the meds and medical procedures he needs. It sounds like you are part of a group that in total is paying its own way. That's great. I have no problem with that. It also sounds, since you used the word "civilian" that your are part of the armed services? And that they pay your health care needs? If so, thank you for your service to our country. I have no problem with that either, since it is our government's job to provide for our country's defense.

 

Our medication costs are not minimal. The scrips for my 2 dc are about the same as your 1 dc. Also, my hospital stays have been nothing to sneeze at, financially.

 

I understand collective bargaining. Our catastrophic coverage is our "group" plan. I am thankful for it. It gives me peace of mind. So I do have insurance. I do not "choose not to have insurance". All of our conditions are pre-existing. I don't have a problem with that either. You could say we were dealt a less-than-favorable hand medically speaking. So we make choices that allow us to have the capacity to pay for what we need, medically speaking.

 

Why is that a problem? I am handling my own bills, plus a little, since we have not needed the catastrophic insurance.

 

Payment of medical expenses by someone else is not a right. And that's how many people view insurance these days. They think it is a right for them to have all of their medical bills paid "by the insurance". Where do they think that is coming from? Again, it is fine if it is by a group that is paying its own way, as a whole. But that's not what the new healthcare would be. It would force people to pay for other people's medical costs against their will. It will not lower healthcare costs, it will raise them. And I do have a problem with that.

 

I am glad that you can meet you medical expenses. OTOH there are millions of people IMHO who are being frugal and doing things right who cannot afford necessary medical care for their conditions:( I do not think that should happen in America IMO. I also think that you can do everything right in terms of taking care of your health and still be struck with a catastrophic illness:( Lastly, I think there are a lot of people putting off the health care, testing, medications, etc. that they need since they cannot afford it. I know is has happened to me and my dh and I are being frugal and believe that frugality is a virtue. Thank goodness I do not have anything catastrophic, but I am still putting off things medically which are not just superfluous or luxuries.

 

 

My 2 cents:)

[asta]

.... so here I go:

 

What you're describing here is a deflationary economy, i.e. a period of falling prices, wages, and interest rates. But that isn't really what's happening here. Yes, wages have fallen, but interest rates have been kept artificially low. The current low rates are more a result of monetary policy designed to boost borrowing and spending than a true reflection of the cost of money. The feds will not be able to keep this up, and print money at the same time. It is not a matter of if, but a matter of when, inflation will hit.

 

Technically, I am describing stagflation, not deflation.

 

Health Care: I take issue with your premise that socialized healthcare will lead to a decline in health costs. The thing that will cause a decrease in health care costs is for people to stop acting like it's free!! I hate the mindset that says "well, if the insurance pays for it, I'll have that test done, or take that medicine." There is no free lunch!! People need to stop acting as though insurance is a right. It is not a right. If it is made to be a right, then there is no incentive to live a healthy lifestyle, i.e. refrain from smoking, eat right, exercise, etc. I do those things. I have insurance (which I pay for out of my own pocket) with a ridiculously high deductible, because it is TRUE INSURANCE. It is not there to subsidize my Dr. visits. (Therefore I don't go to the Dr. unless I absolutely have to). It is there in the case of a true emergency, or an illness or injury that would otherwise break us. I pay my own way in life, + just a little bit more. It makes me angry beyond measure to have to pay the way of everybody else against my will. I could go on and on about why the cost of medicine is so high, but I have to move on to other things right now. So, suffice it to say that our technology has outrun our ability to pay for it. Those Dr.s have to pay for all that high-priced equipment somehow, so they schedule tests, because, well, usually "the insurance will pay for it", so people don't complain. That is changing, thank goodness.

 

Actually, that isn't what I said. I said:

 

* Even without public / socialized healthcare/medicine, we will begin to see a decline in the price of medical services, as demand simply drops. Supply follows demand. If no one can afford that "extra test", it simply doesn't get ordered.

 

eg: The United States does not currently have a socialized medical system in place except for the disabled and the indigent. Nor, if one is following the news reports, will it any time soon. Therefore, due to the COST (real, open one's wallet, pay cash COST) of going to the doctor, prices will begin to edge downward as patients refuse to have what they perceive to be unneeded tests.

 

The other half of that equation is that many people perceive socialized medicine as a less expensive system overall for a nation. I don't happen to agree with this (living in a socialist nation myself), but I can understand how people who are desperate for healthcare could believe this enough to want it to be true. There is an opportunity cost for everything. When a state must pay the healthcare costs for everyone, it must ration that healthcare, and it must also decide what other things in its "market basket" that it won't provide to its citizens. In the country where I reside, it has been decided that, to offset the cost of healthcare, the majority of national defense will be offset to other NATO nations. This is a common practice in Europe. Want to take a guess who the major NATO nation is who picks up that tab?

 

I did not intend for this ramble of mine to become a healthcare debate. I do, personally, believe that health *insurance* should be just that: insurance against the unknown, the unexpected, the catastrophic. Mrs. Mungo had no way to plan for a child with a severe genetic condition. I had no way to plan for a severe neurological problem. Both of us are now "uninsurable" in the regular insurance market. Many people do not understand the difference between "oh, you have a problem - wait 90 days and then we'll cover you for an exorbitant price" and uninsurable at ANY cost.

 

One last comment about "getting back to basics". That is fine and dandy for whoever chooses to do so. But I would never say that it is a good thing for everybody, or "it's about time we got back to the good ole days", or anything like that. All those unemployed people don't feel like its such a good idea.

 

What we're dealing with here are good old fashioned consequences. The consequences of poor lending, and poor oversight, and lousy government policy, and yes, greed. It is not going to change the world, or human nature. It's just going to set us all on our ear for a bit.

 

And that's just my .02.:001_smile:

 

And that was my point. No one wants to perceive they are going "backwards". Everyone wants it "better" than the last generation. But what is *better*? A larger television? A McMansion? Two cars and a boat? Botox? Yes, everyone has to decide for themselves. But what I think is now occurring is a seismic shift wherein society can no longer pay Visa with Mastercard to make those decisions. Society is having to take a cold, hard look at what they need vs what they want. Which, while not specific to post WWII America, is the closest reference point we have from an economic history point of view.

 

 

asta

Edited March 11, 2010 by asta
used the wrong word

[RegGuheert]

 

Technically, I am describing stagflation, not deflation.

We are in a deflationary depression very much like the great depression. There has been a secular shift in attitudes away from debt and no amount of money or credit thrown at the problem will bring us back to where we were. Thankfully. (I think we are agreed on this second point.)

[stripe]

Payment of medical expenses by someone else is not a right.

 

Having an economy where both businesses and individuals are crippled by medical expenses is not a virtue. Having a society where the unhealthy and diseased are condemned to a life of diminished functionality or death is neither wonderful nor healthy, nor right.

 

Consider the effect of the ravages of HIV on the South African economy. Consider what it would be like if many working-age Americans, plagued by diseases (including preventable diseases like diabetes that can lead to permanent disability, as well as things like tuberculosis or the common cold), were no longer able to work and/or infected others on a regular basis. Consider the effect on the nation as a whole, and if it's a path you'd want to go down.

 

I hardly think it's a freedom worth fighting for to have expensive health care that only the elite can afford.

[asta]

Having an economy where both businesses and individuals are crippled by medical expenses is not a virtue. Having a society where the unhealthy and diseased are condemned to a life of diminished functionality or death is neither wonderful nor healthy, nor right.

 

Consider the effect of the ravages of HIV on the South African economy. Consider what it would be like if many working-age Americans, plagued by diseases (including preventable diseases like diabetes that can lead to permanent disability, as well as things like tuberculosis or the common cold), were no longer able to work and/or infected others on a regular basis. Consider the effect on the nation as a whole, and if it's a path you'd want to go down.

 

I hardly think it's a freedom worth fighting for to have expensive health care that only the elite can afford.

 

This is a flawed argument, logically. (notice I said Logically, not Emotionally or Morally)

 

The logical response to a society plagued by diseases (including preventable ones) is not to prop up the ill and dying in a futile effort to "keep the economy going" -- the *logical* response to such a situation is to allow the chronically ill and dying to simply die, therefore reducing the strain on the system and allowing the reallocation of already scarce resources.

 

If perpetuation of a stronger species (from a genetics standpoint) is the goal of a society, then society, as a whole, does not perpetuate a weaker species. If this is not a goal of society, then it supports the frail and infirm amongst it. And before someone screams EUGENICS!! at me, think about it for a minute. I work in mental health. About 4 times a year, I encounter a schizophrenic who is more or less stable on their medication (stable BECAUSE of their medication) who announces that, because they are stable, it is now time for them to start their family/get pregnant. So they are going to stop taking their meds. So as not to harm the fetus.

 

Now, schizophrenia is genetic. It (normally) has a pubertal onset. Even if only one parent carries the gene, the chances of passing it to the newborn is around 40-50%. Every. Single. Time. I try to point out to one of these women that 1. going off of their meds is going to destabilize them, 2. going off of their meds PLUS getting whacked with hormones is going to destabilize them further 3. the chances that their own child will have to live through the hell that they had to live through (because I get to listen to the hellish parts) is extremely high and 4. the chances that their meds will work properly when they restart them is not guaranteed... do you know what I hear? BUT I'M STABLE. A PREGNANCY WILL BE NO PROBLEM. I'M NOT SICK ANYMORE. YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL ME NOT TO HAVE A BABY! (true - I just told you that it's going to be really hard)

 

I am the last person who would ever advocate forced sterilization. It used to be routinely done, and I found the practice abhorrent. But I will tell you right now: these women aren't paying for the care of their children (yes, I've followed a couple of them through pregnancies, etc.) - society is.

 

Whether any one individual finds a particular aspect of anything I've said discomforting or unpalatable, the reality is that "society" has, for hundreds of years, decided who will live and who will not; who will get scarce resources and who will not. Wars are ultimately fought over grains of rice, not political ideology.

 

 

asta

 

 

P.S. I'm fully aware that I'd be dead under the system I outlined above. I'm ok with that. My kid wouldn't be, and, in my little world, I would have fulfilled my purpose: making sure I allowed him a chance by not draining resources.