Journal pudge's Journal: Gratitude 35
Recession. Massive unemployment. Tax increases. Higher health insurance costs. Property values in the toilet. Loans impossible to get for most people. And today the WA Senate announces that they want to force car insurance rates higher, for an auto theft surcharge (makes you wonder who the actual thieves are).
And students who have never had a job or paid taxes -- along with teachers who have never worked in the private sector -- are protesting that we aren't giving them enough free money for college educations most of them probably won't use and don't need.
If you really want a college education, I am highly in favor of it. A college education can be a great way to prepare you for the real world. You know what's another great way of preparing for the real world? Learning how to pay for things yourself, if you really want them.
But I have enough to pay for already without covering your Higher Ed Fantasy Camp.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Liars and thieves (Score:2)
And today the WA Senate announces that they want to force car insurance rates higher, for an auto theft surcharge (makes you wonder who the actual thieves are).
Come on, you know as well as I do who the theives are -- the insurance industry and the politicians they bribe. I'm assuming theft insurance isn't mandatory in Washington, although liability probably is (it is in Illinois). Why would the industry need the government to "force" rates up when they can raise the rates themselves? It is (or at least shou
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the industry need the government to "force" rates up when they can raise the rates themselves? It is (or at least should be unless one company has a monopoly) a free market, after all.
The insurance industry is not a free market. Not even close. Most every state heavily regulates the insurance industry. Here in New York insurance companies have to get permission from a state bureaucracy before they can raise or lower their rates. The state mandates what kind of coverages they have to offer. That's why my health insurance went up 15% last year -- the state mandated that ALL health insurance policies cover mental illness. So even though I've never had any mental illness and have no hi
Re: (Score:1)
So you're saying we need more government to fix the problem, right? ;-)
And don't forget that the Big Villain here -- HMOs -- were essentially created, and are still maintained, by government through regulation and subsidies. It's utterly amazing to see people villify HMOs as the enemy, and government as solution, when HMOs are the government solution.
Re: (Score:2)
So you equate "free" with "unregulated"? By that definition practically nothing is a free market. Are you against the food industry being regulated to keep poison off of your plate? You're against environmental regulation to keep poison out of your air? You're against OSHA mandating that elevators have doors?
You may not be mentally ill, but what if you develop a mental illness? Compare it to heart disease. I have no heart disease, no history of heart disease, and it doesn't run in my family, but I'd be a fo
Re: (Score:1)
You may not be mentally ill, but what if you develop a mental illness? Compare it to heart disease. I have no heart disease, no history of heart disease, and it doesn't run in my family, but I'd be a fool to buy a policy that didn't include it. Without regulation, since heart disease kills millions yearly, the entire industry could decide not to cover it and anybody who had a heart attack would just have to die.
Incorrect. Come on, you know better than that. Insurance only exists because people want it. People also want insurance for heart disease; therefore, a free market will cover heart disease, and while ALL insurance policies wouldn't cover it ... like you said, you'd be a fool to get one that doesn't cover it, so yours would cover it.
mandating coverage for mental illness ...
... is unconstitutional and violates our essential liberty. If someone wants to not have coverage for it, who the hell are YOU to tell them they MUST have it?
Uninsured mentally ill people are almost always a drain on society.
So are socialist
Re: (Score:2)
mandating coverage for mental illness ... ... is unconstitutional and violates our essential liberty. If someone wants to not have coverage for it, who the hell are YOU to tell them they MUST have it?
You misunderstand what I meant, I must not have been clear. I'm not for mandating that you buy health insurance, I'm for mandating that health insurance covers health. If I go to a doctor my insurance company should pay him, minus any deductable, whether it's a heart attack, bipolar disorder, or swine flu. Gove
Re: (Score:1)
You misunderstand what I meant, I must not have been clear. I'm not for mandating that you buy health insurance, I'm for mandating that health insurance covers health.
Same thing. If I want health insurance to only cover indigestion and hangnails, your requirement that it also cover mental illness and heart disease is just as offensive as if I wanted no health insurance at all.
If I go to a doctor my insurance company should pay him, minus any deductable, whether it's a heart attack, bipolar disorder, or swine flu.
If that is the insurance service you pay for, certainly. If you choose some other service, then, obviously not.
Government shouldn't protect me from myself, but it should protect me from those with more power that would take advantage; otherwise, why have police?
How is your choice to not get mental illness coverage protecting you from anyone other than yourself?
Insurance itself is the biggest reason ours is the most expensive health care in the world.
And, I reiterate, government is the biggest reason why our insurance system is the way
Re: (Score:2)
and you can't say that everyone in Europe is a drain on society.
They are however a drain on our resources. One wonders where Europe's vaunted social safety net would be if they had to pay the full cost of their own national defense instead of relying on our protection.
Re: (Score:2)
You may not be mentally ill, but what if you develop a mental illness? Compare it to heart disease. I have no heart disease, no history of heart disease, and it doesn't run in my family, but I'd be a fool to buy a policy that didn't include it.
If I want to a "fool" why is it the role of Government to stop me? My health insurance premiums went up 15% for something that I will never need. I was not allowed to make the choice over whether or not I wanted to pay for that coverage. It was made for me. Why shouldn't I be able to decide which procedures I want covered by my health insurance? If I make the right choice I'll save money. If I make the wrong choice that's my own damn fault and I'll have to deal with the consequences. Why is it any bu
Re: (Score:2)
At the risk of roaming off topic, what's the deal with your hostility towards profit making ventures?
I'm all for people making an honest profit for their ventures. I'm against unneeded middlemen, and the health insurance industry is an unneeded middleman.
If I make the wrong choice that's my own damn fault and I'll have to deal with the consequences.
If you develop a serious mental illness I'll be the one paying, because without treatment you will be a drain on society and will likely become a homeless bum bo
Re: (Score:2)
I'm against unneeded middlemen, and the health insurance industry is an unneeded middleman.
So you want to replace it with another unneeded middleman known as "Uncle Sam"?
If you develop a serious mental illness I'll be the one paying, because without treatment you will be a drain on society and will likely become a homeless bum bothering me for spare change, running off customers of respectable businesses, not having a job or any health care at all and wind up in the hospital which will have to pass your costs on to me when I have a serious medical problem of my own.
That's a bullshit argument that can be used to support all sorts of infringements on liberty. Why do we let people eat big macs? They cause heart disease and increased medical spending. Why do we let people engage in dangerous sports like bungee jumping or skydiving? Why do we let people own sports cars? Why do we let them own firearms? Why do we let them drink alcohol? Why do we let them ride motorcycles?
Your argument d
Re: (Score:2)
So you want to replace it with another unneeded middleman known as "Uncle Sam"?
Uncle Sam's top executive makes under half a million dollars a year, and he's in carge of the world's largest military and is boss to every federal agency. Most insurance company executives make seven figures. Uncle Sam has no stockholders to pay. If all insurance companies were nonprofit and kept executive pay to reasonable rates (and six million a year is NOT reasonable, which is why I won't give to most big charities) I'd have
Re: (Score:1)
I am against limiting what people can do
That is ALL you are proposing: limiting what people can do.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but I just don't understand, maybe I need more coffee today. My dad has Medicare, and if he wants to buy more inurance, he can. If you want to sell him more insurance, you can. How is he or you limited in what you can do?
Re: (Score:1)
My dad has Medicare, and if he wants to buy more inurance, he can. If you want to sell him more insurance, you can. How is he or you limited in what you can do?
You don't apparently understand the fact that forcing me to pay for something I don't want is, unquivocally and by definition, limiting what I can do.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but as I said, I'm paying for the Iraq war as well. They're always going to use my tax money both for things I approve of, as well as things I disapprove of. I just have to accept that fact. All I can do about them spending my tax money on Iraq, or a bridge to nowhere, is to vote against politicians who vote for spending my money on things I don't approve of and voting for politicians who spend tax money on things I do approve of, which I asume you do as well.
I don't approve of the current health care
Re: (Score:2)
and kept executive pay to reasonable rates (and six million a year is NOT reasonable, which is why I won't give to most big charities)
Who appointed you the arbitrator of what is and is not a "reasonable" salary? For that matter, why don't people on the left ever complain about inflated public sector salaries? Toll booth collectors being paid $25/hr are directly ripping off the taxpayer whom can't vote with his wallet in the same manner as the consumer of a private enterprise.
Given the right leadership (and I'm not sure we actually have that), replacing insurance with government would cause medical costs to go down.
Read David Brooks latest op-ed [nytimes.com]. He summarizes all that's wrong with the current legislation. Short of another Pearl Harbor our Government isn't capable of making
Re: (Score:2)
Who appointed you the arbitrator of what is and is not a "reasonable" salary?
In a free market the customer decides; he can go elsewhere. health care is not a free market, and I have no choice who I get insurance from; my employer makes that choice and I have to pay the premiums regardless. As to what's reasonable, thirty years ago the average CEO made 30 times what the lowest paid employee mad, today it's 400 times as much. How is that in any way "reasonable"?
For that matter, why don't people on the left ev
Re: (Score:1)
health care is not a free market, and I have no choice who I get insurance from
Yes. This is the problem we need to fix. This is, by far, the best way to reduce costs, and it's not happening.
As to what's reasonable, thirty years ago the average CEO made 30 times what the lowest paid employee mad, today it's 400 times as much. How is that in any way "reasonable"?
Wrong question. The correct question is, 'how is that in any way "UNreasonable"?' You're the one making the contention here. You were asked what makes you the arbiter of what is reasonable, and then you try to turn it around and ask Shakrai how it is reasonable ... that's nonsense. He can't say how it is reasonable OR unreasonable. And his contention, which I share, is that neither can you.
Re: (Score:2)
If these toll booths are in Chicago or New York he's barely making a living.
Move somewhere else. You don't have the right to live somewhere with Government support just because the cost of living has grown beyond your means. I wanted to buy a house in one of the nicer communities around here but couldn't afford the property taxes. That's life -- I got over it and found somewhere else to live.
Not what you can buy, what you can SELL.
I'm not telling you who you can have sex with, I'm only telling all your potential partners who they can have sex with.....
I'd rather someone who at least has some accountability to me do it than my employer
And you think your Congress-critter with the gerrymandered distri
Re: (Score:2)
The correct question is, 'how is that in any way "UNreasonable"?
Their pay has increased tenfold while the average worker, who actually creates the wealth, has his pay stagnant and is losing benefits, which seems pretty unreasonable to me.
Have profits and creativity increased tenfold? In many cases these CEOs are presiding over failing businesses, such as banks and insurance companies, that are being bailed out by the government. Bailed out by you and me; they're billionaire welfare queens. I'd say in these
Re: (Score:2)
If these toll booths are in Chicago or New York he's barely making a living.
Move somewhere else.
That's completely beside the point. In those locations you're not going to find someone worth hiring for less. Hiring is as competetive as getting hired; supply and demand works on both sides. The question is "do I work in a toll booth or move", the question is "my toll booth is in Chicago, how do I hire someone who's not a felon, insand, or drug addict?" The answer is good pay and benefits.
I'd rather someone who
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is good pay and benefits
Actually the answer would be mandatory ez-pass or similar system (OCR license plate readers could even eliminate the need for the RFID tag), but that's another discussion entirely.
Your point about supply and demand is well made but the $25/hr toll booth worker is not a NYC or Chicago problem. That's the average salary for the PA Turnpike Commission toll booth collectors.
There's no way to vote my boss out of his job.
Your boss is accountable to the bottom line, something that Government is real good at ignoring these days. If the Federal Government (
Re: (Score:2)
I'll add one final point about public sector vs. private sector employment. In my area we have a mixture of public and private trash collection. Some communities have opted to make trash collection a public service, others require you to find a private company to haul away your trash.
Find a similar setup in your own area and watch the difference in how they work. The public guys send out THREE guys per truck -- one who does nothing but drive. The private guys send TWO guys per truck and in spite of hav
Re: (Score:1)
Their pay has increased tenfold while the average worker, who actually creates the wealth, has his pay stagnant and is losing benefits, which seems pretty unreasonable to me.
OK. I don't see why it seems unreasonable to you.
Have profits and creativity increased tenfold?
What's that got to do with anything?
In many cases these CEOs are presiding over failing businesses, such as banks and insurance companies, that are being bailed out by the government.
The bailouts, being a TINY percentage of CEOs, is beside the point.
As to presiding over failing businesses ... shrug. That's up to the stockholders and board of directors and owners and so on. If they think it's unreasonable, then it's unreasonable. If they don't, then it's not.
Second ... who the hell are you to tell anyone they cannot sell something, or have to sell something?
Not me, but the legislators and regulators.
They ARE you. They have only the authority that WE have in the first place, that WE give them. I am not going to do down into the weeds and di
Re: (Score:2)
Your boss is accountable to the bottom line, something that Government is real good at ignoring these days. If the Federal Government (or most state governments for that matter) was a private enterprise the CFO would be up on criminal charges and the board would be looking for a new management team.
Then why didn't the CFOs of any of the banks or insurance companies Bush and Obama bailed out go up on criminal charges? Seems a lot of corporations don't care much about the bottom line, either.
Re: (Score:2)
If we had allowed them to fail then the companies that took their place wouldn't be as inclined to engage in such behavior. See moral hazard.
Re: (Score:2)
What's that got to do with anything?
Everything! If I did as bad a job as most CEOs I'd have been fired long ago. Business is bad these days, why doesn't CEO pay reflect that? Everyone else's pay does.
Second, we're talking about paying for insurance coverage for legal services.
I'm confused, I thought we were talking about health insurance, not malpractice insurance.
Start by eliminating ALL mandates on individuals and businesses.
I would go along with that, as long as you're not talking about doing away with t
Re: (Score:1)
What's that got to do with anything?
Everything! If I did as bad a job as most CEOs I'd have been fired long ago. Business is bad these days, why doesn't CEO pay reflect that? Everyone else's pay does.
Sorry, I should have asked, "how does this demonstrate that the pay is unreasonable?" And you didn't answer it. You made up a fake claim about how everyone else's pay reflects business being down, and then pretended that to be "reasonable," the CEO pay should similarly reflect it.
The problem is that this "should" is in your own mind. You haven't actually cited any reasons for why this is wrong or bad (even if it was true).
Second, we're talking about paying for insurance coverage for legal services.
I'm confused, I thought we were talking about health insurance, not malpractice insurance.
I think you thought I meant "legal services" as in "hiring an attorney." No, I mea
Re: (Score:1)
If you develop a serious mental illness I'll be the one paying, because without treatment you will be a drain on society and will likely become a homeless bum bothering me for spare change, running off customers of respectable businesses, not having a job or any health care at all and wind up in the hospital which will have to pass your costs on to me when I have a serious medical problem of my own. You will make MY insurance premiums go up.
First, let's dispense with "bothering me for spare change" (which costs you nothing, you can ignore it) and "running off customers" (which can be addressed with minimal cost through law enforcement), and focus on the hospital treatment.
But it is immoral to say to someone, "we will force you to take something for free ... and oh yeah, because we do that, now we get to control your behavior."
If you want to give out free health care (mental or physical), then do it. But to use that as a leverage for controlli
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to give out free health care (mental or physical), then do it. But to use that as a leverage for controlling behavior (forcing people to have certain types of coverage) is immoral.
I agree with that; I think the current plan going through congress is an abomination. I'd like to see something like the Europeans and Canadians have. If we had that, the argument of whether or not insurance companies be regulated to offer mental health care is moot, as insurance would be something that you could buy O
Re: (Score:1)
I'd like to see something like the Europeans and Canadians have.
You agreed force is wrong, and yet you want a system that is based on force? I don't get it.
Re: (Score:2)
You agreed force is wrong, and yet you want a system that is based on force? I don't get it.
I don't get the "based on force", unless you're referring to the collection of taxes. I object to my tax money going to finance the Iraq war, give grants to IBM and Kodak that are greater than they pay in taxes, for pork that does little but get Senators re-elected, etc., but otoh government is necessary; we need bridges, schools, firefighters, sewers, etc. You have to finance government some way.
If it were set up pr
Re: (Score:1)
I don't get the "based on force"
You said you want a system similar to the Canadian or European systems. Most of them require everyone to participate in the government system and get their primary health care through that system, and many of them, including Canada, make private insurance illegal.
Paying for it is a separate issue: people are forced to get their care through that system.
government is necessary; we need bridges, schools, firefighters, sewers, etc.
Government is not required for any of those things, in fact. I do not necessarily oppose government involvement in them, but it is not required for them.
Bu
Re: (Score:2)
Most of them require everyone to participate in the government system and get their primary health care through that system, and many of them, including Canada, make private insurance illegal.
I wasn't aware of that, and thank you for the info.
Honestly, I have no idea why you went to "taxes," since it's well-known that the "socialized medicine" of most of those countries is all about forcing people into a government-run system.
Perhaps I should do a little research...