Word from the Obama Admin is coming on mmj

[ItsAllOver]

unregulated market forces that serve to encourage massive risk taking with other people's money does not serve America's long-term financial interest.

Yep, that's pretty much what a lot of the financial crisis comes down to.
And the "well-intentioned" intervention of the gov't (FanMae & FredMac) taking the risk away from much of this "risk taking with other's money" you're talking about. It's not even a risk to the loan originator, they take the commission and sell the thing off, knowing that if the SHTF the government will insure it all.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The real problem is that financial "profits" are realized on an annual basis, but do not reflect discounting for losses that only emerge in subsequent fiscal years.

The so-called pay czar is considering legislation that would shift more compensation to stock. This would restrict the environment for the quick buck with high risk to taxpayers. It may not solve every problem with compensation levels on Wall Street but it's a start.

 

[ItsGrowTime]

We already experienced tens of millions not having health insurance when the world economy collapsed in the 1930s. I hope you're not serious. There are more types of insurance than you can count and all are government regulated except health. The thing that needs to be abolished is the way things are atm.

Your need for insurance is inversely proportionate to the amount of risks and/or bad decisions you make in life. If there were no "safety net" then people would think harder about the choices they make. Would there be as many reckless drivers if there was no car insurance and any accident (no such thing as an accident btw) YOU caused came straight out of your pocket? To me, the erosion of personal responsibility in society today is caused by insurance and other forms of "safety nets" for people who make bad choices. Call it Darwin's Law of natural selection but I bet you that people would be more self reliant, more accountable, and more deliberate in their decisions if insurance didn't exist to bail them out of bad decisions. The only insurance I can see being necessary is "catastrophic insurance", against "Acts of God" (healthy tree falls on your house during a tornado, for example...but then again, why live in tornado alley if that's possible?). Mandatory health insurance goes against the very fabric that the US was founded upon. Self reliance, good decision making and personal responsibility for your actions.

Government intervention in monopoly or near monopoly happened with the railroads in the 19th century, Standard Oil and Wall Street in the early 20th. Railroads suffered from the interstate highway system and never returned to the boom days but WS and big oil are consolidating again.

I'm with ya on this one. IGT.

Well at least we can find some common ground.
You're going into much deeper issues than health care there and while Im always up for a discussion on economics this isn't the place. The one thing that everyone has to remember is today's US economy is a corporatist soft fascist system. It is NOT capitalism. When the gov't mandates something, you better believe that some private corporations will benefit greatly. If we were returned to true capitalism (competition, bankruptcy for failed corps, no government handouts to corps, etc.) most of this issue wouldn't even be happening. Competition would provide the best care at the best cost. So in reality we're all correct. We're just correct about different things. But that's why government's divide and conquer tactics work! We're quibbling over the small details while the big details (like the Fed and bubbles, the root causes) are entirely ignored.

 

[Pythagllio]

Funny coming from you. Thanks for the neg rep, how open minded of you...

No need to thank me, you earned it.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Every time you support a large corporation in any way you are paying "these greedy bastards" (aka entrepreneurs providing a product that people apparently like) of all sorts. I have no problem compensating a person for doing such a massive thing as running a multi-billion dollar company. I don't see why people don't see the difference between them working at Chick-Fil-A and a health insurance exec overseeing a company that provides insurance for millions of people. (even if you don't think they are "doing a good job" of it. Lots of insured people would argue that they are happy)

ItsAllOver, I hope you're insured and happy.

I consider myself a capitalist. Not by choice but I'm still pro system. An executive ought to be paid a competitive salary. But that much?

Imagine, you and I would both enjoy a new job every few years with ever increasing salaries. Even if we're incompetent and tank the bottom line, that's ok. We'll get fat severance packages and it's off to the Caribbean or Mediterranean where we'll shelter our excessive wealth from the IRS.

Nationwide insures my car. Under the current system, BCBS would most likely insure my health care if I could get coverage. My car insurance is reasonable and doesn't wreck my finances. The BCBS CEO in my state made $17,000,000.00 last year. Maybe I should be thankful I'm uninsured so the fucker has a better chance of getting his bonus next year. I understand that health care is far more comprehensive and expensive than car maintenance but why does one sector reward themselves so lavishly? The health care industry is exempt from antitrust laws, that's why.

...(and if you want to bitch about how much execs make, please look into the financial sector. [or oil revenues] You will think you're misreading the numbers.)

We have. The whole country raised hell when oil prices topped $147/bbl last year. The whole country raised hell at the billions WS gave away last year and they're about to distribute another, near record bonus this year.

Sorry, I'm not gonna debate the justification of what I consider excessive greed on a very large scale. But I'm a damn American and respect you're right to think as you wish.

And did you know that over half of that income came from stock option awards? These are basically opportunities to buy stock at a set price at a later date, which gives the CEO incentive to increase the stock value so that they can profit from the buy/sale at the end of the period.

They also get to be first in line when it comes to timing of dumps. They don't just wake up one day and say, "I think I'm gonna cash in my opshuns tuday." They time the dump to maximize profits at the expense of the lowly shareholder who is not in the catbird seat when large transactions go the wrong way.

Also, let's not forget how much of his $24,300,112 goes to the government in taxes. A HUGE PORTION!

You might be relatively young but his tax rate in the 1950s (under a republican administration) would have been 91%. Today, it doesn't matter if he makes $3.5 million or $35 million or $35 trillion. His tax rate is 35%. And his capital gains are only 15%. I'm not sure if you're aware the IRS is currently going after income tax fraudsters by the tens of thousands. These folks were largely ignored during the previous administration. Then, IRS agents concentrated on the bottom 95% of income earners and rich folks could skirt if they were willing to take the risk. Apparently, the IRS thinks there were at least tens of thousands because that's where their focus is.

These people are providing a product, and they don't do it badly. If you want them to do it better, push for it. No one is forced to be their customer, and they know that.

You've never had a health insurance related catastrophe. Only then will you recognize you're out on a limb and your health insurance company is sawing it off.

Customers have more sway than they seem to think. You can't say, "well it's not absolutely perfect so I want my government nanny to come in and take care of me." You know what, sometimes people can't get access to healthcare, and to think the world will ever be perfect in this or any respect is silly. The private market is evolving every day, and if people were incapable of paying the price the insurance companies charged, they'd either change or go out of business. Not only this, but if everyone in America died off due to lack of insurance, the companies would have nothing to stand on, would they?

LOL, these ass clowns operate free and clear of ant-trust laws. I say make em play on the same field everybody else does. Well, except Major League Baseball, lol.

The incentive is obvious to the CEOs and employees of the company to increase the number of clients and decrease the cost, because you make MORE MONEY that way than providing higher cost to fewer clients. It's a no brainer, really. Every human being needs a little lesson in economics.

Sorry, can't look at the link. I afraid it will be some Ayn Rand protege and I'll scream, lol. Apparently the health insurance execs didn't get your memo on how to increase profits because they're currently culling their lists of insured at 14,000 a week. I hate to sound blunt but insured folks lucky enough to be healthy haven't experienced the dark side first hand.

People just get their panties in a bunch because we are talking about things that people "need" as opposed to want. But the thing is, tell me why this industry is so different that the price mechanism does not work? (if you don't get the term, please look into it, pretty important concept to this discussion)
If we have 300,000,000 people in the US (surely more now), and there is "enough health care" (hard to define in such a complex situation, just think of these as "numbers of vaccines" or similar health-related item) for 250,000,000, there is NO WAY right now to change this. Law and legislation does nothing to increase the abilities of the health care industry. We will simply end up with a worsened shortage of the good, because the government is going to come in and fuck up the price mechanism, as they always do.
You might now say, "but IAO, of course we have enough resources to provide health care for everybody." I say, "yea, and you have enough resources to buy a Lamborghini, just sell all of your possessions, house, car, put down a downpayment, and pay off for the rest of your life and then some." Get the idea there? So where do the resources shift from? Would this have effects that we didn't think about because it's impossible to know EVERY interaction? Arguably, yes.

It is not as simple as reading little factoids and statistics (of dubious veracity). You must have a firm understanding of underlying economic principles.

All that and I have only two words, anti-trust exemption.

I'm not saying I know everything, but all historical evidence of government intervention in price ends up having adverse effects on the effective provision of goods and services, despite often positive intentions!

Speaking of dubious veracity......

Oh and about "thousands of people losing their coverage every day." Um, I think it's important to consider the number of those thousands that sign up for comparable (often better?) coverage the same/next day!

Sorry, I'd say nice try if it was. These folks are being denied coverage, not temporarily falling through the crack during Census counts. Some folks simply become self employed and that reason alone knocks em outta the game. Most are dumped because they're considered a risk to profits. Come on man, this is good health we're talking about! No offense but are you a health insurance salesperson?

The exact numbers are not what matter, it is the fact that people are reading/spouting these gov't sponsored numbers and not thinking about what they mean/the bigger picture.

The government is not an insurance company, and forcing it into being one is likely not going to be a good way to get quality health care

A public option will allow the majority of uninsured to buy affordable health care coverage. The government will be able to provide these folks with a large pool, negotiated rate, free of profit. Not some bs small pool/individual plan that costs more than it covers or one that gets dropped if you actually make a claim. I'm not a big government cheerleader but it's already big. Let's use it to help the folks who are being exploited over something so vital as good health.

(remember we don't care about health insurance, we want health care).

Single payer is out of the question at the moment. Until then, a strong public option is the only angle to give competition to an otherwise price controlled, near monopoly.

We have to be able to see the disparity between intention and effect of law and legislation. Minimum wage laws are a perfect, simple example.

We're getting a little broad in the discussion here. Make a thread about minimum wage issues and I'll see you there.

And of course the insurance companies are spending out the ass to lobby. They fear for their existence because they know the havoc the gov't will wreak on the industry. And if the insurance companies, providing a good service for MANY people, get destroyed by the gov't, what do you think will happen to those currently being covered? I would rather have 45MM people without health insurance than the opposite, much larger, (~300,000,000 - 45,000,000 = 255,000,000) portion of the population that is already insured losing theirs due to gov't intervention. Companies can go out of business in a flash due to malinvestment and market tampering by the government. Now I wouldn't expect them all to go out, but Aetna takes care of 36.5MM peeps, ya know? Even making smallish dents in all of the companies in the industry will have a large effect.

One more time. Anti-trust exemption. Congress is beginning to discuss the exemption in efforts to eliminate it for the health care industry. Poor executives. They'll have to play by the same rules. I'm not worried your coverage will suffer. After all, you're willing to let 45 million go uncovered so you'll be fine.

Also I notice that a significant foundation for your argument, Disco, is based on the fact that you are sure that government will "do it better" than private insurance. This is an unsubstantiated claim to me. Are you referencing VA and other info for this? I have seen some, but not all, of the info there. Maybe some links to sources, etc? Thx man

I've been here for eight months providing information to folks that have a different opinion about reform. I hope you'll forgive me but I don't wish to chase stuff that will be mostly or completely ignored.

Unsubstantiated? If you don't see the clear difference in totally unrestricted capitalism with a government element that is profit free, I can't get through the fog to make a further point. The profit free ability of the government to pool potential customers is a win win. The insurance companies will get almost 45 million extra folks to rip off but the government won't make a profit on the administrative services and the insurance companies won't be able to drop folks indiscriminately.

Don't hate on the successful people of this country (I'm talking about the execs) just because you are not one, peeps. This is too common. These people often had similar beginnings to yours. (not always, I know) Now what could have caused the difference in result?

I don't have to hate the executive, they're human beings. Each and every one in the health care industry gets fatter at our expense. They should be getting fatter helping us. How much is enough? When your industry is rated #27 by the WHO and it still costs twice as much as the #1 system? Come on man, get off the "hate executives" bus.

I hate the system.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Itsallover, you fail to take into account that the insurance companies profit by denying valid claims. No CEO who kills and maims people to turn a profit deserves a multi-million dollar salary.

Insurance companies are doing a POOR job insuring people, but are doing a good job serving stockholders.

Any time I support a large corporation in any way, I am NOT supporting Greedy bastards who profit via Death Panel treatment denials.

If you cannot see a moral difference in supporting entrepreneurs providing products, and supporting monopolies who allow you to pay for a product you will have taken away from you when you need it.

Anyone who is aware of the way health insurance companies currently conduct business, and thinks the way health insurance companies currently conduct business is OK... I cordially invite to (in the words of Les Grossman) take a big step back, and literally fuck your own face.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Your need for insurance is inversely proportionate to the amount of risks and/or bad decisions you make in life. If there were no "safety net" then people would think harder about the choices they make. Would there be as many reckless drivers if there was no car insurance and any accident (no such thing as an accident btw) YOU caused came straight out of your pocket? To me, the erosion of personal responsibility in society today is caused by insurance and other forms of "safety nets" for people who make bad choices. Call it Darwin's Law of natural selection but I bet you that people would be more self reliant, more accountable, and more deliberate in their decisions if insurance didn't exist to bail them out of bad decisions. The only insurance I can see being necessary is "catastrophic insurance", against "Acts of God" (healthy tree falls on your house during a tornado, for example...but then again, why live in tornado alley if that's possible?). Mandatory health insurance goes against the very fabric that the US was founded upon. Self reliance, good decision making and personal responsibility for your actions.

Insurance is a thousand years older than us. It's as old as commerce itself. I'm sure the founding father's were insurance proponents. I wouldn't be surprised if some were in some type of insurance business. Initiating a new country certainly wouldn't change the philosophy of capitalism? Hell no, the bastards wanted to SELL insurance to the new country.

Sorry I don't agree with your Darwinian imagination when it comes to social philosophy. People can't get coverage and many through no fault of their own. They just happen to be outside employment with a company large enough to provide affordable pools. A strong public option will allow individuals to get affordable coverage without necessarily taxing their small business employer. Until we get single payer, the public option simply provides more choice for folks who are unhappy with the products and services they pay a lot of money for. Not to mention those most in need, those dropped from insurance rolls.

Well at least we can find some common ground.
You're going into much deeper issues than health care there and while Im always up for a discussion on economics this isn't the place.

The one thing that everyone has to remember is today's US economy is a corporatist soft fascist system. It is NOT capitalism. When the gov't mandates something, you better believe that some private corporations will benefit greatly. If we were returned to true capitalism (competition, bankruptcy for failed corps, no government handouts to corps, etc.) most of this issue wouldn't even be happening. Competition would provide the best care at the best cost. So in reality we're all correct. We're just correct about different things. But that's why government's divide and conquer tactics work! We're quibbling over the small details while the big details (like the Fed and bubbles, the root causes) are entirely ignored.

HCI operates under an exemption of US antitrust laws. They don't have to answer to regulation like every single business in the US (except Major League Baseball.) Eliminate the exemption and you have a better argument about everybody being right about something. HCI has always had enough money to buy off politicians and it's not fair.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

And, the government may not be able to do it better, but they'll at least do it just as good for alot cheaper.

Neither UPS nor Fed Ex can deliver a document from Washington DC to Los Angeles for under a dollar, but the United States Post Office can.

Funny thing, the public option did not drive the private carriers out of business, either.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I'll back back out of the thread, though... Disco is doing well enough keeping things straight...

 

[socbutter]

But if I supported communist practices like gov't controlled pay limits for "private" businesses and forced redistribution of wealth then I should probably move to China. They like stuff like that over there. Maybe you should look into it. Sounds more to your liking.

You may want to read a current newspaper China's turned capitalist, baby.

FYI the only true communist organization is the Catholic church or Cuba.

CUBA LIBRE!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Catholic church, lol. That's a good one. Last time I checked, N Korea was communist.

 

[moonymonkey]

oh yeahhhhh,its gonna hit our state xxxxx bad boys,bad boys watchs gonna do?.....moon/9 lives xxxxxxxxx

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

And, the government may not be able to do it better, but they'll at least do it just as good for alot cheaper.

Neither UPS nor Fed Ex can deliver a document from Washington DC to Los Angeles for under a dollar, but the United States Post Office can.

Funny thing, the public option did not drive the private carriers out of business, either.

Good point, h3ad. In fact, today's private carriers didn't get their start until the USPS had been established for more than a century. They didn't get an exemption, they actually had to compete for their businesses.

I love it when people argue against socialism "light". If numbers provide strength, why not only seize upon as well as legitimize. Many of the services we've grown accustomed to are only possible with an organized populous.

 

[ItsAllOver]

Good point, h3ad. In fact, today's private carriers didn't get their start until the USPS had been established for more than a century. They didn't get an exemption, they actually had to compete for their businesses.

I love it when people argue against socialism "light". If numbers provide strength, why not only seize upon as well as legitimize. Many of the services we've grown accustomed to are only possible with an organized populous.

If the only reason that they could ship the document for under a buck was because they were operating at a loss, it's not worth it. The money comes from somewhere to offset the loss, and with a gov't institution, the loss is covered by someone who had nothing to do with the original transaction in question. This is morally wrong.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

lmao... the postal service is immoral... lmfao...

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Some of you need to move to a country that was not founded for the purpose of promoting the general welfare of her citizens.

 

[ItsAllOver]

lmao... the postal service is immoral... lmfao...

Oh h3ad, I thought we were on the same page with reading into things logically. That's not what I said at all. I said that shifting costs from one entity receiving the good/benefit to another person(s) who is not receiving that good/benefit is immoral. (and I thought that you were backing out of the thread, lol. I'm kidding, stick around!)

And regarding your second post: I think it should be up to you to provide for your own welfare, and me for my own, unless we feel like helping each other out, which we very well might.
I just don't think it should be forced. That is called dictatorship. I don't want one over you, and you shouldn't have one over me.

Society (if there is such a thing) has no implicit responsibility to the entities that make it up.
Where do we draw the line for what should be distributed and what shouldn't? Each of us should make this decision for ourselves.
To assume that "without the 'benevolent, all-knowing government' making sure wealth is distributed properly, the country would go to hell," is an absurd, uneducated proposition.
Even if the intentions of the bureaucrats are good, to assume as a premise that said government bureaucrats (or any individual posting in this thread) are individually or collectively capable of knowing enough and of scrutinizing that information properly to take care of complex decisions like this is naive.

It's not that I think the intentions are not good. On the contrary. It's just that I know that the results are likely to be bad, and this is based not on superficial data about #s lacking insurance, and costs, or anecdotal info about individuals getting screwed by insurance companies, but on history that proves my case: that market forces (price mechanism, distributed knowledge, emergent order, industrial expertise, competition), coupled with reasonable and transparent gov't regulation, are enough to solve these problems.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Oh h3ad, I thought we were on the same page with reading into things logically. That's not what I said at all. I said that shifting costs that one person is obligated to bear to another person(s) is immoral. (and I thought that you were backing out of the thread, lol. I'm kidding, stick around!)

And regarding your second post: I think it should be up to you to provide for your own welfare, and me for my own, unless we feel like helping each other out, which we very well might.
I just don't think it should be forced. That is called dictatorship. I don't want one over you, and you shouldn't have one over me.

Society (if there is such a thing) has no implicit responsibility to the entities that make it up.
Where do we draw the line for what should be distributed and what shouldn't? Each of us should make this decision for ourselves.
To assume that "without the 'benevolent, all-knowing government' making sure wealth is distributed properly, the country would go to hell," is an absurd, uneducated proposition.
Even if the intentions of the bureaucrats are good, to assume as a premise that said government bureaucrats are individually or collectively capable of knowing enough and of scrutinizing that information properly to take care of complex decisions like this is naive.

Bullshit.

We, the people of the unites states,

In order to:

1.form a more perfect union

2.establish justice

3.insure domestic tranquillity

4.provide for the common defense

5.promote the general welfare

and

6.secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity,

do ordain and establish this constitution for

the United States of America.

I guess the founders of our country had a different morality, since they thought the country's job was to take care of her citizens.

 

[ItsAllOver]

Bullshit.
We, the people of the unites states,

In order to

form a more perfect union

establish justice

insure domestic tranquillity

provide for the common defense

promote the general welfare

and

secure the blessings of liberty

for ourselves and our posterity

do ordain and establish this constitution for

the United States of America.

I guess the founders of our country had a different morality, since they thought the country's job was to take care of her citizens.

Ah yes. The old "define general welfare" argument.
Well, this could go on and on, couldn't it.
I will just go ahead and say I don't think the founders meant the government must be the health insurance (or care) provider of last resort, just like I don't think the founders meant we needed a Federal Reserve or FDIC or FanMae/FredMac as lenders of last resort, even though those negative entities do exist.

That's the bullshit, my man.

If you can justify to me that the government has a duty to make sure its citizens are healthy, I will buy it. But that's a complicated argument you've got to make.

- Define healthy.
- Decide how much health care is even available. Have fun...
- Then determine the prices that must be charged for insurance to deal with the disparity between health care need (which each person defines individually) and health care availability.

Based on the general welfare argument, should the government provide a car to every American so they can commute 45 minutes (or whatever similar number the average is) to work? Should they make sure we all have a living wage?
Draw a line for me. Justify the line.
National defense is explicit, I'm down with that. Roads, I'm down with. Public schools, I'm down with if the state manages them, and if vouchers are possible for those opting out. Ya know, it's just about justifying the line that is drawn.
So just explain to me why the government has the responsibility (and why it is even possible, which is the most important thing) for making sure its citizens are healthy.
I don't want the government to care about me that much. (and I doubt the effectiveness of their plan to do so) I care about myself enough to take care of it. And if I fail, I either rely on the beneficence of my community/family or get screwed...
Reality... I recognize it.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Ah yes. The old "define general welfare" argument.
Well, this could go on and on, couldn't it.
I will just go ahead and say I don't think they meant the government must be the health insurance (or care) provider of last resort, just like I don't think the founders meant we needed a Federal Reserve or FDIC or FanMae/FredMac as lenders of last resort.

That's the bullshit, my man.

If you can justify to me that the government has a duty to make sure its citizens are healthy, I will buy it. But that's a complicated argument you've got to make.

- Define healthy.
- Decide how much health care is even available. Have fun...
- Then determine the prices that must be charged for insurance to deal with the disparity between health care need (which each person defines individually) and health care availability.

Haha... you want to nitpick...

Whatever...

Our Constitution was ordained and established for SIX SPECIFIC REASONS.

It is not up to me to decide what when or how much...

It's an unfuckingdeniable fact that our health care system in it's current state has serious problems that need to be reformed.
That's all I have asserted.... All your nitpicking is red herring.


Surely you are not so ignorant as to think the federal reserve is a government institution....

LMAO
If you really think that, then I have nothing further to discuss with you untill you learn enough about the United States to hold your own in the discussion...