|
|
Post by SaintsFan on Jan 27, 2014 11:43:59 GMT -5
Glen, I respect your differing opinions. The ability to have and voice them is the cornerstone of this great nation. Can you point out the actual flaws in the Obamacare plan for me? The rollout was a disaster, no disagreement there but that was due to inept planning re such a large multi-state on-line system and not due to any of the actual elements of Obamacare as I see it. Many of the features were implemented a year or so ago and no complaints on any of that. We keep hearing the inflammatory "redistribution of wealth" characterization - coined to be a hot button icon. Allocation of collected taxes to areas where there is a need is the reality (although one can debate ad nauseum the "need" definition) but it doesn't garner the "flavor" the fiscal conservatives seem to relish. CellarRat talks about socialism and that Obamacare is a further expansion of Government. Well, Medicare is certainly a socialistic-like program and you don't hear many complaints about it. One of my favorite quotes from an opponent of Obamacare was - don't let the Government mess with my Medicare. Laughable while at the same time very sad and an indictment of how ill informed many are. I paid over my career for Medicare and pay for it now and it works fine. Obamacare is not a government run program it ia s program mandated by the government to provide closure in the many costly holes in our health care system. There are no Government run Murder Boards or Government workers reviewing health insurance claims. They are still being reviewed as they always were by the insurance company bean counters albeit with some restrictions on what they can do to the insured. I completely agree with you on public sector unions. The private sector unions have over the years gone from being very necessary to protect workers to being self-serving and destructive - how many manufacturing jobs have we lost due to unions being unwilling to make any necessary concessions to maintain a company's viability? The answer - Too many. The public sector unions have contributed to the significant decline in our education system, IMO. Unions rule the classrooms. Lousy teachers are protected and maintained in their positions. Mandating political contributions to any degree at all is just not right. I believe union membership should be optional and, if that happened, you'd see a decline in the number of members and the union's overall control of the employment landscape. So many things that need fixing yet we spend time worrying about insignificant issues with jazzy political appeal. I'm guessing we won't see any bullets from the Rat. The only bullets he might have are likely in the AK-47 or AR-15 on his mantle. Those are the weapons are forefathers envisioned as being necessary to protect our citizens from the Government they designed and implemented. There is probably a picture of Adams or Jefferson on the mantle next to the pile of loaded magazines..... What is the correlation between the income/wealth gap that also mirrors the decline of Union membership? Or do you guys think that they are unrelated? Serious question. Union membership is at what? 10-11% of employment |
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,348
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Jan 27, 2014 12:24:58 GMT -5
Well you surprisingly stated some conservative positions that I can support. But for the most part, you are just a big government, higher taxes, class warfare guy, I'm not. You talk about people liking their social security and Medicare. you realize that the deduction from the employee and the contribution from an employer is mandatory. It is not a voluntary system, just like obamacare. To state that people like a program that they are forced to contribute to is dishonest. Just more silly arguments from the lefty. I feel bad for all of those Catholic little leaguers who were initially left handed and then had their knuckles repeatedly rapped by Sister Mary-Beat-Out-The-Devil until they changed their sinful ways and became right handed. Maybe if there were more leftys in the majors there would be reduced wealth redistribution........ At least you're funny! :-) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2014 12:26:29 GMT -5
SF, I think part of it is due to the decline of a manufacturing industry - most has been shipped overseas. Add in the impact of technology and you have fewer workers on those factory floors still in the States. The old mainstay of the union, the blue collar worker, is rapidly disappearing. The technology improvements increase profits and the wealth gap just keeps growing. I don't see unions closing the gap - they, IMO, improved working conditions, etc. but their current reluctance to make any and all concessions to preserve jobs is just wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by SaintsFan on Jan 27, 2014 13:03:42 GMT -5
SF, I think part of it is due to the decline of a manufacturing industry - most has been shipped overseas. Add in the impact of technology and you have fewer workers on those factory floors still in the States. The old mainstay of the union, the blue collar worker, is rapidly disappearing. The technology improvements increase profits and the wealth gap just keeps growing. I don't see unions closing the gap - they, IMO, improved working conditions, etc. but their current reluctance to make any and all concessions to preserve jobs is just wrong. some reluctance is due to the fact that we are all going backwards (average workers) both unionized and non-unionized while coporate profits are sky rocketing. Health care costs are sky rocketing for everyone ... including most Unionized employees. As you can figure out, I am a unionized employee... we experienced a 26% increase in our health care costs in one year and prior to that they were going up an average of 7-14% each year and i actually paid more BEFORE the increase for my public health insurance than i did for my private employer privated health insurance. They were comporable policies. My co-pay was actually lower at my private sector employer as well. We also have had no increases in pay for 3 years running. another concession. I think many dont realize exactly what sort of compromises HAVE been made by Unionized employees. All of which were made to prevent layoffs which were done systematically over the past four years ANYWAY. If you look at the last 4 years you will find that the public employees at least at the State level have taken an absolute beating most due to concessions that people think arent happening. In the next three to four years we will probably see something that looks like 2% 3% 3% 3%. That will be dwarfed by the private sector over the same period. Over that same time period... our health insurance will go up ... just like everyone else's. When it comes to the manufacturing. How would any worker in this country be able to compete with workers in third world countries willing to do the same work for a bowl of rice and do so in deplorable working conditions? My own feeling is that if the US is so great then why are we trying to replicate third world business models and expecting our employees to be paid and live the same way as those people in the third world countries. I would also mention that Unions are often the excuse that allows these big corporations to move manufacturing etc overseas and have it done at a miniscule fraction of the cost because labor is pennies on the dollar. These companies can move the jobs off shore and blame someone else for it... and yield insane profits while doing so. There are no concessions that could be made that would allow a manufacture worker in this country to live a respectable life that would compete with some third world worker. |
|
glen
Team Captain
Posts: 1,893
Dislikes:
|
Post by glen on Jan 27, 2014 13:17:12 GMT -5
Dang - step away for a few hours and I'm waaay behind :-)
MP - OCare issues: It was sold as a sub $1T cost. It clearly isn't. It was sold as not adding a dime to the deficit. Not good there. It was flawed from the perspective of incenting companies to drop worker coverage altogether or reduce hours for part-time workers. It tries to mandate something (cover kids up to 26, preexisting conditions, etc) with no plan to cover the cost. It was supposed to bend the cost curve. It doesn't. These aren't implementation failures - they are design flaws.
SF - income gap vs union membership. I think you're trying to draw a correlation where there isn't one. How about correlating income gap with the "great society" implementation. Now we've got a real correlation. My position is that corrupted social programs incented behaviors leading to the income gap. Let's look at the number of out of wedlock births? Single parent families (piss off Murphy Brown)? My point is that I don't believe union membership has anything to do with things. If anything I'd say they contributed. Unions would rather a plant close altogether than agree to a salary cut. That said, if the management and stock holders are making profits, those could be cut too!
|
|
|
|
Post by SaintsFan on Jan 27, 2014 13:23:37 GMT -5
Dang - step away for a few hours and I'm waaay behind :-) MP - OCare issues: It was sold as a sub $1T cost. It clearly isn't. It was sold as not adding a dime to the deficit. Not good there. It was flawed from the perspective of incenting companies to drop worker coverage altogether or reduce hours for part-time workers. It tries to mandate something (cover kids up to 26, preexisting conditions, etc) with no plan to cover the cost. It was supposed to bend the cost curve. It doesn't. These aren't implementation failures - they are design flaws. SF - income gap vs union membership. I think you're trying to draw a correlation where there isn't one. How about correlating income gap with the "great society" implementation. Now we've got a real correlation. My position is that corrupted social programs incented behaviors leading to the income gap. Let's look at the number of out of wedlock births? Single parent families (piss off Murphy Brown)? My point is that I don't believe union membership has anything to do with things. If anything I'd say they contributed. Unions would rather a plant close altogether than agree to a salary cut. That said, if the management and stock holders are making profits, those could be cut too! i agree with much of what you wrote Glen. One issue is that there is very little relation to profit sharing and pay/benefits. Executives can actually force a pay cut or layoffs, increase health care costs to the employee and walk away with a huge bonus for doing so. Meanwhile the average joe who was struggling to make ends meet is now under water. And the exec (and often share holders) are rewarded for it. a little odd to me |
|
glen
Team Captain
Posts: 1,893
Dislikes:
|
Post by glen on Jan 27, 2014 13:26:53 GMT -5
SF - re: competition -
We can't compete on labor rates. Neither of us want to work for a bowl of rice. That said, we can compete via natural resources. We have gas, oil, coal, wind, hydro. We have corn, wheat, steel, etc.
Take NYS. We have high electric rates. High gas rates. What if we tapped the shale gas and put a gas generator facility at the site. You'd have virtually limitless and super cheap electricity. The gas not consumed by the plant would be used by biz and consumers for heating fuel etc. Manufacturers would flock to the state - even without a $1B carrot ala Global Foundries. That's how we compete.
|
|
glen
Team Captain
Posts: 1,893
Dislikes:
|
Post by glen on Jan 27, 2014 13:29:28 GMT -5
Executives can actually force a pay cut or layoffs, increase health care costs to the employee and walk away with a huge bonus for doing so. Meanwhile the average joe who was struggling to make ends meet is now under water. And the exec (and often share holders) are rewarded for it. a little odd to me.
Well I see we can agree on stuff. That is BS. I'm all for execs getting paid for the big decisions but when they screw up they should get whacked just as hard. This golden parachute crap for execs who sink companies (JCPenny) has got to go.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2014 14:48:27 GMT -5
SF - re: competition - We can't compete on labor rates. Neither of us want to work for a bowl of rice. That said, we can compete via natural resources. We have gas, oil, coal, wind, hydro. We have corn, wheat, steel, etc. Take NYS. We have high electric rates. High gas rates. What if we tapped the shale gas and put a gas generator facility at the site. You'd have virtually limitless and super cheap electricity. The gas not consumed by the plant would be used by biz and consumers for heating fuel etc. Manufacturers would flock to the state - even without a $1B carrot ala Global Foundries. That's how we compete. Sounds simple but the reality is that the gas generator facility could not be built. The neighbors would resist - not in my backyard is the common refrain. Who covers the cost of the facility and running it even if a site was found (could the state invoke eminent domain to support private industry - I think not) - it's not simply a matter of tap it and walk away letting the customer turn a spigot whenever gas/electricity is needed. If state funds were used to build and operate the facility, taxpayers in the rest of the state would be screaming bloody murder and rightly so. Their tax dollars would be going to subsidize private industry. Aren't Government subsidies one of the No-No's of the conservative parties - here it would be creating dependencies in the private sector arena. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2014 15:11:30 GMT -5
Dang - step away for a few hours and I'm waaay behind :-) MP - OCare issues: It was sold as a sub $1T cost. It clearly isn't. It was sold as not adding a dime to the deficit. Not good there. It was flawed from the perspective of incenting companies to drop worker coverage altogether or reduce hours for part-time workers. It tries to mandate something (cover kids up to 26, preexisting conditions, etc) with no plan to cover the cost. It was supposed to bend the cost curve. It doesn't. These aren't implementation failures - they are design flaws. SF - income gap vs union membership. I think you're trying to draw a correlation where there isn't one. How about correlating income gap with the "great society" implementation. Now we've got a real correlation. My position is that corrupted social programs incented behaviors leading to the income gap. Let's look at the number of out of wedlock births? Single parent families (piss off Murphy Brown)? My point is that I don't believe union membership has anything to do with things. If anything I'd say they contributed. Unions would rather a plant close altogether than agree to a salary cut. That said, if the management and stock holders are making profits, those could be cut too! The true cost of Obamacare eludes me completely - it is smoke and mirrors at best but I truly believe it will substantially lower Government costs and help erase, reduce or freeze the deficit. The government subsidy to low income people would only be available to people who purchase from the exchanges. Folks like me, with our own coverage don't add a nickel of cost. What's difficult to separate are the normal, bank on it, annual double digit increases in health insurance costs that we all have painfully experienced. [Wait until you retire, you will be shocked, totally and unconditionally shocked. I pay Medicare and that covers 80% of my medical costs. My supplemental insurance (to cover the 20% that Medicare does not cover) costs me $374/month for my wife and I. So my total monthly insurance bill is $550/month - compared to $70/month for family coverage before I retired - I worked for Lockheed Martin.] Now if it is true that fewer are signing up, then the amount of Government subsidies will also drop - simple math - fewer recipients = lower cost. The Government does not set the rates insurance companies charge - that is not true for Medicare - the Government sets those rates. The Government does not collect the money to pay the insurance companies under Obamacare - that is also not the case for Medicare - the Government collects those $'s and God only knows what they do with the proceeds. General fund shell game anyone? There was a major screwup relative to those with existing policies. It is painfully clear that the Government did not, nor could they, review the specifics of all of the policies in existence across all 50 states - an impossible task. What did the Government do? It set basic standards for the insurance policies that would be purchased on the exchanges - things like coverage to age 26, no exclusion for preexisting conditions, no dropping of coverage when significant changes occur (moving, loss of job). Again - minimum standards. Exchanges offer a range of policies beginning with the basic and going on up depending on what bells and whistles are wanted and what can be afforded. No one considered that there were large numbers of substandard policies in effect and that they would be taken off the market. Was that a mistake? Hell yes! Can it be easily fixed? Yes and that, to my understanding, has already taken place. I would also maintain that the Republican led states helped with the failed rollout by having the Feds do the work for them - sounds counter to what conservative Republicans keep saying about putting control in the states! Having so many states involved made an already monumental task that much more complicated and the rollout issues surfaced. Those states that did it on their own had problems but smaller ones that were much easier to fix in a short time frame. One of the big gotcha's that the Republicans touted was that only 6 people signed up on the first day or week or somesuch. That number was only true for the Federal system. Thousands signed up via the state run exchanges but the Republicans conveniently omitted mentioning them. No one likes change, let alone a change that hits the pocketbook with no measurable increase in benefits or deliverables but our health insurance costs were skyrocketing with no end in sight and something had to be done. Now our friends (trying to keep this below the flash point) on the right just want the entire act repealed and have consistently failed to identify an alternative that preserves any of the current law's features. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2014 16:10:21 GMT -5
Murphy Brown could afford her out of wedlock child. Most who do, can't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2014 16:31:48 GMT -5
I for the life of me can't see how you guys don't get this. Both of you have brought up points that we all agree need to be addressed. Healthcare costs, standard of living and corporate welfare are just a few of the things that need to be looked at. The problem is both parties are so entrenched and only looking out for themselves while telling us the things they do are in our best interest is insane.
Being fiscally responsible isn't fun, but it is necessary.
That being said I'm staying out of here. I got interested with Siena basketball years ago and it's been a way for me to get away from the day to day insanity of real life. I don't want to ruin it with politics. It just plain takes the fun out of hoops.
|
|
th24
Team Captain
Posts: 2,886 
Dislikes:
|
Post by th24 on Jan 27, 2014 17:51:36 GMT -5
|
|
th24
Team Captain
Posts: 2,886
Dislikes:
|
Post by th24 on Jan 27, 2014 18:24:14 GMT -5
State of Union Drinking Game!
|
|
|
|
Post by SaintsFan on Jan 27, 2014 18:58:39 GMT -5
I for the life of me can't see how you guys don't get this. Both of you have brought up points that we all agree need to be addressed. Healthcare costs, standard of living and corporate welfare are just a few of the things that need to be looked at. The problem is both parties are so entrenched and only looking out for themselves while telling us the things they do are in our best interest is insane. Being fiscally responsible isn't fun, but it is necessary. That being said I'm staying out of here. I got interested with Siena basketball years ago and it's been a way for me to get away from the day to day insanity of real life. I don't want to ruin it with politics. It just plain takes the fun out of hoops. That is why this is in off topic |
|
