Bureaucracy, politics and unintended consequences

[occupied]

Ah the good old meritocracy/social Darwinism argument. People do not have an equal opportunity to succeed, the people you fall all over yourself to defend have seen to that and will use all their considerable power to insure that scum like us never have the opportunity to join their ranks. It's the most exclusive club there is, we are not in it, we have no hope of joining it and I am astounded at this late date at the armies of conservative sycophants willing to throw themselves under the bus for them.

yes, you are a hopeless victim-----come sit on uncle obama's knee and let him kiss away your tears and fears.

people like you make me sick.

You are just a victim waiting to happen and even then you will not blame the person who ruined you, see how completely they have you hooked in their scam where we are all just temporarily embarrassed millionaires? When you finally come to see that the "captains of industry" are practicing their own brand of tyranny it will be far too late for you and probably the rest of us also.

 

[zeke]

Mac, I know you feel that an increase in minimum wage would have dire and unforeseen negative consequences. And even though there are studies that do not support your assertions, I am sure you have your studies that do support your position.

And I know you don't like government provided health care.

However, if what you wish would come to pass, I get left with the idea that with no minimum wage law, the companies would pay even less than they do now.

And with no health care being provided to low wage workers, most simply will do without health care till they need to go to the emergency room.

And that somehow, if both of those situations are allowed to occur, that the working poor and our economy will be better for that situation.

I just don't believe that Mac. Prove it.

 

[Mac1958]

Mac, I know you feel that an increase in minimum wage would have dire and unforeseen negative consequences. And even though there are studies that do not support your assertions, I am sure you have your studies that do support your position.

And I know you don't like government provided health care.

However, if what you wish would come to pass, I get left with the idea that with no minimum wage law, the companies would pay even less than they do now.

And with no health care being provided to low wage workers, most simply will do without health care till they need to go to the emergency room.

And that somehow, if both of those situations are allowed to occur, that the working poor and our economy will be better for that situation.

I just don't believe that Mac. Prove it.

I can't prove that, and I don't believe it.

Rather than this ACA pig of a law, I think we should have a foundational universal coverage that provides basic preventive, diagnostic and advanced treatment, at, say, 60% instead of the 80% that Medicare covers. Then I would have supplemental plans, very similar to Medicare Supplements, to fill in most or all of the holes.

This would certainly be expensive, and we would have to increase reimbursement rates to providers, but may be balanced by freakin' massive cost savings to businesses and health providers who aren't having to deal with sicker patients who came to them too late in the disease process. If it isn't balanced, then I'd be good with increased payroll taxes, to a point. A healthier populace is good economics.

This would have to be coupled with a far better cost-savings regimen, including things like tort reform, more outcome-based reimbursement and value-based insurance design (VBID, fucking fascinating stuff, look it up).

We currently have SIX fucking health care payment systems: Medicare, Medicaid, VA, individual health, group health and indigent care. The ACA pig did nothing to address that insane fact, and merely rolls millions into the horrific Medicaid system, holy freakin' crap. As verbose as I can get, I just don't fucking have words.

The working poor? The Right evidently wants to pretend that our massive and expanding income inequality problem doesn't exist, and it is providing virtually no clear and workable plans for addressing it; the Left absolutely refuses to put any of the onus on the individual for improving their own fucking lives, and is demonstrating a stark lack of understanding of fundamental business economics in a modern world.

Since we have a minimum wage, I'm not opposed to a mechanism by which it would increase; but - and the Left just won't do this - we have to recognize and react to the terribly complicated and sensitive nature of markets, and we have to avoid a loss of equilibrium in which able-bodied Americans are stripped of their motivation, potential and very dignity. I don't see that the Left gives a crap about this.

See, as usual, my ideas don't fall in line with those of either silly, embarrassing party. They're complicated (they just reflect life), they're not black and white, either/or, us vs. them. And I'm certainly not holding my breath that my "ideas" would ever take shape.

Cripes, my fingers are tired from all the typing.

.

 

[RightDown]

supply and demand should set the price of labor, tomatoes, cars, or filet mignon.

unions are the reason that there is longer a textile industry in the USA, no longer a commercial shipyard in the USA, no longer any TVs made in the USA. why steel mills are closing, why detroit is a cesspool, why govt workers are overpaid and inefficient.

unions are the cause, not the solution.

Unions were the reason that we had a 40 hour work week, benefits, and a livable wage. The death of the industries you mention
are due to horrible mismanagement of the executive class. The very people you defend. Check the record for Detroit....the unions ALWAYS caved to management's demands.

Supply and demand is one component in the labor arrangement. Another is bargaining for the cost of that labor. Without unionization, bargaining is unfairly skewed to the monied elites. It can only be fixed by unionizing the workforce. There's strength in numbers.

As for gov. workers being inefficient, soc. Sec. is much more efficient than any private insurer in terms of cost.

In the 20s and 30s the unions did some good. but they got too powerful and destroyed the jobs they were claiming to protect.

If you think the UAW caved to management, then you are living in some parallel universe on the planet zenon.

remember "look for the union label" on your underwear? well, that same underwear now says made in Costa Rica because of the textile workers union. How has that helped the USA?

So good pay and modest benefits destroyed jobs? It has nothing to do with executive mismanagement, plutocratic hoarding of the profits created by labor or the like?

Your contention about UAW not caving to management is plain wrong.
UAW caved time and again and that's not open to debate. That's history

Management sets the goals and priorities for Labor. It was choosing horrible model after horrible model for manufacturing and the Japs handed us our asses.

 

[zeke]

Mac, are insurance companies making substantial profits at this point in time?

I do believe that the answer to that question is yes.

So why would insurance companies want to change the system? Especially after what they were able to accomplish under Obamacare. Written and brought to us by the insurance companies.

No Mac, without both political parties being able to agree on a real solution to the problem of people not having health coverage, I believe we will muddle along fighting about it.

And the insurance companies will post more profit this year than last year. And next year will be better yet.

But to bad we can't be more sensible about a solution to ANY problem.

And somehow, a lot of us Americans believe our government is somehow "exceptional". Not anymore. We can't figure ANYTHING out. Or solve any problem. To bad. It is becoming every man for himself and the hell with who gets stepped on and passed by.

Ah well, I can deal with that. Don't really like it. But what ever us "citizens" decide, I'll survive.

 

[Mac1958]

Mac, are insurance companies making substantial profits at this point in time?

I do believe that the answer to that question is yes.

So why would insurance companies want to change the system? Especially after what they were able to accomplish under Obamacare. Written and brought to us by the insurance companies.

Most health insurance companies run at about a 4% to 6% net profit clip.

While single-payer advocates don't want any profit in health care, I very much want profit and competition - and therefore innovation - for my health care business. That's why the free market supplemental piece of my "plan" would be key.

And as far as what the insurance companies want, I don't really care. But my guess would be that a standardized supplement system and much larger market might be very attractive for them as opposed to the first-dollar mess they have now.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Mac, are insurance companies making substantial profits at this point in time?

I do believe that the answer to that question is yes.

So why would insurance companies want to change the system? Especially after what they were able to accomplish under Obamacare. Written and brought to us by the insurance companies.

Most health insurance companies run at about a 4% to 6% net profit clip.

While single-payer advocates don't want any profit in health care, I very much want profit and competition - and therefore innovation - for my health care business. That's why the free market supplemental piece of my "plan" would be key.

And as far as what the insurance companies want, I don't really care. But my guess would be that a standardized supplement system and much larger market might be very attractive for them as opposed to the first-dollar mess they have now.

.

Why would you want for-profit 'innovation' in the insurance market? The profit in insurance is the difference between what you take in in premiums vs. what you pay out in claims, minus expenses.

The mandate for an efficient, consumer-friendly insurance company should be to break even, to pay out all of its premiums collections in claims minus expenses.

 

[Mac1958]

The mandate for an efficient, consumer-friendly insurance company should be to break even, to pay out all of its premiums collections in claims minus expenses.

In your opinion only.

I much prefer an efficiently regulated profit motive.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I worked two jobs and went to school.

And the minimum wage was higher when you did that than it is now.

It was $3.35

As I have pointed out many times the minimum wage adjusted for inflation peaked in 1969. Your 3.35 then was better than 7 something now.

Did you feel guilty, being overpaid?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The mandate for an efficient, consumer-friendly insurance company should be to break even, to pay out all of its premiums collections in claims minus expenses.

In your opinion only.

I much prefer an efficiently regulated profit motive.

.

Credit unions are non-profit. Are they less efficient and a worse deal for consumers than a for-profit bank?

Efficiency to extract a profit does not benefit the consumer. My non-profit electric co-op recently sent me a letter notifying me that my bill was going down in large part because a renewable energy enterprise at the co-op was beginning to turn a profit. But the profit goes back into lower rates, not out to some outside profiteer. And the incentive for innovation was there too,

the cooperative 'gambled' on a methane extraction project involving landfills. And it's starting to work.

 

[Mac1958]

The mandate for an efficient, consumer-friendly insurance company should be to break even, to pay out all of its premiums collections in claims minus expenses.

In your opinion only.

I much prefer an efficiently regulated profit motive.

.

Credit unions are non-profit. Are they less efficient and a worse deal for consumers than a for-profit bank?

Efficiency to extract a profit does not benefit the consumer. My non-profit electric co-op recently sent me a letter notifying me that my bill was going down in large part because a renewable energy enterprise at the co-op was beginning to turn a profit. But the profit goes back into lower rates, not out to some outside profiteer. And the incentive for innovation was there too,

the cooperative 'gambled' on a methane extraction project involving landfills. And it's starting to work.

Sure, let them compete with for-profits as a non-profit. There are many life insurers that are mutual companies, meaning they're owned by their policy-holders. Cash value life policies then pay tax-free dividends on their policies that are essentially re-payment of excess premiums. That's an attractive quality for many customers.

Doesn't matter to me. The more the merrier. What matters is that the government is not forcing the companies to be one thing or the other, and not regulating them into the ground.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yes. We do not have enough companies in America due to the government regulating them into the ground.

 

[Katzndogz]

Without profit there is no competition.

 

[william the wie]

.

I'm noticing a trend with a couple of current hot topics, the ACA and "living wage", and that's the predictable law of unintended consequences. Supporters, simplistically seeing only the positives, are either ignoring or are completely blind to the NEW negatives. Examples:

The ACA, by introducing a massive flood of low-low-reimbursement Medicaid patients to the health care system, are going to (and it's already happening) force providers of all kinds to (a) stop accepting new low-reimbursement patients, (b) trim their Medicaid patient censuses, (c) stop taking Medicaid of any kind, and/or (d) turn their practice into boutique care, accept only private-pay/supplemental pay patients, and fire unneeded staff. All of the above, of course, is going to produce profound and immediate doctor shortages and much longer waiting times.

A large and immediate jump in the "living wage", whatever the hell that is (I can never get a straight and specific answer), would cause employers to (a) slow down/stop hiring and/or lay people off as they adjust to the massive increase in labor costs, (b) increase their prices in an insanely competitive business environment, and/or (c) introduce technology where possible to replace the need for employees (having your fast food drive-thru order go to India, for example).

Providers and business owners who are going to have to bend over and take the new rules and laws are NOT going to just bend over and take it. When people who clearly don't understand this incredibly obvious fact are the same people who are making and defending these new laws and rules, big problems are on the way.

If I'm wrong, please show me precisely where. And hopefully without the traditional diversionary name-calling, insults and deflection. And please, none of the standard, "too bad, tough shit, all I know is that it gives more of the central planning that I crave". I've had enough of that one.

.

Just subscribe to the robotics thread. Then remember that additive manufacture, nano-tech, biotech, optronics, material science and many other fields are engines of productivity driven deflation. Deflation decreases nominal growth and nominal growth is what pays off debt. The US as best of the worse is doing much better at keeping people working and fed than any other government on the planet. That is not good enough for the left.

 

[LoneLaugher]

.

I'm noticing a trend with a couple of current hot topics, the ACA and "living wage", and that's the predictable law of unintended consequences. Supporters, simplistically seeing only the positives, are either ignoring or are completely blind to the NEW negatives. Examples:

The ACA, by introducing a massive flood of low-low-reimbursement Medicaid patients to the health care system, are going to (and it's already happening) force providers of all kinds to (a) stop accepting new low-reimbursement patients, (b) trim their Medicaid patient censuses, (c) stop taking Medicaid of any kind, and/or (d) turn their practice into boutique care, accept only private-pay/supplemental pay patients, and fire unneeded staff. All of the above, of course, is going to produce profound and immediate doctor shortages and much longer waiting times.

A large and immediate jump in the "living wage", whatever the hell that is (I can never get a straight and specific answer), would cause employers to (a) slow down/stop hiring and/or lay people off as they adjust to the massive increase in labor costs, (b) increase their prices in an insanely competitive business environment, and/or (c) introduce technology where possible to replace the need for employees (having your fast food drive-thru order go to India, for example).

Providers and business owners who are going to have to bend over and take the new rules and laws are NOT going to just bend over and take it. When people who clearly don't understand this incredibly obvious fact are the same people who are making and defending these new laws and rules, big problems are on the way.

If I'm wrong, please show me precisely where. And hopefully without the traditional diversionary name-calling, insults and deflection. And please, none of the standard, "too bad, tough shit, all I know is that it gives more of the central planning that I crave". I've had enough of that one.

.

Just subscribe to the robotics thread. Then remember that additive manufacture, nano-tech, biotech, optronics, material science and many other fields are engines of productivity driven deflation. Deflation decreases nominal growth and nominal growth is what pays off debt. The US as best of the worse is doing much better at keeping people working and fed than any other government on the planet. That is not good enough for the left.

"best of the worse"?

Why is it that so many nutters cannot hear the "t" at the end of "worst" while growing up? It is fucking uncanny.

good.......better.....best

bad......worse.....worst

Shit!!!!!!