How do you feel about insurance companies, corporations, and banks?

[American Horse]

Certainly President Obama believes there is public appeal for him in condemning health insurers. He also is convinced that he gains popular support by damning corporations, banks, and credit card companies.

How do USMB members really feel about health care insurers? Of course we are well aware of the usual complaints, and the support they reportetly get too, but how do the opinions break down in proportional numbers here?

Some people simply hate insurance companies. Are they the same folks who also hate corporations, banks, credit card companies, and any other impersonal entities they come in conflict with during difficult times?

Some people are neutral about all those entities, seeing them as being necessary in a society in which personal responsibility and self discipline are better alternatives to relying on a government in every aspect of their lives; they say they are fearful that too much government involvement erodes freedom.

This poll’s purpose is to try to determine the extent and proportion of these opinions here.

You may choose more than one

 

[Mr. H.]

I want better health coverage for less. My premiums have gone up 500% in the past 20 years- and for the same bullshit policy.

And a bicycle. Oh a pony would be nice too.

 

[American Horse]

I want better health coverage for less. My premiums have gone up 500% in the past 20 years- and for the same bullshit policy.

And a bicycle. Oh a pony would be nice too.

Is your insurance provided by your employer? Do they offer more than one policy? Have you tried shopping?

My own son aged 40 has been paying 400 percent more than he would have had to for a policy with the same deductible, and he has simply been "too busy" to check. He's self employed and been buying his health insurance from the same company that provides his home fire and hazard insurance. I got him a price from a COMMERCIAL agency, which has multiple companies.

I also checked and he could have actually been buying insurance from the state assigned risk pool (for people with pre-existing conditions; conditions like MS, or diabetes) for 30 percent less than he has been paying.

Mr H. please record your opinion options...eh?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I consider all of the above to simply be necessary, if sometimes annoying, aspects of life in the United States. Corporations and businesses are not evil. People are. Sometimes, people with power in businesses are evil, but for the most part, they aren't. They are just trying to make a profit (which is not a bad word, whatever some people think) by providing a product or service people need.

Yes, insurance companies sometimes deny claims. Sometimes they stop covering certain clients. NOT because their goal is to screw everyone out of their money. Businesses do not stay in business for very long with that as their goal. They do it because their contracts are very specific about what they provide, and they are as paranoid about insurance fraud as leftists are about insurance company "abuse". Actually, that's not true, because fraud is much more prevalent.

 

[MIPS]

I want better health coverage for less. My premiums have gone up 500% in the past 20 years- and for the same bullshit policy.

Get the government out of the health care business and your premiums will go down, after all ham handed government intervention in the market is the primary culprit for the price inflation in the health care market.

After all who do you think pays for all the regulatory compliance costs & taxation burden that is imposed on health care providers? it certainly isn't the providers.

 

[Mr. H.]

I want better health coverage for less. My premiums have gone up 500% in the past 20 years- and for the same bullshit policy.

And a bicycle. Oh a pony would be nice too.

Is your insurance provided by your employer? Do they offer more than one policy? Have you tried shopping?

My own son aged 40 has been paying 400 percent more than he would have had to for a policy with the same deductible, and he has simply been "too busy" to check. He's self employed and been buying his health insurance from the same company that provides his home fire and hazard insurance. I got him a price from a COMMERCIAL agency, which has multiple companies.

I also checked and he could have actually been buying insurance from the state assigned risk pool (for people with pre-existing conditions; conditions like MS, or diabetes) for 30 percent less than he has been paying.

Mr H. please record your opinion options...eh?

I was self-employed for the first 10 years of my career, then as an employee for the past 20 years have never been covered under a company plan. I am the CEO but my board is my... family. Very tight pursed group of folks LOL. I have a couple of pre-existing conditions of which OBAMA promises to rid me. .

Yes I must "shop" around thanks for the suggestion.

 

[Foxfyre]

I want government to apply existing anti-trust laws to insurance companies to break up the lucrative little state monopolies that currently exist. Then, other than necessary regulation to prevent false advertising and other fraudulent practices, I want the federal government to get out of it altogether except for Veteran's benefits.

1) I want insurance policies to be owned by the policyholder they insure even if employers choose to pay all or part of the premiums. That would eliminate the problem of losing your medical insurance if you are laid off or change jobs.

2) I want the policyholder to be able to take their insurance policy wherever they move, across state lines, or whatever within the United States.

3) If medical providers and insurance companies cannot provide healthcare at a reasonable cost, then the cities, counties, and/or states should have ability to set up their own systems to compete with private insurers and healthcare providers. But this should be a state operation and the feds should stay out of it.

4) Reasonable tort reform at the national or state levels should be accomplished as a first order of business

5) Insurance companies should not have to punish everybody for pre-existing conditions of a few, but I would have no objection to major medical policies along the lines of flood insurance or earthquake insurance being provided to cover those otherwise difficult to insure people.

6) We all should be paying for routine doctor visits, prescriptions or whatever unless we want to pay a premium for coverage for that. Insurance should kick in after a substantial deductible as it once did and that alone would bring down the costs substantially.

As for banks and lending institutions, the states and feds should establish strict rules and regulations that keep the institutions from taking excessive risks with the depositors' money at least without the depositors' knowledge and consent. That means that they make loans to people who have a reasonable track record of repaying their debts and who can show they have reasonable ability to repay the loan. Those who can't do that will just have to stay in their apartments or whatever, clean up their credit record, and save enough for a substantial down payment just like the rest of us have to do in order to buy a house.

Once that is in place, the feds should get out of the way and let the market work its magic.

 

[American Horse]

I want government to apply existing anti-trust laws to insurance companies to break up the lucrative little state monopolies that currently exist. Then, other than necessary regulation to prevent false advertising and other fraudulent practices, I want the federal government to get out of it altogether except for Veteran's benefits.

1) I want insurance policies to be owned by the policyholder they insure even if employers choose to pay all or part of the premiums. That would eliminate the problem of losing your medical insurance if you are laid off or change jobs.

2) I want the policyholder to be able to take their insurance policy wherever they move, across state lines, or whatever within the United States.

3) If medical providers and insurance companies cannot provide healthcare at a reasonable cost, then the cities, counties, and/or states should have ability to set up their own systems to compete with private insurers and healthcare providers. But this should be a state operation and the feds should stay out of it.

4) Reasonable tort reform at the national or state levels should be accomplished as a first order of business

5) Insurance companies should not have to punish everybody for pre-existing conditions of a few, but I would have no objection to major medical policies along the lines of flood insurance or earthquake insurance being provided to cover those otherwise difficult to insure people.

6) We all should be paying for routine doctor visits, prescriptions or whatever unless we want to pay a premium for coverage for that. Insurance should kick in after a substantial deductible as it once did and that alone would bring down the costs substantially.

As for banks and lending institutions, the states and feds should establish strict rules and regulations that keep the institutions from taking excessive risks with the depositors' money at least without the depositors' knowledge and consent. That means that they make loans to people who have a reasonable track record of repaying their debts and who can show they have reasonable ability to repay the loan. Those who can't do that will just have to stay in their apartments or whatever, clean up their credit record, and save enough for a substantial down payment just like the rest of us have to do in order to buy a house.

Once that is in place, the feds should get out of the way and let the market work its magic.

You have nailed it in so many ways. One of most complained about problems is the one of un-insuraility for pre-existing medical conditions.

Most states – I believe only a few don’t – have what are best called “assigned risk insurance pools” for the people otherwise uninsurable because of prior existing health conditions. In most states there are a large number of companies offering health insurance.

It is easier in those states with multiple companies to require that all who sell insurance within their state to provide insurance for the un-insurable on a rotation basis, and to conform to a schedule of premiums, and deductibles without those policy premiums being unusually high, or to add much cost to policy holders in the broader market in those states.

States with few companies to rotate among, or states with many mandates, will have a harder time keeping their premiums to rates that will be thought to be reasonable by those being insured. Thus we see a wide disparity for the cost of health insurance in the 50 states.

Unfortunately, it appears that states with the highest premiums do not take a clue from the states with the lowest premiums, and once there is a unitized system, premiums will skyrocket for the states with well managed insurance markets with the least interference because the market will suffer from insufficient competitive information from many markets.

 

[Mr Natural]

They're necessary evils I suppose.

 

[RodISHI]

I want government to apply existing anti-trust laws to insurance companies to break up the lucrative little state monopolies that currently exist. Then, other than necessary regulation to prevent false advertising and other fraudulent practices, I want the federal government to get out of it altogether except for Veteran's benefits.

1) I want insurance policies to be owned by the policyholder they insure even if employers choose to pay all or part of the premiums. That would eliminate the problem of losing your medical insurance if you are laid off or change jobs.

2) I want the policyholder to be able to take their insurance policy wherever they move, across state lines, or whatever within the United States.

3) If medical providers and insurance companies cannot provide healthcare at a reasonable cost, then the cities, counties, and/or states should have ability to set up their own systems to compete with private insurers and healthcare providers. But this should be a state operation and the feds should stay out of it.

4) Reasonable tort reform at the national or state levels should be accomplished as a first order of business

5) Insurance companies should not have to punish everybody for pre-existing conditions of a few, but I would have no objection to major medical policies along the lines of flood insurance or earthquake insurance being provided to cover those otherwise difficult to insure people.

6) We all should be paying for routine doctor visits, prescriptions or whatever unless we want to pay a premium for coverage for that. Insurance should kick in after a substantial deductible as it once did and that alone would bring down the costs substantially.

As for banks and lending institutions, the states and feds should establish strict rules and regulations that keep the institutions from taking excessive risks with the depositors' money at least without the depositors' knowledge and consent. That means that they make loans to people who have a reasonable track record of repaying their debts and who can show they have reasonable ability to repay the loan. Those who can't do that will just have to stay in their apartments or whatever, clean up their credit record, and save enough for a substantial down payment just like the rest of us have to do in order to buy a house.

Once that is in place, the feds should get out of the way and let the market work its magic.

I think you covered a lot of it. When I operated the company we had health insurance. The cost were too much when I quit contracting so we let the policies go. After penciling it I was sorry for even paying the premiums. We would have been better off to bank the money and pay for any medical care needs we may have after looking at what we actually spent by the time we paid all the deductible cost and the premiums. I personally think it would be nice if there were more options available in the industry also. Coops were people could pool their insurance premiums and decide cooperatively what their needs are could also be an option.

As for banks. I believe these monopolistic mega corps they need to be broken up and held to a tighter standard with stricter regulation. As I stated in another thread paying for performance bonds, insurance and having percentages withheld are a normal part of business. It is a shame what has happen and many of the CEO's still own large blocks of stock in these companies yet they have moved onto and into other corporations and they are now working a new angle to fleece the public. The next run will be a shortage and catastrophe that will be made of food right here in America. If the leaders of this country do not prepare it is a disaster looming in the very near future


"Are corporations evil?" When they are operated and infiltrated by unethical people who put their own greed before society and communities as a whole I would say they are very susceptible to being out of control for the love of money. These mega banks new they were putting money into a black hole when they loaned money on "blue sky" to people who did not have the viable means to make payments long term. They created an environment that was unsustainable knowingly for borrowers. They used depositors money to rape and pillage and they knew that they would be able to sell these loans to government loan programs and government backed entities. Which in fact they did do and the crash did come.

 

[Missourian]

I do despise most corporations, large banks and credit card companies.

But I despise government intrusion more.

I can choose not to do business with corporations, credit card companies and even banks.

If I choose to do business with them I do so with the knowledge that I have access to legal redress of grievances.

With the government the opposite applies...I don't have the choice to withhold my business and the government in most cases is immune from civil prosecution.

 

[Foxfyre]

One of most complained about problems is the one of un-insuraility for pre-existing medical conditions.

Most states – I believe only a few don’t – have what are best called “assigned risk insurance pools” for the people otherwise uninsurable because of prior existing health conditions. In most states there are a large number of companies offering health insurance.

It is easier in those states with multiple companies to require that all who sell insurance within their state to provide insurance for the un-insurable on a rotation basis, and to conform to a schedule of premiums, and deductibles without those policy premiums being unusually high, or to add much cost to policy holders in the broader market in those states.

States with few companies to rotate among, or states with many mandates, will have a harder time keeping their premiums to rates that will be thought to be reasonable by those being insured. Thus we see a wide disparity for the cost of health insurance in the 50 states.

Unfortunately, it appears that states with the highest premiums do not take a clue from the states with the lowest premiums, and once there is a unitized system, premiums will skyrocket for the states with well managed insurance markets with the least interference because the market will suffer from insufficient competitive information from many markets.

In New Mexico, the insurance companies pulled out of the state rather than be forced to accept the assigned high risk policies. So the state, in tandem with a few opportunistic investors who could afford the risk with the state backing them up, formed its own mutual company specifically to provide a place for high risk or 'uninsurable' business to go for work comp, general liability, and other necessary insurance. They kept the premiums high enough to not interfere with companies writing normal insurance policies, but the assigned risk pool became so profitable that a few other companies also started accepted some assigned risk policies - the higher premiums made them profitable. The problem of insuring the uninsurable was solved without any involvement of the federal government whatsoever.

There are so many ways to approach the problems that exist without the federal government taking over control of the whole thing.

 

[American Horse]

In New Mexico, the insurance companies pulled out of the state rather than be forced to accept the assigned high risk policies. So the state, in tandem with a few opportunistic investors who could afford the risk with the state backing them up, formed its own mutual company specifically to provide a place for high risk or 'uninsurable' business to go for work comp, general liability, and other necessary insurance. They kept the premiums high enough to not interfere with companies writing normal insurance policies, but the assigned risk pool became so profitable that a few other companies also started accepted some assigned risk policies - the higher premiums made them profitable. The problem of insuring the uninsurable was solved without any involvement of the federal government whatsoever.

There are so many ways to approach the problems that exist without the federal government taking over control of the whole thing.

When allowed to cope with their situations most of the states can deal with their insurance problems, just like you said. If they don't make it work to the satisfaction of most 0f those involved, then business will flee the state, and then the government and the governed they will take notice.

An overriding Federal system would make the option of going elsewhere practically impossible, and the mistakes would be self perpetuating.

 

[Foxfyre]

RodISHI and I seem to be pretty much on the same page where insurance coverage is concerned, but I may have to quarrel just a wee bit with these points:

As for banks. I believe these monopolistic mega corps they need to be broken up and held to a tighter standard with stricter regulation. As I stated in another thread paying for performance bonds, insurance and having percentages withheld are a normal part of business. It is a shame what has happen and many of the CEO's still own large blocks of stock in these companies yet they have moved onto and into other corporations and they are now working a new angle to fleece the public. The next run will be a shortage and catastrophe that will be made of food right here in America. If the leaders of this country do not prepare it is a disaster looming in the very near future.

I agree that there needs to be regulation in place that imposes certain and severe consequences for unethical and dishonest practices that have material effect on unsuspecting people. People must have means to be compensated when products and services are other than advertised. And no company should be able to put other peoples' money or assets at high risk unless there is full disclosure of the risk and full consent by all parties.

The only regulation I would add to CEO's compensation and benefits, however, is a limit on deductibility of corporate salaries, and an enforceable requirement that a CEO cannot collect any form of bonus and may not sell any company stock he owns until all creditors have been paid and there are sufficient assets in place to cover all deposits or investments in the company. Should he attempt to circumvent that requirement, he will be subject to prosecution and, if convicted, will have all assets confiscated up to the value of the ill gotten bonuses and/or stock sales. Given the ability the feds have to catch and convict inside traders, it is obvious that the infrastructure is already in place to do the kind of monitoring of corporate practices that I suggest here.

Otherwise, I want the feds to stay out of it and let private enterprise do its thing. And while I strongly support anti-trust laws, I don't advocate breaking up large corporations that can accomplish more and do more by virtue of their sheer size. Break up Halliburton for instance, and there will be only one other company in the world that can do what Halliburton does and that company isn't ours. Doing what Halliburton does piecemeal would greatly increase costs and reduce efficiency and effectiveness.

"Are corporations evil?" When they are operated and infiltrated by unethical people who put their own greed before society and communities as a whole I would say they are very susceptible to being out of control for the love of money. These mega banks new they were putting money into a black hole when they loaned money on "blue sky" to people who did not have the viable means to make payments long term. They created an environment that was unsustainable knowingly for borrowers. They used depositors money to rape and pillage and they knew that they would be able to sell these loans to government loan programs and government backed entities. Which in fact they did do and the crash did come.

The reason that corporations were able to do that is because we had a government more interested in increasing its own fortunes, benefits, and permanency than we had a government interested in doing the right thing. So those mega banks were practically forced to make risky loans with the assurance they would be backed up by Freddie and Fannie, but the banks were told what shaky condition Freddie and Fannie were in. So, the huge economic boom that resulted was not recognized for the house of cards that it was and others, like AIG, could not resist jumping on the bandwagon to get a piece of the pie. And when it all came crashing down, everybody got hurt, most of all we who had little or nothing to do with it.

Again, let's put regulations back into place that prevent corporations from taking improper risk with other peoples' money or other assets and then get the federal government out of it. You'll see the system stabilize and right itself in no time.

 

[Foxfyre]

In New Mexico, the insurance companies pulled out of the state rather than be forced to accept the assigned high risk policies. So the state, in tandem with a few opportunistic investors who could afford the risk with the state backing them up, formed its own mutual company specifically to provide a place for high risk or 'uninsurable' business to go for work comp, general liability, and other necessary insurance. They kept the premiums high enough to not interfere with companies writing normal insurance policies, but the assigned risk pool became so profitable that a few other companies also started accepted some assigned risk policies - the higher premiums made them profitable. The problem of insuring the uninsurable was solved without any involvement of the federal government whatsoever.

There are so many ways to approach the problems that exist without the federal government taking over control of the whole thing.

When allowed to cope with their situations most of the states can deal with their insurance problems, just like you said. If they don't make it work to the satisfaction of most 0f those involved, then business will flee the state, and then the government and the governed they will take notice.

An overriding Federal system would make the option of going elsewhere practically impossible, and the mistakes would be self perpetuating.

Absolutely. Health insurance was readily available and affordable for most Americans before the federal government got involved. Did everybody have it? Could everybody afford it? No, but that is one of the facts of life of a free society. Some choose not to get it and take their chances. Others can't afford it and are at the mercy of others who generally have proven themselves to be pretty darn merciful. Once the government got involved and started dickering with the basic system, health care costs began to noticably rise immediately and eventually reached a point where they were out of control with no end in sight.

Practically nothing touched by the federal government will be more efficient, effective, or as economical as that provided in the private sector. That is absolutely true when it comes to healthcare.

 

[RodISHI]

RodISHI and I seem to be pretty much on the same page where insurance coverage is concerned, but I may have to quarrel just a wee bit with these points:

As for banks. I believe these monopolistic mega corps they need to be broken up and held to a tighter standard with stricter regulation. As I stated in another thread paying for performance bonds, insurance and having percentages withheld are a normal part of business. It is a shame what has happen and many of the CEO's still own large blocks of stock in these companies yet they have moved onto and into other corporations and they are now working a new angle to fleece the public. The next run will be a shortage and catastrophe that will be made of food right here in America. If the leaders of this country do not prepare it is a disaster looming in the very near future.

I agree that there needs to be regulation in place that imposes certain and severe consequences for unethical and dishonest practices that have material effect on unsuspecting people. People must have means to be compensated when products and services are other than advertised. And no company should be able to put other peoples' money or assets at high risk unless there is full disclosure of the risk and full consent by all parties.

The only regulation I would add to CEO's compensation and benefits, however, is a limit on deductibility of corporate salaries, and an enforceable requirement that a CEO cannot collect any form of bonus and may not sell any company stock he owns until all creditors have been paid and there are sufficient assets in place to cover all deposits or investments in the company. Should he attempt to circumvent that requirement, he will be subject to prosecution and, if convicted, will have all assets confiscated up to the value of the ill gotten bonuses and/or stock sales. Given the ability the feds have to catch and convict inside traders, it is obvious that the infrastructure is already in place to do the kind of monitoring of corporate practices that I suggest here.

Otherwise, I want the feds to stay out of it and let private enterprise do its thing. And while I strongly support anti-trust laws, I don't advocate breaking up large corporations that can accomplish more and do more by virtue of their sheer size. Break up Halliburton for instance, and there will be only one other company in the world that can do what Halliburton does and that company isn't ours. Doing what Halliburton does piecemeal would greatly increase costs and reduce efficiency and effectiveness.

"Are corporations evil?" When they are operated and infiltrated by unethical people who put their own greed before society and communities as a whole I would say they are very susceptible to being out of control for the love of money. These mega banks new they were putting money into a black hole when they loaned money on "blue sky" to people who did not have the viable means to make payments long term. They created an environment that was unsustainable knowingly for borrowers. They used depositors money to rape and pillage and they knew that they would be able to sell these loans to government loan programs and government backed entities. Which in fact they did do and the crash did come.

The reason that corporations were able to do that is because we had a government more interested in increasing its own fortunes, benefits, and permanency than we had a government interested in doing the right thing. So those mega banks were practically forced to make risky loans with the assurance they would be backed up by Freddie and Fannie, but the banks were told what shaky condition Freddie and Fannie were in. So, the huge economic boom that resulted was not recognized for the house of cards that it was and others, like AIG, could not resist jumping on the bandwagon to get a piece of the pie. And when it all came crashing down, everybody got hurt, most of all we who had little or nothing to do with it.

Again, let's put regulations back into place that prevent corporations from taking improper risk with other peoples' money or other assets and then get the federal government out of it. You'll see the system stabilize and right itself in no time.

You mentioned Halliburton so I will go there. I have mentioned in several posts portions of what transpired at my mine operation. Surely you also know Halliburton owns mining operations also? Halliburton acquired Martin Marietta. A Martin Marietta representative came to me asking if I would partner with them. I told him at this time I was not interested in selling the mine. After three times of the man asking, "What is your price everybody has one?" I responded to him Jesus already paid my price and I don't think you can top that. At that point I was aware that one machine had never worked properly since day one from the factory and the second machine had been blown up by factory representative just a few months previously. I was not aware of all the bank altered and created documents or the design to fail portion in that first machine. I had no clue that Wells Fargo was so wrapped up in insuring that that mine would be under their control and that they would go to such extremes that are supposed to be unlawful in this country. It must have looked really good for the Wells Fargo group as their 33% of their pensions were Martin Marietta owned stock. Back in December 2000 while WF was making up loads of paperwork and telling me I had no working capital left Rod was in an accident that left his pickup in the shape of a rocking chair. The people that had parked in the middle of the gravel road just over the hill were ticketed and the state police told me "It is their fault. You are lucky Rod survived that". Their insurance company was Hartford. I called their insurance company and the guy told me to send him a list of all the damages and replacement cost after leaning his insured was ticketed for obstructing the road. I was led to believe it was a done deal. WF was fully aware of the situation also, they had me take out another loan to replace the pickup until Hartford paid for the damages which should have been within a few months. That adjusted was taken off that case and Hartford decided they would not pay for those damages. I would not learn until 2005 that Hartford and Wells Fargo were cutting a deal. WF was purchasing a third of Hartford's business. Ironically the wife of the guy who obstructed the roadway was retired from Norwest which is now Wells Fargo.

Now realistically I fully understand that large corporations may be needed in this world. On the other hand I do not believe that these banks are one of those corporations. I cannot tell you if Halliburton was involved in any manner in what transpired. I would say it is highly unlikely as they purchased Martin Marietta shortly after this all went down. Then again I have not researched it all enough to know for sure. I can say it was another mega corp that came to me and offered me a very lucrative deal if I would partner with them so as the put it, "control the contracts".

Siemans is also a very large corporation. They also will go to extreme illegal attempts to gain contracts and such to profit and have been caught doing so along with a multitude of others throughout the world.

The fines or suits that these companies have to if they are caught and if someone can actually recover from damages is not enough to make up for the damage they do that goes unheard of and unseen. I was not allowed to recover the losses sustain and neither was Rod. Even if they had to pay today for all financial losses it would not make up for the time lost with my family while they worked to suck the very life out of us.

I will not support these companies and at every chance I get I will say I think they need to be broken up, stopped and many of them that perpetrated the fraud on the public belong in jail.

A company knows when it makes a bad debt. I have no doubt that these companies knew they were handed out mortgages to people that would possibly not be able to repay those loans. No one forces a bank to loan money to a borrower who cannot repay that money. That was a choice they made. The myth that they were forced to make bad business decisions is exactly that a myth.

 

[Foxfyre]

RodISHI, I probably can match you horror story for horror story of shoddy business dealings, poor workmanship, irresponsible business activities, flawed products, and unethical behavior. Such are not the problem with big corporations, however, but rather with the individuals with whom you do business.

Again, I am all for strong laws that secure our rights and prevent others, whether individuals or mega corporations, from trampling on the rights of others.

In management school I was blessed with skilled instructors who taught us why you cannot change a bad system by just changing the people. Nor can you change bad people by changing the system. If you have a bad system, you change the system. If you have bad people, you change the people.

Somewhere along the way, a lot of the philosophy of this country got away from that particular concept/truth.

 

[RodISHI]

RodISHI, I probably can match you horror story for horror story of shoddy business dealings, poor workmanship, irresponsible business activities, flawed products, and unethical behavior. Such are not the problem with big corporations, however, but rather with the individuals with whom you do business.

Again, I am all for strong laws that secure our rights and prevent others, whether individuals or mega corporations, from trampling on the rights of others.

In management school I was blessed with skilled instructors who taught us why you cannot change a bad system by just changing the people. Nor can you change bad people by changing the system. If you have a bad system, you change the system. If you have bad people, you change the people.

Somewhere along the way, a lot of the philosophy of this country got away from that particular concept/truth.

I doubt you can unless you can say that you personally owned a company that would be producing millions every year and a bank went after you because they wanted it. That was a ceo of Wells Fargo's accounting that owned the company that provided the internal parts on that first machine that was designed to fail.

Again mega banks and insurance companies should be broken up. They do not belong together in a corporation. What we are facing today throughout this broken economy is why the Glass Steagall act was enacted to begin with. Even more so at this point these mega banks that were involved in this mess should put up percentages. It should in no way be force on the smaller banks that did not take part in this latest fiasco. While Congress is at they should be initiating rules and regulations on corporations that would give shareholders more power to decide on compensation that ceo's will be paid. Personally I would not buy into a firm that pays it ceo's outrageous amounts of money and perks. No man or woman is worth 78 million dollars a year to be a ceo of one company. Especially while they are stripping the poor and middle class of their hard earned dollars in this country. Only if you own the whole company in it's entirety should you be able to write tyour own paycheck. All others should be subject to shareholders opinions.

 

[Conspiracist]

Somewhere along the way, a lot of the philosophy of this country got away from that particular concept/truth.

Yah, what has hit us in this country the hardest imo is greed, and there is no way to stop that.

 

[Oddball]

Somewhere along the way, a lot of the philosophy of this country got away from that particular concept/truth.

Yah, what has hit us in this country the hardest imo is greed, and there is no way to stop that.

That's why you have extremely limited gubmint (well we had it anyways)....So that really really greedy people don't attain too much power that they've done nothing to earn.

Hayek Was Right: The Worst Do Get To The Top [Mackinac Center]