08-05-2011, 09:20 AM
|
#481
|
First Line Centre
|
A little off topic but I was talking to a friend of mine who works for a major software company in San Jose (yes, you know it and without it this site couldn't run).
He had back surgery to seperate two discs and he was in the hospital for 5 days after. Total bill was $275,000!!! it was all covered thanks to his incredible benefit plan minus a $1000.
He of course works for a company with thousands of people but how can a company of 20 people afford the premiums if fellow employees are getting bills this high?
Seriously guys no BS it was $275K
|
|
|
08-05-2011, 09:35 AM
|
#482
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: SE Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeBass
A little off topic but I was talking to a friend of mine who works for a major software company in San Jose (yes, you know it and without it this site couldn't run).
He had back surgery to seperate two discs and he was in the hospital for 5 days after. Total bill was $275,000!!! it was all covered thanks to his incredible benefit plan minus a $1000.
He of course works for a company with thousands of people but how can a company of 20 people afford the premiums if fellow employees are getting bills this high?
Seriously guys no BS it was $275K
|
I think this is topical to this discussion:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/08...the-u-s-study/
|
|
|
08-05-2011, 10:23 AM
|
#483
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Creston
|
Here is some pretty strong evidence that rich America is holding money rather than investing in Obama's economy:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories
These are fortune 500 companiies mainly. The guy with the family mill or business who employees anywhere from 20 to 500 employees is still just scraping by. Through layoffs and other downsizing measures they might be seeing black again but, just barely. It probably helps that some of the competition didn't survive the down turn.
The big problem now is figuring out how to inspire these bigger companies with money to spend to expand operations in America. Obviously their confidence in the market place must be low because sitting on capital doesn't make you money. Considering that these guys got where they are by taking risks what their seeing in America must be pretty scary.
My solution is that the American government must first take some risk. They have got to take a look at how regulated the business environment is. As the government itself is forced to downsize to comply with budget restraints they really need to look at where they can cut regulations. This will also make the remaining government more efficient because the smaller workforce won't be required to be involved in as much.
Everybody knows that government policy has had a huge negative effect on the domestic energy industry. They need to open that up. It will have an immediate effect on oil prices and create good jobs long term. I don't think they need any tax incentives either. They just need to be confident that the government won't shut them down after they have invested in some project.
The EPA is one area where Obama has to take a long hard look. I think they should restrict their policy to federally owned lands and waters. Beyond that they should have an advisory role in State environmental protection agencies. The research part of the agency should as much as possible be maintained because they probably can do a better job at that then the States. Where the federal government owns land or water which is still a huge chunk of the States they need to be more practical. Decisions need to be made quicker and a little more risk should be taken. Any economic activity will alter the environment. We need economic activity so the question is always how much are we willing to see the environment change and how much risk are we willing to incur?
Drilling for oil in the gulf for instance means risking another spill. Does that mean we don't drill or does that mean that the means of containment has to be near by and ready next time. Oil would not have reached the shore last time if actions were quicker and equipment closer. The clean up was a greater failure than the spill.
Health care costs have gone up because of Obamacare. Because the regulation is being written as we speak it creates a lot of fear within the business community. Essentually the government dictates what conditions must be covered and when that coverage will begin and end. This is a change from the old system where a company negotiated with their insurer on what was covered and at what cost. Now the group rate isn't set because the government is still writing the new policy as Obamacare is slowly instituted. This was not the right time to introduce universal health care and when it is done it should make the changes clear in advance so businesses can adjust.
Some will argue that health care costs were going up before and they were. The difference now is the business can't control the costs by adjusting the policy. They can't even know if the costs will stay level from month to month because as new regulation are introduce the health provider adjusts the group rate upward.
|
|
|
08-05-2011, 10:36 AM
|
#484
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
|
Your post perfectly outline how trickle down economics doesnt work. Also environmental and safety in the US oil and gas industry is already a joke, it doesnt need to be parsed down to stimulate growth. The healthcare thing is something the companies will have to deal with going forward. People need coverage, its obvious the old system is broken.
|
|
|
08-05-2011, 10:37 AM
|
#485
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2004
Location: YSJ (1979-2002) -> YYC (2002-2022) -> YVR (2022-present)
|
Getting back to the subject of the debt ceiling for a moment, here's a list of the historical increases during the tenure of every president from the last 50 years (Republicans in bold, Democrats in italics):
Kennedy raised the debt ceiling 4 times for a total increase of 5%.
Johnson raised the debt ceiling 7 times for a total increase of 18%.
Nixon raised the debt ceiling 9 times for a total increase of 36%.
Ford raised the debt ceiling 5 times for a total increase of 41%.
Carter raised the debt ceiling 9 times for total increase of 59%.
Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times for a total increase of 199%.
George H.W. Bush raised the debt ceiling 9 times for a total increase of 48%.
Clinton raised the debt ceiling 4 times for a total increase of 44%.
George W. Bush raised the debt ceiling 7 times for a total increase of 90%.
Obama has raised the debt ceiling 3 times for a total increase of 26%.
http://progressivetoo.com/2011/07/14...since-kennedy/
Over this period, Republicans controlled the presidency for 28 years, Democrats for 23.
Total number of debt ceiling increases:
Republican: 48 (1.7 increases per year in office)
Democrat: 27 (1.2 increases per year in office)
Total percentage of debt ceiling increases:
Republican: 414% (14.8% per year in office)
Democrat: 152% (6.6% per year in office)
So that's something to think about next time you hear a Republican lawmaker or supporter going on about how their party is the one of fiscal restraint while the Democrats want to bloat the size of government...
|
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-05-2011, 10:39 AM
|
#486
|
Had an idea!
|
Regarding health care costs.
Quote:
Research collaboration among Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University Ithaca, the University of Toronto, and the Medical Group Management Association, found physicians in the United States spend almost four times more than Canada, dealing with health insurers and payers. A majority of the differences arise from the fact that the United States physicians deal with multiple payers in comparison to Canadian physicians who deal with a single payer.
Researchers reported, in the United States, administrative costs are high as a result of different payers having alternative prior authorization requirements, pharmaceutical formularies, and rules for billing and claims payment. Conversely, in Ontario (where the researchers conducted their study of Canadian physician practices), physicians commonly collaborate with a single payer that offers one product, more standardized procedures for billing and payment and doesn't regularly require former authorization of medical services for patients.
|
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232356.php
Not that Canadian health care is necessarily the best system in the world, but the problem the US has always had is efficiency and obviously the cost factor.
|
|
|
08-05-2011, 10:41 AM
|
#487
|
Had an idea!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeBass
A little off topic but I was talking to a friend of mine who works for a major software company in San Jose (yes, you know it and without it this site couldn't run).
He had back surgery to seperate two discs and he was in the hospital for 5 days after. Total bill was $275,000!!! it was all covered thanks to his incredible benefit plan minus a $1000.
He of course works for a company with thousands of people but how can a company of 20 people afford the premiums if fellow employees are getting bills this high?
Seriously guys no BS it was $275K
|
Why is that such a big deal? Separating two disks is a pretty big deal.
Fixing a herniated disk at Mayo Clinic is around $50,000 if I remember correctly. But you're in and out in 2 weeks.
|
|
|
08-05-2011, 10:42 AM
|
#488
|
Had an idea!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
So that's something to think about next time you hear a Republican lawmaker or supporter going on about how their party is the one of fiscal restraint while the Democrats want to bloat the size of government...
|
Everyone realizes that the Democrats are the tax and spend party while the Republicans are the cut taxes and still spend like drunken fools party.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-05-2011, 10:49 AM
|
#489
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: SE Calgary
|
I think the knock against "Obama"care is that it did not go far enough. It mandated coverage for all but did not constraint costs. Costs will not be driven down by the competition model because health care is not and cannot be a choice, that's why American health care providers have been able to escalate costs at will, all in the name of better quality.
He should have gone to the single payer system with the leverage that provides in costs reductions. I know this is anathema to the "free market" (I put it in quotes because, it is only free market when it makes sense for them) Republicans, but no way this healthcare reform is going to make any difference in costs.
|
|
|
08-05-2011, 10:53 AM
|
#490
|
Had an idea!
|
I doubt they will ever get a universal system. The government has screwed up too many things for people to ever accept that.
So both sides are hurting themselves.
There are a variety of European models that they could follow, all of which are more successful and control costs a lot better. Then again, Canada should be looking in the same direction. For some reason we seem to get hysterical everytime someone mentions that perhaps something like a two-tier system would work better. A true two-tier system. Not one where only hockey players get private coverage.
|
|
|
08-05-2011, 10:55 AM
|
#491
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Creston
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by burn_this_city
Your post perfectly outline how trickle down economics doesnt work. Also environmental and safety in the US oil and gas industry is already a joke, it doesnt need to be parsed down to stimulate growth. The healthcare thing is something the companies will have to deal with going forward. People need coverage, its obvious the old system is broken.
|
Really? Perhaps you can tell me how to get these companies to hire. The fact that they would rather just sit on capital tells you just how bad the business climate is.
|
|
|
08-05-2011, 10:59 AM
|
#492
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2004
Location: YSJ (1979-2002) -> YYC (2002-2022) -> YVR (2022-present)
|
I highly doubt further deregulation is the answer. There's ample evidence that deregulation of the financial system was the primary cause of the crisis. Moreover, look at how Canada's more-regulated economy (and our banking sector in particular) fared throughout the recession compared to that of the United States.
|
|
|
08-05-2011, 11:07 AM
|
#493
|
First Line Centre
|
I'm pretty ignorant on this subject, but I hear "we need more/less regulations" a lot. What are we looking to regulate or deregulate, and what are current regulations?
|
|
|
08-05-2011, 11:08 AM
|
#494
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Creston
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
Getting back to the subject of the debt ceiling for a moment, here's a list of the historical increases during the tenure of every president from the last 50 years (Republicans in bold, Democrats in italics):
Kennedy raised the debt ceiling 4 times for a total increase of 5%.
Johnson raised the debt ceiling 7 times for a total increase of 18%.
Nixon raised the debt ceiling 9 times for a total increase of 36%.
Ford raised the debt ceiling 5 times for a total increase of 41%.
Carter raised the debt ceiling 9 times for total increase of 59%.
Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times for a total increase of 199%.
George H.W. Bush raised the debt ceiling 9 times for a total increase of 48%.
Clinton raised the debt ceiling 4 times for a total increase of 44%.
George W. Bush raised the debt ceiling 7 times for a total increase of 90%.
Obama has raised the debt ceiling 3 times for a total increase of 26%.
http://progressivetoo.com/2011/07/14...since-kennedy/
Over this period, Republicans controlled the presidency for 28 years, Democrats for 23.
Total number of debt ceiling increases:
Republican: 48 (1.7 increases per year in office)
Democrat: 27 (1.2 increases per year in office)
Total percentage of debt ceiling increases:
Republican: 414% (14.8% per year in office)
Democrat: 152% (6.6% per year in office)
So that's something to think about next time you hear a Republican lawmaker or supporter going on about how their party is the one of fiscal restraint while the Democrats want to bloat the size of government...
|
Of course the difference with Obama and all these other Presidents is that they had a budget. They havn't had one in the States since last summer. That's a lot of money sitting in the President's hands without direction.
Imagine going to a bank for a business loan without a budget. Also, the Senate is in breech of the Constution by not submitting a budget.
|
|
|
08-05-2011, 11:12 AM
|
#495
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
just be smart. buy gold and silver and hope there isn't a bank holiday where they devalue the dollar by 15% in 1 day.
|
|
|
08-05-2011, 11:13 AM
|
#496
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2004
Location: YSJ (1979-2002) -> YYC (2002-2022) -> YVR (2022-present)
|
Quote:
Of course the difference with Obama and all these other Presidents is that they had a budget. They havn't had one in the States since last summer. That's a lot of money sitting in the President's hands without direction.
Imagine going to a bank for a business loan without a budget.
|
The recent debt ceiling increase was required to cover expenses already approved in previous budgets only, not new spending.
Quote:
Also, the Senate is in breech of the Constution by not submitting a budget.
|
I was under the impression that budget bills must come from the House, not the Senate. Is that not the case? If so, please provide a citation. Also, please cite the specific passage of the Constitution you believe the Senate to be in violation of.
|
|
|
08-05-2011, 11:16 AM
|
#497
|
Scoring Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
Getting back to the subject of the debt ceiling for a moment, here's a list of the historical increases during the tenure of every president from the last 50 years (Republicans in bold, Democrats in italics):
Kennedy raised the debt ceiling 4 times for a total increase of 5%.
Johnson raised the debt ceiling 7 times for a total increase of 18%.
Nixon raised the debt ceiling 9 times for a total increase of 36%.
Ford raised the debt ceiling 5 times for a total increase of 41%.
Carter raised the debt ceiling 9 times for total increase of 59%.
Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times for a total increase of 199%.
George H.W. Bush raised the debt ceiling 9 times for a total increase of 48%.
Clinton raised the debt ceiling 4 times for a total increase of 44%.
George W. Bush raised the debt ceiling 7 times for a total increase of 90%.
Obama has raised the debt ceiling 3 times for a total increase of 26%.
http://progressivetoo.com/2011/07/14...since-kennedy/
Over this period, Republicans controlled the presidency for 28 years, Democrats for 23.
Total number of debt ceiling increases:
Republican: 48 (1.7 increases per year in office)
Democrat: 27 (1.2 increases per year in office)
Total percentage of debt ceiling increases:
Republican: 414% (14.8% per year in office)
Democrat: 152% (6.6% per year in office)
So that's something to think about next time you hear a Republican lawmaker or supporter going on about how their party is the one of fiscal restraint while the Democrats want to bloat the size of government...
|
Ok now show the list of which party was in control of Congress when the increases were made. This last go round should show how little the sitting President has to do with the increases or maybe this one just chose to not get involved.
Your current table is propaganda as it does not show the whole picture.
|
|
|
08-05-2011, 11:23 AM
|
#498
|
Crash and Bang Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Imagine going to a bank for a business loan without a budget. Also, the Senate is in breech of the Constution by not submitting a budget.
|
Just like it was a breech of the Constitution when the Senate bailed out the banks in 2008.
|
|
|
08-05-2011, 11:26 AM
|
#499
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2004
Location: YSJ (1979-2002) -> YYC (2002-2022) -> YVR (2022-present)
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjinaz
Ok now show the list of which party was in control of Congress when the increases were made. This last go round should show how little the sitting President has to do with the increases or maybe this one just chose to not get involved.
Your current table is propaganda as it does not show the whole picture.
|
That's not how government budgeting in the United States works. The federal budget originates from the Oval Office and is then sent to Congress for approval/modification before going back to the president to be signed into law.
Quote:
The Budget of the United States Government is the President's proposal to the U.S. Congress which recommends funding levels for the next fiscal year, beginning October 1. Congressional decisions are governed by rules and legislation regarding the federal budget process. Budget committees set spending limits for the House and Senate committees and for Appropriations subcommittees, which then approve individual appropriations bills to allocate funding to various federal programs.
After Congress approves an appropriations bill, it is sent to the President, who may sign it into law, or may veto it. A vetoed bill is sent back to Congress, which can pass it into law with a two-thirds majority in each chamber. Congress may also combine all or some appropriations bills into an omnibus reconciliation bill. In addition, the president may request and the Congress may pass supplemental appropriations bills or emergency supplemental appropriations bills.
|
Emphasis added.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_budget
Now, one can argue that Democrat-controlled congresses should have fought harder against spending increases proposed by Republican presidents. However, if you want to place the blame for the debt ceiling increases during the 80s on the Democrats, then you have to sacrifice the popular Republican narrative that Ronald Reagan single-handedly won the Cold War by outspending the Soviets. You can't have it both ways. If Reagan gets the credit for spending the USSR out of existence, then he (not the Democratic congress) also gets the blame for the massive increases to the debt ceiling and size of the federal government during that time.
|
|
|
08-05-2011, 11:28 AM
|
#500
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Creston
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
I highly doubt further deregulation is the answer. There's ample evidence that deregulation of the financial system was the primary cause of the crisis. Moreover, look at how Canada's more-regulated economy (and our banking sector in particular) fared throughout the recession compared to that of the United States.
|
You could argue that if a regulation was in place that disallowed the banks from lending so freely that the crisis wouldn't have happened but, that wasn't the cause of the crisis. Bankers without regulation aren't so incompetent as not to see a bad risk. And even if some were the majority wouldn't follow.
The problem was Fanny and Freddy were willing to insure high risk debt for a small fee which freed the banks to lend more because they didn't have to cover those risks. This created a lending frenzy because with the government backing Fanny and Freddy they couldn't lose. One day in 2008 Fanny and Freddy quit insuring high risk loans. What brought down the banks was all the bad debt still in their system which they couldn't get covered by Fanny or Freddy. Covering those high risk loans ate up their lending capital. Since then even many of their sound loans have lost them money because of the huge drop in housing prices and high unemployment.
Fanny today is back asking the government for money. They need another 5.1 billon to cover last quarter's losses. That will put the government out over 100 billion and counting just with Fanny.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:00 PM.
|
|