Obama's First Year

Munch

You call it ass licking, I prefer to call it vertical networking.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Munch

You call it ass licking, I prefer to call it vertical networking.

Regards

Mick

Can you charge more if you call it that?

Mongo

You are catching on.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
George

How you play your boss is going to affect your career. If you play him correctly, you will advance.

Basically I am saying that honesty and hardwork alone are not enough attributes to climb up the old greasy pole.

For instance, did you ever take him out for dinner or take an interest in his hobbies?

Regards

Mick

George-
You have done and accomplished more than most will do in a lifetime. I envy some of what you have been able to do in your life. Don't worry about people who do not care about you.

Networking-
Hate to tell you this but, networking does not include your immediate boss. Networking is everyone who lies outside your immediate circle of influence.

MN

Probably got the networking a bit wrong, by the look of it! What ever you might call it!

But I actually get on with my boss, and company owner now! No need for me to lick anything these days. We simply get on.

I suppose I never learned to network as someone growing up on a farm. No reason to do it.

ATB from George

PS: First Wodka session of the year last night! Me and Pawel and two point seven litre bottles of Wyberowa!!! Still compus mentus though, and absolutely no networking at all!!!

I suppose that I do not really understand everything about the politics and system of the USA.

Surely it is going to take years to sort out the current economic situation? That much does seem self evident, so any President in office at this time really finds himself with a poisoned chalice in reality.

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
I suppose that I do not really understand everything about the politics and system of the USA.

Surely it is going to take years to sort out the current economic situation? That much does seem self evident, so any President in office at this time really finds himself with a poisoned chalice in reality.

ATB from George

George the current economic situation in the US (and in Europe)is the result of years (10-15)of bad policies and uncontrolled spending. It also has resulted because in the US, at least, political leaders have lost all touch with the general public. In fact, it is clear that they feel they are smarter and above the rest of us and continue to pass regulation which benefits themselves and their supporters (lobbyists, corporations)regardless of the effect on the American people.

How does one justify any policy which promotes lending money to people for houses than clearly had no way to pay for them, for one example. Trillions were now wasted on companies that should have been allowed to go under. Now these people know they can do whatever the want and we will be forced to "save the day."

The economy really needs to be flushed out and hit bottom before it can recover. The biggest problem is that our govt. has allowed so much of our productivity to be transferred overseas that we have essentially become a service country and rely to heavily on spending for our economic growth. Well, how do you spend when there are no jobs and contrary to the BS you hear spouted by the administration things have gotten only worse for the average person.

$787 Billion ($200 Billion spent) to save govt and union jobs, earmarks, pork barrel projects and very few jobs actually created (I won't even discuss how I feel about the new "jobs saved" statistics.

Govt. cannot spend our way out, it needs to come from the private sector, but there are no policies that are giving any incentive to small business and the companies which got the bailout won't lend money.. There are steps that could have been taken at the beginning to save jobs, such as tax credits to employers and the like, but the govt. used the bad situation to reach for more control and power.

Healthcare is something that if you don't live in the US can be hard to understand. I do not believe in govt controlled HC. However, one must look at the US differently than the UK for example since our population is much larger and as population increase so too does the complexities of govt run health. But just looking at our different economies. Since WWI the growth of the medical industry in the UK pales in comparison as that here. As our country expanded into the suburbs so too did the medical industry with hospitals, physicians moving to take advatage of the opportunity where our communities really rely on the local medical industry for a substantial percentage of overall employment, income, benefits, etc...
The consequences for what the Dems want in terms of economic loss for people ($$ and jobs) is huge when you look at what will. You have to be careful with major decisions on 1/6 th of your total economy.

The public has made it clear they do not want this healthcare bill, but the Dems seem determined to ram it through anyway. It will not save any costs, but will increase costs for the already insured and increase taxes.

What's neeeded is Tort reform, elimination of pre-existing conditions, and the ability to sell policies across state lines. The latter will help reduce premiums dramtically as there will be competition instead of the monoploies which exist in most states.

Finally we need term limits so as to eliminate career politicians, elimination of pensions, and amendments limiting govts ability to tax citizens, the latter will force budgetary resposibility since it will limit the amount the feds have to work with just like in your home.

The advantage a universal HC system is the US is that people would not be dependent on the health insurance sector, which makes a profit on each and every client. The highly profitable US medical insurance industry would be significantly reduced in size more or less at a stroke

As for size of the country - no need for increase in complexity, every so many thousand people need a hospital, a doctor, a set of nurses. The more clients the greater the opportunity for savings eg centrally agreed contracts with suppliers, ability to determine best practice for the whole country subject to regional/climactic requirements.

Some more lower populated states would need a higher investment/cost per person than the big urban areas where more efficient ratios of resources to people can be achieved.

For a country that has embraced change in methodology in the past, the current fear of change and improvement in the US is perhaps an indicator that the US is no longer a nation of frontier seekers with the old well respected can-do attitude.

Both countries look at their needs from a very provincial standpoint.

Derek-
All due respect,my government has no track record in success beyond their own needs(since the 70s).
The private sector in the states has the ability and the means to meet our needs. My opinion,of course.

As mentioned above, we do not want it and it will die an agonizing death on the hill. Good.
If any bill passes,it will not be in whole, or even in part,what the Brits would have liked to have seen accomplished.

I want private health care.I do not want to be paying for anyone else. I already do enough of that.

Tort reform will ease the pain on insurance companies and may bring down premiums.

MN

Marc

If you prefer a private medical sytem, them surely the best way forward is to allow a couple of dozen or so companys in to compete against each other. The market is big enough to support that.

Alternatively you can have a state run system such as ours.

The only thing that seems wrong with your system is that a serious illness can almost bankrupt someone or have I got it wrong. Also what happens to babies who are born with a seious condition? I have also heard that if you have a pre condition, you are uninsureable, is that correct?

The NHS in the UK provides quick treatment for emergency or serious illness but for something like haemorrhoids, you could be sitting painfully on your bum for about 6 months before you get treated. Even self inflicted stuff like drug induced illnesses are covered by the NHS free of charge.

Fortunately for me, this is all academic as I never have been sick, I have had a dislocated shoulder fixed after a fall (free of charge) but I do not know what my Doctor looks like because I have never seen him for about 20 yrs.

Regards

Mick

Marc

By your statement I understand that you do not have insurance and that you pay up for all treatment as and when required.

This implies that you have considerable assets to be able to cover any eventuality. You are in the minority - a bit like Mick P and "most" of his associates in the UK.

What happens if your fortunes change and then you get hit with major health problems with you or your family.

I know - you have sufficient control and foresight to ensure that your fortune will only change for the better.

I know of many people in the US that thought their company related health benefits were safe until their employer walk away from them - sometimes as a result of the employer evaporating.

Derek,

Sorry, but I have to disagree with what you have written. Medicare already has wasted 68 billion dollars last year. Govt run programs are all about waste and rationing.

Your statement about best practices ignores the fact that medicine is an art and not a science. Treatment plans need to be individualized for patients and a standard protocol will not provide for the best care. I see this all the time and in fact "protocols" are uti;ized to limit patient care and treatment and do nothing to promote better medical care.

Finally, your analysis of assigning a hospital and group of physicians and nurses for a given population really is true govt speak and treating the system and the providers as automatons. Set up a system like that and you won't get the best people, you'll get people who are nothing more than 9-5 govt. workers and the quality of care will go through the floor.

IMO the last point you made to Mark is what govt. health should be for, those with catastrophic medical issues that could not afford to obtain healthcare otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by Derek Wright:
Marc

By your statement I understand that you do not have insurance and that you pay up for all treatment as and when required.

This implies that you have considerable assets to be able to cover any eventuality. You are in the minority - a bit like Mick P and "most" of his associates in the UK.

What happens if your fortunes change and then you get hit with major health problems with you or your family.

I know - you have sufficient control and foresight to ensure that your fortune will only change for the better.

I know of many people in the US that thought their company related health benefits were safe until their employer walk away from them - sometimes as a result of the employer evaporating.

Derek-
I do have insurance. I have extremely good insurance!
If my fortunes change it will be my problem and I will not expect anything further. It is my responsibility to insure my standard of living as well as my ability to keep my family healthy(had to include this).
I am self employed which may immunize me from certain Eb and Flo and circumstances beyond my control.
I am not part of the ,"most". Whatever that means?

The insurance companies do compete vigorously for my dollar. The real issue here in the states is frivolous lawsuits. Out of hand and insane! Fix this and more companies will compete. The companies that pulled out of California may come back?

Remember anyone can walk into a clinic or hospital and get treatment for free. They don't need to wait 6 months for hemorrhoids. Wellness care is interesting. How many folks get yearly physicals? Yearly blood work? People normally go to the dr. when they are sick. Mammograms and such,I do not have the answer.

In late 2009 there were up to 46m Americans without health insurance. Now, take a breath, and remember how those individuals put themselves in that position.Also consider the following fact. That 46m includes all nonresident and illegal residence here. The last I heard was that there are upwards of 25 to 30m nonresident and illegal individuals here in the states. So, out of that 46 that would leave 21m. Of those 21m,there is number of people who would never consider insurance as a need. For fun lets call it 10m? That leaves 11m. 11m that did something stupid to put themselves in the position they are in. Yes, I am generalizing to a great degree. Foreclosures are at their highest. At one point, 1 in every 2 homes in Las Vegas were being foreclosed. The banks are to blame? The core issue was a reform package that did not work.(I forget which Pres. did this). This allowed banks to do what they did. Americans were as greedy as the banks who lent the money to them. I laugh when I see someone who must blame the bank. You took the money you stupid shit!! You put yourself in the position and probably inflated your income on the forms to get it!

I am not here to defend those who need insurance. I am here to offer a point of view. A point of reference that I find to be my American reality. In the end, the people,the citizens of this country, will speak up. It does appear we already have?

MN

I am 60, and being phased out at work. My insurance will be with me till my 63rd birthday. At that time my wife will be 64.

That leaves one year for my wife, and two for me, before medicare kicks in.

Insuring that gap will cost $30K-$50K, with high deductions.

That's seems awful high to me.

How old are you?

Marc the fact that you have insurance means that you are letting your money be used to pay other people's medical bills and more importantly pay for the large posh offices the insurance company have, all their staff's salaries and health insurance and to add insult to injury, to also give them a profit.

Compare the size of the house the insurance company lives in to your house, who is the better off. <g>

quote:

Originally posted by Derek Wright:
Marc the fact that you have insurance means that you are letting your money be used to pay other people's medical bills and more importantly pay for the large posh offices the insurance company have, all their staff's salaries and health insurance and to add insult to injury, to also give them a profit.

Compare the size of the house the insurance company lives in to your house, who is the better off. <g>

Derek-
The private sector has a history of success.
I would rather a private company than the US government.At all costs. Insurance company's are in business to make a profit. I have no issue with that. The government can not make a profit. They have no idea how to run the programs they have. Every one in huge trouble.

My house? LOL!
MN

*

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
I am 60, and being phased out at work. My insurance will be with me till my 63rd birthday. At that time my wife will be 64.

That leaves one year for my wife, and two for me, before medicare kicks in.

Insuring that gap will cost $30K-$50K, with high deductions.

That's seems awful high to me.

How old are you?

Mike-
If you are asking me?
I am so sorry that you are in this position. You are not the,"lone ranger".
I hope you have the ability to change your circumstances.
I will be 50 in April.
mn

The one thing I haven't seen anyone comment about is that the current Dem HC Bill doesn't eliminate costs for HC insurance, nor does it stop the increases.

HC costs have gotten out of control since Congress gave HC Insurance companies an anti-trust exemption, therefore monopolies exist in almost every state. This is the main reason why your health insurance premiums have gone up at alarming rates since the late 90s. As return on investments for other assest classes have decreased over the last 10 years or so, that ROI has been managed as an ever increasing cost in premiums. there is no competition to stop this. Look at what Anthem is proposing in California-- 39% increase. This is the govts fault due to the policies which they have put in place at the behest of lobbyists.

Health insurance companies have absolutely nothing to do with health care, other than to drive up the costs. It is in their shareholders' interests that health-care be so scarily expensive that people cannot "afford" to be without insurance. They can then charge what they want. That they are allowed to get away with this is a scandal. The US has three times the per-capita cost of health-care than any other nation in the world. This would be OK if they had a commensurate life expectancy and general health level; but they don't. They are firmly in the middle of the pack. Countries with socialised health services leave them for dead . Both cheaper and better.

The people that are most disadvantaged by the ludicrous situation in the US are, bizarrely, the ones most against the reforms that are being proposed. Insurance is a poverty trap. The poorest and neediest people are forced into the claws of the insurance companies. They are forced to work in exploitative jobs, just to hold onto their "coverage". Those that don't have even that "luxury" are even worse off. It makes me very angry, especially when I hear the idealistic garbage spouted by "I can see Russia from my house!" Palin, Tea Party, etc, and their ignorant ilk.

Just my 2 cents.

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
Health insurance companies have absolutely nothing to do with health care, other than to drive up the costs. It is in their shareholders' interests that health-care be so scarily expensive that people cannot "afford" to be without insurance. They can then charge what they want. That they are allowed to get away with this is a scandal. The US has three times the per-capita cost of health-care than any other nation in the world. This would be OK if they had a commensurate life expectancy and general health level; but they don't. They are firmly in the middle of the pack. Countries with socialised health services leave them for dead . Both cheaper and better.

The people that are most disadvantaged by the ludicrous situation in the US are, bizarrely, the ones most against the reforms that are being proposed. Insurance is a poverty trap. The poorest and neediest people are forced into the claws of the insurance companies. They are forced to work in exploitative jobs, just to hold onto their "coverage". Those that don't have even that "luxury" are even worse off. It makes me very angry, especially when I hear the idealistic garbage spouted by "I can see Russia from my house!" Palin, Tea Party, etc, and their ignorant ilk.

Just my 2 cents.

Where do I start?
To pissed. Good night.
MN

Winky you are not even close to being accurate.

I do agree that Health Insurance companies have nothing to do with health care-- they are large banks. They however, can be regulated by the govt. There is no one to regulate the govt.

Those individuals who have the lowest paying jobs do not get HI from these employers. Those companies never offer HI. They don't need to to be competitive in the market place.

As far as the statistics what they don't tell you is that the majority of people who have poor health and healthcare and are the ones with low birth weight babies, infant mortality, etc... are those people who are on govt. health (Medicaid). It is not the uninsured. Socialized or non-socialized HC does not effect the lack of personal responsibility. Therefore, spending more on preventative care won't help at all.

It's interesting that you note that the socialized countires do a much better job than the US in terms of HC. There was a recent article about one of your big politicians coming to the US for his surgery. I know of 3 people who came to the US in the last 12 months and paid out of pocket for Shoulder/knee surgeries rather than wait the 18 months to get the procedure in Canada. It took each 9 months just to see a specialist.

As I said above, the govt. plan is not free and won't be cheaper. In fact all it "proposes" is slowing down the rate of increase in costs. We all know this will not occur and will cost those of us with insurance to pay even more.

The solution is a free market one with increased competition by removing anti-trust exemptions from carriers. The increased competition will lower costs. The insurance companies complain they will go out of business if this occurs due to the downward effect on pricing. Yes, prices will decrease, but there is no way they will go out of business.

quote:

Originally posted by gary1 (US):
Winky you are not even close to being accurate.

I do agree that Health Insurance companies have nothing to do with health care-- they are large banks. They however, can be regulated by the govt. There is no one to regulate the govt.

Those individuals who have the lowest paying jobs do not get HI from these employers. Those companies never offer HI. They don't need to to be competitive in the market place.

As far as the statistics what they don't tell you is that the majority of people who have poor health and healthcare and are the ones with low birth weight babies, infant mortality, etc... are those people who are on govt. health (Medicaid). It is not the uninsured. Socialized or non-socialized HC does not effect the lack of personal responsibility. Therefore, spending more on preventative care won't help at all.

It's interesting that you note that the socialized countires do a much better job than the US in terms of HC. There was a recent article about one of your big politicians coming to the US for his surgery. I know of 3 people who came to the US in the last 12 months and paid out of pocket for Shoulder/knee surgeries rather than wait the 18 months to get the procedure in Canada. It took each 9 months just to see a specialist.

As I said above, the govt. plan is not free and won't be cheaper. In fact all it "proposes" is slowing down the rate of increase in costs. We all know this will not occur and will cost those of us with insurance to pay even more.

The solution is a free market one with increased competition by removing anti-trust exemptions from carriers. The increased competition will lower costs. The insurance companies complain they will go out of business if this occurs due to the downward effect on pricing. Yes, prices will decrease, but there is no way they will go out of business.

It's like Chevron crying that they will go out of business if gas prices were lower. How many tens of billion of profit did they make last year?
Don't care if they do made a ton.Just tell the truth.
Ouch.My head hurts...
MN

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
Health insurance companies have absolutely nothing to do with health care, other than to drive up the costs. It is in their shareholders' interests that health-care be so scarily expensive that people cannot "afford" to be without insurance. They can then charge what they want. That they are allowed to get away with this is a scandal. The US has three times the per-capita cost of health-care than any other nation in the world. This would be OK if they had a commensurate life expectancy and general health level; but they don't. They are firmly in the middle of the pack. Countries with socialised health services leave them for dead . Both cheaper and better.

The people that are most disadvantaged by the ludicrous situation in the US are, bizarrely, the ones most against the reforms that are being proposed. Insurance is a poverty trap. The poorest and neediest people are forced into the claws of the insurance companies. They are forced to work in exploitative jobs, just to hold onto their "coverage". Those that don't have even that "luxury" are even worse off. It makes me very angry, especially when I hear the idealistic garbage spouted by "I can see Russia from my house!" Palin, Tea Party, etc, and their ignorant ilk.

Just my 2 cents.

Winky-
For one, your country has the most successful(socialized) heath care program in the world. Your government makes a profit each year.

Your country is slightly larger than the states and has only 34 million inhabitants. 90% of the population lives within 100 miles of the US border and the USA is your countries number one vacation spot.
Come live here for a couple years and please tell me if you still feel the same way? Ok,I'll say it now. Touche'.
"May these gates remain open"

From my point of you, your opinions are completely off target.

Gents,this has been fun. I'm out..
Oh crap my head hurts.
MN

quote:

Will Marry for Health Insurance

via Terri Carlson