[Rhodes22-list] Politiical- More Bad News About McCain HealthPlan comment by Ugh
Herb Parsons
hparsons at parsonsys.com
Thu Oct 30 18:48:01 EDT 2008
I applaud your business mind, and business plan. I know that you realize
that it fits your business plan very well.
I want other business owners to have the freedom of choice to decide to
adopt that business plan, or a different one if they choose.
I do not want the government dictating what perks they must give their
employees.
I'm assuming you offer those perks because you want a higher caliber
employee than what WalMart gets. I also suspect that you have higher
expectations of your employees than the guys that are offering less, and
that is the way it SHOULD be.
So, what do you think will happen to the caliber of employee that you
are able to maintain, their loyalty levels, their work ethic, etc, when
you are no longer offering perks. When what you offer is what everyone
is required to offer by law.
I suspect if you're an astute businessman, you will look for other perks
to offer to attract the best. As Brad mentioned, that is why insurance
bennies were originally offered, when business were restricted by the
government from raising salaries to attract a better caliber of
employee. So, the "benefit" is now possibly headed for "entitlement"
category.
I suspect that eventually, if you find a perk that works, history will
repeat itself.
Sometimes, we're like crabs in a crab pot. One starts to climb out, and
the others reach down to pull him down to their level. But we don't call
it desperation, we call it "leveling the playing field."
You'll pardon me if I pass.
Andrew Collins wrote:
> Herb and Ben
>
> A nunace: not all doctors are morons, they are more like idiot savants who
> can solve very specific problems, but do not understand the whole picture or
> that we need to live our lives. They deliberately put on blinkers like
> carriage horses wear to keep their intervention narrow, in a selfish sense.
>
> As an employer in NYC which boasts a lot of prestigious hospitals, doctors,
> etc. providing health care is a very expensive proposition. as I have
> expounded here before, I provide excellent health insurance for all of my
> employees so that they will not be fearful of becoming ill, can have
> children, and will be more loyal. I am proud of all the children we as a
> firm have broguth into this world through our work and ability to pay for
> good health care.
>
> Now, the same damn insurance policy that costs $ 900/month here costs $500
> in New Hampshire, with the same company. Why? I do not know, but it is
> certainly due in part to Citizen Cittadino's astute observation that we are
> paying for health care to many, many uninsured people here in the tri-state
> area. We ar also paying these doctors a whole lot of money.
>
> We have proven unscientifically that we on da list cannot agree that health
> care is good (Tootle note: not UNIVERSAL health care, just that regular old
> health care one needs). Yet no one wants to be without it.
>
> Herb observes that if we do go to UHC, we will then be paying not only for
> poor but also for the not poor.
>
> Brad feels that when Granny has used up her $ allotment, it is time for
> Granny to go.
>
> Well, I work hard, try to be a mensch, do the right thing, paying through
> the nose (way more than Brad's $140/month) orders of magnitude more, and do
> not want to be without health care.
>
> I have heard Brad's solution thought up over cigars and scotch on a cruise
> ship.
>
> The only thing that is clear here is that we all want it, but can't agree on
> who is going to pay for it.
>
> Are we the kind of society that let the less advantaged get inferior care?
> We already are, of course.
>
> I do not know how to solve this, but let the first among you who does not
> want healthcare when you cannot pay for it yourself step forward and proffer
> a solution that does not include some form of UHC.
>
> Healthcare needs to be reformed. Costs need to be controlled, illegal
> immigration and that burden needs to be addressed rationally and humanely, a
> reasonable standard of care, i.e. no huge costs incurred with extending life
> for a few weeks, need to be instituted among many other measures. Our best
> minds need to be allowed to address this issue and solve it, and not be
> mired in partisan politics and corporate lobbying, and outside of the
> unreasonable shouting matches that characterize parts society and parts
> of da list.
>
> Remember dear list colleagues, the question is: who here does not want
> health care when you can't pay for it yourself, like: your uniion goes
> broke, you lose your job and can't afford COBRA, etc.
>
> I will now run for cover!
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com>wrote:
>
>
>> Ben,
>>
>> I have three questions for you.
>>
>> 1) If you take a man's case, and he looks you straight in the eye and
>> says "I did it. I killed my wife, and I'd do it again, I won't testify,
>> so you won't have to worry about perjury, but I want you to do
>> everything in your power to get me acquitted. If you can't do that, I
>> want you to do everything in your power to get me off as lightly as
>> possible. I don't mind you insisting I'm crazy, I just want to have to
>> pay the price for what I did", and he continues to pay your fee, are you
>> going to continue to represent him? If not, what excuse are you going to
>> give the judge for wanting to withdraw?
>>
>> 2) Different case. The man tells you honestly "I did not do this crime.
>> I'm totally innocent, but I know I can't prove it. Unfortunately, I no
>> longer have any money." Will you continue to represent him?
>>
>> 3) Finally, will you define "justice for my client" in both issues, and
>> relate how "justice" for one might be a totally different thing that
>> "justice for all".
>>
>>
>> Benjamin Cittadino wrote:
>>
>>> Very good Mike. I got it on the first go-round this time. Three gold
>>>
>> stars.
>>
>>> By the way I don't refer to myself as a litigation lawyer. I'm just a
>>>
>> simple
>>
>>> country lawyer looking for justice for my clients.
>>>
>>> Keep it up. Your sharp eye must be valuable on the water.
>>>
>> >
>>
>>> Ben C.
>>>
>>> R22MikeW wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ben,
>>>>
>>>> Gee, I wonder exactly what a ligation lawyer does. Interesting thought,
>>>> the
>>>> objective of a ligation practice must be to tie the involved parties
>>>> together. Yeah, that might work. Then again, there's always the
>>>>
>> libation
>>
>>>> practices ...
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>> s/v Shanghaid'd Summer ('81)
>>>> Nissequogue River, NY
>>>>
>>>> From: "Hank" <hnw555 at gmail.com>Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 12:59
>>>>
>> PM
>>
>>>>> Ben,
>>>>>
>>>>> You being a ligation lawyer, how much of the cost of our healthcare can
>>>>> be
>>>>> attributed to the current system of tort law in the US. I know when my
>>>>> father passed away from a massive heart attack, we were told by the
>>>>> hospital
>>>>> that they could not have saved him if he had been in the operating room
>>>>> at
>>>>> the time of the heart attack. However, that didn't prevent the
>>>>>
>> emergency
>>
>>>>> room from performing about 5K worth of work on him that they ended up
>>>>> eating
>>>>> as he had no estate or health insurance. I'm sure a good bit of what
>>>>> they
>>>>> did was to avoid any potential law suits.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hank
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/29/08, Ben Cittadino <bcittadino at dcs-law.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Brad;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Singapore, Sweden, Japan, Hong Kong, Iceland, France, Finland,
>>>>>>
>> Anguilla,
>>
>>>>>> Norway, Malta, Czech Republic, Germany, Andorra, Switzerland, Spain,
>>>>>> Israel,
>>>>>> Macau, Slovenia, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, Australia, Lichtenstein,
>>>>>> Guernsey, Luxunbourg, Netherlands, Portugal,Gibraltar, United Kingdom,
>>>>>> New
>>>>>> Zealand, Jersey,Canada,Ireland, Monaco, Greece, San Marino, Taiwan,
>>>>>> Italy,
>>>>>> Isle of Man, Cuba, and South Korea ALL HAVE A LOWER INFANT MORTALITY
>>>>>> RATE
>>>>>> THAN THE USA. (Source, CIA World Factbook, Jan 1, 2008.)
>>>>>> (Tootle, How about THAT source.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you think there is any more objective measure of the delivery of
>>>>>> quality
>>>>>> health care than the infant mortality rate? We can do some spectacular
>>>>>> things in our specialty hospitals (I should know, I had my quadruple
>>>>>> by-pass
>>>>>> surgery at Cleveland Clinic, a wonderful major center, but my surgeon
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> Swede, Gosta Pettersson, MD, who I highly recommend).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The major difference I think you and I have on this subject is that I
>>>>>> understand WE ARE ALREADY PAYING for health care for the poor. The
>>>>>> taxpayers are picking up the tab for a very inefficient and ultimately
>>>>>> sub-standard system. If we include a lot more folks the economies of
>>>>>> scale
>>>>>> will cost us less.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you believe the poor and unemployed are in that condition by
>>>>>>
>> choice,
>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> that the only way to get them to work is to set up the system so they
>>>>>> starve
>>>>>> to death if they don't get their fannies out of bed in the morning,
>>>>>>
>> then
>>
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> probably can't get to common ground on this issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do agree about one thing. We do spend way too much on heroic
>>>>>> "end-of-life"
>>>>>> care. I read somewhere that fully 80% of all medicare money is spent
>>>>>>
>> on
>>
>>>>>> patients in the last three months of their lives. I sure hope if I end
>>>>>> up
>>>>>> like poor Terry Schiavo in Florida a few years ago someone has the
>>>>>>
>> good
>>
>>>>>> grace to give me the old .45 caliber craniotomy. (Herb, I think this
>>>>>>
>> is
>>
>>>>>> where you come in--I mean the pro-life argument, not the volunteer to
>>>>>> perform the craniotomy).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ben C.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brad Haslett-2 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ben,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As Ed pointed out, the New York Times, especially the editorial page,
>>>>>>> is hardly an unbiased source for anything. The AP is no better.
>>>>>>>
>> Take
>>
>>>>>>> the Iraq war for example - the AP coverage was so slanted and
>>>>>>> misleading I quit paying attention to it other than out of curiosity
>>>>>>> to see where others were getting their information. The coverage
>>>>>>>
>> from
>>
>>>>>>> independent reporters such as Michael Yon, both good and bad, was
>>>>>>>
>> much
>>
>>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That said, let's tackle the "health care" crisis. First, a history
>>>>>>> lesson. The whole idea of employer provided health insurance started
>>>>>>> during WW2 because wages were frozen and providing company sponsored
>>>>>>> health insurance was a way to attract workers at the same wage other
>>>>>>> companies were paying. That still holds true but the costs of that
>>>>>>> coverage has risen dramatically. The old adage of "you don't get
>>>>>>> something for nothing" still applies. Any employee only has x amount
>>>>>>> of economic value to any entity, and if you force companies to
>>>>>>>
>> provide
>>
>>>>>>> health insurance, that economic benefit will flow to the employee in
>>>>>>> lieu of cash wages. That is certainly true in my own personal
>>>>>>> situation as a collectively bargained employee. Near the end of
>>>>>>>
>> every
>>
>>>>>>> negotiation cycle as both sides start sharpening knives, the company
>>>>>>> throws down a final "this is the size of the pie" last proposal and
>>>>>>> then we have to determine how we want it sliced, health care or cash?
>>>>>>> Nothing in either of these candidates proposals will escape that
>>>>>>>
>> basic
>>
>>>>>>> fundamental truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What gets lost in all this election cycle marketing bullshit (and
>>>>>>> Obama is much better at marketing bullshit than McCain) is the real
>>>>>>> nature of health insurance versus health care and the
>>>>>>> inter-relationships of economic and social policies. The reason most
>>>>>>> of us get out of bed in the morning and go to work is because we like
>>>>>>> to enjoy nice things, ie, housing, food, toys, etc. When government
>>>>>>> intervenes in the marketplace and provides those basic things,
>>>>>>> especially housing and food, a large segment of the population is
>>>>>>> happy to stay in bed. This is fact and President Clinton recognized
>>>>>>> this basic social principle and "reformed welfare" as a result. To
>>>>>>> add "free" health insurance to the mix without personal
>>>>>>>
>> responsibility
>>
>>>>>>> only adds to the problem, so one needs to tread lightly when
>>>>>>> government imposes itself in any fashion into the issue. We know (or
>>>>>>> should know) that we don't want nationalized health care. Find me a
>>>>>>> country that has better health care than the United States (provided
>>>>>>> you can afford access) and I'll consider changing my assessment.
>>>>>>> Health insurance is no different than any other insurance, it is to
>>>>>>> provide for losses that you cannot afford. Part of the 45 million
>>>>>>> Americans without health care we hear so much about are young people
>>>>>>> who have the opportunity to purchase health insurance but don't want
>>>>>>> to, some are temporarily un-employed or self employed, and some you
>>>>>>> are never going to get to work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any government sponsored health care scheme is going to "break the
>>>>>>> bank" if you don't solve the two ends of the tails of the health care
>>>>>>> cost curve. The individual must be responsible for the initial,
>>>>>>>
>> minor
>>
>>>>>>> costs of "going to the doctor" or you get the kind of abuses that
>>>>>>> TennCare discovered (Tennessee's attempt at health care). The other
>>>>>>> end of the tail is the vast sums of money spent on incredibly
>>>>>>> expensive medical treatments that are often offered to extend life by
>>>>>>> a few weeks or months. I know this sounds harsh but it's economic
>>>>>>> reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both the Obama and McCain plans pose the risk of some employers
>>>>>>> dropping health care because the government may provide lower cost
>>>>>>> options. The Obama campaign is lying (I know that's hard for you to
>>>>>>> imagine) when it says their plan doesn't have the same inherent risks
>>>>>>> associated with it. I like the McCain plan better because it allows
>>>>>>> more options and responsibility to the individual. The $2500 rebate
>>>>>>> ($5000 for families) applies to everyone regardless of income or even
>>>>>>> employment. It will in fact probably cost me money in higher taxes
>>>>>>> (but then what doesn't?). Of the two, I see it as the most socially
>>>>>>> responsible. Which plan will be the most expensive? I don't know and
>>>>>>> neither do they but I do know who is going to pay for it - the same
>>>>>>> people who pay for everything else in this country, the "rich".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None of this applies to me (except for the paying part) because
>>>>>>>
>> health
>>
>>>>>>> insurance is covered by my collective bargaining agreement. I'll be
>>>>>>> happy to give career advice to anyone looking for flying lessons if
>>>>>>> you want in on this "gravy train".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This campaign has boiled down to "who is the better Santa Claus" in
>>>>>>> the closing days. Both McCain and Obama are being irresponsible to
>>>>>>> some degree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brad
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:18 PM, Herb Parsons
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ERs are being used for this, but you're overlooking the nature
>>>>>>>>
>> of
>>
>>>>>>>> what's involved. You have to go and wait, typically for anywhere
>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>> 3-8 hours for "minor" issues. This discourages the "I don't feel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> good,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> let me go see the dr" stuff that Brad and Ed are talking about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Personally, I'm not happy with that either. My guess is that they
>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>> clear up about 70% of the backlog at ER's by having an INS office
>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> as well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Brad and Ed;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Brad- you're forgetting something. We are already paying for
>>>>>>>>> healthcare
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> the uninsured. It's illegal for ER's to turn people away, insured
>>>>>>>>>
>> or
>>
>>>>>>>>> not. We
>>>>>>>>> are just paying more, getting lousy care (because ER's are not set
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> up
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> primary care providers), more expensively (because ER's are
>>>>>>>>>
>> overkill
>>
>>>>>>>>> (pardon
>>>>>>>>> the pun) in most situations, and we taxpayers are footing the bill
>>>>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ed- the second post is from the AP, not NYTimes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ben C.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tootle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mr. Philadelphia Lawyer, The New York Times has been taken over
>>>>>>>>>>
>> by
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Communists. Your source material is too biased. Find something
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>> American viewpoint.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Consider an alternative local newspaper such as:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.asp?brd=2737
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How is your retirement funded? Or how was it funded? See your
>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>> Philadelphia newspaper:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>> http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=20179546&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Or since you like Times in the heading, consider the:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Or just go to church on sunday and get their bulletin. Read
>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>> other than that Communists Rag.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ed K
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/file/p20218848/Philadelphia%2BBulletin.gif
>>>>>>>>>> Philadelphia+Bulletin.gif
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go
>>>>>>>
>> to
>>
>>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> http://www.nabble.com/POLITICAL%3AHealth-Care-Plans.-NYTimes-Endorses-Obama%27s-tp20208884p20229674.html
>>
>>>>>> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list