Obama is Bush part 3

It's Time for GE to Lose Its Triple-A

Who cares what S&P or Moody's thinks?

Orange County, CA was AAA when it filed bankruptcy. Enron was listed as investment grade when it collapsed. All this ABS, CDO, SIV debt was supposedly AAA. The opinion of useless credit rating agencies should not even be considered by any intelligent investor

As for GE's actual credit worthiness, it should be remembered that many years ago Bill Gross of Pimco complained about GE's over reliance on the commercial paper market. I am not sure he was the first person to point out GE's weak finances -- I only highlight him because he is/was well known and his opinions well read (whether or not you agree with him, everyone at least knows his thoughts).

GE hasn't been an industrial company in decades -- dozens of analysts have pointed out the dominance of GE Capital in GE's results. GE has long made more money financing aircraft engines and medical equipment than it did selling them.

Besides GE Capital, the biggest earnings driver during Jack Welch's time was mergers and acquisition! When Welch started in the early 1980s, there were lots of poorly run conglomerates (GE was one of them) that needed to be split up -- M&A made sense. But toward the end of Welch's reign, GE was straining to find an M&A deal that was profitable and yet big enough to impact a company of GE's size...

Imelt's two competitors for the CEO position went on to devastate the business models of Home Depot and 3M. And the former GE Capital chief Gary Wendt was unable to turn around Conseco. So much for GE's heralded manager development process.

Imelt himself "won" the CEO position after running GE's aircraft and medical divisions -- which, however well run, were side shows compared to the financing and M&A activities

GE is a heavily leveraged bank, in a difficult banking environment, being run by a guy who climbed the ranks running manufacturing businesses

That is what investors should consider -- not the un-informed opinion of credit rating agencies

'Free Market' Healthcare: Fix It Now, Before It's Too Late

Youngolf -- how ever many years you claim to have spent in the insurance business, you obviously don't understand it.

Insurance is a way to protect yourself from RISK. It is not, and never was, a way to pool expenses so that young people can subsidize obese smokers.

Car insurance is not a way for bad drivers to share their expenses with good drivers.

If you have a pre-existing condition, that is not a risk. You know with absolute certainty that you are going to have the expense. And make no mistake -- it is YOUR EXPENSE. I just recently priced new insurance for myself -- if you are paying $500 per month with a $5000 deductible, it tells me you have a pre-existing health problem, and you want someone else to pay.

You have a lot of nerve expecting the rest of us to pay for your health decisions. People like you are the real criminals in the health care crisis.

The problem with our healthcare system is run-a-way costs; not the availabilty of insurance. As you state-- you are able to get insurance, but it costs too much.

People who claim the issue is about how many people are uninsured are ignorant and don't understand the real problem.

Most of the businesses that canceled (or failed to provide) health insurance did so because health care costs were increasing 8-10% per year historically (and closer to 10-11% more recently). While some businesses grow 10% for a few years -- no business grows that fast over long periods of time... GDP growth has been about 4% over the long haul -- and by definition that is what the average business growth rate is.

Healthcare, or anything whose costs grow faster than GDP, is going to become unaffordable.

Health care costs are growing out of control, at least in part, because this country has too many people, sitting on their sofa with a twinkie in one hand and a cigarette in the other, complaining that they can't get something for nothing.

Grow up!!!

'Free Market' Healthcare: Fix It Now, Before It's Too Late

Willmaster--

Go back and read my post again. try to find the sentence where I said the current "healthcare system of insurance company / mega healthcare company monopolies is really the greatest in the world. Huh?"

That isn't what I wrote. if you are even halfway literate -- try reading the very first sentence I wrote: ***there is no question that the current health care system is a mess***

'Free Market' Healthcare: Fix It Now, Before It's Too Late

While there is no question that the current health care system is a mess, this article is rather misleading at best.

The two countries most often cited as study cases for a National Healthcare system-- Canada and the UK-- have special situations that do not transfer to the U.S.

Both countries had (past tense) very high amounts of natural resource taxes and royalties-- Canada from the Alberta and artic regions, and the UK from the North Sea fields.

The North Sea fields have peaked (according to the UK government AND the oil companies, as well as the government of Norway). The British NHS is in serious financial trouble, with rampant cutbacks. While US patients can have almost any surgery they need inside of a week, many Brits have to wait 6-9 months for many surgeries. Brits are pretty much restricted to seeing one doctor only-- unless they are literally going to die on the spot.

The U.S. tried similar measures via HMOs. U.S. citizens were outraged at delays / rationing that was not even half as severe as the norm in the UK.

Lastly, many doctors in the UK have left the NHS and gone into private practice-- so there are TWO healthcare systems in the UK. One for the rich, and the NHS for everyone else.

Canada's healthcare system enjoys more support from oil royalties than the UK (it has more oil exports, and it has a smaller population -- so the subsidy per person is much higher). None the less, Canada's government is also facing financial pressure of how to continue funding its healthcare system.

Like the UK, Canadians regularly accept delays and rationing far more severe than what HMOs in the US tried to do several years ago.

Both the UK and Canadian governments have demonstrated better (even if not perfect) success at creating and maintaining national transportation systems (railways, airlines, roads, etc) than the U.S. government.

The U.S. government is known for paying $100 billion for a single bomber. Medicare has rampant fraud and constant budget overruns. It is laughable to suggest the US government will have more success at controlling cost than the UK/Canada. Based on past experience, the US government is likely to be far LESS successful.

And few US citizens have bothered to think about what national healthcare would mean. For example, right now a decision to have an abortion is between a woman and her doctor. Once the government becomes the sole payer in the system -- Roe v Wade could easily be overturned as a one line rider in a budget bill. Any doctor who performed an abortion would forfeit all payments from the government.... Once healthcare becomes a government function, the power of the purse can (and will) be used to allow politics to enter every healthcare decision.