JerseyMike

The Post Office, FedEx and UPS Model for Health Insurance

Every coin has two sides. You cannot speak of the benefit of public health care without looking to the problems caused by public health care. The first of which is the cost. Only in some dream world will providing free "preventative care" reduce health care costs. In reality, as the OMB has estimated, the cost will be $1.6 Trillion in tax dollars that are not presently be collected (e.g., deficit spending). And, that $1.6 Trillion will only pay for about 40% of the uninsured in this country. Doing the math, it would cost in the neighborhood of an extra $3.5 Trillion to cover everyone. From whom are you going to collect those taxes? We could move on and talk about the need to ration health care so that people cannot get needed procedures. But, I think you get my point.

On Jun 24 11:15 AM Dialectical Materialist wrote:

> JerseyMike,
>
> It has been said that the definition of "minor surgery" is surgery
> on someone else. It never feels minor when it happens to you. I
> would offer the same observation about the health care "crisis."
> You don't think there is a crisis. Someone who has been without
> insurance (and was last year and the year before that) may feel differently.

The Post Office, FedEx and UPS Model for Health Insurance

I have several problems with the government getting involved in healthcare. First, I detest the repeated use of a false "crisis" to mandate a government takeover of an industry. Let's stop calling it a crisis. It is no more a crisis today than it was a year ago. Second, I have a real problem that such large government programs are being rushed through Congress without any meaningful debate or review of the plan. Clearly, the administration is trying to ram what it wants down our throats while one party controls both houses of Congress and the White House. If the administration is right - then let its plan be openly debated. Let them have the courage of their convictions rather than use false fear mongering to justify the passage of such broad sweeping legislation without a general understanding of what it will entail and how it will be paid for. Third, I detest being asked to pay even more taxes. The tax burden is presently burdensome. The taxes necessary to carry out what is proposed can only make things far worse.

On Jun 24 07:53 AM Leftfield wrote:

> The government has already built this crappy healthcare system.
> It's full of proceduritis, unneeded tests, arms races with the most
> expensive equipment, prescription abuse by the providers, all of
> which is to cater to the shrinking slice of people with gold-plated
> benefits.
> It needs to be fixed. I favor incentives of good private decisionmaking.

The Post Office, FedEx and UPS Model for Health Insurance

I thought Obama's comments on Iran have been “pragmatic” but also incredibly timid and demonstrate a lack of leadership. John F. Kennedy, when confronted with a similar situation, famously stated “Ich bin ein Berliner” to show his solidarity with those facing oppression. Obama is no JFK (indeed on foreign policy he is more like Carter).
I don't think the USPO vs FedEx analogy is correct. FedEx did not build out a system that most people were happy with and then the government came along whit the post office. Instead, the post office existed and did an incredibly poor job of meeting client needs. Therefore, the government allowed FedEx and others take over certain segments of the USPO's business - e.g., the overnight delivery service (FedEx by law cannot compete for regular mail service). So if the idea is that the government can build an incredibly crappy health care system so that in the future it will allow private companies to do better - that would be your USPO vs FedEx analogy.

Will Intel's New Processor Be a Game-Changer?

Apple's next OS revision due out this summer - Snow Leopard - is specifically designed to work with multiple processors (they call the technology "grand central").

But, as others have pointed out, the real growth in the PC sector in last year has been in low powered netbooks and not in high end desktops or servers. Thus, I would imagine that the number of Intel Atom processors sold probably far exceeds the number of i7 processors sold during the same period.


On Apr 08 05:12 PM carey_jim wrote:

> The real problem is that the big three operating systems can't take
> advantage of the power of hardware that has been available for years.
>
>
> For ten or twenty years it has been possible, for example, to place
> hundreds of vanilla brand CPU's together in one box with mountains
> of RAM dedicated to each CPU, but no existing operating systems are
> able to use this kind of parallel computing arrangement.

CBO's $1.8 Billion Deficit Projection Is Too Optimistic

I am shocked, shocked to learn that the administration would lie about the numbers to advance their agenda.

You've Got GM, President Obama: Build Natural Gas Vehicles

ExxonMobil paid income taxes of $40 billion in 2007 (check out their annual report). On top of this, the government taxes every consumer at the pump. Given that the government also taxes every other major oil company, ExxonMobil's profits are miniscule compared to what the US government collects from the sale of each gallon of gasoline. Given the insinuation that money prevents ExxonMobil from moving from oil to NG - the logic would apply doubly to the US government. I am just tired of successful American businesses being demonized because they turn a profit for their shareholders. ExxonMobil could move its operations off shore and avoid paying taxes to the US government. They have chosen not to do so. They should be commended rather than demonized.


> In addition, how do you think Exxon Mobile would feel about changing
> their business model that consistently provides $40 billion in profits
> year after year, totally independent of demand for gasoline?

You've Got GM, President Obama: Build Natural Gas Vehicles

Keep the government out of it. Behind every problem is a well intentioned government policy that went bad. Here's an idea - how about let the market decide. I cannot think of a worse scenario than a government committee picking the type of fuel that our vehicles will use.

I was recently in Europe and it appeared to me that more than half the cars on the road were diesel. Modern diesel engines burn cleaner and have much higher mileage than their gas counterparts sold here. For example, a Ford Fiesta diesel in the UK gets 65 miles per gallon - which is higher than the gas powered Toyota Prius sold here. You cannot buy the diesel Ford Fiesta here because of federal regulations and taxes. The tax on diesel fuel is often twice that for gasoline - it is a back door way to tax businesses since most business vehicles run on diesel. However, the unintended consequence of this bad government policy is that it has made US cars less fuel efficient and therefore less competitive. The government tax on diesel has kept Detroit from producing consumer diesel vehicles and has kept European car manufacturers from bringing them here.

Also, Brazil is often touted as the first post petroleum economy. However, you cannot buy Brazilian bio-fuels here because of huge tariffs imposed by the federal government (tariffs requested by the farm lobby to protect domestic bio fuels made from corn which is much less efficient to produce).

Let's get the government out of it and let the market decide which is best for our future.

Fox News Launches a Huffpo for the Right

I know the left hates Fox and thinks that is is a right wing soap box. But, every review of major news outlet finds that Fox is the most balanced of them all. In our present culture of left leaning news outlets, if one presents a balanced outlook it is necessarily to the right of the left leaning competition. However, being in the middle does not make you right wing unless your measure of "balanced" is way to the left.

See: www.yelp.com/topic/new...



On Mar 31 04:36 AM robert99 wrote:

> As an aside, I cannot fathom how one can watch FOX news and buy the
> whole 'Fair and Balanced' bit.

Why AIG Wasn't Allowed to Fail

Follow the money...

"Senator Barack Obama received a $101,332 bonus from American International Group in the form of political contributions according to Opensecrets.org. The two biggest Congressional recipients of bonuses from the A.I.G. are - Senators Chris Dodd and Senator Barack Obama. "

www.examiner.com/x-268...~y2009m3d17-Obama-Rece...

On Mar 18 12:58 AM TJefferson wrote:

> And then there is the small problem of stock ownership - I am sure
> that all the poor, hardworking Senators and members of the House
> of Non-Representatives don't own stock in the companies they are
> giving our hard earned tax dollars (It is not govt. money). Wait
> - this just in - It is reported that Twenty-eight current members
> of Congress owning stock in AIG last year, at the time worth between
> $2.5 million and $3.3 million. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), one of
> the richest members of Congress, was by far the biggest investor
> in AIG, with stock valued around $2 million. Two senators who chair
> committees charged with overseeing AIG and the insurance industry,
> Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), are among
> the top recipients of AIG contributions. Baucus chairs the Senate
> Finance Committee and has collected more money from AIG in his congressional
> career than from any other company. I am sure that this is all just
> a happy coincidence and all the campaign money and stock ownership
> has nothing to do with our duly elected non-Representatives giving
> our hard earned money to these companies.
>
> If you don't believe there is a connection - I have a bridge in NYC
> you might be interested in purchasing. P. T. Barnum was right and
> we are a country full of them.

Why AIG Wasn't Allowed to Fail

While it is true that the ex post facto law applies to criminal situations, the same section of the Constitution contains the "contracts clause" which provides that state governments may not pass laws that substantially impair specific existing contract obligations. Article I Section 10 Clause 1. By its terms, the clause applies to state government actions - so the feds may be free to invalidate contracts. During the great depression of the 1930s the US Supreme Court was called upon to interpret the contracts clause in a case dealing with a law that sought to temporarily halt foreclosures and the Court ruled that the contracts clause did not prevent the enforcement of that law.


On Mar 17 07:08 PM Aalan wrote:
>
> Note to ANANDAKOS, vis-a-vis MIKE HYDES' comment: no, the "ex post
> facto" law only applies to criminal penalties. Congress probably
> could invalidate the contracts, although (1) whether it would be
> useful, after being tied up in court for years, is another question;
> and (2) if Congress had the political will to really attack this
> problem, they would be doing it, instead of this elaborate Kabuki
> theater about the bonuses.

Market Death Spiral Continues

2% of people paying 50% of all taxes is not fair.
50% of all people paying no income tax at all is not fair.
If we "are all in it together", then we should all contribute. That would be fair.


On Mar 01 10:54 AM polar40 wrote:

> 39% tax instead of 36% on people making over $250,000 is fair. 95%
> population makes less than this amount. Most high income people also
> have numerous tax deductions loop holes and reduce tax to almost
> 0%. It is the middle income people that run the govt.
> People get rich by hiring workers and paying low wages, like WallMart
> or by being executives earning huge bonuses on the back of workers
> who can barely pay monthly dues for a family. With corporations trying
> to make more profit by moving manufacturing to overseas, more people
> cannot find jobs. All this need to change, or we will see a revolution.

Market Death Spiral Continues

Keep drinking that Cool Aid. Obama is an unmitigated disaster for America. His bumbling and stumbling on the economy has only made things worse. The idea that taking resources away from the most productive in society will somehow make us all better off is so stupid that the markets are rightly rejecting it.


On Mar 01 09:05 AM ferguson wrote:


> The nation will be much better off when the national wealth
> is shared more fairly and the masses have sufficient purchasing power
> to maintain a decent standard of living. Even the wealthy will be
> better off, because it was the mistaken trajectory under Reagan,
> Bush, Clinton and Bush which has taken us over this economic cliff.