Now under the new healthcare bill, insurance companies will not be able to deny coverage. So does that mean he can have a bare bones medical insurance policy while he is in good health, and switch to one of the gold plated policies when he finds he has a serious expensive illness?
If he can, then I would expect a race to the bottom among the gold plated insurance plans. Each trying to offer a plan that a person with large medical costs will not choose.
=20 Dan
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 00:32:51 -0400, the infamous "Buerste" scrawled the following:
Life's too short to read Demonrat trollbait.
Plonk him and forget him, Tawm.
-- ...in order that a man may be happy, it is necessary that he should not only be capable of his work, but a good judge of his work. -- John Ruskin
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 00:46:18 -0400, the infamous "Buerste" scrawled the following:
I don't have to. I plonked that guy several years ago, and (thankfully) very few people quote him.
There's always Soylent Green, eh? Maybe that's how The O is going to control the population via "healthcare"
Solution: In Agent, it's Ctrl-K/Enter, and he's out of your life. I don't know the killfile key combo for Outleak Express. Sorry. (Maybe Tools/Message Rules/News and create a filter?)
-- ...in order that a man may be happy, it is necessary that he should not only be capable of his work, but a good judge of his work. -- John Ruskin
MESSAGE-BLOCK SENDER- YES
He can have it back anytime he wants to pick it up - as agreed. He'd better get with the program though. I'm going to want a storage fee eventually.
One of the real benefits of health-care reform will be to startups and small business. They'll be on a more equal footing when it comes to hiring and the benefit of taxed based support means you don't end up crushed by costs as your profits swing up and down.
90 percent of the jobs in America are created by business's less than five years old. On that basis alone, health-care reform is a jobs bill and we are eventually going to have a single payer system anyway. It's unavoidable.
Well, you said initially that a higher minimum wage made it impossible for you to replace a minimum wage guy. Then you said that you couldn't afford "$15/hr. plus bennies" so I was wondering why you are either talking out of both sides of your mouth again, or think minimum wage is "$15/hr. plus bennies"?
There are literally thousands of minimum wage manufacturing jobs available here in California Tom but they pay minimum wage, not "$15/hr. plus bennies".
Bipolar.
I don't think he cares. Tom's here for the excercise.
No he hasn't.
LOL I had your "dealings" picked up and hauled away as scrap a month ago.
The only thing addressed under the health-care legislation just passed is basic coverage. People are on their own for anything more.
Premiums will reflect whatever insurer's want them too. They'll either have customers or not.
=========== This is a likely scenario up until the time the people get fed up with health insurance "bait-n-switch" and a government run single payer plan is implemented.
The directors, officers and executives of the health insurance companies will scream like a barrel of mashed cats when this occurs, but brought [are bringing] this on themselves (and everybody else).
The people that will lose their investment are the stock holders of health insurance companies, for profit hospitals and HMOs when "single payer" is implemented. Look for the corporate "leadership," mutual funds, etc. to unload this worthless paper on the widows and orphans just the way they did the GM stock and bonds.
Unka George (George McDuffee) .............................. The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author. The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
This is just an opinion, but I think there are things to learn from several of the systems in place. Here's hoping we learn well.
Shrug..I loaned it to him about 3 yrs ago.
Still havent gotten it back.
Gunner
"First Law of Leftist Debate The more you present a leftist with factual evidence that is counter to his preconceived world view and the more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot, homophobe approaches infinity.
This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to the subject." Grey Ghost
I, like most other readers here probably, take him at his word that the deal was that you were supposed to pick it up. Did you imagine that you could unilaterally amend your contract with him as you've done with so many of your creditors?
He told you multiple times, in public, that you may pick it up at any reasonable time. You could have driven there in the time you've wasted whining about how difficult it is for you to stick to your word. Now I suppose you think he should do you a favor for free despite your lame attempts to smear him here. Classic deadbeat strategy.
If you want another favor from him, then you'll have to make a new deal. You could check the shipping price, send him that plus $10 for his trouble, and maybe he'll take pity on you again. Although I'd prefer that you keep whining and smearing. Sure, it hasn't worked yet, but there's always hope that doing the same pathetically stupid thing over and over will someday magically achieve a different result, right gummy?
Wayne
Ok, since you didn't attack me...this time...I'll play nice.
The union won't allow any wages less than contract minimum with a vacation and sick-days tier, 12 paid holidays and medical coverage. I'm sorry I wasn't clear.
I think after that long, I think it is considered a "contribution", even by the IRS's logic.
Steve ;-)
Civility is always breached by you first. I only respond in kind.
========== Like so many human interatctions it all depends on the people involved, their motives, past experience, and the scale of things.
It is well to remember that unions exist to promote the interests of their members, as they are the ones paying the dues, which is a foreign concept for many people.
An objective reading of industrial history shows that union "give-backs" and concessions almost always lead to management demand of more "give-backs" and more concessions, even as management bonuses, benefits, and salaries increase.
Try explaining why it is in the interest of the unions and their members to allow employees to be hired and paid less than scale. From their point of view, if a job is worth doing [needed], it is worth paying scale wages.
Unka George (George McDuffee) .............................. The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author. The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
It also depends a great deal on the union itself..and if they are crime family thugs who only care about the income they receive, or if they are actually honest union leaders.
Ive seen a number of unions..owned by crime family thugs, completely destroy a company that was actually doing ok, and had to fold.
Gunner
"First Law of Leftist Debate The more you present a leftist with factual evidence that is counter to his preconceived world view and the more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot, homophobe approaches infinity.
This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to the subject." Grey Ghost
Automation encourages itself. It's a compelling economic fact that can't be stopped without violence. You can slow it down by paying people wages they can't live on, and you can squeeze every turnip in sight to compete with bowl-of-rice-a-day imports, but it's coming at you anyway. 'Always has, always will.
Tawwwm's argument is one of the oldest, dumbest, and most self-serving in all of manufacturing. Luddites come in several flavors, but their arguments are always losers.
That's a good argument for universal health care. The fixed part of labor costs is a blight upon any economy. When almost all of the costs are variable, you have maximum labor flexibility. And it can benefit both labor and ownership, if handled thoughtfully.
They do. Now you can see why the arguments against debt are stupid, too. Debt is a burden on growth, but debt used well stimulates more growth than it burdens.
There are intelligent arguments against excessive debt. You just won't hear them from conservative pundits.
The weakness in Germany's economy is likely to come from an excessive mercantilism, in which they try to buy their way out of trouble with a strong balance of trade. This is something that doesn't often work well for very advanced economies, like theirs. They do have a healthy trade balance, but a negative one isn't necessarily unhealthy. And bending normal market forces to effect a better trade balance can do more harm than good.
The strength of Germany's economy is the more interesting part, and the article points out that it's the relative power of labor and ownership that's very different from out economy. There are deeper analyses around than that brief article. The telling point is that getting labor involved in decision-making at the highest levels hasn't seem to hurt their international competitiveness. It appears to have strengthened it, in fact, but I'm not knowledgable enough about Germany's economy to draw any conclusions -- except that labor involvement obviously has not held them back.
BTW, I think that John found a link to that article that isn't behind a paywall. If you can't get it and really want it, I'll download it and e-mail it to you.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required