Backdoor to socialized medicine?

[Coronita]

[quote=sreeb][quote=Hobie]For me the stock market is not a good measure for good legislation. After all the insurance companies got everything they wanted and are riding the wave. Soon, this tide will turn and they will be in trouble.

Here is a stock market example: Jack in the Box has grown 20% YTD while Qualcomm, is down about -10%. Doesn’t make sense. Burgers outpaces technology??[/quote]

It makes sense. The high tech business can be exported and must compete globally. The burger business can’t and doesn’t.[/quote]

Moderate hijack:

Actually, one of the speculations on why QC is getting hit is because their once bread and butter baseband chips (for which they use to be able to command hefty margins without competition) are now getting squeezed…Significantly…It use to be QC had the clear edge on be the best broadband chip and could command huge margins (take it or leave it)..Not so anymore….The asian manufacturers are putting the squeeze, even though other “competitors” don’t have a competing product, some of them I’m guessing is just saying “well, that thing costs a lot less, and it’s “good enough””. Hence, why I suspect QC’s margins on their flagship products are slipping.

BTW: You are pretty soon going to have a bunch of pissed of QC folks. For one, QC has a very nice health plan for most employees. Their plan is PPO, no payroll deductions from employees, and the coverage is generous…On top of that, if you happen to be above a certain level, there is a second “executive” health plan. I won’t go into details about that, but generally available to enginerds/directors+ above a certain level… Guess QC isn’t going to be eating this cost either so I would assume that will vaporize very soon. Expect a very large healthcare chargeoff very soon from QC and or an announcement saying they are cutting benefits…Significantly….

[ucodegen]

Article I says, “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . [to] provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States . . . [and] to regulate commerce.”

So how is mandating that people buy a product “providing for the common defense and general welfare”? It looks more like the government is mandating that we take care of our own welfare and is mandating the mechanism by which we are to do it…

[ucodegen]

Article I says, “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . [to] provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States . . . [and] to regulate commerce.”

So how is mandating that people buy a product “providing for the common defense and general welfare”? It looks more like the government is mandating that we take care of our own welfare and is mandating the mechanism by which we are to do it…

[ucodegen]

Article I says, “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . [to] provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States . . . [and] to regulate commerce.”

So how is mandating that people buy a product “providing for the common defense and general welfare”? It looks more like the government is mandating that we take care of our own welfare and is mandating the mechanism by which we are to do it…

[ucodegen]

Article I says, “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . [to] provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States . . . [and] to regulate commerce.”

So how is mandating that people buy a product “providing for the common defense and general welfare”? It looks more like the government is mandating that we take care of our own welfare and is mandating the mechanism by which we are to do it…

[ucodegen]

Article I says, “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . [to] provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States . . . [and] to regulate commerce.”

So how is mandating that people buy a product “providing for the common defense and general welfare”? It looks more like the government is mandating that we take care of our own welfare and is mandating the mechanism by which we are to do it…

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu] while this bill isn’t the only issue driving up cost, anything that is driving up cost doesn’t help us to be more competitive.[/quote]

I can accept that.

But if we recognize that health care is a priority, we can work together to reduce business costs in other ways.

We’re talking about $100 billion per year here, and all the costs are not borne by small businesses.[/quote]

What’s your proposal of reducing business costs? With all due respect, have you run a business yourself? Have you been responsible for managing a project with a large X budget, Y deadline, and Z results, for which if you don’t deliver you and everyone that works for you eat a pink slip? Have you had to decide between hiring domestic, which arguably produces better quality,versus hiring foreign, which cheaper (though with cost)? Inquiring minds want to know?

Because with our current government/american situation, there definitely seems to be several “experts” on
1) how banks should be run
2) how automakers should be run
3) how healthcare should be run
4) how technology companies should be run to be more competitive, the best way to cut costs, best way to co-exist with an extremely competitive world.

These so called politician “experts” claim to have a fix for just about every aliment in our economy, it doesn’t matter whether it’s Republitards or Democraps …they have no fvcking clue..If they did, they wouldn’t be politicians, but CEOs running real companies running the real show. (though some CEO’s have attempted/are attempting to become politicians). And now there seems to be a lot of folks from mainstreet that are “experts” all the sudden.

The issue I have with the current approach to what our government is doing is not because I’m opposed to helping people out in need. My idea of helping people that are in need is to give them the incentive to get out of their predicament. Suppose, for instance, that $1Billion from ATT could have been used to fund temporary call center workers in the U.S., hiring folks who are unemployed. Yes yes, I know one time writeoff doesn’t tally that way..But heck, if the government is making shit up as it goes along, it might as well bend a few accounting rules too. At least you give those people who are unemployed a carrot: here’s your chance to work (albeit not great…But you can pick between this or nothing)…I don’t know, but if I have a family to feed and was in this predicament, I’d swallow my pride and take what I could get.

However, our government isn’t taking this approach..It’s more like…Oh, well, shit we understand you’re unemployed. We understand if you didn’t save. We understand that these are challenging times. We understand you are about to lose your home…For you 20-25% of the people, we’re going to give you a break…by radically disrupt the remaining 75%-80% of you, and this disruption will be permanent. We’ll just expect the remaining 75-80% to eat these costs, and expect everything else to work honky-dorry. Yeah, probably and additional 10-15% of those people will end up unemployed, and the remaining working class that still depend on a paycheck will have leaner times to go through, but shit it’s not about personal responsibility, everyone MUST pitch in and help. Meanwhile, we’re not going to touch the real rich people..Like Steve Jobs. For one, he doesn’t even need health insurance 🙁 Sigh..

There comes a point when our government becomes hostile to a business environment. I’ve think we’ve reached that point, if not already…Enjoy higher unemployment soon….

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu] while this bill isn’t the only issue driving up cost, anything that is driving up cost doesn’t help us to be more competitive.[/quote]

I can accept that.

But if we recognize that health care is a priority, we can work together to reduce business costs in other ways.

We’re talking about $100 billion per year here, and all the costs are not borne by small businesses.[/quote]

What’s your proposal of reducing business costs? With all due respect, have you run a business yourself? Have you been responsible for managing a project with a large X budget, Y deadline, and Z results, for which if you don’t deliver you and everyone that works for you eat a pink slip? Have you had to decide between hiring domestic, which arguably produces better quality,versus hiring foreign, which cheaper (though with cost)? Inquiring minds want to know?

Because with our current government/american situation, there definitely seems to be several “experts” on
1) how banks should be run
2) how automakers should be run
3) how healthcare should be run
4) how technology companies should be run to be more competitive, the best way to cut costs, best way to co-exist with an extremely competitive world.

These so called politician “experts” claim to have a fix for just about every aliment in our economy, it doesn’t matter whether it’s Republitards or Democraps …they have no fvcking clue..If they did, they wouldn’t be politicians, but CEOs running real companies running the real show. (though some CEO’s have attempted/are attempting to become politicians). And now there seems to be a lot of folks from mainstreet that are “experts” all the sudden.

The issue I have with the current approach to what our government is doing is not because I’m opposed to helping people out in need. My idea of helping people that are in need is to give them the incentive to get out of their predicament. Suppose, for instance, that $1Billion from ATT could have been used to fund temporary call center workers in the U.S., hiring folks who are unemployed. Yes yes, I know one time writeoff doesn’t tally that way..But heck, if the government is making shit up as it goes along, it might as well bend a few accounting rules too. At least you give those people who are unemployed a carrot: here’s your chance to work (albeit not great…But you can pick between this or nothing)…I don’t know, but if I have a family to feed and was in this predicament, I’d swallow my pride and take what I could get.

However, our government isn’t taking this approach..It’s more like…Oh, well, shit we understand you’re unemployed. We understand if you didn’t save. We understand that these are challenging times. We understand you are about to lose your home…For you 20-25% of the people, we’re going to give you a break…by radically disrupt the remaining 75%-80% of you, and this disruption will be permanent. We’ll just expect the remaining 75-80% to eat these costs, and expect everything else to work honky-dorry. Yeah, probably and additional 10-15% of those people will end up unemployed, and the remaining working class that still depend on a paycheck will have leaner times to go through, but shit it’s not about personal responsibility, everyone MUST pitch in and help. Meanwhile, we’re not going to touch the real rich people..Like Steve Jobs. For one, he doesn’t even need health insurance 🙁 Sigh..

There comes a point when our government becomes hostile to a business environment. I’ve think we’ve reached that point, if not already…Enjoy higher unemployment soon….

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu] while this bill isn’t the only issue driving up cost, anything that is driving up cost doesn’t help us to be more competitive.[/quote]

I can accept that.

But if we recognize that health care is a priority, we can work together to reduce business costs in other ways.

We’re talking about $100 billion per year here, and all the costs are not borne by small businesses.[/quote]

What’s your proposal of reducing business costs? With all due respect, have you run a business yourself? Have you been responsible for managing a project with a large X budget, Y deadline, and Z results, for which if you don’t deliver you and everyone that works for you eat a pink slip? Have you had to decide between hiring domestic, which arguably produces better quality,versus hiring foreign, which cheaper (though with cost)? Inquiring minds want to know?

Because with our current government/american situation, there definitely seems to be several “experts” on
1) how banks should be run
2) how automakers should be run
3) how healthcare should be run
4) how technology companies should be run to be more competitive, the best way to cut costs, best way to co-exist with an extremely competitive world.

These so called politician “experts” claim to have a fix for just about every aliment in our economy, it doesn’t matter whether it’s Republitards or Democraps …they have no fvcking clue..If they did, they wouldn’t be politicians, but CEOs running real companies running the real show. (though some CEO’s have attempted/are attempting to become politicians). And now there seems to be a lot of folks from mainstreet that are “experts” all the sudden.

The issue I have with the current approach to what our government is doing is not because I’m opposed to helping people out in need. My idea of helping people that are in need is to give them the incentive to get out of their predicament. Suppose, for instance, that $1Billion from ATT could have been used to fund temporary call center workers in the U.S., hiring folks who are unemployed. Yes yes, I know one time writeoff doesn’t tally that way..But heck, if the government is making shit up as it goes along, it might as well bend a few accounting rules too. At least you give those people who are unemployed a carrot: here’s your chance to work (albeit not great…But you can pick between this or nothing)…I don’t know, but if I have a family to feed and was in this predicament, I’d swallow my pride and take what I could get.

However, our government isn’t taking this approach..It’s more like…Oh, well, shit we understand you’re unemployed. We understand if you didn’t save. We understand that these are challenging times. We understand you are about to lose your home…For you 20-25% of the people, we’re going to give you a break…by radically disrupt the remaining 75%-80% of you, and this disruption will be permanent. We’ll just expect the remaining 75-80% to eat these costs, and expect everything else to work honky-dorry. Yeah, probably and additional 10-15% of those people will end up unemployed, and the remaining working class that still depend on a paycheck will have leaner times to go through, but shit it’s not about personal responsibility, everyone MUST pitch in and help. Meanwhile, we’re not going to touch the real rich people..Like Steve Jobs. For one, he doesn’t even need health insurance 🙁 Sigh..

There comes a point when our government becomes hostile to a business environment. I’ve think we’ve reached that point, if not already…Enjoy higher unemployment soon….

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu] while this bill isn’t the only issue driving up cost, anything that is driving up cost doesn’t help us to be more competitive.[/quote]

I can accept that.

But if we recognize that health care is a priority, we can work together to reduce business costs in other ways.

We’re talking about $100 billion per year here, and all the costs are not borne by small businesses.[/quote]

What’s your proposal of reducing business costs? With all due respect, have you run a business yourself? Have you been responsible for managing a project with a large X budget, Y deadline, and Z results, for which if you don’t deliver you and everyone that works for you eat a pink slip? Have you had to decide between hiring domestic, which arguably produces better quality,versus hiring foreign, which cheaper (though with cost)? Inquiring minds want to know?

Because with our current government/american situation, there definitely seems to be several “experts” on
1) how banks should be run
2) how automakers should be run
3) how healthcare should be run
4) how technology companies should be run to be more competitive, the best way to cut costs, best way to co-exist with an extremely competitive world.

These so called politician “experts” claim to have a fix for just about every aliment in our economy, it doesn’t matter whether it’s Republitards or Democraps …they have no fvcking clue..If they did, they wouldn’t be politicians, but CEOs running real companies running the real show. (though some CEO’s have attempted/are attempting to become politicians). And now there seems to be a lot of folks from mainstreet that are “experts” all the sudden.

The issue I have with the current approach to what our government is doing is not because I’m opposed to helping people out in need. My idea of helping people that are in need is to give them the incentive to get out of their predicament. Suppose, for instance, that $1Billion from ATT could have been used to fund temporary call center workers in the U.S., hiring folks who are unemployed. Yes yes, I know one time writeoff doesn’t tally that way..But heck, if the government is making shit up as it goes along, it might as well bend a few accounting rules too. At least you give those people who are unemployed a carrot: here’s your chance to work (albeit not great…But you can pick between this or nothing)…I don’t know, but if I have a family to feed and was in this predicament, I’d swallow my pride and take what I could get.

However, our government isn’t taking this approach..It’s more like…Oh, well, shit we understand you’re unemployed. We understand if you didn’t save. We understand that these are challenging times. We understand you are about to lose your home…For you 20-25% of the people, we’re going to give you a break…by radically disrupt the remaining 75%-80% of you, and this disruption will be permanent. We’ll just expect the remaining 75-80% to eat these costs, and expect everything else to work honky-dorry. Yeah, probably and additional 10-15% of those people will end up unemployed, and the remaining working class that still depend on a paycheck will have leaner times to go through, but shit it’s not about personal responsibility, everyone MUST pitch in and help. Meanwhile, we’re not going to touch the real rich people..Like Steve Jobs. For one, he doesn’t even need health insurance 🙁 Sigh..

There comes a point when our government becomes hostile to a business environment. I’ve think we’ve reached that point, if not already…Enjoy higher unemployment soon….

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu] while this bill isn’t the only issue driving up cost, anything that is driving up cost doesn’t help us to be more competitive.[/quote]

I can accept that.

But if we recognize that health care is a priority, we can work together to reduce business costs in other ways.

We’re talking about $100 billion per year here, and all the costs are not borne by small businesses.[/quote]

What’s your proposal of reducing business costs? With all due respect, have you run a business yourself? Have you been responsible for managing a project with a large X budget, Y deadline, and Z results, for which if you don’t deliver you and everyone that works for you eat a pink slip? Have you had to decide between hiring domestic, which arguably produces better quality,versus hiring foreign, which cheaper (though with cost)? Inquiring minds want to know?

Because with our current government/american situation, there definitely seems to be several “experts” on
1) how banks should be run
2) how automakers should be run
3) how healthcare should be run
4) how technology companies should be run to be more competitive, the best way to cut costs, best way to co-exist with an extremely competitive world.

These so called politician “experts” claim to have a fix for just about every aliment in our economy, it doesn’t matter whether it’s Republitards or Democraps …they have no fvcking clue..If they did, they wouldn’t be politicians, but CEOs running real companies running the real show. (though some CEO’s have attempted/are attempting to become politicians). And now there seems to be a lot of folks from mainstreet that are “experts” all the sudden.

The issue I have with the current approach to what our government is doing is not because I’m opposed to helping people out in need. My idea of helping people that are in need is to give them the incentive to get out of their predicament. Suppose, for instance, that $1Billion from ATT could have been used to fund temporary call center workers in the U.S., hiring folks who are unemployed. Yes yes, I know one time writeoff doesn’t tally that way..But heck, if the government is making shit up as it goes along, it might as well bend a few accounting rules too. At least you give those people who are unemployed a carrot: here’s your chance to work (albeit not great…But you can pick between this or nothing)…I don’t know, but if I have a family to feed and was in this predicament, I’d swallow my pride and take what I could get.

However, our government isn’t taking this approach..It’s more like…Oh, well, shit we understand you’re unemployed. We understand if you didn’t save. We understand that these are challenging times. We understand you are about to lose your home…For you 20-25% of the people, we’re going to give you a break…by radically disrupt the remaining 75%-80% of you, and this disruption will be permanent. We’ll just expect the remaining 75-80% to eat these costs, and expect everything else to work honky-dorry. Yeah, probably and additional 10-15% of those people will end up unemployed, and the remaining working class that still depend on a paycheck will have leaner times to go through, but shit it’s not about personal responsibility, everyone MUST pitch in and help. Meanwhile, we’re not going to touch the real rich people..Like Steve Jobs. For one, he doesn’t even need health insurance 🙁 Sigh..

There comes a point when our government becomes hostile to a business environment. I’ve think we’ve reached that point, if not already…Enjoy higher unemployment soon….

[meadandale]

[quote=flu]The issue I have with the current approach to what our government is doing is not because I’m opposed to helping people out in need. My idea of helping people that are in need is to give them the incentive to get out of their predicament. [/quote]

I think Ben Franklin said it best:

I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

[meadandale]

[quote=flu]The issue I have with the current approach to what our government is doing is not because I’m opposed to helping people out in need. My idea of helping people that are in need is to give them the incentive to get out of their predicament. [/quote]

I think Ben Franklin said it best:

I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

[meadandale]

[quote=flu]The issue I have with the current approach to what our government is doing is not because I’m opposed to helping people out in need. My idea of helping people that are in need is to give them the incentive to get out of their predicament. [/quote]

I think Ben Franklin said it best:

I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

[meadandale]

[quote=flu]The issue I have with the current approach to what our government is doing is not because I’m opposed to helping people out in need. My idea of helping people that are in need is to give them the incentive to get out of their predicament. [/quote]

I think Ben Franklin said it best:

I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

[Author]

Posts