Jump to content

Photo

Lets talk 2012.


  • Please log in to reply
389 replies to this topic

#341 Jerrydevil

Jerrydevil

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,919 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 11:43 AM

Providing health insurance should be optional for companies, Pepperkorn. Health insurance is not a right, no matter how bad the left wants it to be.
  • 0

#342 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,309 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 12:01 PM

Providing health insurance should be optional for companies, Pepperkorn. Health insurance is not a right, no matter how bad the left wants it to be.

I'd go a step further, we should ban companies from offering insurance to employees, it would avoid this debacle altogether.

I would prefer a system like Switzerland, everyone has to buy the base insurance policy from a private company, all private insurance companies must offer the base insurance package at the same price and can not deny anyone from the base plan. link Those companies are not allowed to make profits on the base package, but are allowed sell additional coverage on top of the base, and people only have to put up to 8% of their income towards insurance, if that 8% doesn't cover the cost the government subsidizes the rest.

It's not that I think this is perfect, it's just I think it strikes the best balance between individuals, insurance companies, and government everyone gets something, everyone gives a little of something, everyone gets covered and the government is just regulating, not overseeing.
  • 0

#343 Jerrydevil

Jerrydevil

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,919 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 12:12 PM

Squishy, now you're going in a direction that I like. I'd have to think about the merits of banning the inclusion of health insurance as a company perk, but on the surface it seems like a decent idea. I'm not an expert in the finances of the health insurance business, but I believe that it's the massive group plans, and the group discounts that come with them, that are a big factor in why individual health plans are so expensive.
  • 0

#344 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,309 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 02:34 PM

Squishy, now you're going in a direction that I like. I'd have to think about the merits of banning the inclusion of health insurance as a company perk, but on the surface it seems like a decent idea. I'm not an expert in the finances of the health insurance business, but I believe that it's the massive group plans, and the group discounts that come with them, that are a big factor in why individual health plans are so expensive.

Oh absolutely. If everyone was dropped from employer coverage the average price of a health plan would stay exactly the same, the people on the underside of the average would pay more but the people on the high side would drop.

While I know Health Insurance is a good incentive companies offer, so is a check for $6000 dollars (roughly the average amount companies spend per person), and either companies are going to give that money back to their workers, hire more workers, or spend it (of course maybe some companies just hold it to offset loses, but then risk losing employees to higher paying competitors). Another benefit to employees is it gives them more mobility, you are no longer holding on to a job just to keep your health insurance.

But this is probably a pipe dream for our country given how toxic our political environment is, so I support incremental improvement when the see it.
  • 0

#345 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,475 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 08:39 AM

:clap: Yeay! I love common ground.

I dont get the health insurance system and I'm from a family of actuaries. The other difficulty I have is a lot of friends are doctors -- and they do indeed make an obscene amount of money. They do.. there is no way around it.

hmm... I guess I got lost in space pondering this and never posted :giggle:
  • 0

I'm here for the party


#346 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,896 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 02:40 PM

FWIW, I might be on board with a simplified, or at least a more simplified, system where every family gets a voucher to purchase basic health insurance subject to certain regulations including one that claims pre-existing conditions can't be denied.

Employer funded health insurance is an anomalous vestige of WWII.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#347 devilsadvoc8

devilsadvoc8

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,822 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 02:59 PM

:clap: Yeay! I love common ground.

I dont get the health insurance system and I'm from a family of actuaries. The other difficulty I have is a lot of friends are doctors -- and they do indeed make an obscene amount of money. They do.. there is no way around it.

hmm... I guess I got lost in space pondering this and never posted :giggle:

Sure doctors make a lot of money but (1) you have to be smart and (2) it requires a long educational/training period. Name me another profession that requires more training before you are a full fledged doctor? From college, to med school to very little pay on the job training, it isn't easy or cheap to get to the point at which you can actually make that "obscene" money.
  • 0
Official Keeper of the 3 story statue of a hockey player by the artist J. Krawczyk.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

#348 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,475 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 06:48 PM

I work for UMDNJ. Trust me, You do not have to be smart. Getting a PhD takes longer than getting your MD. MD = 4 years then on to intern and residency. If you count those then you have to count post-doctoral studies. A biochem (etc and so forth) PhD will run you 8 years just to get the initials - follow it up with a 4-8 year post-doc.

Bio/Chem PhDs get tuition remission. Med students do indeed pay an obscene amount for schooling -- but it's paid off in three years on the job pretty much. I have hyper-educated friends as ironic as it is since I'm so NOT educated.

I always encourage undergrads to get their MD PhD. Tuition remission on the MD - given THE cushiest thesis project. Done with PhD in 4 years no post-doc.

I say med school students aren't smart BUT they do understand their limitations and their strong suits - so in all honesty good common sense is required. That is worth a heck of a lot.

"They do, there is no way around it" up there came about because I was thinking; they invest in their education --- but unless they die they're going to get tenfold back. OR unless they choose to work for free for philanthropic reason -- a friend's sister does. Hey -- my uncle was a surgeon... I forgot about that. He was no brain machine... he was good at what he did though. OK I'm getting extemporaneous here and I feel it'll only get worse as I get closer to the bottom of this glass of beer. (Old Speckled Hen for anyone who cares :P)

So no need to explain to me how tough it is to be an MD, I've pondered it thoroughly. I'd rather here (HEAR!) about the Constitution, Bill of Rights etc and so forth - not prevarication mind you - just the facts.

My daughter used to say "My Daddy is a doctor... but not the kind that helps people."

Edited by Pepperkorn, 08 March 2012 - 07:33 PM.

  • 0

I'm here for the party


#349 Jerrydevil

Jerrydevil

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,919 posts

Posted 14 March 2012 - 02:37 PM

The GOP race gets more interesting by the day. Gingrich says he’s in it until the convention, and his interviews on the subject yesterday were fascinating.

He said, and I paraphrase: It’s not necessarily in Santorum’s best interests to battle Romney one-on-one, because together Gingrich and Santorum can best ensure that Romney doesn’t get the 1,100 or so delegates he needs to win the nomination. Gingrich also said if he dropped out, Romney could focus all his campaign war chest on smearing one candidate, and that Romney doesn’t have enough money to smear everyone.

Gingrich despises Romney, and he’s not afraid to show it. Gingrich also apparently believes that his best chance to be the candidate is to destroy Romney.

And I wouldn’t be shocked if Santorum secretly believes that having Gingrich around for as long as possible is a good thing.

Imagine a GOP Convention with Romney and Santorum/Gingrich with a similar number of delegates? What would happen? I don't know, but there would be fireworks!
  • 0

#350 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,896 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 02:17 PM

My link

Santorum now officially scares the sh*t out of me. Although I'll never vote for him anyway, I felt that most of his loony ideas were just his personal opinions and that he wouldn't do anything about them as a legal matter.

For any Republican candidate who wants any chance at being successful in the future, I suggest you listen to something I heard a construction worker say in some documentary:

"One side wants my guns, the other wants my porno magazines, and they're not getting either of them."
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#351 Jerrydevil

Jerrydevil

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,919 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 02:52 PM

My link

"One side wants my guns, the other wants my porno magazines, and they're not getting either of them."


:lol:
  • 0

#352 devilsadvoc8

devilsadvoc8

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,822 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 08:33 AM

Is Rick about to lose it? It certainly looks like he is getting a bit frazzled. I anxiously await his total meltdown that removes him from any future elected office permanently :uni:
  • 0
Official Keeper of the 3 story statue of a hockey player by the artist J. Krawczyk.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

#353 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,896 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 10:47 AM

Is Rick about to lose it? It certainly looks like he is getting a bit frazzled. I anxiously await his total meltdown that removes him from any future elected office permanently :uni:


Y'argh!!!
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#354 Devils Dose

Devils Dose

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 06:12 PM

Still gotta let it play out. Florida was a big win for Romney, but there's been a lot of twists and turns already. I'm not willing to say it's "inevitable" yet.

As I said. . .
  • 0
Season Ticket Holder since Jan.2009
Section 226 Row 2 Seats 15-16

#355 Jerrydevil

Jerrydevil

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,919 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 01:50 PM

As I said. . .


The process is playing out. Unfortunately, by the time the New Jersey primary rolls around, we will have less candidates to vote for. C'est la vie.
  • 0

#356 ghdi

ghdi

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,427 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 03:28 PM

The process is playing out. Unfortunately, by the time the New Jersey primary rolls around, we will have less candidates to vote for. C'est la vie.


What is left to play out? Do you think that any of the remaining candidates (Gingrich and Paul) have any sort of chance? Romney is the de-facto nominee. And he will lose in November.
  • 0

#357 Devils Dose

Devils Dose

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 06:57 PM

The process is playing out. Unfortunately, by the time the New Jersey primary rolls around, we will have less candidates to vote for. C'est la vie.

That Romney is the Republican nominee is a forgone conclusion. It was basically inevitable for a couple of months, but now it's over and all of the fundraisers, conservative groups, etc. have moved on to preparing for the general election.

Your point about NJ brings up something that burns me. Our primary process makes no sense. A first grader could tell you that it's unbalanced and not fair. "Iowa must always vote first." WHY?! Who the hell came up with that rule? It also takes far too long.
How it should work: States are grouped into 4 groups (I say non-regional, others have told me it should be 4 sections of the country). First year, Group 1 votes in the last week of January, Group 2 two weeks after that, etc. Four years later, Group 2 votes first, then 3, 4, 1. Quick, clean, fair to candidates and voters.
  • 0
Season Ticket Holder since Jan.2009
Section 226 Row 2 Seats 15-16

#358 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,896 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 07:56 PM

That Romney is the Republican nominee is a forgone conclusion. It was basically inevitable for a couple of months, but now it's over and all of the fundraisers, conservative groups, etc. have moved on to preparing for the general election.

Your point about NJ brings up something that burns me. Our primary process makes no sense. A first grader could tell you that it's unbalanced and not fair. "Iowa must always vote first." WHY?! Who the hell came up with that rule? It also takes far too long.
How it should work: States are grouped into 4 groups (I say non-regional, others have told me it should be 4 sections of the country). First year, Group 1 votes in the last week of January, Group 2 two weeks after that, etc. Four years later, Group 2 votes first, then 3, 4, 1. Quick, clean, fair to candidates and voters.


Primary processes are internal party matters. I would imagine that party bigwigs want a system where a nominee is chosen relatively quickly to avoid attrition, even if it makes the primaries in a lot of states meaningless.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#359 devilsadvoc8

devilsadvoc8

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,822 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 08:46 AM

One side benefit of the system is that we allow dbags like Santorum plenty of pulpit time to show how much of a complete d!ck they are.
  • 0
Official Keeper of the 3 story statue of a hockey player by the artist J. Krawczyk.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

#360 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,309 posts

Posted 16 April 2012 - 09:27 AM

That Romney is the Republican nominee is a forgone conclusion. It was basically inevitable for a couple of months, but now it's over and all of the fundraisers, conservative groups, etc. have moved on to preparing for the general election.

Your point about NJ brings up something that burns me. Our primary process makes no sense. A first grader could tell you that it's unbalanced and not fair. "Iowa must always vote first." WHY?! Who the hell came up with that rule? It also takes far too long.
How it should work: States are grouped into 4 groups (I say non-regional, others have told me it should be 4 sections of the country). First year, Group 1 votes in the last week of January, Group 2 two weeks after that, etc. Four years later, Group 2 votes first, then 3, 4, 1. Quick, clean, fair to candidates and voters.

Of course it's not fair and balanced, but that was never the intent. As with everything in politics it all comes down to schmoozing, political parties are "smart" enough to know that you give special treatment to swing states (or states that have traditionally been swing states) to try and curry favor, or at least keep pace with your rivals. Really at the end of the day what the primaries are all about is getting the most electable vetted candidate that their side can muster while ticking off as little of the electorate as possible.

What bothers me about all this is the length, I hate how we are constantly in election cycles. I would prefer 9/6/3 year terms for senate/pres/house but not allow politicians to run consecutive terms and to put limits on advertising / marketing to 2-3 months before the election, and primary stuff the 2-3 before that. That's a pipe dream though that would require a constitutional amendment.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users