View Full Version : Walker and Pence talking
The saga continues.... today's news is that Walker and Pence are talking about taking Act 10 national. Remember the protests in WI? Imagine the nation?
Some of the drama so far:
Putting Bannon, a known white supremacist, as person privy to the President (with no security clearance), who is attending International Security sessions.
Banning travel to the US from 7 countries.
Now putting Iran on notice?
Threatening Mexico regarding the wall and drugs.
Reactions to Trump from other country leaders.... i.e. Mexico, Canada, Australia, Germany, England ++
This is day 13 ... just the start, I am afraid.
I know I will not be traveling out of the country this year. Americans are going to be HATED.
It does bother me that some of the people on this forum see our concern as just more of our "the sky is falling" behavior. But damn........we ARE in trouble. So many issues, so many unhappy people, so much extremism (on both sides). I think we should all be very afraid, as Trump plays his games out with all our lives.
The saga continues.... today's news is that Walker and Pence are talking about taking Act 10 national. Remember the protests in WI? Imagine the nation?
They're going to make public employees pay half their pension contributions? Public employee union membership will become (gasp) optional?
It does bother me that some of the people on this forum see our concern as just more of our "the sky is falling" behavior. But damn........we ARE in trouble. So many issues, so many unhappy people, so much extremism (on both sides). I think we should all be very afraid, as Trump plays his games out with all our lives.
I felt that way in 2009. You get over it.
I read through the wiki description of WI Act 10 and could not find any big differences between the proposed government benefit cut backs and what is common to the better private sector companies.
Other than that you can add Australia to the list of countries we've offended or made angry.
I felt that way in 2009. You get over it.
No matter what your political leanings:
Obama didn't display narcissistic behavior.
Obama had political experience.
Obama didn't foment hatred.
Obama used thoughtful discourse, not knee-jerk, hyperbolic, defensive language. He didn't crudely lie as a matter of course as intent to deceive his constituents.
BTW, I don't know what your fears were exactly, but if you were fearful of the economy in 2009 perhaps you got over it because we pretty much completely recovered from the recession the GOP put us in.
gimmethesimplelife
2-2-17, 10:27am
No matter what your political leanings:
Obama didn't display narcissistic behavior.
Obama had political experience.
Obama didn't foment hatred.
Obama used thoughtful discourse, not knee-jerk, hyperbolic, defensive language. He didn't lie as a matter of course as intent to deceive.
BTW, I don't know what your fears were exactly, but if you were fearful of the economy in 2009 you got over it perhaps because we pretty much completely recovered from the recession the GOP put us in.+1 million Rob
gimmethesimplelife
2-2-17, 10:29am
I read through the wiki description of WI Act 10 and could not find any big differences between the proposed government benefit cut backs and what is common to the better private sector companies.
Other than that you can add Australia to the list of countries we've offended or made angry.I wonder which lucky or unlucky country (depending on your perspective) will be next on Trump's list? Or is there even a list, or does he just attack at random based on whatever issue he is "dealing" with? I really wonder.....Rob
gimmethesimplelife
2-2-17, 10:36am
It does bother me that some of the people on this forum see our concern as just more of our "the sky is falling" behavior. But damn........we ARE in trouble. So many issues, so many unhappy people, so much extremism (on both sides). I think we should all be very afraid, as Trump plays his games out with all our lives.I agree and I am personally very afraid. Things are so bad in this country now that a few days ago I was talking long distance to my aunt in Vienna, Austria, who stopped me from dissing Trump as she said she was afraid to speak of Trump due to the NSA and the US government spying on it's citizens and she was afraid for my safety, if not immediately, sometime down the road. This really floored me as I realized she is right - we are living under an unprecedented President and no one really knows what is next. I do see some early Hitler behavior in him and with my background being raised by a woman who was born into World War 2 in a non Allied country - I see the need to have an escape the US plan, just in case. And yes, I truly believe this is sane and logical and non dramatic and not at all over the top thinking at this point. It's thinking along the lines of loving and respecting myself and others to have an escape plan, and yes, I see America as having sunk to this level. One of my guiding beliefs in life is this - Reality often sucks....but you can tell who is truly adult by their ability to deal with it head on without denial. I'm glad I'm not the only one I know who sees this.....but I also understand that US culture is designed in such a way that it is very hard to see this, so I am capable of having some compassion about this, too. Rob
ApatheticNoMore
2-2-17, 11:30am
Obama didn't display narcissistic behavior.
a lot of our leaders lean more sociopathic than narcissistic, so yea Trump is kind of alone for narcissism.
Obama used thoughtful discourse, not knee-jerk, hyperbolic, defensive language. He didn't crudely lie as a matter of course as intent to deceive his constituents.
maybe not crudely as a matter of course, but strategically. He was out there arguing for the public option while behind closed doors assuring the insurance companies it would never happen. I'm not even arguing for these policies, just saying there was deception involved. But it was the deception we are all used to and can predict, politician pitches to the voters and betrays them to the donors.
I wonder which lucky or unlucky country (depending on your perspective) will be next on Trump's list? Or is there even a list, or does he just attack at random based on whatever issue he is "dealing" with? I really wonder....
Those who thought they might get peace with Trump are likely wrong. On the other hand 6 of one and half dozen of the other. Trump is making war noises with Iran. But he's seems to want to scale back involvement in Syria. Clinton would have maybe done the reverse policy (maybe not rattled Iran but escalated Syria). It's hard not to argue that every single leader we have had since W (including W that is) has carried out The Project for a New American Century of countries to go to war with (maybe they added a few in addition it's hard to keep track with military involvement in countries like Yemen that is barely discussed continuing etc.). When even seemly completely erratic whatevers like Trump inadvertently singing from that old neocon hymn book ... After W, well at least we hadn't attacked Libya and Syria YET. Now after Obama well we still haven't attacked Iran YET ... (I think they might truly be writing off getting rid of Assad at this point).
No matter what your political leanings:
Obama didn't display narcissistic behavior.
Obama had political experience.
Obama didn't foment hatred.
Obama used thoughtful discourse, not knee-jerk, hyperbolic, defensive language. He didn't crudely lie as a matter of course as intent to deceive his constituents.
BTW, I don't know what your fears were exactly, but if you were fearful of the economy in 2009 perhaps you got over it because we pretty much completely recovered from the recession the GOP put us in.
I don't suppose there's any metric of conceit we would ever agree on. How can we compare Trump's bluster with Obama's smug condescension? Trump's "bad hombre's" to Obama's "bitter clingers"? The guy who published "The Art of the Deal" with the guy who published his first autobiography in his early thirties? The factually challenged rhetoric of Trump with "if you like your plan..."
Believe me, I'd rather be listening to you complain about President Rubio right now. But you'll never convince me we went from a philosopher king to a bridge troll in one step last month.
No matter what your political leanings:
Obama didn't display narcissistic behavior.
Obama had political experience.
Obama didn't foment hatred.
Obama used thoughtful discourse, not knee-jerk, hyperbolic, defensive language. He didn't crudely lie as a matter of course as intent to deceive his constituents.
BTW, I don't know what your fears were exactly, but if you were fearful of the economy in 2009 perhaps you got over it because we pretty much completely recovered from the recession the GOP put us in.
Excellent post, catherine!
LDAHL......I don't care what one believes about how the government/nation should go, but how can you watch Trump's behavior and not have awareness/insight into his personality disorder?
No matter what your political leanings:
Obama didn't display narcissistic behavior.
Obama had political experience.
Obama didn't foment hatred.
Obama used thoughtful discourse, not knee-jerk, hyperbolic, defensive language. He didn't crudely lie as a matter of course as intent to deceive his constituents.
BTW, I don't know what your fears were exactly, but if you were fearful of the economy in 2009 perhaps you got over it because we pretty much completely recovered from the recession the GOP put us in.
Thank you Catherine for stating it all so clearly.
LDAHL......I don't care what one believes about how the government/nation should go, but how can you watch Trump's behavior and not have awareness/insight into his personality disorder?
Because I don't believe in psychoanalysis by sound bite.
I'm not really interested in defending a buffoon like Trump; but I do think the rhetoric of some of his detractors is a bit overwrought. Nor do I see the Obama administration as Paradise Lost.
Excellent post, Catherine.
Call me paranoid too, but I'm wondering how far the Gropenfuhrer and his rumpled sidekick, the Unterfuhrer are willing to go vis-a-vis spying on citizens and retaliating against them. This is the first time in my long life I've been worried to the point of losing sleep over an election. I fear everything we've achieved over the years--from civil rights to social security-- is about to be swept away by this madman and I don't doubt he'll throw in a war or two for good measure.
Because I don't believe in psychoanalysis by sound bite.
I'm not really interested in defending a buffoon like Trump; but I do think the rhetoric of some of his detractors is a bit overwrought. Nor do I see the Obama administration as Paradise Lost.
I don't think it's "psychoanalysis by soundbite". Just look at the reality of the situation. What does he say? Who does he choose? How often does he change his mind from one extreme to another? How diplomatic is he, etc., etc., etc.
We'll talk later when his destruction is more apparent.........which shouldn't be too far from now.
I don't think it's "psychoanalysis by soundbite". Just look at the reality of the situation. What does he say? Who does he choose? How often does he change his mind from one extreme to another? How diplomatic is he, etc., etc., etc.
We'll talk later when his destruction is more apparent.........which shouldn't be too far from now.
OK. When the sky falls I'll concede your point.
It's easy to say that Trump is just one cog in the wheel of democracy with strong checks and balances to prevent despotism. But like it or not, he represents the face of America.
I'm working on a market research study in which I ask people in the healthcare industry how they form their perception of a pharmaceutical manufacturer. More often than not they say, "It's all about the account rep. They're the face of the company." So it's not the product, it's not the C-Suite, it's not the prices--it's the face of one man or woman who brands the company for good or ill.
Same with Trump. We know he's just one man, propped up by 3 branches of the government and 300 million people who really ARE America. But he is the figurehead. If he's a buffoon, America is seen to be a nation of buffoonery.
The president sets the tone for the country. Here is one of my favorite essays by Anna Quindlin: Happy Leader, Happy Nation (http://www.newsweek.com/happy-leader-happy-nation-151065). You can take that headline anywhere: Happy Leader, Happy Nation; Angry Leader, Angry Nation; Psychotic Leader, Psychotic Nation.
IshbelRobertson
2-2-17, 12:36pm
The saga continues...
Some of the drama so far:
Reactions to Trump from other country leaders.... i.e. Mexico, Canada, Australia, Germany, England ++
I know I will not be traveling out of the country this year. Americans are going to be HATED.
I suspect you meant to type UK? England is not alone in areas he's pi ssed off!
I don't believe Americans are hated, just the decisions made by your Government.
I don't believe Americans are hated, just the decisions made by your Government.
You made me recall when I was in London working just a couple months after 9/11. The moderator I was using was English--she was kind of a cross between Mrs. Doubtfire and Queen Elizabeth. So the question came around by the Brits we were working with about 9/11 and what it was like in the US at that time.
My colleague and I talked about the atmosphere in the country, the fears, the reactions, where we were when the Towers fell, etc., and then "Mrs. Doubtfire" said calmly and sweetly, "So NOW do you understand why people HATE you?"
We were totally taken aback. I think the comment had slipped out without her thinking about it--after all, we were her clients that day! She spent the WHOLE rest of the project apologizing profusely. I never saw her after that, and I'm afraid she probably thinks it's because of her blunt candor.
frugal-one
2-2-17, 12:46pm
Believe me, I'd rather be listening to you complain about President Rubio right now. But you'll never convince me we went from a philosopher king to a bridge troll in one step last month.
The sad thing is most of us did not vote for Trump. We saw what a troll he was. It is also sad that our worst fears are being realized!
Personalities aside, I sometimes wonder if China should really be our trade pal. They don't have a good human rights record and not that long ago were our military adversary. The send us some cheap poor quality goods that we admittedly gobble up. Mexico has a history of government corruption and cartel influenced police and live next door. I don't know enough about NATO to have a valid opinion, but it does seem they are as much a symbol rather than actually having a big influence on international injustices. The mid-east seems like a house of cards that could go chaotic with a little wind. The thing is that there has been a web of global alliances and barriers that may not be perfect but which there is some relative comfort around. When we start making big changes all at the same time and with some sort of vitriol there is fear and mistrust. It's not just poking a hole in the global fabric of stability, but cutting a big rip.
The president sets the tone for the country.
I disagree. Did President Obama set the tone for the country, especially over the last 3/4 of his administration? When he lectured and threatened the UK with "the back of the queue" if they voted for Brexit, did that mean all America was to be viewed as condescending bullies?
I think it more likely that the country sets the tone for the president. The Trump phenomenon occurred largely because a substantial part of the population chose to react against being alternately sneered at and ignored by the elite Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton represented. It's inchoate, poorly focused rage resulted in the election of an angry, unfocused president.
A president is not some monarch or high priest who determines the sort of country we are. The sort of country we are reflects the sort of leadership we choose.
frugal-one
2-2-17, 12:54pm
Excellent post, Catherine.
Call me paranoid too! This is the first time in my long life I've been worried to the point of losing sleep over an election. I fear everything we've achieved over the years--from civil rights to social security-- is about to be swept away by this madman and I don't doubt he'll throw in a war or two for good measure.
I have been a member of this forum for many years and have rarely posted to the political forum. However, now I have to say I am very worried about the chain of events taking place. Now, if the GOP does not like the way things are they just change the law so things go their way. WTH ... Jane's comments above are my sentiments exactly. Trump is not for the average Joe but for big business and making money. The standard of living for many people is going to change. It just amazes me the number of people who thought a billionaire would "take care of them."
I suspect you meant to type UK? England is not alone in areas he's pi ssed off!
I don't believe Americans are hated, just the decisions made by your Government.
Yes, Ishbel that is what I meant.
I have travelled extensively, and many times have been verbally accosted by people from other countries because of the actions of our President. I have HAD to remind people that I have no control what the government does and that I don't agree with the action. I think Trump has made (and will make) so many enemies that discussion may not be possible. I also think Americans will be targeted based on this administrations policies. I don't plan on traveling outside of the country.
I disagree. Did President Obama set the tone for the country, especially over the last 3/4 of his administration? When he lectured and threatened the UK with "the back of the queue" if they voted for Brexit, did that mean all America was to be viewed as condescending bullies?
I think it more likely that the country sets the tone for the president. The Trump phenomenon occurred largely because a substantial part of the population chose to react against being alternately sneered at and ignored by the elite Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton represented. It's inchoate, poorly focused rage resulted in the election of an angry, unfocused president.
A president is not some monarch or high priest who determines the sort of country we are. The sort of country we are reflects the sort of leadership we choose.
You have been watching too much Fox News. These are the types of comments I hear there.
Obama did set the tone for the country. He tried to have allies and maintain peace. Obama was very eloquent in his speech and demeanor which hindered all the drama we are now experiencing with Trump.
I think the people who voted for Trump believed the things he said he could do.... even if they were not possible. i.e. manufacturing jobs .. when automation took the place of people... will never return.
You have been watching too much Fox News.
Now there's a cogent argument.
Teacher Terry
2-2-17, 2:13pm
People work for the government for 2 reasons: pension and security. In return they work for a lot less $. I would have made much more $ in the private sector. It is a trade off. They will not be able to hire or keep good quality employees. Anyone that can not see that Trump is unhinged and dangerous is just kidding themselves. I hope he does not get us into a war before he gets impeached.
I keep thinking that one of the differences this time, with this president, is that most of the nasty comments about him are based on HIS words, HIS actions, HIS behavior. With Obama, much of the nastiness was based on lies or opinions of the speaker without real data. We have Trump on record, tweets and TV saying and doing things that are unacceptable, then lying. To have a White Power supporter and agitator as a member of the security council is beyond unacceptable. We must open our eyes.
ApatheticNoMore
2-2-17, 2:32pm
People work for the government for 2 reasons: pension and security. In return they work for a lot less $. I would have made much more $ in the private sector. It is a trade off. They will not be able to hire or keep good quality employees.
But I have never seen much evidence that they do work for less money. Most private sector jobs don't pay that much, some more than others, you have to work for a huge employer to really get much perks there most of the time. Government is a lot of things and I guess you mean Fed gov. But here there is massive competition for local government jobs, county and so on. Hundreds of people test for one job because it seems like EVERYONE wants to work for the government, because it's so much sweeter than anything else on offer. They want it like they want to buy the winning lottery ticket, so they try their hand, but more practical people opt for better odds with less fierce competition (a private sector job).
gimmethesimplelife
2-2-17, 2:35pm
People work for the government for 2 reasons: pension and security. In return they work for a lot less $. I would have made much more $ in the private sector. It is a trade off. They will not be able to hire or keep good quality employees. Anyone that can not see that Trump is unhinged and dangerous is just kidding themselves. I hope he does not get us into a war before he gets impeached.You and me both. Did you hear the latest where Trump allegedly threatened Pena Neito with sending US troops into Mexico? Mexico is denying that this was said but supposedly it's documented by White House staffers. Who knows if it's true or not, but I can see Trump saying such and I personally tend towards believing it. Rob
People work for the government for 2 reasons: pension and security. In return they work for a lot less $. I would have made much more $ in the private sector. It is a trade off. They will not be able to hire or keep good quality employees. Anyone that can not see that Trump is unhinged and dangerous is just kidding themselves. I hope he does not get us into a war before he gets impeached.
In thirty or so years of working in local government, I've probably had several hundred people insist to me that they could make much more money in the private sector. I never see them leave, except to other government jobs. Nor can any of them give me the number of the employer aching to pay big bucks for someone willing to leave government. Maybe I just chose the wrong place to work for, but its very disappointing.
On the other hand, I also haven't seen the featherbedding, fat benefits and youthful retirements other people think we get.
Word has it he's alienated two world leaders in the last 24 hours, and threatened UC Berkeley with cutting off federal funding for cancelling a right-wing speaker. And that's just the stuff that I've noticed in passing. I yearn for secession...
Word has it he's alienated two world leaders in the last 24 hours, and threatened UC Berkeley with cutting off federal funding for cancelling a right-wing speaker. And that's just the stuff that I've noticed in passing. I yearn for secession...
I don't have a problem with him ticking off the Iranians, but he could have handled the Australians more diplomatically over what seems to be a pretty trivial issue.
If Berkeley wants to elevate mob rule over free speech, even offensive free speech, I have no objection to inflicting a little fiscal pain on them.
ApatheticNoMore
2-2-17, 3:59pm
In thirty or so years of working in local government, I've probably had several hundred people insist to me that they could make much more money in the private sector. I never see them leave, except to other government jobs. Nor can any of them give me the number of the employer aching to pay big bucks for someone willing to leave government.
yea that is a risk, that working for the government might be seen as a black mark if one decided it wasn't for them, that non-government employers might not see it as a positive, but then if one actually was using some useful skills it seems they could eventually find something. Yea that they don't leave surely says it must not be that bad because turnover has been fairly high most private sector jobs I've worked.
yea that is a risk, that working for the government might be seen as a black mark if one decided it wasn't for them, that non-government employers might not see it as a positive, but then if one actually was using some useful skills it seems they could eventually find something. Yea that they don't leave surely says it must not be that bad because turnover has been fairly high most private sector jobs I've worked.
I don't know if there's a huge taint attached to government work, although I don't doubt it sometimes exists. I just don't generally see the major difference in compensation other people claim to see. The two positions we seem to have difficulty filling are psychiatric nurses and medical examiners, but I understand those are difficult for everybody I talk to. The jobs where we get the most applicants tend to be the more blue-collar areas.
I can understand how there could be a level of pension envy out there, and it's a pretty hard sell convincing taxpayers who don't have coverage to pay more for their public servants. That may be why so many governments have underfunded plans.
I guess it's always a grass is greener sort of thing.
Miss Cellane
2-2-17, 4:26pm
Well, let us remember that an object at rest tends to remain at rest.
I've worked a few short-term government jobs. People complained all the time. But they also appreciated the pension plan and the perks--maybe the salary wasn't that high, but there was a lot of paid time off, many paid holidays, good number of sick days, etc. And if you only have 5 or 10 more years until you can collect full benefits when you retire, fiscally, it often makes good sense to stay where you are and get that pension.
There are trade offs in every job. But mostly, I think people tend not to leave a job unless there is a pressing reason to. "Could make more money," isn't pressing if you are making enough money, even if you'd like a little more.
The sad thing is most of us did not vote for Trump. We saw what a troll he was. It is also sad that our worst fears are being realized!
Trump alone is a buffoon and a clown. Hitler alone would have been a buffoon and a clown. It's the whole package here that's unsettling.
Well, let us remember that an object at rest tends to remain at rest.
I've worked a few short-term government jobs. People complained all the time. But they also appreciated the pension plan and the perks--maybe the salary wasn't that high, but there was a lot of paid time off, many paid holidays, good number of sick days, etc. And if you only have 5 or 10 more years until you can collect full benefits when you retire, fiscally, it often makes good sense to stay where you are and get that pension.
There are trade offs in every job. But mostly, I think people tend not to leave a job unless there is a pressing reason to. "Could make more money," isn't pressing if you are making enough money, even if you'd like a little more.
That's very true. If government and private employers are recruiting from the same workforce, you would expect the market to clear at about the seme net level for both. I could also see how a pension formula could incentivize an employee to hang around after a certain point.
I could also see how a pension formula could incentivize an employee to hang around after a certain point.
Yes.. especially when there are NO pensions in the private sector anymore. AND, if I were working for the government getting the same healthcare benefits for hardly any contribution on my end, and I saw my private sector friends having to ante up hundreds of dollars a month to get the same or inferior health benefits, I'd probably stay where I am, too.
Yes.. especially when there are NO pensions in the private sector anymore. AND, if I were working for the government getting the same healthcare benefits for hardly any contribution on my end, and I saw my private sector friends having to ante up hundreds of dollars a month to get the same or inferior health benefits, I'd probably stay where I am, too.
In my experience, the health plan differential was much more of a factor twenty years ago than it is today. We seem to be getting close to parity with the bigger private employers. I would say the pension plan is probably more important for retention than recruitment. Few 24-year-olds give it much consideration except as an expensive deduction. For 54-year-olds with many years of service, it can function as a pair of golden (or at least gold-plated) handcuffs. I sometimes hear about "one more year syndrome".
More and more, you hear about governments scaling back or eliminating defined benefit plans they can no longer afford, at least for new hires. There could be a real crisis if a high-profile public plan pension collapses and appeals to the feds for a bailout. I understand some of the big Illinois plans are only about 40% funded. There would probably be a large public outcry. I suspect that in a generation or so pay and benefit packages between public and private employers will look pretty similar.
Teacher Terry
2-2-17, 7:33pm
When I finished grad school I job hunted with both public and private employers. There was a huge difference in pay between the 2. However, I decided I wanted the pension and that was not available in private.
Well, if Walker and Pence make it happen (and they likely will) then that will merely speed up the process by which the US goes third-world.
I say: Let's get this race to the bottom started! Woo-hoo!
My college room mate was in the same curriculum as me. I eventually went to work in corporate American and he went work in government. Over the years we both watched our benefits being whittled away. I made a little more money, he had better benefits. One big difference was that nearly every year I was in the scope of lay-offs, downsizing, synergies, mergers and other ways to lose your job. I was a lucky surviver. His job security was not perfect, but significantly better.
I don't know if people think this way anymore, but I can imagine a time when there was some intrinsic social value to being a civil servant. I know a few people who work for non-profits and make dirt with few benefits. There is some place for that, too.
I don't suppose there's any metric of conceit we would ever agree on. How can we compare Trump's bluster with Obama's smug condescension? Trump's "bad hombre's" to Obama's "bitter clingers"? The guy who published "The Art of the Deal" with the guy who published his first autobiography in his early thirties? The factually challenged rhetoric of Trump with "if you like your plan..."
Believe me, I'd rather be listening to you complain about President Rubio right now. But you'll never convince me we went from a philosopher king to a bridge troll in one step last month.
President Obama's memoir? Much like President Kennedy's Profiles in Courage. Uppity guy, Jack was. Aspiring candidates almost have to publish--he's hardly the first:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/books/22book.html
And it's hardly President Obama's fault if the insurance companies reneged on their deal and pulled the inevitable bait and switch--unless you blame him for believing them and his reluctance to just do the obvious and institute a single payer plan. Which he probably knew would never fly, given our greed-driven economic system.
President Obama's memoir? Much like President Kennedy's Profiles in Courage. Uppity guy, Jack was. Aspiring candidates almost have to publish--he's hardly the first:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/books/22book.html
And it's hardly President Obama's fault if the insurance companies reneged on their deal and pulled the inevitable bait and switch--unless you blame him for believing them and his reluctance to just do the obvious and institute a single payer plan. Which he probably knew would never fly, given our greed-driven economic system.
Give Obama credit; unlike JFK he didn't use ghostwriters. He published it when he was an aspiring candidate for the Illinois State Senate, although I don't think that was a requirement.
As to insurers pulling out, you could hardly blame them for leaping off a financial cliff like so many lemmings when the government's enrollment projections turned out to be fantasies.
Well, if Walker and Pence make it happen (and they likely will) then that will merely speed up the process by which the US goes third-world.
I say: Let's get this race to the bottom started! Woo-hoo!
Do third world countries make people contribute toward their pensions?
As to insurers pulling out, you could hardly blame them for leaping off a financial cliff like so many lemmings when the government's enrollment projections turned out to be fantasies.
Insurers are making a ton of money. The only losers here are the patients/consumers who have had to pay the price for extortionary price increases where the manufacturer profits, the middlemen profits, and the only losers are the consumers and the health care providers. The ones jumping ship are are the doctors. Too bad consumers can't do that.
Insurers are making a ton of money.
If that was true, they wouldn't be bailing out of the exchanges in so many places.
gimmethesimplelife
2-3-17, 11:07am
Insurers are making a ton of money. The only losers here are the patients/consumers who have had to pay the price for extortionary price increases where the manufacturer profits, the middlemen profits, and the only losers are the consumers and the health care providers. The ones jumping ship are are the doctors. Too bad consumers can't do that.Au contraire. For non immediately life threatening health issues, we can jump ship ourselves by offshoring our health care. Realistically, it's getting to the point where it's not only going to be people like myself that do such but that such becomes mainstream. I applaud that day though I also suspect that there will be some kind of government pushback on doing this when it becomes more mainstream. I hope when that happens more people try to leave the US permanently - it's the only sane way to handle such a government clampdown. Though with Trump at the helm and more and more countries seeing America for what it has become.....it may get even harder to flee. Ick. At least herbal medicine remains. Rob
If that was true, they wouldn't be bailing out of the exchanges in so many places.
Yes, they have lost money on the exchanges. So rather than creatively dealing with the growing pains of a program that potentially benefits millions of people, you divest an underperforming profit center, leaving hundreds of thousands in the lurch. You're not interested in sick people unless you can profit from them.
One more reason we need a true nationalized single payer system.
Too funny, Catherine, I read your last sentence as
"One more reason we need a true nationalized single prayer system."
I do pray for that, actually.
Too funny, Catherine, I read your last sentence as
"One more reason we need a true nationalized single prayer system."
I do pray for that, actually.
haha.. well, we do have a National Day of Prayer, in which our pious Commander-in-Chief prays for the success of his TV show.
I did mean I pray for universal health care, single payer, not for a single prayer system, lol.
I did mean I pray for universal health care, single payer, not for a single prayer system, lol.
Single prayer would violate the establishment clause.
Why does it have to be a government monopoly? Why not let the private sector compete with a government option, on service if not price?
Single prayer would violate the establishment clause.
Why does it have to be a government monopoly? Why not let the private sector compete with a government option, on service if not price?
So in England, people can go to private sector if they want to pay for it themselves, but the universal health care is available. I was thinking along those lines?
I'm perfectly happy with a government option competing with the private sector. The private sector, being greed-driven--always choosing profit (that's why they want to "profitize" absolutely everything)--couldn't possibly compete without cutting corners, slashing wages, and otherwise gaming the system. Laissez-faire capitalism only serves the one percent, IMO.
To my mind, that would be less objectionable than a sort of monolithic government rationing system.
Those who chose to could buy insurance to supplement the government plan, and pay more for shorter waits, better service, etc. Sort of like how everyone is made to pay for public education, but is free to opt for private schools at their own expense. I'm curious about what the experience is in countries that allow that.
To my mind, that would be less objectionable than a sort of monolithic government rationing system.
Those who chose to could buy insurance to supplement the government plan, and pay more for shorter waits, better service, etc. Sort of like how everyone is made to pay for public education, but is free to opt for private schools at their own expense. I'm curious about what the experience is in countries that allow that.
Isn't that how Medicare works? People get Medicare and then they optionally supplement with additional insurance?
Isn't that how Medicare works? People get Medicare and then they optionally supplement with additional insurance?
Pretty much, which is why Bernie calls his healthcare plan "Medicare for All"
I agree that being able to opt out and/or supplement government options is a good idea.
Frankly, if I were going to visit a doctor, I'd prefer to just pay outright. That used to be routine before insurance companies took over the system.
Frankly, if I were going to visit a doctor, I'd prefer to just pay outright. That used to be routine before insurance companies took over the system.
I agree, but unfortunately the cost of HC is so high it's very difficult to self-insure. The best treatments are extremely expensive, so if you are lucky enough to avoid cancer, MS and other chronic diseases, you're fine, but otherwise you miss out on the life-saving therapies that are available. That's the catch.
I agree, but unfortunately the cost of HC is so high it's very difficult to self-insure. The best treatments are extremely expensive, so if you are lucky enough to avoid cancer, MS and other chronic diseases, you're fine, but otherwise you miss out on the life-saving therapies that are available. That's the catch.
Surgery and the like used to be affordable, but insurance has changed all that for the worse. And Pharma and hospitals, etc. are constantly ratcheting up the ante, so treatment costs are stratospheric. But I would prefer to deal with a doctor one on one and pay for their services without the outside interference. Hospitalization etc is another matter now.
I don't think you can lay everything on insurance. Medicine requires a lot more costly technological infrastructure than it did when you could pay your doctor with a blueberry pie.
I don't think you can lay everything on insurance. Medicine requires a lot more costly technological infrastructure than it did when you could pay your doctor with a blueberry pie.
Sure, but that's exactly the justification they use to jack up prices. Here are some quotes I've received and paraphrased slightly (for confidentiality purposes) about the healthcare system. These quotes are from industry insiders (managed care executives, pharmacists, and hospital system executives)--NOT Bernie Sanders:
"There are a lot of companies that are bringing forth specialty drugs with a narrow slice of patients who will benefit and the benefit is very small. You may bankrupt a patient's family for 2-months of life. It's an ethical question."
"Prices for medication are arbitrary. It's the fox guarding the henhouse."
"[Drug pricing] is a terrible mess. It's out of control in this country. First off, the system is rigged to benefit the manufacturer."
"The fact that we pay twice as much as every other developed country means we have an issue...We don't negotiate drug pricing."
I don't think you can lay everything on insurance. Medicine requires a lot more costly technological infrastructure than it did when you could pay your doctor with a blueberry pie.
And how much of that is really necessary? Not much, I maintain.
And how much of that is really necessary? Not much, I maintain.
Maybe sometimes, but I'd rather be treated with the state of the art circa 2017 than circa Marcus Welby.
Miss Cellane
2-3-17, 4:58pm
Sure, but that's exactly the justification they use to jack up prices. Here are some quotes I've received and paraphrased slightly (for confidentiality purposes) about the healthcare system. These quotes are from industry insiders (managed care executives, pharmacists, and hospital system executives)--NOT Bernie Sanders:
"There are a lot of companies that are bringing forth specialty drugs with a narrow slice of patients who will benefit and the benefit is very small. You may bankrupt a patient's family for 2-months of life. It's an ethical question."
"Prices for medication are arbitrary. It's the fox guarding the henhouse."
"[Drug pricing] is a terrible mess. It's out of control in this country. First off, the system is rigged to benefit the manufacturer."
"The fact that we pay twice as much as every other developed country means we have an issue...We don't negotiate drug pricing."
There are a lot of complicating factors with drug pricing. Note: this is not a excuse for the really high prices for very necessary drugs that some companies are charging.
First--the cost of bringing a new drug to market. This means getting FDA approval, which means testing the drug in a series of trials, on a variety of different populations. In 2014, this was estimated at 2.4 billion dollars. And that does not count the drugs that are developed, but during the drug trials are found not to work well or to have too many side effects--the drug companies still need to pay for that initial development and testing somehow. This is a cost that inventors and developers of most products do not have to pay.
The good thing is that FDA approval is so rigorous that many other countries don't do independent testing of drugs, but just accept FDA approval.
Second--the drug patents expire 20 years after the drug is invented. Even if up to 8 of those years are spent getting FDA approval. So a limited time to recoup the costs of developing and testing the drug. And the profits made on one drug are the money used to fuel research on new drugs.
Third--in other countries, governments or government agencies can set price ceilings on drugs. Because the pharma companies want to sell as much as possible, they are willing to accept the price ceilings.
Which leads us to, Fourth--the US does not set drug price ceilings. So the pharma companies are able to set the prices as high as they like. And they do, to offset the cost of FDA approval and the diminished profits from the price ceilings that other countries set. So consumers pay for the cost of the FDA approval, and the cost of the price ceilings set by other countries.
And the pharma companies are just that--business entities that need to provide a profit for their shareholders. That's why production of "orphan" drugs is sometimes discontinued--they can't sell enough to make a profit.
Of course the system is rigged to benefit the manufacturer. It's that way for any manufacturer. It's just that most companies aren't making products that are literally life and death for millions of people. It's a continual conflict between saving lives and profit.
Having said all that, I have no idea what the answer is. Restrict profits? Then it won't pay for companies to develop new drugs. Maybe extend the length of the patent? Impose price ceilings here in the US? All have potential downsides.
What you said is all accurate--although patent life is significantly shorter than 20 years (ETA, meaning, by the time they get to market I lot of that 20 years has been whittled away), unless they get some extension by modifying the molecule, dosing, delivery, etc.
It's true that it's complex, for sure. My respondents didn't have any answers. They had some--cap prices on drugs paid by Medicare for instance. I feel I should be an apologist for Big Pharma since they pay me, but it's hard to sometimes. I've been in the backrooms when they talk about maximizing profit--I've done pricing research to find out how high the market will bear on a cancer product that has only shown 3 months overall survival. I've been part of the "creation" of "diseases" that pharma provides a "cure" for. I've heard a brand manager say "Wait till we get done with you" after hearing a person with RA say that it doesn't really bother her.
It's our choice to sell our homes to pay for a couple of months of life. That's what being a consumer is all about, and that's what capitalism's about. But I think that something needs to be done. Greater transparency of costs at all levels. Standardized costs at all levels. Don't allow middlemen to profit from their formulary decisions. Take out the middleman. Make all parties accountable. Demand risk-sharing from the pharmaceutical companies. Focus on value to the patient, not just in terms of medicine, but clinical support.
I would much prefer Marcus Welby and a shorter lifespan that what we have now.
I would much prefer Marcus Welby and a shorter lifespan that what we have now.
Given the mortality figures for iatrogenic illness and Pharma drug-related deaths, lifespan would probably be a wash.
I would much prefer Marcus Welby and a shorter lifespan that what we have now.
Given recent numbers, we're getting the shorter lifespan part.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.