the public option was actually the american medical association's baby in health care reform, which is why the AMA actually agreed to support this. the american medical association's idea behind giving everyone baseline crappy insurance would be that doctors receive less money per person, but more people would be able to pay something for their care and gradually the cost of health care would go down because hospitals will no longer be eating so much of the unpaid medical bills. the missouri state medical association has chosen not to support the public option plan probably for the sake of rural medicine not getting enough support.
white house ready to drop public option
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
The Secret Socialist
Last Friday, Obama condemned investors in Chrysler for not making sacrifices in order to allow Chrysler to have more money to recover with after filing chapter 11. The sacrifices the Obama administration wanted the group of hedge fund investors to make were accepting a fraction of the money owed to them from their investment. Obama was quick to point out the sacrifices the United Auto Workers association and company owners have made to help the Chrysler, A.K.A. those responsible for running the company into the ground, but has decided to point the finger at investors for wanting what their investment has due to them.
The investors already made sacrifices by maintaining a stake in Chrysler in hopes that the company would rebound as their stakes dropped in value. Furthermore, the hedge funds do not have a responsibility to the company they have given money to, they have a responsibility to the American people who put their pensions into those hedge funds. If anything, Chrysler, who has misused investors' money, has a responsibility to the investors to give them the return owed to them. The hedge funds tried to make deals in the best interests of their investors only to be rejected by the white house administration.
Obama wants to make investing U.S. tax dollars in a failing company look like a good idea by taking money from those who already have taken the risk of investing their own money in it. He outrageously believes capitalism and investment banking should curve to his demand. Despite what Obama thinks, people who have money do contribute immensely to society and his beloved auto companies. They should not be condemned for not getting wrapped up in his politics of helping the UAW association, a largely democratic contributor, maintain their cushy jobs producing a less than valued product. It appears that the Obama administration is attempting to manipulate the facets of capitalism which make this a free country, but the investors and the consumers have spoken and this ship is not worth saving. The government needs to get out of the private sector.
Oh yeah...and the new investors in Chrysler besides the government and the UAW: GM's lending company. Didn't we learn our lesson about lenders making bad investments and becoming large and insolvent less than half a year ago?
The investors already made sacrifices by maintaining a stake in Chrysler in hopes that the company would rebound as their stakes dropped in value. Furthermore, the hedge funds do not have a responsibility to the company they have given money to, they have a responsibility to the American people who put their pensions into those hedge funds. If anything, Chrysler, who has misused investors' money, has a responsibility to the investors to give them the return owed to them. The hedge funds tried to make deals in the best interests of their investors only to be rejected by the white house administration.
Obama wants to make investing U.S. tax dollars in a failing company look like a good idea by taking money from those who already have taken the risk of investing their own money in it. He outrageously believes capitalism and investment banking should curve to his demand. Despite what Obama thinks, people who have money do contribute immensely to society and his beloved auto companies. They should not be condemned for not getting wrapped up in his politics of helping the UAW association, a largely democratic contributor, maintain their cushy jobs producing a less than valued product. It appears that the Obama administration is attempting to manipulate the facets of capitalism which make this a free country, but the investors and the consumers have spoken and this ship is not worth saving. The government needs to get out of the private sector.
Oh yeah...and the new investors in Chrysler besides the government and the UAW: GM's lending company. Didn't we learn our lesson about lenders making bad investments and becoming large and insolvent less than half a year ago?
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Who is responsible for the polar bears?
Matt asked me a couple weeks back why Republicans hate the environment. Republicans don't hate the environment; they just hate democrats. Moreover, republicans don't like democrats spending money in order for the democrats to secure their seats in congress. How could republicans like spending money on the environment if their wealthy donors don't want their taxes to go up? In lieu of looking cynical, lets just say republican and democrat ideologies, which their donors reflect and support, attack the issue at different angles.
Friday, Al Gore and some old guy, claiming to be republican, spoke before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in support of a climate change bill concluding a week of hearings involving supporters and those in opposition. Gore spoke poetically over the issue with attempts to strike fear into members of the House that inaction will be looked down upon by future generations. This coming a day or so after republican Newt Gingrich threatened the further economic downturn this bill would cause and, in typical Newt fashion, the financial effect this would have on the elderly.
It reminded me of the debate over tobacco. Tobacco obviously is bad for people, but we can't prove that tobacco killed the Marlboro man. We are having drastic effects on our environment, but we can't prove that me driving a car is killing polar bears. So, why should we do anything about it? The stakes now are much higher and it looks like both sides want to save the planet, but their rhetoric makes them look like pro and anti polar bear because of how they want to go about helping the environment. Republicans want to conservatively use tax breaks and special incentives to change our energy behavior, and democrats want to actively spend money on changes like smart electric grids, wind and solar energy, research and development, etc. (Albeit some republicans probably don't give a shit about the environment, but I'm sure the same goes for some democrats.)
Their banter looks like this:
-When Gore says this threat is imminent, he means that there will be no imminent threat on the American people to change their lifestyles and capitalism will not support the expensive changes needed to curb the greenhouse gas effects on the environment.
-When Newt says he stopped reading the bill on the page that regulates jacuzzi energy usage he means that the government shouldn't regulate energy because American people have the right to choose how they help the environment as they see fit.
-When Gore says spending money to re-insulate houses will create jobs, he means that spending will help the economy by creating an infrastructure in the energy sector.
-When a house republican says that this is going to cost Americans at least 30 cents a day he means that we spent a ton of the Americans' money on environmental spending in the stimulus bill last February and Americans can't afford to spend more money.
and the debate goes on...
Personally, I hope the government gets a little more aggressive than past years in its attempts to fix the harmful effects we are having on our environment. We need to make it economically sexy to go green, which is a long way off since petroleum grows on trees. My prediction: people will change their lifestyles and a move toward carbon emission reduction will take place after polar bears are determined to be extinct. Research and development will be key to conserving and creating more available energy ... less dependence on oil (go Obama) ... nuclear energy ... most of which the government will have to take money from people to make happen whether we like it or not. A bill like this needs to happen; maybe one not as deep as this and not during a recession and not after all that spending in the stimulus bill.
Friday, Al Gore and some old guy, claiming to be republican, spoke before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in support of a climate change bill concluding a week of hearings involving supporters and those in opposition. Gore spoke poetically over the issue with attempts to strike fear into members of the House that inaction will be looked down upon by future generations. This coming a day or so after republican Newt Gingrich threatened the further economic downturn this bill would cause and, in typical Newt fashion, the financial effect this would have on the elderly.
It reminded me of the debate over tobacco. Tobacco obviously is bad for people, but we can't prove that tobacco killed the Marlboro man. We are having drastic effects on our environment, but we can't prove that me driving a car is killing polar bears. So, why should we do anything about it? The stakes now are much higher and it looks like both sides want to save the planet, but their rhetoric makes them look like pro and anti polar bear because of how they want to go about helping the environment. Republicans want to conservatively use tax breaks and special incentives to change our energy behavior, and democrats want to actively spend money on changes like smart electric grids, wind and solar energy, research and development, etc. (Albeit some republicans probably don't give a shit about the environment, but I'm sure the same goes for some democrats.)
Their banter looks like this:
-When Gore says this threat is imminent, he means that there will be no imminent threat on the American people to change their lifestyles and capitalism will not support the expensive changes needed to curb the greenhouse gas effects on the environment.
-When Newt says he stopped reading the bill on the page that regulates jacuzzi energy usage he means that the government shouldn't regulate energy because American people have the right to choose how they help the environment as they see fit.
-When Gore says spending money to re-insulate houses will create jobs, he means that spending will help the economy by creating an infrastructure in the energy sector.
-When a house republican says that this is going to cost Americans at least 30 cents a day he means that we spent a ton of the Americans' money on environmental spending in the stimulus bill last February and Americans can't afford to spend more money.
and the debate goes on...
Personally, I hope the government gets a little more aggressive than past years in its attempts to fix the harmful effects we are having on our environment. We need to make it economically sexy to go green, which is a long way off since petroleum grows on trees. My prediction: people will change their lifestyles and a move toward carbon emission reduction will take place after polar bears are determined to be extinct. Research and development will be key to conserving and creating more available energy ... less dependence on oil (go Obama) ... nuclear energy ... most of which the government will have to take money from people to make happen whether we like it or not. A bill like this needs to happen; maybe one not as deep as this and not during a recession and not after all that spending in the stimulus bill.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
AIG
So AIG used a fraction of the money to pay bonuses to many upper management employees. I can only blame this on the AIG executives who proposed and signed this agreement a year ago and the Bush administration giving AIG money without stipulating that former agreements can and will be terminated at the appointed executives digression, if that would have even been legally possible. Travis? It appears that this was a hurdle needed to maintain and even encourage the balancing of AIG's books even though Liddy said it was not a performance based pay. Many democrats and some republicans seem to think that this is a matter worthy of causing the collapse of the banking system stating that giving 100+ million in bonuses is a misuse of the American tax dollar and that AIG should forgo fiduciary responsibility and withhold paying the bonuses. Cant do that. Further, I think that it was necessary to prevent the collapse of AIG. Just saying that Liddy should have withheld payment doesnt make that the right choice.
I'm particularly upset AIG was allowed to create a debt greater than the United States deficit. Where was the regulatory mechanism to prevent this?
Correct me if I'm wrong, I havent really had a chance to read up on this and I'd be happy to hear other opinions.
I'm particularly upset AIG was allowed to create a debt greater than the United States deficit. Where was the regulatory mechanism to prevent this?
Correct me if I'm wrong, I havent really had a chance to read up on this and I'd be happy to hear other opinions.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Health Care Thought #2
The government is struggling to maintain the banking system which they and the rest of the united states depend on so much. Tim Geithner's mode of action is, i believe, the best course to take on this matter: use the power of the government not to control the banking system, but to manipulate it, leaving the public to choose how and when to use their services. Likewise, I think the government should not control health care, and look to manipulate it to becoming a better system. Manipulation might come with giving the public more choices for the same outcome, available health care.
The control for these two systems should ultimately stay within the free market. Capitalism is imperfect, but it can be changed according to the public's choice of action.
The control for these two systems should ultimately stay within the free market. Capitalism is imperfect, but it can be changed according to the public's choice of action.
Health Care Thought #1
Say we get a universal health care system separate from the private sector. Taxes go up. Now we have the upper class paying for both public education and public health care in addition to private education and private health care if they choose this course of action. I personally am grateful for having gone to private school and had private health care my entire life. My parents could not have afforded both and I would have gone to public school. Now I'd have a degree at this point in my life, but no business could afford to hire me because they have to pay too much tax and their customers have less money to buy their products. Middle class expanded, there would be no one to pay taxes on both of these public systems, which would most likely send us into a semi-communist society in order to maintain these two systems. One of the ideas behind public education should be to provide people with the means to provide for their own health care.
Maybe this method of fixing our broken health care system is not the best.
Maybe this method of fixing our broken health care system is not the best.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Proud Day for Democrats but not Democracy
The Bush administration was poorly involved in directing economic growth with the ideology that a small government would allow capitalism to drive economic growth. In the interim the dotcom and housing bubbles drove the economy but only as bubbles with a poorly developed infrastructure to withstand the popping of said bubbles. Obama has brought back democratic spending in this new bill which he signed today to support valuable aspects of our domestic infrastructure such as healthcare, education, agriculture, renewable energy, etc. which have gone by the wayside.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090218/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_stimulus
Only 3 of the 200+ republicans in congress and the senate voted for this bill following the Bush ideology of small government to prevent this from being wasteful, hasty spending bill driven by lobbiests. The fact of the matter is the government will increase spending so why not get a head start with a gargantuan bill. The bill is very fair with directed spending toward many important aspects of our nations infrastructure and economically conservative tax reductions.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/STIMULUS_FINAL_0217.html
I don't believe this bill is designed for or should be expected to 'fix' the economy. The government has been reacting to the media's resounding overreaction to the economic situation. "Scaring hell out of the economy, begun by President Bush and continued by President Obama, has produced only the runaway crisis it was advertised to prevent" in the election year and this first year of Obama's presidency. There are many mechanisms that businesses and the economy can make to overcome this recession without the government's intervention. The government under Clinton forced the distribution of the subprime loans which led to the housing bubble and resulting painful pop of the bubble which may or may not have needed government bank intervention to fix by buying up these bad loans. Other businesses should not require a governmental fix, and the rest of this years decisions by the Obama administration, especially with the auto industry, may cause harmful effects on the economy. America needs to stop expecting the government to 'fix' this problem and begin to alter their lifestyles to accommodate the changing times.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123491508784704057.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090218/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_stimulus
Only 3 of the 200+ republicans in congress and the senate voted for this bill following the Bush ideology of small government to prevent this from being wasteful, hasty spending bill driven by lobbiests. The fact of the matter is the government will increase spending so why not get a head start with a gargantuan bill. The bill is very fair with directed spending toward many important aspects of our nations infrastructure and economically conservative tax reductions.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/STIMULUS_FINAL_0217.html
I don't believe this bill is designed for or should be expected to 'fix' the economy. The government has been reacting to the media's resounding overreaction to the economic situation. "Scaring hell out of the economy, begun by President Bush and continued by President Obama, has produced only the runaway crisis it was advertised to prevent" in the election year and this first year of Obama's presidency. There are many mechanisms that businesses and the economy can make to overcome this recession without the government's intervention. The government under Clinton forced the distribution of the subprime loans which led to the housing bubble and resulting painful pop of the bubble which may or may not have needed government bank intervention to fix by buying up these bad loans. Other businesses should not require a governmental fix, and the rest of this years decisions by the Obama administration, especially with the auto industry, may cause harmful effects on the economy. America needs to stop expecting the government to 'fix' this problem and begin to alter their lifestyles to accommodate the changing times.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123491508784704057.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
