patrick.net

nevermind

"I’m not for any goverment option
it will cost more for everyone…paying for thousands more government employees saleries and pensions."

So you would rather pay the million dolalr salaries of insurance executives?

CEO of Wellpoints's Salary: $9.8 million

Anthem Blue Cross CEO Salary: $42.5 million

MAssachusetts Blue Cross CEO salary: $4.3 million

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-blumenfield-md/huge-compensation-package_b_464678.html

I dare you to find me a govt. burrecrat who makes anywhere close to these salaries.

Aetna CEO Ronald Williams: $24 million ($467,000 per week)

Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $12,236,740
Coventry, Dale Wolf: $9,047,469
Health Net, Jay Gellert: $4,425,355
Humana, Michael McCallister: $4,764,309
U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $3,241,042

http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2009/05/20/health-insurance-ceos-total-compensation-in-2008/

Man you add those salaries up and you're getting into some serious money. $120M is 600 bureaucrat's salaries.

Private health insurance is just make-work for paper pushers. Libertarians only defend it because they know they are on the losing side of the argument and it's the last card left in their anti-gummint deck.

And just think about how much insurance and pharmaceuticals spend on marketing/advertising! Add that to the overhead. I'd love to see those numbers.

They gotta pay someone to send out all those denial letters.

Leigh says

So what should we do with the uninsured? Let them die? “Sorry sir, you chose not to be insured. This M.I./stroke/car accident/cancer/etc is gonna cost you likely X amount of dollars. And since you can’t pay we are stopping care now. Enjoy the afterlife.”

I had a conversation much like this with a lovely young woman - under 30 years old - who made a poor choice an blew out her liver. She didn't qualify for Medicare (you have to be disabled two years) and she didn't qualify for Medicaid. She didn't have any money and wasn't placed on the transplant list.

She died.

Leigh says

Add that to the overhead. I’d love to see those numbers.

MRK

2008 Sales: $24B
Cost of goods sold : $5.5B
R&D: $5B
Overhead: $7.5B
Income Tax: $2B
Shareholder Profit: $8B

So on a $25 prescription, the pills cost $5 to make, $5 to develop, $7.50 to sell, and $8 for the shareholders.

Whattacountry.

I think Patrick is a swell guy. I have noticed a bit of rewriting, but that's acceptable behavior for any blog owner. Shucks, I do it too sometimes.

Over all, patrick.net is one of the best sites on the web and being retired at the old age of 54- forced you may say, I find his site to pack more bang for the buck that those other wimpy sites that promise, but just don't deliver.

And as a former California property owner and now exile living in the Wisconsin countryside, I get a kick out of watching the destruction of the 49r state from afar.

Keep up the good work Patrick, and stay forever young.

peace out

The little guy,

Gotham Wisconsin

Blue Swan says

We are really close to a huge labor shortage. The only thing that is about to inflate is salaries. Goods and houses will remain stable or fall. The Banks need money so companies can start paying their workers more.

Huh? What reason can you possibly give that we're going to have a labor shortage? Retirement of baby boomers? Hah. Boomers can't afford to retire any more. They will keep working until they die. You've heard of the "glass ceiling" for women. Young workers are going to experience the "grey ceiling".
Unemployment is rampant and not improving (look for census hiring to depress the numbers in coming months but it's an illusion). There is major overcapacity all over the economy. I don't see a wage-price spiral coming.
The banks are sitting on cash because they don't want to lend and no one wants to borrow. Also, they know how much trash is on their books and they're holding cash to offset expected losses.

yeah, this "labor shortage" thing is funny.

That's the problem with a 70% service-sector economy.

Gummint on all levels is allegedly going to spend $6.5T this year. Divided by $100K each, that SHOULD be SIXTY-FIVE MILLION jobs, 25 million public sector jobs and 40 million government-funded jobs like defense.

W T F

Is government going to grow more ? ? ? I'm the opposite of a tea party type but damn.

How about defense? We going to continue spending $700B/yr there? At $100,000 per job that's SEVEN MILLION jobs.

Agriculture? Mining? Forestry? Are there new jobs in the primary sector?

Manufacturing? R&D? I hope so, but the trend isn't our friend here.

How about wages? Is the US and the third world going to meet in the middle? Our minimum wage is $7.25, China's minimum wage is 65c.

Sure, we've got a lot of demand for piano teachers, artists, football players, astronauts, home flippers --- BUT THESE AREN'T WEALTH CREATION. THEY ARE CONSUMPTION.

The govt. can almost always do things cheaper. I just sent a letter through Fed Ex and it cost $18. Silly me, I could have sent it through the post office for $4.50.

elliemae says

WillyWanker says

Patrick’s claim to ‘honesty’, after writing that sad and (obviously) desperate ‘Glenn Beck Vicious Rumor’ thread, is tenuous at best. It’s support for 0bamaCare, like that, that netted the Senate a man like Scott Brown.

And yet, you’re reading this forum, owned by a sad and obviously desperate man. What’s that say about you?
“Tongue in” what? I need a moment…

I don't know if you have noticed, but I have posted @ 120 comments, while YOU, on the other hand, are fast approaching 1400. Regardless of how you or I feel about Patricks 'honesty', or lack thereof, anyone who spends most of their waking hours posting on a message board deserves some sort of 'honorable' mention. Your 'utter devotion' to Patrick could be construed, by some, as pathological.

Talk about 'sad' and 'desperate'. To say nothing of PATHETIC.

HousingWatcher says

I just sent a letter through Fed Ex and it cost $18. Silly me, I could have sent it through the post office for $4.50.

Bad comparison. FedEx is prohibited by law from directly competing with the USPS, and the latter has bulk mailing to support its infrastructure.

HousingWatcher says

“I’m not for any goverment option

it will cost more for everyone…paying for thousands more government employees saleries and pensions.”
So you would rather pay the million dolalr salaries of insurance executives?
CEO of Wellpoints’s Salary: $9.8 million
Anthem Blue Cross CEO Salary: $42.5 million
MAssachusetts Blue Cross CEO salary: $4.3 million
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-blumenfield-md/huge-compensation-package_b_464678.html
I dare you to find me a govt. burrecrat who makes anywhere close to these salaries.

You must be shaking in your boots for all the value in stock these guys have.
Thats right those numbers you have are on paper and
next week it could be worth little. I'm not denying these companies overpay
I was just stating the obvious...The Healthcare bill is not sustainable and will
run massive deficites just like SS, post office, medicare....and the insurance
companies will get RICHER ! & we will get less for our money.

as for paying for the 1000's of lawyers in washington here you go:
make sure to look at the benefits and bonuses

http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_compresult_national_EX05000047.html

beershrine says

The Healthcare bill is not sustainable and will
run massive deficites just like SS

SS was in surplus since the 1983 Greenspan Commission tax adjustment.

As for the post office and medicare, nothing higher taxes can't fix.

and the insurance
companies will get RICHER ! & we will get less for our money

If that comes to pass then we can just nationalize the insurance sector and put them out of business.

Think, people. This is a democracy. We have the power, or would, if 30-40% of this country weren't complete retards.

jackoByte says

Have the people above overlooked forced auto insurance????

You are only "forced" to carry auto insurance if you DECIDE to drive. With that, you still have a choice, not so with forced healthcare insurance. Furthermore, driving a car is not a "right" it is a privilege, so the two aren't even close as far as comparisons.

Blue Swan says

Troy says

Sure, we’ve got a lot of demand for piano teachers, artists, football players, astronauts, home flippers — BUT THESE AREN’T WEALTH CREATION. THEY ARE CONSUMPTION.

The thing is, employees are sort of like the houses. It’s very much a step function. If there are 10 houses and 9 families, the price of the 10th house is zero. If there are 10 houses and 11 families, the price of the 10th house is infinity.
Same with companies and employees and the people who the employees pay.
So, I expect to see the shortage all at once, zero to 60 (K) in seconds…

Today, people can move thousands of miles on short notice to fill jobs. It's not like the old days when you lived in a Company Town and had to accept whatever the Company offered and vice-versa. Heck, even someone on welfare can afford a bus ticket to another town/state if there's a job to be had.

You still haven't explained where the jobs are going to come from that will need to be filled????

I was born and raised in Minnesota. Had lots of jobs as a teen. Mostly consisted of shoveling the "white stuff" in the winter.

jvolstad says

I was born and raised in Minnesota. Had lots of jobs as a teen. Mostly consisted of shoveling the “white stuff” in the winter.

I used to sell cocaine also in Minnesota. My Svenska relatives look down upon it though.

Don't forget when that article was published, there wasn't even HTML 3.0 standards.
Most text on the internet was read via Usenets newsgroups. Which was clunky to read through.
And as for the ebooks for documentation, I don't know about you, but I hated it.
Most computers were only 600X800 max resolution, on a CRT monitor. So there was a lot scrolling to read a minimal amount of Text.

Any and all visions of what the internet would be one-day, was over shadowed by the oppressive speed of 14.4 dial up modems.

I did envision a fast internet where gaming and video would viable.

I'm still no fan of reading the amount of reading required for reading a book, electronically.

Small amounts of facts from this page or that page, I'm fine with. I hate having to read a book or a long white paper.

Clifford Stoll was something of a professional crank in the mid-90s, after he had reached a modicum of professional popularity with the semi-gripping story of tracking down a hacker intruder at Lawrence Livermore.

As it stands now, buying digital books is still something of a niche, 15 years after the article. Politics on the web is a joke, just look at this site. So he was half-right.

Stoll basically missed the potential rise of amazon, google, wikipedia, and travelocity et al. Salespeople are a means of intermediation, but after enough capital investment a more effective replacement for some areas was created.

Stoll was probably 100% correct about computers in schools. Computers are tools, not panaceas.

There was a much earlier published cover article, Time Magazine as i recall around 1990-92.
Very upbeat and informative article regarding growth in Unix, Risc processors, and rise of OS/GUIs, and how it brings together the power the "Web" which was Unix selling point. As the 90s progressed,
often you would have heard "not there yet" as it related comparing Unix ability and then yet evolving current products for mainstream commercial use. We certainly made it there by the end of the 90s. Today, its just toys you see!

Tenouncetrout says

Most text on the internet was read via Usenets newsgroups. Which was clunky to read through

Usenet was great! One source for all postings for all topics, categories, and sub-categories. It was the father of all discussion boards and blogs. Not to mention a single source for file sharing.

Most computers were only 600X800 max resolution, on a CRT monitor.
Get used to it; the future will be 800x480*. Thankfully, not a CRT, and in the palm of your hand.
*Or 480x320 if you are a "True Believer".

Simpsons quote:

Frink: Well sure, the Frinky-ack 7 looks impressive...DON'T TOUCH IT...but I predict that within 100 years computers will twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger and so expensive that only the 5 richest kings of Europe will own them.

Well, I for one just don't see this internet thing catching on.

Other predictions for the past:
Housing will always go up
This is not a bubble
It's just a cold sore (ex-boyfriend's comment...)

elliemae says

Well, I for one just don’t see this internet thing catching on.
Other predictions for the past:
Housing will always go up
This is not a bubble
It’s just a cold sore (ex-boyfriend’s comment…)

More predictions:

Obama predicts Hope & Change
Obama predicts he'll renegotiate NAFTA & GATT
Obama predicts he'll balance the budget by the end of his 1st. term
Obama predicts he'll never sign a bill that has earmarks
Obama predicts he'll never hire a lobbyist, etc., etc.

Obama predicts he might only serve one term

Being right 1 out of 6 is pretty good for a politician

Correction before eliemae has a hissy fit .... It was McCain that promised to balance the budget by the end of his first term, not Obama. Obama only promised to cut the budget deficit in half by the end of his first term ... a prediction, or promise, he will not keep. So I guess I was half right .... or if you're eliemae ... I was half wrong.

http://topnews.us/content/23839-obama-vows-halve-budget-deficit-end-first-term

Damn! I was halfway to my voodoo doll named Ray-ray before you posted that... crisis averted.

HOW DARE YOU !!! Socialism is a wonderful notion. After all the communists have supported, even created many of socialism's features. WHAT DOCUMENTATION DO YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS?

So what that history is littered with examples of how socialism kills enterprise. That can't happen in America. History won't repeat itself !! We CAN do the same thing over and over and expect a DIFFERENT result. And you drive on roads paid for by taxes...DON'T YOU !!

Is anyone anywhere arguing that they are in favor of the US going Socialist? That's where your argument falls apart. Regulation is not Socialism. Universal Health Care is not Socialism. Restoring tax rates to their Reagan levels is not Socialism. Keynesian economics is not Socialism.

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources. (wiki)

Do you understand the difference?

The GM bailout aside (which the Government neither wants nor runs the day-to-day operations), the Government doesn't own or administer the means of production or allocation of resources.

Hope that helps.

Regulation certainly can be a move towards socialism, because where Socialism is not enacted by violence, it is enacted by regulation and legislation.

Socialism also refers to the theoretical middle/transtion stage between capitalism and communism, a part of the definition that some here seem to not share though relevant. Some of you like to attribute a black/white, yes/no position to those against socialist policies and then attempt to refute that policies are socialist by a strawman argument. Since some of you argue that if you are for *any* government functions, you are support socialism, perhaps you should interpret objection here to *more* socialism.

BTW, which argument do you support? Any government function is socialist by its nature? Or regulation/health care, etc. are NOT socialist? You can't really argue both sides in any valid or logical way.

The Government did NOT have to bailout GM, but more importantly, it did NOT have to completely reverse bancruptcy proceedings by putting non-secured bondholders in front of secured bondholders because the former were Union and the latter were not. This is not Socialism, or influenced by socialist tendencies? If not, it is simply despotism.

Paralithodes says

Regulation certainly can be a move towards socialism, because where Socialism is not enacted by violence, it is enacted by regulation and legislation.

If you want to look at it as a scale with anarchy on one end and socialism on the other, than I guess you can look at it that way. But it doesn't change my views at all--regulation isn't socialism. End of story.

Paralithodes says

Socialism also refers to the theoretical middle/transtion stage between capitalism and communism, a part of the definition that some here seem to not share though relevant.

I don't agree. It is not a middle/transition stage at all.

Paralithodes says

Since some of you argue that if you are for *any* government functions, you are support socialism, perhaps you should interpret objection here to *more* socialism.

Speaking of strawmen, that's not the logic at all. Some of you are against any expansion of government and need to be reminded that you have no problem with the multitude of government programs that you currently enjoy.Paralithodes says

BTW, which argument do you support? Any government function is socialist by its nature? Or regulation/health care, etc. are NOT socialist? You can’t really argue both sides in any valid or logical way.

I don't think I've been illogical at all. I'd answer no to the first question and yes (they are NOT socialist) to the 2nd poorly worded question.

Paralithodes says

The Government did NOT have to bailout GM, but more importantly, it did NOT have to completely reverse bancruptcy proceedings by putting non-secured bondholders in front of secured bondholders because the former were Union and the latter were not. This is not Socialism, or influenced by socialist tendencies? If not, it is simply despotism.

Not Socialism at all. Acting in the best interest of the US economy, pure and simple.

From your same article:

There was no Federal Reserve System and no paper money or legal-tender laws (except during the Civil War). People used gold and silver coins as money.

There were no foreign military bases and no involvement in foreign wars. The size of the military was small.

Yes the Federal Reserve and a large US global military presence are obviously LIBERAL programs. LOL!

Looking up Mr. Hornberger's bio he's one of those ivory-tower lawyer eggheads the Glenn Beck crowd loves to deride if they are of any opinion not parallel to their own:

He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics.

"But it doesn’t change my views at all–regulation isn’t socialism. End of story"

"I don’t agree. It is not a middle/transition stage at all. "

You post definitions in order to correct the use of "socialism" by others, but choose which part of the definition that you accept as valid? It seems that you want to use whatever definitions you create on the fly in order to support your positions. Certanly, if a regulation is socialist, socialism is regulation in that case. To argue generally that "regulation isn't socialism" in the fashion that you do seems to ignore anything that doesn't fit your definition. End of story.

"Some of you are against any expansion of government and need to be reminded that you have no problem with the multitude of government programs that you currently enjoy"

You should read more posts in this forum, like from Vicente and others, who argue exactly as I have described. Clearly to many here, if we are not against ALL government, we are hypocritical socialists. Your own response is invalid because you incorrectly assume, in a black/white fashion, both that some of us are against "ANY" expansion of government, as well as that we have "NO PROBLEM" with the programs that we allegedly "enjoy." You argue that someone's objection to one type of policy is invalid because [you assume] they don't object to a different type of policy. That is illogical.

"Not Socialism at all. Acting in the best interest of the US economy, pure and simple."

So, it is in the "best interests of the US economy" for the government to take over and interject itself into the bankruptcy of a non-government company and put unsecured bondholders ahead of secured bondholders because the former are Union and the latter are not? Referring to those who take lower return for lower risk as "speculators" while those who take higher return for higher risk are not, is in the best interests of the US economy, "pure and simple?" I guess it is, if your definition of what is the best interests of the US economy is specifically the domination of unions over the private sector. That would of course be a socialist approach, but what do definitions matter?

Paralithodes says

You should read more posts in this forum, like from Vicente and others, who argue exactly as I have described. Clearly to many here, if we are not against ALL government, we are hypocritical socialists. Your own response is invalid because you incorrectly assume, in a black/white fashion, both that some of us are against “ANY” expansion of government, as well as that we have “NO PROBLEM” with the programs that we allegedly “enjoy.” You argue that someone’s objection to one type of policy is invalid because [you assume] they don’t object to a different type of policy. That is illogical.

Again you misrepresent what other have posted. No actually I don't argue that at all. You need to reread my post. Or you can keep posting strawmen if you prefer....

Paralithodes says

So, it is in the “best interests of the US economy” for the government to take over and interject itself into the bankruptcy of a non-government company and put unsecured bondholders ahead of secured bondholders because the former are Union and the latter are not? Referring to those who take lower return for lower risk as “speculators” while those who take higher return for higher risk are not, is in the best interests of the US economy, “pure and simple?” I guess it is, if your definition of what is the best interests of the US economy is specifically the domination of unions over the private sector. That would of course be a socialist approach, but what do definitions matter?

Do you even see how illogical your argument is? Favoring certain stockholders over others is socialist? In socialism there are no stockholders. How can that be socialistic?

Paralithodes says

Certanly, if a regulation is socialist, socialism is regulation in that case. To argue generally that “regulation isn’t socialism” in the fashion that you do seems to ignore anything that doesn’t fit your definition. End of story.

Oh I forgot to address this one. my response is Huh? I'm saying a regulation isn't socialist.. So not sure what the rest of your argument is...

is taking money from one tax payer and handing out to another person - by the choice of the gov - under threat of prison - socialist?

Tatu, did you understand the article when it said regulation (ie reform) is newspeak. Rather than calling it socialism liberals want to call it "solutions for the free market", when in reality it is socialism with a fancy name like "reform" or "regulation", or "pay czar" etc...

"Do you even see how illogical your argument is? Favoring certain stockholders over others is socialist? In socialism there are no stockholders. How can that be socialistic?"

You are arguing a black/white premise which does not exist. You are essentially saying that a policy or action cannot be "socialist" because the entire economy is not fully communist, and there cannot be any varying degrees of socialism within an economy.