From InvestmentNews.com:
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., today worried that the Federal Reserve Board will raise interest rates to stop long-overdue wage increases that are just beginning to take hold in the U.S. economy.
Mr. Frank, who will take over as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee when the new Congress convenes tomorrow, railed against the inequality of wealth in the U.S. at a National Press Club luncheon in Washington.
He seems to think malicious conservatives will do anything to make workers suffer! The Democrats: Better on gays, but populist demagogues (and redistributionists) on economics.
More. Some heated debate in the comments! And a further thought: If the Fed decides that a federal funds rate hike is needed to stave off a new round of inflation, would Frank actually prefer to have inflation unleased in the hopes that workers' salaries would rise? That he and his allies are now in a position to influence economic policy is frightening.
44 Comments for “Why I Don’t Trust Democrats.”
posted by kittynboi on
Fine with me.
posted by JoySword on
Steve, your comment at the end pits “Democrats” against “conservatives,” an apples & oranges comparison. If you want to compare the liberal record to the conservative record on treatment of the folks who earn minimum wage, conservatives are not going to come out on top. They are not the people who brought you the 40-hr workweek, time-and-a-half for overtime, Social Security or stopped the use of child labor.
posted by kittynboi on
Some people are delusional enough to think those advancement are bad things.
posted by avee on
yep, bring back the stagnation of the Carter years! After all, Washington bureaucrats know best how to set wages. Got to love the liberals!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If Barney Frank is so concerned about the wealth gap, he’s got a whole bunch of people he can target, most of which only inherited or married into their money, very close by, into coughing up what he insists are obviously ill-gotten gains and forcing them to live like everyone else.
Problem is, they’re Democrats.
Let’s hear what Frank’s excuse is for why the woman holding his leash and paying his hooker bill is allowed to have, and I quote:
Major assets: St. Helena vineyard, $5 million to $25 million; real estate option on a property on Broadway in San Francisco, $1 million to $5 million; townhouse in Norden, near Lake Tahoe, $1 million to $5 million; 8-acre vineyard in Rutherford that Pelosi recently sold for $1 million to $5 million. All properties are jointly owned with her husband, Paul Pelosi.
Liabilities: St. Helena vineyard mortgage of $1 million to $5 million.
Miscellaneous: Paul Pelosi also owns commercial property in San Francisco and San Anselmo valued at $5 million to $25 million. He also has major stock holdings that include $250,000 to $500,000 in shares of Amazon.com and Alliance Gaming Corp., which makes slot machines, and $100,000 to $250,000 of shares in Microsoft and Comcast.
We won’t even get into the fact that Frank shares the same state with two of the wealthiest members of Congress, both of which depend solely on their (or their spouse’s) inherited wealth and have never really held anything that even approximates a job.
Democrats like Frank could not more clearly express their contempt for the intelligence of the voters to which they appeal with these statements; it’s akin to Marie Antoinette whining that the nobility tax the peasants too much.
posted by Antaeus on
Gee, North, why do Republicans keep shilling for all that Democrat wealth? /sarcasm/
Can we get back to pure policy talk here, rather than giving voice to paranoid Rightist Resentments?
posted by Ryan on
conservatives actually do come out on top when it comes to folks making minimum wage. The dems seem to want to force them to work under the table, or in various black markets, as companies are not all likely to pay increased wages.
They have also heralded time-and-a-half for overtime, a law, whose main effect is to force low-wage workers to work 2 separate jobs if they want to pay rent.
They’ve championed Social Security, a giant Ponzi Scheme that also performs as a poor subsstitute for both retirement savings and insurance.
And Child Labor Laws, because 15 year olds should not be allowed to help chip in for the cars they want when they turn 16
posted by Alex on
And Child Labor Laws, because 15 year olds should not be allowed to help chip in for the cars they want when they turn 16
Don’t know about where you live, but here a kid under 16 can get a job with parents permission but with some limitations. But then your side is working diligently and successfully to bring us back to the era when the poorest families needed everyone to work a minimum of “full time” (including those under 16) in order to meet basic needs.
posted by compromise on
i suppose it just comes down to what you value more: civil rights or money. in a perfect world, i’d pick a gay-friendly fiscally restrained candidate. however, we’re not in a perfect world, and i’m not going to risk my civil rights for a few thousand dollars in taxes. furthermore, the current administration has flushed god-knows-how-much money down the toilet in iraq by not having a firm plan to secure the country and exit – hardly fiscal prudence, or any prudence i might add. believe me, it irritates me to vote democrat, but hopefully, in a few years, i won’t have to.
party loyalty is overrated. you’re only as good as your last performance. and frankly, as much as i don’t trust the dems, i trust the repubs even less.
posted by Tim on
In a republican world, money trump s everything.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Steve has ideological blinders on this issue. He uses a brief report to make a characterization, without even bothering quoting Barney Frank directly.
The Bush administration has not opposed the redistribution of wealth — it has, on the contrary, aggressively supported the UPWARD redistribution of wealth. Barney has specifically stated that he does not seek to take wealth from the rich, but to see that newly created wealth is more equitably distributed. Current policies favor a very small number of the wealthiest Americans. It is unfortunate that Steve is so biased on this subject that he appears unwilling even to examine the details of what Barney is actually proposing. Please spare us the caricatures.
posted by Ryan on
>Don’t know about where you live, but here a kid
>under 16 can get a job with parents permission
>but with some limitations. But then your side is
>working diligently and successfully to bring us
>back to the era when the poorest families needed
>everyone to work a minimum of “full time”
>(including those under 16) in order to meet basic
>needs.
Laws differ from state to state. It’s still a stupid law. If a family did need every member working to meet basic needs, the law just makes them starve.
posted by Mark on
“Barney has specifically stated that he does not seek to take wealth from the rich…”
Oh great. Frank has now become a libertarian, has he?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Barney has specifically stated that he does not seek to take wealth from the rich, but to see that newly created wealth is more equitably distributed.
Or, in other words, he wants high school dropouts to be paid the same as MBAs.
This is the danger of having in power morons like Frank, who literally have NEVER run or been involved in a business outside of government. Frank can afford to pay an illiterate person $25/hr; he just passes a law increasing the amount people are taxed to cover his overhead. He has a monopoly and the complete power to set whatever rates he likes.
Therefore, he assumes every other business can operate in the same manner. Just like his fellow Massachusetts Congresspersons Kerry and Kennedy, or his leader Pelosi, all of whom got their money the old-fashioned ways….by inheritance or marriage.
If Congress wants to raise the minimum wage, I have an excellent suggestion for how to do it; pass a law that allows businesses that pay more than the minimum wage for low-skill positions to deduct the amount paid above the minimum from their income taxes. Businesses would then have an incentive to pay a great deal more than minimum wage for these positions, and would not incur any additional costs for doing so.
But Barney and his fellow leftists will never agree to that, for one reason; it takes money out of THEIR hands, which leaves them less to bribe workers with, and incents companies to pay workers more, which makes them less dependent on Uncle Barney.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30 wrote, “Or, in other words, he wants high school dropouts to be paid the same as MBAs.”
No, that’s not at all what he is proposing. It’s easy to knock down caricatures. Barney is a liberal, not a leftist. That may be damnable enough, but if what he really stands for is truly objectionable, then you shouldn’t have to distort it. But accusing you of distortion is rather generous, since you show no sign of knowing anything about Barney’s proposals.
As a matter of fact, Barney IS proposing incentives. Not that mere facts would ever inspire you to lose the scornful tone.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
As a matter of fact, Barney IS proposing incentives.
Sure….in the same manner that taking their child hostage is giving someone an incentive to cooperate with you.
For instance, Frank is threatening to punish and bottle up businesses unless:
More specifically, Mr. Frank wants to pass a bill allowing unions to organize workplaces when a majority of employees sign cards indicating their interest in a union. That would strip employers of the ability to call in federal regulators to oversee a secret ballot.
The reason that the secret ballot system is in place is because those cards are public knowledge to the union organizers and their flunkies in the workplace. Therefore, leftist union organizers, which is who Frank is prostituting himself for, can harass and threaten people into signing — because they know exactly who has and hasn’t. But, since they don’t know who cast what vote in a secret ballot election, it’s impossible for them to threaten people who vote against unionizing.
And this is my favorite one:
He also warned Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke against blaming higher wages for inflation.
Of course, it is established economic theory that higher wages can cause inflationary pressures, especially when productivity is not increasing (as is the case now), but according to Pope Barney, this thought is FORBIDDEN and heretical, and no one is to speak or even entertain it.
The primary accelerator of inequality in the United States today is the fact that it no longer makes economic sense to pay skilled wages for unskilled workers. Barney Frank and his fellow Democrat leftists want to fix that by putting up trade barriers and passing laws that force businesses to pay people who can barely read or write $15/hour.
There’s a continent that’s already tried that; it’s called “Europe”. And right now, Barney Frank’s counterparts over there who were once trumpeting the virtues of socialism and punishment for the successful are now desperately trying to slash benefits and such…..because their industries are no longer competitive, and their welfare states are sucking them into bankruptcy, since people figured out that you got paid the same whether you worked hard, worked poorly, or didn’t work at all.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
An approach to argument that treats all liberal proposals as equal to the farthest-out radical socialism is not intellectually honest or serious. But I will let Barney defend himself.
One could do worse, by way of articulating a non-loony liberal vision, than new Rep. Keith Ellison. The following is an excerpt of a statement by Rep. Ellison on the Washington Post website today:
“We live in a society which says that there is enough for a tax break for the wealthy but not enough for an increase in the minimum wage or for national health care. There is enough for subsidies to oil and coal companies but not for families who are struggling to afford child care or a college education. But it doesn?t have to be this way.
“We need a politics of generosity based on the reality of abundance as opposed to a politics of not-enough. The richest 1 percent of the nation, on average, owns 190 times as much as a typical household. The child poverty rate in the United States is the highest of 16 other industrialized nations. Employers are shifting health insurance costs onto workers. Not only are fewer employees receiving health insurance through their employers, but those who still do are paying more for it.
“Recently, I have become the focus of some criticism for my use of the Qu’ran for my ceremonial swearing in. Let me be clear, I am going to be sworn into office like all members of Congress. I am going to swear to uphold the United States Constitution. We seem to have lost the political vision of our founding document — a vision of inclusion, tolerance and generosity.
“I do not blame my critics for subscribing to a politics of scarcity and intolerance. However, I believe we all must project a new politics of generosity and inclusion This is the vision of the diverse coalition in my Congressional district. My constituents in Minnesota elected me to fight for a new politics in which a loving nation guarantees health care for all of its people; a new politics in which executive pay may not skyrocket while workers do not have enough to care for their families. I was elected to articulate a new politics in which no one is cut out of the American dream, not immigrants, not gays, not poor people, not even a Muslim committed to serve his nation.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
We live in a society which says that there is enough for a tax break for the wealthy but not enough for an increase in the minimum wage or for national health care.
Of course.
That is because the cost of a tax cut comes solely out of the government’s hide; however, the cost of wage increases or health care comes out of business’s pockets, and business, unlike government, cannot unilaterally raise prices or demand that people pay them more.
Strike one.
We need a politics of generosity based on the reality of abundance as opposed to a politics of not-enough.
Good. So when do you and your fellow Democrats intend to cough up all of your wealth to the deserving poor out of the goodness of your hearts, as I pointed out above? Or is it, as you make obvious, that you’re going to use the power of government to force us all who make far less than you do to pay you more so you can “redistribute” it and buy votes in the process?
Strike two.
My constituents in Minnesota elected me to fight for a new politics in which a loving nation guarantees health care for all of its people; a new politics in which executive pay may not skyrocket while workers do not have enough to care for their families.
Or, in other words, a nation where a semi-literate assembly line worker makes as much as the CEO. It’s not like the CEO might actually be qualified, or educated, or anything that might make them worth more, right?
And we’ll overlook the irony of a trial lawyer like Ellison, who no doubt spent hundreds of days in courtrooms haranguing doctors who didn’t order every single test or prescribe every single potential drug as being incompetent, whining about the high cost of health care.
Strike three.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Wrong, ND30. You surely know that no one is advocating that an assembly line worker should make as much as a CEO. So stop saying it. If you honestly believe that those who oppose Bush & Co’s upward redistribution of wealth are wrong, then quote accurately what they actually propose, as they frame it, without caricaturing it. Then explain, substantively, in a civil manner, and without cheap posturing, how their specific proposals are wrong.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If you honestly believe that those who oppose Bush & Co’s upward redistribution of wealth are wrong, then quote accurately what they actually propose, as they frame it, without caricaturing it.
The reason we have “upward distribution of wealth”, as you put it, Richard, is because we can no longer afford to pay $25/hour and unlimited health care benefits for the rest of their lives for semi-skilled laborers. The rest of the job market — that is, unskilled labor and college-educated workers — is red-hot; that’s because the latter, whose skills are strongly in demand in the global market, can then afford to pay the former. But neither group will support the overpaid semi-skilled workers; the cost premium that has to be paid on the products they make (i.e., health care and pension benefits adds approximately $1,400 to the cost of each GM car) is too much for the lower end and is not worth it to the higher end.
Worse, after years of ideology-driven curriculum management and de-emphasis of “boring” topics like reading, math, and science, our public school graduates cannot compete. Democrats are trying to blame that fact on “lack of access to college”; however, the simple fact of the matter is that the curriculum they have jealously guarded and protected from any sort of accountability for all these years is turning out hapless students. In California, leftist Democrats like Sheila Kuehl demand that school curriculums include in-depth discussions of the sex lives of historical figures, but they fight testing of students in math, science, and reading to determine whether their campaign contributors….sorry, the “teachers’ unions”….are actually teaching students anything that might be useful, you know, in getting a job or making a product that someone actually wants.
What you are basically doing is blaming the Bush administration for the fact that unionized workers finally got what they wanted; they made certain that they squeezed every last drop of blood out of their companies so that they would make the same as the educated, white-collar portion of the workforce.
Only problem is, in the process, they priced themselves out of the marketplace. And don’t try the “well, if we nationalized healthcare and pensions, this wouldn’t be a problem”; same thing is taking place at Volkswagen and other European-based countries in which the government picks up the healthcare tab (after taxing the bejesus out of the companies).
posted by Justin on
No one is stupid enough to argue that equality means that everyone receives the same pay of a corporate CEO. Not only the most bluest of democrat would say that we should utilize government to fight for complete 100% equality. Clearly in a capitalist system, not everyone is going to be as rich as Paris Hilton or Donald Trump.
The issue however is whether or not the vast majority of people can pay for healthcare, pay for food on the table, and have a little disposable income left to enjoy some things. Capitalism cannot sustain itself if the majority of people are unable to afford consumer goods for the economy.
I’m all for tax cuts. And conservatives are correct to stress that regulation and taxation should not be unduly restrictive as if to obstruct economic growth. And no, I do not believe we should nationalize every single privately financed program. But a raise in the minimum wage is surely not an evil thing if it is passed with compensation for small businesses. I do wish the Dems luck.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, you are continuing to distort. You attribute views to me that I have nowhere expressed. Now you mention Sheila Kuehl, who is to the left of most Democrats. And you still have not cited details of any proposal by Barney Frank, to whom you referred so dismissively. You are making false generalizations. It is cute how you give the impression that my objections to your dishonest approach to argument somehow make me a socialist. By similar logic, my statement to someone the other day that, contrary to Iraqi President Maliki, Saddam appears to have handled his final moments with greater dignity than his executioners, makes me a supporter of Saddam. Um, no.
posted by Lurker on
“health care and pension benefits adds approximately $1,400 to the cost of each GM car”
That’s it? $1,400? Sorry, but, for me, the cost benefit analysis here swings towards giving auto workers pensions and health care benefits – both from an economic and a humanistic standpoint. Now, I understand that some of you may disagree with me (and I’m not going to judge), but $1,400 a car isn’t enough for me (personally) to deny semi-skilled workers benefits. First, if semi-skilled workers are denied benefits, that cost is shifted to the health care system, and medical treatments are expensive. Then the rest of us pay the difference, even those of us who don’t buy cars.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
It is just plain pathetic that anyone would argue, as ND30 does, as if the only alternatives are (A) pay semi-skilled workers the same as CEOs, or (B) screw ’em. It is outrageous that anyone would consider it acceptable that any hard-working American should be without health care because it is priced beyond their reach. To insist on being ideologically rigid about such things is to tear the social contract, and our social fabric, into shreds. Please at least have the decency to be privately ashamed of your own cleverness, to the extent that pseudo-clever put-downs and distortions and mockery are your only response to this. Such a ruthless “you’re on your own” philosophy, in which anything else is treated as the most extreme socialism, is the refuge of the privileged.
I happen to be a relatively highly skilled information technology worker, and I make a decent salary; but it would never occur to me on that account to believe that I am somehow more deserving of health care than a less skilled neighbor. Only a dishonest person would translate my previous sentence as an endorsement of coddling lazy do-nothings. Such debating tactics trivialize the discussion. But some people are not interested in having a serious discussion; they just want to show how damn superior they are.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Old party politics is a Hobson’s choice of tweedledee and tweedledum. You can vote for the “small government” Republican who hikes spoending to unprecedented levels, starts foreign wars every six months, and launches hidden tax increases in the form of a heavily-depreciating dollar (down almost 40% against the pound sterling since Bush assumed office) and find yourself poor and bereft of assets to pay for a big government agenda — while also being targeted for being gay.
Or you can vote for a Democrat, who pledges to balance the budget (but hikes spending and taxes), launches foreign wars every 8 months, and find yourself poor and bereft of assets and STILL stuck with strong Dem support for anti-gay laws.
Of course, some of the more self-important types continue to insist, against the actual record of fact, that this is a “simplification” and that they’re “making a difference” by playing (and honoring) the charade. More the fool, them.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
That’s it? $1,400? Sorry, but, for me, the cost benefit analysis here swings towards giving auto workers pensions and health care benefits – both from an economic and a humanistic standpoint
Why is it that every single socialist I meet who goes on and on about how Ford, Chrysler and GM’s pension problems and costs are “no big deal” either don’t own cars, or drive foreign cars that don’t have this pension premium on them?
If they honestly believed what they were saying, they’d forego a superior Toyota, Honda or Nissan and instead elect to purchase a Chevrolet Cavalier or even (gasp) an SUV (the primary products from Detroit these days). But they never, ever do. Apparently, someone else should be picking up the pensioners’ costs (and driving around in poorly designed, unreliable cars). The same leftist will then turn around and demand that the people paying for those pensions be taxed for being “excessive fuel users” and “destroying the environment.”
As always, the left loves to pat itself on the back for its unbelievable generosity with other people’s money.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It is outrageous that anyone would consider it acceptable that any hard-working American should be without health care because it is priced beyond their reach.
Unlike you, Richard, when I look at a social problem, my first instinct is not to let the government handle it.
That comes from the fact that, as a businessperson, I am well-aware of two things; one, the more the middlemen, the higher the cost and the lower my control of the final product, and two, perhaps the largest, that the less people have to worry about price or convenience, the more of a product that they use.
If you want to know why GM, for one, pays so much for healthcare, it’s relatively easy; for decades, it’s been free to their workers — as in, no costs at all. And, oddly enough, what insurers have figured out is the same as any good host knows when planning food parties; the less people have to pay for something, the more of it they tend to consume, and the less questions they ask.
Thus, we have a lovely combination; because it costs them nothing, they go to the doctor far more often, and since they never see the bill, they basically say, “So what if I really wouldn’t need antibiotics for this cold, or if there’s a cheaper generic version of this drug, or if those tests are unnecessary, or if you’re charging twice as much as the other doctor across the way — I’m not paying for it.”
That is why most businesses have switched to insurance models that, rather than paying everything, use co-pays (a fixed price for a given service) or, even better, co-insurance (a fixed percent for a given service); it re-establishes that link and reminds consumers that a) this does cost money and b)with co-insurance, since we only pay a percent of the bill, it behooves you to keep the bill smaller by being an informed consumer and asking questions.
But Democrats and leftists don’t like that idea; they think that the government should provide free healthcare to everyone, even if you aren’t a US citizen. Furthermore, they want all health care expenditures to start routing through THEM, which adds another layer of enormous cost and fraud potential (estimates are that 1 dollar out of every 7 that Medicare/Medicaid spends is lost to fraud and abuse).
Thus, Richard, I don’t think the government is competent to handle healthcare. I don’t think channeling healthcare through the government makes a lick of sense economically or businesswise. And I think that, if it bothers you so much that your neighbor can’t afford it, that you can reach into your pocket and pay for it, especially since you claim you make a good salary. If you don’t like the way wealth is distributed, fix it yourself first.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
when I look at a social problem, my first instinct is not to let the government handle it.
Unless, of course, its members of your party who see a social program and pass an unconstitutional ballot initiative with 50.1% of the vote. Then, government is not only the savior of the country in your book, but constitutionalists are “undemocratic” and “against the will of the people.”
Both you and Richard and your ilk have reduced the political process in this country to a laughing stock. Your empty screaming matches and hollow talking points only grow more ridiculously self-contradictory by the hour.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Oh, and ND30, if Republicans are so pro-free-market, how come Republican federal politicians and state politicians have passed laws against private catastrophic care insurance? And why did the Republican party vastly expand the government’s role in providing health care with a new, $60 billion annual Medicare prescription drug bill?
See what I mean by “hollow talking points?” Your blather about the free market you supposedly hold dear is about as sincere as Democrats insisting that they’ll hold the line on spending because they’re budget deficit hawks. It’s truly laughable.
posted by Tim on
How about eliminating corporate welfare like farm subsidies ?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Unless, of course, its members of your party who see a social program and pass an unconstitutional ballot initiative with 50.1% of the vote. Then, government is not only the savior of the country in your book, but constitutionalists are “undemocratic” and “against the will of the people.”
Actually, NL, you have an interesting definition of “constitutionalist”, given that you seem to have never seen this section of it.
And frankly, I fail to see where you make a differentiation between government putting in place a “social program” and what the rest of us would call “passing a law”.
Oh, and ND30, if Republicans are so pro-free-market, how come Republican federal politicians and state politicians have passed laws against private catastrophic care insurance?
Really? Where? Links, please — especially since the rules on health savings accounts were just expanded so that they can be more easily-used with catastrophic care plans.
And why did the Republican party vastly expand the government’s role in providing health care with a new, $60 billion annual Medicare prescription drug bill?
Because, NL, by law, the US government is required to cover all hospitalization costs (Part A) for anyone using Medicare. The primary reason ANY insurance plan covers pharmaceutical costs is because it is far cheaper to pay for someone’s cholesterol-lowering drugs than to gamble on having to pay for their triple bypass later.
Furthermore, from a utilization standpoint, Part D (the prescription drug benefit) is very well-designed. It’s not free unless you’re absolutely dirt-poor, you do have to contribute something every time you get drugs, and if you want the more-expensive version, you have to pay more for it. Furthermore, the much-maligned “doughnut hole” is actually a well-designed actuarial construct. If one looks at the average necessary spend for prescription drugs plotted over the number of people when they’re paying for it, it’s a twin-peak graph; the first peak is the average reasonably-healthy person, and the second peak is the catastrophic cases. What the doughnut hole does is to allow Medicare to pay sufficient to cover both the reasonable expected amounts and the catastrophic accounts, but keep people from taking the “someone else is paying for it” attitude by making it clear that they will pay for that which is above and beyond the usual, unless it’s genuinely related to need.
In short, Part D makes a lot of sense — if you know benefits and insurance, and if you go on the assumption that Part A is, for all intents and purposes, fixed in stone.
posted by anon on
For some reason, ND30 seems to mistake corporatists for free marketers. Oil and farm subsidies are a prime example of the corporatist mechanism. Free markets are good, Corporatism is bad mmkay.
As for cars costing 1400 more due to health insurance, I wonder how much less we’d all be paying if we have universal health care so that businesses would no longer need to sweeten deals with health insurance thrown in. As has been mentioned, the rising cost of healthcare is due to poor choices made due to it being considered ‘free’ due to provided health insurance. However, as has not been mentioned, it is also due to the monopoly of the AMA in controlling the supply of physicians which tends to artificially drive costs up. If you have a government sanctioned monopoly acting as the guardians of our health and wellbeing, you can’t exactly fault people for insisting that the government actually provide everyone with healthcare – especially considering how much the AMA has skewed the healthcare market.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Oh, and for Richard’s sake, let’s see him spin Barney Frank’s latest claim…..ethnic cleansing in Louisiana.
posted by dalea on
Actually the differences between the health care costs can be seen. Recently a major Japanese auto maker choose to locate a plant in Ontario rather than Michigan because of the competitive advantage national health insurance gives. Among first world nations, only the US does not have such a system.
And it is not free. People pay a fee to the government for health insurance. Which someone here will immediately yell is a ‘tax’. But it can be statistically demonstrated that as a percentage of GNP, health costs are lower in all cases of national health insurance. And that knowable results are better than under our system. These systems also work without excluding millions of people from the health care system.
I favor national health care since I comprehend that diseases are communicable.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Recently a major Japanese auto maker choose to locate a plant in Ontario rather than Michigan because of the competitive advantage national health insurance gives.
Good. Let them.
What the Canadian government is basically telling Toyota is that it will bear the cost of healthcare and pensions for all of Toyota’s workers, gratis; it will simply raise taxes on the remainder of its citizens to pay for it.
What I find hilarious is that the same people who support this sort of thing are the ones who scream the loudest when American companies allegedly use our existing nationalized system of health care to get a competitive advantage; they call it “corporate welfare” and demand that these businesses be punished.
Furthermore, the reason we pay more for health care in the United States is twofold; one, unlike Canada, we do not have to wait an average of seventeen weeks for treatment; if you want quicker access, you have to pay more for it. Two, we have the option of elective surgeries here; in Canada, the government won’t let you spend the money, since they can block doctors from performing them.
If private insurance companies were allowed to impose the same sort of draconian rules on doctors and health care utilization as does Canada’s system, you would see similar prices. But we put a value on access and choice, and that necessarily comes with a higher cost.
posted by raj on
I was reading the comments here about health care financing (which meant that I had to read NDXXX’s contributions here–ugh) and, for about a minute, I was believing that NDXXX was behaving rationally. I guess I was erred. Silly me.
North Dallas Thirty | January 5, 2007, 11:02pm |
Oh, and for Richard’s sake, let’s see him spin Barney Frank’s latest claim…..ethnic cleansing in Louisiana.
My, my. A citation to a nutcase from National Review.
No, my dear. Ethnic cleansing is not necessarily genocide, as your linked-to article would like to imply. It may be, but not necessarily. But pushing people out of a region–or getting them to leave “voluntarily”–is not the same as killing them. Ethnic cleansing includes genocide, but is what mathematicians would say a “superset,” in that ethnic cleansing includes tactics for removing a population from an area in addition to just–say–killing them.
Killing the undesirable population in an area is probably the most efficient mechanism for ethnic cleansing, and, one might believe, might be the tact prefered by market-oriented ethnic cleansers, but it is probably bad from a public relations standpoint.
On to the health care financing issue.
One, you cite a study by the Fraser Institute that you say (North Dallas Thirty | January 6, 2007, 11:45pm |) indicates that Canadians “have to wait an average of seventeen weeks for treatment.” Um, no, the link that you provided does not say that. What your citation says is “The Fraser Institute?s fifteenth annual waiting list survey found that Canada-wide waiting times for surgical and other therapeutic treatments fell slightly in 2005, making this the first reduction in the total wait for treatment measured in Canada since 1993. Total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner and treatment (presumably by a surgeon or other specialist), averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, fell from 17.9 weeks in 2004 back to the 17.7 weeks last seen in 2003. Your link doesn’t say exactly why the delay–maybe the conditions of most of those who were treated by the GPs in Canada weren’t critical enough to require intervention sooner. Your link also doesn’t say that the delay for treatment was 17 weeks, it said that the delay was between a referral from a general practitioner and treatment by a surgeon or other specialist was 17 weeks. There is a huge difference between what you yourself posted and what your citation actually said.
Moreover, quite frankly, neither this link, nor any other link that you have provided, suggests any comparison between the Canadian experience and the experience of those residing in the US. I’m sure that you, as a polemicist extraordinaire, would like us to take the 17 weeks delay! from your citation as indicating that the US experience would be less, but you provide no evidence of that. What evidence do you have that the 17 weeks delay! experienced in Canada would be any less for similar procedures and similar conditionsin the US? Sorry, but some of us are not innumerate–some of us can read between the lies. (No, that last is not a typo.)
Two, you write Two, we have the option of elective surgeries here; in Canada, the government won’t let you spend the money, since they can block doctors from performing them, the “block doctors from performing them” being a link to an article. On the perhaps rash assumption that you actually read the article that you linked to, and had done a little research, you might have discovered that those who were actually doing the purported “blocking” were a trade organization (other wise known as a “professional association,” “union” or whatever you like) of doctors, not any governmental entity in Canada, and, most likely, the purported “blockage” did not have any force of law. Oh, and, by the way, if you had actually read the article that you linked to, you would have discovered that the issue was not Canada-wide, but was instead an issue of differences in compensation between specialists in Quebec and other provinces in Canada, not between specialists in Canada generally and elsewhere in the world. And, moreover, your purported blockage was nothing more than an urging by the trade organization, professional association, union, or whatever; it was not an order.
You really should read what you link to before you link to it; if you don’t, you run the risk of being shown to be a fool. Oops, sorry, you already have been. Shown to be a fool, that is.
Going up a bit. North Dallas Thirty | January 5, 2007, 1:53am | writes
…the simple fact of the matter is that the curriculum they have jealously guarded and protected from any sort of accountability for all these years is turning out hapless students. (citing a link to the Cincinnati Post). In California, leftist Democrats like Sheila Kuehl demand that school curriculums include in-depth discussions of the sex lives of historical figures, but they fight testing of students in math, science, and reading… (the required “emphasis added”)
It’s interesting that you cited to a two year old article from the Cincinnati Post. I was raised in a northern suburb of Cincinnati in the 1960s (never to return, because of its anti-gay environment, but, whatever), and, I’ll let you know that the very public high school education that I received there allowed me to place out of almost all of my first year at university. A “3” on the AP exam for English, a “4” on the AP exam for chemistry, and a “5” on the AP exam for mathematics (5 is the highest) will do that for you. Unfortunately, my high school didn’t offer AP physics, otherwise I would have placed out of the first year of that, too; can’t have everything.
That’s anecdotal, now to the meat of the issue.
Let’s understand something. One. Your linked-to citation mentions no fewer than ten, count them ten, colleges, universities and various campuses that are within something like a 25 mile radius of Cincinnati–probably less. Two of them (Thomas More College and Xavier University) are private Catholic institutions, and the others are public. What you fail to understand is the fact that, particularly with public colleges, etc., the colleges, etc., they receive reimbursement from the states and localities in which they are located based on the number of students that they have enrolled, regardless of whether the students, when they are admitted, can actually perform college-level work. Based on that, it should be obvious that the colleges, etc., are induced to admit those people who might be less likely to be able to perform college-level work, which means that they might require more help (otherwise known as “remedial education”) to bring them up to speed. Those who succeed with the remedial help might be able to continue with college-level work; those who don’t won’t, but the colleges will be able to get the subvention from the state. I’m sure that even NDXXX would be able to recognize the financial incentive to the institutions that is based on numbers of attendees at the respective institutions; that’s the same incentive given to the local public K-12 school systems for getting the kiddies into seats and to mark them “present,” whether or not they are.
Two. I agree that there is a problem with the American educational system, but the problem is not the one that NDXXX would like to suggest. The problem is that the American educational system is geared to “college prep” style curricula, but most people are not going to succeed at college. The American educational system should provide more opportunities for vocational education than it does. That it doesn’t, means that vocational education is foisted on the colleges, etc., that are mentioned in NDXXX’s link: the actual people who are caught up in the problem likely aren’t interested in college level instruction, they want to be taught a trade. In point of fact, Germany is much better in that regard; it provides for an extensive apprenticeship program of education in lieu of university, and those who graduate from apprenticeships are held in high regard.
So, yes, there are a lot of problems with the American educational system, but not those that NDXXX has mentioned.
Last BTW, in NDXXX’s last few comments, he now claims to be a “businessman.” In his previous impersonations here and elsewhere–most notably at gay”patriot”.net, he has claimed to have been an HR (Human Relations) personnel. So, just is it exactly, that you are? A businessman? Or an HR person? Or is he a “businessman” involved in other issues? Or maybe he is one of those “rah-rah” corporate excitement guys who are supposed to excite the rubes in the company–a “corporate motivator.” Whatever. If he wishes to seduce the corporate guys to hire him, that’s their prerogative and more power to his art of persuading the stupid people in corporate America, of which there are many, to hire him. But it really would be of interest to know whether or not he is one of those people. Why? The obvious issue of his possible bias in issues that you have mentioned here, most if not all of which you have failed to defend.
Some of us who have been on the inside of companies actually know what HR departments exist there for. HR departments exist to protect the companies’ interests, not the interests of the employees or independent contractors. I have no problem with that, presuming that the employees know that, which they usually don’t–although independent contractors are usually a bit more sophisticated. But now, since NDXXX claims to be nothing more than an independent businessman, one wonders: just who exactly are is he working for? Here? If he doesn’t provide his client list so that we may assess his biases, it would be more than an indication that he is nothing more than a troll posting on the dime of those who are paying him, similar to James Glassman’s TechCentralStation. It is beyond me to suppose that a supposedly “independent businessman” such as he claims to be to have spent so much time over the last week or so to have provided so many column inches to the issues posted here, unless he is paid to do so, or unless he is not who he purports to be.
It really would not be surprising if he actually was paid to post comments here. A few years ago, over at the NYTimes gay rights message board, there was a commenter who was obviously paid by the Republicans during the 2000 presidential cycle to disrupt comment threads there. If anyone here was reading there at the time, the poster’s handle was “jdennisson.” And, like NDXXX, jdennisson would spout column inches over the minutiea of the Wholly Babble. Methinks that NDXXX is nothing more than a similar Republican apparatchick, paid to post comments.
Businessman? No. Republican apparatchick? Yes.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Parsing and spinning, Raj, but precious little else.
Barney Frank accused the Bush administration of “ethnic cleansing” in regards to New Orleans. Your denial of his statement and attempt to smear those who reported it is duly noted as an excellent commentary on your partisan blindness.
The average time to wait for treatment in Canada is 17 weeks. You insist that it is longer in the United States. This exposes nicely your utter ignorance and lack of facts relative to your claim (page 71, item 182):
Survey data suggest that there are very low waiting times for elective surgery in the U.S. Blendon et al. (2002) reported the percentage of respondents to a phone survey in 2001, who had experienced elective surgery in the last two years and who said they had waited longer than four months
for elective surgery. It was found that 5% of patients had been waiting for at least 4 months in the United States, as opposed to 23% in Australia, 26% in New Zealand, 27% in Canada and 38% in the United Kingdom. Carroll et al. (1995)found that the percentage of the respondents in need of elective coronary
bypass who had been waiting for more than three months was 0% in U.S., 18.2% in Sweden, 46.7% in Canada, and 88.9% in the United Kingdom. Similarly, Coyte et al. (1994) found that surveyed patients in need of knee replacement had a median waiting time of three weeks in the United States and eight weeks in Canada (Ontario).
As to your insistence that the government is not involved in capping the amount of time doctors can work (and thus cutting off elective surgeries), read, please:
Specialists are still fuming over the decision by Jean Charest’s Liberal government to legislate a work contract that caps potential earnings and enforces work conditions doctors say are contemptible.
As for your spiel on education, a two-tier system would be fine by me. However, by and large, we already have one; they’re called trade schools and technical colleges. The problem is that Democrats keep insisting that we must pump billions more into higher education so that more kids have “opportunities”, even though the data says that many of them will fail miserably.
So, just is it exactly, that you are? A businessman? Or an HR person? Or is he a “businessman” involved in other issues?
Were you more familiar with HR as a profession, Raj, you would be aware of the fact that we are responsible for controlling, managing, enhancing productivity of, and fulfilling business needs for what, to most companies, represents the single largest budget line item and expense they have — their employees. That is why HR is taught as a portion of reputable business curriculums, and why certification in HR requires demonstrable expertise in the areas of finance, law, project and strategic management, and numerous other business-based areas, in addition to the HR core curriculum. My expertise is useless if I cannot analyze, explain, or track it in business terms.
Historically, since HR has been an area dominated by females, misogynistic corporate types like yourself have been quick to downgrade and denigrate it. But in today’s information and innovation-dominated economy, companies must not only select the right employees, they must train, manage, compensate, and take care of them well in order to recognize maximum growth, productivity, and return on investments. That takes a level of business expertise far above the “personnel clerks” that you treated with such disdain, both because you perceived them as being inferior to you and because of their gender.
If he doesn’t provide his client list so that we may assess his biases, it would be more than an indication that he is nothing more than a troll posting on the dime of those who are paying him, similar to James Glassman’s TechCentralStation.
And yet, Raj, nowhere have you provided yours, despite your insistence that it is necessary to be accepted as a commentor and someone who is knowledgeable of what they speak, in addition to identifying their biases. Indeed, you don’t even bother to provide an email address for yourself, whereas I not only have that, but my blog as well.
It is typical of you to demand references when you won’t provide any, or identification when you have none. Therefore, I am quite comfortable with sharing what I have already, and feel no need to play along with your hypocritical frothing and demands.
posted by Herb Spencer on
I doubt that the availability of socialized medicine was the sole reason Toyota located in Toronto, instead of [metro Detroit?] MI. Consider all those other foreign auto plants in the US – is a single one located in, near or atop the remains of a Rust Belt, former smokestack union, stronghold? No, and the reasons they’re not focus more on the quality of the workforce than on the quality of healthcare. Without a reliable, adequately-educated labor pool, manufacturers are lost; it’s a legitimate business consideration that drives them to – or from – areas where the workers can and will supply their needs. Not all the “outreach,” “life skills,” “self esteem” and job training programs in the world can create a competent, reliable and productive workforce from one that is culturally, traditionally, and – worst of all – legally resistant to becoming one. Examine the areas “left behind” and that, sadly, is what you’ll find. And if there’s any remaining doubt, consider their crime rates – which are generally less reflective of economic health than of moral fitness – and it should come as no surprise why these plants are located – and generally thriving – where and as they are.
posted by raj on
Herb Spencer | January 8, 2007, 5:04pm |
Ah, more satire.
For those who might actually believe this,
Consider all those other foreign auto plants in the US – is a single one located in, near or atop the remains of a Rust Belt, former smokestack union, stronghold? No…
In point of fact, the first automotive assembly plant by a Japanese-headquartered automobile company ever was in Marysville Ohio (a bit west of Columbus OH), certainly considered in the “rust belt” generally union-friendly part of the United States. That was Honda in 1982. Subsequently–in 1989–Honda also established an assembly plant in East Liberty OH, also west of Columbus. As far as I can tell, those are the only two Honda assembly plants in the US.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Of course, what is often ignored is that none of Honda’s North American plants are unionized.
And apparently Lincoln, Alabama is no longer part of the United States.
posted by raj on
North Dallas Thirty | January 9, 2007, 2:51pm |
Of course, what is often ignored is that none of Honda’s North American plants are unionized.
Interesting. Is that relevant to the fact that Ohio is in what is generally referred to as the Rust Belt, former smokestack union, stronghold? If so, how?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You may wish to read the article I cited before you start to get snarky with me, Raj.
Another factor in location may have been labor. Northwest Indiana has no automotive plants, and some speculate union activity here steers foreign automobile companies away from the region.
Honda associates historically have not sought to organize, Iida said, and Honda?s American plants are not unionized.
?Clearly, the Japanese-owned auto plants … do not want to be dealing with the unions,? said Dana Smith, the president of the West Lafayette Chamber of Commerce.
In north-central Indiana area, the nonunion factor may have helped land the automobile factory run by Subaru of America Inc., Smith said.
The Tippecanoe County plant broke ground in 1987, and recently announced a subcontracting deal with Toyota Motor Corp. to build the Toyota Camry model.
The Japanese-owned plant, which employs 2,400 people, is nonunion, Smith said.
In other words, the “Rust Belt” is not one gigantic union stronghold. Indeed, if one looks on the map, it becomes noticeable that former union activity tends to be concentrated around the Great Lakes portions of these states; as one travels into the interior and away from the lakes, which is where these Honda and other plants are located, they tend much less towards unions.
The point is this; Honda, Toyota, and Subaru avoid the Chicago/Gary/Detroit/Cleveland/Buffalo corridor like the plague, despite there supposedly being thousands of “experienced” auto workers there, which one would think they’d want to utilize, and actual, existing facilities for auto plants, and tend towards the interiors of those states, where those previously employed by auto companies are few and far between, there are no auto plants, and they have to build everything from scratch.
Bit of a disconnect, don’t you think?
posted by ETJB on
The Libertarian Party seems to have little problems with supporting a Congressman that supports outlawing gay sex or CA state legislators that support banning gay marriage.
(1) The actual raise in the federal minimum wage will likely be rather small. But as some one that actually works at mim wage jobs to pay the bills, every little bit helps.
(2) As it stands now, if you can not afford health insurence then the ‘wait’ for health care is a really, really long time. This would be obvious to anyone that does not have health insurence.
posted by raj on
North Dallas Thirty | January 9, 2007, 5:06pm |
The point is this; Honda, Toyota, and Subaru avoid the Chicago/Gary/Detroit/Cleveland/Buffalo corridor like the plague, despite there supposedly being thousands of “experienced” auto workers there…
Why, that’s very interesting. The fact is, however, that I grew up in the midwest–just north of Cincinnati in the 1960s, by the way, and I can attest for the fact that unions were quite prevalent in the “southern corridor” including Cincinnati, that extended from Pittsburgh, through Stinkyville OH (the steel mills in Steubenville OH), through and through at least major parts of southern Indiana, southern Illinois, and at least into Missouri. You aren’t seriously going to suggest that unions did not exist in that corridor, are you?
I’m not exactly sure what the unionization was in the I-75 (that would be “I” for “Interstate”) corridor between Detroit/Toledo and Cincinnati, which is where Marysville and East Liberty OH are–as far as I could tell, most of it was corn fields–but Marysville was home to Scotts Lawn Products. Whether or not they were unionized, I don’t know. And I don’t believe it is particularly relevant. The point is that Honda chose to locate their auto assembly plants in Ohio, which was not exactly a hotbed of anti-unionism.
BTW, just where do you get the idea that northwest Indiana, which is the only area that your article related to, “supposedly” had “thousands of ‘experienced” auto workers”? Yet again, you are inflating your citation far beyond what it actually says. Yet more dissembling.