ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:45:50 -0400, "Harold"
wrote:



It's guys like you who are dead set against the private sector succeeding.

we just give the private sector 30 years of one of the most
deregulated economies in history

how'd that work out?

The ability to conceive and deliver a product or service the consumer needs
or wants, leads to job creation and often great wealth to the creator of the
jobs. Win-Win for everyone. Until the union creeps in and removes the
incentive to work hard and EARN merit increases.

there are no unions in the US. you really DO believe all the right
wing bull**** don't you?

uh...let's see...was it unions or WALL STREET that destroyed 10
TRILLION DOLLARS in equity in the last 3 years?

WALLSTREET!

but the right wing still blames the easter bunny

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:58:29 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:02:09 -0400, "Harold"
wrote:




Health insurers do not deliver a product the consumer needs or wants.
Health care is already out there...it exists. Health insurance adds an
unnecessary middle-man factor.


You want to pay for your healthcare out of your own pocket? I suppose that's
fair.

I am curious, who's pocket do you think health care gets paid out of?

Do you really think it is sustainable to have an insurance premium or
tax that is less than the cost of care?
It is true that healthy people pay for the sick, the ones with
unhealthy lifestyles and the hypochondriacs but that is the plan isn't
it?
Medical insurance has been a huge loser for me. I suppose I will get
sick some day but so far I would have been a lot better off if I had
my premiums back and just paid my bills.

i was a hospice volunteer. you're whistling past the cemetery my
friend

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:23:08 -0400, "Harold"
wrote:



Now, thanks to Bam Bam, you get to pay for insuring the heretofore
uninsured and uninsurable.

yeah. we should have let 'em die. who needs the children of the poor
anyhow?

and it prevents the rich from making MORE money!

after all in the past 30 years the richest 1% have had a 500%
increase in income.

the poor deserve to die so the rich can get richer

Many of whom probably subscribe to unhealthy
lifestyles such as Alcohol-Tobacco-Drug-Firearm abuse and or obesity.

more blame the victim.

what an asshole

is any more proof needed tat the right wing HATES america?

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:43:16 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:52:05 -0400, Harry ?
wrote:

Health insurers do not deliver a product the consumer needs or wants.
Health care is already out there...it exists. Health insurance adds an
unnecessary middle-man factor.

... and a huge government bureaucracy wouldn't?

we have the most expensive heatlthcare in the world

and it's all free market. how's that working out?

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:04:18 -0400, wrote:



I guess my problem with the government is their vulnerability to
fraud.

true. after all, wall street is immune to fraud isn't it?

wall street just blew away eleven trillion dollars in equity in this
country

but i'm sure fraud had nothing to do with it.

Medicare is the shining example of a low overhead way to pay
bills, when you ask but their fraud rate is a lot higher than the
private insurers.

yeah. after all we have the most expensive healthcare in the world

that shows how efficient we are, right?

For some reason our government is very susceptible
to getting robbed. (Medicare, DoD procurement, USDA programs,
whatever)

wall street however never robs anyone.

christ every time i see wall street, i think john dillinger was an
amateur

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 00:04:05 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22

in the last 10 years, productivity went up 30%. and NONE of that went
to the middle class

so you tell me: how does the middle class spend money it does not
have?

What is you job in the semi industry. Does it have anything at all to with
with increasing productivity or otherwise reducing cost?

yes to both. i'm a process engineer working in materials science for
equipment applications.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 02:14:17 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:15:15 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

in the last 10 years, productivity went up 30%. and NONE of that went
to the middle class

Productivity went up because they laid off so many people

RING RING RING!!!

someone just rang the BULL**** ALARM!!!

uh no. for most of the last decade the economy was running at full
employment and even THEN the middle class didn't get an increase


so you tell me: how does the middle class spend money it does not
have?

You are starting to see why I fear for out future.
The idea that you can get employers to pay workers more when the
product cost can't go up is not going to happen.

and what happens when costs go DOWN? when productivity goes UP the
COGS goes DOWN.

yet NONE of that got passed to the middle class.

and the right thinks this is great

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:31:33 -0400, wrote:


That has not been the trend. The American public does not appreciate
quality, nor demand service.

well we DO but the right wing, under deregulation, allowed monopolies
like comcast, etc. to spring up with their '**** the consumer'
attitude.

and with 34% of americans being conservative, they're convinced that
god wants them to be poor so they can give their money to the rich


In the late 80s, IBM and most other
industries started a "quality quest" with quality circles, Six Sigma
and ISO 9000.

those programs are still active


The lesson was clear. The American public values a lower price more
than quality, service or even saving American jobs.

that's because the rich having taken ALL the increase in america's
wealth for themselves over the past 30 years, left NOTHING for the
middle class to spend.

where the hell do you get this stuff?

I ask you, do you go to Sam's/BJs/Costco? It is certainly not for the
service or even the quality. It is for the price.

yep. if i made more money i'd go elsewhere. but the right wing has
everyone convinced that the rich need to be protected and the middle
class needs to be starved into submission

you see it here with canuck telling us how worthless the middle class
is...

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 02:20:22 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:16:54 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Yes I know it is different. Europe is figuring out they can't really
afford the welfare state they have created.

ROFLMAO!! and we DONT have their welfare state and are in the same
boat. japan, which has LESS govt spending than we do is in even WORSE
shape

so how does your right wing crystal ball spin THOSE facts?


Japan is easy, they never recovered from the 1990s tech bubble.

now let's see....

govt spending is wrong. proof of that is japan which has a lower govt
spending than the US and a worse economy

why am i not convinced


They also do have things like their cheap medical care program that
runs at a huge government deficit.

and we also have a large amount spent on medical care which crowds out
other spending. we are the only nation in the world to spend over 15%
on medical care

the free market has been VERY inefficient with medical care


The whole continent is looking at huge cuts in government welfare
programs.
Have you been following the news in UK? Parliament is more contentious
than it usually is.

gee. guess which country is LESS redistributionist than the US is?

could it be the UK?

Yet they are in the throws of a severe austerity program that may
become the model for the rest of the west.

ireland beat them to it.

and ireland's economy continues to collapse at a faster rate than ever

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 02:23:50 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:18:00 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:53:40 -0400, wrote:




I am saying the same thing you just said. Taxes are going to go up. It
would behoove people to lock in their gains at the lower rate but if
many people try to do it, the gains will go away. That is the classic
game of chicken. I just think the cliff is in December so the question
is only, "when do you jump out of the car"?

in the last 30 years the richest 1% have had a 500% REAL increase in
income.

any reason they SHOULDNT pay more taxes?

I think they should but as long as they are pumping close to a billion
into an election cycle, the whores in DC are not going to do it.

dunno...the dems are pushing to keep the middle class tax cuts and
increase them on the rich. but the right isnt' buying it


I only have to point to the health care bill. After lots of promises
to help the little guy, the Senate let a couple of UHC lobbyists write
a bill that simply handed 20-30 million new customers into the
existing system ... at the point of a government gun.

yep. the price of closing off a right wing filibuster

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

Harry  wrote:
On 7/25/10 7:27 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:41:03 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:13:42 -0400, wrote:

gee. the germans have a world class export based economy that's
HEAVILY unionized.

the US, with NO unions, is not.


Yeah, and such powerful unions they are.
This union factory worker makes $22,000 a year and the government
taxes more than half of that away for things like his "free" health
care.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...M&refer=europe


german purchasing power parity is on a level with US PPP when compared
on a per hour basis

the difference is that europeans go more for quality of life.
americans, slaves to their companies, have no choice but to work at
least 200 more hours per year than their european counterparts



Those who oppose providing decent quality healthcare and decent
retirement possibilities for lower-income workers have no ideas that
will improve the lives of these families. A large percentage of
lower-income workers simply don't have the ability to climb up the
ladder since they must devote all of their time to survival.

Instituting higher tax rates on those who can afford them is a way to
provide the poorer among us with a better quality of life. That, and
cutting the military budget in half would do the job, I am sure.
The sad truth is that low income families often breed low income
children - or worse - who have the same work ethic they do. Money would
be better spent educating these children and holding their parents
accountable for their attendance. People who are criminals or simply
lazy and choose to fail in life don't deserve the same SS check as those
who worked for their entire lives.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

Harry  wrote:
On 7/25/10 8:18 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 12:48:37 -0400, Harry
wrote:

What do you expect the working poor to do, w'hine, to help you hang
onto
more of your dollars? Get sick and die? Miss an entire day of work to
sit in a hospital ER for a flu shot? Live in a cardboard box when they
are pushed out of their job and there aren't any more jobs?

What did they do 100 years ago ?



They got sick and they died, w'hine. Is that what you want to say to
those who cannot afford decent medical care or a respectable
retirement...just...die? Poor people are just a commodity to your
type, eh? Use 'em up and then discard them by the side of the road.

Darwinism....

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

Harry  wrote:
On 7/25/10 8:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:45:09 -0400, Harry
wrote:

since the
Constitution didn't discuss providing decent health care for the poor,
there was no rationale for doing it...or something like that.

There is no rationale for the federal government to do it. That is
very clear.


Sure there is...you just don't accept the concept of decency towards
your fellow man and woman.
Now *that's* funny coming from you, WAFA.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

Harry  wrote:
On 7/25/10 10:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:41:14 -0400, Harry
wrote:

Sure there is...you just don't accept the concept of decency towards
your fellow man and woman.

Decency is admirable. That doesn't make it the job of the federal
government however. You can't legislate decency and government is
absolutely the wrong place to try and provide it.



Government is nothing more than people and their policies. I still
haven't seen any reasonable ideas from you that would help low-income
workers secure decent health care coverage or a decent retirement,
when every dime they earn goes to feed and shelter themselves and
their families. The days of upward mobility for tens of millions of
workers are pretty much over.
Maybe John Kerry has a "plan". He was the King of plans...

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

Harry  wrote:


Right...because the private sector has been doing so much of late to
create jobs...

Actually, I'd prefer we get the health care insurers out of the health
care insurance business altogether...they serve no useful purpose.
You won't see that in your lifetime. The government can't handle
delivering mail without losing billions and we all know how well SS is
doing. My government approved retirement age will be 95 by the time I
can take a penny of what I've put into that screwed up system.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

Harry  wrote:
On 7/26/10 10:45 AM, Harold wrote:
"Harry wrote in message
...
On 7/26/10 10:28 AM, Harold wrote:
"Harry wrote in message
...
On 7/25/10 10:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:41:14 -0400, Harry
wrote:

Sure there is...you just don't accept the concept of decency
towards
your fellow man and woman.

Decency is admirable. That doesn't make it the job of the federal
government however. You can't legislate decency and government is
absolutely the wrong place to try and provide it.



Government is nothing more than people and their policies. I still
haven't
seen any reasonable ideas from you that would help low-income workers
secure decent health care coverage or a decent retirement, when every
dime
they earn goes to feed and shelter themselves and their families. The
days
of upward mobility for tens of millions of workers are pretty much
over.

If only them thar people up there in Washington would start acting
decently
and responsibly to serve the needs of ALL the people. The first
thing the
Govt. needs to do is get out of the jobs and cars and healthcare
businesses
and plant the seeds for entrapanerial ventures that create products
and
jobs.

Earn a dollar, then spend a dollar. That's the way it should be done.



Right...because the private sector has been doing so much of late to
create jobs...

Actually, I'd prefer we get the health care insurers out of the health
care insurance business altogether...they serve no useful purpose.


It's guys like you who are dead set against the private sector
succeeding.
The ability to conceive and deliver a product or service the consumer
needs
or wants, leads to job creation and often great wealth to the creator
of the
jobs. Win-Win for everyone. Until the union creeps in and removes the
incentive to work hard and EARN merit increases.


Do you insure your car, your gentleman's estate, your boat, your
life? Why
not your health?



Health insurers do not deliver a product the consumer needs or wants.
Health care is already out there...it exists. Health insurance adds an
unnecessary middle-man factor.
The same could be said about car insurers or home/property insurers. I
realize both include liability (tort) insurance but that's another topic.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

Harry  wrote:
On 7/26/10 11:43 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:52:05 -0400, Harry
wrote:

Health insurers do not deliver a product the consumer needs or wants.
Health care is already out there...it exists. Health insurance adds an
unnecessary middle-man factor.

... and a huge government bureaucracy wouldn't?


It wouldn't have to, would it? Remember, I am an advocate of the swiss
system, in which the basic plans offered are all the same, and could
easily be administered (claims received, claims paid) by a non-profit
third party, since procedures and medications would be covered or not,
and lists would be circulated and coded. If you want additional
coverages, and many would, private insurance companies could sell
those separately through a regulated process.

I advocate dumping the current health care payment process and coming
up with something entirely different.


"something"...sounds like the current bill that will never be
implemented without a huge overhaul, if ever.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

Harry  wrote:
On 7/26/10 12:04 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:49:23 -0400, Harry
wrote:

On 7/26/10 11:43 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:52:05 -0400, Harry
wrote:

Health insurers do not deliver a product the consumer needs or wants.
Health care is already out there...it exists. Health insurance
adds an
unnecessary middle-man factor.

... and a huge government bureaucracy wouldn't?


It wouldn't have to, would it? Remember, I am an advocate of the swiss
system, in which the basic plans offered are all the same, and could
easily be administered (claims received, claims paid) by a non-profit
third party, since procedures and medications would be covered or not,
and lists would be circulated and coded. If you want additional
coverages, and many would, private insurance companies could sell those
separately through a regulated process.

I advocate dumping the current health care payment process and
coming up
with something entirely different.

I guess my problem with the government is their vulnerability to
fraud. Medicare is the shining example of a low overhead way to pay
bills, when you ask but their fraud rate is a lot higher than the
private insurers. For some reason our government is very susceptible
to getting robbed. (Medicare, DoD procurement, USDA programs,
whatever)
Perhaps the Swiss are just more honest.


Sadly, we tolerate fraud. Look at government defense contracting.
And unions.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:28:09 -0400, "Harold"
wrote:



If only them thar people up there in Washington would start acting decently
and responsibly to serve the needs of ALL the people. The first thing the
Govt. needs to do is get out of the jobs and cars and healthcare businesses
and plant the seeds for entrapanerial ventures that create products and

the govt IS out of the healthcare business for most people

that's why healthcare is so expensive and doesnt cover everyone. it's
known as a 'market failure


Is social security also a "market failure"?

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:45:50 -0400, "Harold"
wrote:



It's guys like you who are dead set against the private sector succeeding.

we just give the private sector 30 years of one of the most
deregulated economies in history

how'd that work out?


The ability to conceive and deliver a product or service the consumer needs
or wants, leads to job creation and often great wealth to the creator of the
jobs. Win-Win for everyone. Until the union creeps in and removes the
incentive to work hard and EARN merit increases.

there are no unions in the US. you really DO believe all the right
wing bull**** don't you?

uh...let's see...was it unions or WALL STREET that destroyed 10
TRILLION DOLLARS in equity in the last 3 years?

WALLSTREET!

but the right wing still blames the easter bunny


Who, in your bizarre mind, comprises this group you call "Wallstreet" sic?

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:04:18 -0400, wrote:




I guess my problem with the government is their vulnerability to
fraud.

true. after all, wall street is immune to fraud isn't it?

wall street just blew away eleven trillion dollars in equity in this
country

but i'm sure fraud had nothing to do with it.

Medicare is the shining example of a low overhead way to pay

bills, when you ask but their fraud rate is a lot higher than the
private insurers.

yeah. after all we have the most expensive healthcare in the world

that shows how efficient we are, right?

For some reason our government is very susceptible

to getting robbed. (Medicare, DoD procurement, USDA programs,
whatever)

wall street however never robs anyone.

christ every time i see wall street, i think john dillinger was an
amateur

You *see* wall street? Do you live in NY?

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:46:22 -0400, Larry wrote:

Harry ? wrote:



Sadly, we tolerate fraud. Look at government defense contracting.

And unions.

the US has no unions

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:51:15 -0400, Larry wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:04:18 -0400, wrote:



to getting robbed. (Medicare, DoD procurement, USDA programs,
whatever)

wall street however never robs anyone.

christ every time i see wall street, i think john dillinger was an
amateur

You *see* wall street? Do you live in NY?

about 80 miles away. and i'm a regular at USCG station sandy hook in
NY harbor...

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:39:43 -0400, Larry wrote:

Harry ? wrote:
On 7/26/10 10:45 AM, Harold wrote:

Health insurers do not deliver a product the consumer needs or wants.
Health care is already out there...it exists. Health insurance adds an
unnecessary middle-man factor.


The same could be said about car insurers or home/property insurers. I
realize both include liability (tort) insurance but that's another topic.

look up the concept of elasticity in economics

hint:

-the mechanic says it's gonna cost $40K to fix your car. you gonna do
it?

-the doctor says 40K to save your life? you gonna do it?

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:49:03 -0400, Larry wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:45:50 -0400, "Harold"
wrote:



uh...let's see...was it unions or WALL STREET that destroyed 10
TRILLION DOLLARS in equity in the last 3 years?

WALLSTREET!

but the right wing still blames the easter bunny


Who, in your bizarre mind, comprises this group you call "Wallstreet" sic?

WTF??

now the right is denying wall street even EXiSTS!!

wild!

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:36:11 -0400, Larry wrote:

Harry ? wrote:


Right...because the private sector has been doing so much of late to
create jobs...

Actually, I'd prefer we get the health care insurers out of the health
care insurance business altogether...they serve no useful purpose.


You won't see that in your lifetime. The government can't handle
delivering mail without losing billions and we all know how well SS is
doing.

and in the last three years

wall street lost 11 TRILLION dollars

you were saying?

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:47:42 -0400, Larry wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:28:09 -0400, "Harold"
wrote:



If only them thar people up there in Washington would start acting decently
and responsibly to serve the needs of ALL the people. The first thing the
Govt. needs to do is get out of the jobs and cars and healthcare businesses
and plant the seeds for entrapanerial ventures that create products and

the govt IS out of the healthcare business for most people

that's why healthcare is so expensive and doesnt cover everyone. it's
known as a 'market failure


Is social security also a "market failure"?

actually it cured a market failure problem

do you know why it exists?

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:19:12 -0400, Larry wrote:

Harry ? wrote:
On 7/25/10 7:27 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:41:03 -0400, wrote:



german purchasing power parity is on a level with US PPP when compared
on a per hour basis


Instituting higher tax rates on those who can afford them is a way to
provide the poorer among us with a better quality of life. That, and
cutting the military budget in half would do the job, I am sure.

The sad truth is that low income families often breed low income
children - or worse - who have the same work ethic they do.

oh brother...more hatred of the middle class. and the rich? how do
their children turn out?

well let's see...in the last 10 years the children of the poor and
middle class went to afghanistan to protect our country from attack

the children of the rich sucked 11 trillion dollars out of the economy
and destroyed the middle class

and he says the problem is with the poor and middle class

me? i'd rather spend a year with the kids in the USCG than a day with
a wall street manager

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On 7/26/10 8:07 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:19:12 -0400, wrote:

Harry ? wrote:
On 7/25/10 7:27 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:41:03 -0400, wrote:



german purchasing power parity is on a level with US PPP when compared
on a per hour basis


Instituting higher tax rates on those who can afford them is a way to
provide the poorer among us with a better quality of life. That, and
cutting the military budget in half would do the job, I am sure.



The sad truth is that low income families often breed low income
children - or worse - who have the same work ethic they do.





oh brother...more hatred of the middle class. and the rich? how do
their children turn out?

well let's see...in the last 10 years the children of the poor and
middle class went to afghanistan to protect our country from attack

the children of the rich sucked 11 trillion dollars out of the economy
and destroyed the middle class

and he says the problem is with the poor and middle class

me? i'd rather spend a year with the kids in the USCG than a day with
a wall street manager



Jesus...Larry, the latest iteration of Slimeball Dan Krueger, DK, Bob,
et cetera, never ceases to amaze with his total lack of humanity. And
his assumption that low income folks have a problem with their work
ethic is just...stunning. It's no wonder these righties work so very
hard at concealing their identities...if they didn't, they'd be getting
their noses punched regularly.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:15:36 -0400, Harry ?
wrote:

On 7/26/10 8:07 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:19:12 -0400, wrote:





oh brother...more hatred of the middle class. and the rich? how do
their children turn out?

well let's see...in the last 10 years the children of the poor and
middle class went to afghanistan to protect our country from attack

the children of the rich sucked 11 trillion dollars out of the economy
and destroyed the middle class

and he says the problem is with the poor and middle class

me? i'd rather spend a year with the kids in the USCG than a day with
a wall street manager



Jesus...Larry, the latest iteration of Slimeball Dan Krueger, DK, Bob,
et cetera, never ceases to amaze with his total lack of humanity. And
his assumption that low income folks have a problem with their work
ethic is just...stunning. It's no wonder these righties work so very
hard at concealing their identities...if they didn't, they'd be getting
their noses punched regularly.

the more you pin their asses to the wall, the more their hatred of the
middle class comes out.

canuck tells us how lazy we are...and how good and pure wall street
is.

now we got this idiot telling us the middle class is expendable 'cuz
they can always have babies...

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On 7/26/10 8:29 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:51:27 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:52:05 -0400, Harry
wrote:

Health insurers do not deliver a product the consumer needs or wants.
Health care is already out there...it exists. Health insurance adds an
unnecessary middle-man factor.

... and a huge government bureaucracy wouldn't?

The "huge gov't bureaucracy" has much lower overhead than private companies.

... and a fraud rate that more than makes up for the difference. You
can't really believe the overhead rate for SS anyway since a
significant part of the "payables" accounting is done by the part B
provider.
The IRS is their accounts receivable department.


And your solution in your world of moral equivalency is...???
Sometimes I get the impression you are on the edge of promulgating
anarchy... :?)

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On 7/26/10 8:28 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:15:36 -0400, Harry
wrote:

On 7/26/10 8:07 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:19:12 -0400, wrote:





oh brother...more hatred of the middle class. and the rich? how do
their children turn out?

well let's see...in the last 10 years the children of the poor and
middle class went to afghanistan to protect our country from attack

the children of the rich sucked 11 trillion dollars out of the economy
and destroyed the middle class

and he says the problem is with the poor and middle class

me? i'd rather spend a year with the kids in the USCG than a day with
a wall street manager



Jesus...Larry, the latest iteration of Slimeball Dan Krueger, DK, Bob,
et cetera, never ceases to amaze with his total lack of humanity. And
his assumption that low income folks have a problem with their work
ethic is just...stunning. It's no wonder these righties work so very
hard at concealing their identities...if they didn't, they'd be getting
their noses punched regularly.

the more you pin their asses to the wall, the more their hatred of the
middle class comes out.

canuck tells us how lazy we are...and how good and pure wall street
is.

now we got this idiot telling us the middle class is expendable 'cuz
they can always have babies...



Hatred for those in middle and lower income categories...

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:41:16 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:56:22 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

i was a hospice volunteer. you're whistling past the cemetery my
friend

I have seen that show several times. If I get that sick I am punching
out long before it goes that far.

the right wing prolifers won't let you. your life is valuable when
you're dying and in pain.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:44:25 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:04:32 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 02:14:17 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:15:15 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

in the last 10 years, productivity went up 30%. and NONE of that went
to the middle class

Productivity went up because they laid off so many people

RING RING RING!!!

someone just rang the BULL**** ALARM!!!

uh no. for most of the last decade the economy was running at full
employment and even THEN the middle class didn't get an increase


I know drywall hangers and carpenters who were making $70,000 a year.
Maybe you just had the wrong job.

more right wing bull****

while the right wing has their little fairy tales about paper hangers,
logical people deal in evidence

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...the-day-6.html

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:49:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Medical insurance has been a huge loser for me. I suppose I will get
sick some day but so far I would have been a lot better off if I had
my premiums back and just paid my bills.

Because you can predict the future? The point of insurance is to have a
hedge against the future. All it takes is one catastrophic illness to
destroy your savings.


The problem then becomes "preexisting conditions" then doesn't it.
We vitrified insurance companies for not wanting to take on sick
people who avoided buying insurance until they were sick and now you
are explaining what that was a problem.

?? The new law eliminates the preexisting conditions bs (not immediately for
everyone, but eventually). How does that become a grabbag for insurance
companies? Why is it in the law if the lobbyists wrote the law?

Once someone has a chronic disease it is not really insurance anyway.
It is just a maintenance program. The same is true of drug coverage
for people who will be taking pills for the rest of their life. At
that point, the best we can hope for is a broker that can negotiate
the best price. I am not sure that will be the government. (home of
the $800 hammer and thousand dollar toilet seat)

It's generally considered a preventive measure so things don't get worse,
like a premature death. The gov't can't be any worse than the drug
companies, who inflate the prices. How about the $8 aspirin? There's an
accounting justification for that...

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:56:22 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

i was a hospice volunteer. you're whistling past the cemetery my
friend

I have seen that show several times. If I get that sick I am punching
out long before it goes that far.


You won't be able to. Don't you remember Terri Shiavo? BS brought to you by
rightwing nuts in Congress.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:38:40 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:38:35 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I only have to point to the health care bill. After lots of promises
to help the little guy, the Senate let a couple of UHC lobbyists write
a bill that simply handed 20-30 million new customers into the
existing system ... at the point of a government gun.

UHC lobbyists didn't write the bill. They had too much input, but it's a
right-wing conspiracy that they wrote it.

Cite that. I cited the allegation, you have not proved it was wrong.

here's a chart of industries that lobbied on the bill

http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/1953/

insurance companies were 4th on the list

strange. i find no reference at all to your claim

OTOH we do know that wall street CEO's routinely meet with GOP
lawmakers...behind closed doors...

then these guys oppose obama's regulation of wall street.

what a coincidence!!

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:51:27 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:52:05 -0400, Harry ?
wrote:

Health insurers do not deliver a product the consumer needs or wants.
Health care is already out there...it exists. Health insurance adds an
unnecessary middle-man factor.

... and a huge government bureaucracy wouldn't?

The "huge gov't bureaucracy" has much lower overhead than private
companies.

... and a fraud rate that more than makes up for the difference. You
can't really believe the overhead rate for SS anyway since a
significant part of the "payables" accounting is done by the part B
provider.
The IRS is their accounts receivable department.

And, your alternative is to turn over the care of the elderly to corporate
America? Those lovely people like those at BP, who lied and continue to lie.
I think I'd rather have a bureaucrat and some federal agents on my side.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:58:20 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:23:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The guys who operate them don't need near as much skill as the worker
they replaced and the robot does a more consistent job.

Not necessarily. The person who now controls a whole production line
from
a
control room has to be highly skilled.


That is said by a person who doesn't understand how long it takes to
learn to be a machinist or even a good welder.
The computer operator can learn his job in a week. Most of the
processes are actually monitored by another computer. There are
usually a couple of techs around who have a bit of training but not as
much as you would suspect. These machines are like most of the
computer industry. It is cheaper to replace whole assemblies than to
fix them.
We called it "cut open the box" technology.

I don't think you know me well enough to make such a statement. There is
extensive training for many, many professions, including computer
"operator"
(sounds like you're not to familiar with those requirements).

I have spent more time in computer rooms that you have on the planet.

Yet, you claim that someone who is minimally trained can operate an assembly
line system? I don't think so.




so you tell me: how does the middle class spend money it does not
have?

You are starting to see why I fear for out future.
The idea that you can get employers to pay workers more when the
product cost can't go up is not going to happen.

Well, fear is the operative word. Product cost can go up if the quality
is
better and/or it has better features/functionality.


That has not been the trend. The American public does not appreciate
quality, nor demand service. In the late 80s, IBM and most other
industries started a "quality quest" with quality circles, Six Sigma
and ISO 9000. The holy grail was to emulate Sony.

Actually, that has been the trend, whatever that means. There are lots of
American made, high quality products that sell fine.


What would they be?

Without really thinking about it, how about planes? Plenty besides that.
I'll let you do the research.

That was quickly replaced with a philosophy of "market driven quality"
and the model became WalMart. We were all marched into a room, given a
bag of M&Ms and told to evaluate them. It turned out there were not
even the same number in each bag and there were defects in at least
half of them,. (true story) Everyone was still happy with the quality
and was not interested in paying more for better quality control.
The whole company was moving in that direction. We even got new hats
http://gfretwell.com/electrical/mdq.jpg

It's easy to id an anecdote and claim that is the general case, but that
doesn't make it so.


see below

The lesson was clear. The American public values a lower price more
than quality, service or even saving American jobs.
I ask you, do you go to Sam's/BJs/Costco? It is certainly not for the
service or even the quality. It is for the price.

Actually, I go to Costco because of the customer service. If something
breaks, they don't hassle you at all. The quality is pretty much the same
as
you would find elsewhere, especially for things like cameras/computers,
even
some clothing. Most people go there for the wholesale quantities.


OK so how many people do you think they employ per customer and do you
really think those people understand the products they sell?

Which has nothing to do with customer service in the case cited.

Maybe you are not old enough to remember stores that specialized in
various products and had people who actually knew a little more about
them but which aisle they are on.

I have a friend who owns a family fireplace insert store. They do just fine,
sell high quality products that are US made, and they service them
themselves.

Big box stores are great if they have what you want but they only
stock things they can get in bulk and that they have the best margin
on at a cheap price.

We were talking about customer service. I don't shop in Wal-Mart even though
they have great prices. I don't like their lack of customer service for one
thing.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:04:32 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 02:14:17 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:15:15 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

in the last 10 years, productivity went up 30%. and NONE of that went
to the middle class

Productivity went up because they laid off so many people

RING RING RING!!!

someone just rang the BULL**** ALARM!!!

uh no. for most of the last decade the economy was running at full
employment and even THEN the middle class didn't get an increase


I know drywall hangers and carpenters who were making $70,000 a year.
Maybe you just had the wrong job.



Was there a problem with that? If they do quality work, why shouldn't they
get paid for it?