For my Libertarian friends

I have to speak with the experience we had in this state with natural gas "deregulation".  Instead of one well regulated statewide gas company the legislation gave us a bunch of gas marketers.  This was supposed to lower prices.  When you introduce a whole crop of competing middlemen, that weren't present before, that doesn't actually happen.  You just introduce another layer of corporate bureaucracy.  Natural gas bills have never been so high in this state and never will be as low again as they were.  The damn gas still is delivered over the same lines.  The original company still looks after the maintenance of those lines.  They're into the gas marketing racket now, too.

You've got a whole confusing range of rates and plans to "choose" from.   Despite the Public Service Commission (largely owned by the private utility corporations through campaign contributions), there's no real way to tell what the cheapest plan is.  The next harebrained Republican utility deregulation scheme will probably go through because too many people in this state are too brain dead.


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 02 2010 at 12:17

Slartibartfast wrote: I have to speak with the experience we had in this state with natural gas "deregulation".  Instead of one well regulated statewide gas company the legislation gave us a bunch of gas marketers.  This was supposed to lower prices.  When you introduce a whole crop of competing middlemen, that weren't present before, that doesn't actually happen.  You just introduce another layer of corporate bureaucracy.  Natural gas bills have never been so high in this state and never will be as low again as they were.  The damn gas still is delivered over the same lines.  The original company still looks after the maintenance of those lines.  They're into the gas marketing racket now, too. You've got a whole confusing range of rates and plans to "choose" from.   Despite the Public Service Commission (largely owned by the private utility corporations through campaign contributions), there's no real way to tell what the cheapest plan is.  The next harebrained Republican utility deregulation scheme will probably go through because too many people in this state are too brain dead.

Yeah, we've got that over here too - finest confidence trick known to modern business - by the time we work out how the scam works they will have cooked up a different one.

Epignosis wrote: Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: Independent contractors do not receive benefits, unemployment compensation, and many other perks full employment requires by law (I myself am an IC).  This saves the city a mint. All well and good as long as you remain employed and don't lose the contract next term. I assume that as a contractor you are supposed to finance those "perks" for yourself out of your salary if you want to be covered. It's not much different than a musician for hire.  Such a musician may agree to play 3 hours at a wedding reception and receive a fixed amount for the services rendered.  Then it's up to the independent contractor to find another gig.  Some gigs just last longer (and are far more profitable) than others. And as I mentioned in other threads related to the subject, I choose not to have insurance, which I believe is a sucker's bet ultimately.  It wasn't even worth it when I was employed as a teacher.

So you've saved up enough money for yourself to take care of whatever illness or injury afflicts you or your family in the future?  Really?


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 02 2010 at 12:18

Epignosis wrote: Nope.  But I'm not going to let some overpriced company do it for me just in case.  $800 a month for a family of four isn't worth it.  (And if I did have that much taxed up, I'm sure some liberal politicians would find a way a tax me out of it).

This is why I support a national not for profit insurance system.  $800 a month for a family of four is ridiculous.  It really is upward redistribution of wealth.  Spread out the insurance costs across all of society cut out the profiteering and I'm quite sure even if you had to contribute to a fund out of pocket it would be much much less.

Are we in it for the common good or only for the love of money?


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 02 2010 at 12:34

Slartibartfast wrote: Epignosis wrote: Nope.  But I'm not going to let some overpriced company do it for me just in case.  $800 a month for a family of four isn't worth it.  (And if I did have that much saved up, I'm sure some liberal politicians would find a way a tax me out of it). This is why I support a national not for profit insurance system.  $800 a month for a family of four is ridiculous.  It really is upward redistribution of wealth.  Spread out the insurance costs across all of society cut out the profiteering and I'm quite sure even if you had to contribute to a fund out of pocket it would be much much less. Are we in it for the common good or only for the love of money?

Such black or white politics- why can't people be taken care of while those who care for them make a profit commiserate with their education and risk?

I support something completely different than the radical for-profit insurance companies OR a national health care system.  As I've said many times before, I think locally run health care systems for general medical needs is achievable, feasible, and worth it in the long run.  We already have it in the form of free clinics- these would just need to be streamlined and expanded.

Another reason why governmental "charity" is precarious and, well, a joke.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100701/ap_on_re_us/us_electric_bill_fraud

A federal program designed to help impoverished families heat and cool their homes wasted more than $100 million paying the electric bills of thousands of applicants who were dead, in prison or living in million-dollar mansions, according to a government investigation.

Epignosis wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Epignosis wrote: Nope.  But I'm not going to let some overpriced company do it for me just in case.  $800 a month for a family of four isn't worth it.  (And if I did have that much saved up, I'm sure some liberal politicians would find a way a tax me out of it). This is why I support a national not for profit insurance system.  $800 a month for a family of four is ridiculous.  It really is upward redistribution of wealth.  Spread out the insurance costs across all of society cut out the profiteering and I'm quite sure even if you had to contribute to a fund out of pocket it would be much much less. Are we in it for the common good or only for the love of money? Such black or white politics- why can't people be taken care of while those who care for them make a profit commiserate with their education and risk? I support something completely different than the radical for-profit insurance companies OR a national health care system.  As I've said many times before, I think locally run health care systems for general medical needs is achievable, feasible, and worth it in the long run.  We already have it in the form of free clinics- these would just need to be streamlined and expanded.

Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Epignosis wrote: Nope.  But I'm not going to let some overpriced company do it for me just in case.  $800 a month for a family of four isn't worth it.  (And if I did have that much saved up, I'm sure some liberal politicians would find a way a tax me out of it). This is why I support a national not for profit insurance system.  $800 a month for a family of four is ridiculous.  It really is upward redistribution of wealth.  Spread out the insurance costs across all of society cut out the profiteering and I'm quite sure even if you had to contribute to a fund out of pocket it would be much much less. Are we in it for the common good or only for the love of money? Such black or white politics- why can't people be taken care of while those who care for them make a profit commiserate with their education and risk? I support something completely different than the radical for-profit insurance companies OR a national health care system.  As I've said many times before, I think locally run health care systems for general medical needs is achievable, feasible, and worth it in the long run.  We already have it in the form of free clinics- these would just need to be streamlined and expanded. Health workers do make profit commensurate () with their education, I'm not so sure that insurrance companies profits are comparable to their risk - they win off both sides of the system.   However, I agree that a scaling down of the "system" is a way forward, not quite to a local level perhaps, but a national level (regardess of the size of the country) it is unwieldly and often top-heavy. Of course that runs the risk of creating a system that is not equal across the country, so you'll have to choose where you want to be sick if you want the some chance of recovery.

I didn't say health workers weren't making that now (and yes, I used the wrong word!  We have two screaming kids here!  ).  All I meant by that remark was just that they should be able to make such a profit, and I don't think a national system (here) would afford them that.  I could be wrong, but even still, I support a local level health care system similar in the way police and firemen are handled (yes, yes...outsourced to independent contractors...).

I need to get back to work. 

Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: I didn't say health workers weren't making that now (and yes, I used the wrong word!  We have two screaming kids here!  ).  All I meant by that remark was just that they should be able to make such a profit, and I don't think a national system (here) would afford them that.  I could be wrong, but even still, I support a local level health care system similar in the way police and firemen are handled (yes, yes...outsourced to independent contractors...). I need to get back to work.  (like you'll get any sympathy from me - wait 'till they become teenagers )   If everyone involved in the health care system earns a living then that's as far as it need to go IMO. If the hospital is privately owned then it should earn a living for it's owners (or a fair return for the shareholders) and the balance used for reinvestment, research, general health-care improvements and to provide free local health care where applicable (by what ever means-test you care to apply, I'm not fussy - no one should die because they cannot afford health care). I wouldn't expect the police force or the fire servce to make a profit - quite the opposite.

And I don't agree with that at all.  Will the people reimburse the shareholders if the hospital becomes insolvent?  No...so the risk/reward makes it not worth trying to open private hospitals.

Fireman and police do not need 8+ years of expensive schooling to do what they do.  Will the government absorb the massive student debt that comes with medical school?

In Florida, hospitals cannot turn you away for medical necessities as far as I know: http://www.doh.state.fl.us/mqa/profiling/billofrights.htm

Slartibartfast wrote: Epignosis wrote: Such black or white politics- why can't people be taken care of while those who care for them make a profit commiserate with their education and risk? Because those who make the profit care more about making the money much much more than taking care.  This leads to taking short cuts at the expense of whatever they were supposed to be taking care of.  Not so much a matter of black and white as human nature.  When we're at our best we can be quite good.  When we are at our most greedy and selfish, the results can be quite bad.

And a government (composed of other human nature) can guarantee this?  I don't think so.