Recently a story was in our local paper about another Ponzi scheme, this time engineered by some guy who is involved in the racing business. It is said that he bilked millions out of people.
OK, if the people were put into the fake "investments" by some financial advisor they thought they caould trust, then I probably feel sorry for them.
However, so far the people who say they lost money in the scheme got involved on their own. So, sorry, my giva-a-damn IS busted!
Why? Because the people who just handed over wads of cash to the swindler did it because they thought they were "special". They thought that because they were special they were being allowed to invest their money. They thought that no one else knew about the investments, that they were singled out by the swindler becuse they were special and DESERVED to make something like 18% on their investment.
Well, they were right, they ARE special. In the sense that some kids ride the "special" bus!
IMHO, those who lost their money (and one guy claims he lost everything he had) DESERVED to lose out! Anyone so arrogant that they think they are so special they deserve to make about ten times what everyone else makes on investments SHOULD lose their money.
And those who are SO stupid that they thought a return of 18% was even possible BELONG on the "special bus"? Maybe that is where they will wind up, especially if they lost everything!
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
ATTENTION: Car Manufacturers
How can the auto makers get back on track and start pumping up the economy again?
How about this idea. There are MILLIONS of people in this country who, for one reason or another, simply CANNO get the financing to purchase a brand new vehicle. Maybe they have a glitch on their credit report. Maybe their income is pretty low. Maybe they are in the middle of a divorce, with resulting credit problems. Maybe money is just not being loaned by the banks. Whatever.
How about bringing those people right into the new car marketplace?
OK, so what if they have a glitch on their credit. They STILL probably need a vehicle, and in many, many cases they are forced to buy from one of those payday loan places. That means the buyer is paying about DOUBLE the interest rate that someone who buys a new vehicle is paying, PLUS they are often getting some clunker that will barely keep running long enough for the buyer to make half the payments due. In MANY, MANY cases such buyers are paying hundreds of dollars EVERY TWO WEEKS and still are getting crap for their money.
So, how about this. Let such buyers bring, to a DEALERSHIP, proof that they have been making the usurious payments, for 6 months, on a regular basis (no late payments) Then, take the clunker in trade, work out some deal to pay it off at a REAL value (the payday guys need to get real on this, we all know they are making their profit in about the first six months anyway!) , not the inflated price the payday motors charged, and sell the buyer a brand new vehicle.
Even if such buyers were charged a slightly higher rate of interest, their payments would probably be substantially lower than what they are already paying at the payday motors, thus they would not be as strapped for cash and much more likely to keep up the payments.
And, since this would result in MANY more units sold, it could not help but start the automakers on the road to recovery.
So, GM, Ford and Chrysler, take heed. If YOU guys start making more sales to those who otherwise would not be able to buy a new vehicle, that means YOU would be selling more new vehicles!!!! Live dangerously. Do the right thing. It cannot possibly cause more financial woes than what you already have!
Get your act together, make vehicles available to EVERYONE, and start paying back the public money you have taken!!!
How about this idea. There are MILLIONS of people in this country who, for one reason or another, simply CANNO get the financing to purchase a brand new vehicle. Maybe they have a glitch on their credit report. Maybe their income is pretty low. Maybe they are in the middle of a divorce, with resulting credit problems. Maybe money is just not being loaned by the banks. Whatever.
How about bringing those people right into the new car marketplace?
OK, so what if they have a glitch on their credit. They STILL probably need a vehicle, and in many, many cases they are forced to buy from one of those payday loan places. That means the buyer is paying about DOUBLE the interest rate that someone who buys a new vehicle is paying, PLUS they are often getting some clunker that will barely keep running long enough for the buyer to make half the payments due. In MANY, MANY cases such buyers are paying hundreds of dollars EVERY TWO WEEKS and still are getting crap for their money.
So, how about this. Let such buyers bring, to a DEALERSHIP, proof that they have been making the usurious payments, for 6 months, on a regular basis (no late payments) Then, take the clunker in trade, work out some deal to pay it off at a REAL value (the payday guys need to get real on this, we all know they are making their profit in about the first six months anyway!) , not the inflated price the payday motors charged, and sell the buyer a brand new vehicle.
Even if such buyers were charged a slightly higher rate of interest, their payments would probably be substantially lower than what they are already paying at the payday motors, thus they would not be as strapped for cash and much more likely to keep up the payments.
And, since this would result in MANY more units sold, it could not help but start the automakers on the road to recovery.
So, GM, Ford and Chrysler, take heed. If YOU guys start making more sales to those who otherwise would not be able to buy a new vehicle, that means YOU would be selling more new vehicles!!!! Live dangerously. Do the right thing. It cannot possibly cause more financial woes than what you already have!
Get your act together, make vehicles available to EVERYONE, and start paying back the public money you have taken!!!
Saturday, July 18, 2009
What is the problem with working on health care reform?
WHAT is wrong with Congress that they cannot seem to work out some plan for health care reform?
And WHY do they keep telling us that any plan will most likely raise our taxes by a great amount?
Is it just to scare us so they can avoid doing any reform work? Is it as a sop to the insurance companies, who provide so much in the way of campaign contributions?
First, our present system works like this. MILLIONS of people have 'private' health insurance. That is, those people either belong to some "plan" through their employer or they have coverage that they totally pay for out-of-pocket.
Second, the present system is FOR PROFIT. That means the insurance companies, using the PREMIUMS paid by the insured, pay a negotiated amount for every covered service. THAT means the insurance companies make a deal with all the doctors (and other providers) who participate in any given plan, to pay a certain percentage of the billed amount for office visits, surgeries, any kind of treatments etc. provided by doctors.
That means that if your DOCTOR charges $100 for an office visit, the insurace company may negotiate with the doctor to pay $65 for each office visit, and you (the insured) pay a co-pay of $10-30 (or more) for each office visit. What THAT means is that your doctor agrees to accept the amount the company will pay, PLUS your co-pay as total payment for the office visit, even though a person with NO insurance must pay the entire $100.
Please pay attention!
The same applies to ALL medical care. Hospitals negotiate. Other providers (like labs, imaging facilities etc) ALL negotiate how much they will accept from the COMPANY and how much your CO-PAY will be.
Now, the premiums you pay to the company are called PREMIUMS for a reason. A premium is an amount of money paid OVER AND ABOVE the cost of some goods or services! THAT means that your insurance company, after negotiating what THEY will pay to your care providers, and after perhaps not APPROVING some treatments (no matter how necessary) and after PAYING for every charge for some good or service they have negotiated, ARE MAKING A HUGE PROFIT. THAT means that even after ALL medical claims are PAID, the insurance company is still getting RICH off the backs of those who pay the PREMIUMS (YOU!!!!)
Now, with reference to who makes the decisions for your health care. Is there ANYONE who thinks that for every single claim you have for some medical office visit, treatment, prescription, etc, there is some DOCTOR who sits in an office and decides if the treatment, medication etc is NECESSARY and thus will be paid for? DREAM ON.
The way it works is this. A board of doctors or some medical group decides on what treatments, medications, etc to PAY FOR, how much (by negotiating) will be paid for each thing. THEN, when a CLAIM is filed by your provider (doctor, imaging office, pharmacist, etc) a CLAIME SPECIALIST (a CLERK) processes the claim! A doctor does NOT make your medical decisions (as fas as the insurance company is concerned)! The decisions are made WAY IN ADVANCE, and apply to EVERYONE, not just you. And YOUR DOCTOR makes decisions sometimes based on what your PLAN will cover! Patients also make decisions for their own care based on what their plan will pay!
So, based on criteris set for the entire GROUP, the claims specialist processes the claim, and determines (based on your PLAN) how much will be paid, or if the claim will be paid at all or denied for some reason. And even after paying all the CLERKS to process claims, the insurance companies are STILL making a huge PROFIT.
So, what THAT means is thatYOU are not only paying for the medical care you receive from doctors, for the medications you get from your pharmacist, but also for all the expenses of running the insurance companies (paying the salaries of all the clerks etc) AND creating a huge profit for the insurance companies that enables the CEOs and head honchos to get RICH and creates a HUGE profit for the shareholders in the insurance companies. YOU ARE PAYING FOR THAT.
So, let's look at how a single payer, government national health plan would work, if organized correctly.
First, a BOARD OF DOCTORS and medical professionals (just like in the current system) would make decisions about acceptable treatments and medications that would be paid for under a single payer system. In other words, it would be based on exactly the same criteria as our present system. And no, a doctor will NOT be sitting in some office processing claims. A CLERK would do so. JUST LIKE OUR PRESENT SYSTEM!!!!! And, just luke our present system, our DOCTORS (and we the patients) might often make decisionos on treatment plans and medications, based on the items allowed by the PLAN!
Second, ALL the people covered under such a plan could pay SOMETHING toward the cost of the plan. Employed people could pay a premium (and possible LESS than they are currently paying) to be covered. Employers could pay a portion of the cost, exactly like they do now, except perhaps somewhat less than they currently pay. Why could the premiums be less? Becausae the COST of the national system would ONLY be to (1) pay those who process claims, the clerks, and (2) the cost to pay the doctors and pharmacists etc for the actual care. There would NOT be that huge profit that SOMEONE (you) now have to pay for. This would also allow SMALL employers and their employees to pay into the system for coverage. RATES could be somewhat based on the size of the employer's company, much as the premiums for coverage under our present system. (large employers negotiate a much better rate than a small company)
Now, for perhaps the most controversial part of national health care. Who will pay for the unemployed, the indigent, the elderly, the really poor and all those 'not on the grid' who could not even afford small premiums for national coverage. Well, who pays for them now?
WE ALL DO.
Under our present system those without coverage are getting health care from a number of umbrella agencies. Clinics, medicaid, emergency room visits, etc.
And, remember, we ALL pay for health care for EVERYONE in our plan, if we have private comverage!
Think not? Ask yourself this. If you work for a company for 20 years, and never once have to see a doctor, but have paid health care plan premiums for those 20 years, what happens to the money? When you retire does the company give you back your premiums? Don't hold your breath! ALL the premiums paid to insurance companies goes to pay ALL the claims of ALL covered people! NO ONE gets their money back if they never use the system.
So, in effect, YOU are paying for the health care of EVERY person in your plan!!!!!
So, CONGRESS needs to get with it and work out some health care reform plan that will (1) give EVERYONE coverage, and (2) finance the coverage by those covered and businesses paying premiums to the government.
Remember this. If the insurance companies are providing coverage now and still making a profit, the government could at least nearly break even, based on all citizens paying a portion of the cost.
And WHY do they keep telling us that any plan will most likely raise our taxes by a great amount?
Is it just to scare us so they can avoid doing any reform work? Is it as a sop to the insurance companies, who provide so much in the way of campaign contributions?
First, our present system works like this. MILLIONS of people have 'private' health insurance. That is, those people either belong to some "plan" through their employer or they have coverage that they totally pay for out-of-pocket.
Second, the present system is FOR PROFIT. That means the insurance companies, using the PREMIUMS paid by the insured, pay a negotiated amount for every covered service. THAT means the insurance companies make a deal with all the doctors (and other providers) who participate in any given plan, to pay a certain percentage of the billed amount for office visits, surgeries, any kind of treatments etc. provided by doctors.
That means that if your DOCTOR charges $100 for an office visit, the insurace company may negotiate with the doctor to pay $65 for each office visit, and you (the insured) pay a co-pay of $10-30 (or more) for each office visit. What THAT means is that your doctor agrees to accept the amount the company will pay, PLUS your co-pay as total payment for the office visit, even though a person with NO insurance must pay the entire $100.
Please pay attention!
The same applies to ALL medical care. Hospitals negotiate. Other providers (like labs, imaging facilities etc) ALL negotiate how much they will accept from the COMPANY and how much your CO-PAY will be.
Now, the premiums you pay to the company are called PREMIUMS for a reason. A premium is an amount of money paid OVER AND ABOVE the cost of some goods or services! THAT means that your insurance company, after negotiating what THEY will pay to your care providers, and after perhaps not APPROVING some treatments (no matter how necessary) and after PAYING for every charge for some good or service they have negotiated, ARE MAKING A HUGE PROFIT. THAT means that even after ALL medical claims are PAID, the insurance company is still getting RICH off the backs of those who pay the PREMIUMS (YOU!!!!)
Now, with reference to who makes the decisions for your health care. Is there ANYONE who thinks that for every single claim you have for some medical office visit, treatment, prescription, etc, there is some DOCTOR who sits in an office and decides if the treatment, medication etc is NECESSARY and thus will be paid for? DREAM ON.
The way it works is this. A board of doctors or some medical group decides on what treatments, medications, etc to PAY FOR, how much (by negotiating) will be paid for each thing. THEN, when a CLAIM is filed by your provider (doctor, imaging office, pharmacist, etc) a CLAIME SPECIALIST (a CLERK) processes the claim! A doctor does NOT make your medical decisions (as fas as the insurance company is concerned)! The decisions are made WAY IN ADVANCE, and apply to EVERYONE, not just you. And YOUR DOCTOR makes decisions sometimes based on what your PLAN will cover! Patients also make decisions for their own care based on what their plan will pay!
So, based on criteris set for the entire GROUP, the claims specialist processes the claim, and determines (based on your PLAN) how much will be paid, or if the claim will be paid at all or denied for some reason. And even after paying all the CLERKS to process claims, the insurance companies are STILL making a huge PROFIT.
So, what THAT means is thatYOU are not only paying for the medical care you receive from doctors, for the medications you get from your pharmacist, but also for all the expenses of running the insurance companies (paying the salaries of all the clerks etc) AND creating a huge profit for the insurance companies that enables the CEOs and head honchos to get RICH and creates a HUGE profit for the shareholders in the insurance companies. YOU ARE PAYING FOR THAT.
So, let's look at how a single payer, government national health plan would work, if organized correctly.
First, a BOARD OF DOCTORS and medical professionals (just like in the current system) would make decisions about acceptable treatments and medications that would be paid for under a single payer system. In other words, it would be based on exactly the same criteria as our present system. And no, a doctor will NOT be sitting in some office processing claims. A CLERK would do so. JUST LIKE OUR PRESENT SYSTEM!!!!! And, just luke our present system, our DOCTORS (and we the patients) might often make decisionos on treatment plans and medications, based on the items allowed by the PLAN!
Second, ALL the people covered under such a plan could pay SOMETHING toward the cost of the plan. Employed people could pay a premium (and possible LESS than they are currently paying) to be covered. Employers could pay a portion of the cost, exactly like they do now, except perhaps somewhat less than they currently pay. Why could the premiums be less? Becausae the COST of the national system would ONLY be to (1) pay those who process claims, the clerks, and (2) the cost to pay the doctors and pharmacists etc for the actual care. There would NOT be that huge profit that SOMEONE (you) now have to pay for. This would also allow SMALL employers and their employees to pay into the system for coverage. RATES could be somewhat based on the size of the employer's company, much as the premiums for coverage under our present system. (large employers negotiate a much better rate than a small company)
Now, for perhaps the most controversial part of national health care. Who will pay for the unemployed, the indigent, the elderly, the really poor and all those 'not on the grid' who could not even afford small premiums for national coverage. Well, who pays for them now?
WE ALL DO.
Under our present system those without coverage are getting health care from a number of umbrella agencies. Clinics, medicaid, emergency room visits, etc.
And, remember, we ALL pay for health care for EVERYONE in our plan, if we have private comverage!
Think not? Ask yourself this. If you work for a company for 20 years, and never once have to see a doctor, but have paid health care plan premiums for those 20 years, what happens to the money? When you retire does the company give you back your premiums? Don't hold your breath! ALL the premiums paid to insurance companies goes to pay ALL the claims of ALL covered people! NO ONE gets their money back if they never use the system.
So, in effect, YOU are paying for the health care of EVERY person in your plan!!!!!
So, CONGRESS needs to get with it and work out some health care reform plan that will (1) give EVERYONE coverage, and (2) finance the coverage by those covered and businesses paying premiums to the government.
Remember this. If the insurance companies are providing coverage now and still making a profit, the government could at least nearly break even, based on all citizens paying a portion of the cost.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Bernie Madoff is not the only crook in his Ponzi scheme.
Today Bernie Madoff was sentenced for his crooked acts in establishing a Ponzi scheme that bilked hundreds out of vast sums of money, some losing their entire life savings.
It is said that others involved in this scheme are also under investigation, including Madoff's two sone, his accountant, and others who ran his "business".
But the courts cannot touch those who made this whole scheme possible, and who are now feeling the impact of the collapse of the house of cards. The investors themselves.
Oh, you think that we should all feel sorry for those duped in this scheme? And why should we? It is likely that ALL those who gave their money to Madoff did so with the expectation of receiving huge returns. In fact, one number that has been talked about is that some hoped to receive returns of up to 18% on their investments!
Whoa! Wait just a minute here. Is there ANYONE who thinks that a legitimate investment is going to generate 18% returns? Or, did those investors have a pretty good idea that whatever Bernie was doing to be able to claim such returns, it was not exactly kosher! But the money poured in for Bernie to "invest".
That fact tells me that the investors wanted to make what appears to be unrealistic profits, and did not really care HOW they did it, just as long as THEY did not get caught or lose their money.
It is scary that so many rich people are so greedy. And what else is scary is, how did so many rich people GET rich, when they appear to be so stupid? It makes one wonder just how they made their money in the first place. Did they also do something a little (or a long way) over the line?
While I do have some sad feelings for any who lost their money because THEY had some money manager who wanted an unrealistic return, I have no sympathy for those who just wanted that 18% return, all the while knowing it had to be a scam of some kind!
It is said that others involved in this scheme are also under investigation, including Madoff's two sone, his accountant, and others who ran his "business".
But the courts cannot touch those who made this whole scheme possible, and who are now feeling the impact of the collapse of the house of cards. The investors themselves.
Oh, you think that we should all feel sorry for those duped in this scheme? And why should we? It is likely that ALL those who gave their money to Madoff did so with the expectation of receiving huge returns. In fact, one number that has been talked about is that some hoped to receive returns of up to 18% on their investments!
Whoa! Wait just a minute here. Is there ANYONE who thinks that a legitimate investment is going to generate 18% returns? Or, did those investors have a pretty good idea that whatever Bernie was doing to be able to claim such returns, it was not exactly kosher! But the money poured in for Bernie to "invest".
That fact tells me that the investors wanted to make what appears to be unrealistic profits, and did not really care HOW they did it, just as long as THEY did not get caught or lose their money.
It is scary that so many rich people are so greedy. And what else is scary is, how did so many rich people GET rich, when they appear to be so stupid? It makes one wonder just how they made their money in the first place. Did they also do something a little (or a long way) over the line?
While I do have some sad feelings for any who lost their money because THEY had some money manager who wanted an unrealistic return, I have no sympathy for those who just wanted that 18% return, all the while knowing it had to be a scam of some kind!
Friday, June 26, 2009
We honor some who have died. Some we should not.
The old saying that deaths come in threes certainly proved true this past week. First, Ed McMahon, longtime Tonight Show announcer and cohort, as well as product spokesman and talent show host, passed away. I did not of course know Mr. McMahon, but in all the years I knew who he was I do not remember ever hearing any bad stories about him. So, I honor him and share the sorrow of his passing.
Then, Farrah Fawcett, one of the best known "Angelss", as well as an honored and gifted actress, lost her battle with cancer. And, like Ed McMahon, I have never read any really bad stories about her. In fact, most of what I know about het is admirable. Therefore, I honor her life and share in the sorrow of her passing.
I simply CANNOT honor the third famous person who died this week, Michael Jackson.
It is not only that he (to all accounts) seemed very weird. It is not only that his appearance became a joke and that his lavish lifestyle bordered on the ridiculous.
No, the reason I cannot honor Jackson is his other 'behaviors', which I find repulsive. I doubt there is a person alive who does not know that Jackson was tried for child molestation. I doubt that there is anyone who does not know that he was aquitted of all charges. So, as far as the COURTS go and as far as the legal system goes, he was innocent.
The thing I find so disgusting about Jackson is NOT the things he was charged with in court, but the things that were ADMITTED to have happened, or that were documented by the media as fact.
How can ANYONE who claims to be a decent, moral persoon idolize a grown man who would dangle a BABY off a balcony? And exactly why was the child not removed from the home? Had Jackson been POOR, the Child Welfare folks would have been at his door the second the photo appeared on the news! And a poor person would have had little or no chance of ever getting their child back.
And, what kind of a grown man thinks it is acceptable to have little boys sleep with him, or come to his home for 'sleepovers'? If any man who would describe himself as decent agrees with such behavior, I'd like that man to have the guts to state publicly that it's OK.
Decent grown men do NOT invite the neighbor kids to spend the night! If a poor man, or really any man who was not grossly rich did this, once again not only would the Child Protective Services be on their case, but the cops would be hauling them off to jail!
So, I cannot POSSIBLY honor Michael Jackson. I do not dispute that he was talented. But merely being talented (or rich) does NOT excuse behavior that potentially puts children at risk.
It will be interesting in years to come what those children who 'slept over' at Jackson's home have to say about the experience. Say, in about 50 years, when the money runs out!
IMHO, Michael Jackson's behavior made him a person NOT to be admired. I can only hope that his sojourn in Bahrain (or wherever he was) helped him grow to love extreme heat!
Then, Farrah Fawcett, one of the best known "Angelss", as well as an honored and gifted actress, lost her battle with cancer. And, like Ed McMahon, I have never read any really bad stories about her. In fact, most of what I know about het is admirable. Therefore, I honor her life and share in the sorrow of her passing.
I simply CANNOT honor the third famous person who died this week, Michael Jackson.
It is not only that he (to all accounts) seemed very weird. It is not only that his appearance became a joke and that his lavish lifestyle bordered on the ridiculous.
No, the reason I cannot honor Jackson is his other 'behaviors', which I find repulsive. I doubt there is a person alive who does not know that Jackson was tried for child molestation. I doubt that there is anyone who does not know that he was aquitted of all charges. So, as far as the COURTS go and as far as the legal system goes, he was innocent.
The thing I find so disgusting about Jackson is NOT the things he was charged with in court, but the things that were ADMITTED to have happened, or that were documented by the media as fact.
How can ANYONE who claims to be a decent, moral persoon idolize a grown man who would dangle a BABY off a balcony? And exactly why was the child not removed from the home? Had Jackson been POOR, the Child Welfare folks would have been at his door the second the photo appeared on the news! And a poor person would have had little or no chance of ever getting their child back.
And, what kind of a grown man thinks it is acceptable to have little boys sleep with him, or come to his home for 'sleepovers'? If any man who would describe himself as decent agrees with such behavior, I'd like that man to have the guts to state publicly that it's OK.
Decent grown men do NOT invite the neighbor kids to spend the night! If a poor man, or really any man who was not grossly rich did this, once again not only would the Child Protective Services be on their case, but the cops would be hauling them off to jail!
So, I cannot POSSIBLY honor Michael Jackson. I do not dispute that he was talented. But merely being talented (or rich) does NOT excuse behavior that potentially puts children at risk.
It will be interesting in years to come what those children who 'slept over' at Jackson's home have to say about the experience. Say, in about 50 years, when the money runs out!
IMHO, Michael Jackson's behavior made him a person NOT to be admired. I can only hope that his sojourn in Bahrain (or wherever he was) helped him grow to love extreme heat!
Monday, June 15, 2009
I am sick of the rich tax wimps.
On May 13, 2009, our local paper published lists of property owners in our county who had unpaid property taxes.
The lists comprised about 60 pages (regular newspaper page size), 4 columns per page. On only 1 1/2 pages there were abou 150 property owners listed. Between just those property owners the amount of unpaid property tax was about $1,463million dollars .
Those property owners had some of the best, most valuable property in the county, many of the properties being beach front or in fancy gated golf communities.
After seeing these tax lists and especially after seeing how many of the property owners (who can only be described as rich) who had not paid their taxes, I am thoroughly disgusted. I am totally sick of hearing the rich wimp and moan about how they bear an "unfair" share of the tax burden.
Yeah, you rich folks DO owe a lot of taxes. And why not, when you can afford to buy a property valued in the million dollar range in the first place! But to not pay your property taxes is a disgrace. Just who the devil do you people think you are, anyway?
And, in effect, ALL of us are paying for these tax scofflaws to not pay their property taxes on time.
Our government runs on tax dollars. G0venments, large and small, have only taxes as their source of income. So what, you say? Who cares if the government does not get the money? Well, how about if the fire department refused to come to your fancy home when it is on fire, unless you can prove you paid your taxes (which pays the firefighters salaries). That actually happened in the "olden days", when a plaque had to be mounted on a home to prove the taxes were paid, before the fire fighters would try to put out a fire at that property. Or how about if the cops just do not respond to your complaints, large or small, or your 911 calls, because you have not paid your taxes (which pay the cops salaries). Or, how about if the government just cuts off the water to your fancy home, since you do not see fit to pay the taxes that make good, clean, potable water available to every home in the area.
And how about if the clerk at the DMV just tells you to take a hike, or the highway crew guys just tell you to fix your own road!
And why should this also bother ALL taxpayers? When the government sets its budget each year they do so with the expectation of receiving tax dollars to pay for all the services they provide. And when the taxes are not paid, in order to continue to provide those services the governments must BORROW the money to keep their physical plants operating and to pay government worker salaries. And just who do you think helps pay the interest on all that borrowed money?
US, that's who, the regular taxpayers who just pay our taxes on time and quit the griping and moaning and nit-picking about where the taxes go. Oversight is one thing, and it's good. But the constant carping about taxes is insane and selfish.
So, given the horrid state of the economy, I am sure there are many 'regular' folks who are having a hard time coming up with their taxes. (Of course, anyone with a mortgage should be having their taxes paid out of escrow), and it is very sad and those who have lost their jobs or have other hardships maybe should be getting some kind of tax break.
But for the rich, who expect everything to be their way, to just ignore paying their taxes until THEY get ready to pay them, is very selfish and not at all responsible as citizens.
Maybe what we need in this country is a tax debtor's prison. And maybe those who HAVE money but still refuse to pay their share, should be housed in the prison until they get their attitude straight!
The lists comprised about 60 pages (regular newspaper page size), 4 columns per page. On only 1 1/2 pages there were abou 150 property owners listed. Between just those property owners the amount of unpaid property tax was about $1,463million dollars .
Those property owners had some of the best, most valuable property in the county, many of the properties being beach front or in fancy gated golf communities.
After seeing these tax lists and especially after seeing how many of the property owners (who can only be described as rich) who had not paid their taxes, I am thoroughly disgusted. I am totally sick of hearing the rich wimp and moan about how they bear an "unfair" share of the tax burden.
Yeah, you rich folks DO owe a lot of taxes. And why not, when you can afford to buy a property valued in the million dollar range in the first place! But to not pay your property taxes is a disgrace. Just who the devil do you people think you are, anyway?
And, in effect, ALL of us are paying for these tax scofflaws to not pay their property taxes on time.
Our government runs on tax dollars. G0venments, large and small, have only taxes as their source of income. So what, you say? Who cares if the government does not get the money? Well, how about if the fire department refused to come to your fancy home when it is on fire, unless you can prove you paid your taxes (which pays the firefighters salaries). That actually happened in the "olden days", when a plaque had to be mounted on a home to prove the taxes were paid, before the fire fighters would try to put out a fire at that property. Or how about if the cops just do not respond to your complaints, large or small, or your 911 calls, because you have not paid your taxes (which pay the cops salaries). Or, how about if the government just cuts off the water to your fancy home, since you do not see fit to pay the taxes that make good, clean, potable water available to every home in the area.
And how about if the clerk at the DMV just tells you to take a hike, or the highway crew guys just tell you to fix your own road!
And why should this also bother ALL taxpayers? When the government sets its budget each year they do so with the expectation of receiving tax dollars to pay for all the services they provide. And when the taxes are not paid, in order to continue to provide those services the governments must BORROW the money to keep their physical plants operating and to pay government worker salaries. And just who do you think helps pay the interest on all that borrowed money?
US, that's who, the regular taxpayers who just pay our taxes on time and quit the griping and moaning and nit-picking about where the taxes go. Oversight is one thing, and it's good. But the constant carping about taxes is insane and selfish.
So, given the horrid state of the economy, I am sure there are many 'regular' folks who are having a hard time coming up with their taxes. (Of course, anyone with a mortgage should be having their taxes paid out of escrow), and it is very sad and those who have lost their jobs or have other hardships maybe should be getting some kind of tax break.
But for the rich, who expect everything to be their way, to just ignore paying their taxes until THEY get ready to pay them, is very selfish and not at all responsible as citizens.
Maybe what we need in this country is a tax debtor's prison. And maybe those who HAVE money but still refuse to pay their share, should be housed in the prison until they get their attitude straight!
Government health insurance, good or bad.
I know that the idea of the government 'interfering' in our health care is something many people do not even like to think about. But would it be all bad?
First, one of the main concerns people have is that some bureaucrat would be making decisions about their health care. Exactly how would that be any different than some claims clerk making those same decisions. Do people really think that a DOCTOR looks at every medical claim submitted to private insurance companies, and determine if the claim and the treatment are valid? That is certainly NOT the case.
Perhaps a broad determination is made, based on a broad set of criteria. But every time we see our doctor, every time we get a prescription, or every time we need surgery, the decisionm to pay or not is certainly not made on an individual basis by some doctor who has our well being at heart.
So, if we had the same or similar set of criteria, but within a government plan, the decisions would also not be made on a case-by-case basis by a doctor, but by a claims clerk. The same as we have now with our private insurer.
Second, with a single payer system the amount of time and paperwork required to process a claim should be cut drastically. And the additional time it takes for claims to be processed in the event that a patient has multiple coverages would also be cut. That could not help but cut the cost for coverage, plus be "green", as the amount of paperwork would be cut.
For example, in 2007 I saw my primary care physician. The bill was something like $200, and I had TWO coverages, Medicare and the insurance from my husband's employment. Because his employer had more than a certain number of employees, that made his work insurance my PRIMARY insurer, and Medicare my secondary. Although I clearly explained that to the insurance CLERK, the claim was filed incorrectly, with Medicare as first and the employers insurance second. It was denied by both, for the reason that the primary coverage was the employer.
So, I got two denials. I called the billing for my primary care physicain. I explained what they had done wrong. They said they would refile the claim correctly. They did refile, incorrectly. Another round of denials, and another call to the claims office. Another assurance that the claim would be filed correctly. It was not.
Third time is a charm. The third time I called them the claim was actually filed correctly, first to the employer insurance, and the doctor finally received payment from the primary coverage. The insurance claim department now will file the secondary claim to Medicare. Medicare will then pay their portion. The latest correspondence on this 2007 claim? One week ago, two years and one week after the actual doctor's visit!
With a single payer this could NOT have happened. When you take into account the time wasted, the fact that the doctor did not get paid for two years, and the patient frustration in having to try to get the "professionals" to file the claim correctly, it is clear that a single payer system would have been much better in this case, and I suspect in many cases.
Third, although there is a lot of concern about the government not having a say in your health care, in my experience with Medicare it is efficient, pays claims promptly, and the explanations of benefits is understandable. That makes it much easier for the patient, the doctor and all providers to be paid in a timely manner.
Another situation that would be mitigated by a single payer system is that for each medical issue the claim would be the exact same amount for everyone, instead of the way it is not, where each plan may pay more or less of a claim. That is, maybe plan "A" pays doctors $100 per office visit, while plan "B" pays only $75. If there was a single payer the amount paid would be the same no matter what. That would eliminate the need for claim filers to keep track of the different amounts they are to bill depending on what insurance the patient has!
Under a single payer system there could also be great savings on other medical claims, like prescriptions. If there is a single payer the pharmaceutical companies would get a flat rate for their drugs. Period. No multiple costs that have to be 'negotiated' all the time.
As to how to pay for a single payer system, it seems clear that whatever people are now paying, and to whom, would then be paid to the single payer. The cost then could be spread out over a HUGE patient base (everyone) and while some people would pay a little more, some would pay a lot less. A percentage could be paid by employers, based on factors like number of employees, annual gross income etc. That way even the smallest companies could pay part of the cost and their employees would have the same benefits as people employed by huge corporations.
And for those who say they don't want to pay for someone else to be insured or have health care, they already DO. Whether they understand it or not, through their taxes they already pay to help the poor who cannot afford private health care, AND they pay to cover those employees of small companies that cannot afford to offer health care for their employees. So, that would not change, except that the small employers would now be contributing at least something to the plan, whereas now they contribute nothing, and their employees are forced to rely on public assistance for health care.
So, think about this. If you agree, call your Congressman and urge them to back some sort of single payer, government run health care insurance program. It is a national disgrace that we, in the leading country in the world, do not have this coverage that citizens of many other industrialized nations have had for years!@
First, one of the main concerns people have is that some bureaucrat would be making decisions about their health care. Exactly how would that be any different than some claims clerk making those same decisions. Do people really think that a DOCTOR looks at every medical claim submitted to private insurance companies, and determine if the claim and the treatment are valid? That is certainly NOT the case.
Perhaps a broad determination is made, based on a broad set of criteria. But every time we see our doctor, every time we get a prescription, or every time we need surgery, the decisionm to pay or not is certainly not made on an individual basis by some doctor who has our well being at heart.
So, if we had the same or similar set of criteria, but within a government plan, the decisions would also not be made on a case-by-case basis by a doctor, but by a claims clerk. The same as we have now with our private insurer.
Second, with a single payer system the amount of time and paperwork required to process a claim should be cut drastically. And the additional time it takes for claims to be processed in the event that a patient has multiple coverages would also be cut. That could not help but cut the cost for coverage, plus be "green", as the amount of paperwork would be cut.
For example, in 2007 I saw my primary care physician. The bill was something like $200, and I had TWO coverages, Medicare and the insurance from my husband's employment. Because his employer had more than a certain number of employees, that made his work insurance my PRIMARY insurer, and Medicare my secondary. Although I clearly explained that to the insurance CLERK, the claim was filed incorrectly, with Medicare as first and the employers insurance second. It was denied by both, for the reason that the primary coverage was the employer.
So, I got two denials. I called the billing for my primary care physicain. I explained what they had done wrong. They said they would refile the claim correctly. They did refile, incorrectly. Another round of denials, and another call to the claims office. Another assurance that the claim would be filed correctly. It was not.
Third time is a charm. The third time I called them the claim was actually filed correctly, first to the employer insurance, and the doctor finally received payment from the primary coverage. The insurance claim department now will file the secondary claim to Medicare. Medicare will then pay their portion. The latest correspondence on this 2007 claim? One week ago, two years and one week after the actual doctor's visit!
With a single payer this could NOT have happened. When you take into account the time wasted, the fact that the doctor did not get paid for two years, and the patient frustration in having to try to get the "professionals" to file the claim correctly, it is clear that a single payer system would have been much better in this case, and I suspect in many cases.
Third, although there is a lot of concern about the government not having a say in your health care, in my experience with Medicare it is efficient, pays claims promptly, and the explanations of benefits is understandable. That makes it much easier for the patient, the doctor and all providers to be paid in a timely manner.
Another situation that would be mitigated by a single payer system is that for each medical issue the claim would be the exact same amount for everyone, instead of the way it is not, where each plan may pay more or less of a claim. That is, maybe plan "A" pays doctors $100 per office visit, while plan "B" pays only $75. If there was a single payer the amount paid would be the same no matter what. That would eliminate the need for claim filers to keep track of the different amounts they are to bill depending on what insurance the patient has!
Under a single payer system there could also be great savings on other medical claims, like prescriptions. If there is a single payer the pharmaceutical companies would get a flat rate for their drugs. Period. No multiple costs that have to be 'negotiated' all the time.
As to how to pay for a single payer system, it seems clear that whatever people are now paying, and to whom, would then be paid to the single payer. The cost then could be spread out over a HUGE patient base (everyone) and while some people would pay a little more, some would pay a lot less. A percentage could be paid by employers, based on factors like number of employees, annual gross income etc. That way even the smallest companies could pay part of the cost and their employees would have the same benefits as people employed by huge corporations.
And for those who say they don't want to pay for someone else to be insured or have health care, they already DO. Whether they understand it or not, through their taxes they already pay to help the poor who cannot afford private health care, AND they pay to cover those employees of small companies that cannot afford to offer health care for their employees. So, that would not change, except that the small employers would now be contributing at least something to the plan, whereas now they contribute nothing, and their employees are forced to rely on public assistance for health care.
So, think about this. If you agree, call your Congressman and urge them to back some sort of single payer, government run health care insurance program. It is a national disgrace that we, in the leading country in the world, do not have this coverage that citizens of many other industrialized nations have had for years!@
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
