The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 56

Thread: A little Transparency at last

  1. #31
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M&K's Retrievers View Post
    And your point is? 6 out of 8 is not his entire term. I believe those last two years did a lot of damage.
    How many Presidents in our history have controlled congress for eight years (hint: you won't find many)? The major damage to our economy and our country came during Bush's first term, not his last two years.

  2. #32
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Perry View Post
    You are wrong, Bush had party control for a term and a half. (6 years)
    You are also wrong Rog, as the spineless democratic congress in place for the last two years of Bush II practically rolled over bare-belly and gave him nearly everything he wanted. We really are suffering from a full 8 years of Bush policies.

    Huntsman, as president doesn't simply serve his time, leave, and have no further effects upon our nation or its economy, any more than you or I can go shopping, then refuse to pay the VISA bill when it comes by saying you went shopping LAST month, not this month! No president should get a full pardon for his screw-ups when he leaves office, be it Clinton, Obama, or Bush.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  3. #33
    Senior Member M&K's Retrievers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Royse City, TX
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    Right now employers provide the benefits they provide despite the absence of any mandate or penalties at all. What makes you think that those same employers will suddenly reduce benefits once and mandate and penalties exist? That is illogical.
    I'm afraid your wrong, Jeff. I've been marketing group programs to small employers (2-100 lives) for the past 35 years both as a general agent and agent. Employers provide benefits to their employees for two reasons. One is to attract quality employees and two is they need the coverage themselves. With the current high rate of unemployment, benefit perks are not as important to attract employees as a paycheck. Most employers would be glad to get out of the benefits business, rate increases, employees bitching about their free coverage, claim problems, which network to be in, etc. They would rather be making their widgets.

    I've talked with many employers over the past few months some of which are friends as well as customers and a lot tell me they would rather pay a fine and tell their employees to get their coverage from their Uncle Sam. I've said this on other posts but it wouldn't surprise me if the uninsured numbers didn't increase under the Dems plan.
    Last edited by M&K's Retrievers; 01-31-2010 at 09:07 PM.
    M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
    M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
    M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
    Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
    Freeway JYD

    Mike Whitworth

  4. #34
    Senior Member HuntsmanTollers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Swansea, IL
    Posts
    123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Perry View Post
    You are wrong, Bush had party control for a term and a half. (6 years)
    6 does not equal 8. Guess I should have been clearer, his term in office was 8 years, he was elected to 2 four year terms.
    Huntsman Tollers
    Matt & Julie Martin

  5. #35
    Senior Member HuntsmanTollers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Swansea, IL
    Posts
    123

    Default

    They didn't give him or the republican minority everything they wanted because they both wanted tighter regulations of Fanny and Freddie. Guess they were wrong with that too?! The costs of Bush's 1st four years of office were escalated due to the expenses of 9/11. I don't care if the actions at the time were right or wrong, it was the decision made and followed. You could easily argue that if Clinton (who I voted for) had responded to previous terrorist attacks like the embassies, AQ would not have elevated to 9/11. Again, it doesn't matter because that is hindsight. I care about the decisions that are being made now because we can impact those decisions.
    Huntsman Tollers
    Matt & Julie Martin

  6. #36
    Senior Member HuntsmanTollers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Swansea, IL
    Posts
    123

    Default

    [QUOTE=YardleyLabs;559959]Right now employers provide the benefits they provide despite the absence of any mandate or penalties at all. What makes you think that those same employers will suddenly reduce benefits once and mandate and penalties exist? That is illogical.

    I guess listening to business leaders who say the cost reduction they would receive by eliminating insurance plans would help their companies are being illogical too? Right now there is no other system and employers are using health insurance as a tool for retention. With increasing unemployment and a public option that would reduce costs I don't think it is too far a leap to think employers will try to realize some cost savings because they market will bear it. Employers are not currently fighting for employees, employees are fighting for jobs.
    Huntsman Tollers
    Matt & Julie Martin

  7. #37
    Senior Member M&K's Retrievers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Royse City, TX
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    How many Presidents in our history have controlled congress for eight years (hint: you won't find many)? The major damage to our economy and our country came during Bush's first term, not his last two years.
    How do you figure that? The biggest damage was the Dems refusal to take corrective action against Freedie and Fannie which was their creation to begin with.
    M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
    M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
    M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
    Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
    Freeway JYD

    Mike Whitworth

  8. #38
    Senior Member Buzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brookings, South Dakota
    Posts
    6,915

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M&K's Retrievers View Post
    I'm afraid your wrong, Jeff. I've been marketing group programs to small employers (2-100 lives) for the past 35 years both as a general agent and agent. Employers provide benefits to their employees for two reasons. One is to attract quality employees and two is they need the coverage themselves. With the current high rate of unemployment, benefit perks are not as important to attract employees as a paycheck. Most employers would be glad to get out of the benefits business, rate increases, employees bitching about their free coverage, claim problems, which network to be in, etc. They would rather be making their widgets.

    I've talked with many employers over the past few months some of which are friends as well as customers and a lot tell me they would rather pay a fine and tell their employees to get their coverage from their Uncle Sam. I've said this on other posts but it wouldn't surprise me if the uninsured numbers didn't increase under the Dems plan.
    I'm sure they would rather pay the fine if they are determined not to provide coverage. But the fact is, today there is no mandate for these employers to supply healthcare benefits. So, please explain how they are more likely to drop coverage if they incur a fine versus the current reality in which they can completely drop coverage with impunity. Sounds to me that you're making the argument that the fine isn't punitive enough, rather than that it will encourage folks to drop benefits for their employees.

    I would think that a guy that sells insurance would be happy to see an employer mandate, it will expand his customer base. I could see that same salesperson being opposed to a public option, because there is no way for him to hitch his wagon to that gravy train.
    Last edited by Buzz; 01-31-2010 at 10:13 PM.
    "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

    Raven - Moneybird's Black Magic Marker***
    (Esprit's Power Play x Trumarc's Lean Cuisine)
    Mick - Moneybird's Jumpin' Jack Flash***
    (Clubmead's Road Warrior x Oakdale Whitewater Devil Dog)
    Peerless - Moneybird's Sole Survivor
    (Two River's Lucky Willie x Moneybird's Black Magic Marker)

  9. #39
    Senior Member M&K's Retrievers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Royse City, TX
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    I'm sure they would rather pay the fine if they are determined not to provide coverage. But the fact is, today there is no mandate for these employers to supply healthcare benefits. So, please explain how they are more likely to drop coverage if they incur a fine versus the current reality in which they can completely drop coverage with impunity. Sounds to me that you're making the argument that the fine isn't punitive enough, rather than that it will encourage folks to drop benefits for their employees.

    I would think that a guy that sells insurance would be happy to see an employer mandate, it will expand his customer base. I could see that same salesperson being opposed to a public option, because there is no way for him to hitch his wagon to that gravy train.
    A much as I would like it, the mandate will not provide more prospects. Those that don't provide coverage now will pay the fine because it's cheaper and less hassel. Many of those that do provide coverage now will join their ranks for the same reasons and do so without any guilt because their employees can get it from Uncle Sam.

    The fine will encourage employers to drop coverage or not buy it to begin with. How could a fine be determined to be punitive enough unless it was equal to the premium he would have to pay. The fine would have to be similar to auto insurance. No proof of insurance, can't drive. No proof of health insurance, can't sell widgets today. This crap isn't going to work.

    On another thought, what is your "gravy train" and how would you like the government jacking with it any more than it already does?
    Last edited by M&K's Retrievers; 01-31-2010 at 11:34 PM.
    M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
    M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
    M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
    Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
    Freeway JYD

    Mike Whitworth

  10. #40
    Senior Member Hew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    I would think that a guy that sells insurance would be happy to see an employer mandate, it will expand his customer base. I could see that same salesperson being opposed to a public option, because there is no way for him to hitch his wagon to that gravy train.
    Wow. That's cynical. Is it a foreign concept for you to consider the possibility that one could oppose a govt. policy even though it might be personally financially rewarding? Do you also presume funeral directors root for wars? Have you been a Democrat for so long that your reflexive reaction to any proposal from Uncle Sam is, "What's in it for my wallet?" Reminds one of some of the voters interviewed before the last presidential election who thought Obama was going to make their house payment or buy the gas for their car.
    I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •