Ford Gives Finger to America and American Employees

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> On 2008-06-04, > wrote:
>
>> As it is now in the US your medical decisions are not being made by
>> doctors but by insurance company bureaucrats. Most doctors in the US
>> now have to hire one or two people just to pursue approvals and
>> insurance payments and navigate all the insurance company red tape.
>>
>> But Jerry wants to pretend that's not happening. Just like he wishes
>> to pretend the countries that have national health care don't pay 50%
>> of what we do, have greater job mobility and the businesses are more
>> competitive because they don't have the high health care costs of the
>> US. And medicare and medicaid pay far less overhead than private
>> insurers.
>>
>
> The present condition with insurance companies was created by government
> interference in healthcare.

Good God.


> Government interfered with it's own
> government programs and the tax law. What we have now is the result of
> that interference. Only a fool would believe that a complete take over
> by the government would result in a better situation. It's like taking
> your car back to a mechanic who broke more things than he fixed last
> time.
>
>> But you can't teach a neocon anything.
>
> But you can't teach a statist anything.

Sheesh -- another randroid for the twit bin.

Jim

On 2008-06-05, Clave > wrote:
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> On 2008-06-04, > wrote:
>>
>>> As it is now in the US your medical decisions are not being made by
>>> doctors but by insurance company bureaucrats. Most doctors in the US
>>> now have to hire one or two people just to pursue approvals and
>>> insurance payments and navigate all the insurance company red tape.
>>>
>>> But Jerry wants to pretend that's not happening. Just like he wishes
>>> to pretend the countries that have national health care don't pay 50%
>>> of what we do, have greater job mobility and the businesses are more
>>> competitive because they don't have the high health care costs of the
>>> US. And medicare and medicaid pay far less overhead than private
>>> insurers.
>>>
>>
>> The present condition with insurance companies was created by government
>> interference in healthcare.

> Good God.

I'm sorry you're not up to speed on the topic.

>> Government interfered with it's own
>> government programs and the tax law. What we have now is the result of
>> that interference. Only a fool would believe that a complete take over
>> by the government would result in a better situation. It's like taking
>> your car back to a mechanic who broke more things than he fixed last
>> time.
>>
>>> But you can't teach a neocon anything.
>>
>> But you can't teach a statist anything.
>
> Sheesh -- another randroid for the twit bin.

As usual, just name calling.

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:12:08 -0500, Brent P wrote:

> On 2008-06-04, > wrote:
>
>> As it is now in the US your medical decisions are not being made by
>> doctors but by insurance company bureaucrats. Most doctors in the US
>> now have to hire one or two people just to pursue approvals and
>> insurance payments and navigate all the insurance company red tape.
>>
>> But Jerry wants to pretend that's not happening. Just like he wishes
>> to pretend the countries that have national health care don't pay 50%
>> of what we do, have greater job mobility and the businesses are more
>> competitive because they don't have the high health care costs of the
>> US. And medicare and medicaid pay far less overhead than private
>> insurers.
>>
>
> The present condition with insurance companies was created by government
> interference in healthcare. Government interfered with it's own
> government programs and the tax law. What we have now is the result of
> that interference. Only a fool would believe that a complete take over
> by the government would result in a better situation. It's like taking
> your car back to a mechanic who broke more things than he fixed last
> time.
>
>> But you can't teach a neocon anything.
>
> But you can't teach a statist anything.

Reality is not your strong suit, is it.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

"Matthew T. Russotto" > wrote in message
...
> In article <48454b1c$1@kcnews01>,
> C. E. White > wrote:
>>
>>As for your calculation of how executive pay affects employee
>>salaries. IBM CEO Palmisano gets direct pay of over 7 million a
>>year,
>>another $5 million a year in "benefits" and will eventually get a
>>pension worth $5 million a year. His stock options are worth
>>millions
>>more. I would guess his yearly cost to the company is well over 12
>>million dollars. Now this is only about 0.1% of recent profits (and
>>$31 per employee per year), but can't you imagine that the company
>>could do better things with 12 million dollars than pay one person?
>
> Speaking as one of IBM's stockholders (and a former employee) and
> looking at recent IBM stock prices.... nope.

Suppose they only paid Sam 2 million a year - would he have done a
worse job? Don't you suppose there are people out there making
$200,000 a year that could have made the same or better decisions? Sam
won the lottery. He is probably a really really smart guy, but not $12
million smart. If you stock owners would actually exercise your power,
CEO overpayment would end.

Ed

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 08:21:52 -0400, C. E. White wrote:

>
> "Matthew T. Russotto" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article <48454b1c$1@kcnews01>,
>> C. E. White > wrote:
>>>
>>>As for your calculation of how executive pay affects employee
>>>salaries. IBM CEO Palmisano gets direct pay of over 7 million a
>>>year,
>>>another $5 million a year in "benefits" and will eventually get a
>>>pension worth $5 million a year. His stock options are worth
>>>millions
>>>more. I would guess his yearly cost to the company is well over 12
>>>million dollars. Now this is only about 0.1% of recent profits (and
>>>$31 per employee per year), but can't you imagine that the company
>>>could do better things with 12 million dollars than pay one person?
>>
>> Speaking as one of IBM's stockholders (and a former employee) and
>> looking at recent IBM stock prices.... nope.
>
> Suppose they only paid Sam 2 million a year - would he have done a
> worse job? Don't you suppose there are people out there making
> $200,000 a year that could have made the same or better decisions? Sam
> won the lottery. He is probably a really really smart guy, but not $12
> million smart. If you stock owners would actually exercise your power,
> CEO overpayment would end.

What if we returned to the tax code of 1955. Sam's wages over $2M would
be taxed at 80%. I'll just bet that he would not change a thing.


--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

Dave Head > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:33:51 -0400, Sam Buckland
> > wrote:
>
>>Chuck Reynolds wrote:
>>
>>> Cars built at Honda plants in Ohio are not unionized plants
>>> and they produce superior cars. Their wages and working
>>> environment parallel those of unionized plants.
>
> And they're that way because that's what it takes to keep people
> from organizing into a union.
>
> If there were no possibility of having a union, those car plants
> would be paying the same as they pay when they're built in
> Mexico or China - a few dollars a day.

If that was the case, all jobs that have no possibility of a union
would earn minimum wage. I'm in the IT industry. Even with cheap
Indian labor, wages are still very good, even here in Michigan.
And no unions. Yours is an argument that just doesn't fly.

> The Trucker wrote:
> I trust the medical profession to make those decisions and that
> is who will
> be making those decisions. I certainly do not want you making
> such decisions and given a proper representative government. I
> will not be EVER have to worry about you getting anywhere close
> to such a decision making position.<<<<
>
>
> How can you be so naive as to think Doctors will have any say
> over your health care ?

What I'm amazed with people like The Trucker is the love affair of
big government to run their lives. Government isn't good at running
anything simple, let alone something as monsterous as health care.

All you have to do is walk into a VA hospital to see government
health care in action, and that's health care of individuals who
nearly gave their lives for this country.

>>Once a union gets into a working environment, it is like getting
>>stage four cancer, death is imminent.
>
> And without unions, you see what happens by looking at the
> software industry - routine 80 hour workweeks, falling wages,
> generally poor working conditions, etc.

LOL! 80 hours? I haven't worked more than 45 hours in 10 years. My
working conditions include listening to the radio, a fridge right
outside my office, and a Tuesday night golf league. Oh, and fantasy
football.

Now, granted, I can't sleep on the job, smoke on the job (don't smoke
anyway), or drink on the job, all of which I witnessed numerous times
at the Chrysler Tech Center, in the unionized areas, when I worked
there from 97-99. So I guess you got me there.

The Trucker > wrote in
news
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:50:15 +0200, John Galt wrote:
>
>>
>> "Dave Head" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:08:48 -0400, Roger Hamilton
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:54:23 GMT, Dave Head >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:33:51 -0400, Sam Buckland
>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Chuck Reynolds wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cars built at Honda plants in Ohio are not unionized
>>>>>>> plants and they produce superior cars. Their wages and
>>>>>>> working environment parallel those of unionized plants.
>>>>>
>>>>>And they're that way because that's what it takes to keep
>>>>>people from organizing into a union.
>>>>>
>>>>>If there were no possibility of having a union, those car
>>>>>plants would be paying the same as they pay when they're
>>>>>built in Mexico or China - a few dollars a day.
>>>>
>>>>Once a union gets into a working environment, it is like
>>>>getting stage four cancer, death is imminent.
>>>
>>> And without unions, you see what happens by looking at the
>>> software industry -
>>> routine 80 hour workweeks, falling wages, generally poor
>>> working conditions,
>>> etc.
>>
>> I have no idea where you work, but it sounds like you need
>> another job. We have thousands of developers who are still
>> getting raises, 40-50 hour work weeks based on need, and do so
>> in nice offices. I can't tell you that some development
>> functions haven't moved to India, but not everything that you
>> CAN move makes sense to do so.
>>
>>
>>> Who do you think should be enjoying prosperity within the USA,
>>> if anyone?
>>
>> Anybody willing to work hard, understanding that wage is
>> relative to experience, education, and aptitude.
>
> What if i don't want "prosperity" in the form of a McMasion and
> an SUV? Can I work hard part time or work a lot but more slowly?
> The envelope please........ (NOPE!)

Of course you can. See, you can start your own company, and work
whatever hours you want.

> I do have an idea of what I am talking about and I don't like
> labor unions. All the rich software people and all the other
> rich workers that are working their 80 hours should probably ask
> themselves why they are doing it. Many will conclude that they
> really have no choice. There is no other way to get health
> insurance.

See that checkbook in your hand? You self-insure. You self-buy-your
-groceries, you self-buy-your-vehicle, you self-take-a-dump, you can
self-insure. It's not against the law (yet).