View Full Version : Great insight about how close to the brink of economic catastrophe we came last fall

10-21-2009, 12:16 AM
click the "listen" link.

Andrew Sorkin's 'Inside Story' On Financial Collapse : NPR (

10-21-2009, 06:16 PM
It pretty much mirrors the informaiton on PBS's Frontline about the back office dealings last September and October.

USG '60
10-21-2009, 07:44 PM
I actually caught both of those. My question now is, What can/should we do about it?

10-26-2009, 10:09 PM
There's not much you and I can do about it. I think the importance of both the book and PBS Frontline is to educate people that we virually destroyed our economy last fall. The weekend that Lehman declared bankruptcy was the closest we have ever come to a complete shutdown of our global economic system. Remember those earlier posters who felt the recession in the 1980's was a lot worse than this. There was never an inkling our system was close to destruction in the 1980's like there was last fall.

Our job would be to press on the politicians that fixing our economy with real change and real prevention is far more important than screwing up our health care right now.

10-28-2009, 11:31 AM
Mug, just curious. Could reducing the cost of health care along with fixing the economy make the economy more stable?

I feel that if poeple can get more affordable healthcare then they have more money to spend, as well they are taking fewer sick days from work, therefore more productive at work possibly making more money for the company and themselves.

This is just my opinion and how I see that the two items can be related to work together for this country. If they are indeed seperate then I also see the need for both.

I am not a whiz at economics, and I tend to see things with shades of grey. I look forward to futher input.

10-28-2009, 11:42 AM
I'm no wiz but speaking for myself, healthcare costs have never been front row center on anything I've done, even when I was struggling with bills. And I tell you this much - not too many people out there without health care NOW, are going to give up their boat, vacation, date night or video games so they can pay for premiums. I don't care if those premiums are only $100.00 a month. If they have $100.00 sitting around they might pay but they aren't going to give up the fun things for health care if they aren't already making the sacrifice. This deal is about people who can't get health care because of pre-existing conditions, and people who never bothered because they wanted to spend their money elsewhere. If this weren't so, you'd see far more kids buying high deductible catastrophic when they are between jobs. But they get a bigger mortgage, a nicer car or play softball and go skiing, instead.

10-28-2009, 11:48 AM
Penny, I understand that. What I am talking about are those on medicare/medicaid or possibly working in retail/food service jobs that if they could afford cheaper insureance for emergencies or prescriptions then maybe they would be able to spend the money on things like house payments, car payments, clothes, food, movies, etc...

I understand that the people who have good/great insurance aren't going to want to change policies and I don't think they should. The ones I am concerned about are those that work and still can't afford insurance. My son works for Ozarka water and had to give up his insurance last year because the premium went up $100 and he could not afford it and his apartment rent as well. Now he had back troubles and has over $3500 in medical bills he is trying to pay off. I promise you he would rather spend that money on other things than bills.

10-28-2009, 01:06 PM
Anything that would put money into people's pockets would be good for the economy. So, if the government came out and said we can provide you the same quality health care as you get through you private health plan but we can do it for $100/month - and then required all American's to pay into the plan, it would put more money into the pockets of the already-insured $225 million. It would be like a tax cut.

However, nothing has been said this would be the case with a government sponsored plan. In fact, all indications are that it would cost MORE than most premiums currently paid by the already-insured. The proposals change on a daily basis so who knows what will eventually come out but the government has said that they will fine people for not participating. This is essentially a new tax which will remove money from the pockets of Americans and, in effect, be harmful to the economy overall.

There is so much wrong with what I read is the latest proposal its not even funny. It has convinced me that the left wants nationalized health care, they don't care how much it costs, they don't really know what is in the plan or how to fund it. They just want it. This makes me even more ademently against a government option. The last Dem I heard talk about the plan says that approximately 25 million will still not be covered by the plan. When pressed, she said this was primarily illegal immigrants. However, when pressed more, she admitted there would still be 10 million not covered by the plan. Why? You know they will make provisions for illegals to be covered and get medical care. The fines they have proposed are admittedly too low for young, healthy individuals. They will have incentive to just pay the fines and not opt into the health plan. These are the most healthy people and should be made to participate if the rest of us are too.

There is no doubt the system needs to be fixed, however, the Democrats aren't showing a lick of good sense or economic reality. They are just throwing the laundry against the wall and seeing what sticks. I have said time and time again that a heavily regulated industry, such as a utility, would work. No public option. Regulate it and enforce the regulations.

10-29-2009, 09:56 AM
I'm not sold 100% on a public option yet. I don't know all of the numbers. I agree with you Mug about the regulation of the insurance industry. That is what I was talking about in my last post to Penny. I fully believe that if people could pick their choice of insurance at an affordable rate they would buy it. I just think that the insurance companies are fight tooth and nail against any regulation, and I think they have some in congress in their pockets to keep it from happening.

10-29-2009, 04:12 PM
I'm not sold 100% on a public option yet. I don't know all of the numbers. I agree with you Mug about the regulation of the insurance industry. That is what I was talking about in my last post to Penny. I fully believe that if people could pick their choice of insurance at an affordable rate they would buy it. I just think that the insurance companies are fight tooth and nail against any regulation, and I think they have some in congress in their pockets to keep it from happening.

The left likes to say the public option is there as "competition" for the private insurance companies but lets study this a second. First, a public option is likely to be funded through taxes. Everyone will have to pay into the plan or every employer will have to offer health insurance or face a fine. Employers will opt for the government plan because, with the government setting the rates, the government option will be cheaper - initially. With more and more employers moving away from private insurance, employees will follow.

Eventually, with millions of Americans moving to the government plan due to their employers offering of the government plan, private insurance companies will slowly go away until there will only be "boutique" plans only the wealthy can affoard. It will be like sending a child to Cassidy or Heritage Hall. You have to pay taxes on supporting public schools but you pony up the extra money to send your kid(s) to private school because it is just plain better. Thats what will happen eventually with health insurance and health care.

Public health care - there aren't enough doctors to support a system of 60 million additional people going to the doctor routinely. Health clinics for all of us will be a medical version of the social security office or the driver's license lines. Go to an overcrowded health clinic where you have to wait and wait and wait. Finally, you get to an overworked gatekeeper (possibly not even a doctor because of the extreme shortage) who will spend a couple of minutes with you to diagnose your problem and either send you to a next-level doctor or send you on your way. It will be like the mass market dentist offices where there are 10 chairs in a big open room - no privacy, no personalized attention, no doctors consultations. They have to move as many as possible through the line.

So, the truth is, there is no public "option." A public option will put the private industry out of business. This is why they fight it tooth and nail, because they know it will be the end of the industry. Now, I can't say that they didn't do a lot of it to themselves, but I don't think a government run industry will do things any better.

Is this really want you want for your life and death?

10-30-2009, 10:36 AM
As I stated, I am not sure about hte "public option". I meant to say that the insurance companies will fight tooth and nail about any type of regulation by hte government. I believe they don't want regulation so they can charge premiums how they want, and deny coverage/treatment if they choose. Insurance companies could deny treatment long enough that it would no longer be effective and pay a small settlement fee, they would come ahead profit wise in that case.

I not trying to argue with anyone on this as I really don't know the answer, but I fully believe that something must be done to control insurance costs as well as medical costs.
If that means tort reform of some type, regulation of insurance/pharmacuetical(sp?) companies then so be it. I just believe that there are many who would buy insurance and go to a family doctor if it was affordable.

10-30-2009, 02:54 PM
What you say is true and yes, in order to stay in business, they are denying coverage. That is what needs to stop. If the industry were highly regulated so that all insurers had to play under the same rules and were not allowed to practice many of the policies they practice now, they would compete in other areas. A government option doesn't have to compete. It figures out its costs and its revenue's and sets rates accordingly. It can very easily operate under a deficit while it sets its rates low enough to drive the competition out of existance. Private industry can still do this far better than government as long as government sets up stringent guidelines of operation.

Tort reform and pharmaceutical regulation are 2 totally different subjects with totally different answers.