Mark B. Morrow Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Ranger I agree with you. here is an article writtne on the promise of no preexisting conditions. This a a promise that was made by Obama. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/08/13/...ing-conditions/ More Fox obfuscation and outright lies. It is not Obama's Plan that is wending its way through Congress. These are Congressional Bills not Executive Bills. Obama didn't write the legislation and has no control over what is in and what is out until a final bill is voted on and sent to the President for signature or veto. Really this shouldn't be that hard for Fox News to understand. Those chuckleheads could use a refresher from my childhood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 (edited) Almost a BILLION dollars in stock options to ONE man does seem a bit excessive to me. These corporate profits you're stating is after everybody's salaries & bonuses are paid. They pay out as much as they can to their executives & then give the rest to their shareholders. LINK - Last year, Hensley's compensation included $3.2 million and almost $750 million in stock options. Is Hensley worth the $1 in every $700 spent on health insurance in this country? Speaking of Wellpoint, here's some info on their CEO Angela Braly: Wiki Link - As of April 2009, Braly had the 306th highest compensation for a US CEO, having earned $4.07 million. That is 74th among females. She owns $4.6 million worth of WellPoint stock, or .02% of the company. In 2007, Braly earned $14.86 million, mostly in stock options. They hardly seem to be "struggling"... Executive pay and profits are two entirely different things (and please note that stock options are not the same as an outright paycheck - Mr. Hensley didn't receive a check for $750 million that he can spend as he wants). You complained that profits were excessive, and I showed that they weren't. And even if pay levels were reduced to what you consider to be "reasonable" levels, it would not make much difference in total profits, or make them "excessive." And please note that struggling companies often pay their executives very well. Check out Alan Mulally's pay at Ford. The company is hardly out of the woods yet. For that matter, look at what Rick Wagoner was pulling down at GM as his company lost billions for years. Edited August 17, 2009 by grbeck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 (edited) More Fox obfuscation and outright lies. It is not Obama's Plan that is wending its way through Congress. These are Congressional Bills not Executive Bills. Obama didn't write the legislation and has no control over what is in and what is out until a final bill is voted on and sent to the President for signature or veto. Really this shouldn't be that hard for Fox News to understand. Those chuckleheads could use a refresher from my childhood. Given that he has been making health care reform a signature effort of this first year of his administration, I would hope that his staff has been working with Congressional staffers in both chambers to draft the bill, as well as any amendments. Unless he is going to be AWOL during the entire debate, and will then sign anything that Congress sends to his desk. That certainly isn't the impression he has been giving during the discussion. It's more than a little disingenuous to claim that he has nothing to do with what is in these bills, just because, as per the United States Constitution, all bills of this type must originate in Congress. His administration has been negotiating with Congress over the content and form of these bills, and any final bill will reflect the President's priorities and policies. Edited August 17, 2009 by grbeck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 (edited) Also note that Obama had a group working on this proposal before it was introduced in Congress. Edited August 17, 2009 by grbeck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 More Fox obfuscation and outright lies. It is not Obama's Plan that is wending its way through Congress. These are Congressional Bills not Executive Bills. Obama didn't write the legislation and has no control over what is in and what is out until a final bill is voted on and sent to the President for signature or veto. Really this shouldn't be that hard for Fox News to understand. Those chuckleheads could use a refresher from my childhood. You honestly believe that he has nothing to do with what's in the bill?......"to thine own self, be true".....that's just an out for him....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 You honestly believe that he has nothing to do with what's in the bill?......"to thine own self, be true".....that's just an out for him....... I said nothing of the sort. Re-read the article where the Fox commentator claims that Obama is lying because of provisions in a draft of a bill he didn't write. I'm certain that his team is involved. That doesn't mean the President gets everything he wants in a bill. It is simply untrue to frame the discussion as it is in the article. It is very much par for the course at Fox. They are pretty quick to call others liars (and racists I'm looking at you Glenn Beck). Why didn't Fox call Palin out on her obvious distortion that there would be "Death Panels" deciding whether her son Trig would live or die. Even if you wished to twist the end of life care provision that allows seniors to consult with their doctors and for the docs to be paid,( a provision placed in the bill by a Republican Congressman and fully compatible with calls from Newt Gingrich for having advance diretives to avoid expensive and unnecessary care in the final stages of life), as a step towards euthanasia there is simply no provision in any bill that would expose Trig Palin to any "Death Panel". What does Fox do? They go right along with the silliness. They say "people have raised questions". People or Fox commentators? Doesn't "fair and balanced" require at least a cursory look at the facts? It becomes Obama's law when he signs it. Even then all lawmaking is a bit of a compromise. The question will be how much is he willing to give up to get something he wants? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted August 17, 2009 Author Share Posted August 17, 2009 Executive pay and profits are two entirely different things (and please note that stock options are not the same as an outright paycheck - Mr. Hensley didn't receive a check for $750 million that he can spend as he wants). You complained that profits were excessive, and I showed that they weren't. And even if pay levels were reduced to what you consider to be "reasonable" levels, it would not make much difference in total profits, or make them "excessive." And please note that struggling companies often pay their executives very well. Check out Alan Mulally's pay at Ford. The company is hardly out of the woods yet. For that matter, look at what Rick Wagoner was pulling down at GM as his company lost billions for years. So what's your point? These companies are in business to make a profit, right? They make profit by taking in more money than they pay out. They do that by denying medical care. That's why a public option (that unfortunately seems to be abandoned) is so important. Something is needed to keep these companies honest. Why should health insurance companies outperform every other industry during this downturn? Because they can... As far as Ford & GM executive compensation goes, if I don't like it, I can buy a car from another company. If I don't like the health care my employer provides, that's just too bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I said nothing of the sort. Re-read the article where the Fox commentator claims that Obama is lying because of provisions in a draft of a bill he didn't write. I'm certain that his team is involved. That doesn't mean the President gets everything he wants in a bill. It is simply untrue to frame the discussion as it is in the article. It is very much par for the course at Fox. They are pretty quick to call others liars (and racists I'm looking at you Glenn Beck). Why didn't Fox call Palin out on her obvious distortion that there would be "Death Panels" deciding whether her son Trig would live or die. Even if you wished to twist the end of life care provision that allows seniors to consult with their doctors and for the docs to be paid,( a provision placed in the bill by a Republican Congressman and fully compatible with calls from Newt Gingrich for having advance diretives to avoid expensive and unnecessary care in the final stages of life), as a step towards euthanasia there is simply no provision in any bill that would expose Trig Palin to any "Death Panel". What does Fox do? They go right along with the silliness. They say "people have raised questions". People or Fox commentators? Doesn't "fair and balanced" require at least a cursory look at the facts? It becomes Obama's law when he signs it. Even then all lawmaking is a bit of a compromise. The question will be how much is he willing to give up to get something he wants? Nice bob and weave...............have you ever ask yourself why so many people watch Fox news? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 So what's your point? These companies are in business to make a profit, right? They make profit by taking in more money than they pay out. They do that by denying medical care. That's why a public option (that unfortunately seems to be abandoned) is so important. Something is needed to keep these companies honest. Why should health insurance companies outperform every other industry during this downturn? Because they can... As far as Ford & GM executive compensation goes, if I don't like it, I can buy a car from another company. If I don't like the health care my employer provides, that's just too bad. If you don't like it opt out and and buy one......and I don't know of too many businesses that stay in business unless they show a profit......unless it's Govt. Motors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 If you don't like it opt out and and buy one......and I don't know of too many businesses that stay in business unless they show a profit......unless it's Govt. Motors but unless there IS competition those profit margins can be excessive.....and that trickles down to what it costs you and me no? If you price your services too high what happens? If I ask too much for a vehicle....guess what happens? there are alternatives which KEEP ME IN LINE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 No Government-Run Health Insurance, No Bill, Say Liberal Supporters of Reform A health care reform plan without government-run insurance is "D.O.A.," says one left-wing grassroots organizer up in arms about the possibility the Obama administration could abandon its efforts to build a "public option." Jim Dean, chairman of progressive group Democracy for America, wrote supporters on Monday to tell them to fight any effort to remove a government-run health insurance plan in place of non-profit "cooperatives." The screaming Doctor has spoken......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I said nothing of the sort. Re-read the article where the Fox commentator claims that Obama is lying because of provisions in a draft of a bill he didn't write. I'm certain that his team is involved. That doesn't mean the President gets everything he wants in a bill. It is simply untrue to frame the discussion as it is in the article. It is very much par for the course at Fox. They are pretty quick to call others liars (and racists I'm looking at you Glenn Beck). Your original contention was that "Obama didn't write the legislation and has no control over what is in and what is out until a final bill is voted on and sent to the President for signature or veto." (emphasis added) Sorry, but that is not true - just because his team didn't write the legislation doesn't mean that he has no control over the content. And his team has been working on this very issue BEFORE any legislation was drafted. To say that no provision of this bill is his, or that he has had no control over it, is simply not accurate. And last time I checked, it was President Obama calling an investigating police officer's actions "stupid" without having any idea of what really happened, and plenty of lefties were ready to brand the police officer racist, when it was the nutty professor teaching at Harvard who first threw around the charges of racism when faced with a reasonable request. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Nice bob and weave...............have you ever ask yourself why so many people watch Fox news? Yes, as a matter of fact I have asked myself why people watch Fox. I have come to the conclusion that people on the Right and Left like watching someone who agrees with them. The left has Olbermann and Maddow. I don't always agree with them but I'm probably 85% with them on most issues. The Right has Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck. I think they are full of crap about 85% of the time. Beck is just Batshiat crazy lately. Popularity is not indicative of truth or honesty. Lots of people watch Jerry Springer too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 So what's your point? These companies are in business to make a profit, right? They make profit by taking in more money than they pay out. They do that by denying medical care. That's why a public option (that unfortunately seems to be abandoned) is so important. Something is needed to keep these companies honest. Why should health insurance companies outperform every other industry during this downturn? Because they can... Your original point was that the company's profits are "excessive" and somehow resulting in premium increases. When I showed that, by standard measurements, their profits are not excessive, you trotted out an entirely different subject - executive pay - that has nothing to do with profits or premiums. As far as Ford & GM executive compensation goes, if I don't like it, I can buy a car from another company. If I don't like the health care my employer provides, that's just too bad. The point of bringing up the compensation of GM and Ford executives was to counter your point that the compensation enjoyed by insurance company executives somehow "proves" that they are healthy companies that are excessively profitable. As shown by the examples of GM and Ford, unhealthy companies can pay very large salaries to top executives. If you are unhappy with your company provided insurance, then press for an option to receive compensation instead of employer-provided insurance, and go buy your own. The employer can merely require proof that you have SOME form of insurance, not necessarily the company-provided option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 (edited) Popularity is not indicative of truth or honesty. Lots of people watch Jerry Springer too. People aren't watching Jerry Springer for news or a glimpse of real life. It's entertainment, however warped, and nothing more. Edited August 17, 2009 by grbeck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Your original contention was that "Obama didn't write the legislation and has no control over what is in and what is out until a final bill is voted on and sent to the President for signature or veto." (emphasis added) Sorry, but that is not true - just because his team didn't write the legislation doesn't mean that he has no control over the content. And his team has been working on this very issue BEFORE any legislation was drafted. To say that no provision of this bill is his, or that he has had no control over it, is simply not accurate. And last time I checked, it was President Obama calling an investigating police officer's actions "stupid" without having any idea of what really happened, and plenty of lefties were ready to brand the police officer racist, when it was the nutty professor teaching at Harvard who first threw around the charges of racism when faced with a reasonable request. Obama doesn't control what is in the proposed legislation. These are Democrats not Republicans we're dealing with here. They don't march in lockstep. To say that a particular provision of a bill is his is likewise incorrect at this point. Obama was wrong to address the Gates matter without having the facts. What appears to be clear about that incident is that Gates overreacted and both parties should have cooled down before it got to the point where it resulted in him going to jail. OTOH, Gates may have reason to be oversensitive given the times he grew up in. Crowley seems like a reasonable guy who was likely taken by surprise by the reaction and then he may have overreacted as well. Once it was established that Gates was in his home, it should have ended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Greene Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I can handle logical right wing views, because I sorta fall that way myself. But Fox mostly spews out extreme right wing crap designed to cause just the kind of discussion going on here, designed to get more viewers to watch their crap. It's their business plan....stir the pot with lies and inuendo. To think that at some time I probably bought into that line embarrases me. Real thoughtful intelligent Republicans don't like it either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 (edited) Obama doesn't control what is in the proposed legislation. These are Democrats not Republicans we're dealing with here. They don't march in lockstep. To say that a particular provision of a bill is his is likewise incorrect at this point. Obama was wrong to address the Gates matter without having the facts. What appears to be clear about that incident is that Gates overreacted and both parties should have cooled down before it got to the point where it resulted in him going to jail. OTOH, Gates may have reason to be oversensitive given the times he grew up in. Crowley seems like a reasonable guy who was likely taken by surprise by the reaction and then he may have overreacted as well. Once it was established that Gates was in his home, it should have ended. The President's team has been working on this issue for months. Given that he has been pushing for health care reform, and has had considerable input on this bill, it is accurate to say that credit him with certain provisions. He is not sitting back, waiting for Congress to send him a bill to either veto or approve. He is taking an active role - which I would expect him to do on a matter that is very complex and far-reaching. But, given this scenario, he can't sit back and disown the parts that people end up not liking while expecting credit for the overall legislation. Unless his campaign platform in 2012 is going to be, "I just sat back and signed a lot of nice bills that Congress drafted." As for the Gates episode - if I continued to yell and hurl accusations at an officer investigating a possible burglary in my home even after I had provided identification proving that I lived there, I would probably end up being arrested. The difference is that the President wouldn't criticize the police department, and Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann wouldn't be leaping to my defense. Yes, Gates grew up in a different, less forgiving time for African Americans. But one of the lessons of that time was that we shouldn't be quick to pre-judge others, and, from the looks of it, he apparently didn't learn that lesson himself. I would hope that the local police department investigating a reported burglary at my home would expect me to provide proof that I live there, and make me come out on to the porch and say that everything is fine (to ensure that no one else is hidden inside, holding a gun on me). Edited August 17, 2009 by grbeck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I can handle logical right wing views, because I sorta fall that way myself. But Fox mostly spews out extreme right wing crap designed to cause just the kind of discussion going on here, designed to get more viewers to watch their crap. It's their business plan....stir the pot with lies and inuendo. To think that at some time I probably bought into that line embarrases me. Real thoughtful intelligent Republicans don't like it either. What does it for me is all this crap comparing Obama to Hitler and the Nazis. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and to a lesser extent O'Reilly have all made that leap. As far as I am concerned once you make that comparison you have lost the argument. It is offensive to me personally since my family lost relatives in Europe to the death camps. The comparison trivializes the evil that Hitler and the Nazis represent and cheapens the loss of the victims. You simply cannot have a discussion with people willing to do that for their political ends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 The President's team has been working on this issue for months. Given that he has been pushing for health care reform, and has had considerable input on this bill, it is accurate to say that credit him with certain provisions. He is not sitting back, waiting for Congress to send him a bill to either veto or approve. He is taking an active role - which I would expect him to do on a matter that is very complex and far-reaching. But, given this scenario, he can't sit back and disown the parts that people end up not liking while expecting credit for the overall legislation. Unless his campaign platform in 2012 is going to be, "I just sat back and signed a lot of nice bills that Congress drafted." As for the Gates episode - if I continued to yell and hurl accusations at an officer investigating a possible burglary in my home even after I had provided identification proving that I lived there, I would probably end up being arrested. The difference is that the President wouldn't criticize the police department, and Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann wouldn't be leaping to my defense. Yes, Gates grew up in a different, less forgiving time for African Americans. But one of the lessons of that time was that we shouldn't be quick to pre-judge others, and, from the looks of it, he apparently didn't learn that lesson himself. I would hope that the local police department investigating a reported burglary at my home would expect me to provide proof that I live there, and make me come out on to the porch and say that everything is fine (to ensure that no one else is hidden inside, holding a gun on me). You and I can have a conversation on the overall bill and what we like/don't like. That is not the tone taken in the article. The author directly links Obama with specific provisions without any proof that he supports that particular provision or that he is responsible for it. Without any proof it is mere conjecture at to how it got in there. The Republicans have contributed to the make up of the proposals currently under consideration, although it appears clear that few Republicans will vote in favor of any bill. As for Gates, I agree with your statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 (edited) What does it for me is all this crap comparing Obama to Hitler and the Nazis. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and to a lesser extent O'Reilly have all made that leap. As far as I am concerned once you make that comparison you have lost the argument. It is offensive to me personally since my family lost relatives in Europe to the death camps. The comparison trivializes the evil that Hitler and the Nazis represent and cheapens the loss of the victims. You simply cannot have a discussion with people willing to do that for their political ends. But I seem to remember lots of people comparing Bush to Hitler during his terms. Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck and the gang didn't invent the tactic. I would hope that each side would learn from the mistakes of the past, but what I see is that they seem determined to adopt the worst tactics of the other side. Edited August 17, 2009 by grbeck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted August 17, 2009 Author Share Posted August 17, 2009 Your original point was that the company's profits are "excessive" and somehow resulting in premium increases. When I showed that, by standard measurements, their profits are not excessive, you trotted out an entirely different subject - executive pay - that has nothing to do with profits or premiums. The point of bringing up the compensation of GM and Ford executives was to counter your point that the compensation enjoyed by insurance company executives somehow "proves" that they are healthy companies that are excessively profitable. As shown by the examples of GM and Ford, unhealthy companies can pay very large salaries to top executives. If you are unhappy with your company provided insurance, then press for an option to receive compensation instead of employer-provided insurance, and go buy your own. The employer can merely require proof that you have SOME form of insurance, not necessarily the company-provided option. You think that executive pay has nothing to do with profits or premiums? My point about their profits was not necessarily about the profits they show to their investors on Wall Street. I was talking about excessive profits that allow them to offer their CEO's $750,000,000.00 worth of stock options. Their profit & executive pay are excessive. Have you priced personal health insurance lately? There's no way I could afford it for a family of 5 & I make pretty good money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUCKRACER Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 duck...they may NOT go broke...they may just lower their prices to become competitive and LOWER their ludicrous profit margins...... Profit is Bad???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 (edited) You think that executive pay has nothing to do with profits or premiums? My point about their profits was not necessarily about the profits they show to their investors on Wall Street. I was talking about excessive profits that allow them to offer their CEO's $750,000,000.00 worth of stock options. Their profit & executive pay are excessive. Have you priced personal health insurance lately? There's no way I could afford it for a family of 5 & I make pretty good money. If the companies are "fudging" their earnings statements, or hiding certain numbers, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would want to have a word with them. That is illegal. There is no proof that the profits of these companies are excessive. High executive pay is not proof of that. GM was paying Rick Wagoner billions...Ford is paying Mulally billions, too. Where were their profits? Have you asked why insurance policies are often expensive? Have you looked into the mandated coverage for various disease and conditions that your state has imposed on insurance carriers? Given that, as I've shown, the elimination of insurance company profits will do very little to bring down health care costs, how do you think that the government will be able to spend that much less than what we are currently spending, especially in view of the fact that it wants to extend coverage to people who often have bad health histories, or engage in stupid behaviors? Edited August 17, 2009 by grbeck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 People aren't watching Jerry Springer for news or a glimpse of real life. It's entertainment, however warped, and nothing more. Are you sure you aren't describing Fox News? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.