So which stories / topics / issues get your attention?
Deja vu: The NCAA and the four major professional leagues sued the state of New Jersey this week. They contend the Garden State's approval of sports betting violates Federal law, threatening the "character and integrity" of sporting events. We've seen this story before here in Delaware. It typically doesn't end well for the state in question. Or will New Jersey have more clout than Delaware?
Wilmington mayoral hopeful Bill Montgomery has pulled a page from Walter Mondale's book (in Mondale's debate with Ronald Reagan in 1984). Appearing in a debate before Wilmington Rotarians at the Hotel duPont, Montgomery declared - if elected - he'd raise taxes. Probably double-digits, around 15%. Montgomery was very much the odd man out in embracing tax increases. Montgomery also challenged Dennis Williams' super anti-crime stance. The former chief-of-staff to Mayor Baker warned that would almost inevitably lead to violations of civil liberties, and invite in the ACLU. This is all very interesting. Considering some Republicans in the city indicate they're re-registered "D" to vote in the city's Democratic Mayoral primary - and some have expressed support (at least in the past) for Montgomery - they'd be supporting the pro-tax and softer-on-crime candidate. Really? But in local politics, friendships and relationships count for more than anything said in a candidates' debate. Perhaps Montgomery's supporters are also making a cynical calculation: No matter what the others say NOW, they'd seek to raise taxes too.
The NEWS-JOURNAL reports Delaware taxpayers have paid more than 400-thousand dollars in utility bills since April for Fisker Automotive's old GM Boxwood Road plant, even though Fisker has suspended operations inside the plant. Fisker terminated dozens of workers, but insists it needs to maintain equipment at the moribund plant, requiring both power and a small maintenance team. Delaware Republicans have assailed the Markell Administration over Fisker.
I realize it's completely coincidental, but what is it about bearded pediatricians in Sussex County? Delaware officials have now yanked the medical license from Dr. Melvin Morse, accused of "waterboarding" his 11-year-old daughter. Given the description of what happened, it wasn't a Guantanamo-style waterboarding, but of course the use of that term catapulted this story to the top. Morse stands accused of grabbing his daughter by the ankle and dragging her across a gravel driveway. Police say he then took his daughter inside their home to spank her. Here comes the "waterboarding" part: The eleven-year-old told police her father had disciplined her (corroborated by her younger sister) by holding her face under running water, causing the water to fill her nostrils and run over her face. This allegedly happened at least four times.
You can hear my interview with Wilmington attorney Joe Hurley, now representing this pediatrician and his wife. Some interesting assertions...
"After a spring and summer of weak economic indicators, a flurry of fresh data suggest key sectors of the economy might be gaining traction just as the battle for the White House enters the final round.
The long-moribund housing market has bustled to life, with prices and new-home construction rising in recent weeks. Hiring, so weak earlier this year, picked up last month. And on Thursday, the government reported an acceleration of a downward trend in the number of people seeking unemployment insurance, as well as a sharp improvement in U.S. exports.
Together, the signs point to an improving economy, a potentially important shift for President Obama's reelection campaign..."
Loudell comment: I can't help but think, though, that a continued impasse between the Obama Administration and Congressional Republicans over military funding and continuing tax cuts for the rich could destabilize investor psychology towards the end of the year.
Breaking News -- Saturday morning: Mitt Romney announces Wisconsin U.S. Representative Paul Ryan as his running mate.
Posted at 7:49am on August 10, 2012 by Allan Loudell
1) The "character and integrity" of professional and college sports. They must have a hard time stiffling a laugh when they say those words.
2) Montgomery knows he won't win. Why not tell the truth?
3) Housing prices are up because rates are so low, a few thousand $ added to the price won't even be noticed. They don't take into account the HUGE glut of short sales or foreclosures.
kavips
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 11:15am
Crystal Ball: I see Peter Schwartzkopf putting the first bill into the General Assembly next January, requiring all Sussex County pediatricians to have shaved faces..
And to put the $400,000 dollars in perspective, that is slightly less than 50 cents for every person in Delaware. Whoop..Dee...Doo. I will only take such outrage seriously, if the person stirring the mud has never ever played a slot machine or bought a lottery ticket. Sometimes you bet on a higher rate of return than you can get. Who knew back in 2009, that after being trounced in elections across the nation, that Republicans could come back and take the House, and stop the start-up money from flowing to these companies? I never predicted it. I don't think others did either. Somewhere in my house I have two quarters on the floor; I remember seeing them. If it bothers you so much, I'll find them and mail them to you... put your address here on line and we'll make it happen... All worried about 50 cents.. sheesh... (Now watch someone try to make an argument that 50 cents is 50 cents.... lol) Get a life...
As for the Wilmington mayor's race.... you have one candidate who is going to raise taxes 15% and do nothing about crime because of the ACLU, and you have another who is going after crime as it needs to be. I think the Rotary Club discussion just decided the election. "Commissioner Gordon" it is.... (ha ha, I just realized that name actually works in another race, that for the New Castle Co. Exec contest... invoking of course real-world comparisons to the incorruptible law-and-order police chief of the Batman comic and movie series)
teatime
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 1:12pm
Bill Montgomery must have fallen out of the 'stupid tree' and hit every branch on the way down.
You want to raise my taxes? Great! I'm definitely voting for you because I, like thousands of other Wilmington residents, believe we're paying too little in taxes.
EarlGrey
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 2:22pm
"After a spring and summer of weak economic indicators, a flurry of fresh data suggest key sectors of the economy might be gaining traction just as the battle for the White House enters the final round.
The long-moribund housing market has bustled to life, with prices and new-home construction rising in recent weeks. Hiring, so weak earlier this year, picked up last month. And on Thursday, the government reported an acceleration of a downward trend in the number of people seeking unemployment insurance, as well as a sharp improvement in U.S. exports.
Together, the signs point to an improving economy, a potentially important shift for President Obama's reelection campaign..."
Where is this economic data coming from?...the government...I do not trust this administration to tell the truth about anything anymore. They couln't be more Orwellian if they tried...
Sorry, but I don't believe the economy is doing better, who is hiring?? Most businesses (and rich people) are holding onto their cash/investment/new hires until January 2013.
kavips
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 3:07pm
Truth is taxes must be raised. Judging from history, currently they are way too low.
Here is what history shows: Higher taxes create vibrant economies, and bestow a higher quality of life for all their beneficiaries. Countries with high tax-rates hardly felt the past depression. Those with lower rates are now bankrupt. Low taxes benefit businesses and not anyone else. They create large pools of unrestrained cash. Now IF all that cash were used to expand, do research & development, create more opportunity, increase the attractiveness of one's company so its employees don't jump ship, etc., etc. .... lowering taxes would work. The problem is, those with money don't want to do that...
If you had money, you wouldn't want to do that either. Why would you invest your profits into doubling your production capacity, when know you wouldn't see a return on that investment until ten years later? Why would you give your employees a raise, when you know they are stuck with you because no openings exist while unemployment is 8%? Heck, they'd even take a 2% cut just to have a job...
When all you had to do was take that profit, put it in the stock market and make 7% in a year's time? ... Gentlemen, and ladies. There IS a reason nothing new is built when you cut taxes giving people at the top, too much money. Why build, when you can BUY a competitor, consolidate, and grow even faster, with a higher rate of profit, because you just fired all those who were working for the company you just bought? There IS a reason nothing new is built when you cut taxes giving people too much money. There IS a reason jobs disappear when you cut taxes giving people at the top too much money.
Now, on the opposite side, as soon as you raise taxes on profits, every body runs the other way.... What profits, they say? We don't have any profits this year; we built this; we built that; we threw a thank-you party for our staff; we had to give out raises; we started a pension program; we invested a little more into their insurance coverage... Sorry Uncle Sam... we're all tapped out this year.... we don't have profit...
As all that money hits the grocery stores, Home Depots, entertainment industries, vacation businesses, and non-profit charities; the economy takes off like someone threw a match at a tanker of gasoline.
It is really simple math... If you go to Dunkin Donuts on a regular basis, and were there for their dozen-donuts-at-$5.00 special, you got used to taking a dozen to the office on a regular basis... They called you "donut man". "Hey, donut man, don't forget my blueberry cake tomorrow.. " "Yeah donut man, remember my pumpkin donut, I'm addicted." Yeah donut man, don't forget I like chocolate, lots and lots of chocolate..."
Then they go back up to regular price. Why? The Dunkin Donut conpany apparently could not afford to keep supporting donuts at that price, pure and simple. So the sale is over... over...
It is that way with rich people and taxes. They had a low tax deal worked out and it went on for a long time; now the United States cannot afford to carry it further.... Back to regular price...
To not go back is stupid.. To cut taxes even lower, is even more stupid... There may be more polite phrasings of the word stupid that could be used here, but there really is no other word that so adequately describes anyone who insists on cutting taxes when their company is in severely dire straits.
I'm sure somewhere at Dunkin Donuts a counter-girl is saying.... "Gosh... we were a lot busier when we had the $5 dollar special. We need to bring that back. . ." Romney's message is the wish of the counter-girl. Romney is acting counter-girl for those few special interests who benefited from the Republican tax cuts.
For you see, dropping the price of donuts was great for the customers, but doing so put Dunkin Donuts in the red. Now, it's back to regular price. Even if they sell just one donut at regular price, they're so far ahead of all those millions sold at negative 5 cents a piece.
Bill Montgomery gets it... thought he'd say it.. but he messed up on his delivery....
Bill, if you read this, here is how to frame it. Ready?
"Every business, every household, and every government has to run in the black. You can get loans, but eventually you have to pay it back. There are two ways every business, every household, and every government can close that gap between what they need and what they have. One is to cut expenses. We've done that for the past 12 years. All we have is bone. The other way, is what every business, every household, and every government has to do when when they don't have enough money coming in. Get more. There are businesses and people here in this town who could easily afford to give a tiny bit more, which is all we need, so we stop losing money. That makes sense. I foresee that happening, in the future, because bones can't do much. You need meat on those bones. So if we keep expenses where they are, at rock-bottom and continue to bring more money in to pay down our debt, soon Wilmington will start growing again, and THAT, is what we all want....."
arthur
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 3:52pm
"Higher taxes create vibrant economies, and bestow a higher quality of life for all their beneficiaries. Countries with high tax-rates hardly felt the past depression."
How are spain and greece doing? Both higher tax rates than US
Mike from Delaware
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 6:33pm
I'm with Kavips on this one.
The upper 2% has had it their way where their salary has gone through the roof while their taxes have dropped to historic lows. NOW its time for those in that upper 2% to pay the piper as we in the middle class have been doing for over 30+ years. Our salaries have stagnated if not dropped significantly. It's now their turn to be in the barrel. The middleclass have been there for way too long.
What got the US out of the Great Depression was WWII. The Government spent money like a drunken sailor paying those civilian companies to build guns, tanks, jeeps, planes, uniforms, food supplies for the troops, etc, etc, to win the war. Free enterprise did the work, the government provided the cash. Roosevelt was on the right course prior to 1941, but he didn't go far enough. The war forced his hand and it worked.
So yes, let's do the same thing, except, without a war. Let's raise taxes on the wealthiest 2% and spend that money to get people working with a "war on our failing infrastructure". America needs to be rebuilt, so let's do it in the same spirit as FDR and America fought and won WWII.
A number of projects in Delaware during the past 3 years were due to some of the stimulus money from Obama being used here to create jobs and fix things here. That South Market Street flooding issue is just one example. I believe the upgrades to the AMTRAK station is another. A green way that was put in near New Castle is a third, and there are others through out the state.
Conservatives like to bash FDR as being a "socialist" which he wasn't, but without those New Deal programs he and his administration put into place, folks in the South might not still have electricity, which the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) provided for much of the South; or the Hoover Dam in the West made possible for folks to be able to develop and live in desert states like New Mexico and Arizona where water is very scarce.
Fixing and improving our infrastructure is a good use of our tax dollars as we all benefit, whereas the way things have been working ONLY the wealthiest 2% benefit. Our roads, bridges, etc, etc, are crumbling and need fixing. So let's do the FDR thing and get this nation moving again.
EarlGrey
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 9:43pm
Mike, Taxing the upper 2% will not provide nearly the funding necessary to bring our nation out of this recession, nor will it noticeably help the middle class...now if we could drill oil/gas on govt land (like ANWR), build the Keystone pipeline from Canada and allow LESS government intervention in the private sector (GM bailout and Solyndra boondoggles) then I believe we would see our economy go through the roof. An awesome side effect from the drilling in ANWR & the Keystone pipeline would be a more secure country due to energy independence and closer ties with a friendly nation like Canada.
Mike from Delaware
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 11:34pm
EarlGrey: I definitely agree with the drilling for oil and the Keystone pipeline from Canada into the US. The taxing of the 2% may not provide enough funding, but its a step in the right direction. Cutting back of military spending where we're providing military services for other nations at our expense is another way help the bottom line. If those nations want to use our military then they should pay for it, not us.
There's all sorts of things that can be done, that yes are small things when compared to the total debt, but put all those small things together and you're talking some serious money, for example no pensions for Congress or the President, cut their respective staffs down considerably, no limos other than for the Prez and VP. The members of Congress don't have Secret Service protection anyhow, so let them drive their own cars or pay for their own use of mass transit like the rest of "serfs" do who make far less money than they. No private plane for Nancy Pelosi either. All of Obama's czar's should be fired. There are others already in government that can handle those tasks, etc, etc. Both sides of the isle can cut all sorts of crap like this, including foreign aid other than maybe food/medicine, etc.
But I've had enough of the constant ranting of the GOP to cut the programs that actually help the little guy, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, School Lunches, etc. I agree that all physically able folks on Welfare should have to give three days a week to doing community service (working for their Welfare). I say three days so that leaves them 3-4 other days to look for real non-governmental work.
There are all sorts of office buildings around the nation full of Federal government bureaucrats that could be cut, as corporations have been doing for decades. This would save salaries/pensions, but also give the federal employee an understanding what their counterparts in private industry have been putting up with for the past 30+ years as the workforce shrinks due to lay offs, yet there's more work meaning more multitasking by employees, etc.
Government employees pay shouldn't be better than the people who pay their salaries doing the same work in the civilian non-governmental world. Same with government pensions, Mr.Pizza said if he stays long enough with the USPS, he'd get his full pension that it would be equal to 80% of his pay. Must be nice, most pensions usually hit around 50% or less of pay.
All of this stuff that I just thought up off the top of my head, as I'm typing, can be cut, and there's plenty more where that came from, BEFORE cutting those important safety net programs that so many folks, who've played by the rules all their life are depending on.
That's the biggest turn off to the GOP for me, is how quickly they'd throw granny under the bus as they'd eliminate her Medicare and Social Security while falling on their swords rather than raise taxes even a penny on that 2%. Some how the term "Compassionate Conservative" truly is an oxymoron. Protect the rich and privileged at all costs, but stick it to the little guy. What amazes me is how many working class folks don't seem to have a problem with that and support the GOP/TEA objectives. They're voting against their own best interests while protecting those who don't give a hoot about them as their policies demonstrate.
My guess is, if the "ditto heads", "Hannitized", "the Beck" followers" all started demanding the GOP besides having good solid moral values, also started looking out for the middle class, the GOP would make that change, because those three groups of folks are the GOP's strongest, most loyal voters, so they'd make that change rather than lose those voters. Those three groups of folks have allowed their talking head radio celebrities (Rush/Beck/Hannity) to sell them a bill of goods. This bill of goods is where the little guys are actually carrying the water for the wealthy as they make millions of dollars each year selling that load of malarkey to those millions of Limbaugh dittoheads, Hannity's hannitized, and Beck's followers.
There's good things about the GOP, but sticking it to the little guy isn't one of them.
Mike from Delaware
Sat, Aug 11, 2012 12:10am
EarlGrey: some good news for the GOP in Delaware. See Gallup poll shows trend in Delaware more conservative and more GOP approval than in 2009, 2010. Based on how I read it, IF the GOP really got out their voters, maybe Delaware could go for Romney.
Oh I forgot to say, after map appears, click on Delaware for more details. So Delaware may not be the slam dunk for Obama that all expect. I guess I'll actually have to look at this more closely as my vote might actually count this time in deciding which way our 3 electoral votes go.
As an independent I can go either way. I see good points for both sides and bad points. You guys read my posts, so you know I can see it from both directions.
Usually it doesn't matter as Delaware is so Democratic that the times I've voted for the GOP my vote didn't really matter as its never that close in Delaware in recent years, but I'm going to have to really weigh out the pros and cons of Obama's vision vs Romney's vision and make my decision before November. Hopefully I won't have to hold my nose as I vote.
According to Drudge, Mitt's supposed to announce his VP choice Saturday at 9am. That probably won't sway many folks, but it will tell us all a bit more about Romney in who he picks as his VP. Please Mitt, no Sarah Palin's (Tiny Fey doesn't need the work impersonating her this year). Pick someone solid and well vetted.
EarlGrey
Sat, Aug 11, 2012 12:23am
Mike: I really doubt that Romney will be able to take our blue state...but I don't think that Mitt will be crushed like McCain was in 08'
EarlGrey
Sat, Aug 11, 2012 12:27am
Looks like we find out Saturday morning around 9am Romney's VP pick...of the final three we keep hearing about I hope it's Paul Ryan (My personal fav was Allen West, but sincerely doubt he will be the VP choice)
This video is probably the main reason why we will hear Ryan is the VP pick tomorrow morning...Ryan schools Obama on Obamacare.
mrpizza
Sat, Aug 11, 2012 6:22am
I'm a dittohead, Hannitized, Beck follower (although I think he goes over the top with conspiracy theories), and I believe the GOP is the only one who IS looking out for the middle class.
But - if you want to re-elect the liars and deceivers AKA the Obama administration, well, then I hope you get the government you deserve.
kavips
Sat, Aug 11, 2012 12:50pm
Mr. Pizza. I'll put you on the spot...
WHY... do you think the GOP is the ONLY one who is looking out for the middle class? I'm curious because you are going in an opposite direction from everyone else, and the assumption I'm afraid being made by many is that you are just making that up, hoping it gets carried by its "assertion factor"...
I'm sure there is a good reason you believe as you do, but can't seem to discern the perspective from which you are looking at the problem...
Tell us what you are seeing...
And here is a trivia question that stumped me so I'll forward it on to Allan.....
Which nation has the greatest number of active aircraft carriers in service, behind the United States. (The US of course has the most......)
I won't tell you the answer but leave you a link, since I thoroughly enjoyed looking through it and believe everyone here will do likewise... Plus there are a lot of pleasant surprises in the slideshow....
EarlGrey: thanks for the link to Paul Ryan explaining to Obama and Biden, and to me, and those who are willing to listen, why Obamacare is not the right answer at this time and why we need to find another way to solve the problem.
Based on what, the now VP nominee, said at that meeting with Obama and Biden, there are no cost savings and in fact will cost way more, which we can not afford at this time. Ryan went on to explain that all in Congress know that the status quo is not the answer either (I'm glad to hear that) and we need to come up with another answer to solve this problem.
That's the first time I heard Paul Ryan speak. He explained his position well, was very respectful to both the President and VP; I must admit that watching that 12 minute video was very impressed with VP nominee Ryan and I can see why you and the TEA folks like him. He seems to have an integrity (hope its true) that is needed in DC. So now we're talking Romney/Ryan vs Obama/Biden. My gut tells me that Mitt made a very good choice. So his first "presidential" decision appears to be a very good one.
This could be a very interesting election indeed.
kavips
Sat, Aug 11, 2012 8:13pm
The problem with discussing health care in bits and pieces is trifold. One, it is so broad that it affects different people differently. Two, it is theoretical. We can\'t say for sure what will happen, so we have to use data to make predictions. Third, it is political; people are more concerned with whether their side is winning or losing, than over what is best for the country.
So with that said, simply accepting a brief clip of Ryan\'s opinion which is unsubstantiated, is like simply accepting Joe Biden\'s take, which is equally unsubstantiated. I will say there are elements of truth in what Ryan says, but that he is looking at only a sliver of the entire program. For a better view, we only have one source, and that is the CBO, Congressional Budget Office, who is primarily the only group that has yet evaluated this in detail........
We\'ve all imagined ourselves as battle commanders, even if briefly during the watching of a movie. That framework is how we have to evaluate Obama and Ryan when this argument comes up. In the extensive planning of the operation, each side makes a set of calculations. But since the two sides have not gone to war yet, no one can predict the conclusion. Each side has to trust God.
So let\'s jump right in. To be perfectly honest, the Obamacare will hurt some people. It will help some people. Some people will be worse off. Some people will be better off. Where is the line, and what will be the average? The answer is no one knows. But the actuaries have put together a model with a million different variables, and according to that model, Obamacare will affect more people positively than it will negatively.
Obviously income level, and age level play a part. As a brief refresher, it is wise to remember that young people rarely get medical treatment and old people get tons, and tons. It is wise to remember that people with minimal plans only covering catastrophic calamities, don\'t pay as much for them as do people with plans covering kitchen sinks. It is wise to remember that the total medical outlay one pays, is a combination of ones rates and ones bills after insurance has covered all it is going to. So if ones premium jumps higher, but everything is covered, his net cost will be lower than paying a little premium and everything out of pocket.....
This gives you a little taste of the complexity. Now imagine figuring out where every member of the population stands among all three of these categories and making a model based on population statistics... That is why we are not arguing exact science.....
So lets tear into it. If you are older, and visit the doctor over 6 times a month, and you have 6 prescriptions being taken daily, and you have a co-payment plan at 80/20, you will have more money in your pocket with Obamacare than you will have without it....
Here is why. The insurance pools will be expanded. Instead of paying for the average cost of care that a 70 year old can get on a regular basis, you will be paying a premium based on the average cost of care the entire population pool will be paying on a per capita basis.
And just for sake of argument I will use random numbers just to explain this, but if the entire medical budget of the United States of America was just $1 trillion dollars, and there are 333 million Americans, the expected premium would be $3000 dollars a year.... That makes sense. If every person pays $3000 dollars into a gigantic pool and that pool is exactly the yearly amount that all of America, young or old, rich or poor, Democrat or Republican, spends on health-care, the obligation is met for that year.....
Currently, old people pay a lot more than young people. If old people are paying $7000 dollars now, under Obamacare they will have more money to give to their children when they die... \"Wow, I never guessed Ma had all that money!\".... Now those without insurance, who have it now mandated like a tax, are going to say WOW... $3000 dollars! This is crazy!!!... and from their perspective it is...
But, they are not thinking of the \"what if\'s.. \"What if I get decapitated in a car crash; how can I get a new head transplanted on my torso without insurance.\" If that scenario were to happen, $3000 is a bargain. So get the combination of a pulled tooth, eye examination, viagra, birth control pills, a panic attack, and that person has already spent $3000 worth of medical cost out of pocket.....
So, since everyone\'s insurance is being paid for, it is hoped that early on, medical attention will be sought, saving money by catching problems early as opposed to having say a head transplant at age 64.... (Just using humor to lighten a dry conversation.)
So, since you are all intelligent people you can see where this is going. Costs will rise for some people, costs will fall for some people, but across the board, three factors will exert downward pressure on costs overall...
One, early prognosis of diseases. If we could eliminate Type II diabetes by catching it in 20 years olds, the overall amount of health-care spent in the US will drop considerably. If we catch colon cancer. If we catch breast cancer. If we catch skin cancer. If we catch HIV. If we catch strokes. If we catch erectile dysfunction. If we catch nymphomania. By exerting downward pressure on the total outlay of medical expenses, we spread those savings to each of the 333 million who will then pay lower premiums the subsequent year.. ....
Two, the spread of premiums over the entire population. This was the mandate fought over. But most people, not all, who do not currently pay insurance, do not seek medical attention. Therefore if they are paying into the pool, and not soaking up the services provided, they are exerting downward pressure on the amount being paid over what is paid today. What did they say? 40 million had no insurance? So using my above figures, we had $1 trillion in cost, being spread over 293 million people instead of the 333 million that Obamacare would insist upon, each would pay a higher cost... Extra people paying into the pool would water down the share of what we had to put in....
Third.... Giant, grand economies of scale will help push costs downward. Currently if you live in Alabama you pay more for your insurance than you would if you lived in New York. (But New York is more expensive to live in than Alabama, how can that be?) Answer is, in Alabama there is only one licensed insurance carrier with a sweetheart deal to cover all Alabamians. With a monopoly, comes monopoly prices... But if you break down state barriers and allow shopping across the entire country, the portion of cost that is there just to sinfully inflate profits, makes it hard to continue to overcharge when something cheaper is parked right beside it. There is considerable profit-taking going on currently, which is why American health care is 17% of GDP and Japan is like around 4% of GDP. And they live longer than Americans while paying much less.... Basically, Obama-care is the Wal*mart moving on the outside of a small town. It portends difficult times for those downtown shops, but is a great boon for each of those living in that general market.
That is actually a good way to describe it. Obamacare is the Wal*mart of health-care....
So, these three factors are expected to drive down the total cost of Health-care from the top... If the total cost of Health care does become less, then when equally divided up among all American citizens, that means the premiums will be less and less as costs come down.....
Again, with that said, no one knows all the problems. The biggest problem is that it is not a single payer system. Therefore it is complicated by all the private concerns now struggling to figure how they can profit from this new decision. Some, will not. Eventually just the same way Wal*mart sucks up a downtown\'s economy by giving its shoppers more value for the money spent, the single payer system will stabilize medical costs over time. But for a while, it will be touch and go...
How will this affect you? The obvious question.....
Starting in 2014, Obama-care will implement what has been called an age-band... Instead of the equal costs I used as examples to illustrate how Obama-care will work, the age- bands will mandate that insurance providers cannot charge old people more than three times what they charge young people. The most expensive insurance is capped at three times the amount of the least expensive level. Which means that currently if old people are in some states paying a 5:1 cap, they will pay less, younger people will pay more.....
Secondly, those people buying insurance on exchanges cannot be charged more or get discounts depending upon their health quotient and lifestyle. People with pre-conditions who now pay much more, will pay less than currently; healthy young adults will pay more to make up that balance....
Likewise the requirement that Insurers now accept everyone, will transfer costs from sick to those who are healthy....
Fourth, insurers are now required to offer healthy essential benefits... Where it used to be optional, now every insurance must carry these mandated coverages...ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and rehabilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care..... That is better coverage than my employer ever offered... And so, those working for employers who were too cheap to fail, will fine that their insurance just got a lot more expensive.
(I know for a fact of an AETNA health plan that was taken up by a Delaware employer because of the requirement that they had to offer insurance to anyone who wanted it... That plan deducted $1200 dollars from each employees pay over the course of a year, and only paid $1000 in benefits for expenses over-top a $6000 dollar deductible. Robbery. So, on every employee, AETNA made money. $200 dollars. On most, they made the full $1200. Don\'t know how that kind of policy got past Matt Denn, and I\'m sure it won\'t get past Mitch Crane... But it is kinda easy to see why we need to elect the sharpest tools to put in the insurance commissioner\'s shed, if you know what I mean...)
It was fighting against this kind of corporate abuse of employees who had no choice but choose to do without insurance, that originally tipped public opinion and inspired the creation of Obamacare. (The newest current profit reported by AETNA for this just past second quarter, was $457.6 million dollars....)
More than half of Americans who have corporate funded insurance plans, do not have coverage that would meet the requirements of \"minimum coverage\".. As those get covered for all people, those currently on cheap coverages through no fault but that of their employer, will certainly see some premiums will go up...
Finally, there are taxes involved. Those will also be spread and be added to the cost of doing business.
So... Being intelligent people, you can see a trend emerging. If you are on the higher risk side of average, you will be paying less than you are now. If you are on the lower side of risk of average you will be paying higher costs than you are now...
However, and this is the selling point. Assuming you live.. and that is a big assumption... the more you are paying now, will be the less you will be paying later....
It\'s a spread. Nothing more.
Therefore one needs to keep this in mind as those states start evaluating their future costs and publishing their findings.....
Delaware, is excited. Their costs will go down, because they are paying a higher price now than the midwest, west, and south. Markell has said that it appears through the number crunching that this will do very well for Delawareans. One can extrapolate, that states with higher tax bases, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Maryland, Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, Calif... probably because they currently have mandated better coverages and current health plans already doing a lot of what national health care will require, will also see savings coming their way because of the wider spread of costs over the larger pool of the entire country.
So when you see reports coming from states predicting financial catastrophe, look at the state.
These states have done so...
(I\'ll just copy and past and you can google to get details...)
\"A nationwide study conducted by Milliman Inc. for the Society of Actuaries found that nationwide the premiums in the individual market would increase from 8 to 37 percent in 2014 – with a cumulative increase of as much as 122 percent between 2013 and 2017.\" -- http://www.soa.org/Research/Research-Projects/Health/research-health-aca-risk-mitigation.aspx
Indiana determined the law would boost premiums in the individual market on average by 75 to 95 percent and in the small employer market by 5-10 percent in 2014. -- http://www.in.gov/aca/files/Individual_SmallPremium_Increases.pdf
Ohio found rates would go up 55 to 85 percent above current rates, before tax credits. -- http://www.ohioexchange.ohio.gov/Documents/MillimanReport.pdf
Minnesota concluded that individual market premiums will increase between 26 to 42 percent-- http://mn.gov/commerce/insurance/images/Gruber-Gorman-Slides-11-17-11.pdf
Maine said individual premiums will increase on average by 40 percent and premiums in the small group market are likely to increase 8 to 9 percent. About 20 percent of the individual market would still experience premium increases even after subsidies. -- https://maine.gov/pfr/insurance/reports/pdf/Impact_ACA.pdf
Maryland concluded individual premiums will go up on average by 34 to 36 percent and in the small employer market on average by 2 percent -- http://mhcc.dhmh.maryland.gov/smallgroup/Documents/affordable_care_20110711.pdf
Wisconsin found that before tax credits, the average premium increase in the individual market will be 30 percent. -- http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Wisconsin_Gruber_Aug_2011.pdf
Colorado said individual premiums will go up on average 19 percent. -- http://blogs-images.forbes.com/aroy/files/2012/02/Gruber-CO-narrative.pdf
Rhode Island found that before tax subsidies, premiums for individuals will increase on average by 8 percent. -- http://www.naic.org/documents/committees_b_hcra_wg_120503_Wakely_RI_12-13-11.pdf
These are independent assessments covering what each state estimates it\'s costs may be...
Keep in mind that if you have states that paid nothing in insurance premiums, that the new law would cause costs to rise an \"infinite\" percent.... Yes anything greater than zero off a zero, is infinite percent... Likewise the lower the costs that are currently being paid, the higher the percent is going to be... so those states who were not taking adequate care of their citizens, are going to have a higher percentage increase than those who already had excellent coverage in place. Unless Vermont beat us this year, Delaware probably has the best coverage in the nation. For example, if I currently pay a premium of $1 dollar, and the new minimum cost is $2 dollars, I have a 100% increase. But if I paid $10 and my new minimum is $11, ... I have a 10% increase. One can shriek, one can brag, but it is still just a dollar. Both amounts are the same. It is easy in math to have higher increased percentages,.... when the beginning numbers are low, because you have to go against so much less... (For the $10 person to have a 100$ increase, his rates would have to go up $10 dollars to $20..) So before you get excited over the percent increases, keep in mind that the actual amounts are not really that much in dollar values...
It is for this reason that offsetting tax cuts were instilled into the package. Those like Mr. Pizza\'s employees, who pay $10 a week into the insurance plan, but can\'t really afford it, have that offset by a $10 reduction in their tax load. So they will be getting free insurance. Tagg Romney, who has $230 million in his trust fund will probably get socked with higher premiums; he will no longer be shielded because of his youth, his good health, his lack of pre-conditions, or his Dad... But then, he unlike Mr. Pizza\'s employees, can easily afford it... Likewise, Mr. Pizza who gets saddled with offering mandated insurance to his employees, also gets a tax break dollar for dollar, so he does not suffer obsessive costs either.
So what does all this do to the budget? As you can see, there is a lot of room to maneuver and that is what Ryan was calling Smoke and mirrors.
But, everyone will have insurance. And particularly if one looks at the beginning of this epistle, at the three reasons Obama-care will exert a lowering influence upon the entire medical expenses of the entire United States of America, then it stands, that if the overall amount spent on health-care drops, and does so while we all get better coverage and live happily ever ... after, the net gain to this nation of ours, will be a positive one.
There will be those who benefit more. There will be those who will pay more... But the overall cost to this nation we all love in cherish, will be less.....
And that, is what Obama-care is all about.
EarlGrey
Sat, Aug 11, 2012 9:51pm
Mike, I agree with you...I think Romney made an excellent choice for VP! Ryan wasn't my first choice but I think he was the smartest pick available.
Really looking forward to Ryan debating good ol' Joe from Delaware ;)
Mike from Delaware
Sat, Aug 11, 2012 11:17pm
EarlGrey: I watched part of Romney's speech today and a Paul Ryan speech both on C-SPAN tonight. Romney was energized, no teleprompters for him, he looked and sounded pumped. The Paul Ryan speech was from May 2011 at some Economic group. He seems to have a good grasp on the issue.
I think the Ryan/Biden debate should be worth watching. Ole Joe can hang tough too, and who knows what "colorful" comments he'll make in the heat of the moment.
Kavips: Thank you for your analysis of Obamacare. As I had said months ago, and I guess I have to go back to it, but I think Obama and company should have waited for the economy to improve before trying to do Obamacare. I know from what you wrote, you believe based on things you've read that Obamacare will save various states and the Feds money, but it also seems to be keeping businesses from wanting to hire more folks. This is because of the size of the Obamcare bill (2700pages, I believe) no one is totally sure what cost per employee would be dropped into the laps of employers.
So that uncertainty has in its own way kept the economy from improving. So in one sense, Obama and the DEMS by passing Obamacare when they did, actually may have caused the economy to stay in the toilet longer than if they'd have focused their efforts totally on fixing the economy and getting folks back to work. By getting folks back to work faster, would automatically raise tax revenue for the government that both state and fed lost due to the Recession of 2008. That added tax revenue would be helping to pay down the debt, fund Social Security, and Medicare, etc. The nation's credit rating wouldn't have dropped from a AAA to an A rating, or whatever the rating ended up being.
So when you look at it THAT way, I can better understand why the GOP doesn't want Obamacare NOW. Maybe once the economy is purring again, then some form of that might be the thing to do. However, the GOP/TEA folks also have ideas as they've admitted that we just can't go back to the status quo and do nothing about the nation's healthcare system.
From what I gathered from VP nominee Ryan, the Republican plan would not affect those now getting Social Security and Medicare nor those like me who in a few years will be getting those plans. THAT's important to those of us who've worked and played by the rules for a lifetime of work (as of now 42 years of full time employment for me, paying into the system). Obviously for those who've got 40+ years to go, the system might have to be tweaked a bit so that it is there when your turn comes around.
So hopefully when President Romney takes over the reigns of power, he'll keep his word and start the wheels turning to overturn Obamacare. Then hopefully he and the GOP will be able to get DEMS to work with them in Congress to get this economy kicked started getting folks back to work and THEN tackle the healthcare problems with a far simpler program that really cuts cost not just of doctor visits, hospital stays, but also the cost of prescription drugs.
Why do the drug companies, who manufacture the drugs charge folks in the US more than others in Canada and other 1st world nations? Hopefully President Romney and VP Ryan can get to the bottom of that and stop it. Those research and development costs should be spread out to all 1st world nations, not just the US as all benefit from research that brings us new and hopefully better drugs. Obviously, it would be wrong to tack on those charges to the third world as they have enough problems already just paying for the drugs.
mrpizza
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 1:06am
Kavips: Thank you for your question. I really appreciate you presenting it in a constructive way. The answer is that I believe the Democrats make a pretense of caring about the middle class and the poor and the children and use them as pawns to exploit public emotion in order to promote a socialist agenda.
The Republicans on the other hand, while they are stiffer and much less emotional, understand what's at stake and are more willing to put reality ahead of emotion. Rather than pity people who are poor or facing hardship and just handing them a welfare or unemployment check, they seek to create an environment where they can instead make it on their own. The Democrats keep beating the "tax the rich" drum over and over, but Republicans seek to make the tax structure more favorable for everyone so that businesses can operate productively and hire people. Same with health care. We believe health care is expensive because government has had too much of a hand in it the last 40 years or so. Republicans seek to make health care affordable for everyone through competition rather than through a socialist bureaucracy presenting the illusion that it's "free". We understand that somebody always pays, and it's much better if everybody is able to work and pay their own way as opposed to not being able to afford stuff without a subsidy.
If you give somebody a fish, you feed them for a day. If you teach somebody how to fish, you feed them for life. The person who knows how to fish will be able to live in true freedom, which is really what the GOP wants not only for the middle class, but for everyone.
kavips
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 1:11am
As a business person, what prevents me from hiring are Republicans. If the tax cuts had been lifted two years ago, we would have invested in a new unit. However, if we had, and the tax cuts continued as they did, we would have made a bad decision. The higher the tax, the more I want to move my money into physical capital, into manufacturing buildings, where it can't be taxed. The less the tax, the more I want to put it in stocks, where I can manipulate it for the highest investment,...
Return to higher levels of taxation, and the money now sitting on the sidelines earning moderate dividends, jumps back and buries itself into the economy where it can't be found or taxed...
So I agree that fixing the tax code should have come before Health Care, but putting myself in that position, ... who knew?
Health Care was the number one issue on Obama's campaign, and his mastery of that topic probably escalated him in front of Hillary during the hotly contested primary.... The best in my lifetime.... So as every good office holder has to do, Obama began trying to fulfill the covenant he'd made with the American people.... And since he won so overwhelmingly, it almost seemed like a mandate to get it done....
And don't be too quick to support Ryan's plan. It has a lot of problems. So many, that Ryan as a Catholic is under fire by all the Catholic Bishops no less for sacrificing the poor so the rich can get richer. Although the Pope did not admonish Ryan in person, he wrote out an edict mandating that Catholics take care of the poor and not the rich, as in the old Catholic traditions.
The second problem with Ryan's budget, is it cuts all taxes, and then, he forget the part where he plans to fund the government. It is an unfunded budget. it has problems the Democrats will be quick to point out.
Ryan's budget is just smoke and mirrors....
kavips
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 1:57am
Mr. Pizza, thank you for your insight. Honestly if what you said were true, then I would be right there along side of you. I would be against creating a dependency class of people that were getting something for doing nothing but watch TV, I would certainly be against such behavior. I would certainly be for businesses to operate more efficiently and make it easier to hire people. If government truly had it's hand in health care making it more expensive than i too would want it out.... I also believe in teaching people to fend for themselves as opposed to having things handed to them forever....
If all those things were true, I hear you brother. I'd be there with you...
Before I go further, I need your definition of Socialism. Since you use that term and it has a wide variety of applications, I need some clarification from you on what it means to you. To me, Socialism is reflective of Eastern European culture. And Democrats are not like that at all. If your idea of Socialism is instead like that of Norway, Sweden, or Finland, well they are all doing very well and are wonderful places to live. Your having been to Belarus, I'm sure you've seen the effects of dogged socialism still lingering, and vis a vis, you can see the blooming of capital investment in that country....
So whenever someone says socialist we tend to conjure up visions of Soviet repression and to say that is where Democrats want to go, is laughable.....
You see, there are, will be, and always were, two kinds of income. One is made through investments, dividends and returns; they other is made with doing things by you as labor.
As Pope Benedict himself recently said, the rich have things stacked in their favor. They can say we are not investing unless you agree to work for 1 dollar a day. If you have no work, no food, no hope, you say... ok, I'll work for one dollar a day. The only recourse those work for a living have, is to stop work, until negotiations are settled. If a business is losing money every day it is inoperable, then it has an incentive to pay more of a living wage, and earn less off its investment.
I think this is where the Republican Party has recently changed. It used to be that the Republicans of old, said sure, make sure the basic needs are taken care of first, and then, once settled, spend as little as possible after that. Today's republicans have erased the part that specifies first taking care of basic needs. They jump to the spend as little as possible.
There is a difference... If a person has no food, no shelter, no income, to say, "get a job" is comical. If a person is fed, slept and bathed, and has a bus fare for an interview, then saying "get a job" is realistic....
That is the difference in perspective I think. As the Catholic nuns, priests, and Franciscans all said to Ryan and Romney, come work with us for a day to see the effects of your actions upon these poor you so deride, they bring up a very good point. It is easy to sit in ones plane flying over Indiana at 600 miles an hour, and say, cut funding for poor people; give the top 1% tax breaks so they can create jobs. It is hard to sit in a soup kitchen and see a husband, wife, and three children, just like Ryan's family shuffle in for their one meal of the day, hear their story how they once had everything, and realize that you, but for a couple strokes of luck, could have been in their shoes and they instead in yours.
So when you say you think Democrats are pretending to serve those without money, you are forgetting that most of them live among those. For them, the current system is not working. For them, business even though they have the cash, aren't creating jobs fast enough. For them, the private sector abandons them... and you know who helps them? The government. So of course they will turn to government based on law, one that turns a blind eye to privilege and judges rich and poor alike.
For them, government is the only thing that has ever worked.
Letting private businesses invest in new jobs is preferable, but.... it's been 12 years and they haven't done it. The government could MAKE them invest, but that is unconstitutional. What is constitutional, is taxing them. and that is what has to be done.....
it has nothing to do with socialism. It has to do with returning dignity to human beings.....
Once that is done, and the economy is roaring, the deficit is back under $400 billion, and unemployment is under 3%, then, and only then, will it be time to look at tax cuts....
Raising taxes for more spending; maybe in an emergency. Raising taxes to pay the bills already spent and earning interest? That's good business, not socialism...
mrpizza
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 8:12am
Kavips: I would define socialism as any attempt by government to do or take over what can be done better by individuals or private industry. America was built on the concept of equipping and empowering the individual rather than the government. Our founders fought the British for that very cause, and I'm concerned that after 200+ years the things they fought against have established a foothold in our culture and government.
As far as examples of "successful socialism", which in my view is an oxymoron, those are small countries which are no larger than some of our states, and I would imagine it would be much easier to manage the much smaller budgets and populations. America is just too big for it to work efficiently. The way our country is structured, it would be much better to turn much of what the federal government is trying to do over to the states. State and local governments are better able to directly serve their own people and determine how much socialism is good for their individual situations. I think that's why we have 50 states rather than one single centralized government calling all the shots, although that seems to be what's happening anyway. I'm not even sure if Republicans fully realize how important it is to decentralize power, but I know without a doubt that Democrats think consolidation of it is the way to go. Scary in my view.
Mike from Delaware
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 2:43pm
Kavips: Thank you for some well thought out analysis. I hadn't realized before that you run a business. How large is your business? I'm not asking the name, as I respect your right to privacy. How long have you been in business?
Sounds like you have some first hand knowledge of what a business goes through and why you'd want higher taxes. I must confess, other than Warren Buffet, I've not heard any other business type person say that, so your thoughts do interest me.
Do you have a link for the Catholic comments, those were very interesting as well. I can totally understand the point they are making.
I think one thing the DEMS should do is require all physically able folks on Welfare to not have their check mailed to them, rather require they have to physically go and pick up their check (actually an electronic account see one of points further down). This will save tax payers tons of money on postage and envelopes and if nothing else make them actually do something other than sit at home watching TV.
The second thing I believe they should require is those same physically able folks work three days a week (as assigned to them by that same government clerk they get their check from) to pick up trash from curbs, streets, sidewalks, parks, and other public areas. At the end of each days work, they bring their filled trash bags to a location where a trash truck will come by at a certain time to take the trash and where that person's name gets checked off for having completed a day's work. Obviously there are details to be ironed out, but you get the general idea. That leaves them with three other days to look for real work that should pay better than Welfare, and still leaves one day as a day of rest. They can choose whether that is Saturday or Sunday.
That way these people on the dole are contributors to society, not just takers or leeches. They can then at least hold their head up high as they've at least done something constructive that benefited both them and society. It also helps clean up our nation, which really needs to be done and given the fact we've got millions on the dole, we could and should have cleaner streets, curbs, and parks than Canada (that's one clean country).
This will also give those physically able folks some additional incentive to find work rather than having a paid vacation on the taxpayer as now is the case and why so many tax payers are resentful of the existing Welfare program.
It's one thing to help someone in need, its something else to be made a fool of. THAT's what's got folks fired up as they feel like they're being played for fools and suckers.
True story. I have a friend who was on welfare some years ago. She tells the story of how irritating it was as she would go and look for work, the other women on the block would be sitting out on their front door stoop in their pajamas drinking a leisurely cup of coffee gossiping with the other women. When she'd come home in the afternoon to start dinner, those women were still sitting out there, still not dressed, still gossiping. They'd laugh at her telling her she was a fool to work when she could take it easy. This friend did eventually find a job, but her view of those on welfare changed dramatically. So even though she agrees folks need to be helped, she's totally against the money just being handed out with no expectations of them doing anything. My friend makes an excellent point.
Next thing is all folks on Welfare need to be drug tested. Why should it be that folks who work get drug tested before being hired and then whenever their employer feels like doing it again and the folks we're paying Welfare to with our hard earn wages don't?
The next thing I'd do, Welfare money should be on a plastic card like Food Stamps are now. So actually when they go to get their check, they'd actually be swiping their card to show they checked in and had completed their requirements (park cleaning duty, etc) and then that's when their account would be paid with their next stipend. They don't show up, they don't get any money in their account. No one else can go for them, their card should be like a photo ID that has their photo on it to cut down on abuse and fraud.
So then we are doing far more than just giving these folks a check or a fish, we're helping them to learn to fish, or support themselves. THEN I believe you'd hear far less complaining from tax payers about folks on Welfare.
mrpizza
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 9:02pm
Mike, we're together 100% on this one. I would also advocate more utilization of prison labor. Trouble is, there are too many lawyers out there defending both prisoners and welfare recipients so-called right to be lazy if they want to.
Kinda goes against my beliefs, but I think I'd advocate deporting some of these trial lawyers to Iran or any other place where there are people who truly deserve a defense.
Mike from Delaware
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 10:04pm
Chain gangs are bit more dangerous as those are violent folks. It's one thing to have them doing real work on a prison farm growing their food, working in shops at the prison learning a new trade, etc, but I'd prefer them inside the prison, but I agree they should be doing something useful.
The lawyers aren't the problem, its the judges who hear these cases. If more judges threw out some of the frivolous cases and it made it into the media more often when it does happen, and if your case gets thrown out, then YOU the client pays all court and legal fees. Then folks wouldn't be so fast to sue. The odds of making money from suing is far better than the lottery. THAT's the problem, it's too easy and free to sue and you're almost guaranteed a settlement of some sort. Easy Money.
kavips
Mon, Aug 13, 2012 12:58am
Sorry so late getting back... I started watching the closing ceremonies on European time, and then, since they were so good, I watched the American replay.... Might as well I rationalize... I have to wait four years to get that fix again... I know age is creeping up on me because my memories of the closing of Beijing, were so clear. I distinctly remember after the awesome Chinese spectacle that was presented, the odd, cheeky little British production at the end of the Chinese games, gave me doubt over the professionalism running the London Games. Those doubts are gone. I became impressed during the opening ceremony by the torch, that was made up of copper kettles from each country that participated. They were installed on pipes and together they all came together to make the Olympic Cauldron, or torch.... The symbolism was not lost on me. Whereas the star of the Chinese Olympics, was China itself... the Brits were making the point that this Olympics was going to be about the Olympians themselves. And it was... Excellence is always worthy to watch. It inspires. Whether bike riding, pentathlons, badminton, kayaking, or basketball, and you can't forget swimming or gymnastics.... it was all about the stars....
Also important, was the forcing of NBC's hand into televising the Olympics on line in real time. That originally was not going to happen, with the nightly prime time slot being the only footage shown to Americans. But the feeds were there, and America found them and watched in real time, forcing NBC to quickly offer live feeds by day two.... The future is internet.... TV is on its way out....
kavips
Mon, Aug 13, 2012 1:42am
For the record, the idea of going in to pick up a welfare check doesn't work. If you knew the reality of how they lived, you would change your opinion, because actually, it is quite mean to make them do so... First, here is why it doesn't work.
If every one suddenly showed up at the few number of offices we have across this state, asking for their check, nothing else could get done. Even if you processed one person's check every 60 seconds, in 8 hours only 480 checks could be handed out. That is the max. Then you get one person who says... "this amount is not right.... "
Banks with 5 tellers do not process that many face to face transactions in a day except on Friday, and they have 5 tellers.... T go that way would require us to hire 4 people at $30,000 for each office to actually execute what you think is a good idea.
Furthermore, if you have ever bought copy paper, or ink for a printer, you can imagine the costs behind processing printed payroll checks. Plus, the state does not own the equipment printing checks. They email the data to several local private payroll specialists around New Castle County. Actually Jim Paoli, Chris Coons chief of staff, runs one of them in Newark. (Fortunately, he has quite competent staff, lol) .. So there is a large cost in mass quantities of printed checks...
And Postage? So antique. Today, the use of EBT cards, given to each person at monthly anniversary of their start, allows the amount is added electronically. Far cheaper than the old ways.
There are four benefits for people unable to survive economically. Medicaid, Food Stamps (under a different name now), daycare, and Welfare. The first two are provided at need, both being federally funded. The second two are controlled by sanctions. To keep free childcare, something quite necessary if looking for employment, and the less than $100 a week check, (yes that is max that they can get, $400 a month) they must run through an outside program contracted by the state, where they can develop resumes, attend educational classes, look for work, go on interviews, and finally, do volunteer work if they cannot find employment. They are required to do 30 hours of that each week. Even if they only do 29, they get sanctioned. Which means they cannot get childcare or welfare for 6 months...
The problem is that since they have to do too much; the guidelines are so strict, they can't really find employment... It's a big problem. They have to be more concerned with jumping though a large number of hoops, than with actually finding a job. They have excellent resources backing them up. They get professional help with their resumes. Often, and particularly Bank of America, sends in their human resource directors pro-bono to give direct feedback and help tweak resumes. They are given practical advice on how to hide a record, how to explain time in jail, how to send a thank you card, etc. They are in much better shape to find a job, than anyone on this thread who remembers job hunting say over 20 years ago. Much has changed. The internet make it a whole different world out there.
Needless to say, it is impossible to collect a welfare check and watch TV. Especially if you are a single parent, or young parent families where neither partner is working full time. Particularly since the weakening of union influence after 2000, many corporations do not want to hire full time and would rather hire two people part time to avoid offering benefits that cost that corporation money a dollar or two more, .... many people getting the federally funded programs are working full time... and just not making enough money to pull them above the poverty level...
So when anyone says, people getting welfare (now called TANF) are lazy bums or other pejorative terms... they are telling the rest of us that their opinions were formed before the 90's ... that,... was a very long time ago....
kavips
Mon, Aug 13, 2012 2:15am
Plus, the new pics from Mars just in, offer conclusive evidence that a lot of water once existed on Mars.....
What sort of volunteer work are these folks doing? I sure don't see anyone picking of litter and trash off the streets, curbs, or parks.
If what you're saying is true about how the system now works, then it does sound like the days of folks sitting around all day collecting their checks is gone, thank goodness.
I agree that companies today would rather hire two part timers than have one full timer, because it is cheaper as benefits are expensive, so they save that cost, which is unfortunate for the worker and thus provides someone who we'd call the working poor.
EarlGrey
Mon, Aug 13, 2012 9:35am
Socialism: government gives rights to the people and government decides who gets these rigths...(government = god)
Our country was founded on the concept that our rights are given by GOD and government works for us (not the other way around).
Mike from Delaware
Mon, Aug 13, 2012 9:51am
EarlGrey: Well said.
Add your comment: Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal
responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of
the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members
Only Group username and password are required to process your post.
You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please
click here.
Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.
Audio Here