SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: gerard mangiardi who wrote (467409)9/30/2003 10:17:34 AM
From: Peter O'Brien  Respond to of 769670
 
OPEC has cut prices before to keep oil prices down
so they don't hurt their customers.
They also have to be competitive with non-OPEC
producers such as Russia.
Even at $30/barrel, oil is still pretty cheap
by historical standards, especially considering
how worthless the dollar has become over the
past several decades.

As for Microsoft, they haven't had to cut prices
in the past because their revenues and market
share were GROWING. Although, now they face a
threat from Linux.

Nobody is immune from competitive pressure.
Not OPEC, not Microsoft, and not even the
federal government.



To: gerard mangiardi who wrote (467409)9/30/2003 10:32:20 AM
From: Skywatcher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
BUSH ECONOMY TRUE COLORS NOW SHOWING>>>>
Consumer Confidence Drops
Amid Labor-Market Worries

DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

NEW YORK -- Consumer confidence tumbled in September, erasing the bounce recorded during August, amid
concerns about the labor market.

The Conference Board said Tuesday its consumer-confidence index fell to 76.8, its lowest level since
November 1993, from a revised 81.7 in August. WOWIE!!!!!

"The lack of improvement in labor-market conditions continues to dampen consumers' spirits," said Lynn
Franco, Conference Board director.

The present-situation index, a gauge of consumers' assessment of current economic conditions, fell to 59.5
from a revised 62 in August. Consumer expectations for the state of economic activity over the next six months
fell to 88.4 from a revised 94.9.

Updated September 30, 2003 10:07 a.m.
________________________________Pile on>>

Number of Americans Who Lack
Health-Care Coverage Is Rising

Census Bureau Counts 43.6 Million
As Employer-Based Plans Shrink
By SARA SCHAEFER and LAURIE MCGINLEY
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WASHINGTON -- The federal government says 43.6 million Americans lacked health insurance last year.
That's more than the population of the nation's 24 smallest states plus the District of Columbia, and it adds fuel
to a growing debate about both the cost and availability of health care.

The figures, released early Tuesday by the U.S. Census Bureau, show that 15.2% of Americans didn't have
coverage for all of last year, an increase of 2.4 million people from 2001, when 14.6% were uninsured.

The 5.8% rise in the uninsured resulted from a decline in the percentage of people covered by employer-based
insurance -- 61.3% last year, down from 62.6% the year before. That deterioration, economists say, reflected
increases in unemployment and the rise in health-care costs, which prompted some employers to drop
coverage.

The size of the increase in the uninsured surprised many analysts. "Even in the mid-'90s when the number of
uninsured went up, it wasn't going up this much," says John Holahan, director of the health policy research
center at the Urban Institute.

RELATED ARTICLES

• Page One: Wal-Mart Cost-Cutting Finds Big Target in Health Benefits

• More Companies That Self-Insure Get Stuck With Huge Medical Bills

• College Grads Face Health-Insurance Hurdles

"This issue, just as in 1991 and 1992, will get more and more attention" as next year's presidential election
approaches, predicts Chris Jennings, who was President Clinton's White House health adviser. The Census
Bureau's report comes on the heels of another Bureau survey showing that the number of Americans living in
poverty increased by 1.7 million last year.

The report on the uninsured shows that young adults were less likely than any other age group to have health
insurance. Last year, 29.6% went without, up from 28.1% the year before. Health analysts attribute the increase
to decisions by young, healthy workers to opt out of employer-sponsored health plans as employee
contributions rise. In addition, they say, some younger workers couldn't find jobs because of economic
conditions. (See a related article.)

A new study by Towers Perrin, a benefits-consulting firm, indicates that employers' health-care costs are
expected to rise 12% next year, marking the fifth year in a row of double-digit percentage increases and a
doubling in costs since 1999.

Meanwhile, the Census Bureau says, the percentage of people covered by government programs -- primarily
Medicaid, the state-federal program for the poor and disabled, and the State Children's Health Insurance
Program -- rose to 25.7% last year from 25.3% the year before.

The rate of uninsured Hispanics was 32.4% last year, higher than any other racial or ethnic group, the Census
Bureau says. The figure was unchanged from the previous year. The rate for foreign-born individuals was
33.4%, more than double the 12.8% rate for people born in the U.S. The uninsured rate for children remained
stable at 11.6%.

Among the millions of people who lost health insurance in 2002 were Ivory and Ellis Linville of Denver, Colo.
When Mr. Linville was laid off from a battery factory in December 2002, the two were left without health
coverage. Both Linvilles have severe hypertension and must pay for their medicine out of Mr. Linville's
unemployment insurance of $740 a month.

Almost all the major Democratic candidates have developed extensive -- and expensive -- plans to reduce the
ranks of the uninsured. Their proposals include expanding government programs for low-income Americans
and providing tax credits to individuals and employers to make policies more affordable.

Monday, Jano Cabrera, a spokesman for the presidential campaign of Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut
Democrat, said it was "outrageous" that so many Americans lack health insurance. With several Democratic
challengers offering plans to lower the number, he added, "Today, it is only the President who lacks any type of
plan whatsoever to address what is clearly a continuous and growing problem in the country."

President Bush, as part of his budget, proposed a more limited initiative -- spending $89 billion in tax credits
over 10 years to help those without insurance buy coverage.

In California, meanwhile, the question of health insurance is roiling an already tumultuous political environment.
The legislature recently passed a bill, backed strongly by labor unions, that would require many businesses to
provide health insurance to workers. But Gov. Gray Davis still hasn't signed the legislation, which is strongly
opposed by businesses because of its cost.

Imposing such an employer mandate, which was also part of the failed Clinton health-reform plan, is "shooting
yourself in the foot," says Stuart Butler, vice president for domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation, a
conservative Washington, D.C., think tank. He says that if companies are required to provide increasingly pricey
coverage, "they're going to decide to buy a computer instead of hiring somebody."