Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (180668)	1/16/2004 8:07:21 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572416

May help a bit, but the biggest problem is cost. Most people without insurance just can't afford it. Well now, a problem without a solution...sweep it under that rug over there. Another tax cut for people who CAN afford it anyone? Al

To: Joe NYC who wrote (180668)	1/19/2004 12:30:47 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572416

Hi Jozef, RE: "require all companies to offer health care that employees may buy...May help a bit, but the biggest problem is cost." I wonder why the gov't doesn't create a rule where an abled-person can get and pay for their health care when their cobra runs out? Seems weird. This just shifts the costs to the government and the hospitals & doctors. RE: "The unions, unlike the old days, when they were organized against the "bad capitalists", now (having bankrupted their former industries) they are in government, organized agaist the citizens of their states, trying to extract every last drop of blood from the taxpayer, and then some (force governments into borrowing to pay for excessive union pension benefits)." My Aunt was a union leader for a large organization. She was quite good and trusted by both sides. Her formula was simple: she would do what was best for the long-term viability of the organization. If an organization isn't around, that won't help anyone. She was a good middleperson. The news stations where I grew up, would pull her out anytime there was a disagreement between employees and management because she was respected by both sides for promoting what was ultimately good for the organization. Not like the United Airlines Union, where they hostage the board into a bankruptcy and I believe this may have been the airline where the ceo asked for some exorbitant amount of cash during such a bad time too - no sense of pr or timing. She would have reigned in both management and the mechanics and avoided bankruptcy. Since her days, unions have taken a bad turn. Most unfortunate, because they can be good for a company, if done right. At this point, I'm against unions and am for people having ownership in a company. If you look at the auto industry's unions, they reportedly are paying a substantial amount over Toyota's US-based employees on a per hourly basis and then they wonder why they aren't as competitive? The wage just can't be too different, otherwise things move offshore or to contract-based business. Meanwhile, minicoopers seem to be invading Silicon Valley out of the blue - the manufacturer is the leading car company in the UK. RE: " Unions again. Basically, the unions are running most of the state governments." I didn't know that - how or what % of government? RE: "That is not practical, since most people work for companies that are not publically traded" Forced individual savings would be an alternative. RE: "The Social Security is in such a hole that I don't see any way getting out of the hole." A policy maker in SS once told me they would probably cut by 1/3 the distributions across the board, not give out many raises (inflation erosion), and extend retirement to 70. (This is old news.) He said SS will not go bankrupt - because changing the rules can avoid this. Having said that, there's no public policy discussion about this, and people like him would get fired for talking to the Washington Post about it. And they won't talk about it until they have the public's desire to talk about it, otherwise risk voter rath. I personally think what he described is a flawed system - they should be discussing this stuff openly. The government doesn't operate like a company - it's too closed up. I think it's better if people know sooner what's going to come down, than later. Save now, or be sorry. I think it's unfair for people not to be told early on, for planning purposes, especially when it comes to savings. RE: "While I agree that the cost of weddings (and rings) is completely crazy, and so is everyone who spends this kind of money, I don't think this opinion you and I have can be legislated. Joe" Okay, maybe a variation, like forced savings the government can't touch. I started to hear other liberal people suggest this idea too. Regards, Amy J