July 25th, 2009
In this morning’s paper was a letter to the editor railing against the proposed health care reforms because “when the state pays for health care, the state gets to make decisions about who gets health care, and how much.” The author compared the current proposals to those of the Nazis and the Communists. Do I detect a trend here? Is this a Republican, Conservative, right-wing talking point?
First, I would like to call attention to the fact that the above mentioned health programs were run by RIGHT-WING nut jobs, dictators and despots. These are the same type of people who think it’s perfectly okay to wiretap their citizens and imprison them indefinitely without charges.
This is what drives me crazy about the Republican party and the conservative movement. Given my druthers I would love to run scans on many of their brains to try to gain an understanding of how their twisted thinking originates. But of course, that is something the Right would command, and the Left would never seriously consider.
The same people who urged government involvement in the very private matter of the Terry Schiavo case are the same ones who mischaracterize the current plan as a government plot to intrude in our health care decisions. Seriously, what cluster of brain cells is firing?
My insurance company has the absolute right to determine what care I get and how much of it I am entitled to. They also determine what medicines I can be prescribed and what tests I get. You may have heard stories of women giving birth and being forced to leave the hospital in a matter of hours. And how about the women forced to leave the hospital after a mastectomy and dragging their drainage tubes behind them? Kicking people out of hospitals early is not the decision of the hospital or the physician. It’s purely at the behest of insurance companies.
My daughter was delivered via caesarian section. I moved and changed insurance companies a few years later and guess what was specifically excluded from that new policy for several years? Anything that might have resulted from or could possibly be blamed on that c-section.
My mother is on Medicare. Her government run health care program is exquisite. No one tells her what doctors to see or what level of care is permitted. Those decisions are made purely by my mother and her providers.
My husband served in the military many years ago and has VA. His government run health care is terrific. His doctors spend considerable time with him, and with their sophisticated record-keeping nothing is missed.
The utter failure in our current health care system is the insurance-based part of it. It doesn’t work. It’s overpriced. It’s inefficient. It’s corrupt. It’s flat out cruel.
What the hell are these Conservative and Republican idiots talking about? Their arguments are pure “1984.” The rabbit hole. Lunacy.
If for no other reason than to actually force the insurance companies to compete, we need the public option.
Therefore, in the interest of what the editorial page letter writer referred to as the “collective,” I demand CT scans for all of those on the right who are making these specious arguments against government involvement. (And I also want to see their emails, bank records, telephone bills, employment histories, etc.)
——–
P.S. I talk to many people burdened with debt caused by this health care mess. They are being hammered twice — by their health insurance (or lack of it) and the financial crisis. If this describes you, I might be able to help. Please visit http://www.debt2zip.com
Categories: Commentary, Government, Personal Finance, Politics, Taxes, Uncategorized |
Tags: conservative, debt2zip, health, health care reform, insurance, Republican, Republicans, right wing | 4 Comments
January 11th, 2009
Some things just seem to require a little common sense, and fixing the mortgage crisis is one of them. I heard a story on National Public Radio a couple of weeks ago. I haven’t heard anything about the concept since, and it really requires more discussion.
According to an article in Wikipedia on the subprime mortgage crisis, “As of August 2008, 9.2% of all mortgages outstanding were either delinquent or in foreclosure.” (The source is the Mortgage Bankers Association website, http://www.mbaa.org/NewsandMedia/PressCenter/64769.htm.) Think about this for a second. Almost 10% of all mortgages are in trouble.
- Would you buy a toy for your child if there was a 10% chance the toy contains lead?
- Would you buy an electrical appliance if there was a 10% chance that faulty wiring will cause a fire?
- Would you buy a car from a manufacturer whose air bags fail 10% of the time?
Yet this is precisely what we’re being asked to do when we buy today’s mortgage “products.” (And that is the term lenders use.)
Current mortgage regulations date from the days when borrowers and lenders negotiated loan terms face to face. Those days are long gone, and yet the laws assume borrowers and lenders are on an equal footing. Not long ago I sat next to clients who were purchasing a home. We were at the closing, and they were seeing their loan documents for the first time. (Lenders now fax the documents to the closing attorney or escrow at the last possible moment.) They had gotten their loan through one of those Internet companies that promise cheap rates, and the terms of the loan were not what they had been told. Not even close. They called the 800 number and argued with the clerk at the other end. In the end they were told that if they didn’t like the loan they could refinance at a future date or they could go somewhere else.
Here’s the problem –
- You can’t get a new loan at the drop of a hat. It would probably take a minimum of 3-5 days under the best of circumstances. The property will need to be re-appraised, and the buyer would have to pay out more money.
- The seller may not be willing or able to extend the contract, and there’s no provision in a typical real estate contract for this type of circumstance.
- The buyer has made commitments. In this case, the buyers’ moving van was parked in the driveway of the new house. The buyer would have to pay storage for their household goods and incur the expense of staying somewhere else temporarily. Depending on how prudently they packed, they might have things they badly need for personal or business reasons buried in a box at the back of the truck.
Negotiating a mortgage loan is a far cry from negotiating face to face, and it can be a far cry from fair and ethical behavior from entities that hold all the power. If we’ve learned nothing from all the various corporate scandals that have come our way lately, it’s that we can’t count on large corporations to be fair and ethical with their customers.
The speaker on NPR had a brilliant solution, and I sure wish I’d gotten her name. Here’s how to fix the mortgage crisis once and for all: Mortgage lenders refer to the loans they make as “products,” and it’s true. They are. As such they should be overseen by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Forget the Treasury Department and the SEC and all those agencies who haven’t lifted a finger to protect consumers from these mortgage products. Let’s put oversight where it belongs — the Consumer Product Safety Commission. And let’s give them the budget and the inspectors they need to get the job done.
Lastly, here’s my little self-promotion — if you want to take power back from lenders who clearly don’t care about you or your interests, please visit my website: United First Financial. I can help you get out from under. Instead of contributing to what is probably the largest building in your town, I can help you keep your hard-earned money for yourself and your family. Basically, you can stick it to them by cutting down on their income. Perfect.
Categories: Commentary, Economy, Government, Personal Finance, Taxes, Uncategorized |
Tags: commission, consumer product, crisis, financial, first, fix, Mortgage, safety, united | 2 Comments
October 13th, 2008
I received an email from a cousin recently that really got me thinking. He owns a small business, and he believes government should stay out of people’s lives. He wants lower taxes and less regulation. He believes people should stand on their own two feet.
But how about the fact that his kids attended public school? What about the daughter who is currently attending a state funded university? What about the miles and miles of roads he drives to get anywhere? What about fire, police and trash removal? Are these the proper functions of government, or should he be paying for his use of these amenities?
To keep things simple, let’s accept those amenities as a given. The vast majority of Americans are not averse to paying taxes for public education, emergency services and roads.
Suppose his neighbor down the street loses his job. His company goes under, and he’s laid off. As a small business owner my cousin has been paying for unemployment insurance for decades. He doesn’t like paying it and thinks it’s an unfair burden on small business owners. Maybe so. I’ve been a small business owner, and I thought it really unfair that my husband and I would never collect on the unemployment taxes we paid on our own salaries. Still, what would you do for the neighbor who lost his job? Should he be on his own? Should unemployment taxes be paid by the entire taxpayer base instead of employers?
As a result of the stress of losing his job, the neighbor’s marriage falls apart. His wife has few skills, and she has spent the last two years taking care of small children. Because her husband is unemployed, he can’t help with child support. Sure they could stay together until things settle down, but it’s getting pretty nasty in that household. Should the mom rely on charity? Donations can be iffy sometimes, so maybe she should count on family members. But what if those aren’t an option?
Oh, I know we all have the image of welfare moms in our minds, but that situation ended quite a few years ago. There are now education requirements and limits on the time someone can collect welfare. And even if our goal is to keep moms off the dole, what about the kids? Is it a proper government function to keep our youngest citizens healthy and fed?
That was a fictional story of a possible neighbor of my cousin. Let’s tackle a bigger issue. If we are to stand on our own two feet and be self-sufficient, if we are to be empowered to make our own decisions concerning things like health care, what protections do we have against the in-house legal departments of companies that do us ill? Is it the role of government to regulate insurance companies? Is it the role of government to inspect our food and drugs to make sure the things we ingest are safe? Is it the role of government to test imports to keep lead out of toys?
If government doesn’t do it, who will? I don’t have the wherewithal to sue an insurance company for denying me the treatment I might need. I know I don’t have a lab that can test for melamine in my dog’s food, and I don’t have the equipment to test my water, spinach, tomatoes and beef. Do you think maybe this is something that all of us taxpayers can agree is something that we should spend our money on?
There is much to think about here. We taxpayers pay for many things, and it is time we define what it is we expect government to do for us. Personally I think we’re all in this together and we have a responsibility to look out for each other. It’s the moral thing to do.
Categories: Commentary, Economy, Politics, Taxes |
Tags: education, Government, health, insurance, regulation, regulations, Taxes, unemployment, welfare | 1 Comment
