Jensenman wrote:
93celicaGT2 wrote:
Jensenman wrote:
That's odd. Every time I have ever looked at an application, regardless of where I worked or the insurance company, the app always says there is a waiting period for preexisting conditions. I have never had an individual policy, always group policies.
The most irritating thing about all of this is that it's the same insurance provider. It was previously handled through my wife's work (they paid something like 90% of the premiums) and when they closed down I picked up coverage at my work.
Her company changed providers 3 different times while she worked there and each time there was a waiting period for preexisting. Tell me THAT ain't some bullE36 M3.
I'm not going to call it bullE36 M3, but i'll point out that pre-existing does not apply if you have proof of continuous coverage over a certain time before the new policy would start. You may have just not been informed, but it's usually a simple matter to call your previous insurance carrier and ask for a "certificate of coverage" that would show your eligibility dates. If there's no break, and you've had continuous coverage (usually 12 months), then pre-existing does not apply.
I know for a fact that less than 25 percent of the employers that i directly service do not have pre-existing. And don't hurt me, but i work for YOUR insurance company, which may be the only reason that i know these things.
No plans to hurt you (at least not when anyone's looking) 
because that is very good information. Since it looks like there may be yet another upheaval in the sorta near future, that will help a LOT with getting the kid's stuff covered. Thanks!
Now the rest of you get back to arguing about stimulus packages and wars which really should have their own threads.
Sorry, my post should have read that less than 25% of the accounts that i service actually have pre-existing, i messed that up.
z31maniac wrote:
ignorant wrote:
z31maniac wrote:
Just so you know, the Iraq War cost LESS than the failed Stimulus package.
Define failed? GDP grew 2% this year. Did you expect rainbows and lolipops to come floating out of Obama's nose after they passed it and instantly all would be right with the world? Seriously, Failed is pretty harsh since we DON'T know the consequenses that could have happened without them. I prefer to say... "The bills really didn't have all the effect I was hoping for, but E36 M3 I'm sure glad the bridge got fixed."
E36 M3 buddy.. When was the last time we had money in this country to repair bridges? Eisenhower? We all take them for granted until they fall down.
How's the air up there?
hyperbole, conjecture, and when pushed for details you got nothing...
Since you've asked all of us to prove how it hurt, please prove how it helped.
ignorant wrote:
Datsun1500 wrote:
ignorant wrote:
prove this and your allegations of fraud..
He knows to call it debt, while you call it debit. It is hard to take someone seriously when they don't know what it is they are actually talking about.
nope, sorry for the misspelling. I had a 2 year old crawling over me while typing. Its tough to get things right.. Why don't you contribute to the conversation. If you want to really get pedantic, find out how possible it is for the government to use up all the operating capital of a corporation. I didn't jump all over racerdave even when he got that wrong. Operating capital includes fixed assets such as a physical building or machine. I don't know how the governments could use all of that up.. Ha..
Now it could be hard to get loans, if you are dependent on such, for working capital. But.. Noone mentioned working capital. I let it go, cause I knew what he meant.
I could call you one of those.. But I won't.
Let me be more specific. Operating capital may have been not the right phrasing, but is essentially correct. Companies use a line of credit in many circumstances to make payroll, pay for inventory, and many other items need to operate. Banks have only so much to lend, and if the government uses up large portions of that, it makes it more difficult for businesses to borrow money.
z31maniac wrote:
Since you've asked all of us to prove how it hurt, please prove how it helped.
http://projects.propublica.org/tables/stimulus-spending-progress
go there. Click on all the places where the money was spent and then find out for yourself how your money was spent.
For example, here's a list of army corps of engineer projects directly funded by the stimulus.
http://www.usace.army.mil/recovery/Pages/ProjectLocations.aspx
Unemployement as a whole hasn't gone down, but I, you, noone can prove that it would be better or worse without the stimulus. I say it would be worth without it, but can't prove it.
Infact, here's a map that shows all the jobs that have been created by this program. 8500 in your state alone. http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/MapGallery/Pages/jobs.aspx?datasource=num_jobs
670,000 jobs nationwide.
was it the best use of our money.. ehhh.. to really help it probably should have been 2x-4x bigger.
racerdave600 wrote:
Let me be more specific. Operating capital may have been not the right phrasing, but is essentially correct. Companies use a line of credit in many circumstances to make payroll, pay for inventory, and many other items need to operate. Banks have only so much to lend, and if the government uses up large portions of that, it makes it more difficult for businesses to borrow money.
working capital is the appropriate term.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/workingcapital.asp
ignorant wrote:
Unemployement as a whole hasn't gone down, but I, you, noone can prove that it would be better or worse without the stimulus. I say it would be worth without it, but can't prove it.
You are as smart as I think you are, I KNEW this statement would have to be in any intelligent response.
Yeah there are some projects in there for OK, Tulsa got a $75 million contract to rebuild the IDL (Inner Dispersal Loop, highways that surround the outside of downtown).
But I'm still not convinced it was the best way to spend the money.
I think there would have been more results if they had just split the money up between tax payers and sent them a check.
z31maniac wrote:
But I'm still not convinced it was the best way to spend the money.
I think there would have been more results if they had just split the money up between tax payers and sent them a check.
possibly...
670k+ jobs with $300B spent. Thats what 45-46K per job created(thats rough math, I recently reformatted and don't have excel on my computer, I might have borked a zero), not super efficient, but not super expensive.
Thats assuming that your figure presents an even distribution of that $300b across the declared 670k jobs. Which it wasn't.
ignorant wrote:
z31maniac wrote:
But I'm still not convinced it was the best way to spend the money.
I think there would have been more results if they had just split the money up between tax payers and sent them a check.
possibly...
670k+ jobs with $300B spent. Thats what 45-46K per job created(thats rough math, I recently reformatted and don't have excel on my computer, I might have borked a zero), not super efficient, but not super expensive.
All this crap about government creating jobs is just that, crap.
I think that number is crap. The real numbers are slippery, to say the least. But it's only taxpayer's money. Which means borked and misplaced zeros etc don't count, right?
In the private sector, a job is created when there is a need for a task to be performed. That means when a company owner decides to hire someone, he/she doesn't just throw 45-46K out there and say 'here I created a job'. Instead, he/she hires someone and says 'I need this job done. You have to pull your weight if you want to keep this job, i.e. I need to see a return (profit) on what I pay you'. His/her investment is minimal, it's up to the individual to make it work so they can keep their job. If they don't produce a profit on the job they do, they either lose their job to someone who CAN make it work or the job evaporates. That's the way the real world works. That's the way the world SHOULD work.
OTOH, government jobs are generally not based on return on investment. Adding government jobs has the nasty effect of requiring more revenue in the form of taxes, fees etc. without necessarily producing something useable in return. Sort of like how wars are good for the economy; nothing like throwing money at something that destroys everything you send. Gotta replace those bullets, tanks and bombs, right?
Riddle me this: the government threw out 45-46k per job, right?
What happens when that money is gone? 
Jensenman wrote:
ignorant wrote:
z31maniac wrote:
But I'm still not convinced it was the best way to spend the money.
I think there would have been more results if they had just split the money up between tax payers and sent them a check.
possibly...
670k+ jobs with $300B spent. Thats what 45-46K per job created(thats rough math, I recently reformatted and don't have excel on my computer, I might have borked a zero), not super efficient, but not super expensive.
All this crap about government creating jobs is just that, crap.
I think that number is crap. The real numbers are slippery, to say the least. But it's only taxpayer's money. Which means borked and misplaced zeros etc don't count, right?
In the private sector, a job is created when there is a need for a task to be performed. That means when a company owner decides to hire someone, he/she doesn't just throw 45-46K out there and say 'here I created a job'. Instead, he/she hires someone and says 'I need this job done. You have to pull your weight if you want to keep this job, i.e. I need to see a return (profit) on what I pay you'. His/her investment is minimal, it's up to the individual to make it work so they can keep their job. If they don't produce a profit on the job they do, they either lose their job to someone who CAN make it work or the job evaporates. That's the way the real world works. That's the way the world SHOULD work.
OTOH, government jobs are generally not based on return on investment. Adding government jobs has the nasty effect of requiring more revenue in the form of taxes, fees etc. without necessarily producing something useable in return. Sort of like how wars are good for the economy; nothing like throwing money at something that destroys everything you send. Gotta replace those bullets, tanks and bombs, right?
Riddle me this: the government threw out 45-46k per job, right?
What happens when that money is gone?
They're gonna get a bailout aren't they...
Yup. It's only some more of that 'free' taxpayer's money, after all...
I'll take a $46k job, thanks very much.
Jensenman wrote:
Riddle me this: the government threw out 45-46k per job, right?
What happens when that money is gone?
umm... The money given by the government is on a per project basis and not a per job basis. I was merely trying to provide an average cost per job created during these projects. A median cost and median salary would be a more telling statistic.
Also the money spent didn't all go to salaries it includes both direct and indirect costs that are included in any subcontractor bid.
The money isn't gone, cause less than half the money has been spent to date and quite frankly, it probably won't be all spent. And potentially by the time the money is gone, the economy will be going at such a clip that noone will care anymore.
These also all are not "government jobs" Some are direct government hiring... But a great deal are things like road construction jobs where a sub bids a fixed price and then has to complete the job for said price. Now, I can hear you say, Ohh but they just single source those jobs to the most expensive person. Lets just say, Im rather intimate with the regulations that require 3 bids for every government job or part that is subcontracted. If we single source or don't go with the lowest bid we have to fill out scads of paperwork to get it approved..
Okay. So there is a subcontractor who is putting someone to work with that $46k. That's nice, but it is a job which may not last. Like down here when they were building that nice pretty new bridge over the river, those jobs paid well and those people hustled like crazy. They did a great job.
But now it's finished. So where do all those people now go? If there's not another project of similar magnitude, they get laid off. They now collect unemployment, move to other cities to try to find jobs, you name it.
That is the basic flaw of flinging government money at a problem like unemployment: it doesn't last unless the bureacracy becomes entrenched and that begins sucking taxpayer dollars for something that doesn't necessarily provide a constant return. That's why Governor Argentina down here tried to not accept the stimulus money, it sunsets in two years unless the Feds renew it (not bloody likely) or state taxes go up to support the jobs artificially created by this poorly designed stimulus. Meaning it's a temporary Band Aid, or if it gets extended it becomes another entitlement which boots us a bit closer to socialism.
So as I said, once that $46k per job is gone, now what? Where is the constant job creation? It's certainly not in the public sector, there are only so many roads etc to be built. It's better to let the people keep more of their own money which then becomes disposable income which is what really drives the creation of jobs.
Jensenman wrote:
So as I said, once that $46k per job is gone, now what? Where is the constant job creation? It's certainly not in the public sector, there are only so many roads etc to be built. It's better to let the people keep more of their own money which then becomes disposable income which is what really drives the creation of jobs.
Wouldn't it be cool if everyone that paid taxes just received a cheque instead of bailing out companies? I wonder what that would have done...
Edit-
I would also like to point out that this thread started about health care, just so everyone remembers.
Why, yes. Yes, it did. And I got sorta smacked upside the head for pointing that out (check the top of this page).
AAAAAAAAAAAAAnd canoe, for your elightenment and entertainment.
