New Car Sales - 2008 To 2009 - Sliding Over The Edge

[N5RLR]

People's behavior at work during bad times also changes for the worse...

...I don't know about others but I can't operate from fear. I don't know how to be driven by fear in the workplace (much to the consternation of more than one manager over the years).

I refuse to be driven by fear in my workplace.  I was written up last week over a BS complaint regarding telephone usage, of all things.  I bluntly told the HR generalist and my supervisor [who wasn't the one initiating the complaint, fortunately], that with two diabetic siblings at home who may contact me in an emergency, my response to them is paramount.  Otherwise, if the company delays me in getting to them and anything bad happens, I WILL hold the company legally liable.

I simply don't care at this point.  I was looking for a job when I found this one, and I'll be looking for another when I'm out the door.

[WB2YGF]

Good thing Steve can speak Spanish, Hindi, Mandarin, and ebonics.  

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Fo shizzle!

[ka3zlr]

Walmart Bingo..LOL...

[W3SLK]

Frank said:

If your making $8 an hour good chance you can't afford insurance.

That seemed to happen over night. Hospitals used to be run by health care professional, (read as doctors, nurses, etc). Now they are run by bean counters. These people, who went to our universities and obtained a business degree, found a product that people can't live without and would pay top dollar for it. Toss in hugh malpractice suits and voila', health care you can't afford. Now we are going to socialize it? The last thing in the world we need is OUR government, regardless whether they are donkeys or elephants, deciding what health care is best for me! Everything that requires government involvement is generally over-buraeucratic, and a money losing proposition, (that means more of our tax dollars going down the toilet!).

[Bill, KD0HG]

 Hospitals used to be run by health care professional, (read as doctors, nurses, etc). Now they are run by bean counters.

Nope. They're run by the insurance companies.

The last thing in the world we need is OUR government, regardless whether they are donkeys or elephants, deciding what health care is best for me!

The insurance companies are already determining the nature of your health care, what drugs you can have, whether you get a procedure like a transplant, which hospital you can go to, or whether you have a pre-existing condition that disqualifies you for any treatment whatsoever.

Everything that requires government involvement is generally over-bureaucratic, and a money losing proposition

Just like how the insurance companies currently decide our courses of medical treatment.

I certainly wouldn't want anyone to screw this wonderful arrangement up.

[WB2YGF]

I have to agree.  About once a year, I get a notice from my insurance company that some hospital is being removed from the list of approved hospitals.  After about 2 months, the notice is rescinded.  The insurance company and the hospital are playing a game of chicken until the hospital gets pressured into a settlement.  No hospital wants to lose 1/3 of their patients if one of the big guys pulls out.

[WB2YGF]

Frank said:

If your making $8 an hour good chance you can't afford insurance.

That seemed to happen over night. Hospitals used to be run by health care professional, (read as doctors, nurses, etc). Now they are run by bean counters. These people, who went to our universities and obtained a business degree, found a product that people can't live without and would pay top dollar for it. Toss in hugh malpractice suits and voila', health care you can't afford. Now we are going to socialize it? The last thing in the world we need is OUR government, regardless whether they are donkeys or elephants, deciding what health care is best for me! Everything that requires government involvement is generally over-buraeucratic, and a money losing proposition, (that means more of our tax dollars going down the toilet!).

One possibility is that government can require coverage without getting involved directly in healthcare.  This is how auto insurance works. Everyone is required to have a minimum level of coverage, but people are free to choose their provider and level of coverage in a competitive market.  The trick is, how do you get everyone to comply with mandatory health insurance?  With auto insurance, either you have it or you don't drive.  I don't know what kind of carrot and stick they could use for for health insurance.  I think Taxachusetts has a program like this.  As much as I don't think insurance companies need any more power, it's better than government medicine.  Perhaps monster insurance companies should be broken up into smaller companies.  IMHO, there are too many "too big to fail" corporations in this country.

[Bill, KD0HG]

I'm thinking that one's medical insurance shouldn't be tied to their employment any more.

That might have made sense in the past, where people worked for places a long time, but not in today's hi tech world where people change jobs as often as their socks.

[WB2YGF]

I'm thinking that one's medical insurance shouldn't be tied to their employment any more.

That might have made sense in the past, where people worked for places a long time, but not in today's hi tech world where people change jobs as often as their socks.

Agreed.  This also solves the problem where big corporations get discounts while everyone else pays extra.

[W1VD]

While we're at it lets also put an end to businesses collecting taxes for state and local governments through payroll. Let the folks write the BIG checks every quarter like the self employed do and watch the outrage toward government spending. Same with property tax - no more rolling it into the mortgage payment. Make 'em write the BIG checks. 

 

 

[steve_qix]

Frank said:

If your making $8 an hour good chance you can't afford insurance.

That seemed to happen over night. Hospitals used to be run by health care professional, (read as doctors, nurses, etc). Now they are run by bean counters. These people, who went to our universities and obtained a business degree, found a product that people can't live without and would pay top dollar for it. Toss in hugh malpractice suits and voila', health care you can't afford. Now we are going to socialize it? The last thing in the world we need is OUR government, regardless whether they are donkeys or elephants, deciding what health care is best for me! Everything that requires government involvement is generally over-buraeucratic, and a money losing proposition, (that means more of our tax dollars going down the toilet!).

One possibility is that government can require coverage without getting involved directly in healthcare.  This is how auto insurance works. Everyone is required to have a minimum level of coverage, but people are free to choose their provider and level of coverage in a competitive market.  The trick is, how do you get everyone to comply with mandatory health insurance?  With auto insurance, either you have it or you don't drive.  I don't know what kind of carrot and stick they could use for for health insurance.  I think Taxachusetts has a program like this.  As much as I don't think insurance companies need any more power, it's better than government medicine.  Perhaps monster insurance companies should be broken up into smaller companies.  IMHO, there are too many "too big to fail" corporations in this country.

Several points:

I have owned a small business for many, many years.  We get no perks, no breaks, pay the most taxes and have the highest costs (like health care).  We are the enemy of government (because we are independent), the enemy of big business (because we are their competition) and the enemy of the so-called "working man" because, since we generally work much harder and make greater sacrifices, we sometimes end up with more.

Health Care

One way to correct the disparity in health care costs for the same coverage between large and small businesses is to enact community rating.  With this, the entire "community" of subscribers for a particular health plan is used to determine the rates and the same rates apply to everyone. 

Here is Massachusetts, everyone is required to have health coverage by law.  If you can't afford it, there are a number very low cost or free plans (free: read - taxpayer funded plans).  The costs work on a sliding scale.  All of these plans are run by private insurers, and there are quite a number of them.  I was not a fan of the law when it was enacted, but I must say, since it has been in place, you can go to the emergency room and it is not filled with people who use the ER for the primary treatment.  Pretty much everone has a primary care physican.  Maybe this is the way to go... probably a bit more time is needed to see how it all works out cost-wise.

The Economy

If we really want to help the economy, we have to stop being adicted to the notion of class warfare - and taxing the "rich".  The real rich don't pay much in taxes !!!!!  The highest taxes are paid by small businesses, who create most of the jobs in this country.

If we want things to be fair, vote for people who want a flat rate tax.  Does this ever happen?  No.  The socialist lamestream media will see to that.  When I say flat, I mean flat.  No deductions for anything except money given away (taken from you and given to someone else like charities, etc.).  That means no deductions for ANYTHING.  And, no "special" taxes like FICA, Medicare, etc.  One tax.  One rate.  You make X dollars, you pay X dollars times the rate to uncle sam.  Period.  All income regardless of its source would be taxed at the same rate.  No more "tax code".

Standard accounting practices for business activities.  Carry forward losses, etc.  You have your expenses (equipment, labor, energy, etc. etc. etc.) just like always.  Since everything is on a flat rate, in theory, you would not need deprecation.  If you buy a piece of equipment, you carry forward the loss (if there is one).  I suppose one could opt for depreciation but it wouldn't change the overall taxes paid over time.

But, I don't think we'll ever see it.  The super rich control the congress and therefore the tax code, and the so-called "middle class" is so clueless about business, economics and money,  they will believe whatever the socialists (media) tells them.

We got the closest under Reagan with an almost flat tax, but there was still FICA/Medicare (the middle class screw tax)....

[W1UJR]

Steve, all I can say is "Amen" brother.
Right on point.

[K3ZS]

Universally available affordable health insurance would have some public advantages.   It would encourage small business start ups and entrepreneur activity.    You would not be tied to a job for the insurance and be more willing to leave employment to start up a business especially if you have a "preexisting condition".    It would help keep U.S. business competitive by not having health insurance as a cost of labor.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

It would help keep U.S. business competitive by not having health insurance as a cost of labor.

I'm not sure this would be so. The cost would just be shifted to the tax column. The ultimate cost of running the business would be the same. TANSTAAFL.

[K3ZS]

I guess what I meant is that it would not be a business cost at all.    Isn't that one of the advantages for car makers in countries that have universal health care?   Is that an advantage for the car manufacturers having some factories in Canada?   Just asking, I don't really know.

[k4kyv]

One way to correct the disparity in health care costs for the same coverage between large and small businesses is to enact community rating.  With this, the entire "community" of subscribers for a particular health plan is used to determine the rates and the same rates apply to everyone. 

That's one of the problems with the present medical insurance system in the US.  The  risk pool is fragmented amongst thousands of independent plans.  The  larger the risk pool, the more closely the cost of a premium per person would tend towards the theoretical average actual cost per individual for medical care.  That's why a large company can offer lower cost premiums than what it would  cost a small business or an individual for identical coverage.  The small business has a smaller risk pool, while the individual has a pool of one.

If we had a single-payer health system, or if all the multiple insurers shared a common risk pool, the premiums could be lower, just the average cost of medical care per individual per time period, plus administrative costs.  Of course, someone with a costly medical problem like an organ transplant would most likely receive far more in benefits than he could have ever paid into the system, but that's the way all insurance works.  All the Joe Bloes out there who paid into the system but didn't need to use it that year would have subsidised that $800,000 illness.  But the benefit for Joe Bloe is that he wouldn't have to worry about being forced into bankruptcy and losing everything he owns just because of an unfortunate accident or unforseen medical condition.

The US employer-provided medical care system appears deceptively low in cost because usually, the employer pays the majority of the premium and the worker is responsible for only a small fraction of the total.  When I was working, my premium was under $200 a month, while the actual cost of the total was almost $1000 a month.  If I hadn't had that insurance through my employer, he could have added the extra $1000 a month to my salary at no extra cost to the employer, but I would have still been responsible for the total cost of the premium, either through premium payments to a private insurer, or taxes paid to a government sponsored insurance plan.  In any case, that $1000/month might have been only $800 a month if the pool included every working person in the country.  But not everyone in the country has a job to pay into the system, so we would all be subsidising the non-working (just as I subsidised my non-working children under my family plan).  That might push the monthly premium back up to $975 a month.  BTW, those figures are used only for illustration, and are not based on any real statistics of what the actual costs might have been.

So with a universal care plan and universal risk pool, my total expenditure for medical care per month might not have changed much, but there is no reason why it should have been any more than what I was already really paying, including my employer's share which still ultimately came out of my pocket.  But this way, we wouldn't have 80 million uninsured people in the country, with no medical coverage at all, or who resort to overpriced, taxpayer funded, emergency-room treatment, and drive everyone's expenses up.

One of the reasons the US system evolved as it did, was due to a loophole in the law during WW2.  When wartime price and wage controls were in effect, employers could not legally give workers significant rises in salary, so they offered "free" medical insurance as a fringe benefit.  This in effect did give the worker what would have been an unlawful rise in salary, but because technically it was a fringe benefit and not salary, it didn't fall under the wage control laws in effect at the time.  The employer's incentive to offer a rise in pay was to hold onto quality workers during the labor shortage that existed during that time of emergency. Once that wartime emergency had ended, the structure already was set in place, to became entrenched, and it has been all but impossible ever since to replace it with something that might work better.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Then why is Medicare the largest cost growth amongst plans? Single payer plans aren't necessarily all that.

One way to correct the disparity in health care costs for the same coverage between large and small businesses is to enact community rating.  With this, the entire "community" of subscribers for a particular health plan is used to determine the rates and the same rates apply to everyone. 

That's one of the problems with the present medical insurance system in the US.  The  risk pool is fragmented amongst thousands of independent plans.  The  larger the risk pool, the more closely the cost of a premium per person would tend towards the theoretical average actual cost per individual for medical care.  That's why a large company can offer lower cost premiums than what it would  cost a small business or an individual for identical coverage.  The small business has a smaller risk pool, while the individual has a pool of one.

If we had a single-payer health system, or if all the multiple insurers shared a common risk pool, the premiums could be lower, just the average cost of medical care per individual per time period, plus administrative costs.  Of course, someone with a costly medical problem like an organ transplant would most likely receive far more in benefits than he could have ever paid into the system, but that's the way all insurance works.  All the Joe Bloes out there who paid into the system but didn't need to use it that year would have subsidised that $800,000 illness.  But the benefit for Joe Bloe is that he wouldn't have to worry about being forced into bankruptcy and losing everything he owns just because of an unfortunate accident or unforseen medical condition.

The US employer-provided medical care system appears deceptively low in cost because usually, the employer pays the majority of the premium and the worker is responsible for only a small fraction of the total.  When I was working, my premium was under $200 a month, while the actual cost of the total was almost $1000 a month.  If I hadn't had that insurance through my employer, he could have added the extra $1000 a month to my salary at no extra cost to the employer, but I would have still been responsible for the total cost of the premium, either through premium payments to a private insurer, or taxes paid to a government sponsored insurance plan.  In any case, that $1000/month might have been only $800 a month if the pool included every working person in the country.  But not everyone in the country has a job to pay into the system, so we would all be subsidising the non-working (just as I subsidised my non-working children under my family plan).  That might push the monthly premium back up to $975 a month.  BTW, those figures are used only for illustration, and are not based on any real statistics of what the actual costs might have been.

So with a universal care plan and universal risk pool, my total expenditure for medical care per month might not have changed much, but there is no reason why it should have been any more than what I was already really paying, including my employer's share which still ultimately came out of my pocket.  But this way, we wouldn't have 80 million uninsured people in the country, with no medical coverage at all, or who resort to overpriced, taxpayer funded, emergency-room treatment, and drive everyone's expenses up.

One of the reasons the US system evolved as it did, was due to a loophole in the law during WW2.  When wartime price and wage controls were in effect, employers could not legally give workers significant rises in salary, so they offered "free" medical insurance as a fringe benefit.  This in effect did give the worker what would have been an unlawful rise in salary, but because technically it was a fringe benefit and not salary, it didn't fall under the wage control laws in effect at the time.  The employer's incentive to offer a rise in pay was to hold onto quality workers during the labor shortage that existed during that time of emergency. Once that wartime emergency had ended, the structure already was set in place, to became entrenched, and it has been all but impossible ever since to replace it with something that might work better.

[ka3zlr]

Question,...one I'm not sure of, like Don said the employer pays the partial, now can the employer Deduct that as an operating expense..?

I don't know..

73
Jack.

[WB2YGF]

Then why is Medicare the largest cost growth amongst plans? Single payer plans aren't necessarily all that.

The Medicare "risk pool" is all high-cost elderly, and as the boomers retire, this population increases.  Meanwhile the population of young workers paying into the Medicare system is going down.

[WB2YGF]

I am fortunate in that my work picks up my health insurance cost but the cost I pay out of pocket to add my YL is just under $5,000/year. On top of that, to keep the cost down, all the co-pays went up.  My Lipitor prescription used to cost me $15 (3 months) but now costs $115.  The YL takes about 6 different prescriptions.  It's getting to the point where the co-pays are going to cost more than the premium.

[steve_qix]

Question,...one I'm not sure of, like Don said the employer pays the partial, now can the employer Deduct that as an operating expense..?

I don't know..

73
Jack.

Yes, but that doesn't make it easier.  Everything an employer spends on an employee (within reason, that is) such as salary (or pay of any kind), health care, taxes, training, equipment, etc. etc. etc. is deducted from the business' gross, so taxes are not paid on that money.

The business pays tax on its "profit", which is does not mean there was actually any profit made.  The government has capped actual expenses that can be taken for certain items such as equipment, and other items such as large ticket items and real estate, which must be depreciated over many years, despite the fact that the money is gone NOW.

If a business pays a dividend, it first pays taxes on the "profit" which is distributed as a dividend, and then the stockholder pays taxes AGAIN on the SAME MONEY when it is received as the dividend.  Double taxation.  That sure encourages business - yeah, right !

If a business is organized as a sub-chapter S corporation, the owner, if part of the business in any way, is required to receive a "reasonable" salary for his/her services (on which employment taxes are paid, along with FICA/Medicare)... any remaining profit can be distributed via schedule K to the owner(s).  Taxes are paid on this income as "ordinary income", but FICA/Medicare taxes are not assessed on schedule K income.  That is an advantage of sub-S corps and many LLCs, but there are restrictions on how many shareholders can hold stock, classes of stock, and who and what sort of entities can hold the shares.

Anyway, I could go on and on 

Regards,

Steve

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

That has nothing to do with the cost growth. Sounds like SSI all over again.

Then why is Medicare the largest cost growth amongst plans? Single payer plans aren't necessarily all that.

The Medicare "risk pool" is all high-cost elderly, and as the boomers retire, this population increases.  Meanwhile the population of young workers paying into the Medicare system is going down.

[WA1GFZ]

All I know is I'm paying a lot into the system. hope it is there if I need it.
I'm sure members of congress will be fine as the royal class.

[N0WVA]

A person shouldnt have to have insurance just to cover routine procedures. But, break a leg or have a baby and if you have no insurance, you might as well file for bankruptcy.

The medical establishment, insurance companies, and Unka Scam are all working in harmonious whoredom to hold health care hostage for those of us who may need it,  which are usually the ones who have contributed to the system and kept it running.

Someone lives in these multi million dollar homes I see around here, and they get to do that by sinking mitts into our social security funds.