|
Post by sailor on Jan 25, 2009 18:01:59 GMT -5
On the front page of my newspaper this morning:
President Barack Obama earns a 68% approval rating from Americans for his first three full days on the job.
I was surprised that anyone would take a poll after only three days. I mean, unless the man declared war on Canada, was caught having sex with a stranger in the oval office and started chanting voodoo worshiping gibberish, how could he not be doing well after only three days?
Well, good news is good news and he was pretty busy during those days. I'm glad 68% approve of him. It is interesting that my newspaper is The Daily Yomiuri (Japanese newspaper). It would seem the the world has their eyes upon President Obama.
I didn't vote for him but I'm glad he's doing so well and I hope his approval rating goes even higher!
Mike
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jan 26, 2009 1:26:21 GMT -5
I think they do this survey right after the inauguration every four years, so it's for comparison purposes.
I was in Jerusalem for an international peace conference right after the election, and I was very surprised how informed and interested everybody was; from five continents, hundreds of people enthusiastic about Obama.
|
|
|
Post by ozski on Jan 26, 2009 12:48:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jspnrvr on Jan 26, 2009 16:45:51 GMT -5
Really smart boys and girls listen to their Uncle Jay.
|
|
|
Post by ozski on Jan 26, 2009 19:50:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sailor on Jan 27, 2009 17:40:49 GMT -5
Uncle Jay is a riot, PJ, thank you for sharing.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by sailor on Feb 8, 2009 21:49:56 GMT -5
It seems that President Obama (PO) is maintaining a good job approval rating. I thought it was impressive that he took responsibility for the screw-up on Tom Daschle. I am curious what PO would have done had Daschle not withdrawn on his own.
Another point in his favor is the way he spanked the wall street CEOs.
The stimulus package is something I'm not sold on. I admit that the enormity of the problem and the proposed solution is beyond my capability to comprehend (even with help from Uncle Jay). It's my gut feeling that is bothering me. My gut says that that's a lot of money going to the wrong places. Well, time will tell.
Anyway, I'm still giving PO high marks on his report card.
Regards, Mike
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Feb 10, 2009 0:31:49 GMT -5
You're not alone, Mike. The latest poll shows very high approval for our Prez, though people are anxious about the money in the stimulus. I think that's because everyone would love a fat check, but he can't do that with any hope of creating - or saving - jobs. The projects being put forward are all going to save jobs at the very least. I worked many years for our dept. of transportation, and people didn't seem to get it that our budget kept private engineering and construction companies in business. The government employees who write up contracts and inspect projects and pay bills are also doing real work. If they're laid off (as may happen in MN) that's even more people on unemployment and not spending paychecks. Don't you work in a military library? Sorry if I'm mixing that up. My point is that we had an extensive and well-used library, but the average man on the street would call those jobs government waste. It's a shame we have so much friction between classes of workers. PBS did a story tonight on a school that's haf-finished. Money for school construction was cut from the stimulus bill, but now there's an unusable building that could be finished by unemployed electricians and plumbers and construction workers. I have a feeling I've said all this before. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 10, 2009 11:43:59 GMT -5
I don't know about the money, and I don't think any of the experts know either, since this situation is unprecedented, at least since the Great Depression. And so many things have changes since 1929 - 1933, this is still different.
Economists across the political spectrum seem to agree that a stimulus package is needed; the arguing about the details seems to be along the usual partisan party lines. Doesn't anyone in government care about anything besides the 2010 elections?
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 11, 2009 1:34:36 GMT -5
… Doesn't anyone in government care about anything besides the 2010 elections? Some may have the vision to look to 2012.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Feb 12, 2009 20:09:29 GMT -5
2014 I don't know where to put this so I'll stick it here. Today I saw parts of a CNN interview with Colin Powell. The whole thing will air Sunday at 10 pm Eastern. I'm going to try really really hard to remember to watch it and you should, too.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Apr 28, 2009 20:05:57 GMT -5
Time magazine reports this week on his first 100 days. Campbell Brown was hosting a roundtable tonight on Michelle's first 100 days. Too much chatter about her clothes.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Apr 29, 2009 12:19:26 GMT -5
Everyone is reporting on "The First 100 Days." It seems very arbitrary to me - who thinks these things up anyway? Must be a function of 500 cable TV channels and the 24/7 news cycle that tries to fill them.
I have to say that I am really impressed by Michelle Obama. She seems so sincere, so genuine, so out there, so likeable. Not a hardened career women, not a quiet retiring housewife, but a balance that emphasizes many roles are possible and valuable.
Overall, seems to me President Obama is doing quite well given the numerous catastrophes he inherited
|
|
|
Post by joew on May 11, 2009 11:17:30 GMT -5
The "100 days" bit goes back to FDR.
What I'm getting uneasy about is the state ownership of industry.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on May 11, 2009 19:58:54 GMT -5
The "100 days" bit goes back to FDR. What I'm getting uneasy about is the state ownership of industry. I'm not crazy about the idea either, especially the White House deciding who is CEO of GM. But as much as I review the topic, I do not see any other alternatives. When Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail, that led to a collapse in the financial markets, so it does seem that other "banks" needed to be maintained. And it does seem that the US auto industry should be maintained - there is enough unemployment already without tanking the automobile industry. The housing collapse is closely linked to the banking/financial problems, but also goes was back to at least the Clinton era with the loosening of lending standards to increase home ownership. Bush promoted that further with his "ownership society." I am recalling that the last time Chrysler (nearly?) went bankrupt, they were loaned government/taxpayer money at good interest rates, and CEO Lee Iaccocca paid the money back ahead of schedule. Maybe that will happen with all these other "investments." Regardless, there are major economic changes taking place that will take a long time to recover, if ever. I just don't see any other route to resolving all these problems. Any of you have better insights?
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on May 12, 2009 9:53:28 GMT -5
Not I. The notion of government owning industry is alarming, but I don't think the details look like ownership. When that much taxpayer money is involved, I think we have a right to some extremely close oversight. The typical board of major corporations comprises high-flyers from other corporations who don't exercise much real control and rarely ask questions. Capitalism in America (probably everywhere) is headed by a fraternity of insiders. Some fresh perspective seems to me an excellent idea.
Come to think of it, many kinds of boards seem minimally engaged. They sit at a nice big table, listen to reports and proposals from staff, bestow their approval and then go out for dinner. The trustees of colleges and universities act this way. It's frustrating to learn how much time is spent in ersatz meetings that only rubber-stamp.
And I concur with your concern about job loss, K. As the market rises, hope rises, too, but we can't take our eye off the number of unemployed. It's our true pandemic, not swine flu.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on May 12, 2009 11:48:08 GMT -5
I do not understand why boards are not held accountable for their management decisions. Well I do understand - it's a fraternity of people who believe "I scratch your back if you scratch mine" - but it seems to me that is where the regulators and shareholders should turn some of their focus.
It is a two-edged sword, as the board members have valuable industry expertise but they also have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to enhance shareholder wealth, not create surreptitious board self-benefit to the detriment of shareholders. Accountability and liability should reshape board behavior. Many shareholders are powerful mutual and retirement funds, and wealthy individuals and families who could insist on change.
|
|
|
Post by joew on May 18, 2009 12:00:16 GMT -5
Granted, the boards of directors have not been really looking out for the stockholders as they should. But when the government owns enough stock to put its people on the boards, then it is the owner. And if it has taken over management without owning the stock, then it has shoved the stockholders aside, IMO.
There was something on the talk radio after yesterday's Red Sox game in which the host was upset because the federal government had set aside the legal rights of the holders of Chrysler preferred bonds. Does anybody know if that is what actually happened?
|
|
|
Post by doctork on May 18, 2009 15:38:10 GMT -5
I would hope that the government being a majority owner is a temporary situation intended to persist only until the economic crisis has subsided. I am concerned that the increase in government power and control is a long-term strategy rather than an interim tactic.
I had not heard that about the Chrysler bondholders; I'd have thought that since they are "preferred" creditors, they would be the last to find their rights set aside. I'm no expert in bankruptcy, and I know there was a lot of "fine print" in the terms and conditions of the government handout.
Maybe I need to renew my WSJ subscription, as their coverage of this is probably quite good.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on May 18, 2009 23:22:01 GMT -5
I don't remember it all either, but my impression is that some creditors held out against taking some losses. When they wouldn't budge, obama said bankruptcy was the only option. If you Google it, there are reams to read. this might be a good starting point. www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/business/01auto.html
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on May 20, 2009 9:28:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by joew on May 29, 2009 22:55:40 GMT -5
Got distracted. I see it's not strict ownership in the case of Chrysler, but the U.S. and Canada get 10% ownership (8% and 2% respectively) and get to appoint 5 of the nine directors on the new board (U.S. 4 and Canada 1). Apparently the remaining 90% of the owners control the minority on the board.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Sept 10, 2009 6:35:27 GMT -5
A+ speech.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Sept 10, 2009 7:35:46 GMT -5
I thought the speech was well done, but he almost always gives good speeches. Unfortunately, I don't think it has changed any minds in Congress, but maybe has persuaded the people that there will be no "death panels" and illegal aliens will not be insured.
I suppose it is too wonky to mention, but the projected $900 billion increased expenditures over the next 10 years will happen anyway without any reform. Our current bill is $2.5 trillion, and costs increase 5 - 10% per year every year, which is already $125 to $250 billion annually.
Anyway, he did good. What the heck is wrong with that Wilson guy from South Carolina? (oh, maybe SC is the problem, given recent displays by their guv). I was pleased to see Senator McCain come right out and say it was disrespectful and Wilson should apologize (which he grudgingly did a few hours later, saying essentially that the devil made him do it.)
Civility - what ever happened to it?
|
|
|
Post by joew on Sept 11, 2009 17:07:32 GMT -5
A blogger linked this article from the Atlantic. www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-careI don't know enough about how the system works to be sure whether or not the author is right, and I've noticed a very selective use of statistics. But there are places where I think I understand, and he seems to make sense — most notably his point that it makes little sense to expect to use insurance to pay for virtually all our health care. With bills of more than 600,000 for a five week stay in the hospital (as happened to the author's father), or the four digit dollar amount for an evening in the emergency room (as happened to me) it is understandable that people are afraid of being without coverage for all expenses. That's how I felt until I got to the end where he clearly explained his proposed triad of out-of-pocket, health savings accounts, and catastrophic insurance. But then it made sense to me. Why can't our President and legislators figure this out?
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Sept 13, 2009 15:04:26 GMT -5
I don't understand why the HSA has not been a more popular option, but it is not the fault of the President or the legislatures, as they are not the responsible parties. Not all employers offer HSA'a as a health insurance option, and when offered, only a few employees choose them. As an individual market offering, there are some significant restrictions that mostly pertain to underwriting and market factors.
The author of the Atlantic article makes some good points, though understandably, his focus is in-patient hospital care, which is only a fraction of American healthcare as a whole. Still it's an expensive one, and one where there are well-established, relatively easily implemented pathways to reduce errors and bad outcomes. No excuse for not doing those.
That said, and although I feel for the author, his father was 83 years old; we are not immortal and death is not optional. Though his lethal infection may have been hospital acquired, he did have pneumonia acquired outside the hospital. We used to call pneumonia "the old man's friend," as it provided a fairly peaceful and easy way to go.
Aging is essentially a loss of physiological reserve - as we age, we lose the ability to fight infections and bounce back from illness. It is very common for people to present with sepsis (bacterial infection in the bloodstream) that is found to originate from pneumonia, or an infection elsewhere in the body. Or the initial infection in the lung or kidney spreads to the bloodstream. Either way, there is a downhill spiral as the body becomes increasingly overcome with infection it is unable to fight. This shouldn't happen from nosocomial (hospital-acquired) infection, but it can't be prevented entirely, even when antibiotics are given promptly and protocols followed. People do die from infections, especially the elderly.
The bill of $600,000+? Only a wealthy, uninsured person (or his widow or estate) would have to pay it, as all others would pay at a large discount. That is one of those market distortions the author referred to, and certainly one reason people fear being uninsured, or even under-insured. I was "fully insured" when I had a high-risk pregnancy and a premature baby that cost me over $250,000 out of pocket. If not for the initials behind my name, we'd have been bankrupted.
And the reality is the "we" pay 100% of all medical expenditures. Consumers write a check or pay cash for around 18% of their bills, while the rest is taken in the form of health insurance in lieu of wage increases, or taxes we pay to cover government programs. The belief that we spend OPM is a myth - it just sometimes looks like Other People's Money.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Sept 13, 2009 19:16:14 GMT -5
I have two areas of questions about proposed health care reform. They are things I genuinely wonder about and are not politically motivated.
1. When the president or the legislators speak of opening up insurance company competition as a good way to bring down costs, why is totally free-market insurance purchasing not the first choice? In other words, why are there restrictions by state on which companies can sell in each state? Why don't they let all companies compete with each other nationwide? Wouldn't that be the most effective form of competition?
2. If illegal aliens are not to be included in health care reform options, what is going to be done about the illegal alien who shows up at the hospital with a ruptured appendix, tubal pregnancy, or broken femur? or something else? People living in the U.S. illegally is a fact. It's not going to go away if they are not allowed to buy health insurance or be covered by any eventual government-sponsored plan. So will they be treated or left to die? Obviously, a doctor is not going to let them die. So won't they still end up in the system, but just cost more?
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Sept 13, 2009 21:09:58 GMT -5
Booky, treatment of sick people showing up at the ER is already mandated by federal law, regardless of immigration status. Immigration reform is a whole 'nother issue that should be dealt with. There are financial and public health reasons why it is better to allow illegal aliens to buy coverage (in fact I suspect many illegal aliens are insured through their work), but it is politically unacceptable to mention that right now.
National competition is restrained by 1) turf issues (insurance is state-regulated) and 2) differing state laws. For example, some states require community rating (can't discriminate based on pre-existing conditions) or have "mandates" requiring coverage of services that other states consider optional. Because these benefits cost more, if insurance is sold across state lines, community rating and mandates become untenable for the states who have them, due to adverse selection (only those who need the service buy the insurance, undermining the risk pool).
Practically speaking, if you have a problem with your current insurer, you can call and complain to the Insurance Commissioner of your state (an elected official), and he or she is charged with the responsibility of making your insurance company follow the rules and pay your claim if it has been wrongfully denied. That is hard enough, but if you have to go through federal court, good luck - you'll be dead long before action is taken.
National competition won't help the uninsurable problem (pre-ex), nor will it do anything to restrain growth of medical costs overall, although individual premiums will be lower for the healthy people who live in states with community rating. But honestly, none of the proposals at hand do anything to control rising medical costs; there are just speculations about how if X happens, costs will (hopefully) be lower eventually.
Many large insurers do compete against each other nationally, although the "rules" are different in each state. Operationally, it's better to compete in only a limited number of states where a company can build a "critical mass" of business. And some insurances like HMO's, PPO's and co-ops are local operations - you might wish you could have Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound insurance, but you have to live in the region to buy and use it.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Sept 13, 2009 21:37:50 GMT -5
Thanks, doc. It all seems so unworkable.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Sept 14, 2009 7:22:10 GMT -5
It is complicated, with many moving parts. But I wonder - the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP) provides a choice of plans in all 50 states for 2 million or so federal employees - why not open that up to everyone? Only problem is cost - it's the typical "gold-plated" $300 - $400 for an individual and $1,200 - $1,500 per month for family coverage, even though there are varying levels of plans, with minimum to maximum coverage.
Since most other wealthy industrialized democracies similar to the US mange to do this, often based on private plans obtained through employers, I'm sure we could too. However, we have given a lot more power to (for-profit) special interests who resist change that reduce their income. Every "unnecessary expense" is someone's income, and everyone's favorite Plan B is the status quo.
|
|