Try jumping through hoops! That's what I've been doing today while trying to set up a retirement account.
The concept of saving for retirement is one that is drilled into us incessantly by banks and financial advisors. We must put money away for the future because the government can't afford to take care of us anymore, after paying them to do so for our whole working lives, we're just being selfish to expect any of that hard earned money back one day. So get an IRA - but don't put away too much money [the government regulates how much you're allowed to save] - we don't want any one to be too rich when they're old. No, no.
I'd like to save money for retirement [soon to be a fantasy concept the way things are going] just as much as the next person, but I have some far out requirements that pose unique problems for banking institutions.
1. I'm not already rich. I know - how dare I want to save only pennies a day? It seems most places I've looked have minimum balance requirements for opening an IRA. The most reasonable - $250 - the most outrageous $25,000 [I laughed at the woman over the phone when she told me that.] Honey, if I had $25,000, I'd be paying off my bills with it.
2. I want to make contributions. Weird right? I mean, employer run IRAs make contributions for you, put what happens if you're self employed? Some instutitions want to open a new account every time you make a contributions, so you end up with hundreds of individual accounts with small balances - way to save on paying interest, right?
3. I don't want to trade stocks, bonds, pig belly futures or commodities. I'm not interested in day trading. All I want is to put my money somewhere safe until I need it.
4. I don't want to pay someone to hold my money. This is the biggie - I mean who am I to expect a financial instiution not to try to bleed me dry, right? If I'm already losing money in a stock based account, why wouldn't I also want t see my balance trickle away with maintenance fees as well? Losing money a little at a time is almost as much fun as hiding it under the mattress and hoping moths don't eat it.
Ah well, back to my work out. At this rate, I may not have any money for retirement, but at least I'll be really skinny from jumping through all these hoops and since skinny people never get sick, I can just keep working and forget about retirement completely.
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Sunday, October 9, 2011
The take or leave it century
You hear a lot of speculation about how the world can recover from this global recession, and I have a bunch of my own theories but I’m starting to think we may never pull out of this if we don’t bring back some good old fashioned accountability all across the board.
How can anyone make money or forge a lasting business if they just don’t care?
I ask this because I’m so tired of seeing the laissez-faire attitude from businesses, banks, doctors, etc. No one has the gumption to put their best foot forward anymore. Is it any wonder no one’s making money?
A case in point, I hired a supposed professional several weeks ago to fix a leaky gutter on my house. After the work was done, for a reasonable $30.00, I was told if there were any problems to call the company and someone would come back to fix it. Well, the next rain storm produced a waterfall from the gutter which had previously only been dripping. I called. It took several phone calls to finally get someone to return, repair the leak a second time and leave. The next time it rained the gutter went back to dripping, so I was right back where I started. Several more phone calls only served to irritate the company manager who ended up telling my husband never to call again.
Naturally I did what I do best. I left reviews of the company wherever I could. We contacted the Better Business Bureau and put in a complaint. The manager called to complain to us about this because he couldn’t understand why we were making such a big deal over a $30 job.
Seriously?
Clearly the man has no business sense. No one ever told him that the $30.00 customer should be treated the same way the $30,000 customer is treated because you never know when one can turn into the other. His feeling was, we were supposed to excuse poor service, rudeness over the phone and a reluctance to fix the problem because, after all, we’d only paid $30, the price quoted to us by his own technician. Now the company is annoyed because the Internet reviews are out there tarnishing their reputation. Boo hoo.
Do a good job and you won’t have to worry about your reputation.
As a writer, I have to put my work out there and take the chance someone will give a trashy review. A bad review will hurt my business, it will impact my book sales. I know this because I’ve changed my mind about buying books after reading poor reviews. I don’t whine about those bad reviews. I don’t moan and say, what did they expect for a $0.99 book or a $4.99 book? If they’d been willing to pay $29.99 for it, I might have done a better job. That’s BS of the highest magnitude. My book sales are driven by the good reviews, the ones I get because I care about what I produce. In the information age, if you do crappy work, the world will know about it in a heartbeat. Welcome to the 21st Century, put on your big girl panties and deal with it.
Yet this attitude seems to prevail. I see it among writers who do whine about their bad reviews and engage reviewers in arguments. I see it in businesses that relegate small, inexpensive jobs to lesser skilled workers and provide less customer service to the ‘little guy’. I see it in banks that charge fees for low balance accounts and not for higher balances, in doctors and medical practices that give better service to patients who pay their own way as opposed to those relying on insurance [or sometimes vice versa depending on where they think they’ll get the most money]. I see it in government where budget cuts lead to lack of service which punishes the communities rather than the higher government that imposes the budget cuts to begin with. There seems to be a resentment of the everyday working person, the person who doesn’t just want to save money but HAS to in order to survive. We’re not supposed to complain about higher taxes, increased fees, lower compensation for health insurance, cuts in our salaries, higher gas prices, higher food prices, less service everywhere. We’re just supposed to shut up and accept that no one can go the extra mile anymore because we can no longer pay for it.
I guess the old adage is true: Money talks and bull shit is the new gold standard.
How can anyone make money or forge a lasting business if they just don’t care?
I ask this because I’m so tired of seeing the laissez-faire attitude from businesses, banks, doctors, etc. No one has the gumption to put their best foot forward anymore. Is it any wonder no one’s making money?
A case in point, I hired a supposed professional several weeks ago to fix a leaky gutter on my house. After the work was done, for a reasonable $30.00, I was told if there were any problems to call the company and someone would come back to fix it. Well, the next rain storm produced a waterfall from the gutter which had previously only been dripping. I called. It took several phone calls to finally get someone to return, repair the leak a second time and leave. The next time it rained the gutter went back to dripping, so I was right back where I started. Several more phone calls only served to irritate the company manager who ended up telling my husband never to call again.
Naturally I did what I do best. I left reviews of the company wherever I could. We contacted the Better Business Bureau and put in a complaint. The manager called to complain to us about this because he couldn’t understand why we were making such a big deal over a $30 job.
Seriously?
Clearly the man has no business sense. No one ever told him that the $30.00 customer should be treated the same way the $30,000 customer is treated because you never know when one can turn into the other. His feeling was, we were supposed to excuse poor service, rudeness over the phone and a reluctance to fix the problem because, after all, we’d only paid $30, the price quoted to us by his own technician. Now the company is annoyed because the Internet reviews are out there tarnishing their reputation. Boo hoo.
Do a good job and you won’t have to worry about your reputation.
As a writer, I have to put my work out there and take the chance someone will give a trashy review. A bad review will hurt my business, it will impact my book sales. I know this because I’ve changed my mind about buying books after reading poor reviews. I don’t whine about those bad reviews. I don’t moan and say, what did they expect for a $0.99 book or a $4.99 book? If they’d been willing to pay $29.99 for it, I might have done a better job. That’s BS of the highest magnitude. My book sales are driven by the good reviews, the ones I get because I care about what I produce. In the information age, if you do crappy work, the world will know about it in a heartbeat. Welcome to the 21st Century, put on your big girl panties and deal with it.
Yet this attitude seems to prevail. I see it among writers who do whine about their bad reviews and engage reviewers in arguments. I see it in businesses that relegate small, inexpensive jobs to lesser skilled workers and provide less customer service to the ‘little guy’. I see it in banks that charge fees for low balance accounts and not for higher balances, in doctors and medical practices that give better service to patients who pay their own way as opposed to those relying on insurance [or sometimes vice versa depending on where they think they’ll get the most money]. I see it in government where budget cuts lead to lack of service which punishes the communities rather than the higher government that imposes the budget cuts to begin with. There seems to be a resentment of the everyday working person, the person who doesn’t just want to save money but HAS to in order to survive. We’re not supposed to complain about higher taxes, increased fees, lower compensation for health insurance, cuts in our salaries, higher gas prices, higher food prices, less service everywhere. We’re just supposed to shut up and accept that no one can go the extra mile anymore because we can no longer pay for it.
I guess the old adage is true: Money talks and bull shit is the new gold standard.
Monday, August 2, 2010
A Matter of Health
I just finished Why Our Health Matters by Andrew Weil, MD, another treatise on the failure of the American health care system and what we, as a nation, can do about it.
Unlike the authors of What If Medicine Disappeared, Weil is in fact a trained physician. In contrast to so many of his colleagues, Weil explains at length, he rejected the normal medical school curriculum which emphasized treating the symptoms of disease with drugs and went looking for a way to treat the cause of disease instead, something his medical school instructors frowned upon.
Much of what Weil says echoes all the other books I’ve read about what’s wrong with our profit driven system. The pharmaceutical companies rule the roost, providing poorly constructed studies as proof their drugs work miracles. They spend more money on advertising to both doctors and patients than they do on research and development. The idea of the industry is to make people sick, keep them sick and continue to profit from them.
Preaching to the choir here. Overall I agree with Weil’s assessment that change has to come from the people and we have to take a more active role in managing our own health, at the same time the government makes sweeping changes into how health care is managed and provided.
My only disagreement with Weil is his occasional lapse in heavy handed measures such as ‘forcing’ citizens to pay more attention to their health by imposing ‘sin’ taxes or penalties for non-compliance. This is where he veers off his otherwise straight and narrow track and dips into ludicrous by forgetting that as Americans we fought for our freedom not to have our every move regulated by the government. He also fails to realize that by imposing penalties for not being healthy, he will in fact be punishing the most law abiding of us. Those who truly abuse the health care system and those who cost the most money will still do as they please regardless of what penalties are imposed on them, while those who, like today, struggle to play by the rules, will be the ones facing the full impact of the penalties. Tsk tsk, Dr. Weil. He seems to be a margin too full of his own shiny dream of perfect health care to see the forest for the trees.
Once again, all this information is interesting and oftentimes shocking, but my question is, has anyone sent a copy of this book to the President? The people who really need to understand how to effect change are the ones who are least likely to do it, because they remain the ones with the most profit to lose if we become a nation of truly healthy people.
Unlike the authors of What If Medicine Disappeared, Weil is in fact a trained physician. In contrast to so many of his colleagues, Weil explains at length, he rejected the normal medical school curriculum which emphasized treating the symptoms of disease with drugs and went looking for a way to treat the cause of disease instead, something his medical school instructors frowned upon.
Much of what Weil says echoes all the other books I’ve read about what’s wrong with our profit driven system. The pharmaceutical companies rule the roost, providing poorly constructed studies as proof their drugs work miracles. They spend more money on advertising to both doctors and patients than they do on research and development. The idea of the industry is to make people sick, keep them sick and continue to profit from them.
Preaching to the choir here. Overall I agree with Weil’s assessment that change has to come from the people and we have to take a more active role in managing our own health, at the same time the government makes sweeping changes into how health care is managed and provided.
My only disagreement with Weil is his occasional lapse in heavy handed measures such as ‘forcing’ citizens to pay more attention to their health by imposing ‘sin’ taxes or penalties for non-compliance. This is where he veers off his otherwise straight and narrow track and dips into ludicrous by forgetting that as Americans we fought for our freedom not to have our every move regulated by the government. He also fails to realize that by imposing penalties for not being healthy, he will in fact be punishing the most law abiding of us. Those who truly abuse the health care system and those who cost the most money will still do as they please regardless of what penalties are imposed on them, while those who, like today, struggle to play by the rules, will be the ones facing the full impact of the penalties. Tsk tsk, Dr. Weil. He seems to be a margin too full of his own shiny dream of perfect health care to see the forest for the trees.
Once again, all this information is interesting and oftentimes shocking, but my question is, has anyone sent a copy of this book to the President? The people who really need to understand how to effect change are the ones who are least likely to do it, because they remain the ones with the most profit to lose if we become a nation of truly healthy people.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
FICO be damned
I know it might be considered financially unsound in this wacky economic climate to cancel a credit card. Any financial 'expert' will tell you that cancelling cards will have a negative effect on your FICO score - that all important made up number that tells everyone just what a high risk you are in the money game.
Everyone knows my policy is, whatever the banks want or prefer, is usually exactly the opposite of what I do, so today I cancelled a card, but I didn't do it just to piss off the FICO people who will now be forced to recalculate my score [if only they cared that much.]
I did it to make myself feel just a little bit better. Today I cancelled my BP credit card. You might think - so what? What's one lost credit card account to them? Probably nothing in the overall scheme of things, but it made me feel good nevertheless to let them know my family won't be doing business with a company that's singlehandedly destroying the planet.
The millions of gallons of oil bursting into the Gulf of Mexico are going to have an untold impact on the environment. BP is rushing around putting toxic Band-Aids on a gaping wound. What they need to do is pour all of their money, every last penny, into that spewing well, and then throw their Top brass in after it.
Unfortunately, it's not just BP who's to blame. We can also thank the world governments [not just the US.] Their sick insistance that we need to remain dependent on oil is what really caused this catastrophe. The fear of making the OPEC nations angry by taking away the only thing they truly contribute to the global community is at the root of this unspeakable tragedy. We have the technology to become an oil-free society, we just don't use it because it means people who have enough money to feed filet mignon to their pet tigers won't be happy.
Clean energy is available. Environmentally safe energy is available, it just doesn't put enough money in the right pockets to make it profitable.
I know there's a lot more I could do to take a stand against BIG OIL, in the mean time, why not start out in the simplest way possible? Send a message to BP - if you deal with them, stop. They don't need any more of our money or any of our support.
Everyone knows my policy is, whatever the banks want or prefer, is usually exactly the opposite of what I do, so today I cancelled a card, but I didn't do it just to piss off the FICO people who will now be forced to recalculate my score [if only they cared that much.]
I did it to make myself feel just a little bit better. Today I cancelled my BP credit card. You might think - so what? What's one lost credit card account to them? Probably nothing in the overall scheme of things, but it made me feel good nevertheless to let them know my family won't be doing business with a company that's singlehandedly destroying the planet.
The millions of gallons of oil bursting into the Gulf of Mexico are going to have an untold impact on the environment. BP is rushing around putting toxic Band-Aids on a gaping wound. What they need to do is pour all of their money, every last penny, into that spewing well, and then throw their Top brass in after it.
Unfortunately, it's not just BP who's to blame. We can also thank the world governments [not just the US.] Their sick insistance that we need to remain dependent on oil is what really caused this catastrophe. The fear of making the OPEC nations angry by taking away the only thing they truly contribute to the global community is at the root of this unspeakable tragedy. We have the technology to become an oil-free society, we just don't use it because it means people who have enough money to feed filet mignon to their pet tigers won't be happy.
Clean energy is available. Environmentally safe energy is available, it just doesn't put enough money in the right pockets to make it profitable.
I know there's a lot more I could do to take a stand against BIG OIL, in the mean time, why not start out in the simplest way possible? Send a message to BP - if you deal with them, stop. They don't need any more of our money or any of our support.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Collected WTFery
I’ve been too deeply immersed in preparing to move to blog on a regular basis, but I have collected a couple of interesting tidbits to share.
The first entry in the WTF column comes directly from TD Bank [aka America’s Most Convenient Bank]. I don’t want to cast aspersions on any one financial institution, since I have an inkling they’ll all be doing this soon, but I can only speak for certain about TD Bank.
My husband and I both received a little flier from them the other day informing us that as of January 2009 [yes, that’s more than a year ago, but they’re just telling us now] “if you received more than $600 in ATM Surcharge Reimbursements you will be sent a 1099-Misc form.”
Translated into plain English this means: You know all those times we happily reimbursed you for the exorbitant fees we and other banks charge you to access your money from ATMs? Well, now you have to pay taxes on it.
Essentially, they take your money, they give it back and they charge you a tax on it. So money you should never have had to pay out in the first place, is now considered income.
What I really love is how it’s retroactive to 2009, meaning that if you’ve already paid your 2009 taxes [and let’s see – most of us have], you may have to make an adjustment once they get that 1099 out to you.
The next entry comes from my favorite source, health and wellness news.
Apparently The Journal of Urology is touting diet soda as a preventative for kidney stones. Researchers have concluded that citrate, an ingredient found in some sodas [lemon and citrus flavors], may help reduce the risk of kidney stone formation. Citrate can be found in non-diet sodas as well [not colas, though] but the researchers, ever health conscious, are quick to remind patients that the extra calories they get from regular sodas pose a health risk [obviously one more serious than cancer causing artificial sweeteners, but we won’t go there.]
What boggles me is, why would doctors decide that diet soda would be a better, healthier source of citrate than say, actual citrus fruits? Oh, right, fruits contain sugar and calories, therefore making them bad for you, where artificially sweetened and colored carbonated water contains no sugar or calories and is therefore a health food.
So, there you go. You can drink to your health, while you write out that check to Uncle Sam to pay taxes on your ATM rebates.
The first entry in the WTF column comes directly from TD Bank [aka America’s Most Convenient Bank]. I don’t want to cast aspersions on any one financial institution, since I have an inkling they’ll all be doing this soon, but I can only speak for certain about TD Bank.
My husband and I both received a little flier from them the other day informing us that as of January 2009 [yes, that’s more than a year ago, but they’re just telling us now] “if you received more than $600 in ATM Surcharge Reimbursements you will be sent a 1099-Misc form.”
Translated into plain English this means: You know all those times we happily reimbursed you for the exorbitant fees we and other banks charge you to access your money from ATMs? Well, now you have to pay taxes on it.
Essentially, they take your money, they give it back and they charge you a tax on it. So money you should never have had to pay out in the first place, is now considered income.
What I really love is how it’s retroactive to 2009, meaning that if you’ve already paid your 2009 taxes [and let’s see – most of us have], you may have to make an adjustment once they get that 1099 out to you.
The next entry comes from my favorite source, health and wellness news.
Apparently The Journal of Urology is touting diet soda as a preventative for kidney stones. Researchers have concluded that citrate, an ingredient found in some sodas [lemon and citrus flavors], may help reduce the risk of kidney stone formation. Citrate can be found in non-diet sodas as well [not colas, though] but the researchers, ever health conscious, are quick to remind patients that the extra calories they get from regular sodas pose a health risk [obviously one more serious than cancer causing artificial sweeteners, but we won’t go there.]
What boggles me is, why would doctors decide that diet soda would be a better, healthier source of citrate than say, actual citrus fruits? Oh, right, fruits contain sugar and calories, therefore making them bad for you, where artificially sweetened and colored carbonated water contains no sugar or calories and is therefore a health food.
So, there you go. You can drink to your health, while you write out that check to Uncle Sam to pay taxes on your ATM rebates.
Friday, April 9, 2010
None of what you hear
It's been a while, I know.
I wish I could say there hasn't been anything to write about, but it's more like there have been too many topics that could use a shot of reality that I've been overwhelmed.
Last night while watching TV, I came across something that irritated me enough that I decided I needed to blog about it. As a potential homebuyer/seller [hopefully this year] I have a marginal interest in the government's Home buyer's tax credit program.
The idea for this incentive was to make home buying more attractive [originally just to first time home buyers] in order to kick start the failing real estate market. Giving people money off thier tax bill - especially those who can now afford a home since prices are dropping and foreclosures are everywhere - seemed like a good idea to the current administration. You know, take from the poor and give to the rich type stuff - you lose your house to foreclosure and the people who buy it get a tax incentive. That's fair, right?
Well, then the rule changed, and people who were selling a home and buying a new one could also get some tax credit - not as much, but some. That made a little more sense. Draw people into the market, maybe those looking to downsize, or even up-size now that prices are more realistic. The whole plan is sort of like spitting in the wind, but hey, it makes people feel like the government is doing something to help. The problem is, the program expires on April 30th 2010, so if you don't have a contract by then, you're out of luck. The real estate industry is holding its collective breath hoping the program will be extended, but no word from Washington yet.
So last night, in the middle of prime-time there's a commercial touting in big letters and loud words, "The home buyer's credit has been extended and expanded!" Yay! Let's all rejoice, this is the news we've been wating for...
except, the fine print still says...Expires April 30, 2010.
Misleading much?
Surprised much?
Not me. All you potential home buyers out there, don't be fooled. Or better yet, don't be lied to and don't forget to read the fine print.
I wish I could say there hasn't been anything to write about, but it's more like there have been too many topics that could use a shot of reality that I've been overwhelmed.
Last night while watching TV, I came across something that irritated me enough that I decided I needed to blog about it. As a potential homebuyer/seller [hopefully this year] I have a marginal interest in the government's Home buyer's tax credit program.
The idea for this incentive was to make home buying more attractive [originally just to first time home buyers] in order to kick start the failing real estate market. Giving people money off thier tax bill - especially those who can now afford a home since prices are dropping and foreclosures are everywhere - seemed like a good idea to the current administration. You know, take from the poor and give to the rich type stuff - you lose your house to foreclosure and the people who buy it get a tax incentive. That's fair, right?
Well, then the rule changed, and people who were selling a home and buying a new one could also get some tax credit - not as much, but some. That made a little more sense. Draw people into the market, maybe those looking to downsize, or even up-size now that prices are more realistic. The whole plan is sort of like spitting in the wind, but hey, it makes people feel like the government is doing something to help. The problem is, the program expires on April 30th 2010, so if you don't have a contract by then, you're out of luck. The real estate industry is holding its collective breath hoping the program will be extended, but no word from Washington yet.
So last night, in the middle of prime-time there's a commercial touting in big letters and loud words, "The home buyer's credit has been extended and expanded!" Yay! Let's all rejoice, this is the news we've been wating for...
except, the fine print still says...Expires April 30, 2010.
Misleading much?
Surprised much?
Not me. All you potential home buyers out there, don't be fooled. Or better yet, don't be lied to and don't forget to read the fine print.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
All hail health care reform
First of all - I've been slacking off with posting. I was going to blame it on being left speechless by the healthcare reform bill, or maybe blame it on the cold I got despite abusing Vitamins D and C for the past few months, or blame it on my PC crashing, but the crux of it is, I was too lazy to be eloquent. I have a lot of opinions, but making something coherent out of them with the keyboard is often too much trouble.
Excuses aside, all is right with the world now that the President has signed the healthcare bill.
I suppose I should be happy for the some of the changes. After all, the insurance companies will be slipping their necks into tight little nooses that should keep them under a bit more control than they've had in the past. And now:
approval will extend coverage to 32 million Americans who lack it
Why does this sound suspiciously like 32 million Americans will just be ‘given’ health insurance, when clearly that's not the case?
The bill will ban insurers from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions
It’s about time, but what punishment will insurers think up to make up for having to comply with this rule?
For the first time, most Americans would be required to purchase insurance, and face penalties if they refused.
There you go – punishment – that’s the way to care for the people. Punish them if they don’t pay for something you want them to pay for. And ‘most’ – that means there are still people who won’t be required to buy health insurance. Will they be the super-rich, the super-poor or just people with the right connections?
health care for all Americans
This is not what the legislation is about. It’s about getting everyone to buy health insurance
[Insurance companies] would be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions and from canceling policies when a policyholder becomes ill.
This all sounds great – but as we’ve seen with the credit card industry, it’s just a matter of time before insurance companies come up with ways to punish their customers for every new law they have to obey
Parents would be able to keep children up to age 26 on their family insurance plans, three years longer than is now the case.
This is a step forward, and will help millions of young adults maintain health converage, but remember, it still won't be free.
$900 billion in tax increases and Medicare cuts combined
Ah – there you go! Cut healthcare costs by taking coverage away from the elderly and charging taxpayers. I just don't understand why Congress didn't think of that sooner.
So weigh in - do you think the healthcare reform will actually help the majority of Americans, or will it ultimately cause more problems than it cures?
Excuses aside, all is right with the world now that the President has signed the healthcare bill.
I suppose I should be happy for the some of the changes. After all, the insurance companies will be slipping their necks into tight little nooses that should keep them under a bit more control than they've had in the past. And now:
approval will extend coverage to 32 million Americans who lack it
Why does this sound suspiciously like 32 million Americans will just be ‘given’ health insurance, when clearly that's not the case?
The bill will ban insurers from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions
It’s about time, but what punishment will insurers think up to make up for having to comply with this rule?
For the first time, most Americans would be required to purchase insurance, and face penalties if they refused.
There you go – punishment – that’s the way to care for the people. Punish them if they don’t pay for something you want them to pay for. And ‘most’ – that means there are still people who won’t be required to buy health insurance. Will they be the super-rich, the super-poor or just people with the right connections?
health care for all Americans
This is not what the legislation is about. It’s about getting everyone to buy health insurance
[Insurance companies] would be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions and from canceling policies when a policyholder becomes ill.
This all sounds great – but as we’ve seen with the credit card industry, it’s just a matter of time before insurance companies come up with ways to punish their customers for every new law they have to obey
Parents would be able to keep children up to age 26 on their family insurance plans, three years longer than is now the case.
This is a step forward, and will help millions of young adults maintain health converage, but remember, it still won't be free.
$900 billion in tax increases and Medicare cuts combined
Ah – there you go! Cut healthcare costs by taking coverage away from the elderly and charging taxpayers. I just don't understand why Congress didn't think of that sooner.
So weigh in - do you think the healthcare reform will actually help the majority of Americans, or will it ultimately cause more problems than it cures?
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
The devil is in the details
I found this article put out by the Associated Press the other day proclaiming relief for the mortgage crisis. Apparently the number of homeowners who are late on payments has dropped sharply – heralding better times ahead.
The article also gives the grim truth about this supposed turnaround. The ‘sharp drop’ constitutes a change of 0.2 percent – from 3.8 to 3.6. That’s 2 tenths of a percent.
I imagine the author of the article has a different definition of sharp than I do. I also have to wonder how much of this sharp drop is a result of people having lost their homes to foreclosure. You can’t be late on a payment if you no longer own the house, right?
This quote from the article tells the rest of the real story:
However, more than 15 percent of homeowners with a mortgage had missed at least one payment or were in foreclosure, a record for the 10th straight quarter.
I realize it may be the job of journalists like this and the Associated Press in general to paint a happy picture of the economy – after all, telling people things are getting better, will make them think things are getting better, and then perhaps by default, things will actually begin to get better. I just wish if they were going to try to snow the public with fuzzy facts, they worked a little harder at making them fuzzy. This is just blatant hogwash.
Chin up everyone, things are better! Two tenths of a percent less people were one payment late on their mortgages so we can all breath a sigh of relief. The fact that the article ends with the information that the number of homeowners who are more than three payments late has continued to rise is apparently notwithstanding.
I imagine the whole point of this article is not to convey any real information, just to dazzle people with peppy headlines.
The article also gives the grim truth about this supposed turnaround. The ‘sharp drop’ constitutes a change of 0.2 percent – from 3.8 to 3.6. That’s 2 tenths of a percent.
I imagine the author of the article has a different definition of sharp than I do. I also have to wonder how much of this sharp drop is a result of people having lost their homes to foreclosure. You can’t be late on a payment if you no longer own the house, right?
This quote from the article tells the rest of the real story:
However, more than 15 percent of homeowners with a mortgage had missed at least one payment or were in foreclosure, a record for the 10th straight quarter.
I realize it may be the job of journalists like this and the Associated Press in general to paint a happy picture of the economy – after all, telling people things are getting better, will make them think things are getting better, and then perhaps by default, things will actually begin to get better. I just wish if they were going to try to snow the public with fuzzy facts, they worked a little harder at making them fuzzy. This is just blatant hogwash.
Chin up everyone, things are better! Two tenths of a percent less people were one payment late on their mortgages so we can all breath a sigh of relief. The fact that the article ends with the information that the number of homeowners who are more than three payments late has continued to rise is apparently notwithstanding.
I imagine the whole point of this article is not to convey any real information, just to dazzle people with peppy headlines.
Friday, February 12, 2010
So it's not just us
In all my research for this blog, I’ve come to wonder if there’s something inherently wrong with our politics and social structure in this country. It was really started to worry me, but then I came across this article about Canadian citizens protesting the huge amount of money to be spent by their government on the winter Olympics when so many people there, just like here, are suffering the effects of the economic crisis.
I know the Olympics is a global event, something that I’m sure has some bearing on helping to keep peace between nations. If we can all get together to play some games, hand out some medals and have a grand ‘ol time, we’re less likely to bomb each other out of existence, but the Olympics is a financial burden on the hosting country. During times when money flowed freely, it was no big deal. Pouring public funds into the sports spectacle meant increased tourism and a huge jump in revenue for the host city…that translated to profit which could be pumped back into the economy to make things better for the citizens. Theoretically.
But what if the stone is already bled dry? When you have a community that’s already poor [I have to admit it’s hard for me to think of a poor community in Canada, they seem like they have it so much more together than we do], is it really wise to divert public funds to hosting winter games when your own citizens don’t have enough food or places to live?
Maybe the global economy would suffer for the lack of Olympics, maybe international relations would suffer too, but it seems to me like the desire for profit outweighs everything else. Is the prestige of hosting the Olympics and the boost in the local and national economy worth the low tide that’s going to occur beforehand?
I think one thing definitely is global – political insanity.
I know the Olympics is a global event, something that I’m sure has some bearing on helping to keep peace between nations. If we can all get together to play some games, hand out some medals and have a grand ‘ol time, we’re less likely to bomb each other out of existence, but the Olympics is a financial burden on the hosting country. During times when money flowed freely, it was no big deal. Pouring public funds into the sports spectacle meant increased tourism and a huge jump in revenue for the host city…that translated to profit which could be pumped back into the economy to make things better for the citizens. Theoretically.
But what if the stone is already bled dry? When you have a community that’s already poor [I have to admit it’s hard for me to think of a poor community in Canada, they seem like they have it so much more together than we do], is it really wise to divert public funds to hosting winter games when your own citizens don’t have enough food or places to live?
Maybe the global economy would suffer for the lack of Olympics, maybe international relations would suffer too, but it seems to me like the desire for profit outweighs everything else. Is the prestige of hosting the Olympics and the boost in the local and national economy worth the low tide that’s going to occur beforehand?
I think one thing definitely is global – political insanity.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Pandemic or Pandemonium?
I just read this article about the World Health Organization’s response to accusations that the swine flu pandemic of 2009 was a hoax designed to increase profits for pharmaceutical companies.
Of course the WHO denies any wrongdoing. They maintain that the number of reported cases of swine flu worldwide qualifies as a pandemic, regardless of how many deaths occurred. I supposed based on dictionary definition, it was a pandemic. Whether or not the widespread panic that accompanied it was necessary or not is anyone’s guess.
I know people who became seriously ill from swine flu, so I’m not minimizing its severity, but I have to say I’m not surprised by the accusations made in the article. To me it seems odd that a disease which had people all over the world wearing surgical masks in public just a few months ago suddenly seems to be getting so much less attention. Is the pandemic over or at least in remission for now?
I wonder if this is because millions of people have received vaccinations, thus halting the spread of the virus. Or is it because the severity of the epidemic was exaggerated in order to increase demand for the vaccine?
People die from influenza every year. There’s no debating it’s a deadly illness and those with already compromised immune systems are especially at risk, but I wonder if it really benefits society to inflate the risk of a disease in order to insure more people take precautions against spreading it. Did the WHO and the media really do the world a service by terming the swine flu spread to be a pandemic and increasing not only awareness of the disease but fear of it, or did they ultimately only do the vaccine manufacturers a service? The efficacy of the swine flu vaccine is still under debate, and the regular flu season isn’t quite over yet, so are we right to still be afraid or are we right to be skeptical?
Of course the WHO denies any wrongdoing. They maintain that the number of reported cases of swine flu worldwide qualifies as a pandemic, regardless of how many deaths occurred. I supposed based on dictionary definition, it was a pandemic. Whether or not the widespread panic that accompanied it was necessary or not is anyone’s guess.
I know people who became seriously ill from swine flu, so I’m not minimizing its severity, but I have to say I’m not surprised by the accusations made in the article. To me it seems odd that a disease which had people all over the world wearing surgical masks in public just a few months ago suddenly seems to be getting so much less attention. Is the pandemic over or at least in remission for now?
I wonder if this is because millions of people have received vaccinations, thus halting the spread of the virus. Or is it because the severity of the epidemic was exaggerated in order to increase demand for the vaccine?
People die from influenza every year. There’s no debating it’s a deadly illness and those with already compromised immune systems are especially at risk, but I wonder if it really benefits society to inflate the risk of a disease in order to insure more people take precautions against spreading it. Did the WHO and the media really do the world a service by terming the swine flu spread to be a pandemic and increasing not only awareness of the disease but fear of it, or did they ultimately only do the vaccine manufacturers a service? The efficacy of the swine flu vaccine is still under debate, and the regular flu season isn’t quite over yet, so are we right to still be afraid or are we right to be skeptical?
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
There's an economist born every minute
I get a kick out of reading the predictions of economists. Every since the recession hit [or rather since they actually began admitting it was a recession], every day there have been articles like this one telling us the economy is in recovery.
The only people who actually notice this recovery seem to be the economists. They tend to base their predictions on miniscule drops in new unemployment claims. My interpretation: If last month 500,000 people lost their jobs and applied for unemployment and this month 400,000 lost their jobs and applied for unemployment, the economy must be improving. One hundred thousand less people applied for unemployment and that’s a good thing, right? It seems to me they ignore the obvious – that there were 500,000 people out of work and now there are 900,000. We’re not supposed to look at it that way I guess.
It’s all ‘the glass is half full.’
Well, I try hard not to be a pessimist, and I guess if I can find amusement in what appears to be the cock-eyed optimism of economists, then I’m not really a full-blown pessimist after all. But seriously – who pays these people to tell us things are looking up based on trends that tend to swing back forth like a pendulum? Today prices are up, housing is up, jobs are up…based on data collected a month ago. Tomorrow prices are down, housing is down, jobs are down, based on data collected one day later.
Who do we believe? What do we believe? My take is to ignore the economists. Thing are better if they’re better. They’re worse if they’re worse.
Maybe the economy would recover if we stopped paying the economists to tell us about it.
The only people who actually notice this recovery seem to be the economists. They tend to base their predictions on miniscule drops in new unemployment claims. My interpretation: If last month 500,000 people lost their jobs and applied for unemployment and this month 400,000 lost their jobs and applied for unemployment, the economy must be improving. One hundred thousand less people applied for unemployment and that’s a good thing, right? It seems to me they ignore the obvious – that there were 500,000 people out of work and now there are 900,000. We’re not supposed to look at it that way I guess.
It’s all ‘the glass is half full.’
Well, I try hard not to be a pessimist, and I guess if I can find amusement in what appears to be the cock-eyed optimism of economists, then I’m not really a full-blown pessimist after all. But seriously – who pays these people to tell us things are looking up based on trends that tend to swing back forth like a pendulum? Today prices are up, housing is up, jobs are up…based on data collected a month ago. Tomorrow prices are down, housing is down, jobs are down, based on data collected one day later.
Who do we believe? What do we believe? My take is to ignore the economists. Thing are better if they’re better. They’re worse if they’re worse.
Maybe the economy would recover if we stopped paying the economists to tell us about it.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Lead us not into cheap jewelry
As if parents don’t have enough to worry about, now we have to fear the cute little necklace or charm bracelet we bought at Wal*Mart will give our kids brain damage.
I’m all for laws protecting children from dangerous products, but I wonder if the terror associated with the possibility of lead poisoning isn’t being taken just a little too far.
This article is basically a big pat on the back for the Chairman of the Consumer Safety Commissions, who is cracking down on jewelry and toys imported from China which may contain high levels of lead and cadmium. The danger posed by exposure to these two heavy metals, according the article, is extensive. Children can suffer brain damage which can lead to severe developmental disorders.
The mere idea that such harmful substances might be found in items given to children is reprehensible and the Commissioner should be congratulated for her vigilance and dedication to protecting American families. I can’t really argue with that – but if you read the article carefully, you’ll note that nowhere does it explain exactly how lead or cadmium poisoning occurs.
Answer.com has this to say about Cadmium poisoning:
Cadmium can be very toxic, and is dangerous if it is swallowed or inhaled.
And this to say about lead:
Lead poisoning occurs when a person swallows or inhales lead in any form.
Note the danger seems to lie in the swallowing or inhaling of these metals, not the wearing or touching of them. Now, of course I realize that young children do often put things they’re not supposed to in their mouths. They swallow small toys, suck on them, and occasionally even stuff them up their noses. Hence the danger of poisoning – but the article doesn’t explain this. It sort of insinuates that if your child happens to be wearing a cheapo pendant from one the brands in question, rip it off her little neck. Slap that bracelet right off her wrist this instant because it’s giving her brain damage.
Clearly, the proper response to this information should be panic, clear and simple.
Let me repeat, I’m all for product safety, especially when it comes to toys, but I think the important bit of information that’s neglected here is this: Parents, don’t allow your children to put jewelry in their mouths. If your child can’t keep that necklace or bracelet or small toy out of her mouth, don’t let her play with it.
I realize a warning like this would put the responsibility for a child’s safety on the parents, and let’s face it, what parent has the kind of time these days required to actually supervise their child? Seriously. So, rather than caution parents to make sure their kids aren’t eating things that were not intended to be eaten, the message is: You too could be a victim!
If only a dose of reality were better than a pound of litigation, maybe parents could get the real facts from articles designed to warn them about potential dangers, rather than more hype designed to scare them senseless.
I’m all for laws protecting children from dangerous products, but I wonder if the terror associated with the possibility of lead poisoning isn’t being taken just a little too far.
This article is basically a big pat on the back for the Chairman of the Consumer Safety Commissions, who is cracking down on jewelry and toys imported from China which may contain high levels of lead and cadmium. The danger posed by exposure to these two heavy metals, according the article, is extensive. Children can suffer brain damage which can lead to severe developmental disorders.
The mere idea that such harmful substances might be found in items given to children is reprehensible and the Commissioner should be congratulated for her vigilance and dedication to protecting American families. I can’t really argue with that – but if you read the article carefully, you’ll note that nowhere does it explain exactly how lead or cadmium poisoning occurs.
Answer.com has this to say about Cadmium poisoning:
Cadmium can be very toxic, and is dangerous if it is swallowed or inhaled.
And this to say about lead:
Lead poisoning occurs when a person swallows or inhales lead in any form.
Note the danger seems to lie in the swallowing or inhaling of these metals, not the wearing or touching of them. Now, of course I realize that young children do often put things they’re not supposed to in their mouths. They swallow small toys, suck on them, and occasionally even stuff them up their noses. Hence the danger of poisoning – but the article doesn’t explain this. It sort of insinuates that if your child happens to be wearing a cheapo pendant from one the brands in question, rip it off her little neck. Slap that bracelet right off her wrist this instant because it’s giving her brain damage.
Clearly, the proper response to this information should be panic, clear and simple.
Let me repeat, I’m all for product safety, especially when it comes to toys, but I think the important bit of information that’s neglected here is this: Parents, don’t allow your children to put jewelry in their mouths. If your child can’t keep that necklace or bracelet or small toy out of her mouth, don’t let her play with it.
I realize a warning like this would put the responsibility for a child’s safety on the parents, and let’s face it, what parent has the kind of time these days required to actually supervise their child? Seriously. So, rather than caution parents to make sure their kids aren’t eating things that were not intended to be eaten, the message is: You too could be a victim!
If only a dose of reality were better than a pound of litigation, maybe parents could get the real facts from articles designed to warn them about potential dangers, rather than more hype designed to scare them senseless.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Clueless in Seattle
Sorry, I meant to say ‘Washington’ but Seattle sounded better.
I just read this article which is supposed to be good news for us little people. The President intends to tax banks in order to recoup some of the obscene amount of money paid out to them in the recent bailout.
Of course, the banks don’t like this idea, but if it goes through, money will be flowing back to Washington to repay all that taxpayer money that went to help the banks who were broke because they’d been abusing taxpayers all these years.
The President apparently: challenged those who say banks can't afford the tax without passing the costs on to shareholders and customers.
He doesn’t think that will happen. He must not actually deal with a bank of his own, because I noticed the minute money began pouring out of government coffers and into bank vaults, the fees I pay at my bank went up. ‘Free checking’ which was all the rage over the last few years while banks competed for business became extinct overnight. It hasn’t cost me a dime to maintain any of my bank accounts for years, but in the last few months I’ve racked up probably $30.00 or more in fees – and these are just for routine ‘maintenance’. I’m sure I’m not alone.
We’ve seen this same thing happen with our credit cards as soon as legislation was passed to curb their abusive practices. They responded with more fees, higher interest rates and sneaky contract changes that mean consumers will bleed money at a time they’re least able to afford it. Punish the people when the government punishes us. That’s the motto of big business these days.
Now the banks will get to do more of the same. But the President doesn’t think this will actually occur. Those fat-cat bank executives will happily fork over tax money to the government without penalizing their customers, right? If their inflated salaries and bonuses go down, oh well, they’re all nice guys. They’ll manage.
Yeah.
If I thought my tax money might be used to buy Washington a clue, I might not be so angry. Washington should forget taxing the banks and start jailing bank executives. Oh, wait, then my taxes would still go up to keep them all in Federal prison and give them free health care.
I just read this article which is supposed to be good news for us little people. The President intends to tax banks in order to recoup some of the obscene amount of money paid out to them in the recent bailout.
Of course, the banks don’t like this idea, but if it goes through, money will be flowing back to Washington to repay all that taxpayer money that went to help the banks who were broke because they’d been abusing taxpayers all these years.
The President apparently: challenged those who say banks can't afford the tax without passing the costs on to shareholders and customers.
He doesn’t think that will happen. He must not actually deal with a bank of his own, because I noticed the minute money began pouring out of government coffers and into bank vaults, the fees I pay at my bank went up. ‘Free checking’ which was all the rage over the last few years while banks competed for business became extinct overnight. It hasn’t cost me a dime to maintain any of my bank accounts for years, but in the last few months I’ve racked up probably $30.00 or more in fees – and these are just for routine ‘maintenance’. I’m sure I’m not alone.
We’ve seen this same thing happen with our credit cards as soon as legislation was passed to curb their abusive practices. They responded with more fees, higher interest rates and sneaky contract changes that mean consumers will bleed money at a time they’re least able to afford it. Punish the people when the government punishes us. That’s the motto of big business these days.
Now the banks will get to do more of the same. But the President doesn’t think this will actually occur. Those fat-cat bank executives will happily fork over tax money to the government without penalizing their customers, right? If their inflated salaries and bonuses go down, oh well, they’re all nice guys. They’ll manage.
Yeah.
If I thought my tax money might be used to buy Washington a clue, I might not be so angry. Washington should forget taxing the banks and start jailing bank executives. Oh, wait, then my taxes would still go up to keep them all in Federal prison and give them free health care.
Friday, January 15, 2010
You must have read my mind
Despite the usually negative theme in popular science fiction, I’ve always thought it would be kind of cool if someone could read my mind. First of all, they’d probably find my jumble of thoughts to be endlessly entertaining and two, they would know when to take out the garbage, change the channel, turn the heat up…whatever. I wouldn’t have to actually tell people [meaning my family of course] what I wanted them to do, and thus waste time having to 1) find them, 2) get their attention, 3) make my wishes clear in a language they can understand, 4) repeat myself.
I don’t think that would be so bad. But after having read this article the other morning, I’m rethinking my stance on the benefits of telepathy.
Due to the recent airport security snafus there’s a scramble to figure out better ways to keep airplane passengers safe. I have no problem with increased security at the airports. I hate to travel by plane, and the harder it gets to do so freely, the more money I will save by not paying the ridiculous prices they charge these days for airfare. Eventually, it will just be too expensive to fly and either the airlines will all go out of business and we’ll have to learn to flap our wings, or the airlines will lower their prices and we’ll be able to afford to fly.
In the mean time, the people who do fly will have a much harder time getting from the ticket counter to their seats. Especially if airport security is doing some of the things mentioned in this article. First you’ll have the mind readers – hey, at least psychics will be able to find work in this economy. The problem with mind readers is, what do they do with someone whose mind is blank? Blink. Blink. Or someone who’s taken a handful of Dramamine and is seeing pink elephants in the duty free shop? What about every kid over the age of 4 whose mind is on the last rock’em, sock’em shoot up video game they played? If they’re going to be looking for real thoughts of violence and mayhem, they’ll have to wade through all the thoughts of virtual violence and mayhem first.
Next, apparently they will be flashing disturbing images at people. This could be a problem depending on the images they show. For instance, if they flash me a picture of my latest real estate tax bill, I would certainly entertain dangerous thoughts. Lie detectors would be a problem too. Suppose they’re going through your suitcase and pull out the new bathing suit you just bought for your trip to the Bahamas. Their question: “Ma’am, do you really think you can squeeze yourself into a size 14 spandex?’
Come on. How do you answer that without being hauled off to jail? Either you lie or you kill someone.
Seriously, though – the bottom line is, in order to be ‘fair’ and ‘constitutional’ the airlines have to treat all passengers the same way. They can’t profile and that means, as the article says, they’ll be forced to waste time confiscating grandma’s knitting needles while the guy with the bomb strapped to his testicles waltzes by because he has no problem fitting into a size 14 spandex and he’s wearing flat shoes.
My question is, don’t we have the right to be safe, even if it means some people are inconvenienced and others are offended? If you want to know what I think, you’ll have to read my mind.
I don’t think that would be so bad. But after having read this article the other morning, I’m rethinking my stance on the benefits of telepathy.
Due to the recent airport security snafus there’s a scramble to figure out better ways to keep airplane passengers safe. I have no problem with increased security at the airports. I hate to travel by plane, and the harder it gets to do so freely, the more money I will save by not paying the ridiculous prices they charge these days for airfare. Eventually, it will just be too expensive to fly and either the airlines will all go out of business and we’ll have to learn to flap our wings, or the airlines will lower their prices and we’ll be able to afford to fly.
In the mean time, the people who do fly will have a much harder time getting from the ticket counter to their seats. Especially if airport security is doing some of the things mentioned in this article. First you’ll have the mind readers – hey, at least psychics will be able to find work in this economy. The problem with mind readers is, what do they do with someone whose mind is blank? Blink. Blink. Or someone who’s taken a handful of Dramamine and is seeing pink elephants in the duty free shop? What about every kid over the age of 4 whose mind is on the last rock’em, sock’em shoot up video game they played? If they’re going to be looking for real thoughts of violence and mayhem, they’ll have to wade through all the thoughts of virtual violence and mayhem first.
Next, apparently they will be flashing disturbing images at people. This could be a problem depending on the images they show. For instance, if they flash me a picture of my latest real estate tax bill, I would certainly entertain dangerous thoughts. Lie detectors would be a problem too. Suppose they’re going through your suitcase and pull out the new bathing suit you just bought for your trip to the Bahamas. Their question: “Ma’am, do you really think you can squeeze yourself into a size 14 spandex?’
Come on. How do you answer that without being hauled off to jail? Either you lie or you kill someone.
Seriously, though – the bottom line is, in order to be ‘fair’ and ‘constitutional’ the airlines have to treat all passengers the same way. They can’t profile and that means, as the article says, they’ll be forced to waste time confiscating grandma’s knitting needles while the guy with the bomb strapped to his testicles waltzes by because he has no problem fitting into a size 14 spandex and he’s wearing flat shoes.
My question is, don’t we have the right to be safe, even if it means some people are inconvenienced and others are offended? If you want to know what I think, you’ll have to read my mind.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Let them eat cake
This post over at NaturalNews.com deftly sums up my feelings on the healthcare reform bill currently wending its way through the greedy hands of Congress.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s asked how forcing people to pay for health insurance will solve the problem of UNAFFORDABLE health care. Since health care these days is equivalent to health insurance, the government is essentially saying that peasants who have no bread should eat cake.
I highly doubt that our President is the reincarnation of Marie Antoinette [who likely never uttered the famous quote anyway], but whoever came up with the idea to force the American people to pay for something they already can’t afford is certainly not on our side. Should we be concerned that members of our own government are so far removed from the lives of the average person that they cannot comprehend how this ‘mandatory’ insurance will affect us?
I could write volumes on my opinions about the health insurance industry, most of it fueled by frustration at the rampant stupidity with which the insurance companies are run. I won’t go there. Today anyway.
In the mean time I would just like to wonder, when push comes to shove, can we fight laws that are clearly detrimental to the health and wellness of the entire nation? Or is it too late for us to banish the monster we have summoned?
I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s asked how forcing people to pay for health insurance will solve the problem of UNAFFORDABLE health care. Since health care these days is equivalent to health insurance, the government is essentially saying that peasants who have no bread should eat cake.
I highly doubt that our President is the reincarnation of Marie Antoinette [who likely never uttered the famous quote anyway], but whoever came up with the idea to force the American people to pay for something they already can’t afford is certainly not on our side. Should we be concerned that members of our own government are so far removed from the lives of the average person that they cannot comprehend how this ‘mandatory’ insurance will affect us?
I could write volumes on my opinions about the health insurance industry, most of it fueled by frustration at the rampant stupidity with which the insurance companies are run. I won’t go there. Today anyway.
In the mean time I would just like to wonder, when push comes to shove, can we fight laws that are clearly detrimental to the health and wellness of the entire nation? Or is it too late for us to banish the monster we have summoned?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
