Political Potpourri VIII

C M Edwards · 2005-08-03 14:22:04

Shaun, as a lawyer I help people start up new small businesses. Most fail.
The statistics are grim, like 70% of all new business start-ups fail. Maybe that's okay because trying is good and should be encouraged.
But if you have a family, to go naked without health insurance and start a business is pretty damn foolish. Unless your employer offers health insurance the rates border on unaffordable. Among my construction clients most have a wife who works full time at a really big company and therefore gets excellent group medical insurance.
And I know people who stay at their big company jobs (that they hate) instead of starting a new business because they cannot risk a spouse or child getting sick without insurance. Rather than promoting rugged individualism, this creates a nation of Dilberts, company man who are too timid to strike out on their own.
Hardly the mythical American dream.

I take issue with everything except the last two paragraphs, Bill.

According to the US Census Bureau, around 70% of new Amercan businesses survive at least five years. Starting a business is hard, but the claim that 70% (or 80%, or 95%, or whatever - it varies) fail in five years is an urban myth. Of those that do go out of business, sample polls suggest that only half "fail" according to the traditional economic definition - running out of money. The rest are bought out, retire, etc.

Having already been a card carrying member of that failed 30%, I'll never tell anyone that starting a new business is easy. However, the odds of success are better than even.

If both your "experience as a lawyer" and your own business records agree that 70% of your clients go out of business, you should consider getting out of bankruptcy law.

While I'll concede that going without health insurance for one's family is foolhardy, you imply that this is what it takes to start your own business. That is not correct. Business owners can get insurance (both group and private) just like business employees. My own wife gets a great insurance policy offered by our parish government, but that's not why she's working in the first place. The savings of a group plan compared to private insurance are nothing compared to the added income of a second job. Forget insurance: My girl's workin' for the money! (That and the fact that she seems to love public service. We'd miss that money if she joined the peace corps and got on CHAMPUS, though. )

Then, there's the last two paragraphs. Spot on, I'm afraid. :cry: And it's so sad, because it does not have to be that way! Insurance is a great idea, it really is, but our present insurance system is making us dependent on our employers' good graces. And this popular fib about how the world is flat and ends just outside your boss's gate isn't helping much.

C M Edwards · 2005-08-03 15:00:10

Middle Easterners should be targeted for searches on city subways, two elected officials said, contending that police have been wasting time with random checks in efforts to prevent terrorism in the transit system.

It is a harsh truth that targetting those clearly of Middle Eastern descent would cripple nine out of ten potential terrorist plots today, at least in Britain and the States.

And a few years from now, when Al Qaeda simply switches to recruiting white guys from Iran, they can just walk in and the police will wave hello as they pass. Heck, if I were them, I would promote racial profiling as part of their long term strategy.

There has to be a better way.

BWhite · 2005-08-03 18:49:46

CM Edwards, you are probably right about that statistic being an urban legend. I have heard it tossed about a number of times in various contexts but never really looked into it systematically as a census type question.

I am often approached by potential clients wanting to start "Mom & Pop" retail or restaurant business-es and they are invariably under-capitalized and they fail to acknowledge the brutal competition extended by the franchises and big box retailers.

Also, these potential clients routinely rely upon being able to start taking paychecks far sooner than is realistic. In good conscience, I believe I must discourage spending the 401(k) nest egg or maxing out a home equity loan to start up such a business.

Speaking of restaurant franchises, in Chicago we have a staggering number of good upscale franchise restaurants like Maggianos which deliver a terrific product and are backed up by many, many millions of dollars in capital.

To take them on is beyond foolish. :?

clark · 2005-08-03 19:42:16

To take them on is beyond foolish.

Dreams don't do math. Any Mars lover knows that.

BWhite · 2005-08-03 19:57:13

To take them on is beyond foolish.
Dreams don't do math. Any Mars lover knows that.

Yup.

But Citibank does. To the penny.

clark · 2005-08-03 20:12:11

@#!&$ing ROI.

BWhite · 2005-08-03 21:12:19

A challenge, and I ask clark to refrain from answering, except perhaps by private message. His google skills are too good.

Who said/wrote this and when:

Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace comes to pass in an era of Righteousness -- that is, national or ideological self-righteousness in which the public is persuaded that "God is on our side," and that those who disagree should be brought here before the bar as war criminals.
. . . Just now I conclude my thoughts on Republican errors by suggesting that it would be ruinous for the Republicans to convert themselves into a party of high deeds in distant lands and higher taxes on the home front. Such a New World Order, like the Pax Romana, might create a wilderness and call it peace; at best, it would reduce the chocolate ration from thirty grams to twenty. And in the fullness of time, the angry peoples of the world would pull down the American Empire, despite its military ingenuity and its protestations of kindness and gentleness -- even as the Soviet Empire is being pulled down today, thanks be to God.

clark · 2005-08-03 21:25:50

Now that the United States has become, temporarily, the greatest power in the world, some of us recall an observation, half a century ago, by the French writer Andre Siegfried: "The United States is the only country to have passed from barbarism to decadence without having known civilization." At the end of the twentieth century, have Americans intelligence and imagination sufficient to lead the peoples of the world? Indeed, do Americans possess talents sufficient to maintain their present degree of security and prosperity?

BWhite · 2005-08-03 21:54:14

Bingo!

Is the author a Leftie or a Rightie?

Shaun Barrett · 2005-08-04 02:12:14

Bill:-

The statistics are grim, like 70% of all new business start-ups fail.

CM:-

According to the US Census Bureau, around 70% of new Amercan businesses survive at least five years. Starting a business is hard, but the claim that 70% (or 80%, or 95%, or whatever - it varies) fail in five years is an urban myth.

Bill:-

CM Edwards, you are probably right about that statistic being an urban legend. I have heard it tossed about a number of times in various contexts but never really looked into it systematically as a census type question.

I've noticed, Bill, that there is a tendency in your contributions to harp constantly on negative news about the things it suits you to criticize. This, of course, is the art of debate - to undermine the case of the 'opposition'.
-- But I notice, also, that you use a 'hit-and-run' strategy of quotes from internet sites, which always stress the worst aspects of situations (such as, but not only, the liberation of Iraq) and tend to leave many of us in a depressed frame of mind.

This persistent emphasis, as I read it, on negativity and the hopelessness of everything is unhealthy and I fear for your well-being. For some time I assumed it was all part of a strategy you were using quite deliberately (and legitimately) to denigrate the American Republican Party and capitalism (or mercantilism) in general, and George W. Bush in particular.
-- But the above revelation, by CM, that the negative statistics you drop into these threads are not necessarily accurate, reveals that perhaps you are inadvertently being tainted by the same depressing negativity you use as a debating measure. i.e. Perhaps you are coming to believe some of the stuff you pick up at websites you visit, without checking the details (?).

Just a few observations from a concerned onlooker. :?:

clark · 2005-08-04 05:58:31

I feel a group hug coming on.

BWhite · 2005-08-04 06:23:18

In totalitarian regimes, it is common to suggest that one's opponents needed assistance with their mental health or that they are criminals. Do you advocate that we become more Soviet or more fascist in our public discourse?

Its also a sign that one' s opponent is, shall we say, "out of ammo"

Thanks for the support Shaun. Your comments assure me I am on the right track.

8)

I repeat a quote from a man revered by Ronald Reagan:

Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace comes to pass in an era of Righteousness -- that is, national or ideological self-righteousness in which the public is persuaded that "God is on our side," and that those who disagree should be brought here before the bar as war criminals.

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-04 07:22:16

Should just let it go, but to answer in a straightforward and civil manner seems so much more productive.

Okay, you must be smarter than me. How do these programs artificially inflate costs?

Consumers are overall indifferent to the real costs of healthcare because they aren't paying for it in their minds. Consequently drug companies, hospitals and individual doctors do what anyone trying to make a buck would do and increase charges, which insurance companies pass on to their clients. As this goes on, some people get priced out of the market. Enter government, which infuses money into the system to "help" and thereby setting up another cycle of inflating costs because. . . "I'm not paying for it".

So in a way, you're right about profit being part of the problem but it's not the part that can be easily fixed. Markets have a way of bringing costs down shortly after a new innovation hits the market, yet in the medical field we deliberately short-circuit that and sit around wondering why it's so expensive.

Tens of millions is just the kids, in one state. I think you do not fully appreciate the scope of the situation and the problems that will result from implementing your suggestions.

Children are the responsibility of their parents and would remain so under what I suggest. If that responsibility is not met there are already measures in place to correct it. Children are placed in foster care all the time for this sort of thing. Fact is, most parents are fully capable of providing for the medical costs of their children.

No, the government can compel US to provide funds for these programs.

So, I am compelled to provide funds for an unnecessary war in Iraq. Consider it a little quid pro quo.

Forcing you to pay for that is also wrong. Our entire tax system is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.

At least in this case. :twisted:

A copay, a deductible, a premium- these are all “minor expenses” the patient must pay for service. The collective pool kicks in for the big stuff. Look C.C., I sincerely suggest you do some research here, cause you have got this all backwards.

I think you know full well that I'm not talking about copays and deductibles. By "minor expenses" I mean anything that isn't a major medical problem. A cold, the flu,a physical; there's no reason for medical insurance to cover these things that patients can pay for themselves and doing so drives up costs for everyone.

There is a reason that health plans are reaching out to their populations to do pre-screening, preparatory vaccinations, and out reach behavioral programs- it costs less than having them come into the system when the problem requires more resources to treat. Paying for this, or subsidizing these programs will save us money in the long term.

Only because we're all locked into the same screwed up system. Look at it a little deeper and it makes no economic sense to run healthcare as we currently do.

Moving on to racial profiling in terrorism screenings. Just going after "Arab looking" guys won't catch every terrorist and will quite possibly cause more harm than good. At the same time doing random searches is the height of stupidity.

In the case of airports, the first thing we need to do is disband the TSA, which at present are essentially undertrained, underpaid Thugs Standing Around carrying out an asinine policy. Get private contractors back in there but this time make sure they have the training and the equipment to do the job and make sure the rules make sense.

Just a hint, confiscating nail clippers from pilots (who have an axe and [i]controls for the plane[i] in the cockpit) doesn't make sense. "Searching" middle-aged white women while looking for terrorists generally doesn't make sense. In fact, trying to screen out everything that could conceivably be used as a weapon doesn't make a shred of sense.

Finally, as flaky as it will be at times, the only sensible approach to screening is to have well-trained personnel on site and leave who to search at their discretion. That "gut feeling" coupled with training and experience is a far better gage of who to check out than some PC random search nonsense.

BWhite · 2005-08-04 08:28:49

Cobra, any comments on the new highway bill?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/02/highway.bill.ap

What was it that Michigan conseravtive icon said? Oh yeah, "a party of high deeds in distant lands and higher taxes on the home front."

I suppose spending more yet lowering taxes at the same time is beyond what our mystery author could imagine.

= = =

Speaking of flaky, Arizonan Jeff Flake voted against this Highway Bill.

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-04 09:07:26

Cobra, any comments on the new highway bill?

Just that I don't like it and would have voted against it. Most federal highway bills, in fact most transportation bills in general are riddled with pork and waste.

One of the natural results of direct representation.

I suppose spending more yet lowering taxes at the same time is beyond what our mystery author could imagine.

Agreed. However while the choir berates the lower taxes, I'd prefer to focus on the spending which is after all the real problem.

What was it that Michigan conseravtive icon said? Oh yeah, "a party of high deeds in distant lands and higher taxes on the home front."

He said a great many other things as well. All worthy of consideration.

BWhite · 2005-08-04 09:15:04

Agreed. However while the choir berates the lower taxes, I'd prefer to focus on the spending which is after all the real problem.

Feeling lonely these days?

GOP gains power and spends, spends, spends with no one to argue the other side.

= = =

With divided government, there was a mechanism for restraint.

clark · 2005-08-04 09:36:11

A mechanism? Well, yes. But was it really used?

That deficit didn't happen because of a one-sided Government afterall. Pork barrel spending is largely the result of a divided government- got to make a deal somehow. But now, well, they still spend the money, they just don't try to make a deal with the other side when doing it.

[sigh] Remember the good 'ol days, when we all hated the government together, instead of hating each other for liking one party versus the other.

BWhite · 2005-08-04 10:12:40

A mechanism? Well, yes. But was it really used?
That deficit didn't happen because of a one-sided Government afterall. Pork barrel spending is largely the result of a divided government- got to make a deal somehow. But now, well, they still spend the money, they just don't try to make a deal with the other side when doing it.
[sigh] Remember the good 'ol days, when we all hated the government together, instead of hating each other for liking one party versus the other.

I remember January 2001 when we had a budget surplus because a GOP Congress and Bill Clinton reached a deal.

clark · 2005-08-04 10:13:55

weird... I can delte some posts, but not all.

One of you guys, delete this. um, please.

clark · 2005-08-04 10:15:01

I remember that too, and it had more to do with a tech bubble if I recall.

BWhite · 2005-08-04 10:20:53

I remember that too, and it had more to do with a tech bubble if I recall.

Perhaps. But it was a chance to embrace the notion of fiscal responsibility.

Palomar · 2005-08-04 10:32:13

*My 2 cents' worth:

IMO this thread is rapidly becoming vapid, predictable and counterproductive. And riddled with piddly comments, etc.

Some of the conversations here could be had privately. Considering the input of others sometimes seem unwanted (and that one-on-one dialogue is preferred), why not?

Rehash, rehash, rehash.

Some (too many) conversations seem less interested in actually talking WITH others.

It's also, IMO, becoming intragroup divisive in some respects -- and to an unhealthy/counterproductive level.

Yeah, I've discussed politics too. But geez, there ARE other topics for discussion at New Mars. It's become so heavy on the politics.

Maybe time to take a break, call a time-out?

Lately I've begun wishing we'd never started discussing politics at New Mars. Seems to be sidetracking the rest of the boards (all those OTHER topics, you know?), etc.

JMO.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-04 10:38:45

Feeling lonely these days?
GOP gains power and spends, spends, spends with no one to argue the other side.

Hopelessly outnumbered and fighting on two fronts. Relishing every minute of it too. :twisted:

I remember January 2001 when we had a budget surplus because a GOP Congress and Bill Clinton reached a deal.

A projected surplus to be precise. I'm skeptical of figures put out by the government, they're so often flagrantly wrong.

Moving on, Cindy may have a point. Personally I see no real problem with ripping each others skulls out in here then collaborating elsewhere, but maybe it does get a little counterproductive.

But I'm sure there's still a shred or two of meat on that horse carcass and by God we're gonna find it.

BWhite · 2005-08-04 11:00:07

Cobra Commander wrote:

Feeling lonely these days?
GOP gains power and spends, spends, spends with no one to argue the other side.
Hopelessly outnumbered and fighting on two fronts. Relishing every minute of it too. :twisted:
Perfect image for CGI movie?
Do I hear calls for truce?
Hmmm. . .
Lets chat about shuttle derived launch systems, okay?

Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2005-08-03 14:22:04

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#177 2005-08-03 15:00:10

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#178 2005-08-03 18:49:46

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#179 2005-08-03 19:42:16

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#180 2005-08-03 19:57:13

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#181 2005-08-03 20:12:11

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#182 2005-08-03 21:12:19

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#183 2005-08-03 21:25:50

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#184 2005-08-03 21:54:14

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#185 2005-08-04 02:12:14

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#186 2005-08-04 05:58:31

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#187 2005-08-04 06:23:18

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#188 2005-08-04 07:22:16

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#189 2005-08-04 08:28:49

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#190 2005-08-04 09:07:26

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#191 2005-08-04 09:15:04

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#192 2005-08-04 09:36:11

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#193 2005-08-04 10:12:40

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#194 2005-08-04 10:13:55

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#195 2005-08-04 10:15:01

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#196 2005-08-04 10:20:53

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#197 2005-08-04 10:32:13

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#198 2005-08-04 10:38:45

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#199 2005-08-04 11:00:07

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#200 2005-08-04 11:30:32

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

Board footer