State report: The uninsured is a problem we can't ignore
Blog: Reporter's notebook: The uninsured in NCW
December 4, 2009
Sometime last week, my editor, Russ Hemphill, called me to toss around a story idea. A letter writer had called us to task, asking why we hadn't taken the time to dig into the very important issue of health insurance coverage in North Central Washington. Russ pointed me to a new report that the state insurance commissioner's office had just issued, titled, "A problem we can't ignore. The hidden and rapidly growing costs of the uninsured and underinsured in Washington State.
As The World's former health care reporter, I did a short series of stories a few years ago on the kinds of insurance people had, and their issues with it. It included one woman who had been insured but dropped her insurance because she could no longer afford it. I've also done stories on the impacts of the uninsured to some of our major medical facilities, like Central Washington Hospital and Wenatchee Valley Medical Center. The amount of charity care and bad debt continues to skyrocket.
But I can't say I've ever written a comprehensive piece that really puts a face on who the uninsured in North Central Washington are. With this piece, I hope to do that.
After Russ called, I spent some time with the report, and a similar report that the same office put out two years ago, and we talked again. Together we looked at some of the interesting aspects of this report: It says, among other things, that by the end of this year, nearly one in seven Washington residents will have no health insurance. That those of us who do have health insurance pay an average of $917 more for medical bills to make up for the uninsured families. And that, by the end of 2011 — just two years from now — the number of Washingtonians with no health insurance will top 1 million. Wow!
The other thing the report does is tells us who the uninsured are, statistically. The vast majority, the report says, are working adults and their families. 88 percent are of working age, between 19 and 64; 78 percent are poor; 65 percent have jobs. And, "Contrary to some assertions, illegal immigrants do not appear to be a major factor in the number of uninsured." The report estimates that, at most, 7.5 percent of the total number of uninsured in Washington are illegal immigrants.
In the next couple of weeks, I will be delving into these numbers, and trying to get a better picture of what those numbers mean in NCW. I'm happy to hear any suggestions, and ideas for who you'd like to see me interview, as I continue to gather information for this story. And if you are uninsured, or underinsured, let me hear from you!
Comments
Want to comment on this story? Registered users can use the form below. Please know that we at wenatcheeworld.com hope our site is useful, entertaining and civil. So we'll delete comments that are obscene, abusive or way off topic. We appreciate it when readers use the "suggest removal" button to flag inappropriate comments. For more about interacting with the site, see our Use Policy.
alex39 (alex saliby) says...
K.C.
And there too is another issue concerning the WA State Insurance Commission's office...it used to be true that the Insurance Commissioner's office had no authority to regulate 'self-insured' companies.
Happy to share that tale with you if you'd like later. Bottom Line: I was insured by IBM as an employee. I quit work (not retired, quit.) I was informed that COBRA would guarantee that I could purchase (for a small amount more than IBM paid) the same coverage from Blue Cross of WA and Alaska.
I contacted Blue Cross and learned, indeed, I could purchase my IBM insurance...for $1400 a month as compared against the $289.00/mo IBM paid Blue Cross.
When I complained to the Commissioner that this was in my judgment a violation of my rights under the COBRA rules, the commissioner's office informed me that they had no authority over self-insured companies and IBM was self-insured.
December 4, 2009 at 11:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
douglas (Doug Shirk) says...
It would be interesting to know how many uninsured people are working full time. My wife and I are among the ranks of those. The company we work for does not offer insurance, and with a couple of pre-exsisting conditions the cost for me to go out and buy insurance is prohibitive.
December 4, 2009 at 12:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Here's some interesting info:
.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/...
December 4, 2009 at 12:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hemphill (Russ Hemphill) says...
Hey K.C., there's an interesting discussion going on over Rufus' column on health care reform. ( First humanity, then economy — http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/20... ) Looks like more than 100 comments so far. Let's post a comment over there to loop those folks in on what we're doing with this story. -- Thanks, Russ (Local editor, Wenatchee World)
December 7, 2009 at 9:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alex39 (alex saliby) says...
Norm,
Thanks for that link! That is a great article!
December 7, 2009 at 1:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mtg0722 (micheal greening) says...
And, "Contrary to some assertions, illegal immigrants do not appear to be a major factor in the number of uninsured." The report estimates that, at most, 7.5 percent of the total number of uninsured in Washington are illegal immigrants.
So these numbers are based on population? If so, then for every 100 citizens, we have almost 8 illegal immigrants with that number expected to double by 2015. When will this become a major factor?
Oh and Norm,
That article was the dumbest piece of garbage I have ever read.
If we would just enforce the immigration laws, build a better fence, and get these 12 million people back to where they ARE citizens, then wondering about health care for them would be a non issue. They are here ILLEGALLY!!!
December 7, 2009 at 4:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
"Oh and Norm,
That article was the dumbest piece of garbage I have ever read."
Dumb, meaning the numbers don't support what you wish they would support?
from the article: "It also would help Americans afford their own coverage. A study by the Kaiser Foundation concluded that immigrants are younger and healthier than average Americans and are less likely to access health care and drive up costs, keeping prices lower for everyone. By letting the undocumented buy into the exchange, the risks and costs of the new health care system would be spread out among more participants."
ie. when you can get more people paying into an insurance pool who are less likely to draw out of it, then the premiums can be lowered.
And what about the source? A bunch of leftwing ecohippie radicals? The Kaiser foundation is the legacy of Henry J Kaiser. wiki says: "Henry John Kaiser (May 9, 1882 – August 24, 1967) was an American industrialist who became known as the father of modern American shipbuilding. He established the Kaiser Shipyard which built Liberty ships during World War II, after which he formed Kaiser Aluminum and Kaiser Steel. Kaiser organized Kaiser Permanente health care for his workers and their families. The name Permanente comes from the creek that ran through Kaiser's California cement company. He led Kaiser-Frazer followed by Kaiser Motors, automobile companies known for the safety of their designs. Kaiser was involved in large construction projects such as civic centers and dams, and invested in real estate. With his acquired wealth, he initiated the Kaiser Family Foundation, a charitable organization."
Hmm. Doesn't sound like a commie to me.
December 7, 2009 at 4:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mtg0722 (micheal greening) says...
Commie? What are you talking about? You need to reread my post, I didn't mention anything about their numbers, the source, or "commies".
The whole article is a waste of ink and time, it's crap.
"It also would help Americans afford their own coverage."
Please!
America could more easily afford coverage if we weren't paying for illegal immigrants medical bills in the first place.
Again, one more time, if we enforce our laws and send home the 12 million ILLEGAL immigrants in this country, worrying about insurance for them is a mute issue. Offering them the chance to buy insurance when they are here illegally, I repeat ILLEGALLY!, is crazy.
December 7, 2009 at 7:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Commie? What are you talking about? You need to reread my post, I didn't mention anything about their numbers, the source, or "commies".
.
I was preemptively rebutting the standard, unthinking responses to save you the trouble of making them. You're welcome.
.
Here's how health insurance works, Mike:
A bunch of people pay money into a common fund - an insurance "pool" - and the people who get sick or injured draw money out of the pool to pay for their treatment. When you add people to the pool (ie. get more people paying into it) who are less likely than the average to need to draw money out of the pool, then everyone in the pool can either pay lower rates for the same coverage or get better coverage for the same rate.
.
It's a pretty simple concept, really.
December 9, 2009 at 6:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chuck (C. Ulysses Farley) says...
1) let us by across state lines!
2) ala carte health insurance. (why should men pay for breast cancer and women pay for prostate issues?; and
3) torte reform. Nothing to serious, just damages + court costs and maybe a small percentage on top
Give us that and this whole insurance thing would be a colossal non-sequiter requiring no 2,000 page multi-trillion dollar bills that insert the government into parts of our lives where it has no business whatsover.
December 10, 2009 at 12:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bob_Knows (Bob Knows) says...
The State will never ignore any opportunity to hire 2000 more employees and raise our taxes to pay for it.
I won't ignore them come election time.
December 10, 2009 at 3:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>It's a pretty simple concept, really.<
Simple is right! In fact, it's simple-minded to a fault--the fault being that we will all drown in the "pool" of debt to which you refer.
December 10, 2009 at 9:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mtg0722 (micheal greening) says...
>I was preemptively rebutting the standard, unthinking responses to save you the trouble of making them. You're welcome.<
Typically rebutting requires evidence or proof, both of which are usually absent in your never-ending babble.
It's a pretty simple concept, really.
December 10, 2009 at 10:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
"Typically rebutting requires evidence or proof, both of which are usually absent in your never-ending babble."
.
Rebutting an argument requires addressing the points made in the argument. For example, this:
A) "That article was the dumbest piece of garbage I have ever read."
Is not a rebuttal.
And this:
B) "If we would just enforce the immigration laws, build a better fence, and get these 12 million people back to where they ARE citizens, then wondering about health care for them would be a non issue. They are here ILLEGALLY!!! "
Is not a rebuttal of this:
C) "A study by the Kaiser Foundation concluded that immigrants are younger and healthier than average Americans and are less likely to access health care and drive up costs, keeping prices lower for everyone. By letting the undocumented buy into the exchange, the risks and costs of the new health care system would be spread out among more participants."
.
The point made in C is that allowing immigrants to buy health insurance adds more money to the pool and that because immigrants as a group are younger and healthier than the average, they will draw less (than the average per person) money out of the pool, thus driving rates down for everybody. Your response (B) is a complete non-sequitor; it has no relation to the point you seem to think you're rebutting.
December 10, 2009 at 11:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mtg0722 (micheal greening) says...
You need to pay attention,
>I was preemptively rebutting the standard, unthinking responses to save you the trouble of making them. You're welcome.<
Those are your words, it is your rubuttal I was referring to.
Try and keep up.
,
December 11, 2009 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
I don't blame you for ignoring the substance here and trying to get into a flame war instead. But I don't really understand the mindset.
December 11, 2009 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mtg0722 (micheal greening) says...
You replied to my posts remember?
I made three posts each stating essentially the same thing, you are the one that went off on some tangent spewing what you seem to think is a rebuttal about numbers, sources, and communists,
It might be a good idea to actually read the post you are replying to that way you aren't "ignoring the substance".
December 11, 2009 at 12:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
1. You quoted this: "And, "Contrary to some assertions, illegal immigrants do not appear to be a major factor in the number of uninsured." The report estimates that, at most, 7.5 percent of the total number of uninsured in Washington are illegal immigrants.
And you wrote this: So these numbers are based on population? If so, then for every 100 citizens, we have almost 8 illegal immigrants with that number expected to double by 2015. When will this become a major factor?"
.
1B. Read it again. 7.5% of the uninsured in Washington doesn't equal 7.5% of the population of Washington. "The uninsured" refers to people who don't have insurance. "Population" refers to all the people: uninsured + insured. "Major factor" in this context means statistically significant. Its not a "major factor" from the point of view of people who do statistical surveys and crunch numbers. It's a major factor for you only because you want it to be; you don't derive your conclusion from the evidence, you try to make the evidence fit your predetermined conclusion. Scientists work the other way around - they find evidence first, then derive a conclusion.
.
2 You wrote: "Oh and Norm,
That article was the dumbest piece of garbage I have ever read. "
and then went on about something that had nothing to do with the article without addressing anything from the article. "That's dumb" is not a rebuttal, its an evasion. So I quoted a paragraph from the article, and you again failed to address anything it said.
.
3. Why are you afraid to address this point:
"A study by the Kaiser Foundation concluded that immigrants are younger and healthier than average Americans and are less likely to access health care and drive up costs, keeping prices lower for everyone. By letting the undocumented buy into the exchange, the risks and costs of the new health care system would be spread out among more participants."
Are you afraid of it because you understand that it disproves your cherished predetermined conclusion or are you afraid of it because you don't understand it?
December 11, 2009 at 12:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mtg0722 (micheal greening) says...
A. So these numbers are based on population? If so, then for every 100 citizens, we have almost 8 illegal immigrants with that number expected to double by 2015. When will this become a major factor?
1. That was 100 citizens (uninsured is presumed based upon the article) 7.5% are illegal.
2. I am fairly certain that illegal immigrants do not carry insurance of any kind, if you find some,I will retract my statement.
3. With illegal immigration populations expected to double by 2015, none of which are insured, then it is not too much of a stretch to figure the 7.5% will at least double.
B. >"That's dumb" is not a rebuttal, its an evasion.<
"That's dumb" is not an evasion, it is an opinion, There is a difference.
C. >Why are you afraid to address this point<:
Assumption of fear is an opinion of yours, (or by your definition; an evasion.)
I didn't reply your your babble because it had no bearing on my opinion
D. "A study by the Kaiser Foundation concluded that immigrants are younger and healthier than average Americans and are less likely to access health care and drive up costs, keeping prices lower for everyone. By letting the undocumented buy into the exchange, the risks and costs of the new health care system would be spread out among more participants."
Is not a rebuttal of
If we would just enforce the immigration laws, build a better fence, and get these 12 million people back to where they ARE citizens, then wondering about health care for them would be a non issue. They are here ILLEGALLY!!! "
E. Can you expalin to me how a study from the Kaiser Foundation, addresses the legality of citzenship for health insurance, which is my original point.
The answer: it doesn't but it looks like the evasion you were referring to.
December 11, 2009 at 2:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
1. Just admit that you read it wrong, Mike. The article was breaking down the proportions of the uninsured, not the proportions of whole population. Now its fair enough if you want to dispute those numbers and try to establish that they are inaccurate, but that's not what you're doing here: you're claiming that they say something other than what they say.
2. Do you speak English? Again: "By letting the undocumented buy into the exchange, the risks and costs of the new health care system would be..."
See that?
"Letting...buy in...would be."
Its not claiming they have insurance, its pointing out that letting them buy into the pool would save the rest of us money - when you get more young and healthy people into the pool, the costs for everybody else go down. Your blind, unthinking hatred is causing you to oppose a measure that would save you money, and you are at the same time complaining about how much money you spend.
"If we would just enforce the immigration laws, build a better fence, and get these 12 million people back to where they ARE citizens..."
Then we would miss out on the opportunity to save ourselves money by getting more young and healthy people into our insurance pool. We'd also end up paying a lot more for food, clothing, housing, and so on, once the people who are subsidizing our lifestyle by contributing cheap labor are gone.
.
"Can you expalin to me how a study from the Kaiser Foundation, addresses the legality of citzenship for health insurance"
.
"would be" indicates a change from the present situation.
"By letting...buy in...would be"
= We don't currently let them buy in = its illegal
Its discussing how we would benefit from a change in policy.
.
I'm serious here: Do you speak English? These are all easy words to understand. Disagreeing with them is one thing, but you don't seem to disagree as much as you utterly fail to understand what these simple words mean.
December 11, 2009 at 4:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
Michael, most uninsured legal and illegal immigrants qualify for health care coverage under our joint funded state and federal Medicaid entitlement program if their income falls below a certain level. That's why their coverage under the future federal health care program is a moot issue. They are already covered under Medicaid.
December 11, 2009 at 5:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mtg0722 (micheal greening) says...
You know Norm,
I am not sure why you cannot resist your childish spiteful comments, you can't seem to debate any issue without lowering yourself to a junior high school level. It doesn't make your posts more effective, just pathetic.
Last I checked, this is an open forum, and I am free to state my opinion. Norm, you are more than welcome to agree with my opinion, or disagree with my opinion. You can state why you feel the way you do, you can support your opinions with evidence if you think it would make your opinion more convincing. Insults, innuendos, and snide remarks are not necessary, and actually diminsh your post, they make the author seem childish and stupid.
My contention with Norms article is, and has been, in offering illegal immigrants the chance to purchase medical insurance.
In my OPINION, the chances of sending all of these people who are criminals, breaking the law as we speak, back to where they belong, is slim, maybe impossible. But offering an illegal a program in which they can purchase health insurance can only hinder the remote chance that we may be able to deport their illegal butts back to where they belong. This proposed program could only make deportation more difficult.
Norm, you have tried to cloud my issue with numbers, sources, the Kaiser Foundation, etc.
I don't care if having them in an "insurance pool" could save us money, in my OPINION, illegals have cost this country so much more than they could ever save us in the articles proposal.
December 11, 2009 at 7:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
"qualify for health care coverage...if their income falls below a certain level."
.
So in other words, they wouldn't qualify for tax-funded health care if they were paid more, yes?
December 11, 2009 at 7:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
"You know Norm,
I am not sure why you cannot resist your childish spiteful comments, you can't seem to debate any issue without lowering yourself to a junior high school level. It doesn't make your posts more effective, just pathetic."
.
Did you already forget about that "joke" you made about my mother that the moderator deleted?
December 11, 2009 at 8:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>So in other words, they wouldn't qualify for tax-funded health care if they were paid more, yes?<
Simply paying them more would cause them to work under a different name so that they would not earn more than a certain amount. They stand to lose the Medicaid entitlement and other benefits if they earn above a certain amount.
December 11, 2009 at 8:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
"Last I checked, this is an open forum, and I am free to state my opinion."
.
I've never suggested that you aren't.
.
"I don't care if having them in an "insurance pool" could save us money,"
.
See, now there's an actual response to the article. And we can break the cycle where we just post the the exact same thing back and forth and move on.
.
"My contention with Norms article is, and has been, in offering illegal immigrants the chance to purchase medical insurance. "
.
So on the one hand, you want to complain about all the money you think they cost you my going to the emergency room and so on and on the other hand you don't want to allow them to pay for their own health insurance.
.
" But offering an illegal..."
.
See, now that's the root of the difference between you and I. You look at someone and see "an illegal"; I look at them and see a human being, with basically the same hopes and dreams as me, but who was simply not as lucky as I was to be born into better economic circumstances.
.
"...all of these people who are criminals, breaking the law as we speak..."
.
I see a person who is doing nothing more than trying to work hard to provide for his own and his family's survival; you see a criminal, nothing more.
.
"But offering an illegal a program in which they can purchase health insurance can only hinder the remote chance that we may be able to deport their illegal butts back to where they belong. This proposed program could only make deportation more difficult."
.
Why is it so important to you to make them leave? Why does having such a great desire to work to earn a living make them so despicable in your eyes? How are they so different than your ancestors who came here in search of a better life? When they have such little hope of being able to provide for their family's basic needs on one side of a line and the possibility of working hard to provide for those needs on the other side of the line, does the act of stepping across that line really make them as evil and contemptable as a murderer? A rapist? A thief?
.
"In my OPINION, the chances of sending all of these people...back to where they belong, is slim, maybe impossible."
.
Well, if that's your opinion, then why do you oppose an idea that you admit might alleviate one of your major complaints about them - that they take more from our economy than they put into it - by allowing them to buy into an insurance pool?
December 11, 2009 at 8:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
"Norm, you have tried to cloud my issue with numbers, sources, the Kaiser Foundation, etc.
I don't care if having them in an "insurance pool" could save us money,"
.
No, its not about clouding your issue, its about understanding your point. When all you say is "That's dumb", it doesn't give me much to respond to, so I try to explain the proposal more clearly. And yeah, I tend to get a bit sarcastic when the only response I get is "That's dumb."
.
"...in my OPINION, illegals have cost this country so much more than they could ever save us in the articles proposal..."
.
Now that's just so illogical, I have a hard time believing that you actually believe that. What they put into our economy is many long hard hours of labor; what they take out of our economy is barely enough money to exist at a poverty level. If they're taking our money, where are they putting it?
December 11, 2009 at 8:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
"Simply paying them more would cause them to work under a different name so that they would not earn more than a certain amount. They stand to lose the Medicaid entitlement and other benefits if they earn above a certain amount."
.
So they're a bit more shifty than us white folk, eh?
.
December 11, 2009 at 8:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
Norm, they have learned how to navigate the system. I don't view that as shifty because they are survivors in a strange land of opportunity. We "white folk" have created "the system" and they are exploiting it to their maximum benefit. In all honesty if the roles were reversed, I would do the same to feed my family or just to survive until I learned how to progress further. Many legal and illegal immigrants are unmarried with families in our culture to maximize these benefits and opportunities. Unfortunately, for many it becomes a lifestyle that makes it difficult for them to really progress within our culture. Their glass ceiling is somewhere around $15,000 gross income for an individual. If they could double that amount they could break free, but the gray area in between makes it very difficult for them to walk away from the security blanket of benefits that include Medicaid and numerous others offered to low income individuals and their families.
December 12, 2009 at 10:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
"In all honesty if the roles were reversed, I would do the same to feed my family or just to survive until I learned how to progress further."
.
See, that's an excellent point - and to their credit, I've heard both George W. Bush and Bill O'Reilly say the same thing. And its really a key question to ask people like Mike who look at people who were born into less fortunate circumstances than they were, just doing what it takes to survive and provide for their families, and see only "illegals", "criminals". If you were in their shoes, wouldn't you do the same thing? Wouldn't you step across that line if that's what it took to get a job and provide the necessities of life for your family? Would that really put you in the same moral category as murderers, rapists, and thieves?
December 12, 2009 at 11:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
The balance to that argument, Norm, is that as a society we need to eliminate the incentives built into "the system" that allow this constant migration to occur. It's not about building an Iron Curtain to keep them out. It's about removing the perks and the entitlements that keep them in--as well as dependent upon--"the system" as we know it.
December 12, 2009 at 12:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
First of all, I don't take it as a given that "allow(ing) this constant migration to occur" is necessarily a bad thing. Regardless. I would agree that many of the incentives driving it are a bad thing. Where I disagree with you is on which type of incentives are the bad things. You concentrate on the incentives that act as a pull - "perks and entitlements". I'm more concerned with the incentives that act as a push - inhumane economic conditions that leave them little choice but to leave their homes in search of work. I don't have a problem with the incentives that constitute a pull because I don't mind helping to pay for the necessities of life for other human beings who don't have the means to do so themselves. It's part of the morality I was taught as a child. As Jesus said in Matthew 25: "For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
... whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."
.
The problem with "the system" is not that it provides a safety net of food, medical services, and other bare necessities for survival - the problem is that working people are paid wages so low that they need such a safety net.
.
As to my first point, the common response is that the poor economic conditions in Mexico and elsewhere are both the fault and the responsibility of the Mexican government. This is, of course, true. But it is not the whole truth. The idea that our actions - both domestically and in foreign policy, public and private, have no effects or minimal effects on the economic conditions in other countries is simply not consistent with the historical and present reality.
December 12, 2009 at 1:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
For example, the WTO has put massive pressure on poor countries to lower their barriers to trade (tarriffs, quotas, preferential treatment and subsidies for local products, and so on) for rich country exports. But the WTO has put little pressure on rich countries to eleiminate barriers to trade for poor country exports (largely agricultural). We and other rich nations do this because it appears to be in our own economic best interest to pay as little and charge as much as possible in every transaction. And because of our superior bargaining positions, we can coerce and enforce contract agreements with poor countries that prevent them from breaking out of the cycle of poverty.
.
But following such policies that maintain poverty in other countries, besides being immoral, is not in our economic best interest. For example, the Marshall Plan was not just a hand-out to Europe, nor was it just a means to promote our political/security needs vis-a-vis the USSR. Rebuilding Europe was also extremely beneficial to the US economy because it opened up a market for our goods. At first they bought our products with money we gave them, but as they rebuilt, they were able to buy our products with their own money. Building their prosperity was an investment on our part, not a handout, and we have reaped an excellent return on that investment.
December 12, 2009 at 1:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
The politics of "hope and change" according to Rolling Stone:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/...
December 12, 2009 at 8:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
"The politics of "hope and change" according to Rolling Stone:"
.
Whaddya expect? It's that darn liberal media, always mindlessly praising democrats no matter what they do.
.
Here's more: That ultra lefty blog Huffington Post linked to this story on tits front page:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/preside...
The money quote there is: "With 100,000 troops in Afghanistan at an estimated yearly cost of $30 billion, it means that for every one al Qaeda fighter, the U.S. will commit 1,000 troops and $300 million a year. " (based on US intelligence estimates of 100 Al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan) - and they even did the math wrong - its $1Billion per year per Al Qaeda member. {the estimated yearly cost of $30 Billion is for the additional 30K troops, not for the enitre force of 100K troops}
December 13, 2009 at 4 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>That ultra lefty blog Huffington Post linked to this story on tits front page:<
Norm, do you realize what you typed? If Arianna knew how you referred to her within the context of her "front" page, she would be crushed.
Btw, nice catch on the bad math. I'm impressed.
December 13, 2009 at 6:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
Also, we watched Arianna this morning on "This Week" and I actually appreciated and respected what she had to say. Not only did she handle herself well, but she actually got into it with John Podesta and made him look somewhat foolish in the process.
December 13, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )