Forums >Off the Beaten Path>On Wisconsin!
I have an idea! Why not pass a federal health system plan that works to lower costs nationally and address our broken health care system!
Radical! Commie! Socialist!
What about the Insurance company CEO's? How could they survive without their $5 million a year? You obviously have no compassion.
Feeling the growl again
To claim that it is better "to try to fix the system" without addressing the question of whether you're making it worse -- now I would argue that approach is problematic. To assume "any fix is better than no fix" is to ignore the actual problem itself -- and to fall into the perennial trap of legislators, who are always attracted the concept that "doing something" is the important part, as it gets them publicity and votes, without regard to whether the something is actually beneficial.
Whoa there, don't go get all intelligent and rational on us. "Change" was never qualified as being beneficial or detrimental.
"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
Why is it sideways?
Neither of these is very logical to me. Making federal fixes is not the job assigned to the Wisconsin governor. Dragging in his party & place in that is, arguably, not particularly relevant to his actual job -- it smacks of trying to tar him with a brush for aguments sake. B) I asked - and therefore hinting at an implication - that what they're doing is not fixing, but actually worsening the system (unfunded liability -- words that ought to strike fear into everyone's hearts). To claim that it is better "to try to fix the system" without addressing the question of whether you're making it worse -- now I would argue that approach is problematic. To assume "any fix is better than no fix" is to ignore the actual problem itself -- and to fall into the perennial trap of legislators, who are always attracted the concept that "doing something" is the important part, as it gets them publicity and votes, without regard to whether the something is actually beneficial.
Neither of these is very logical to me.
Making federal fixes is not the job assigned to the Wisconsin governor. Dragging in his party & place in that is, arguably, not particularly relevant to his actual job -- it smacks of trying to tar him with a brush for aguments sake.
B) I asked - and therefore hinting at an implication - that what they're doing is not fixing, but actually worsening the system (unfunded liability -- words that ought to strike fear into everyone's hearts). To claim that it is better "to try to fix the system" without addressing the question of whether you're making it worse -- now I would argue that approach is problematic. To assume "any fix is better than no fix" is to ignore the actual problem itself -- and to fall into the perennial trap of legislators, who are always attracted the concept that "doing something" is the important part, as it gets them publicity and votes, without regard to whether the something is actually beneficial.
Okay.
A) It's arguably not relevant. It's arguably relevant. Instead of union busting, he could be patiently explaining to Wisconsinites that the best thing they can do for their state economy is supporting Obama's health care bill.
B) The health care bill is not a bill for publicity and votes. It is a bill that attempts to address problems in the health care system. Its primary purpose is to set out institutions that address these problems. These institutions are not set in stone. They are meant to be adapted according to whether or not they work. The problems of health care take place at a national level with national institutions, and the federal level of government seems to me to be the appropriate level at which to address those problems.
Reasonable people my disagree.
Is the problem with the economy (in Wisconsin and beyond) the pension plans of public servants? This is hard for me to believe.
No, the economy is part of the cause of the problem. The problem being addressed is with state and local government budgets and it is caused in large part by the ballooning pension and healthcare liability for public employees.
As for why go after the unions' bargaining rights--because the basic agreement led to this problem in the first place and, more urgently, it restricts cities and towns from reacting to changes revenue due to cuts in state aid.
Runners run
I'm still puzzling in my head about the article linked on the previous page. I realize that unions and pensions were ideas born in progressivism. In 1911 (not exactly). But in 2011, I have a hard time wrapping my feeble non-political mind around "don't mess with my pension" as a progressive thing. And I realize that union busting is totally something associated with conservativism. But in 2011, I have a hard time wrapping my feeble non-political mind around "hey, the pension concept might not be sustainable in the economics of the 21st century" as a conservative thing.
But this is why I hate discussing politics. Apparently I are an idiot because I stumble over labels and "who does what".
I see that the governor is not wanting to compromise and that seems sucky. But from that article, I didn't magically decide to be more sympathetic to "the cause", which I think it wanted me to be. But that's just me and I are an idiot.
No, the economy is part of the cause of the problem. The problem being addressed is with state and local government budgets and it is caused in large part by the ballooning pension and healthcare liability for public employees. As for why go after the unions' bargaining rights--because the basic agreement led to this problem in the first place and, more urgently, it restricts cities and towns from reacting to changes revenue due to cuts in state aid.
Good answers.
Did union bargaining rights lead to this problem or did the failing economy (your first answer) lead to this problem? Union bargaining rights have been in place for quite a while.
States will continue to have problems until the economy rebounds (likely within the next 3 or 4 years) and the health care system gets an overhaul. The issue of union bargaining rights (while yes sorta relevant) seems to me to be extremely secondary to these main issues.
You've laid out some great arguments against unions, and I agree that they cause more problems than they solve. However, given the fact that Wisconsin is in a crisis, it might be in the best interests of the governor to accept the union's offer to cut their pension and benefits and focus on more relevant issues--like supporting the president's health care bill and cutting other aspects of the budget.
No, the bill did quite little to address the underlying cost drivers making healthcare unaffordable. As my job requires me to understand how care is paid for in this country (and most others quite frankly) I am quite aware of how this bill is impacting expenses. What it did do was create a large, unfunded mandate on the states, which is why many states are opposing it so strongly. If it actually reduced costs and fixed their problems, they would not have reason to oppose it.
As for the unions, they are the reason these programs for public employees are so expensive in the first place. Just like with the auto companies, the only reason to blame the economy is that when things were good people didn't question it but now they do when things tank. Accepting these one-time concessions will not address the underlying issue, which is the inflexibility they present in dealing with fiscal difficulties. Allowing this compromise now would simply allow them to dig in their heels the next time and go through this all over again. This is why the union is willing to give concessions now in order to try and get this to go away -- perhaps next time the public uproar will not be so large and there will not be the support to oppose them. They are picking their battles.
No, the bill did quite little to address the underlying cost drivers making healthcare unaffordable. As my job requires me to understand how care is paid for in this country (and most others quite frankly) I am quite aware of how this bill is impacting expenses. What it did do was create a large, unfunded mandate on the states, which is why many states are opposing it so strongly. If it actually reduced costs and fixed their problems, they would not have reason to oppose it. As for the unions, they are the reason these programs for public employees are so expensive in the first place. Accepting these one-time concessions will not address the underlying issue, which is the inflexibility they present in dealing with fiscal difficulties. Allowing this compromise now would simply allow them to dig in their heels the next time and go through this all over again. This is why the union is willing to give concessions now in order to try and get this to go away -- perhaps next time the public uproar will not be so large and there will not be the support to oppose them. They are picking their battles.
As for the unions, they are the reason these programs for public employees are so expensive in the first place. Accepting these one-time concessions will not address the underlying issue, which is the inflexibility they present in dealing with fiscal difficulties. Allowing this compromise now would simply allow them to dig in their heels the next time and go through this all over again. This is why the union is willing to give concessions now in order to try and get this to go away -- perhaps next time the public uproar will not be so large and there will not be the support to oppose them. They are picking their battles.
If unions have to make long term sacrifices to solve a short term problem, how come states don't have to make a short term sacrifice to solve a long term problem?
How do you know it is short term? Our country is bankrupt. I would argue we are not returning to the way things were anytime soon, and we no longer have the money to stick our heads in the sand and wait for sunny days to return.
As for unions making sacrifices, should we not be concerned about the interests of the workers and not of "the union"? One may argue the UAW has screwed its membership for its own good. I have no faith that the union cares more about its individual members than itself. Either way, why should taxpayers suffer -- increased taxes or cutting other services -- for "the union"?
The money train is over. We are all going to suffer.
I tend to think union bargaining power has more to do with it than the economy. The economy waxes and wanes, the tsunami of unfunded pension and healthcare liabilities has been building for decades and has only come to a head now instead of, say, 5 years from now because of the economy.
If you project out, the numbers get real scary. As if they are not currently scary enough. Like as the ratio of retired public employees grows in relation to the number of current public employees. This is not a short term problem.
I've taken a pretty big interest in this thread for a guy who's never even been to Wisconsin but it's because the same problem exists everywhere and it's no better in my state. But in MA we have a Gov and state legislature that is all Dems so they'll never take on the unions so directly as this character is. Our Gov has made some solid proposals on reeling in employee benefits without going directly after union bargaining rights, but I fear it's less of a permanent fix. And without weakening the unions, the cities and towns really suffer. In MA there is a state health plan that cities and towns can move their employees to and save tons of money but only a tiny fraction of towns have been able to do it because many of the unions refuse to even discuss it. So the towns just lay off more good people to try and balance the books. It's fucking dumb. Yeah, I'm strongly anti-union.
We are all going to suffer.
Well there is certainly no medal for you. Boo.
I tend to think union bargaining power has more to do with it than the economy. The economy waxes and wanes, the tsunami of unfunded pension and healthcare liabilities has been building for decades and has only come to a head now instead of, say, 5 years from now because of the economy. If you project out, the numbers get real scary. As if they are not currently scary enough. Like as the ratio of retired public employees grows in relation to the number of current public employees. This is not a short term problem. I've taken a pretty big interest in this thread for a guy who's never even been to Wisconsin but it's because the same problem exists everywhere and it's no better in my state. But in MA we have a Gov and state legislature that is all Dems so they'll never take on the unions so directly as this character is. Our Gov has made some solid proposals on reeling in employee benefits without going directly after union bargaining rights, but I fear it's less of a permanent fix. And without weakening the unions, the cities and towns really suffer. In MA there is a state health plan that cities and towns can move their employees to and save tons of money but only a tiny fraction of towns have been able to do it because many of the unions refuse to even discuss it. So the towns just lay off more good people to try and balance the books. It's fucking dumb. Yeah, I'm strongly anti-union.
Yeah, we don't have a problem with unions down here in conservative Tennessee. But we do have a budget crisis and shittier working conditions than in MA and WI.
Just saying. (I'm not strongly anti-union--but I can see your position.)
(My post here was not relevant to what so far has seemed like a pretty thoughtful discussion. So carry on).
NJ is supposedly broke, too (I wonder what that makes California). Our Governor is trying to be the poster boy for kiss-my-(giant)-ass-,-unions. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.
"If you have the fire, run..." -John Climacus