It shows you whose side their own... (drug, health care, premium)

[llowllevellowll]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

I felt like a better plan would be to limit the pay of an executive to like 20x that of his median employee. Which would give executives a reason to pay their employees better(so they could get a raise).


You wouldn't even need unions that way, and it would limit the power of crappy wage giants like wal-mart.

This is THE post.

For those saying that pay should be dictated by the market, you need to pick up a history book regarding pre-Industrial, post-Industrialized U.S. What happened before the government, which you loathe, stepped in with Fair Employee Acts, etc. Regulation isn't bad. Over-regulation might be bad, but that's why I look up to Redshadowz comment. This puts executives more in line with the rest of the world. Currently, the difference between an exec's pay and a median employee in the U.S. is unbelievably bad. Last I checked, it was somewhere in the neighborhood of x42.

Want a fair business world and a better, less-regulated workplace? Go with something SIMILAR.

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by nicet4

An excellent idea!

Comrades, think of this a moment.

The Peoples Committee on Pay finally gets to decide how much Tiger Woods gets paid to hit a golf ball around, how much Barbara Streisand gets to sing a song, how much John Travolta gets to act and how much that evil heart surgeon gets to stitch a new aortic valve into place.

Utilities are regulated by the government right now because the government sees them as necessities of life and do not appreciate price gouging. I see healthcare in the same light. So I have no qualms about the government regulated healthcare prices.

On the other hand, things like professional sports and singers should be able to charge whatever they want.

But, one thing I hate about professional sports is that, the city has such huge vested interest in a sports team(they usually own the stadiums), that they tend to press citizens into being supportive of the team(even if its a crappy team that is overcharging and making a killing) so they can also get their money.

[Jadex]

Originally Posted by GregW

I think executive pay should be entirely up to the Corporate Board. I also believe that incomes in the million dollar per year range should be in the 90+ percent income tax bracket.

Heck why work hard to become sucessful. We should all just be fry cooks at McDonalds because if you earn much more then that democrats/ liberals want to tax you to death.

[GregW]

I, for one, would pay the heart surgeon a hell of a lot more than John Travolta or any executive. I would even pay a boob implanter more because his results are often more impressive and nicer to look at.

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by Puddy4LyF

This is THE post.

For those saying that pay should be dictated by the market, you need to pick up a history book regarding pre-Industrial, post-Industrialized U.S. What happened before the government, which you loathe, stepped in with Fair Employee Acts, etc. Regulation isn't bad. Over-regulation might be bad, but that's why I look up to Redshadowz comment. This puts executives more in line with the rest of the world. Currently, the difference between an exec's pay and a median employee in the U.S. is unbelievably bad. Last I checked, it was somewhere in the neighborhood of x42.

Want a fair business world and a better, less-regulated workplace? Go with something SIMILAR.

I dunno, it says on the website that it would limit pay to equal the maximum of the president of the united states. The president gets paid 400,000 a year. So it would peg executive salaries at 400k a year. I can't necessarily agree with that because it wouldn't give executives an incentive to pay their employees better. And I don't think it would bring the best talent into the CEO world.

On the other hand, if you limit executive compensation to some maximum based off what they pay their regular employees, then they would be incentivized to pay their employees better(or provide more benefits), and it could make sure executives in the top industries in very important to our economy like boeing, microsoft, and GM, who already pay their employees well, could make sure they could provide more benefits to get the best and the brightest as their CEO's.

Whereas, the devil companies like wal-mart stores who drive down wages for all Americans would either need to start paying better, or lose their competitive edge.

[pollyrobin]

Originally Posted by sailordave

Doing this would be a slipperly slope to dictating everyone's salary. It's not up to the federal government to decide the pay of private citizens and private corporations.

Very true - but then private citizens and private corporations can not be getting money/bailouts from the Federal Government, nor private insurance companies getting money from federal programs like Medicare - e.g. Medicare Advantage - without any strings attached. I don't believe ANY private corporation is "Too Big to Fail". If they want to
be truly private - just don't hold your hand out to taxpayers when you've ****ed up.

[AeroGuyDC]

Originally Posted by PurpleLove08

as if we didn't already know but you would think a common sense measure like this would pass:

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

I am glad one of my Senators (Blanche Lincoln) proposed this amendment. She still isn't getting my vote next year but at least she's trying to do something useful with her time in D.C.

Blanche Lincoln really has lost her mind. Her approval rating is abyssmal, and her re-election odds decrease with every backroom deal she cuts. If she votes for the proposed healthcare reform bill, Democrats can count themselves one more Senator short in 2010.

Liberals had better step up to the plate to stop the bleeding before its too late. Enough GOP votes to stop the Obama Free Ride are right around the corner.

[PurpleLove08]

Originally Posted by sailordave

Doing this would be a slipperly slope to dictating everyone's salary. It's not up to the federal government to decide the pay of private citizens and private corporations.

It just reduces the amount taxpayers subsidize for executive salaries.
Insurance companies can pay more than $400,000 but it won't be off the backs of taxpayers.

[PurpleLove08]

Before you all cry socialism (as if that's such a horrible thing) and all this other stuff:

Here is a copy of the email I received from Senator Blanche Lincoln:

lan Would Shift Taxpayer Subsidies from Insurance Companies to Medicare

Earlier today, I unveiled my plan (http://lincoln.enews.senate.gov/mail/util.cfm?mailaction=clickthru&gpiv=2100051176.5743 5.255&gen=1&mailing_linkid=2528 - broken link) to cut the current $1 million tax shelter for insurance companies’ executive compensation. Current law allows businesses to deduct up to $1 million annually per executive as a business expense. My proposal would limit this amount to $400,000—the President’s salary—for health insurance companies that will profit as a result of health insurance reform.
The plan, which I will offer as an amendment to health insurance reform legislation, does not dictate what a business pays an employee, but it does limit the taxpayer subsidies for the compensation. The proposal is expected to raise about $651 million over the next 10 years, which will be required to go toward the Medicare Trust Fund to continue providing the benefits our seniors need and deserve.
It is a fair policy aimed at encouraging health insurance companies to put premium dollars toward lower rates and more affordable coverage, not in the pocketbooks of their executives.
My amendment applies to insurance companies that earn at least 25 percent of their income from premiums that are generated by the individual health insurance mandate in the bill. Should health insurance reform become law, these companies would profit from millions of new customers purchasing insurance coverage for the first time. My amendment will ensure that premiums from new enrollees are paying for better care, not executives’ salaries.
I am proud of this proposal, which will reassure American consumers and taxpayers that health insurance executives aren’t receiving a personal windfall – and that the companies they work for are not receiving excessive tax breaks. At the same time, this proposal protects our seniors of today and tomorrow by ensuring that the Medicare Trust Fund remains strong.

Do any of you still think it was a bad amendment?

U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln: Lincoln Plan Would Shift Taxpayer Subsidies from Insurance Companies to Medicare (http://lincoln.senate.gov/newsroom/2009-12-4-2.cfm - broken link)

I guess I was one of the few people in the U.S. interested in this amendment......

[pollyrobin]

An amendment to cap tax-deductible salaries for health insurance executives at $400,000, rather than the current limit of $1 million, failed in the Senate, leading its Democratic sponsor to claim Republicans are choosing to support insurers over seniors.

“The choice today was simple – either support America’s seniors by putting revenues right into the Medicare Trust Fund, or allow health insurance companies to retain their generous tax shelter for the multimillion dollar compensation packages of their executives,” Lincoln said.
“Health insurance reform promises to bring millions of new customers to insurance companies and dramatically improve their bottom line. I believe it is fair to ask these companies to give up a long-standing taxpayer subsidy that allows them to write off up to $1 million in executive compensation.”

Also appearing on the program, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said it was “breathtaking…the disdain with which this administration and Senate Democrats have for the private sector.

“If you eliminate the private sector when it comes to health care provision, you’re left with only the government, which many fear is the reason why this public option is, as Joe Lieberman said, a Trojan horse for a single-payer system ultimately,” he said. “This shouldn’t be about demonizing the private sector and, you know, glorifying the government sector. This ought to be about, you know, how do we bring down costs, how do we lower premiums, how do we keep taxes low, and how do we avoid these cuts to Medicare.”

So there you have it. What Lieberman is really saying is:
How to avoid cutting Medicare Advantage.

When Congress passed the Medicare Modernization Act which created Medicare Advantage it agreed to pay for-profit insurers far more per beneficiary than regular Medicare would spend to cover the same people. In 2009, it paid these insurers an average of 14 percent above what it would cost Medicare to provide comprehensive benefits.

Thus ultimately, as Martha Gold, a Senior Fellow at Mathematic Policy Research, noted in a 2007 Health Affairs article while "individual enrollees may gain, beneficiaries as a whole may be harmed if higher payments add to the fiscal stress on Medicare making the program less viable in the long run."

Maybe someone should be writing a letter to the 75% of all Medicare beneficiaries who haven’t signed up for Medicare Advantage, warning them that they are footing the bill for a program that is over-paying insurers? They deserve a “head’s up” that if Medicare continues the windfall payments to Advantage insurers, traditional Medicare risks running out of money.

If a senior becomes seriously ill, he may well discover that while he had been told that there was a $4,000 annual cap on out- of- pocket payments, certain very pricey items are excluded from the cap. Last year, the New York Times revealed that 29 percent of Medicare Advantage plans that have caps don’t include the cost of some cancer drugs, 23 percent exclude the cost of some mental health services and 21 percent don’t include home health care expenses. These, of course, are the big ticket items that could bankrupt a senior—or force them to sell their home.

In other words, the claim that Medicare Advantage is cheaper for Medicare beneficiaries is false.

“Small wonder that plans use high-pressure tactics to market these lucrative policies,” the Times added. “In the worst cases, sales agents have masqueraded as Medicare officials, forged the signatures of elderly clients, switched people from traditional Medicare into private plans that don’t include their doctors and barged into homes to pressure semi literate people into signing.”

The enormous subsidies that we are paying Medicare Advantage insurers “help private plans woo beneficiaries away from the traditional programs” the Times noted. “And they create a big incentive for insurers to maximize sales through aggressive, sometimes unscrupulous, marketing”

How much money do you think these private Insurance Companies get from the federal government for Medicare Advantage? Any guesses? So much for being truly private companies with no involvement with the federal government and our tax dollars.