Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Taxpayers have no say in how public employees spend their paychecks

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2012 12:00 am | Updated: 6:14 am, Thu Oct 18, 2012.

In reference to Jeff Johnston's excellent letter regarding Proposition 32, "Proposition 32 will silence middle-class Californians," published Sept. 19, in reply to Phyllis Roche's letter "California is owned by the CTA and other unions" published Sept. 12:

It is interesting to note that one online commenter — a member of the local TEA Party, whom I will refer to as "Ms. TEA Party" — commented, "It is OK for the Teachers Unions to give $16 million (four times as much) using MY TAX DOLLARS."

When I asked Ms. TEA Party why she thought the teachers' union was using her "tax dollars," she replied, "My tax dollars pay public employees, public employee dues are extracted from that pay to fund the unions. Without my tax dollars there would be no salaries to pay the union dues — it is actually rather simple, but many people who have always been on the public sector payroll see their salaries as manna from Heaven, or it just comes off the government money tree."

Let's say this is a valid opinion rather than an arrogant one. Using Ms. TEA Party's "logic," how far do we go to justify her reasoning? Do we allow Ms. TEA Party, since she is "financing" the public payroll, to consent to all of the choices public employees make, i.e., how they spend the money SHE has given them? Should public employees get her OK when purchasing a home? Should she look into their pantries to be sure they are selecting the proper foods? Do we allow her to look into their bedrooms to be sure they are using the right birth control or not using any depending on HER preference? Should police, firefighters, and teachers consult Ms. TEA Party on their choice of underwear? Boxers or briefs — bikinis or granny panties?

As taxpayers we are given latitude, mostly by our votes, to consent or not to public spending. Demanding a say in how people spend their paychecks is wrong. With this type of thinking, ALL employers should be able to control their employees' spending.

Vote NO on Proposition 32 to ensure that the people, not corporations, speak for you.

Joanne Bobin

Lodi

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

87 comments:

  • Mike Adams posted at 11:23 am on Sun, Oct 21, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1492

    "If you want to purchase an automobile in America, you are forced to buy one that was made with UNION labor."

    Mr. Chapman: I think you meant to say is: 'If you want to purchase AN AMERICAN MADE AUTOMOBILE, you are forced to buy one that was made with UNION labor"

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:42 am on Sat, Oct 20, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    So they paid all the bills related to your medical conditions, the cancelation did not hurt you financially then? right?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:40 am on Sat, Oct 20, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    last question...are you saying they canceled the entire group contract you were covered by or canceled you from the group? This is an important distinction and I will better be able to confirm exactly what happened if I have that information. When you said your brother, an attorney, confirmed that they could cancel, I became suspicious.

    Too many times these issues and misunderstandings are used to distort what really happened for political gain. In this case, a reason for why people should want national health care. I'm happy Mr. Lucas brought this out as this is something I can debate.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:34 pm on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    they paid the cancer bills cancelled afterword

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:33 pm on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Was it an individual policy or group? Did they pay all of you medical bills from cancer or did they cancel to out of paying?
    I assume it was 1979 since you said it was 33 years ago..

    1980 group

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:51 pm on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Was it an individual policy or group? Did they pay all of you medical bills from cancer or did they cancel to out of paying?

    I assume it was 1979 since you said it was 33 years ago...

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:34 pm on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    oklahoma. They canceled very shortly afterword

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:16 pm on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr. Lucas, each state has a different Blue Shield charter. Which state was the policy issued and was it a group or individual product.

    You also said they did the surgery (they took a flesh the size of a small dinner plate off my back). The insurance company immediately cancelled my insurance... you made it sound like the policy was canceled before you even left the hospital. Now it sounds like they paid all the claims for the cancer.

    Can you please clarify?

    Lastly, if policies are canceled after a claim, it is a result of finding misstatements on the application. It is not normal that a policy is canceled simply because of a claim. Like I said ,have not seen one in 30 years from a reputable company like Blue Shield.

    By the way, congratulations on your recovery.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:36 pm on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    It was Blue Shield. They paid the claims but they most certainly cancelled my policy after I had cancer. I guess they cancelled my policy because I was such a good health risk. It was 33 years ago and I do not have any records now. My Brother was a lawyer and he said they were within their rights to cancel the policy but they had to pay the claims for the cancer treatment.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 6:12 pm on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2365

    It's a shame that these statistics most probably do not include the number of infant deaths at the hands of skilled abortionists. One breakdown from that data that would be truly interesting would be how many abortions were exercised against completely healthy pre-birth infants - children who might have had the opportunity to grow to be happy and productive American citizens – maybe even the first female President of the United States.

    It boggles the mind! But we’ll never know, huh?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:02 pm on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Lucas stated...This is my personal experience. I had a melanoma in 1980. They did the surgery(they took a flesh the size of a small dinner plate off my back). The insurance company immediately cancelled my insurance.

    Mr Lucas, This did not happen and I can prove it. Please post the company you claim did this ...the month and year it took place and the state it took place. Lastly, was it an individual policy that only covered yourself or was thehealth plan a group policy you obtained through work? This is easily traceable as I can review the policy provisions that were in place at the time. In 30 years, I have not seen one case as you described and I process these claims for a living.
    Your policy may have been canceled but it was not because you experienced claims.

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 4:55 pm on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    Ms. Bobin, the clarification you seek. I have always purchased vehicles from one of the "Big 3" American manufacturers. I have no use for imported vehicles, and I especially have no need for what I call the "Yuppiemobiles", BMW, Jaguar, Volvo, Mercedes, Lexus, etc. I eschew the status symbol products the pseudo-rich seem to crave.
    As far as the business I sold almost 10 years ago, that information is on a "need to know basis" and you don't need to know.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 4:29 pm on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    This is my personal experience. I had a melanoma in 1980. They did the surgery(they took a flesh the size of a small dinner plate off my back). The insurance company immediately cancelled my insurance. luckily I was ok and I could always go to the VA. If I had a recurrence and I was not a veteran this would have been a death sentence brought to you by the health insurance company. This happens all the time all over America before ACA.No one had better DEATH PANELS than the health insurance companies and this DOES NOT HAPPEN in single payer systems. Health insurance companies routinely killed people knowingly

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 3:59 pm on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Ms Bobin comicly stated...Another week, another month, and Mr. Baumbach is still arguing death panels.

    The last sentence above presumes WRONGLY that there are no private medical facilities in the UK or "unless they are rich," people cannot pay to get medical care in their home country. Why are you talking like the UK is some third world country where medical care is solely doled out by the government?


    What is the N.I.C.E.? In England today N.I.C.E., the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, is "an independent organization responsible for providing national guidance on promoting good health and preventing and treating ill health" (www.nice.org.uk). This organization was established in 1999 and is part of England's healthcare rationing program to British citizens. Although England provides a "free" healthcare system, government officials are able to rule against citizens that are not worthy of certain kinds of healthcare, if the government so desires.

    The N.I.C.E. deems who is worthy of treatment and what kind of treatment is cost-efficient (as is the case of Mr. Hardy, please see "What Price Life?" article below). The N.I.C.E. holds in its hands the power to choose who gets treatment and who doesn't, in essence, who lives and who dies.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 3:53 pm on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Still waiting for the post where my wife is very anti-union or even myself.. Please note my post earlier in this thread...

    posted at 5:28 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012..."I would have no problems with unions representing workers" if it was a voluntary decision each person made. However, as any teacher knows in Lodi Unified, they have no choice and are forced to be represented by the union in negotiating their wages.

    If I or my wife were anti union, why would I post the above. It is very that I appose forced or coercive measures to pay dues to a union. I was acting on principles, not anti anything.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:31 pm on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Chapman wrote: "f you want to purchase an automobile in America, you are forced to buy one that was made with UNION labor."

    Really?? Better check that out - or modify your statement.

    "When I sold my company I employed close to 6,000 people that made great wages and had great health care for themselves and family and profit sharing, all paid for by profits."

    Curious what industry your corporation was engaged in that required such a huge workforce - and I'll assume this corp. had multiple locations?

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:08 pm on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Baumbach wrote: "Ms Bobin,can you please post what ever I stated that would indicate Mrs.Baumbach is quite conservative and anti union. I think you know something I do not."

    October 12, 2012 @ 8:19AM: "I personally attempted to get out of all union dues for my family. It was not possible."

    Unless you want us to think that you and Mrs. B. are PRO-union, but just do not want to pay union dues, then one might find my conclusion faulty that Mrs. B. is anti-union.

    You have also stated repeatedly that, since your wife loves children and loves teaching, she had no alternative than to teach in a public school and be forced to join the union. As we all know, Mrs. Baumbach could have taught at a non-union private school and not have been subject to a union.

    You need to remember what you've said in the past, Mr. Baumbach. You're tripping yourself up with some of those fabrications.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 11:50 am on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Baumbach wrote: "If someone has a life exectancy of less than 7 years in England and is over 65 years old, many surgeries are denied and long waiting periods exist. That is a fact.. not my opinion. The result is that some older people die there unless they are rich and can fly to United States to get the medical care they need to survive."

    Another week, another month, and Mr. Baumbach is still arguing death panels.

    The last sentence above presumes WRONGLY that there are no private medical facilities in the UK or "unless they are rich," people cannot pay to get medical care in their home country. Why are you talking like the UK is some third world country where medical care is solely doled out by the government?

    Perhaps you should do your homework before you talk about the healthcare systems in other countries, Mr. Baumbach.

    This from the BBC:

    "For many people, private healthcare doesn't cost them anything personally because they receive private medical cover from their employer. It often makes sense for companies to offer such benefits, as it means employees spend less time off sick."

    AND

    "Another reason people choose to be seen privately, even if it's at an NHS hospital, is that it guarantees you'll see a consultant of your choice. As an NHS patient, you'll often only see the consultant if your problem is particularly complex."

    AND (pay attention to the very LAST sentence)

    "If you're funding your private care yourself, this could get very expensive. If it's paid through an insurance company, it may not be happy with the situation."

    I know your devotion to Sarah Palin and her "death panels" is infinite, but really, Mr. Baumbach, try to check before you speak.

    Also, AGAIN, why are we talking death panels of the FUTURE under the ACA? They already exist, no matter how much you deny it, under the guise of executives at HMO's that DO decide whether you'll get a certain procedure or not.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:35 am on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Thank you for asking for clarification. You personally used the phrase"killing off people"... that to me implies a conscious effort to kill people. For me, that was not accurate. I was saying that liberals implement policies that have unintended consequences from my experince... so I was really really referring to a different degree of intent... thats all...

    May I ask, are you disputing that England's single payer system has rationing of health care and limits health care based on life expectancy?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:30 am on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Which statistics are you referring to, would be happy to substantiate it!

    I am asking you to substantiate your global statistics.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:27 am on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Lucas stated...This health care debate between Darrell and I illustrates a very important truth about modern day Conservative Republicans...

    I am not debating you or am saying I am right or wrong, or that you are right or wrong. I am asking questions hoping to get answers...

    However, when statements like " Study after study shows that countries with single payer systems do a much better job than we do." come from anyone including Mr Lucas, truth is not clear. For example...what studies? Were these studies by poeple who wanted the outcome to confirm what Mr Lucas wants to believe? Maybe, maybe not? As far as anyone knows, these could be studies conducted by Mr Lucas himself.

    Can you please provide links for each studies you are referring to Mr Lucas... you wouldn't want to spread gossip and rumor I assume.

    Thank you for your help!

     
  • John Lucas posted at 7:26 am on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    It is funny you were quoting statistics when they favor the conclusion you have already come to.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:19 am on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    ObamaCare just keeps on giving.

    "Hospitals who re-admit patients within 30 days after they were discharged will now have to, under an ObamaCare provision, pay fines as of October 1, 2012,...." The little-known provision was put into ObamaCare in order to cut costs, but the result is that many hospitals will now provide substandard care for the poor, the elderly, and the chronically ill. Sunil Kripalani, MD, a professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, who studies hospital readmissions, says, "Among patients with heart failure, hospitals that have higher readmission rates actually have lower mortality rates. So, which would we rather have, a hospital readmission or a death?"

     
  • John Lucas posted at 7:14 am on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    You say this:

    I am not impling that England is killing off people.

    then you say this:

    The result is that some older people die there unless they are rich and can fly to United States to get the medical care they need to survive.

    Please make up your mind

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:56 am on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Lucas stated...Darrell, there are three facts you cannot get around. You cannot win this argument.

    You misunderstand Mr Lucas. I am not trying to get around anything nor win an argument... I am seeking truth no matter what it is. It is why I asked you questions but unfortunately, you have decided to ignore.

    I am not impling that England is killing off people. I am stating a fact that their board than determines what is and is not covered in their system has been doing what Obamacare will be doing in 5 years, that is rationing healthcare to elderly. If someone has a life exectancy of less than 7 years in England and is over 65 years old, many surgeries are denied and long waiting periods exist. That is a fact.. not my opinion. The result is that some older people die there unless they are rich and can fly to United States to get the medical care they need to survive.
    Obviously these rules and mandates in England save money.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:45 am on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Lucas stated...Can you explain how when it comes to medical outcomes we rank 37th and they rank 18th?


    An answer is not possible without the data to confirm what criteria was used to draw such a conclusion. I have to assume your information is wrong until I can it. Please post a link that specifies the details.

    Its why I think statistics are meaningless as well as drawing conclusions from them unless you know the data that was used .Too many times statistics are manipulated to generate an outcome that the manipulator desires for selfish motives...

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:40 am on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Darrell said:

    For example, you do not jest ,you sincerely believe that government run organizations operate more efficiently and cost effective than private sector operations.

    I did not see this post before I made the post above about Conservatives making up their own reality. Thank you for making my point.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:36 am on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    This health care debate between Darrell and I illustrates a very important truth about modern day Conservative Republicans. Study after study shows that countries with single payer systems do a much better job than we do. It costs less, provides better outcomes and the people live longer. It is not possible for a rational person to come to any other conclusion.

    Why cannot the modern day Conservative Republican accept that? It is because it violates a quasi religious belief that is dear to their heart. Government cannot do anything better than the private sector. They go into the debate having already made up their mind. They are looking for facts to back up a conclusion they have already come to. This is why things fall apart when they govern. They have created their own reality and ignore the reality that really is.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:14 am on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Darrell, there are three facts you cannot get around.

    1. Studies show that we are around 37th in the world in terms of medical outcomes. This is shown by study after study. Single payer systems in modern democracies simply do a better job in terms of medical outcomes for their people.

    2. They pay around 12% of the GDP for their health care. We pay 17.5% and more in total and on a per capita basis than anyone in the world.

    3. We rank 51st in life expectancy in the world.

    What you are doing is taking something and extrapolating it to a false conclusion.
    Case in point. You said:

    In England, elderly cannot get surgeries that extend their life like they can in America. This decreases their GDP while out policies increase it.

    You are implying that England is killing off their elderly to save money. If that is the case why do the English live longer than we do?

    English 80.18
    United States 78.49

    You cannot win this argument. Our health care system is a joke.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:04 am on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Robert stated...By the way, I am driving east through Canada towards Maine to visit friends and witness the fall colors that I find particularly impressive.

    Robert is in a form of Heaven. I remember Bar Harbor, Maine as well as Bangor in October a few years back. The colors were spectacular,the weather cold and the history interesting.. The rolling hills with bight colorful scenes make dreamscapes a reality. You are a fortunate man Robert. Please enjoy it for everyone.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 5:51 am on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Can you explain how when it comes to medical outcomes we rank 37th and they rank 18th?

    I was amused at your friend Sean Hannitty when he said on many shows that a women had a baby in the hallway in a British hospital. He went on and on about it on several shows. I decide to look up the infant mortality rate between us and England. Not only is our rate higher than England but it is higher than Cuba

    Here is the complete list of infant mortality rates per 1,000 live births for 2004:

    1. Singapore 2.0

    2. Hong Kong 2.5

    3. Japan 2.8

    4. Sweden 3.1

    5. Norway 3.2

    6. Finland 3.3

    7. Spain 3.5

    8. Czech Republic 3.7

    9. France 3.9

    10. Portugal 4.0

    11. Germany 4.1

    11. Greece 4.1

    11. Italy 4.1

    11. Netherlands 4.1

    15. Switzerland 4.2

    16. Belgium 4.3

    17. Denmark 4.4

    18. Austria 4.5

    18. Israel 4.5

    20. Australia 4.7

    21. Ireland 4.9

    21. Scotland 4.9

    23. England and Wales 5.0

    24. Canada 5.3

    25. Northern Ireland 5.5

    26. New Zealand 5.7

    27. Cuba 5.8

    28. Hungary 6.6

    29. Poland 6.9

    29. Slovakia 6.9

    29. United States 6.9

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:41 am on Fri, Oct 19, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Lucas posted at 11:15 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012 ...I replied to some of your question below but I will answer this one here. I will type real slow in hopes you understand for it has to do with arithmetic.
    Americas's health care costs in terms of GDP = 17.5%, Single payer countries costs in terms of GDP = 12%, Difference = 5.5%, 2011 GDP for United States = over 15 trillion dollars, 5.5% of 15 trillion dollars = over 750 billion dollars

    Mr Lucas then stated...I am sure there are some 8th grade math classes you can audit if you do not quite get it.

    Response...I am so sorry I was so unclear and failed to communicate the basis of my question. Thank you for making clear that I failed.

    Let me try again. There are 1000's of variables that add to the cost of health care and the final figure that makes up the GDP statistics you are providing.
    One variable is quality of care and health care rationing.

    I was asking how our GDP will go down to that of other countries simple by having a single payer system. Which variables to effect this change.

    In England, elderly cannot get surgeries that extend their life like they can in America. This decreases their GDP while out policies increase it.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:16 pm on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    It also says that Medicare comes in at 4% to 8% in administrative costs even if you add the collecting of revenue. I also like Mr Books spot on analysis in your other post that medicare is much cheaper than the private insurers.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:09 pm on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    People on medicare are 65 years and up. The average age of someone with private health care is probably 30 years less. You think maybe when you are that old you go to the doctor and the hospital a lot more? There have times in my life that I went to the doctor once in a year. Mr Book has shown that private insurers spent $453 on people who do not go to the doctor very often and $509 on people who practically live in the doctors office. Thank you Robert Book for proving that Medicare is much more efficient that the private insurers.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:15 pm on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    CONTINUED...


    Administrative costs are calculated using faulty arithmetic
    Medicare has higher administrative costs per beneficiary

    A more accurate measure of overhead would therefore be the administrative costs per patient, rather than per dollar of medical expenses. And by that measure, even with all the administrative advantages Medicare has over private coverage, the program’s administrative costs are actually significantly higher than those of private insurers. In 2005, for example, Robert Book has shown that private insurers spent $453 per beneficiary on administrative costs, compared to $509 for Medicare. (Indeed, Robert has written the definitive paper on this subject, from which the above figure is taken.)

    Remember these points the next time someone tries to tell you that Medicare is “more efficient” than private insurance.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:15 pm on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Lucas stated...really? Please tell us how health insurance companies have administrative costs of close to 20% and medicare has less than 5% in administrative costs?

    Medicare advocates argue that Medicare’s administrative costs — the money it spends on expenses other than patient care — are just 3% of total costs, compared to 15% to 20% in the case of private, employer-sponsored insurance. But these figures are highly misleading, for several reasons.
    Medicare is partially administered by outside agencies

    First, other government agencies help administer the Medicare program. The Internal Revenue Service collects the taxes that fund the program; the Social Security Administration helps collect some of the premiums paid by beneficiaries (which are deducted from Social Security checks); the Department of Health and Human Services helps to manage accounting, auditing, and fraud issues and pays for marketing costs, building costs, and more. Private insurers obviously don’t have this kind of outside or off-budget help. Medicare’s administration is also tax-exempt, whereas insurers must pay state excise taxes on the premiums they charge; the tax is counted as an administrative cost. In addition, Medicare’s massive size leads to economies of scale that private insurers could also achieve, if not exceed, were they equally large.

    from forbes...

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:07 pm on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Ms Bobin stated...Just ask Mr. Baumbach, whose teacher wife seems to be, from his description, quite conservative and anti-union

    Mr Lucas stated...Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. 

    Eleanor Roosevelt

    I of course will leave the quotes of others to Mr Lucas, that is his want to do.

    Ms Bobin,can you please post what ever I stated that would indicate Mrs.Baumbach is quite conservative and anti union. I think you know something I do not.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:57 pm on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Lucas stated...Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. 

    Eleanor Roosevelt


    Great minds create their own quotes; small minds use other people’s thoughts. I do not want to talk about ideas or people all the time, or insult people’s intelligence any of the time. I want to talk about ideas, people and events no matter what time.

    Darrell Baumbach

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:53 pm on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Great minds create their own quotes; small minds use other people’s thoughts. I do not want to talk about ideas or people all the time, or insult people’s intelligence any of the time. I want to talk about ideas, people and events no matter what time.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 7:16 pm on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    smarmy |ˈsmärmē|
    adjective ( smarmier , smarmiest ) informal
    ingratiating and wheedling in a way that is perceived as insincere or excessive: a smarmy, unctuous reply.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:57 pm on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. 

    Eleanor Roosevelt

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:31 pm on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405


    Ms Bobin stated... so did not want to chance embarassing her publicly therefore I used the appellation "Ms. TEA Party."

    Ms Bobin, I do not think Kim could possibly be embarrassed at anything you have to say.... I would think it more likely amusing coming from you.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:28 pm on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. 

    Eleanor Roosevelt

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:23 pm on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Mr. Chapman said

    Medicare administration costs are not 5%. Many of Medicare’s most significant administrative costs are just covered by other federal agencies, and so don’t appear on Medicare’s particular budget, but are still huge costs of the program. The IRS collects the taxes that fund the program; Social Security collects many of the premiums paid by beneficiaries; HHS pays for a great deal of what you would think of as basic overhead, but doesn’t put it on the Medicare program’s budget. Obviously private insurers have to pay for such things themselves. Medicare’s administration is also exempt from taxes, while insurers pay an excise tax on premiums (which is counted as overhead). And private insurers also spend a great deal of money fighting fraud, while Medicare doesn’t.

    The numbers I can find on the internet range from Barbara Boxer saying 1% to 2% to Forbes Magazine saying 4% to 8%. The only thing for sure is that it is much cheaper that private health insurers.

    Where a single payer health care system is applied it is certainly cheaper, has better outcomes and is in line with the values of Jesus of Nazareth.

    We spend 17.5% of our GDP on health care. The average of countries with single payer spends 12% of their GDP. Our GDP last year was a little over 15 trillion dollars. The math says if we did as the average country with single payer we would save 750 billion dollars a year, every year.

    The WHO ranks the United States 37th in terms of medical outcomes. This in spite of spending more overall and per capita.

    The CIA say we rank 51st in life expectancy. The fact that millions in our country cannot afford health coverage is the ultimate death panel.

    Of course there are many freedoms we get not going single payer.

    We get to feel superior to the millions of people who live in fear of having a major health crisis because they cannot afford health insurance. Those in countries with single payer do not get this pleasure

    We get to feel superior to the millions who have gone bankrupt because of a major health crisis. Those in countries with single payer do not get this pleasure.

    We get to feel superior to those who die because they do not have health insurance. Those in countries with single payer do not get this pleasure.

    We get to feel superior to those who live in pain and are suffering because they cannot afford heath insurance. Those in countries with single payer do not get this pleasure.

    We get to watch Health insurance executives make millions of dollars running
    companies that make the DMV look efficient. Those in countries with single payer do not get this pleasure.

    We get to watch our businesses struggle with financial burden of trying to do the right thing by providing health insurance thus hurting their ability to compete in the global market. Those in countries with single payer do not get this pleasure.

    We get to be the laughing stock of the world because of the mindless stupidity of our health system. Those in countries with single payer do not get this pleasure.

    And to think we only have to pay an extra 750 billion dollars a year, every year, for not going to that terrible, awful socialist single payer system

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 6:22 pm on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2365

    Re: http://tinyurl.com/64tlr:

    Although dated and based upon college teacher rankings, it is my “opinion” that these figures “probably” wouldn’t change at the primary/secondary school levels.

    As for their levels of intelligence (stupidity), I offer no opinion other than “If they weren't completely aware of what their salaries would be for their chosen vocation then they had to be stupid” (http://tinyurl.com/9cqxb7k) stands only for that particular issue only, not as a generalization of their overall intelligence quotient. But I would have expected anyone with an IQ of 70 or above to have gotten that with little trouble.

    Other than what’s posted here, I don’t recall voicing any general opinion that teachers are in any way less intelligent than even those posting on this very forum. Indeed, if IQ tests were administered to all of us here at this very moment, teachers would certainly be ranked at “genius” or above in comparison. But then again, I “could” be wrong.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:12 pm on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Personal attack?????????

    I do not get it.

    I think Mr Lucas has a high IQ. His sister is very intelligent and has a law degree. Mr Lucas has graduated from a very good college and has a very good grasp of liberalism and how it has benefited society from his perspective.

    He could easily write a book if he put his mind to it and would have many who would enjoy reading what he has to say.

    I simply copied what he typed and stated he was effective at articulating how a liberal thinks.
    He has a sister that is invited to the Lodi News Sentinel to write about what she thinks. I sincerely would appreciate these two people working as a team to articulate liberal realities...

    May I ask, is this another attack? I am confused.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 5:20 pm on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1653

    Darrell again with the personal attacks for no apparent purpose not contributing to the discussion on any point of view. Pure meanness.Need to check with LNS if this is a tollerable situation.A violation of rules 5, 6 and 7.

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 3:27 pm on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    Medicare administration costs are not 5%. Many of Medicare’s most significant administrative costs are just covered by other federal agencies, and so don’t appear on Medicare’s particular budget, but are still huge costs of the program. The IRS collects the taxes that fund the program; Social Security collects many of the premiums paid by beneficiaries; HHS pays for a great deal of what you would think of as basic overhead, but doesn’t put it on the Medicare program’s budget. Obviously private insurers have to pay for such things themselves. Medicare’s administration is also exempt from taxes, while insurers pay an excise tax on premiums (which is counted as overhead). And private insurers also spend a great deal of money fighting fraud, while Medicare doesn’t.

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 2:58 pm on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    Ms. Bobin posted: "Last I checked, Ford Motor Company was unionized. I'm surprised you bought one of their vehicles since you are so vehemently opposed to unions. A little disingenuous, no?"
    If you want to purchase an automobile in America, you are forced to buy one that was made with UNION labor. Like paying taxes, no choice there. I chose a Ford product because they refused Obama bailout money because they knew it meant government control just like GM. Disingenuous? Nope, no choice.
    Of course I had/have lines of credit. Why pay interest when you don't have to? Oh, and yes, by definition I am a "1%'er". I took great financial risks, worked long hours and made smart decisions to get where I am. When I sold my company I employed close to 6,000 people that made great wages and had great health care for themselves and family and profit sharing, all paid for by profits. A lot of long term employees were quite comfortable when they retired. No UNION required.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 2:23 pm on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    India, Mexico and Thailand have medical services dedicated to Americans. Americans flock to Canada and Mexico to buy prescription drugs. America's health system is the laughing stock of the world.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:28 pm on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Chapman wrote:

    "Yep, paid cash for the Escape just like everything else I have purchased for the last 25 years."

    Interesting - as a former businessman, you are saying that your company had no credit lines? Now I understand why you are so opposed to the average middle class person - you are one of the 1%!

    I" have a whole list of companies I refuse to patronize because of practices I don't agree with."

    Last I checked, Ford Motor Company was unionized. I'm surprised you bought one of their vehicles since you are so vehemently opposed to unions. A little disingenuous, no?

    As for the Canadian medical system, my own sister had to go to Canada to receive treatment for a tumor on her liver, and later one on the base of her brain, because there was no approved treatment in the US for procedures the Canadian system had been using for years. It saved her life two times over - and the number of Americans flocking to the hospital she went to was overwhelming - AND she received the treatment at a very nominal charge.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:17 pm on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Kinderman wrote: "I’m wondering how this argument would play if the majority of teachers were not liberal/progressive."

    Interesting supposition...how one could possibly generalize about the political leanings of "the majority of teachers" without having ANY personal knowledge of that imagined 'majority," or teachers as a whole is supercilious at best.

    I am curious...what could Mr. Kinderman possibly MEAN when he labels "a majority of teachers...liberal/progressive?" That they are stupid?

    Just ask Mr. Baumbach, whose teacher wife seems to be, from his description, quite conservative and anti-union, or my husband who has voted Republican more times than I care to recall (and whom I have teased for doing so - talk about biting off your nose to spite your face) especially when he voted for Ronald Reagan who passed legislation to cut his Social Security to 1/10 of what he paid for and EARNED because he has a public employee pension, and George Walker Bush whom left this country in a disastrous mess just in time for his retirement.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 12:48 pm on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    really? Please tell us how health insurance companies have administrative costs of close to 20% and medicare has less than 5% in administrative costs?

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 12:37 pm on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1161

    I’m wondering how this argument would play if the majority of the retired Air Force “bloggers” were not conservative/retrogressive.

    [tongue]

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 11:40 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2365

    I’m wondering how this argument would play if the majority of teachers were not liberal/progressive.

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 11:37 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    Ah, Mr. Tillett. No doubt where YOUR paycheck comes from. In the private corporate world there is a little thing called competition. No company would survive if they didn't offer quality services/products at a competitive price. No so the government. No competition there. Take your business, education. America outspends almost every nation on education yet our education ranks shamefully low. In the private world, your business would be out of business.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 11:31 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2365

    The statement is not “patently false.” Insofar as this LTE and the debate thereto are concerned, the majority of teachers are required to join a union.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:27 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    I lived in Mazatlan Mexico which is Canada south and drove truck into Canada many times. I have always made it my mission to find out what they think of their health care system as compared to ours. I have talked to hundreds if not thousands about this and I have never heard one that wanted to trade systems with us. Do you really think the Canadiens complain about their system more than we complain about ours? It is human nature to complain but they are not stupid enough to opt for our system. In any country that has single payer if those in power tried to go to our system the would be voted out of office so quick it would make your head spin

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 11:25 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 554

    Pouring millions [into] campaigns to get politicians elected with CORPORATE PROFITS GAINED FROM GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS to enact legislation that favors MORE CORPORATE PROFIT should be illegal. CORPORATIONS only serve to drive up the profit from everything they are involved with, including from government.

    Corporate campaign financing outspends union spending 12:1. And you want to take away the 1?

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 11:05 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    By the way, I am driving east through Canada towards Maine to visit friends and witness the fall colors that I find particulary impressive. In my travels I have had many opportunities to chat with Canadians about their health care. I am still looking for one that has anything good to say about it. Those who can afford it simply travel south to the "lower 48". Just think, soon I won't even have to leave the United States to get the same opinions.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:02 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Really? The best bargain the world has ever seen are the Republican Congressman and Senators representing the corporations and the top 1/10 of one percent of the people in the United States. There is no bigger bang for the buck. They do the bidding of these corporations and people for chump change. Between them and the K street lobbyists they are sucking this country dry and you are whining about Union dues? If the average American understood what these people are doing they would be at their door with pitchforks. It would be a human reaction to the real corruption at its finest.

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 10:37 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    Yep, paid cash for the Escape just like everything else I have purchased for the last 25 years. The U.S. Government is not a "for profit" entity. Unlike private corporations, taxpayers have no choice when it comes to supporting the government. What private industry does with their profits is their business. If you don't like a company, don't do business with them. I have a whole list of companies I refuse to patronize because of practices I don't agree with. MY choice. What the government does with taxpayer money IS taxpayer business.No UNION should be allowed to contribute to any politician or political entity for favorable acts. Corruption at its finest.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:16 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    You have every right to think that a minority of union workers should be able to tell the majority how to spend their union dues. That is not how it works. First a union is certified. A majority of the workers vote to become members of a union. They then elect their leaders and vote on union dues and how they should be spent. These union members have by a majority decided to spend money defending themselves from people with political views such as yourself. This is a way to level the playing field between employer and employee. This is the law and how it works.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:08 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Si. El rico queres todos. y mas

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 10:06 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    Nobody cares how public employees spend their salary. The concern comes from how your UNION spends the forced dues. Pouring millions campaigns to get politicians elected with UNION dues money to enact legislation that favors UNIONS should be illegal. UNIONS only serve to drive up the cost of everything they are involved with, including government. Like paying @ $6,000 in UNION related costs when you buy a new car? Taxpayer money pays public employee salaries. Part of those salaries are extorted by UNIONS. Approximately 92% of all UNION members vote Democratic so taxpayers are forced to support the Democratic party whether they want to or not. UNIONS should be prohibited from making any campaign donations to any political party. UNIONS should be required to rebate all monies that exceed the costs of member benefits and administration.

     
  • Jay Samone posted at 10:04 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Jay Samone Posts: 359

    Mr Heuer - it's really not that simple. I work for the state, so therefore I have a union job. I didn't choose to be in a union - in fact, I wasn't even aware that it fell under "union" until I got my first check and I asked WTH is SEIU? I was not a member, and haven't been since I started. I don't agree with the Unions using my paycheck as a way to extort money from me and use it to bolster campaign funds for propositions and candidates I myself do not endorse. It is a price I pay for continuing to work where I do. I don't have better benefits or retirement - regardless of what non-union people think. But I do have them...it doesn't make the extortion of $90+ a month any more likeable than them calling me telling me to vote yes on this, vote for so and so, and oh by the way - it's ok that we TOLD you we weren't going to furlough you again, because now we're just going to call it something different so that you don't "think" it's a furlough - even though it's really a furlough.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:04 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    What part does Darrell not understand? All of it [smile]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:02 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    You have every right to think that a minority of union workers should be able to tell the majority how to spend their union dues. That is not how it works. First a union is certified. A majority of the workers vote to become members of a union. They then elect their leaders and vote on union dues and how they should be spent. These union members have by a majority decided to spend money defending themselves from people with political views such as yourself. This is a way to level the playing field between employer and employee. This is the law and how it works.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 10:00 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Chapman wrote: "Nobody cares how public employees spend their salary."

    Apparently the individual quoted above DOES, as does Mr. Miller. Just check out his comments under the last "TEA Party" column.

    Guess you should not have bought that Ford Escape Hybrid. $6000...hope you paid cash or got a zero interest car loan. That would have been a savings.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 9:49 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1585

    If 92 % of union members vote Democrat it sounds like the unions are spending their member’s funds appropriately.
    Why do you think that an organization that’s supports the working class doesn’t make many donations to Republicans?
    Once again public sector employee's perform a service and are paid for that service at that point their pay is theirs to do with how they please I don't know why you can't understand that. If taxpayers don't want to pay public employees don't hire them other than that quit acting like the pay they receive somehow still belongs to the taxpayers.

     
  • shelly reed posted at 9:47 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Shelly Reed Posts: 4

    I believe if the Unions want policial support from it's members, the members should send the Unions a check so they can support the issues they wish. I think 32 is fair.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 9:46 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 554

    Pouring millions [into] campaigns to get politicians elected with CORPORATE PROFITS GAINED FROM GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS to enact legislation that favors MORE CORPORATE PROFIT should be illegal. CORPORATIONS only serve to drive up the profit from everything they are involved with, including from government.

    Corporate campaign financing outspends union spending 12:1. And you want to take away the 1?

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 9:32 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 554

    "they must join a union if they want to teach."

    That is patently false. Private schools and most, if not all, charter schools are not union.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:28 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    As Mr. Barrow stated - union membership is QUITE WELL KNOWN to Liberal Studies students who are obtaining their degrees with the goal of teaching.

    In fact, membership in CTA at the student level is encouraged and instructors allow time for CTA student reps to come into the classroom to pitch that membership.

    As you well documented, LUSD certificated employees can opt out of union membership but must pay a service fee in the amount of dues to be donated to a charity.

    Your "wife" should have taken advantage of that option (or YOU should have since you seem to have been at her side continually throughout her career).

    I'm wondering if that poor woman was actually able to make any decisions by herself - your description of shadowing her through union meetings, advocating for her at every moment in her opposition to the great benefits she was entitled to from the district, etc.

    And you STILL have not answered WHY she did not turn to private schools as an alternative to teaching rather than be FORCED to pay union dues and take a great benefit package and retirement. Troubling, to say the least.

    Finally, don't you think that "Mrs. Baumbach" should pay back all of that salary, the value of the benefits, and the STRS retirement she earned? The union negotiated all of that for her. Pay it back if it is so offensive.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 9:11 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1653

    Darrell said "free to seek employment based on merit, skills and education that qualifies them for the position." This is true for any job, public or private. However the bottom line is how do you compensate for those attributes? As business is always seeking to reduce theit bottom line and their labor costs are usually their highest cost, the natural tendency is to reduce compensation to its lowest levels following a path of least resistance. A union separates "sweat shop" conditions to more realistic levels. When the workers spend the better salaries the economy is lifted and everyone benefits. What part of this don't you understand?

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:10 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Baumbach wrote: "How petty and childish to refer to Kim as Ms Tea Party. If I were childish and immature," (I'll stay away from that one).

    Actually, Mr. Baumbach, Ms. Parigoris's comment was made online and I did not obtain her permission to use her name when I quoted her, so did not want to chance embarassing her publicly - therefore I used the appellation "Ms. TEA Party."

    I would hope that YOU would use the same discretion - and you did in your letter in which you had hoped to garner support from people who, like you, do not believe that bigotry exists in Lodi.

    FYI - "childish and immature" are now considered "personal attacks" by the LNS, so you might want to stay away from that nomenclature.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 8:33 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1585

    Great point

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 8:26 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1585

    Darrell if a person has spent 6 years acquiring certification to teach and still does not know that teachers are unionized they probably have no business teaching.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 8:22 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1653

    You said "If I were childish and immature, I would refer to Ms Bobin as “Ms Tiny Fey & Bigot around every corner” which you have done on many occassions and yes you do it again here. There can only be a hope that you "should simply be a grown up , be respectful" and join the mature community.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:21 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Great letter Joanne.
    The real insight is how Conservative or tea partiers feel about all employees public and private. In the public sector employees money comes from the taxpayer so they should have no rights. In the private sector the money comes from the "job creators" so they should have no rights. The important thing is that workers public or private should just shut up and do as they are told.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:16 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405


    Mr Barrow stated...It is ridiculous to say that Unions force people to pay dues. If an individual decides to accept a job in a Union backed industry they are excepting Union representation

    I can imagine it would be ridiculous if you were Castro , Mao, Stalin or any other dictator, but in United States, a person is supposed to be free to seek employment based on merit, skills and education that qualifies them for the position. The last time I checked, most students in college that want to seek a career in education is are not educated in the fact that they must join a union if they want to teach.

    So Mr Barrow wants to force these college graduates to abandon their love for teaching because he does not think it appropriate to offer them a choice to join a union. I'd say Mr Barrow is a hard nose cruel heartless person.

    By voting yes on 32, these innocent students will be able to teach even if they do not join a union...

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 8:12 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1653

    People have choice. If you don't want to pay union dues don't take a union job. What part of this don't you understand? If I want a job with better benefits and it requires modest dues who are you to say I can't have that. Its like shopping at Costco. They have great products and services but require a membership fee. If I don't like the fee I don't have to shop there. I happen to like it. Why do you and the tea lady incist on running other peoples lives and stealing freedoms?

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 8:02 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1653

    Great letter Joanne. Prop 32 is a freedom snatcher by special interests. Vote NO on prop 32.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 7:55 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1585

    It is ridiculous to say that Unions force people to pay dues. If an individual decides to accept a job in a Union backed industry they are excepting Union representation. It would be wrong for teachers with Lodi Unified to reap the benefits of Union representation and not pay dues. Solidarity is what makes a Union work if workers coming together to demand better conditions/pay makes you nervous you are probably not a friend of the middle class. Our government is increasingly in the pocket of corporations, this is blatantly evident from the Citizens United decision. If you really want to get special interest out of politics implement campaign finance reforms don’t silence the only special interest that speaks for the middle class. If you are worried that the Unions contribute the majority of their money to Democrats you might ask yourself why an organization that supports the working class doesn’t support Republicans.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:35 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405


    Ms Bobin stated...Using Ms. TEA Party's "logic," how far do we go to justify her reasoning? Do we allow Ms. TEA Party...

    How petty and childish to refer to Kim as Ms Tea Party. If I were childish and immature, I would refer to Ms Bobin as “Ms Tiny Fey & Bigot around every corner” ..instead, I should simply be a grown up , be respectful, and refer to this woman I disagree with as “Ms Bobin”.

    However, in all respect, I do appreciate that Ms Bobin is finally writing a letter and expressing her opinion publicly.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:28 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Letter stated..."My tax dollars pay public employees, public employee dues are extracted from that pay to fund the unions.

    Exactly!

    I would have no problems with unions representing workers if it was a voluntary decision each person made. However, as any teacher knows in Lodi Unified, they have no choice and are forced to be represented by the union in negotiating their wages. Even if they opt out of the balance of the dues, the money is forced to be donated to a charity the school district decides to endorse.

    When unions can legally force people to pay money for their services that one might not want, it would be reasonable to say that tax dollars that pay public employees dues are extracted(forced) from the person the money is taken . Sounds like legal theft to me.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:27 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    If you are pro-choice and support American principles of freedom, please vote for proposition 32... Ms Bobin obviously is anti-choice and wants unions to have legal abilities to force themselves on people who do not want to be forced.

     

Recent Comments

Posted 20 hours ago by Shane Marcus.

Posted 20 hours ago by Shane Marcus.

article: Woman, 56, arrested after car slams int…

Start getting your things in order, because you going to prison...

More...

Posted 20 hours ago by Shane Marcus.

article: Lodi water rates to go up

What's the average water bill in Lodi, and what would 2% bring it up to?

More...

Posted 20 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Letter: Michael Brown started events th…

[thumbup] Great point Mike. I missed that and I'm sure a lot more did too.

More...

Posted 21 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Letter: Police officer did his job

Mike Knowing the political shifts that have gone on between republicans and democrats I avoid the mix-ups by using conservatives and libera…

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists