Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Auto insurance? Their health insurance may well refuse to pay b/c they can recover thru auto insurance.

Assuming it wasn't a hit and run or uninsured driver.

However, I believe how it works is that the health insurer has to pay until there is a determination of liability. Then the insurer can recover its payments from the auto insurer or the judgment. At least that is how my insurance works. They pay and investigate the liability issue and attempt to deal with the auto insurer directly to get reimbursed from the medical payments portion of the policy (which pays without regard to liability). If the case goes to court or settles out of court on the liability issue, the health insurer will try to get some of the settlement/judgment if their payments weren't covered by what was available under the medical payments portion of the policy.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch I think they didn't realize that Indians are just as smart as Alabamans and have better phone skills.

Are they better transactional lawyers, too? If so, this could explain wonk's anxiety.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
They're the ones fighting over whether the voters have any interest in marginal GDP growth under trade agreements, when that theoretical growth is weighed against offshoring of jobs.

You mean the age-old question of, who votes more readily, the employed, or the potentially-but-still-only-conceptually employed?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Me
Are they better transactional lawyers, too? If so, this could explain wonk's anxiety.

at least one company has exported a good deal of patent prosecution work to India. at least according to infirm greedy IP.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
at least one company has exported a good deal of patent prosecution work to India. at least according to infirm greedy IP.

They are exporting accounting work and even some tax work, too.

The patent exporting may make for a more interesting work for US lawyers in the long run if the patent attorneys are smart about it. They have to insist that they won't file the stuff without reviewing it, first. There are sure to be lots that will need to be redone. They are idiots if they agree to rubber stamp the stuff and file it.

Even if they do, when it comes time to prosecute the applications, the problems with the applications will make for more complex office actions. You cannot have someone who isn't admitted to practice before the PTO prosecute the applications. And the law really comes into play when you have to respond because of prosecution history estoppel.

It can be a pain in the ass to have to clean up someone else's mistakes, but it can be interesting and take quite a bit of time, too.

I don't know if it will be more cost efficient in the long run to export it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I hope you've caught up by now. Your graduate degree in "SCIENCE" must have adversely impacted your reaeding comp.
S_A_M

Graduate degree- That's Dr. science and Eva silverstein. I have a bachelor's degree in Engineering.

So you can understand the depths of my problem, let me recap how I comprehend this argument:

One of you posted a Sales pitch from a bank to encourage people to invest in some product the bank wants to sell. the poster actually posted it as evidene of it thesis, "most people don't save enough to have a safety net," w/o apparent shame in posting such shoddy proof.

Atticus posted a graph showing savings as a percentage of earnings that varies acroos the last few years from 2-5% (I didn't go back and look if 5% is the high number). My parents lived check to check, and I doubt if they saved 2%. Most people have lived like this for generations. If you are equating financial security to having 10's of thousands of dollars in the bank, guess what? The majority of the US population probably hasn't ever met this standard, pre-NAFTA.

But to take it back, perhaps showing the limits of my reading comprehension, all of this goes back to Club/Skeks argument about NAFTA and whether getting lower costs for goods would justify potential job losses for American workers in the mind of american workers.

When you guys talked about how people would vote, I assumed you meant for President, but I was wrong. You meant if the average American worker was suddenly in the Senate and asked to vote on NAFTA? Or did you mean would the average american worker "vote" by buying US product over foreign made? Help Me>

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski Or did you mean would the average american worker "vote" by buying US product over foreign made?

You mean you don't check to see if the product was made in the USA when you are shopping at Walmart/Costco?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
When you guys talked about how people would vote, I assumed you meant for President, but I was wrong. You meant if the average American worker was suddenly in the Senate and asked to vote on NAFTA? Or did you mean would the average american worker "vote" by buying US product over foreign made? Help Me>

It goes back even further, to the poll about favorite cars, and how dangerous it would be to park that new Audi/VW/BMW/Cooper outside of a bar full of Real American Workers.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Not Me
You mean you don't check to see if the product was made in the USA when you are shopping at Walmart/Costco?

Speaking of Walmart/Costco, do either of those even sell anything that is made in the USA?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
I read it as implying that this "paycheck to paycheck" thing represented an insecurity to workers now more than other times in the past. That's why I included the temporal comment.

If the statement was, that's how it's always been, then that's four minutes of my life I'll never get back.

I do think more people feel it now than at other times in the past. Not more than they've always felt it. There have been periods where a rising tide carried all boats. But to the extent the economy has been picking up in the current cycle, it's been a very selective improvement. Like, among those currently benefitting from the tax deduction for dividends. I can assure you that doesn't make Joe Sixpack (or Wonk tax lawyer) feel any better about his personal state of affairs.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Graduate degree- That's Dr. science and Eva silverstein. I have a bachelor's degree in Engineering.

So you can understand the depths of my problem, let me recap how I comprehend this argument:

One of you posted a Sales pitch from a bank to encourage people to invest in some product the bank wants to sell. the poster actually posted it as evidene of it thesis, "most people don't save enough to have a safety net," w/o apparent shame in posting such shoddy proof.

Atticus posted a graph showing savings as a percentage of earnings that varies acroos the last few years from 2-5% (I didn't go back and look if 5% is the high number). My parents lived check to check, and I doubt if they saved 2%. Most people have lived like this for generations. If you are equating financial security to having 10's of thousands of dollars in the bank, guess what? The majority of the US population probably hasn't ever met this standard, pre-NAFTA.

But to take it back, perhaps showing the limits of my reading comprehension, all of this goes back to Club/Skeks argument about NAFTA and whether getting lower costs for goods would justify potential job losses for American workers in the mind of american workers.

When you guys talked about how people would vote, I assumed you meant for President, but I was wrong. You meant if the average American worker was suddenly in the Senate and asked to vote on NAFTA? Or did you mean would the average american worker "vote" by buying US product over foreign made? Help Me>

Wow. You really did miss the boat. Go back and reread my posts, the ones that explain what the other people said. If it helps, I can have it translated into Fortran.

S_A_m

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
This is why we need to pass legislation requiring everyone to carry at least catastrophic coverage with vouchers for those who really cannot afford the premiums.

Why don't we provide everyone with catastrophic coverage and tax ourselves -- except for those who cannot really afford the premiums -- to pay for it?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
NAFTA got the support it did because nobody really thought their job would be exported. I think they didn't realize that Indians are just as smart as Alabamans and have better phone skills.

I think that they got fooled by this rubbish about a "subcontinent" and figured NAFTA wouldn't open things up for the Indians. Wrong Indians, I guess. Clearly, we need better public schools.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Why don't we provide everyone with catastrophic coverage and tax ourselves -- except for those who cannot really afford the premiums -- to pay for it?

I predict that it would end up costing 50% more that way.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I predict that it would end up costing 50% more that way.

But only because someone from CT or NE will lobby to prevent the gov't from being able to negotiate with insurance companies. That rep or senator will then immediately abandon public service and become chief lobbyist for the insurance industry, making roughly 100 times what s/he made as a rep or senator. Somehow, this will not be characterized as a bribe or payoff.

Besides, in a sense we have this -- if you have a catastrophe happen to you, you get taken care of. The hospital recovers all the money it can from you, and then charges higher prices to everyone else to make up for the difference. Very, very efficient.