You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Economy
Dow 28,000,000: The Unbelievable Expectations of California's Pension System
2010-05-19
Posted by:tipper

#14  Not Ogden Nash, but de Morgan, based on a similar poem by Swift.
Posted by: James   2010-05-19 22:58  

#13  Where have I heard this before... Greece maybe?

It's 14 months-worth of retirement salary in Greece.
Posted by: Pappy   2010-05-19 22:22  

#12  "so y'all didn't have basis to conclude I was utterly, barking mad"

Thank goodness, tw - that's my job. ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2010-05-19 19:44  

#11  Neither utterly, nor barking nor, on average, mad, my friend. ;-)
Posted by: lotp   2010-05-19 19:43  

#10  As for why employers are paying for health insurance, it goes back to a time when the US government, in its wisdom, decided to control wages.

A time otherwise known as World War II.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2010-05-19 19:38  

#9  Ouch, tw.

Indeed, Ebbang Uluque6305. And so we learn that even the gift of a cluebat with periwinkle ribbons is no guarantee that one's decisions will not be overruled. Was it Ogden Nash who wrote,

Even fleas have little fleas
Upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have littler fleas
And so on, ad infinitum.

Thank goodness I gave the direct link to the article, so y'all didn't have basis to conclude I was utterly, barking mad. ;-)
Posted by: trailing wife   2010-05-19 18:05  

#8  I never understood the US system

Indeed.

As for why employers are paying for health insurance, it goes back to a time when the US government, in its wisdom, decided to control wages. A way around that wage control was to provide a benefit, such as health insurance premiums paid for by the company. In the decades since, such benefits have come to be Expected.

Me? I'd rather pay cash for basic check-ups and meds and leave the catastrophic stuff to an insurer of my choosing.
Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats   2010-05-19 14:02  

#7  Ouch, tw.

Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2010-05-19 12:23  

#6  It's daily stories like this coming out of Britain that decide us against the British health care system, anon1 dear. Or you can read it on Page 3: Non-WoT (Britain) here at Rantburg.
Er, no, the story was dropped by me -- way away from the WoT. But you can hit the link. AoS
The key is that we're hearing stories daily of the hospitalized dying in their own filth from neglect, calling the police on their cell phones because the nurses withhold food and water... as a matter of NHS policy for those deemed untreatable. Or the devoted NHS oncologist now in end-stage cancer because her hospital refused to run tests that the next hospital over would have done -- but one isn't allowed to go to another hospital for tests without permission from the authorities... Muslim staff not required to adhere to the same sanitation regimes as non-Muslims to accommodate their modesty concerns... and massive waste at every level -- as a matter of policy. Britain's National Health Service is an organization designed to spread disease and death among the susceptible, and to provide a facsimile of employment for petty bureaucrats and Third World-trained immigrants, who have been replacing the British-trained emigrants. We here in America would like to take the opportunity to thank you for sending us so many well-trained doctors and nurses.

As for the bank bailout, a huge chunk of our money went to bail out British and European banks who'd bought into the wrong side of the credit default swaps. However, if you'd be good enough to give our money back, we'd be happy to use it to capitalize our pre-existing government retirement and health care plans.
Posted by: trailing wife   2010-05-19 12:04  

#5  oops finger slip

why people who bail out banks to the tune of a Trillion

Geez you should have let those bloody banks fail and put the money into a government-funded retirement and healthcare system instead.
Posted by: anon1   2010-05-19 10:05  

#4  This is what you get in a fragmented disorganised system where employers (corporations, government, even small business) are responsible for the healthcare and retirement costs of former employees.

what a stupid system

why don't you take a leaf out of Britain/Australia's book and have the government pay for pensions/healthcare through taxes.

You get a set pension, quite low, after retirement age of 65. Paid for by taxes.

You get free basic healthcare if you are poor through public hospitals.

If you want cosmetic surgery or the best surgeons you then can pay for private health insurance yourself. Not your employer.

I never understood the US system or why people who bail out banks to the tune of a billion would think that providing basic health and social safety nets is a socialist bogeyman! Our system just works better in that respect.
Posted by: anon1   2010-05-19 10:03  

#3  Most states should have in their Constitutions a cap on any and all state funded retirements to the level of the average tax payer of the state. Want to raise your retirement - then raise the productivity and income of the average taxpayer. That's motivation.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2010-05-19 09:55  

#2  Retire at 50 with 90% final years salary.... Where have I heard this before... Greece maybe?

Posted by: CrazyFool   2010-05-19 09:13  

#1  The legislation in question was enacted in 1999, and it took this long for the WSJ to cover it? Geesh.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2010-05-19 09:06  

00:00