how bout this bit of news. Straight from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce's webpage.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1725:energy-a-commerce-requests-information-from-health-insurance-companies&catid=154:correspondence&Itemid=55

They are "asking" for information about pay for CEOs of insurance companies. How great! I'm sure this information won't be used for political purposes. Never...

Congress should back the fuck up and mind their own fucking business. They have absolutely NO BUSINESS even ASKING for this kind of information. It will be interesting to see what actions they will take against companies who don't comply. Let me point out that it appears this is voluntary. Either way, it's bullshit. Way to go, Waxman.

8/19/2009 7:57:36 PM

The house committee on commerce has no business inquiring about commerce?

8/19/2009 8:23:20 PM

No, the house committee on Commerce has no business asking about the pay of PRIVATE companies. This isn't "commerce." This is politics. If they wanted to inquire about "commerce," then they could ask for information about payments versus outlays. You know, the kinds of things that are really related to "commerce." And, even then, they have very little authority (Constitutionally speaking) to do even that.

But, hey, it's OK for them to do it to the big bad evil corporations, right?

8/19/2009 8:24:07 PM

Isn't Blue Cross Blue Shield not for profit? They probably enjoy tax breaks as a result. Not sure that would actually tie into CEO pay, but it kinda pisses me off when you hear that BCBS dropped millions upon millions to sponsor some golf tournament in Cary some years back (IIRC) while my premiums went way up that same year.

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 10:28 PM. Reason : -]

8/19/2009 10:27:39 PM

trust me, your premiums didn't go "way up" on account of that golf tournament.

8/19/2009 10:30:32 PM

Quote :

"No, the house committee on Commerce has no business asking about the pay of PRIVATE companies."

Just drop the act. How many of these companies are publicly traded? And how many of these companies are already regulated in some fashion by their states and the fed?

Quote :

"then they could ask for information about payments versus outlays."

They aren't doing that as well?

Quote :

"You know, the kinds of things that are really related to "commerce.""

Yeah, I guess I should forget all the risky speculating AIG did when writing contracts they thought they'd never have to make good on and their execs got fantastically rich on all the fat profits they got from that. And then the taxpayer bailed them out. WHY SHOULD WE CARE HOW THEY ARE COMPENSATED. RISK MEANS NOTHING. Just like denying claims means nothing.

Quote :

"But, hey, it's OK for them to do it to the big bad evil corporations, right?"

I'm fine with any sort of watchdog.

^ Yeah, trust him. This guy is clearly enlightened about the the expenditures and profit margins of BCBS.

8/19/2009 10:44:29 PM

Quote :

"Just drop the act. How many of these companies are publicly traded? And how many of these companies are already regulated in some fashion by their states and the fed? "

exactly. There are likely tons more ways the gov. protects these companies that you could figure out if you sat down and thought about it.

8/19/2009 10:52:06 PM

Quote :

"No, the house committee on Commerce has no business asking about the pay of PRIVATE companies."

Remind me why health insurance should be a for-profit venture again? These people make money off of denying claims to people.

Quote :

"But, hey, it's OK for them to do it to the big bad evil corporations, right?"

Yes this is actually right but far be it from you to see it.

8/20/2009 10:04:16 AM

just another pathetic smoke and mirrors attempt

8/20/2009 10:15:52 AM

Quote :

"Just drop the act. How many of these companies are publicly traded? And how many of these companies are already regulated in some fashion by their states and the fed?"

Regulation is one thing. Completely invading their privacy is another. Is there any evidence that they are doing anything wrong? Nope, not a damned bit.

Quote :

"Yeah, I guess I should forget all the risky speculating AIG did when writing contracts they thought they'd never have to make good on and their execs got fantastically rich on all the fat profits they got from that. And then the taxpayer bailed them out. WHY SHOULD WE CARE HOW THEY ARE COMPENSATED. RISK MEANS NOTHING. Just like denying claims means nothing."

Guess what we should have done with AIG? Let them die. You know why? So bullshit like this would be avoided in the future. What a terrible argument for congress overstepping its authority...

Quote :

"I'm fine with any sort of watchdog."

Don't we already have that? That's right, WE DO!

Quote :

"Remind me why health insurance should be a for-profit venture again? These people make money off of denying claims to people."

Remind me again why it shouldn't be? But, I'm sure Medicare would never deny claims just for shits and giggles, right?

Quote :

"just another pathetic smoke and mirrors attempt"

Nice addition to the thread. I'm glad you are OK with Congress trying to intimidate companies that don't want to be put out of business by gov't's unConstitutional power grabs.

8/20/2009 8:24:03 PM

Quote :

"Completely invading their privacy is another. "

How is it invading their privacy, especially when they work for publicly traded companies where most of the board has their compensation as a matter of public record. Why should VPs and directors making 500+ large really be that different, especially when they're are tons of them, and especially when we want to know if their compensation is incentivized on denying of claims or questionable "cost cutting" measures.

Quote :

"Guess what we should have done with AIG? Let them die. You know why? So bullshit like this would be avoided in the future. What a terrible argument for congress overstepping its authority..."

You can't have it both ways. You can't have industries so deregulated that they become so large that they can take down world economies when they fail. This is the part where you, without any real facts or supporting arguments, tell me how the government has meddled preventing true competition from happening and thats why these companies grow so large.

8/20/2009 8:48:17 PM

Quote :

"Nice addition to the thread. I'm glad you are OK with Congress trying to intimidate companies that don't want to be put out of business by gov't's unConstitutional power grabs."

I meant by congress... to divert the negative attention they've been getting from the public over their shitty reform bill to the super evil insurance CEOs... just like they did with the bailout

8/20/2009 8:53:40 PM

Quote :

"Guess what we should have done with AIG? Let them die."

Economics fail.

8/20/2009 8:56:07 PM

Quote :

"How is it invading their privacy, especially when they work for publicly traded companies where most of the board has their compensation as a matter of public record."

There is more being asked here for than compensation. And none of it has any bearing on the companies' legal obligations on what they must supply to regulators.

Quote :

"Why should VPs and directors making 500+ large really be that different, especially when they're are tons of them, and especially when we want to know if their compensation is incentivized on denying of claims or questionable "cost cutting" measures."

Why shouldn't they be different? Is there ANY evidence of this occurring? Why not get a warrant to figure these things out? Why not, you know, follow the law and the Constitution, instead of trying to punish companies that don't want to play ball.

Quote :

"You can't have it both ways. You can't have industries so deregulated that they become so large that they can take down world economies when they fail."

So, instead, we'll let these terrible practices continue so that they can pervade even more businesses and even further corrupt our economy? Yeah, that's a good idea...

8/20/2009 9:00:33 PM

Quote :

"There is more being asked here for than compensation. And none of it has any bearing on the companies' legal obligations on what they must supply to regulators."

Some of it certainly does. Some of it like the retreats I can't imagine they need but while they are collecting information, I don't see why not.

Quote :

"Why shouldn't they be different? Is there ANY evidence of this occurring? Why not get a warrant to figure these things out? Why not, you know, follow the law and the Constitution, instead of trying to punish companies that don't want to play ball."

Who said anything about being punished. If I recall correctly, despite all the hoopla about private jets and blah blah blah, big banks still got bailed out, the automakers still got bailed out, life is still grand in United Socialism for the rich America. If anything, this will be used for drum up more populist support and thats that. Nothing will change for these guys, it never does.

Quote :

"So, instead, we'll let these terrible practices continue so that they can pervade even more businesses and even further corrupt our economy? Yeah, that's a good idea..."

What are you even talking about?

8/20/2009 9:15:06 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, I guess I should forget all the risky speculating AIG did when writing contracts they thought they'd never have to make good on "

AIGFP did not have to make good on the contracts themselves, but just had to post collateral given the downgraded status of their credit rating. Thus, if AIG had not been bailed out, their counterparties would have only been out any mark-to-market gain less any collateral they received thus far.

Quote :

"and their execs got fantastically rich on all the fat profits they got from that"

Those who gained also lost most of it.

Quote :

"The people who lost the most when A.I.G. F.P. went down were the employees of A.I.G. F.P.: DeSantis himself had just watched more than half of what he’d made over the previous nine years vanish. The incentive system at A.I.G. F.P., created in the mid-1990s, wasn’t the short-term-oriented racket that helped doom the Wall Street investment bank as we knew it. It was the very system that U.S. Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner, among others, had proposed as a solution to the problem of Wall Street pay."

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/08/aig200908

(if you are referring to the recent bonuses, those were paid mostly to employees who were not present during the time period in question)

8/20/2009 9:21:45 PM

Quote :

"Some of it certainly does. Some of it like the retreats I can't imagine they need but while they are collecting information, I don't see why not."

Yeah, while the police are beating you on the street for being black, they might as well assrape your wife while they are at it, too, right?

Quote :

"Who said anything about being punished."

Give me a break. This wreaks of political manipulation. "What's that, you won't cooperate with us? How bout a nice IRS audit?" At least an audit would be legal, for crying out loud.

8/20/2009 9:23:15 PM

Quote :

"AIGFP did not have to make good on the contracts themselves, but just had to post collateral given the downgraded status of their credit rating. Thus, if AIG had not been bailed out, their counterparties would have only been out any mark-to-market gain less any collateral they received thus far."

And?

Quote :

"Yeah, while the police are beating you on the street for being black, they might as well assrape your wife while they are at it, too, right?"

I've seen worse analogies, but not by much. Do you have anything other than frothy rage speak? Any real arguments?

Quote :

"Those who gained also lost most of it. "

Oh god no, half of a whole lot...why, ITS STILL A WHOLE LOT.

Quote :

"Give me a break. This wreaks of political manipulation. "What's that, you won't cooperate with us? How bout a nice IRS audit?" At least an audit would be legal, for crying out loud."

wreaks huh?

Seriously, rather than getting all worked up in a lather, why don't we just wait and see what comes out of this.

8/20/2009 9:39:21 PM

Quote :

"And?"

This was partly in response to your assertion that AIG was too big to fail. My post above was to suggest it is not clear that they were.

Quote :

"Oh god no, half of a whole lot...why, ITS STILL A WHOLE LOT. "

It was half of nine years of pay. In other words, this particular exec lost far more than he gained during the 2-3-years that AIGFP was engaging in excessively risky behavior (as measured ex post)

8/20/2009 10:11:31 PM

Quote :

"This was partly in response to your assertion that AIG was too big to fail. My post above was to suggest it is not clear that they were."

It doesn't take a message board economist to know a company getting 182 billion in support from the taxpayer is too big to fail.

Quote :

" It was half of nine years of pay. In other words, this particular exec lost far more than he gained during the 2-3-years that AIGFP was engaging in excessively risky behavior (as measured ex post)"

What are the actual numbers? That 2-3 years of bubble pay probably made the previous 6-7 look like tip money. Think about it. If you're making 500,000, and you have a chance to make 550,000, you don't want to be so dumb that you put losing your job on the line for some retardo risk. But...if you can get 1 million for it, who cares if you get the boot, and you're smart enough that you figure you can do it for at least a couple years before the party is over. And big deal if you get canned, you can live for 10 years on 2 years worth of work, plenty of time to work your way back into some other VP position back to making your old 500k.


Look, this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Ziebart was our former CEO. Everywhere he has been he has left shit in its wake. Continental -> fail. Infineon -> fail. Now I think he is part of NXP. Just an old boys club is all.

8/20/2009 10:27:35 PM

The scenario above is not realistic, but even if it were, it is not consistent with AIGFP's bonus structure, which required 50 percent of bonuses to be left in the company. (per Michael Lewis' piece linked above)

[Edited on August 20, 2009 at 11:08 PM. Reason : .]

8/20/2009 11:07:33 PM

yes, when all else fails, nit-pick the specifics of a hypothetic situation

8/20/2009 11:08:41 PM

Pouring 50% of bonuses back into the company completely changes the scenario. Highlighting that fact is hardly nitpicking.

8/21/2009 10:41:58 AM

When will the House Committee on Energy and Commerce investigate and limit the pay of top education officials? The answer? Never.

8/21/2009 11:16:32 AM

Quote :

"When will the House Committee on Energy and Commerce investigate and limit the pay of top education officials? The answer? Never. "

cause i'm sure they are not paid that much

As long as the insurance companies and banks have public funds than congress has every right to investigate their pay. If the AIG CEO wants a 50 million bonus fine... however when shit hits the fan they should not come running to the gov't for a bailout.

8/21/2009 11:59:26 AM

Quote :

"cause i'm sure they are not paid that much"

HURL

You are a stupid fucking stooge who never does anything but talk out of his ass. Education administrators are some of the highest paid employees in the nation.

Bowles: Pay policy is too generous

Quote :

"Chapel Hill -- After more than three years as president of the UNC system, Erskine Bowles believes changes need to be made in the system's 'retreat rights' policy that allows chancellors and other senior administrators to collect full administrative pay while taking time off to prepare for a return to a faculty position."

http://heraldsun.southernheadlines.com/orange/10-1191507.cfm

And, yes, Bowles is a Democrat. But he didn't start pushing trimming top officials' pay until his own ass got in a sling over the issue.

PS: STFU, dumbass.

8/21/2009 12:12:26 PM

This is all politics (if they wanted compensation numbers, someone could secretly ask the IRS). The reason why they want this known is so the public will go ape you-know-what on private insurace providers. This is to boost support for the public alternative they are going to force down our throats one way or the other.

We were told the bank and auto industries were investigated because they failed and our economy would collapse. Well guess what congress, insurance companies arent failing and the public is pretty darn healthy...I can only imagine what the excuse will be.....

8/21/2009 1:25:22 PM

^ It isn't just compensation, read the links.

Quote :

"You are a stupid fucking stooge who never does anything but talk out of his ass. Education administrators are some of the highest paid employees in the nation."

Holy Fuck, how god damned wrong can you be about something economic related again.

Erskine Bowles salary in 2006 was 425 THOUSAND of which he donated 125 THOUSAND for scholarships. Aetnas CEO made 24+ MILLION last year and has been granted .2 BILLION in stock options while he has been there (at least, I think that is lifetime and not an annual amount last year).

They have several VPs that made 5+ MILLION last year.

You're out in left field on this one, in a ballpark on Uranus.

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 1:48 PM. Reason : .]

8/21/2009 1:43:20 PM

With out all those bonuses they may not be able to afford their yacht club memberships and beach houses in the hampton's

8/21/2009 1:51:38 PM

^^ Eat shit and die in a house fire, you bald-headed idiot troll fuck. (1) Bowles is the one who said some top administrators' salaries are too high--if you disagree, take it up with him. And (2) he was speaking about chancellors and presidents and so on.

Bowles: Pay policy is too generous

http://heraldsun.southernheadlines.com/orange/10-1191507.cfm

STFU, you dolt.



[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 1:54 PM. Reason : ^ You too. ]

8/21/2009 1:54:09 PM

Have you considered professional help for your anger issues?

8/21/2009 1:56:20 PM

^ Have you considered fucking off? No? Do it.

8/21/2009 2:01:24 PM

We'll do this slowly since 43 years seems to have really slowed down your ability to stay up.

Did you or did you not say this:

Quote :

"When will the House Committee on Energy and Commerce investigate and limit the pay of top education officials? "

Did you or did you not say this:

Quote :

"Education administrators are some of the highest paid employees in the nation"

Is Erskine Bowles an administrator of education?

If that statement is true, would the President of an entire university system be the top official? If those statements are in fact true, then your statement that they are some of the most highly paid is categorically false.

If the statements are not true, then what is his job classification?


[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 2:04 PM. Reason : .]

8/21/2009 2:03:22 PM

Quote :

"(1) Bowles is the one who said some top administrators' salaries are too high--if you disagree, take it up with him. And (2) he was speaking about chancellors and presidents and so on. "

administrators may or may not be paid too much, but this argument is in a completely different ballpark, hell, a different fucking sport, than CEO pay

8/21/2009 2:04:36 PM

^^ It's classic kooksaw:

1) Make a statement.

2) Provide a link (a la salisburyboy).

3) If anyone disagrees with the statment, just say: "I didn't say it. The link did!"

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 2:08 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2009 2:07:41 PM

^^ No, it is absolutely not.

People are arguing that we can get into CEO pay because of federal money being involved--there is even a "pay czar" determining this in some cases. Some are even arguing that all CEO and related salaries should be capped, whether they receive federal money or not--but this is another matter.

If the "received federal money" argument holds for CEOs, then it should absolutely hold for top education officials, too. After all, colleges and schools receive all sorts of federal money of various sorts. And UNC System's Bowles has even said that top officials' salaries are too generous.

But far-left loons like many here see those who run corporations as greedy little men like the Monopoly guy--lighting cigars with hundred-dollar bills. SOAK THE RICH! Well, I call bullshit.

^ Just shut the fuck up, troll stooge.

8/21/2009 2:15:04 PM

Quote :

"If the "received federal money" argument holds for CEOs, then it should absolutely hold for top education officials, too."

You're so frothy, that you've forgotten that public university pay is already open to the public.

And said pay is already directly regulated by government (the states)

Thus making this statement:

Quote :

"When will the House Committee on Energy and Commerce investigate and limit the pay of top education officials? The answer? Never."

incredibly dumb.

8/21/2009 2:19:42 PM

Quote :

"And said pay is already directly regulated by government (the states)"

LOL! Except when it isn't. Have you even heard of the Easley scandal? Do you read?

And what does openness have to do with it? You are obfuscating again. Yes, salaries were openly too high for the ROI. And?

What a fucking dunderhead. Just wow.

8/21/2009 2:25:22 PM

The UNC board of governors are named by the General Assembly.

How much more direct can it be?

8/21/2009 2:34:22 PM

8/21/2009 2:35:38 PM

^ I have no idea what that is. Is it what you take to resolve feeling like a woman inside?

Just asking.

8/21/2009 2:50:28 PM

I guess that means you haven't been taking your medication lately.

8/21/2009 2:57:54 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmExAiCcaPk

8/21/2009 3:02:06 PM

Kookslaw is way more fired up today thanIwe've seen him in awhile? Did your wife leave you or something? Did starting the new semester remind you of how worthless your life really is?

I don't think there is anyone better in this section of ignoring an absolute owning like it didn't just happened. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

8/21/2009 4:21:19 PM

Fail Goat Tumor

8/21/2009 7:23:36 PM

seriously, can you guys take your cock-fighting elsewhere?

8/21/2009 7:30:24 PM

^ I would like to have a serious conversation, but I'm just sick of being trolled. And, yes, I'm aware that I should just let it go--fuck 'em, though.

8/21/2009 7:36:31 PM

I don't see how posting that picture shows you would like to have a serious conversation.

8/21/2009 7:38:04 PM

^ *Sigh* It made me happy at the time. But are you taking me to the woodshed, aaronburro?

8/21/2009 7:41:23 PM

nope. just telling you to act at least half your age

8/21/2009 7:42:02 PM