On another blog, there's a discussion of Walker's parks-labor plan. One of the Lefties argues that Walker's plan is bad. No surprise.
Perhaps you recall that the Lefties have argued (falsely) that "Healthy Wisconsin" will deliver health-care to EVERYONE in the State for no real increase in cost. Nobody believes that, of course--not even the Lefties.
How do I know that? They TOLD me:
Walker gives you a tax freeze, so you pay no more in taxes, but you get less in services. That would equate to a tax hike, thus saving one nothing, but hurting everyone.
See where he's going? He argues that Walker's plan will maintain costs and reduce services. The Left also argues that Healthy Wisconsin will (roughly) maintain costs and INCREASE services (or the number of people served.) In fact, they claim that health-costs will be REDUCED because all those eeeeeeeeeevvvillllllll Administrators will be unemployed:
...the Lewin Group actually found that HW would reduce health care spending by over $750 million in the first year alone.
Hmmmmmnnn.
Looks like a case of "Whose Goose" to me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I find it very dishonest of you to not also post my response. So here is what I wrote:
And regarding Healthy Wisconsin, the one thing the conservatives keep failing to mention is that while one's taxes goes up, the payments to private insurance would be massively reduced, if not eliminated altogether. This would save the individual money for the same service level. That would be good, unless you own stock in the insurance company.
It is not reducing the quality of service, Dad, like Walker's plans for the park would.
It wasn't a case of being "unfair," capper--it was simply that I wasn't around for several hours yesterday.
BTW, your response blows another hole in your general thesis.
Thanks!
OK, Dad, I give.
How is equal or more service for equal or less money a bad thing, and less service for equal money a good thing?
In fact, the HW plan will NOT decrease costs; it will increase them. Thus, "same service, more cost."
With Walker on the parks, you at least get more hours' input.
More is not always better. If you needed a life saving operation, would you rather have one experienced surgeon, or three guys that used to play "Operation" when they were kids?
An extreme example I realize, but it conveys the point. One experienced worker can be more productive than three inexperience workers, especially with the more skilled tasks.
Because of the business I am in, Capper, I am well-aware of the value of "institutional memory," not to mention plain old unadulterated "experience."
But one Experienced Employee can only cut X acres of lawn/day--an amount remarkably similar to one UN-experienced employee.
Same-o with painting benches, moving benches, painting boats, etc.
Finally--it's up to Senior Parks Management to make the appropriate assignments of experienced Supervisory personnel. And they can be held responsible...
Post a Comment