Sunday, December 29, 2013

When governance caters to Wall Street rather than a good economy and 'the citizen.'

When Wall Street destroys it's consumer base by impoverishing 'the peasants' even further to soak up profits instead of investment in it's future, it also collapses the tax base of the government at all levels. The most dramatic example of the tax base collapse was in the investment Americans made and their cities made in the value of housing, namely Property Tax that supports schools and local services.

When the housing market collapsed, it was more than Americans that lost their investment in their own homes, it was the local and county governments that lost their income. What then occurred was more and more contraction of government employees and services. Cities and towns are still recuperating from 2007 and 2008. 

For the life of me I don't understand why any government provides tax incentives for failing businesses. It only creates failure in the government. If a company is marginally struggling then it is a benefit for the local economy, but, if there is major failure, the government should simply let it happen. Best example of that is Dell computers and North Carolina. It was a complete failure. Why even go there? Why allow loss of revenue to the treasury? It was more hope than actual product base. "Build it and they will come."

The future of Wall Street is anti-trust and collapse. The best example of that is Goldman Sachs and Pacific Health Systems.

The year was 2003.

Pacific Health Systems, Inc. (click here) announced today that Howard G. Phanstiel, president and chief executive officer, is scheduled to make a presentation at the Goldman Sachs Global Healthcare Conference at the Ritz-Carlton, Laguna Niguel on Tuesday, June 10, 2003....

As first glance it looked as though Goldman had a real find and would increase the competition in the health care industry. Competition is good, it brings down prices and increases quality. At least that is what is suppose to happen with capitalism. Economic pressures bring about excellence.

Pacific Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1983. It was a very unique and smart company. Besides providing an insurance base, it also invested in the industry. It had an income from premiums, but, also from sales of products within the industry. One complimented the other. What could go wrong? By every estimation this company would chug along nicely providing a good product to consumers while returning modest profits to stockholders.

Pacificare Health Systems, Inc. (click here) provides managed care and other health insurance products to employer groups, individuals, and Medicare beneficiaries in the United States and Guam. Its products include health insurance; health benefits administration; and indemnity insurance products, such as Medicare Supplement products offered through health maintenance organizations (HMO) and preferred provider organizations. The company also offers various specialty managed care products and services as a supplement to its basic commercial and senior medical plans or as stand-alone products.... 

Pacific Health Systems, Inc. marketed their insurances under two names, PacifiCare and SecureHorizons. As a matter of fact those names are still marketed. SecureHorizons was even marketed by AARP. Below is an example of the insurance over the years and some of the complaints dating back to 2010.

February 7th
AARP Scure Horizons - Insured (click here)
Secure Horizons denied my husband's claim because his doctor was not listed in their records. The Doctor's name is listed on my husband's Secure Horizon card as the Primary Care Physician. Secure HOrizon sent him this card more than a year ago. In order for us to get assistance in this matter we have to go through an appeals process. Just because they don't keep accurate or...

Why would Goldman Sachs be interested in such an investment in 2003?

Medicare Part D was passed by the US Congress in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and would go into effect in 2006. But, Goldman couldn't make it to 2006 with it's investment. Instead, Goldman went for a quick profit rather than long term investment and the healthy practice of capitalism.


So, in 2003 Goldman Sachs said to their investors this is a great idea, invest in Pacific Health Systems, Inc. and indeed they did. But, instead of the investment creating a sustainable company, it was turned around for a relatively quick profit and sold in 2005.

Published: July 7, 2005
Correction Appended

UnitedHealth Group, (click here) the nation's second-largest health insurer, made a big push into the rapidly growing Medicare market yesterday by agreeing to buy PacifiCare Health Systems for $8.14 billion in cash and stock.
By adding PacifiCare's 3.3 million enrollees, UnitedHealth will have 25.7 million members. That would make it a bigger competitor to the leader in health insurance, WellPoint, which has 27.7 million members and was created by last year's $16.5 billion merger of WellPoint and Anthem....

United Health Care, Inc. has continued to market those names and people who originally purchased policies with Pacific Health Systems in 1983 thought they would continue to have the quality they were paying for, but, with United Health Care becoming a huge conglomerate things changed.

This is the future of Wall Street. It is reflected by the fact exists a 1%. More and more companies are being swallowed up by large conglomerates. As these Mega-Companies, such as United Health Care, increase their scope to bring in more profits and decrease competition they are reducing the number of employees in mergers and decreasing their payroll when mergers are a chronic threat to employment and employees 'take what they can get.'





This is not good governance. Anti-trust exists everywhere in Wall Street. Do I have to remind we are looking at Mega-Banks? When Mega-anything occurs government loses control over governance. We know that for a fact, we witnessed it in 2008 and we are still plagued with this reality as companies seek higher and higher profits on the backs of governments and employees. There is only one scenario that is going to end this draconian capitalism that destroys markets. They will either be split up through anti-trust suits as should occur or they will collapse and the world won't be surprised. 

Will Wall Street be bailed out again? 

No.

Why?

Because the countries they rely on to bail them out won't have anything but debt and a country impoverished and where is the tax base to provide a bailout. This is NOT fantasy, this is reality. How did we get here? Because the governance of the past decades have pandered to the idea Wall Street must survive otherwise we don't have an economy or a political party for that matter. The Supreme Court after all increase the "Ante" in politics to be sure they sell out to Wall Street. 

Interesting word, 'ante.' It is used in poker as a fixed but arbitrary stake put into the pot by each player before the deal. "Ante Up." 

But, the Robert's Court has now demanded Wall Street to not only exist, but, dominate the politics, hence the economy of the USA. In doing so it destroyed a democracy and it's economy.

So, when the Right Wing screams about the national debt are they worried about the future of the country or the future of Wall Street when it needs it's next bailout?

Local economies, counties and states have to build their own economic base driven by interests that support a nation. So, when a state is faced with hostage taking as faced by Washington State, it needs to take a step back from the brink and examine what exactly is occurring and how far the blood sucking CEO will go today and in the future to secure his/her bonus. There are alternatives and unions need to have alternative answers for their members, including employee sponsored businesses that will promise to grow bigger and better than the employer they currently are negotiating. 

That brings me to the dilemma the unions are facing with the health care market and their need for assistance in resolving the matters. I think there is actually great opportunity for unions in this issue. 

Currently, the definition of Small Business by the SBA (include here) can include:

Manufacturing: Maximum number of employees may range from 500 to 1500, depending on the type of product manufactured;

Wholesaling: Maximum number of employees may range from 100 to 500 depending on the particular product being provided;

Services: Annual receipts may not exceed $2.5 to $21.5 million, depending on the particular service being provided;

Retailing: Annual receipts may not exceed $5.0 to $21.0 million, depending on the particular product being provided;

General and Heavy Construction: General construction annual receipts may not exceed $13.5 to $17 million, depending on the type of construction:

Special Trade Construction: Annual receipts may not exceed $7 million; and

Agriculture: Annual receipts may not exceed $0.5 to $9.0 million, depending on the agricultural product.

Why aren't the unions seeking to bring their employees of small business under one insurance umbrella? In other words if an employer is unreasonable in providing their own insurance, the union can enhance the options by bringing them into a large pool of it's own members. 

Unions need to seek input from the federal government in allowing small employers to place their employees into a common pool that will not only benefit the members, but, the employers as well. The employers will remain an attractive employer offering benefits much larger companies offer and still attracting employees they seek. Additionally, the insurance company(ies) will increase their client base and the ability to reduce premiums and costs.

This is a special need in our society, but, it exists. The federal government can assist solving this problem to stabilize the economy and continue valuable employee benefits being sure Americans have a good income and the benefits needed to sustain their wellness. There is a reason for the federal authority to act in solving this problem rather than simply writing waivers or throwing Americans to state pools.