Runaway health costs are rocking municipal budgets

Discussions about the the ridiculous tax evaluations alot of homes received during this recession. (Great timing). Also, any discussions about taxes at all.

Runaway health costs are rocking municipal budgets

Postby moretpani on Sun Feb 28, 2010 2:20 pm

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massac ... l_budgets/



Perhaps Tack can put a spin on this one as well.
moretpani
 
Posts: 2038
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Runaway health costs are rocking municipal budgets

Postby ELLE2 on Sun Feb 28, 2010 5:09 pm

It seems to me there should be makings for a major lawsuit. I mean think about it. The people that legislate and negotiate union contracts benefit directly from the health plans they approve. Isn't that a major conflict of interest? I wonder why that's legal and why legislators are allowed to approve spending that benefits them directly. What movitivation do any of them have to change the current system? None is what I think. At the state level the governor has to sign off but what about at the municipal level? Where are the checks and balances. Perhaps if elected officials were not eligible for benefits they'd have a stronger stomach at the negotiating table.
ELLE2
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 8:14 pm

Re: Runaway health costs are rocking municipal budgets

Postby tackleberry on Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:28 am

Runaway
tackleberry
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:01 am

Re: Runaway health costs are rocking municipal budgets

Postby bferrari on Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:24 am

This has been on the Jim and Margerie show on the radio all morning. The outrage is unbelievable and just a single case of runaway costs that we taxpayers have to make up. When does this end? Despite the color change of Massachusetts from Blue to Red, still nothing is changing.
User avatar
bferrari
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4189
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Runaway health costs are rocking municipal budgets

Postby reginas on Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:37 am

History of public sector unions shows why they should be banned
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
02/27/10 4:26 PM EST
Doug Ross has a useful and concise history of public sector unions that demonstrates with undeniable clarity why public sector unions should never have been allowed to organize in the first place.

Unions can make sense in the private sector where the purpose of an enterprise is to provide products and services needed by people who can pay for them and in the process allow the firm to generate a profit to be shared in mutually agreeable proportions among owner and employees. The profit is the essential measure of whether the enterprise is viable.

But in the public sector, there is no such measure because the state can only tax wealth created by others. So in order for public sector employees to gain a bigger share of tax revenues, either the taxes must be increased or spending on some other public activity - police protection, public schools, regulation of prescription drug safety - must be decreased.



http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... ector.html
reginas
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 2:01 am
Location: Regina S.


Return to Taxes