Kev
Dave,

I was hoping for a response from you with respect to my 2 "political" comments on the wars and the state of our country. Please don't feel "coerced" into a reply if it is not on your agenda since I suppose it might turn into a lengthy thread.
12:34 PM Dec 9th

izzy24
Is this the same Dave Fleming that won 17 games for the Mariners one year?
3:30 PM Dec 2nd

Kev
Evan,

Yes, money is mis-defined re health care. Our leaders treat the money involved in a "how much do we lay out?" manner, a euphemism for the more accurate and disgrceful "how much do we keep?" manner. Why? Because we have no one really concerned with the people, and by extension,the country. There are so many intertwined agendas in play, and their sponsors necessarily conflict and fall back on the "not enough money" card. But we know there is enough money.

If we started with equal care for all (as all candidates did when they began their speeches) and worked backwards from there, it wouldn't be so complicated. The money is there (and by the way, where are those benefits we were to get from those rocks on the moon at a cost of about a trillion bucks a pebble?). Just as the Middle East is our Vietnam, the space program (just how much have we spent on that since JFK completely mis-identified the country's priorities with Vietnam and Space?)is our current "down the drain" program. You're right, we'll never know. And how much have we gained?

And while our leaders play their games of false progress and corruption, the real priorities to which you alluded receive less and less. Do you think the day will ever come when health, education, and welfare (neatly grouped to give the illusion of action) advance? They are in as bad or worse shape proportionately than they were when we "took our first steps for mankind". Ghettoes still exist, spawning their deadly product; the Pure Food and Drug caretakers have their hands ready to be bribed to approve something they'll have to recall in 6 months; even our sacred military is short-changed in ordnance, and aircraft is already obsolescent coming off the drawing boards, (but the contractors have been paid) and finally obsolete when manufactured, having done nothing to enhance the security of our country which is not threatened to begin with. Our public education standards have to be lowered so children can "progress" to the next grade. People still starve in the richest country in the world. Health, education and welfare are knee-jerk assertions of gov't intentions simply because they were given Cabinet status by JFK.

But we have progressed: increased numbers of casinos spring up on"Indian" property, OTB thrives, ATMs rock and roll, and countless types of credit cards and benefits are available for those who can use them, while the homeless man sits and wearily gazes at the opportunities from which he is excluded--he's seen it all before, as a child. The Art of the Deal will be the only book on hotel room tables, and our universities will offer P.H.D.s in Lobbying. Merit and integrity will be replaced by connections and success. Situational ethics perfected by R.M. Nixon will continue to guide our path.

One of my posts was correctly cited as bearing a dire prognosis. Yes, that's true, but in our present state can there be any other?




1:03 PM Dec 2nd

evanecurb
Kev: That prognosis sounds pretty dire. I agree with almost everything you said about military spending. In fact, I agree with all of it. The only point on which we disagree is that there might somehow be enough money to fix the healthcare issue. I believe that with the healthcare problem, like so many of our problems, we focus entirely too much on the money and not enough on the underlying causes of the problem.

Healthcare is far too complicated an issue to tackle and may not be the best example of this. But here's an easier one to comprehend: the illegal drug problem (specifically, hard drugs like cocaine and heroin. Not so worried about pot). People want to throw money at the problem - beef up the DEA, seal off the borders, send troops to Mexico, whatever. It used to be Colombia, now it's Mexico, before that it was Turkey or Persia or someplace.

This is a demand side problem. If we can reduce the demand for the problem, the supply side fixes itself. But the demand for hard drugs is not a monetary issue. The demand is created by sociological, familial, and societal problems. Funding for the right programs to address core problems might help, but our drug problem is merely a symptom of a much greater problem, and it's one that can't be fixed by money.

Same thing with healthcare, and with education, and with national security, and with a lot of other things. There's a lot more to it than money.
4:49 PM Dec 1st

Kev
Dave, Evan, and all,

Evan, please don't ever apologize for writing about Health Care.

Dave, et al, please seriously consider this: Our defense budget is roughly slightly more than those of Russia and China combined. Ours does not include the money spent in Iraq (and possibly in Afghanistan and Pakistan, too. I don't know why not.) Our budget also does not include the budget of the NSA, which is larger than those of the CIA, DIA, ONI, and FBI combined. Like in Vietnam, we are squandering the blood of at least 3 nations on wars which are unjust, unwinnable, and unnecessary, when there is no danger to the security of our country. In Vietnam we didn't learn how much our gov't had lied to us and how wrong the war was until the body bags of our soldiers began to accumulate to an unacceptable(?) level (we did not mention the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese civilians we had killed. Now we fight wars based on the lies of Bush and Obama. We fight for corrupt "allies" who make deals with the Taliban while our gov't tells us it will be many more years of the same. At least in Vietnam our foes were fighting for freedom, as they had been since before WWI. (At Versailles Ho Chi Minh pleaded for a free Vietnam.) Instead new nations emerged, including Israel (to be recognized in 1948, after a 30-year British "mandate") by uprooting a peaceful Palestine where Christians, Jews, and Arabs were coexisting in harmony. We paid the price of ignoring Ho's request in the sixties and seventies.
The money spent on "Defense" could solve the health care issue overnight, other issues as well, and still leave us quite safe. But even if we doubled our military budget, we couldn't pursue the path we're on. Our President will not negotiate until our opponents agree with us. We have no leaders who sincerely care for our country.

So don't stop writing Evan, Dave and anyone, regardless of which plan or side you're on, or it will fade away like Obama's "peace plan" and "tranasparent government" promise.

We are in serious financial peril as a nation. Our debt is out of control, our gov't offers no solution, China sends us poison food and defective merchandise at cheap prices which add to our unemployment rolls, but our buyers smirk and look at their improved bottom line, looking beyond the danger it represents. We cannot continue our Middle East war policy for too much longer--we simply don't have the manpower. We are prepared for a technological Armageddon-type war--we haven't the resources for a Vietnam-type war. I will be shocked if we follow our present policy without being forced to re-institute the draft at some point. We are, to put it bluntly, in danger from ourselves.





2:08 PM Dec 1st

glkanter
Sorry Dave Fleming. I was quoting a fellow reader from the reader page. Because that nonsensical stuff about public negotiations was actually posted in response to postings I had made that were similar to your's.

I didn't believe them when I posted them here, and I'm sorry my method of making a 'point' to another reader left a sour taste in your mouth.
4:17 AM Dec 1st

DaveFleming
Finally: just because YOU say an argument is over, Glkanter, doesn't mean the argument is over.

It is interesting that you use the word 'argument'...my intention here isn't to start arguments, but to have discussions. I posted that article so that we could discuss Jeter's contract, not argue about it. You know what the difference is: an argument is won or lost...a discussion isn't.

Not to single you out, but your post had an extremely argumentative tone to it: you wrote: "Do yourself a big favor and read the Reader's Posts. Then you would've learned..."

You COULD'VE written: "We've covered this in the Reader's Posts, and this is what was said." But you opted for a weirdly antagonistic tone that was rude and condescending, and it pissed me off.
2:54 PM Nov 30th

Richie
Dave, the agent works for Jeter. It's his job to be the Bad Guy, so as to shield the player. Of course anything coming from him is so coming with the player's permission.

Oh, and telling a guy very likely to wind up back with the Yankees 'try talking up Boston in the meantime!' is among the worse pieces of advice I've heard today. In smallest part because you're the only person I've heard of who thinks the Red Sox would actually want Jeter at anything near 3yrs./45 mill, never mind above. Until you hear some such sounds coming out of Boston, it's an empty bluff.
1:11 PM Nov 30th

glkanter
Q. How many #4 jerseys do the Packers sell these days?
A. Lots fewer than they would have. And that's forever.

They and Favre have let $ and fan goodwill evaporate. To the benefit of no one; the team, the player, certainly not the fans. Except maybe Aaron Rodgers. And its unlikely he will ever be the face, heart and soul of the organization as Favre had become.
2:56 AM Nov 30th

DaveFleming
I know a leak is a leak, but it's Jeter's agent, not Jeter. I mean, Derek Jeter COULD be airing this out in the press himself. He could do the talkshow and radio circuit and talk about how sad he is that the Yankees are treating him this way and how he's given his heart and soul to the team....he could make the Yankees very uncomfortable by talking about how much he's always liked Boston.

But he's not. The big news from his agent was a denial that they were asking for 6/$150 million...I think he could be a real jackass about all of this, and he's doing a decent job of not being that jackass.
1:51 AM Nov 30th

Richie
Jeter's been quiet, I'm sure, but I assumed his agent started the leaking. Any New Yorkers here who can testify regarding this?
10:48 PM Nov 29th

Richie
People love change when it's their idea, don't care either way when they themselves don't actually have to do any changing, and hate changes they have to make unless they think 'em up first. Hence the age-old business strategem: You want the Boss to do something, maneuver him into 'coming up' with the idea himself.
5:23 PM Nov 29th

Richie
The Packers sell out and have sold out every game for eons, they have a waiting list for tickets some tens of thousands long. The imbroglio over Favre never cost them a penny. The only Packer damage done was to GM Ted Thompson, whose attempts to circumvent such were so clumsy and blatantly self-serving that he deserved every bit of damage that he got.

Favre would've come out fine in Packerland, too, had he just not fed information to the Lions for their first 2008 game against the Packers. Such a petty and insane thing to do. And he'll still basically be forgiven when he enters Canton wearing a Packer jersey.
4:28 PM Nov 29th

DaveFleming
Not to make this into a healthcare debate, but....Evan writes: "I think the reason people are angry has nothing to do with communication, and everything to do with fiscal policy and taxes."

Do you really think people are angry about 'fiscal policy?' Really? Taxes?

People don't get angry about that. Saying that people are angry about taxes is like getting angry at cloudy weather: it's one of those things that just happens. People might USE the arguments that you're using to support and justify their anger, but the majority of people who are angry in America are not angry about taxes and fiscal policy.

They are angry about ch-ch-ch-change. Taxes aren't a change...taxes have always been there. What people are freaked out about is: "This new healthcare policy is different than the way we've done things, and I'm not sure if it will be better and a lot of people are telling me stories that it will be very much worse."

We're afraid of the unknown. All of us. Change is the unknown....change is the transition from the known to the unknown. We go from the world that we recognize to the world that we don't recognize.

I'm not arguing about the healthcare bill itself: you certainly know more about it than I do, and I agree with just about everything you say about it. I disagree that the details that you outline have anything to do with the weird panic that people had about the bill.
4:23 PM Nov 29th

jdw
The notion that the Farve/Packers thing helped no one (and by implication hurt the Packers) is false. It helped the Packers to send him packing. They sent the last three years breaking in and focusing on a QB who at 27 is widely considered to be one of the best younger QB's in the league. By this third season, Packers fans get it and agree with it.

In turn, Farve has been a mediocre QB in two of the last three seasons. Which wasn't too surprising: he was mediocre in two of his last three seasons in GB. He was 39 when he was shipped out of town, and now 41. Dumping his was good for the franchise, which has now rebuilt around the younger QB and has a very promising future.

If the Yanks get a Rodgers within the next few years to replace Jeter and continue to win, no one will care in New York.
3:46 PM Nov 29th

mikeclaw
You make some good points, but the key detail that's missing is what Jeter is seeking (since he considers 3 years, $45 million to be wholly unacceptable). There was one media report that suggested he wanted six years, $150 million. If there is any truth to that, then I would say the Yankees are being far more reasonable than Jeter.

The biggest surprise to me isn't the Yankees' contract offer - it's that the Yankees have chosen to play this out in the media, that they have chosen to go public and make it ugly. I don't think 3/$45m is a low-ball offer, and Jeter probably makes as much off the field as he makes on it. I think it's a fair offer, not an insulting one. Until I know what Jeter is seeking/demanding, I don't know if he is still playing by the same rules he's always played by.

But, by going public and trying to put Jeter in his place, the Steinbrenners are certainly changing the rules of engagement between the two sides.
12:58 PM Nov 29th

110phil
>What has Derek Jeter done that is in any way inconsistent to what he has always done? Where has he changed?

He had the worst offensive season of his career. That's a big change, considering it's the biggest thing the Yankees pay him for.

It's like you go into the supermarket, and there's a jug of Tide that's half normal size, and you offer to pay half the normal price because it's half the size. And Procter and Gamble calls you up and says, if you're trying to save money, why start with us? We haven't changed! We're still cleaning your clothes as well as ever! Why aren't you paying the same as you paid us last week, when you got twice as much Tide?


12:20 PM Nov 29th

evanecurb
Dave:

First, let me compliment you. The beginning paragraphs of your article, dealing with how people change, was brilliant, and right on point. Great, great writing.

As to Jeter: I don't really care. I don't really have an opinion. 3 yrs for 45 seems like a reasonable offer to me. I think he should take it. I do get your central point, though. They changed the game without telling him ahead of time. So that's on them. Still, they made him a very nice offer, and he should take it. If they were truly cutting costs, they would have made a Varitek or Pettitte type of offer: 1 year for 12 million or something like that.

Not with you on the healthcare thing. I think the reason people are angry has nothing to do with communication, and everything to do with fiscal policy and taxes. The federal government is running a huge deficit. We need, over time, to make some difficult choices and balance the budget. Throwing a huge new entitlement into the mix doesn't help matters.

I think Obama/Emmanuel's original plan, which seemed to focus equally on costs and access to care, was sensible. When they lost the battles with the end-of-life care advocates and with the big drug companies, which are the two areas of greatest opportunity to cut costs, they should have dropped the plan. Instead, they pushed ahead and lied about the fact that the plan is going to cost a whole lot more than was originally stated because of the loss of the cost-cutting pieces.

As to the people who are so rabidly against the plan: if their objections are fiscal in nature, they have a valid point. Look at it this way: an individual who works for my employer receives private health insurance as a benefit of that employment, but pays for that insurance. In the case of an employee with family coverage, it's roughly $400 per month plus co-pays. But the employer is paying at least twice that much - call it $800 per month. So the employer and employee together are paying $1200 per month for health insurance that covers them (as long as they remain employed) till they retire. Then they become eligible for Medicare. The employee is paying taxes to support Medicare, which are separate from their other taxes. A portion of the employee and employer's income taxes are also being used to pay for Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans Administration, and other healthcare related expenses.

And, with the exception of co-pays, the employee who leads a healthy lifestyle and is lucky enough to not have a major illness is not really getting much benefit from all of this expense, is paying the same for healthcare as a fat slob like me who is fifty pounds overweight or a smoker or a drug user, etc.

It adds up, and it's pretty simple. The people who are already paying a lot for healthcare don't want to pay more, because they won't see any benefit, and the country can't really afford it right now. No one believes the new healthcare plan will be cost-neutral to taxpayers, because it can't be. It will be very expensive.

I agree that the system needs to be fixed, but it's time to start making some tough choices. There are trade offs that can be made in order to have a more fiscally responsible government. The commission headed by Simpson and the other guy came up with some workable ideas. That's a good place to start. With respect to health care, the guiding principle should be to not throw additional costs on to the backs of those who are paying for the current system. Here are some very simple ideas that represent the tough choices we need to make:

1. Raise Medicare eligibility age. There can be a blue collar exception to this rule.
2. Taxes on fatty foods, sugar, salt, and carcinogens. Use the proceeds to fund health insurance programs.
3. Reduce expenditures on end-of-life care. Billions of potential savings.
4. Get rid of cross-border trade restrictions on drug purchases. Big Pharma will either reduce our costs or will raise Canada's costs. But I bet our costs will go down.
5. Liability award caps. Not a new idea, but an easy way to cut providers' costs.
6. Continue quality initiatives, electronic record initiatives, etc. that are already in place.
7. Eliminate prescription drug advertising, which creates unnecessary usage and unnecessary expense.

Notice I haven't identified any bad guys (except for the drug companies). Insurers are working on a gross margin of 10%, which means that they pay out 90% of premiums as benefits. They are not the bad guys here. Neither are the providers, nor are the well-intentioned politicos who want everyone to have coverage, and finally, the people who oppose universal coverage are also well intentioned. It's a difficult problem with solutions that require some thought.


11:30 AM Nov 29th

glkanter
Oops.. The Yankees ran off Torre 3 years ago, and he had been there along side Jeter, etc. all along.
11:18 AM Nov 29th

DaveFleming
Answering Kev:

I totally get why Jeter is pissed about the 3/45 offer...he's been the heart of that team since forever, he's a year removed from an MVP-level season, and he's Derek F'ing Jeter. And in between shelling out for A-Rod, CC, and Burnett and the inevitable shellout that they'll do for Lee and Crawford, they're going to play the age card with HIM? I think it's silly. I'd be pissed off, too. Actually, I'd go off and sign with the Red Sox, just to show how pissed off I was.

I wish I had thought about this earlier but: compare the way that the Yankees are dealing with Jeter to the way that the Red Sox have dealt with/ are dealing with David Ortiz. The two organizations are MILES apart: the Red Sox are trying to find the appropriate balance between doing what is best for the team and doing right by the guys who helped make the team what it is. That's being professional. The Yankees are being stingy jackasses. I cannot believe that Cashman would say that Jeter should test the market.

To Richie's point about leadership: I think it matters a whole lot that Jeter is there. Who else is going to be the voice of that team, the guy who sets the tone? I don't think Teixeira or Sabathia or Rivera are cut out for it. A-Rod is obviously NOT cut out for it. Robbie Cano is the obvious candidate as the next guy, but that happened this year. I think Jeter does more than any of us know. I mean, the Yankees are loaded with guys who have huge contracts, who either sink or survive. It's a tough place to play: it's absolutely brutal. And: no one has really melted down. The guys who show up and stink, they kind of fade away...the teams hasn't fallen apart. In the 1980's it was the same thing and the clubhouse was a MESS...you can't say the same thing about the Jeter-era Yankees. It's been astonishingly stable, for all the craziness that has happened during his career. Like you, I think that stuff like lieadership is generally overexaggerated...but I think that Jeter is the exception to that. I think he does matter.

And what the hell happened that I am defending Derek Jeter?! I better have my head examined.
3:23 AM Nov 29th

Richie
I'll stop now. Oh, and did I mention I really do appreciate your article? :-)
1:08 AM Nov 29th

Richie
Three, while I agree with your thesis, I don't think it can be applied here. (or all that effectively in general, either, really) I see no way the Yankees can get Jeter to understand that he fell off a cliff this year (landed on a still-useful ledge, granted, rather than all the way to the bottom), that his Gold Glove was a hilarous joke, that he projects to be an unacceptable starting shortstop pretty soon. That 3rs./45 mill is indeed overpaying for reasonably expected performance by some 20-25 mill. How can the Yankees communicate that to Derek Jeter? How could they possibly?
12:55 AM Nov 29th

Richie
Dave, can you let the 'powers that be' know you have a new article up? So they can mention it on their home page?
12:38 AM Nov 29th