Thursday, February 09, 2006
Sends a message
Feb. 7, 2006
Why is the transition Web site so slow in answering our questions? It hasn't been updated since Jan. 12. A month is a long time to go between updates. I would submit this question to the Q&A site, but obviously I am concerned that I will never get a reply.
It would be a nice gesture to try and answer at least some questions every week at the very least. To have this Web presence but not offer regular updates sends a message that Los Alamos National Security, LLC, doesn't care about us. I think answering questions is a pretty easy way to show that you do care about our concerns. When you go for a month between answers it doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling that you guys really have your act together. I can forgive you for not having an RSS feed or a blog, but to start this Q&A and then just drop it like yesterday's news is just a bad move.
Now where, exactly, is the surprise at finding the transition web site is poorly run? For that matter, where is the surprise that LANS put those clowns in charge of the site?
To the two or three of you naive enough to still believe that the situation at LANL will improve under with the new contractor, just keep thinking that. Self delusion is it's own reward.
"Then stand upwind. Sheesh, do I have to do all the thinking around here?"
They still have not defined if UCRP-LANL is what we now know as the primary UCRP. This is all that matters. What ever they do beyond this their concern and no one really care.
#005 LANSLLC Q&A NOT answered.
Former LANL employees who retired as UC employees and LANL employees who retire between now and May 31, 2006 will receive pension payments from the UCRP-LANL Plan.
Bewteen us, we have deep Lab experience and deep fiscal skills.
Our turn around time on answering questions, usually privately, is not more than a day. There are lots of answers that will not be published by anyone in a public forum but that are important.
If the answer is not known or if we do not know it, we will tell you.
Eric Fairfield - 662-3115
Eric, as far as I am concerned you and your equally greasy colleague may go take huge flying leaps into Ashly Pond. Maybe you will find some plutonium down at the bottom that the ducks have not yet eaten.
Please answer this; if medical insurance is not an issue should I take the lump sum or opt for the annuity?
How do I know this, well it's because I just got off the phone with Fidelity which are the ones who are handling my 403b. Note the URL and phone number below. http://personal.fidelity.com/global/search/inquira/resultsindex.shtml?question=fixed%20annunities
Interested in buying an annuity? 800-544-4702
Please take the time to think this over. Yes you will have to get medical coverage but you can work for Walmart and get that. You'll have to have something to do anyway.
So I ask you this question. Why would you leave your money in a fund that is totally separated from the primary UCRP and put it into the hands of a corporation that may not survive.
If medical coverage is going away then we need to know this information too, because that would be the only reason to keep your money in the UC system anyway.
# posted by ihatewhenthishappens : 2/10/2006 07:47:36 AM
Don't be surpirsed if in the near future medical for eveyone is in fact dropped.
"In a separate development, a GM retiree filed a lawsuit this week challenging a landmark health care agreement struck in October between the United Auto Workers and GM, threatening a key piece of the automaker's turnaround efforts.
The suit claims the UAW does not have the legal right to bargain billions of dollars in health care cuts on behalf of retired hourly workers, and challenges GM's ability to slash years of vested benefits."
Currently, according to the Kaiser Foundation, workers in employer-based
family health insurance plans contribute an average of $2,713 to the average
cost of $10,880 -- 25 percent. So on the surface, GM's move is not out of
line with the ''market." But with healthcare premiums having skyrocketed by
73 percent in the last five years -- five times the cumulative growth in
both wages and inflation -- you can be sure that there are even greater
three-car collisions coming between employers, employees, and health care.
That is, until we decide to relieve employers of this burden and move this
country toward some form of universal health care.
Derrick Z. Jackson's
How about some form of universal core insurance? If you are hospitalized with a life threatening condition, it would provide some level of relief not to have to worry that your family will become homeless as a result of your physical misfortune. Name some deductible ($10K? $25K?) that will eliminate virtually all "routine" liabilities for the poor insurance companies, and charge some premium that virtually all (those who want such protection) can live with, and the insurance companies can make a profit too. The kind of arrangement I have merely outlined is not unlike various other "catastrophic" insurance mechanisms that have been devised.
If a suitable core level could be agreed upon, we could get rid of the expensive overhead of inept paper-shufflers that deal with the minimal copays and such like. Medical insurance companies make a lot of money by just handling the reams of paperwork that represent just a small fraction of the reimbursed costs for medical care.
I think we are in "violent agreement" on this one. I should have made it clear that I am advocating an insurance policy that I could purchase directly from an insurance company, not some group policy via some intermediary. And I agree with you that medical and/or insurance costs would have a chance to decrease, but I won't hold my breath. I would like to get insurance that provides the kind of coverage that insurance was invented for, namely, protection against a financial catastrophe.
Why do you want to go to a socialist country when you show what is so terribly wrong with it?
I don't disagree that people are trying to push socialism down our throats, but we don't have to accept. The ballot box is the primary place where you need to express yourself. I think that the general movement from defined benefit to defined contribution plans for retirement is a good thing and away from socialism. We need to move social security in that direction, too, but there seem to be too many special interest groups blocking this necessary change.
The first step in turning things around might be to get a grip. Maybe some politicians want the things you foresee, but not the ones I'm voting for. Try replacing superlatives with comparatives and eliminating some comparatives altogether. Renounce the use of absolutes. Not every "war that we have gone to in order to defend others against tyranny has come back to bite us in the ass" and some wars came to us and we have had to bite back. And not all of it was for nothing. To paraphrase Churchill's famous dictum: "Democracy is a bad form of government, but it beats the crap out of whatever is in second place."
Churchill never used the word "crap."
And just for the record, and for all the previous posters' benefit, he DID say,
"If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging."
[-Editor. ...By the way, we, the Middle Class, are in a really DEEP hole in this Best of All Possible Capitalist countries. In case you hadn't noticed.]
The popular Churchill quote should be:
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Sounds pretty close to what "pinot rules" said.
I know how Churchill phrased it. I chose to paraphrase it because it sounds more emphatic to use the word "crap" (which I am sure he did use when the occasion called for it). I am well aware of the middle class situation, which I am experiencing along with the rest. But I've looked at the maps and I haven't found another country I would rather call home; it beats the crap out of whatever country is in second place.