Let the market decide

This is a response to the bill submitted by Rep. Brian Bolduc, D-Auburn, that would limit hospital executive salaries to $70,000.

The idea of limiting salaries and overtaxing high income earners is very much socialism. When Congress legislates how much one person can earn, it will limit how much everyone earns by default.

The real “economic injustice” is how many state employees make more than $70,000 per year and will be paid pensions after they stop going to work. Tax money is literally confiscated from people who earn it, such as a hospital executive who makes $1 million and pays $360,000 in payroll taxes.

How much money does the average person pay in tax annually (state, federal, property, sales, fees, etc.)? Think of it in $100 bills that have to be handed over.

Democrats love legislative power and fuel hatred toward capitalism to increase that power. Conservatives believe in free markets and that the government should be minimal.

Some people will earn more money because some do more, such as run a hospital.

The message is clear that people in the private sector do not want government, by virtue of legislation or taxation, dictating what they can build and who they must hire and how much they make. Let the market decide. If they make the wrong decisions they disappear, unlike anything government.

Robert H. Boothby, Livermore

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.



What would you like, sweetheart?

What would you like links for? I usually don't have time to make a thesis out of these posts, so I usually just pull numbers from the top of my head, which I usually admit may be off. Also, I guess my posts must have links, references and footnotes(footnotes, seriously?) to be certified as legit. I must read too fast and skip over all the other footnotes(what a joke) that other people must be putting in. In a serious note, can you even put footnotes in on SJ posts?

RONALD RIML's picture

A thesis? - It's not for Oscar Meyer I want links....

I know - mistruths might not have ready reference. It's difficult to link those right away.

(1) Footnote

Couple things...

There appears to be some liberal disagreement on whether the market is 'free' or not. The argument that it is not free is kinda silly-to an extent. For the most part we've had a free market since the existence of the American economy. Every now in then we have recessions. There have been roughly 32 since the mid 1850's alone for an average of one every 5 years! Crazy huh? I mean, main stream media now likes to portray recessions as the end of the world, which no doubt doesn't really help anything. Granted some are worse than others. In all cases, obviously, the market recovered since the general trend of the economy overall in the past 160 years has been upward. Recessions also never last more than a year. I can't remember the avg length but it's somewhere just under 10 months I believe. So did the free market result in the 'crash' in 2008? Sure, I guess. I believe it was also made worse by some people playing pretty loose with the rules of investing on top of a housing bubble that burst. But bubbles have existed for ever! And they usually result in a burst, which results in a recession. The .com bubble of the early 2000's all the way back hundreds and hundreds of years ago to the Tulip bubble. Which leads to the next point of when recessions had a hard time self correcting. There are really two instances of a bad recession that I can think of, and only two(feel free Ron to look this up as I may be wrong)where a recession didn't recover in less than a year. 1930's and 2008. In both cases, huge amounts of government interference also took place. What a coincidence. Hoover, under enormous pressure, stepped in and raised tariffs which only backfired and forced the world into a deeper recession. FDR was elected in, what, '32? Even with all of his government spending, the recession, now turned depression, lasted (insert Ronnie bold text AND underline) for almost a decade! If we never entered WWII, who knows what would have happened in the economy. Now we fast forward to 2008. I still remember sitting at home, watching BO come on TV and using some pretty crazy scare tactics and saying we needed to pass this huge spending bill right now or unemployment will reach 8%. It passed. And unemployment hit 8%. And kept on going and hasn't looked back since. Granted the economy has recovered a little but there are also rumblings that there may be another recession on the horizon, when we haven't even fully recovered from the last one. So, long story short, to say we don't have a free market is silly, and to say it doesn't work is even more silly.

RONALD RIML's picture

Instead of inserting my Name - try using actual references.

Is that too difficult for you???

You state you're attending school? Then you should be familiar with footnoting, references, etc. You might even try an html link. Depending upon the site, it might lend some legitimacy and authority to that which you speak.

RONALD RIML's picture

The "Free Market" - Isn't......

But what would we know after the latest crash.........

 's picture

free market

Wasn't it the invisible hand of free market forces that nearly destroyed the economy a couple of years ago?

 's picture

Well from the silly to the really stupid.

"The idea of limiting salaries and overtaxing high income earners is very much socialism." Mr. Boothby obviously doesn't know what socialism is or apparently he think red is blue. But I've given up trying to explain to the various dimwits who through "socialism" around like they know what it means. No more attempts at education. I'll just reply in kind.
Only fascists can believe this sentence - "The real “economic injustice” is how many state employees make more than $70,000 per year and will be paid pensions after they stop going to work - is true. A true comparison of state workers pay and benefits to the private sector taking education, experience, organizational size, and responsibilities into account show that public service workers make less than equivalent private sector jobs and receive slightly higher benefits (a trade-off for lower salaries most benefits involve a range of benefits. Sometimes the trade-off benefits the worker sometimes the administration). Why should the market decide for hospital executives but popular vote decide for teachers, firemen, police, and other government workers.
Since the market decides based on monopoly market power and irrational whim it seems a poor choice. No such thing as a free market exists or has ever existed and no one hates free markets more than the capitalist elite. The free market is another oversimplification used to misleading those incapable of critical thought.

 's picture

If Maine caps ...

... at $70K the salaries of hospital executives, all the current executives will leave for positions in states with rational governments, to be replaced by execs from the bottom of the barrel who can't find positions anywhere else.

 's picture


Isn't that what Lepage wants to do with state employees?

 's picture

No. Lepage wants them to end

No. Lepage wants them to end their collective, union orchestrated tantrum and realize they have it a lot better than most of us who pay for their nice situations. Besides that, if better than average salaries and benefits are supposed to be attracting top notch public employees, it's not working.

RONALD RIML's picture

Actually LePage wishes to seize power

as He is going to be "Daddy Government who Knows Better;"

Watch what he does - not what he's incapable of saying.

 's picture

we know

We already know what he's going to do - big tax cuts for the well off, massive social safety net cuts for the least able to defend themselves.

 's picture

You must remember what it was

You must remember what it was like before 1980, when the telephone company had a monolopy. No one called long distance until after 5 pm or just on the weekends. When the monolopy was broken and competition was allowed you could call anywhere for pennies. The same thing would work for health insurance if people were motivated enough to do the research and find the best plan. Last year there were over 1,300 companies in the country that offered health insurance but only 6 were allowed to sell in Maine and it was essentially the same across the country. Those laws were put in place to protect the local insurance companies, so get rid of the law, allow any regulated company to sell here and don't make a boiler-plate policy for everyone. Allow people to do al-a-carte, design their own policies and the cost will be reduced dramatically. Also don't tie it to employers, allow it to follow the consumer. I am aware that the average democrat (government dependent person) has had the will to do for themselves sapped out of them by the drugs of laziness and dependency but the majority of Americans are still capable enough to know what is right for them and their families. You are not smart enough to tell me how to live.

 's picture


Health insurance companies are monopolies. Searching among monopoly plans does not create competition. Only by repealing the insurance companies monopoly will you get competition and as we saw last year no one Republican and a small minority of Democrats (from insurance states) wants that.


Efficiency drives profits. Hospitals want efficiency because it provides more profit for them. Efficiency in hospitals profit you and I. When you take out profits, you lose efficiency. I'll take the hospitals in America that run for profit any day of the week over hospitals anywhere else in the world that run for service.

RONALD RIML's picture

You might get 'efficiency' but not health outcomes.

It appears we're not doing that hot.. --> http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/nm/us_healthcare_oecd_spending

"Cash-strapped governments can no longer raise spending to improve healthcare at the breakneck pace of recent decades, so they must make systems more efficient to offer quality care at no extra cost, the OECD said Monday.

The Paris-based Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) noted that improving efficiency can do more to raise life expectancy than simply spending extra money.

Healthcare is now one of the largest sectors of government spending, and one likely to be curbed by the global economic and financial crisis, OECD economists said in a report.

They found that Australia, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland and Iceland get the best health outcomes for the money they spend, while Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Slovakia and the United States have the widest margin for improving health outcomes without spending any more.

RONALD RIML's picture

Sure - Let the Market Decide

It's only 'Health Care' - which we run as 'For Profit' while almost all the rest of the civilized world runs as 'For Service.'

Steve Bulger's picture

Two points, Ron

First: we are NOT the rest of the world; we have survived the myriad political, industrial and financial revolutions experienced in other parts of the world because of (and in some cases, in spite of) our common spirit, defense of freedoms, and willingness to put our lives on the line against enemies foreign and domestic. While we have our problems, we remain the primary destination for immigrants from other countries. Why? Because compared to the rest of the world, we still enjoy more personal freedoms (Patriot Act notwithstanding) than any other country.
Second: when you start ignoring the profit motive in your rare books business and begin selling at cost, you will have standing to criticize any other "for-profit" industry...including healthcare, which is a privilege and a blessing but NOT an inalienable right as asserted by your philosophical brethren.

 's picture

your idea of

your idea of service?

England's health care system has many different aspects to it and overall I would feel uncomfortable to have to rely on the English's health care system for anything other than getting me two aspirin and a cup of water. Depending on where you go in England and what city you're in will depend if you are actually getting professional care or something equivalent to Dr. Kevorkian. Overall England's health care system has its ups and its downs; however for most of the population of London who does not do health care privately I would say England is committing genocide among the people in low socioeconomic levels.


I could go on but what is the sense, you have convinced yourself that the government is the solution not the problem.

 's picture


I don't know anyone who has not been misdiagnosed, mistreated, or been the victim of fraud in the American Health Care system. My mother was almost killed over christmas by a hospital which without any apparent reason decided that the medications which had kept her alive for years just weren't right.

 's picture

Cool Aid

Ron your the caricature in everything you post on here. Socialism seems to be your way of life. Keep drinking the socialist cool aid.

RONALD RIML's picture

Do you rail against our Socialized Military, David???

Why not???

Steve Bulger's picture

As you well know, Ron,

anyone entering the U.S. military relinquishes, on a temporary basis, certain individual rights and freedoms enjoyed by the greater citizenry. In order to offset some of those sacrifices, the military provides benefits and services unparalleled in the private sector. Even with those benefits taken into account, american service members' standards of living fall well below those whom they protect. You call it "socialized"? I call it the epitome of patriotism. Try another tack.

RONALD RIML's picture

It has nothing to do with 'Rights' or 'Patriotism'

It's run on almost a completely socialized model because thats what works.

Everyone gets fed, clothed, and housed. Everyone gets 30 days vacation per year. Everyone gets medical care

And do you think it's a privilege to be able to work 22 hours a day, and get paid the same amount as though you worked two hours a day? Doesn't sound that way to me.

The military is much more closer to the 'Socialized' model than it is the 'Capitalist' one - and it has nothing to do with relinquishing rights.


Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...