|
Post by wollstonecraft on Oct 10, 2011 17:53:53 GMT
straight car insurance where I live (BC, Canada) is mandatory, and there is a provincial provider that you must get your primary insurance from, with optional stuff available through alternate providers. Recently they introduced a change that increased what was mandatory (possibly to squeeze out the alternate private insurers?). Insurance rates are based on where you live, and if you are accident free (accidents deemed not your fault, like when someone ran a red light and hit my car didn't count against me) then you get a 5% discount for each year of driving (capping at 43%). If you are in an accident, you go back down a number of steps (depending on where on the discount chart you are), capping at 205% for really bad drivers. Between the two my insurance started around $2000 a year (first car 7 years after getting my licence, 35% discount, new driver would have been ~$3000), living in a densely populated area (higher rates). Right now (rural, cheaper base rate area, 43% discount) I just bought a 2-year old car and insurance was under $1200. My old car is closer to $800, and when I waived collision on a really old junker, it was even cheaper than that (I'd have payed more in collision over 2 years driving than the vehicle was worth) The only trick to the system was that it pays to get your license as soon as you can, age is irrelevant to calculations and the system assumes that if you have your license, you are driving. ICBC are crooks. They're still trying to track me down for a fine on demerits for a speeding ticket I paid off in '08. -WSCraft
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2011 14:13:20 GMT
I am going to go out on a limb here and will kindly ask that this not be re-posted anywhere. Insurance is nescessary. That is unavoidable. However, what is also a fact is that it is often also a horrible scam.
Here is an example. People get very old and rather incapacitated. These people require long-term skilled nursing. Incredibly expensive long term care. That usually means their assets are entirely liquidated and everything they have worked for their entire life is gone. Not terrible so far, right?
Not until we consider the actual costs of this care. Often these nursing homes are in massive chains which are, incidentally, owned by massive pharmacies. You might not think too much about this kind of thing until you are working as a dispatcher for a pharmaceutical courier and are called on to dispatch a "STAT" medical delivery, 200 miles away at a cost to the patient of over $300- the "stat" medicine being a bottle of over the counter stomach-antacid which could be purchased at a local pharmacy for less than $5.00. And it happens over and over and over again. Who foots that bill? The insurance companies and the taxpayers.
Massive institutions like the Insurance Industry and Federal Government are certainly nescessary. But we need to be incredibly careful about who we elect- the people who are entrusted to regulate to the gain of The People, and not to the gain of themselves as individuals, corporate board members, or political parties.
I really think as constituents we have been incredibly neglectful, even stupid. At least in America. I strongly believe that the only ideology worth following is that which mandates the individual makes informed decisions for themselves. I dislike both left and right wings as I believe in the context of popular culture they have evolved into something that more resembles a professional sports league or an ongoing soap-opera, than serious representations of actual political ideologies.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Oct 28, 2011 16:15:41 GMT
The problem isn't that ideology isn't serious, it's that it exists. Ideology is the adherence to a set of beliefs, or doctrine, even in the face of contrary facts, and that problem is FAR worse on the right these days, which has been caught up in its trickledown Reagan ideology for over 30 years, despite utterly no evidence that it has ever worked, and copious amounts of evidence to the contrary.
Avoid the tendency towards false leveling. Sure, it helps you to sound unbiased, but it's no more truthful than the ideology.
Funky
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2011 3:30:54 GMT
The problem isn't that ideology isn't serious, it's that it exists. Ideology is the adherence to a set of beliefs, or doctrine, even in the face of contrary facts, and that problem is FAR worse on the right these days, which has been caught up in its trickledown Reagan ideology for over 30 years, despite utterly no evidence that it has ever worked, and copious amounts of evidence to the contrary. Avoid the tendency towards false leveling. Sure, it helps you to sound unbiased, but it's no more truthful than the ideology. Funky I am certain to have a general emotional bias based on life-experience (as have we all) but generally I make every attempt to be intellectually honest where politics are concerned because I think that kind of honesty is ones duty as a citizen and most importantly a human individual. There are many who would argue that Reaganomics worked, but I am not going to get into that mess. Because it is a mess as a discussion, one with no real conclusion other than people slapping their ideologies against one another. Likewise it could be said that the left has been stuck in the same ideological loop for the past 140 years, starting with enlightened despotism and moving through the various phases such as the Marxism as a reaction to Mercantilism; opposing satellites in orbit around the false axiom of economy as a zero sum game. Many would argue that much modern leftist thought is still in the orbit of the "Marx" satellite even in the absence of its polar counterpart and the very axiom around which it revolves. The left and right to me are interesting in a phenomenological or even ontological sense- like biology, it is interesting to see how things evolve organically. I can't say what is right for you or for others. But I do know what is right for me, and that it is wrong for others- individuals or institutions- to attempt to coerce me to taking a view that is not my own, or living a life that is counter to what I choose. In so much that I do no such wrong to others, I am sovereign in choosing what is right for myself. If there is any ideology I follow, it is this. Where institutions harm me, I am against them, where they aid me I am for them, and I obviously would be prone to be biased towards those institutions which advocate or otherwise do not infringe upon my sovereignty as so defined above.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Oct 29, 2011 7:10:47 GMT
I am certain to have a general emotional bias based on life-experience (as have we all) but generally I make every attempt to be intellectually honest where politics are concerned because I think that kind of honesty is ones duty as a citizen and most importantly a human individual. Intellectual honesty is necessary but not sufficient. You also need intellectual rigor - the willingness to examine the theories presented in the light of fact. Wikipedia calls 'there are many' weasel words, because they attempt to legitimize a position by means of unspecified authority. The truth is that the vast majority of economists regard trickledown as the joke that it is. There IS a real conclusion to be had, in fact, if you study economics. I'll give you the short version here. Reagonomics (more generally known as supply-side economics) was, like most ideologies, based on a nugget of truth - in this case, that lowering taxes on 'job creators' - the wealthiest, by means of lowered capital gains taxes, chiefly - stimulates business growth. There is truth to that - definitionally, altering net profits alters incentives. And yes, we've had fairly phenomenal growth in GDP for the last four decades - more on that in a moment. Reaganomics holds that the prosperity that results from this economic growth will naturally 'trickle down' to the rest of society. The notion is that the economy is therefore best stimulated at the top. Reaganomics had a more specific component as well. They theorized that, by means of the resulting growth, tax revenues could actually be increased despite a decreased rate. It's important to realize that this theory, despite being completely crackpot, is based on real economics, something known as the Laffer curve. The curve shows the amount of tax revenue based on percentage rate. It peaks somewhere between 0% and 100% taxation, and is zero at both those points, because at 100% taxation, no one pays taxes. It encapsulates the twin notions of depressed growth and tax evasion at higher tax rates. It was based on this curve that Reagan advocated cutting taxes. The net result was a drop in revenue, indicating - according to the curve on which his policy was based - that rates had been BELOW optimal revenue rates. So, to the extent that his policy was based on that curve, it was completely backwards. I won't even get into the other serious problems there, like basing policy on the assumption of criminality - I'll just note that these facts are why Reagan wound up RAISING taxes SEVEN TIMES. In short, Reaganomics does not work, and has never worked, when it comes to tax magic. What is less clear is how effective it was at stimulating growth. We've certainly had phenominal growth in GDP, but nothing that stands out as as a result of a given policy (see, e.g.: this graph), until very recently, when we saw the first serious contraction of the economy since the Great Depression - at the end of an 8-year administration that engaged in heavy supply-side policy. It would be unfair to attribute that drop entirely to supply side policy - deregulation of the financial markets allowing fraudulent financial instruments also had a lot to do with it - but it certainly didn't help matters. What it DEFINITELY has been effective at is wealth redistribution. During the last three to four decades, nearly all the gains in GDP have translated to wealth for the top 1% in the country, with the other 99%'s staying nearly stagnant. This is not the result of a single policy, but of a broad spectrum of policies targeting the less well-off: refusal to raise the minimum wage, refusal to peg tax brackets to inflation, lowering estate taxes and capital gains taxes, and attacking unions, to name just some of the highlights. The wealth has not been trickling down, it has been concentrating. In a capitalist system where success is ostensibly based on hard work, it is now the case that it is far easier for those with money to make money, and to keep it - the more income you have from capital gains, the less you get taxed. The wealthy 'job creators' are sitting on more wealth than ever now, and yet they are not creating jobs - instead, they are cutting them. Reaganomics/supply side 'economics' as a job-creating engine is just not working as advertised (it never has). But why? The answer is simple. That ideology ignores facts in favor of beliefs, and thus leaves out half the economic picture - demand. We are in a giant demand pit in this country at present, because the vast majority of the country simply doesn't have the money to buy the huge amount of goods we're producing. You can rachet supply through the roof (and we have), but it won't do a damn thing without that demand. All this you would know if you had studied economics. Reaganomics is fantasy, invented by wealthy people to make themselves wealthier. It's done a damn fine job of that. And until we get that demand, through short-term counter-cyclical government spending on jobs programs putting money into the hands of people who will spend it instead of sitting on it, our recovery will continue to languish. It 'could also be said' that Zod the pink gorilla sitting on my shoulder created the world from banana farts - that would be somewhat more plausible. You're rapid-firing the weasel words again, by the way - 'it could be said', 'many would argue' - if you're interested in intellectual honest, I would search up that term on wikipedia for a full explanation. But I digress. Let's break that giant turd down into clumps. First, the left hasn't HAD an ideology to speak of since the 60s - it's been marked mostly by pragmatism. The caricature the right paints of the left relies heavily on dire warnings of socialism and communism, this is true, but most of the people issuing those warnings don't understand either of those words, and likely think Marx's first name is Groucho. Second, you have your eras confused. Marxism was a reaction to the industrial revolution's working conditions, not mercantilism. Some neomarxists - many, in fact, take a dim view of mercantilism and imperialism, but Marxism itself wasn't much concerned with it. His focus was on class struggle, not geopolitical trade - he just viewed that struggle on a global scale. Third, Marxism doesn't posit the economy as a zero-sum game - but POLITICAL POWER. Of course, it didn't use those terms, since game theory didn't exist at the time. The left ALSO does not posit the economy as a zero-sum game - they simply differ on the best way of stimulating it - which I've already outlined above. Their approach is founded not in ideology, but in economic theory and historical precedent. About the only thing you said in there that WAS accurate is that today's lefty thinking owes a lot to Marx. It certainly does, and for good reason. Marx's theories were generally sound, save for one severely flawed assumption - that human nature could change. It was this that led him to premise a system of economics and government that stood in opposition to rational self-interest, instead of one that took advantage of it, as capitalism ideally does. You should be reading Marx, not treating him like a bugbear. If you trouble yourself to LEARN the underlying economics, you start to realize what a bogus bill of goods the right is pushing. It is for this reason that they rely on such bugbears in the first place - they can't rely on economic truth. Take, for example, their rabid opposition to unions, which has been estimated to be responsible for 20% of the growth in wealth disparity in the past 3-4 decades (see, e.g., this paper from the department of labor). This is in part because compensation inequality has outpaced wage inequality - multi-million dollar golden parachutes versus pension cuts. This opposition to unions is fundamentally ANTI-CAPITALIST. Yes, you heard right. The right has done their best to tar unions as Marxist conspiracies (BUGBEAR! RUUUUN!), but they are fundamental to the proper functioning of a capitalist society, as a counterweight to the naturally organized forces of industry. Here's a quote for you: So, which pinko commie do you think wrote that? Marx himself? Engles? I'd try to sell you on Elizabeth Warren but I suppose the language and mention of parliament kill that sell. Give up? That was the Prime Mercantilist himself, the Father of the Market, Adam Smith, in the Wealth of Nations. In short, without unions, industry has labor over a barrel. And the right in this country has quite successfully been pushing their Orwellian 'right to work' agenda for decades. They aren't interested in the efficient operation of the market. They're interested in concentrating wealth and the power that goes with it. Yes, it is indeed interesting. In fact, there's a particular term for this kind of evolution of thought and counterthought evolving over time - dialectic (coined by Hegel, originally). It's a core concept in Marxist thought. Oops. It seems some of your own thinking ALSO owes a debt to Marx. Abandoning the search for absolute truth, as opposed to relative, 'right for me' truth, is just as big a cop-out as false leveling. The truth is out there for the taking, with sufficient application of intellectual rigor. That definition is so vague as to be useless. Every application of law could be construed of as violence done to the individual - one of the main strands of thought in political theory is the evolution of the conflict between the individual and society. Today's right leans towards rabid individualism - they like to pretend that public good - another core concept of the market system - simply doesn't exist, and that government is always a negative. I'm happy to debunk that view to the extent that you're invested in it, but I can't tell from your remark if it's worth my time. In any event, thanks for the coding break. Funky
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Oct 29, 2011 15:56:07 GMT
Just posting to bump, since proboards errored when I posted my last, and apparently didn't mark the thread as replied to.
Funky
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2011 2:24:03 GMT
Wikipedia calls 'there are many' weasel words, because they attempt to legitimize a position by means of unspecified authority. The truth is that the vast majority of economists regard trickledown as the joke that it is. There IS a real conclusion to be had, in fact, if you study economics. I'll give you the short version here. Reagonomics (more generally known as supply-side economics) was, like most ideologies, based on a nugget of truth - in this case, that lowering taxes on 'job creators' - the wealthiest, by means of lowered capital gains taxes, chiefly - stimulates business growth. There is truth to that - definitionally, altering net profits alters incentives. And yes, we've had fairly phenomenal growth in GDP for the last four decades - more on that in a moment. Reaganomics holds that the prosperity that results from this economic growth will naturally 'trickle down' to the rest of society. The notion is that the economy is therefore best stimulated at the top. Reaganomics had a more specific component as well. They theorized that, by means of the resulting growth, tax revenues could actually be increased despite a decreased rate. It's important to realize that this theory, despite being completely crackpot, is based on real economics, something known as the Laffer curve. The curve shows the amount of tax revenue based on percentage rate. It peaks somewhere between 0% and 100% taxation, and is zero at both those points, because at 100% taxation, no one pays taxes. It encapsulates the twin notions of depressed growth and tax evasion at higher tax rates. It was based on this curve that Reagan advocated cutting taxes. The net result was a drop in revenue, indicating - according to the curve on which his policy was based - that rates had been BELOW optimal revenue rates. So, to the extent that his policy was based on that curve, it was completely backwards. I won't even get into the other serious problems there, like basing policy on the assumption of criminality - I'll just note that these facts are why Reagan wound up RAISING taxes SEVEN TIMES. In short, Reaganomics does not work, and has never worked, when it comes to tax magic. What is less clear is how effective it was at stimulating growth. We've certainly had phenominal growth in GDP, but nothing that stands out as as a result of a given policy (see, e.g.: this graph), until very recently, when we saw the first serious contraction of the economy since the Great Depression - at the end of an 8-year administration that engaged in heavy supply-side policy. It would be unfair to attribute that drop entirely to supply side policy - deregulation of the financial markets allowing fraudulent financial instruments also had a lot to do with it - but it certainly didn't help matters. What it DEFINITELY has been effective at is wealth redistribution. During the last three to four decades, nearly all the gains in GDP have translated to wealth for the top 1% in the country, with the other 99%'s staying nearly stagnant. This is not the result of a single policy, but of a broad spectrum of policies targeting the less well-off: refusal to raise the minimum wage, refusal to peg tax brackets to inflation, lowering estate taxes and capital gains taxes, and attacking unions, to name just some of the highlights. The wealth has not been trickling down, it has been concentrating. In a capitalist system where success is ostensibly based on hard work, it is now the case that it is far easier for those with money to make money, and to keep it - the more income you have from capital gains, the less you get taxed. The wealthy 'job creators' are sitting on more wealth than ever now, and yet they are not creating jobs - instead, they are cutting them. Reaganomics/supply side 'economics' as a job-creating engine is just not working as advertised (it never has). But why? The answer is simple. That ideology ignores facts in favor of beliefs, and thus leaves out half the economic picture - demand. We are in a giant demand pit in this country at present, because the vast majority of the country simply doesn't have the money to buy the huge amount of goods we're producing. You can rachet supply through the roof (and we have), but it won't do a damn thing without that demand. All this you would know if you had studied economics. Reaganomics is fantasy, invented by wealthy people to make themselves wealthier. It's done a damn fine job of that. There is a good reason why wikipedia is not considered, by any means, authoritative. It is a bit ironic that you state that intellectual rigor is as important as intellectual honesty but then use as a thesis statement for your summary of supply side economics, a quotation from the least intellectually rigorous source possible- wikipedia. Saying "the vast majority" of economists is as hyperbolic as saying "many economists"; it is making the same kind of intellectually "non-rigorous" statement, but only more assertively. I say you many, you say the vast majority. The vast majority of economists are what got us into this financial mess, and if as a vast majority, economists lack the ability to substantially affect the actual economy then their profession is as impotent as a profession could actually be, purely academic as it were. Academic as in theoretical or speculative without a practical purpose. Much like this rhetorical discussion. Which is why I said I don't want to get into "reaganomics" because it becomes ideology vs ideology in the worst academic sense possible. We might as well be seeing who can spit the farthest for all the good that kind of discussion does. It does nothing for either anyone's intellectual rigor or honesty. I hate bickering, especially when it takes the form of fake intellectual discussion. No one cares whos is bigger. If you studied economics you would understand that some economists are for supply side and some are against it. The "vast majority" argument is at best an argument for "the vast majority" of any time frame, and this time frame is not looking so good. Note, I am not a fan or advocate of pure supply-side economics. I just can't see entirely dismissing it as an idea based only on what you just wrote, in quotes, above. I agree money needs to be in the hands of people who will spend it, the issue is getting there. I don't think government spending will do the trick. It hasn't for the past 5 years anyways. This is why people avoid political discussion. You are going to make what I said look as ridiculous as possible while trying to make me look stupid in the process. The entire above quoted paragraph shows that your interest in this discussion has more to do with making yourself feel clever and making other people and ideas look ridiculous. This apparently is the result of a very expensive education; a cautionary tale for anyone still reading. I have no interest in making you or your ideas look stupid, or in having me or my ideas look stupid, so I will cease participating in this discussion now. I should not have posted this here, as your response, though disappointing, should have been expected. If coding was getting tedious, I am glad you got a break from it. But one should continue to do what one is actually good at, even if they find it tedious sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Nov 1, 2011 2:07:06 GMT
Wow. I'll give this a proper response after I drop the update. Funky
|
|
|
Post by AW O'Reilly on Nov 6, 2011 22:52:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Nov 6, 2011 23:46:47 GMT
Because NO ONE wants to pay it, and our system is overburdened by lobbyists, and the republicans racheted the price of votes through the ceiling with their unprecented obstructionism. Not really a tough question. The fact that no one wants to pay it is why it's necessary to begin with - it's regulation in answer to an externality, doing it what it should be. You mean it will give republicans an excuse to excoriate the notion that we should care about the health of our fellow man. Again, the ideology is very one-sided here - the liberal side is all about pragmatism these days - I mean, Christ, they used a frigging republican's health care plan, which, thanks to rabid propaganda by Fox et. all, he now has to run away from in his bid for president. Hilarity. DEATH PANELS!!!!111 On a more serious note, you're correct, unions should not be getting exemptions (though those pale in contrast to the things their counterparts, the corporations, have carved out as benefits). Even more seriously, everyone in America should belong to a union, though I think I touched on that above in my Smith quote. And, of course, your point about fairness should ALSO apply to the tax code, which is an obscenity at present. But, thanks to those same lobbyists, we're unlikely to see that happen. That's just one of the things I love about the OWS movement - their rejection of corporations as people, and money as speech. Those two concepts by themselves are undermining our democracy. That's unfortunate, and likely a result of the absurd budget squeeze forced on us by the right. If, however, we look at actual rather than anecdotal evidence, we see that 'Obamacare' as practiced in Mass. is able to provide cheaper, better care, and that most people like the system. There's no reason to think a public option would be any different - look at how people react when you talk about laying a finger on their Medicare. Republicans SHOULD love this - it's federalism at work. One state experiments, experiment successful, the union learns from it. Those beating the drums insisting that care will get worse are doing so largely based on ideology and anecdote, not fact. Palin herself made use of socialized medicine in Canada, opting for it over the options provided her by the American system. That's the larger point - those whining about lines getting longer are whining because those making them longer would actually have a chance to stand in line - to get health care - to begin with. And, of course, that assumes that the supply of doctors would not increase to match demand, which is also absurd. None of the arguments are based in reality, but in ideology bent on making the rich richer at the expense of everyone else. The sooner all the not-rich people who have bought into that ideology realize it, the better. My first job was at a US Attorney's office, as an intern, and that's where I'm hoping to end up, so I'm not sure what you're driving at. I CAN tell you that there is vast gap in representation between rich and poor in this country, much as there is with provision of health care - often to the extent that one could question it's constitutionality (right to a fair trial). And it's not because the government is running the public defenders office, but because they're not able to offer competitive salaries or hire enough attorneys, thanks in part to the Bush budget crunch (the AZ prosecutors offices are in much the same bind, with not even cost-of-living raises in the last three years, and absurdly high turnover). As to all professional services, I should think not. But, of course, the government IS already in charge of regulating them - why do you think we have state bars? The worst excesses happen when that regulation is stripped away or undermined in the name of ideology or short-term profit. We've seen a lot of that in the oil and mining department as administered by Bush, where regulators were getting drunk, high, and having sex with those they were regulating ('regulatory capture' just doesn't quite do it justice). The government is highly effective in its proper role, when you give it a chance. Just look, by way of example, at the gangbuster year the FBI is having. Seriously people, set down the ideology goggles and take a look around. Neither party is right on everything, and both have serious problems, but one of the parties habitually relies on ideology instead of fact when shaping policy, which, as Communism taught us, is NOT a good thing. I would be very wary of the WSJ these days, by the way - it's another Murdoch-owned enterprise, now, and very often slants stories toward a given ideological narrative. Try the Economist instead, which is USUALLY much better, despite their conservative mores, and their thoroughly infuriating cover this week. They also have far superior international coverage to just about every other publication out there. I'll be getting back to over's post above in a couple days - I have one more prior obligation now that the update is done. I'm happy to discuss any of the above that you like, and I thank you for at least pointing to a concrete example - and a good one. Funky
|
|
|
Post by AW O'Reilly on Nov 7, 2011 2:42:50 GMT
Everyone paid before, except those that didn't have a healthcare plan. We were all paying for those folks as well in the form of exhorbitant service costs to cover emergency room visits by folks who could not pay. No change. We are still paying for those who can't pay, except now we are paying more in order to fund another bureaucratic layer of &*$% (BS) As far as the source of my facts which are facts - its immaterial since they are, in fact, facts. We hired a chicago politician and we are certainly getting our money's worth. Croneyism doesn't begin to describe how off the rails this administration is. Can anyone remember the last time we had a good and honest man in the whitehouse? I'm getting on in years - even the ones I was fond of I wouldn't want to watch my wallet while i went for a swim. I'm not sure what all the rest of your comment in this section has to do with what i was saying. Politics is politics - both sides do their share of obstructing... to suggest that republicans do more than their share is both naive and partisan. I heartilly agree with your perspective on lobbyist/extortionist/thugs or whatever those low lifes are being called today. Influence peddling is low and jeapordizes our franchise as tax paying, voting citizens. No, I meant exactly what i said, no more, and no less counsellor. My comment was to fairness - the reason that lady justice is blindfolded dont-cha-know. The Polling on this swings with alarming range depending on the polarity of the publication providing the data. The perception that the program is popular must be tempered by the fact that it has been repeatedly bailed out by the fed government since implemented and provided a $294 million shortfall in 2010 according to the Governor of Mass - a program that was projected to cost $88 million a year. Cheaper? Absolutely not. Better? Sure as long as you don't have to pay for it. With regards to the "absurd budget squeeze," every household in the USA is struggling and operating within its means, to argue that we should borrow even more money is ludicrous not to mention extremely dangerous. As far as my personal experience with the VA goes - I'm happy for the benefits and understand that when demand exceeds supply - there will be a line. Btw, I worked for the Fed Govt for 23 years - I know exactly what a large Bureaucracy does well and what it ... well... doesn't. If you are looking for efficiencies, I would not go to Uncle Sam to run things. When you get back to the US Attorneys office perhaps you will be able to set things right. Well the at the end was designed to indicate sarcasm. My point is that, IMO, the federal government has no business telling me what to purchase. Sure, It can be declared constitutional under the interstate commerce clause, but why? What demonstrated efficiencies indicate that the federal government should be involved beyond regulation with healthcare across the united states? I say efficiencies because the entire program was presented under the guise that through implementation, we would drive down the alarmingly high cost of healthcare vs GDP. All we have done is created another layer of BS. My families healthcare premiums are up 10% and co-pays have tripled. What has changed? Was reform necessary, absolutely. The key to reform is to attack the cost drivers - regulate them into line. What we will end up with is fee fixing that will marginalize the earning potential of healthcare providers which in turn will make that line of work less lucritive and consequently less attractive. The last thing that we should do is make the profession less attractive to prospective healthcare providers. My off-hand comment about the legal profession was designed to demonstrate how innapropiate the public healthcare mandate is. Personally, I don't need anyone telling me to purchase healthcare for my family. I had good parents - don't need the Fed to step in to parent me now. One last comment on the ridiculous. I saw Michael Moore, the multi-millionaire defacto capitalist joining the protestors down on wall st. saying that he was one of them... the 99 percent. Just about as ridiculous as many of the liberal hollywood stars decrying wallstreet executives for accepting large multi-million dollar bonuses. How can they even see the splinter with the huge board in their own eyes? Entertainers, Atheletes, Doctors, Lawyers, Salesmen, Retail clerks, Sanitation workers, UAW, AFSCME, all earn what the market for their services will bear - well... all but the last two do. The reason that Detroit is now the perfect set for apocolypse movies is that attempting to artificially set labor costs is not a sustainable practice. Before you argue to the contrary... Detroit... nuff said. If someone can make it better, faster, cheaper - they will. *sniff* that's not fair! No its not. So what? Vote with your pocketbook, I do. BTW, I am not a republican. I'm not sure how folks can be either Dem or Rep these days. I am a social moderate (Pro-choice, giving folks a hand to get em back on their feet, etc..) and a fiscal conservative (do what you have to to set the framework for enterprise and let the engine roar - try to keep it on the rails though - an unregulated engine will often burn out -google "black tuesday"). Folks can bag on me for my beliefs - but my values are based on observation over nearly 5 decades and an extensive personal and professional study of history and many diverse cultures - up close and personal. Ask yourself a few simple questions: Name the most successful economies over the last 100 years. USA, Germany, Japan, China to name a few... though culturally these countries could not be more disimilar. What do they have in common? Exploitation of human greed for the betterment of the entire society... Capitalism. Is that betterment equitable? Hell no. Is it better for all - all other options considered, absolutely. There might be better theoretical economic models - but none of them translate when applied to real world human behavior. Reality, what a concept. Well, I know better than to discuss politics over a drink or on the HG forums... let the blood letting begin, sigh. p.s. If I'm wrong... It has come to my attention that Wolfstonecraft has BILLIONS put away - I say lets divy it up!
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Nov 7, 2011 5:01:30 GMT
Everyone paid before, except those that didn't have a healthcare plan. We were all paying for those folks as well in the form of exhorbitant service costs to cover emergency room visits by folks who could not pay. No change. We are still paying for those who can't pay, except now we are paying more in order to fund another bureaucratic layer of &*$% (BS) I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, other than that nothing has changed, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. No, it isn't. It is the EXACT OPPOSITE, pretending that it's a wash, as you claim, that is naive and partisan. Just because both sides engage in it to a degree, does NOT make them equally bad. It is PRECISELY that oversimplification that they are relying on come election time. Even better if they can disenchant you enough with the system entirely. It is a demonstrable fact that republicans have been legendarily obstructionist this session: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_SenateThey saw an incredibly popular democratic president, saw the risk to their majority in the Supreme Court, and set out to defeat him at any cost to the country. Normally I wouldn't accuse them of something so unpatriotic and just downright immoral, but they haven't minced words - they've specifically stated his defeat as their number one priority above everything else. To that end, they've taken their politics off the right end of the cliff, and are now rejecting their own policies when he puts them before them, deliberately tanking the economy in order to keep his chances at reelection as low as possible. They have made even completely nonpartisan issues like infrastructure spending hyperpartisan, and seek to undermine him by painting his as 'other', or 'different', unAmerican and illegitimate - birtherism is of course the paradigm example. By contrast, the Democrats have been folding like sheep - until lately, their opening offers were more right than Clinton's policies. Take, for example, the debt ceiling debate - yet another historic act of obstructionism (and yes, I know Obama voted against one once, but he did so knowing it would pass anyway (and, less relevantly, he says he now regrets doing so)). Boehner himself said he got 98% of what he wanted, and this is with his party controlling only 1/3 the government (I'm treating the SC as at least theoretically nonpartisan, despite Thomas' disgusting behavior). That success was owning not just to the pathetic democratic starting position, but due to the apparently willingness of the tea party to drive the economy off a cliff. They quite literally held the economy hostage. I won't blame the moronic debt downgrade on them, despite the fact that they company issuing it did - their math was abysmal. Nevertheless, it was a disgrace. I'm happy to prattle on all night about the innumerable ways the republican party has put all other parties past and present to shame with their obstructionism, but I think I'll wait until I hear your response. I'm aware that the tendency in the media is to treat both sides as putatively credible and equal, but when you have a right-wing propaganda outfit driving a lot of the news cycles, making news with their 'opinion' people and then saying 'people have suggested' those things on their news side, that approach does NOT yield evenhanded reporting. Rather, it legitimizes positions based on smoke and mirrors. Just that agreement is sufficient for me to think we see eye to eye on any issue I actually care deeplyabout. I'll happily elaborate on the myriad ways republicans are seeking to further disenfranchise you, if you like. Both parties are in the pockets of Wall Street now (dems got bought out later, though, during Clinton 1). And both parties have their special interests which are in varying degrees bad for the country - oil vs ethanol, huge corporations vs unions and tort lawyers, etc. Unfortunately for the republican party, however, their demographic is shrinking, and the democratic party's has been growing. As a result, they've had to engage in increasingly nefarious schemes to disenfranchise likely democratic voters. First, they stir up fake allegations of voter fraud, and then they pass laws putatively designed to deal with that fraud. The laws, however, wind up having not much to do with even the fraud alleged, and wind up constructively disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of people. That is what, for example, the whole stir over Acorn was kicked up over, though that's far from the only example. They mainly do it by requiring photo id, which seems reasonable enough on its face - until you learn that the ids aren't accomplishing much, and that MANY likely democratic voters don't have them. Sorry, I was being tongue-in-cheek there. I meant cheaper than private industry can provide it AT PRESENT, not cheaper than not providing it. Important distinction. And it hasn't really been bailed out - it was based on federal funding from the start, which is why Romney's claim that he did it without raising taxes is more than a little disengenuous. Anyway, I capitalize 'at present' above, because the private insurance industry in this country is completely broken in market terms, making it easy for a public entity to outperform it. Why? Because they're the only industry other than baseball with an antitrust exemption. They don't respond to market forces any more than the government, AND they have a profit motive leading them to charge outrageous sums. Better either way. Did you know that, even after the Bush adminstration devalued the life of a human by 2 million dollars in regulatory terms, we're still each worth about 6 million? Even setting aside that approximate valuation, nearly any reasonable treatment up to and including open-heart/brain surgery is going to be a net efficiency gain for society. And that's COMPLETELY setting aside most moral concerns about the well-being of our fellow man. No, it isn't ludicrous, nor dangerous. A recession is the SINGLE BEST time for the government to spend money. Bush blew 7 trillion during his 8 years, doubling the deficit to 14 trillion and driving us into the most severe recession since the Great Depression (though again, not all his fault - deregulation of the financial industry under Reagan and Clinton was the primary cause), and the republican response basically amounted to 'Deficits don't matter.' (direct Cheney quote). Then along comes Obama wanting to spend 1-2 trillion to get us OUT of the ditch, which even highly conservative economists and publications (including, by the way, the Economist) thought was the correct thing, and suddenly they're freaking out about the deficit. Republicans screw up the budget, trying to 'starve the beast', and then suddenly find fiscal religion when the democrats gain power. There's nothing magically inefficient about government vis a vis business, despite the conservative talking points. The only advantage business has is market forces - which government regulation can and has been designed around. Take, for example, the takings clause in our esteemed constitution. The reason we have takings (aka eminent domain), which is in many respects an affront to our norms concerning what it means to own property, is to prevent a particular group of market failures including holdout and collective action problems. This is a paradigm example of government regulation stepping in to FIX the market when it breaks. The oft-repeated saw about government inefficiency boils down to anecdotal garbage - no offense to your personal experiences. It's used to justify deregulation and tax cuts where they aren't otherwise, and its use bears little relation to the reality of government inefficiency. I actually tend to agree with this. It's paternalistic, and I think they should've simply paid for it by way of a tax - and a less regressive one that they way it worked out. There are quite a few, actually. Chief among them, there's the public good externality of public health. You have an interest in the health of not only yourself but your neighbors, the kids your kids go to school with, and so on, because it helps YOU to avoid getting sick. This is why, for example, the government oversees sanitation systems, which - and I'm sorry, but I forget the cite at the moment - have been hailed as probably the single largest contributing factor to increased human lifespans. That 'externality' is not captured by the market, which means that absent regulation, too little public health service will be supplied - the government has a natural, proper role there. Sort of, yes. Actually, just undoing the anti-trust exemption would've helped. That's not why your premiums are going through the roof, though. They're going to do that no matter what happens, unfortunately. Conservative groups like the Cato institute blame moral hazard - someone else paying - but those arguments aren't terribly convincing for those of us who aren't hypochondriacs. Do you like spending your time at the doctor just because you don't have to pay for it? Most don't, having more palatable things to spend their time on. Others (including Bush 2) like to blame medical malpractice suits and out-of-control tort filings, but those attacks don't appear to hold much water when the numbers are on the table, and seem more likely motivated by desire to defund democratic campaign coffers, like the assault on unions. So, what's the real cause? Well, this industry take on it is surprisingly candid: www.unitedhealthgroup.com/hrm/UNH-Health-Care-Costs.pdfIt's complex, in short, but you can chalk it up to supply and demand. The baby boomers are radically increasing demand, and supply is struggling to keep up. Worse, demand is artificially low, like it is for most products at present, because people simply don't have the cash to spend. This is actually a fair opportunity to inject some cash into the economy. In any event, yes, the legislation was designed to help with premiums, but they're likely to continue to rise for some time now no matter what we do. The removal of the antitrust examption from the final package was unfortunate - it would've helped more than anything else. To the extent that you felt the legislation was pushed as a magic fix for the premiums, it was oversold. Actually, Ron Paul's claims to the contrary, Obamacare is going to make a lot of doctors very very rich. It's basically providing them a huge boost to their customer base. There we agree. I think the way it was done was stupidly regressive and paternalistic. I still am glad it passed, overall, however - and I'm still hoping they get an undoing of the antitrust exemption past the lobbyists. Eh, no offense, but I don't really see the problem there. If anything, advocating against your own interests lends you additional credibility. There's even a hearsay exception for it in the Federal Rules - an admission against interest. Don't get me wrong - I think Moore is an overstuffed baffoon who sets honest debate back nearly as much as clowns like Limbaugh on the right. Actually, those 'artificial' labor costs ARE sustainable, but they DO pose an incredible problem - we simply can't compete with 3rd world labor, which has not had the benefit of our unions, to land us things like the 8 hour day and a living wage. So, we're left with the choice between inefficiently LOW labor prices from lack of unionization (see Smith quote above), or protectionist policies to guard against competition in any sector where jobs can be pushed overseas. There isn't an easy answer, and neither alternative is good. Most of the economists that I call on to defend my other policy positions would be calling for my head for mentioning protectionism. We COULD start, however, by renegotiating some of our more absurd trade imbalances- with China, for example. It wouldn't solve the problem, but it'd help. Did you know that if we hadn't lost 5 million or so jobs in industry to them during Bush 2, we'd be at around 5-6% unemployment right now (adjusted, not actual, mind you - the kind that doesn't count those who are unemployed but stop looking)? And I'm not blaming Bush entirely there, though I think we'd be in far better shape had the money spent in Iraq gone to infrastructure and energy development. Globalization has a lot to do with the shifting workforce, as well. Of course, had we not saved teh auto industry, like Romney advocated, we'd be out another 1.2 million... Oh, and by the way, you're wrong about those other groups getting 'what the market will bear'. Almost all bar organizations, by way of example, impose fee ceilings of 33% (though there are market justifications for that ceiling, as with most regulation). Athletes and actors are unionized too - one reason they do so well (the other is sports teams lobbying cities for more money by threatening to leave, which should be illegal - but that's a topic for another day). I don't really read that as being super-relevant to your larger point, though, so just take it as an fyi. Then you get what is known in economic circles as a race to the bottom. Market-efficient regulations wind up getting ripped away in the name of competition, and society as a whole loses. That's what we're up against, until there is a global legal regime powerful enough to impose reasonable labor laws on an international scale. Until that time, our industries have incentive to move their shops overseas to benefit from cheap labor. Government again has a role here, in the ability to step in and slow or stop the race, but at present ours is generally doing the opposite, thanks to those corporations spending copious amounts of money lobbying - we wind up SPEEDING the race to the bottom by giving companies generous tax policies even when they engage in this behavior. It's an ugly problem, and right now, government is making it worse. Not because government is inherently bad, or inefficient, but because of regulatory capture and lobbyist dollars drowning out the larger interests of society as a whole. We seem to see eye to eye, for the most part, but for my part, fiscal responsibility - what conservatism used to mean - usually means voting democratic. I do vote republican when the candidate is actually better - rare, these days, but it can happen, and I did vote for McCain in his second-to-last senate run. Generally, though, the right in this country has gone completely batty. It's odd to me that you would point to Germany as a model after your above remarks - they have a much more progressive tax setup than ours, and a government which is MUCH more active in fostering industry (and a booming economy as a result, one that is propping up all of Europe). Germany is a hell of a lot closer to the liberal model than the conservative. It's actually my preferred model, these days, but most conservatives these days would scream SOCIALISM!11 Funky
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2011 8:46:01 GMT
I have actually been thinking about this thread lately, on my work days during some long stretches of pretty much nothing. I used to love to argue over the internets- it was one of my favorite hobbies for quite a long time. One gains confidence in ones paradigm over the years as he sees what he has accomplished working from it. So the need to argue (which is usually just a person trying to convince themselves of their own viewpoint, the longer and more passionate the argument, the more convincing they usually need) becomes pretty much ill.
Kindness, tolerance, patience- that is how I am committed to treating my fellow man, at least strangers. Hostility- that is saved for a special kind of intimacy with people who pose an actual threat. I digress.
I said I didn't want to offend and then made some offensive remarks. I shouldn't have done that.
My point is simply that I do enjoy civil discussion of important topics. I think civil discussion is fundamental to the success of civilization; a civilization being an emergent property arising from a multiplicity of simpler interactions, some of the most important of such interactions are the communication of ideas between humans.
How we treat each other in discussion is probably of more substance than the topic of discussion its self. It is at least equally important. And I am definitely of the mind that it is better to tend to the actual process of growing jobs (which pay a living wage) than pouring resources (including time) into theoretical mega-solutions.
By tending to the actual process I mean actually starting and running a business, or managing one. I see hard left positions throughout your posts, funky, and I am sure you see hard-right positions through mine. So it is instinctive to each of us that we argue. But I am way past that, see above.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Nov 7, 2011 17:27:45 GMT
I said I didn't want to offend and then made some offensive remarks. I shouldn't have done that. My point is simply that I do enjoy civil discussion of important topics. I think civil discussion is fundamental to the success of civilization; a civilization being an emergent property arising from a multiplicity of simpler interactions, some of the most important of such interactions are the communication of ideas between humans. Eh, fair enough. I wasn't particularly offended - just taking issue with how you arrive at your opinions. I'm still in the middle of posting a Moneo tutorial on the bioboards, and then I'll respond, as politely as possible. I responded to wollstonecraft more quickly because he seemed much more persuadable, and less actively hostile, which makes responses far less time-consuming. I'm pretty center of the road (assuming you don't factor in the abrupt dive off the right end of the cliff of the republican party and move the goalposts). Of course, LOTS of people will tell you they're centrists when they aren't - it's seen as a way to lay claim to a sort of objectivity or reasonableness, and fewer people like to lay claim to the title 'extremist'. The far left in this country is pretty much dead, 30 years after Reagan (and about 50 since the ebil hippies Rush likes to scream about), and while I think there technically still is a communist party, *I* certainly don't advocate for state ownership of all means of production. In other words, I suspect you're seeing what you're looking for. For myself, I'm not really taking issue with the 'right' or 'left'-ness of your positions, just how you arrive at them. I'm a pragmatist, and I don't care much about labels. I do get cheesed off by some of the notions you advance, but in the same way Elizabeth Warren got cheesed off at the guy who called her a 'socialist whore' - not at the person who said it, but at the people advancing the lies that lead him to say it. Funky
|
|
|
Post by AW O'Reilly on Nov 7, 2011 21:26:47 GMT
I will attempt to clarify: I was paying, now i am paying even more with less added value than the cost would indicate - we now have a new layer of federal administration which places a larger burden on the tax paying earners in our society.
The liberals owned the exec and both houses for two years. In that time their approval rating was south of 15%. They bulldozed over the oposition and instituted sweeping changes that while popular with their constituents, alienated a huge portion of the population. Results: split legislature which has an approval rating south of 15%. They are all making sausage and none of us enjoy watching them butcher even the simplest tasks. As to Obama's popularity... I am sure that the liberals love him, the rest of us disagree with his social policies, are disenchanted with his unsucessful attempt to stimulate the economy by further indebting us, and are disgusted with his chicago croneyism. His job approval is less than 50%, unemployment is ~10% and he has a snowballs chance if the countries course does not change dramatically. As far as your complaint that Republicans are out to get him... yes, so? Think back to how openly opposed to Bush 2 the lib and the lib media were. Try applying a little Sun Tzu here - clearly, conservatives see the far left ideology as a serious threat and are openly and unabashedly trying to throw sticks under the lefts skates. I remember when Clinton was reelected, I was baffled. It was clear to me that the electorate votes with their mind on their pocketbooks and that I was not with the majority. It was an eye opening experience for a soldier 10 years into a career. It would be like you working for DOJ with a staunch conservative running the place. Alienating. I digress. My point is, of course opposing ideologies oppose - to not do so would be to slack.
The analysis by United Health treats Doctors and Hospitals as black boxes. I totally agree with your assessment of the demand vs. supply effect that aging baby boomers has on cost, but I am going to see what I can find on cost drivers within those black boxes. I suspect that we will find that while doctors are rich, they are not getting richer proportionate to the increases in costs. As far as the magic fix being oversold, "mischaracterized" would be a stronger term, "sold a bill of goods" even better. It cannot stand as long as it is not applied fairly and equally across the population. The last thing we need is another line to divide ourselves with. Lord knows organized religion, race preferential treatment and Class warfare are doing enough of that already.
Bush and Obama are wartime presidents. To not address the astronomical cost of keeping 500k servicemen deployed on two fronts for ten years is a little myopic. The sooner we get ourselves out of there the better. Cheney's comment was that a secure society faces less uncertainty and will therefore prosper, increasing revenues, yada yada. Its about as realistic as Obama thinking that pumping another trillion into public programs will have any more effect than the last. Ludicrous. Reduce uncertainty. As uncertainty goes down, investment will go up. Simple in concept, apparently difficult to codify. The other alternative would be to just take the wealth - I don't think either of us want to see that happen. As far as to what caused the recession, it was not soley Bush's big govt spending. Post-911 congress leaned on lenders to make mortgage money more readilly available. They poured money into lending institutions and allowed big packages of home loans to be traded regardless of quality. Folks were buying houses that they could not afford with interest only loans planning to resell them in 4 to 6 years for a tidy profit at no little to no risk to themselves. The economy had been given a nice little shot of adrenaline post-911. Like a cafeinne bump, it wore out and and all of a sudden folks were upside down on houses that they could not afford across the country. The securities based on these questionable mortgages were of dubious value, you know the rest. To simply say they did "a" and it caused a recession is a bit simplistic - you seem to agree with me on this. The 1-2 Trillion that Obama wants to inject is just a snickers when we need the full meal deal. Reduce uncertainty. Folks sitting on all that money really want to make more, its in their nature.
Going to skip down a bit as we seem to agree on quite alot in the middle.
Ron Paul is a nut.
We have little leverage with China as we are their junkie. They are devaluing their currency giving themselves quite the advantage. We need them to keep buying our debt. The best thing we can do in the short term is try to live within our means and avoid creating more debt. Focus on quality and intellectual advances. We should be going after piracy world wide. I totally agree with you on the dangers of protectionism but also agree that allowing our economic adversary to manipulate the playing field while we eat what they are dishing up is unsustainable and unfair. Tough nut to crack though, since we seem to have formed a bit of a habit.
As far as unions go, my wife is an involuntary member of AFSCME. Has to pay dues so that she can work in her profession as a state social worker. Here is what her union has done for her so far: Donated 2 million to a gubernatorial candidate that she is ideologically opposed to. Provided a safe haven for lazy and uncaring workers while negotiating furlough days and pay decreases for state employees rather than trimming the fat in the bureacracy that is DSHS in order to maintain the dues that the union receives - in other words, everyone took a 3 to 5% cut except the union administration. Self serving leeches and parasites. It is clear to me that Unions were and in some cases still are vital to protecting the labor class. At the rise of industrialization, folks rarely moved 10 miles from the place they were born during the course of their life. Communications were limited and localized. Up to the point that Al Gore invented the internet it could be argued that most people were extremely isolated and fed whatever information the media saw fit. Today we are interconnected to such a degree that Unions are far less necessary. Here are two examples: Netflix decided to double its revenues by splitting their digital and physical media provisions, consumers responded instantly and virtually destroyed Netflix in a matter of days. In response to the dodd-frank act, numerous banks levied debit card fees on consumers. Consumers responded by moving their deposits to local credit unions across the US. My point is, people vote with their pocket books. Many of us buy fair trade goods from our local trade joes store. Some drive Priuses. Some don't wear furs/animal skins. Some boycott Walmart because they are an open shop. Choices. Does my wife want or need big daddy AFSCME skimming her check and acting contrary to her beliefs? It is an outrage. Shouldn't we all have a choice as to how we are represented with our employers? The idea that you have to pay the "man" to get a job is ludicrous, another freedom impinged upon.
If we each looked at our perspective target through a 10x optical sight I think we would do the palm to forehead together and see that clearly, we have the same target. The question is how to get there. Travelling around the country from 2001 till my retirement in 2009 it is clear that our country's infrastructure could use a serious going over. Unfortunately that has not been the only focus of stimulus one. You would be hard pressed to find 10 cents on the dollar of tangible value for the money that has been spent so far, im afraid. If folks are dubious on stimulus 2, can you blame them?
Hard work and ingenuity got us to the top. We should look very critically at anything we do that impinges on that ingenuity, and on that entrepeneurial spirit. Regulate what is NECESSARY to protect the citizenry. Stop mickey mousing with extending the tax-breaks etc... Just suspend them or make them permanent, in the end it really won't matter as long as someone makes a binding and semi-permanent decision. Reduce uncertainty and let the greedy little bastards get back to making money and paying taxes. Do I want them to get rich? Richer than me? I don't care - seriously, i don't. Everyone has the same chance - starts at about age 14 these days, you make a decision on how you want to live your life - then you live it.
I thoroughly enjoy the way you manage HG. Not heavy handed, you try to code misbehavior and exploitation out of our gaming experience - no small task considering how devious and ingenious some of our players are. An interesting exercise in regulation. What a fascinating Laboratory HG is I'm sure. My hat is off to you.
|
|