Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Class Warfare, Conservative Style 69
The reality is that middle-class America continues to shrink as the rich-get-richer and poor-get-poorer. The rich can invest, save, and use very little debt to sustain their living standard, while the poor rely on debt, making long-term prosperity an impossible goal.
Furthermore, as the peasants demand "more free stuff: from the government, such requires more debt and higher taxes. Those demands then divert more capital away from productive investment leading to slower economic growth. As growth slows, businesses shift to the lowest labor costs or automation, lowering income growth for domestic workers. Such leads to more demands for "free stuff" from the government, and the cycle intensifies, pushing more of the middle class downward.
Anecdotally, we maintain the same lifestyle we have for 20 years, with the money we used to waste on travel and dining out going to kids' tuition. I guess technically I'm supposed to be doing well, but you wouldn't know it, as my two vehicles have an average age of 14yrs and 200k miles each. Wife also plays https://www.youneedabudget.com/ like a video game and has us buffered for ~half a year.
It wasn't always this way with us. We didn't worry much in prosperous times. So, the discipline has only come with children. We started with https://www.ramseysolutions.com/ramseyplus/financial-peace, which is precisely where I'd point anyone in a tough spot. It is a simple, proven financial triage for anyone in need of a do-over.
Children are the issue (Score:2)
Part of the problem is that people think it is "OK" to overspend on children.
Jenny (from down the street)'s cousin said that the 'good' schools need you to have at least 3 months of helping orphans in Guatemala. But it will cost us $5700 in medical care (vaccines), clothing, airfare, Spanish lessons, etc.
We have to do this 'for the children'. Yes, it means taking out a loan. I'll just take a few extra shifts and we can pay it back in a couple of months.
Re: (Score:2)
My child never went anywhere the whole family didn't go.
But I'm more worried about those people who treat their dogs better than their children.
More of this link anyway https://www.crisismagazine.com/2022/why-i-am-voting-republican [crisismagazine.com]
Is that an accurate depiction of your feelings? (Score:3)
Furthermore, as the peasants demand "more free stuff: from the government, such requires more debt and higher taxes. Those demands then divert more capital away from productive investment leading to slower economic growth. As growth slows, businesses shift to the lowest labor costs or automation, lowering income growth for domestic workers. Such leads to more demands for "free stuff" from the government, and the cycle intensifies, pushing more of the middle class downward.
Is really quite condescending, and wildly inaccurate to boot.
Calling people below the middle class "peasants" is almost certainly not a term of endearment. When you then claim that they want "free stuff" from "the government" you imply you think they're stupid.
Let me offer up an important fact here about "free stuff". Quite nearly nobody expects it to be free. I've been campaigning for single payer universal health care for over 25 years now, and not for a second was I under the illusion that it would in any way be "free". I am well aware that single payer would mean my income taxes would go up, and I'm more than willing to accept that trade of taxes for health care.
Health care is of course only one example. Free schools are of course also not free; they are paid for by a variety of taxes (including property and income). The property taxes for schools are part of a social contract you sign when you buy property; a property in a well performing school district is more valuable than one in a poorly performing district, and you pay for that in your taxes.
We could also mention that law 911 emergency services aren't free, either. We pay dispatchers, LEOs, firefighters, EMTs, and the like through taxes. If you want them available quickly you live in a place that has higher taxes. If you don't mind the risk of your house burning down before firefighters can arrive you live further away where taxes are lower.
The notion of "peasants" wanting "free stuff" is absurd.
If we want to go on to your quoted psuedo-Reaganomics argument of claiming that businesses and wealthy people are paying most of the cost of taxes, we can easily find how wrong that claim is. Similarly the notion that lower taxes on the top would lead to more economic growth was disproven the first time we tried it (under Reagan himself), the second time we tried it (under GWB), the third time we tried it (under President Lawnchair's second term), and the fourth time we tried it (under Trump). I would have thought the first two failures would have been enough but apparently we wanted even more data on what a massive failure it would be.
Re: (Score:3)
Its also completely economically illiterate.
That "free stuff" doesnt just materialize by magic. People have to make it. That means job creation, investment in production, etc. The thing this all misses is the evidence shows that spending (and thus taxation or debt) by the government actually creates ecconomic growth. Its why those economic stimulus packages , when done *properly* (Ie dont bail out the banks, bail out the working class) can have immediate and lasting effects on consumer confidence and spend
Re: (Score:2)
That "free stuff" doesnt just materialize by magic. People have to make it. That means job creation, investment in production, etc. The thing this all misses is the evidence shows that spending (and thus taxation or debt) by the government actually creates ecconomic growth. Its why those economic stimulus packages , when done *properly* (Ie dont bail out the banks, bail out the working class) can have immediate and lasting effects on consumer confidence and spending, and thus economic growth.
Very true. Of course the conservatives will roll out the Broken Window Fallacy any time we suggest that government could produce jobs, but that misses the point entirely.
Similarly in the case of single payer health care, the conservatives will claim that it would destroy jobs, while ignoring how destructive the existing health insurance jobs are to the economy. We have a whole industry built around denying health care to people who have insurance, and punishing people who try to access health care wh
Re: (Score:2)
Let me offer up an important fact here about "free stuff". Quite nearly nobody expects it to be free. I've been campaigning for single payer universal health care for over 25 years now, and not for a second was I under the illusion that it would in any way be "free". I am well aware that single payer would mean my income taxes would go up, and I'm more than willing to accept that trade of taxes for health care.
As you said above in your reply: "wildly inaccurate".
I submit that the raw economic debacle that has been Covid affords us a case study in the wisdom of abdicating our health decisions to "experts". Today I was listening to https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/inside-the-fight-against-lockdowns/id983782306?i=1000584704046 [apple.com] featuring the author of Gone Viral: How Covid Drove the World Insane [amazon.com] to "explain how data about Covid-19 didn't match the fearmongering rhetoric used to justify more than
Re: (Score:2)
Let me offer up an important fact here about "free stuff". Quite nearly nobody expects it to be free. I've been campaigning for single payer universal health care for over 25 years now, and not for a second was I under the illusion that it would in any way be "free". I am well aware that single payer would mean my income taxes would go up, and I'm more than willing to accept that trade of taxes for health care.
Give everyone "free" health care.
As I already said, quite nearly nobody expects it to be free. In fact I'm not aware of even one person who thought that the health care reform that Obama had campaigned on would result in free health care; it was abundantly clear it would be paid for through taxes.
My wife's in pharma, and there are expensive medical conditions within my family. So, the distorted economics of healthcare are well known to me.
You're not an idiot Smitty. I'm sure you're aware of how economies of scale work. When production costs can be decreased, products can become affordable for more people. We saw it with cars, we saw it with radios, we saw it with televisions,
Re: (Score:2)
Improvement will come with analysis of why the system is a Byzantine train wreck. The overarching issue is: excessive regulation.
To accept the Lefty answer, "MOAR REGULATION" is to stomp on the economic brake and then wonder at the lack of acceleration.
The next Lefty move, blame "corporations" and "the rich" for their "greed", explains why "your tea
Re: (Score:2)
My wife will tell you that the villains are the formularies, who figure out who pays how much for what, if covered by a plan.
Except that there is actual competition there. Multiple companies can make the same medication, and lower the price as a result.
Competition in insurance though is at best an illusion and more realistically nothing but profiteering. Any time another insurance company enters a market, it only increases costs for consumers, due to one of the points I brought up in the previous comment that you did not respond to at all.
Improvement will come with analysis of why the system is a Byzantine train wreck. The overarching issue is: excessive regulation.
I'm sorry smitty but you couldn't be more wrong if you assigned the problem to space
Re: (Score:2)
Multiple companies can make the same medication, and lower the price as a result.
The economics are much more complicated than that. There is a 17yr hard limit from start to loss of patent on a drug application, during which all of the trails have to complete, the FDA approve, and the maker tries to recoup some costs. Once the medication is off-patent, competitors can market other formulations that "kinda do the same thing" with a far lower testing bar. This is why some generics are just fine, and other ones can be as useful as placebos.
The health insurance industry is wildly profitable and they are doing everything they can do maintain those incredible profit margins. The only regulations that apply to the insurance industry are the ones that they themselves signed off on, because they own the overwhelming majority of all legislators in DC on both sides of the aisle
I'll take "What is 'Regulatory Capture [wikipedia.org]'? for, oh, a
Re: (Score:2)
Multiple companies can make the same medication, and lower the price as a result.
There is a 17yr hard limit from start to loss of patent on a drug application, during which all of the trails have to complete, the FDA approve, and the maker tries to recoup some costs.
You're right on that part. Not sure what you're trying to claim with it that would some how counter what I said though.
Once the medication is off-patent, competitors can market other formulations that "kinda do the same thing" with a far lower testing bar.
They can go ahead and apply to start testing on those, but they still need approval before they can enter the market.
This is why some generics are just fine, and other ones can be as useful as placebos.
What you describe is not correct for a generic. A generic has to be the same, not just close.
The health insurance industry is wildly profitable and they are doing everything they can do maintain those incredible profit margins. The only regulations that apply to the insurance industry are the ones that they themselves signed off on, because they own the overwhelming majority of all legislators in DC on both sides of the aisle
I'll take "What is 'Regulatory Capture'? for, oh, all of your money, Alex." Thank you for being a sweetheart.
Indeed the Health Insurance Industry has achieved regulatory capture. They run the market, and they get to set the rules. What is the point you're trying to make here other th
Re: (Score:1)
The Health Insurance industry owns the overwhelming majority of our lawmakers on both sides of the aisle
Hmm, They must own all the people that will reelect them too...
The only sane solution is to abolish for-profit health insurance and replace it with universal single payer
That's not sane. There is no reason to abolish private health insurance, let them compete with universal health care, the maintenance of which will also be the voters' responsibility. In light of what they (re)elect now, they might not be up to the task.. so then what?
"so then what?" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only sane solution is to abolish for-profit health insurance and replace it with universal single payer
let them compete with universal health care, the maintenance of which will also be the voters' responsibility.
No, that won't work. The for-profit industry knows they cannot compete with single-payer on a level playing field, so they will make sure that their congress-critters write new rules for them to ensure that they never have to. We'd end up with more terrible legislation like the ACA that would continue to prop up a morally bankrupt industry, and we'd never see meaningful change. Eventually the Health Insurance industry would force congress to kill the single-payer option (in the extremely unlikely event
Re: (Score:1)
Eventually the Health Insurance industry would force congress to kill the single-payer option (in the extremely unlikely event that they ever allowed it to happen in the first place) and we'd be right back to where we are now.
You keep talking the same old circle.. All that happens only because you keep reelecting your party regulars. When your congress critters sell their souls, it is your responsibility to replace them. And besides, who amongst your DNC/GOP that you reelect is going to abolish private insurance? It's a dumb idea. Just stop handing your congress to them on a silver platter every cycle, and demand the government offer comparable service with your vote, not just your mouth
Re: (Score:2)
And besides, who amongst your DNC/GOP that you reelect is going to abolish private insurance?
Amongst the current crop, likely none of them. The Insurance lobby is too powerful to allow it to happen.
It's a dumb idea.
No, it's the only way we can ever improve the system. As I already mentioned, anything else just leads back to the current disaster. The only way to fix the broken system is to kill the Health Insurance industry completely; if we just cut off one head many more will come forward in its place and continue to make life worse for us.
Just stop handing your congress to them on a silver platter every cycle, and demand the government offer comparable service with your vote, not just your mouth
You frequently describe it as if it was that simple. Voters need to
Re: (Score:2)
we have a Democracy party, and a Fascism party
It would be awesome if we could expose you to a truly authoritarian system in some small, brief, controlled way, in order to help you get your mind right. Because if the patriots of this country were to ever play to your dark allegations even a little bit, you would totally know.
It is a blessing that we just laugh at you instead.
Re: (Score:1)
Completely bonkers... You're just being a regular partisan.
Re: (Score:2)
we have a Democracy party, and a Fascism party
It would be awesome if we could expose you to a truly authoritarian system in some small, brief, controlled way, in order to help you get your mind right.
Even if the GOP is only 90% as fascist as Moussolini, they are still fascists nonetheless.
Fascism is the extreme concentration of power, taken from the people and placed in the hands of an ever shrinking number of party loyalists. The GOP has this trait in spades, and lately has been bragging about it. When you tell us how you want to "fix" the country by taking away the right of the people to directly vote for US Senators, you are showing that you also embrace Conservative Fascism.
Fascism is, with
Re: (Score:2)
When you tell us how you want to "fix" the country by taking away the right of the people to directly vote for US Senators, you are showing that you also embrace Conservative Fascism.
*Yawn*
The empirical result of 17A was to concentrate power in DC in the port and starboard ends of the Uniparty. The Senate Marjority/Minority leaders are the two names that matter. The rest is so much show. See: Manchin.
We would reduce tyranny by repealing 17A and following the proper Constitutional design.
The Progressives sodomized our system, and here you are pretending that it was a swift call.
Re: (Score:2)
We would reduce the power of the wrong people voting by repealing 17A and following the proper power concentration design.
Fixed that for 'ya. Your fascism is showing again, smitty.
Re: (Score:2)
(a) refute my point, or
(b) elevate your accusation of fascism past simple trolling.
Tut tut, sir: tut tut.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It corrects a wrong that was past due to go away. Your interest to repeal it shows your approval of the concentration of more power into the hands of fewer people
What a balderdash analysis. There was nothing "wrong" with the original Constitutional design as such, and the empirical results--increasing incumbency and concentration of power in extra-Constitutional entities called "parties"--have contributed to the current crisis. Think harder.
Re: (Score:2)
It corrects a wrong that was past due to go away. Your interest to repeal it shows your approval of the concentration of more power into the hands of fewer people
What a balderdash analysis. There was nothing "wrong" with the original Constitutional design as such
Didn't we see the same argument come from the south when discussing slavery?
-increasing incumbency and concentration of power in extra-Constitutional entities called "parties"
Funny how that only bothers you when there is a chance of seeing power concentrated in the "wrong" party. When you see an opportunity to concentrate power in the hands of the "right" party you're all on board and excited about it.
Re: (Score:2)
What a balderdash analysis. There was nothing "wrong" with the original Constitutional design as such
Didn't we see the same argument come from the south when discussing slavery?
You're seriously juxtaposing Senators appointed by the several states with chattel slavery?
Shirley, you can't be serious.
Funny how that only bothers you when there is a chance of seeing power concentrated in the "wrong" party. When you see an opportunity to concentrate power in the hands of the "right" party you're all on board and excited about it.
False. Concentration of power is wrong, irrespective of power, noting Lord Acton.
Your "that only bothers you" is mind-reading, and quite rude.
Re: (Score:2)
What a balderdash analysis. There was nothing "wrong" with the original Constitutional design as such
Didn't we see the same argument come from the south when discussing slavery?
You're seriously juxtaposing Senators appointed by the several states with chattel slavery?
Yes, I am comparing them. Just as elected officials tried to use the constitution and the bible to defend slavery, you are trying to use the constitution to defend taking voting rights away from people.
There was a time when governor-appointed Senators made sense, just as there was a time when the Electoral College made sense. That time has passed for both.
Funny how that only bothers you when there is a chance of seeing power concentrated in the "wrong" party. When you see an opportunity to concentrate power in the hands of the "right" party you're all on board and excited about it.
False. Concentration of power is wrong, irrespective of power, noting Lord Acton.
Then you should not be supportive of concentrating power by revoking citizens' rights to elect their senators directly.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a time when governor-appointed Senators made sense, just as there was a time when the Electoral College made sense. That time has passed for both.
Other than your assertion, what do we have to on here, please? Because I think your point is undercut by the crushing weight of the extra-Constitutional "Party" system that has emerged.
Then you should not be supportive of concentrating power by revoking citizens' rights to elect their senators directly.
You cheerfully (deliberately?) ignore the real-world incumbency impacts. Be more systemic in your view, and reduce tyranny.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you should not be supportive of concentrating power by revoking citizens' rights to elect their senators directly.
You cheerfully (deliberately?) ignore the real-world incumbency impacts.
If you are implying that some senators have been around too long, how would removing the right to vote for them change that? When you take that right away from them, what is to keep a governor from re-appointing a senator who seems to be doing good for the state in their eyes? Plenty of states have no term limits for governors, which makes it plenty likely that you could see the senators being constantly re-appointed by governors.
Be more systemic in your view, and reduce tyranny.
I am not aware of a single example in history where anything that any reas
Re: (Score:2)
what is to keep a governor from re-appointing a senator who seems to be doing good for the state in their eyes?
See, there's these "voters"...
Who is more beholden to their electorate: a governor, or an incumbent Senator?
Empirically, the former. Change the statehouse, and change the Senate.
I am not aware of a single example in history where anything that any reasonable person would ever describe as "tyranny" was reduced when the right to vote was revoked from the people.
I'm also unaware of historical systems that compare reasonably with ours. Keep it moot, brah.
Re: (Score:2)
what is to keep a governor from re-appointing a senator who seems to be doing good for the state in their eyes?
See, there's these "voters"...
So why put the Senators an extra degree away from the voters? The voters absolutely should be voting for them directly. Taking that right away only does more to secure the career of an
incumbent Senator
I am not aware of a single example in history where anything that any reasonable person would ever describe as "tyranny" was reduced when the right to vote was revoked from the people.
I'm also unaware of historical systems that compare reasonably with ours.
That is a spectacular example of special pleading that you just provided there. Plenty of countries thought they had democracies before their government starting removing voting rights.
Re: (Score:2)
So why put the Senators an extra degree away from the voters?
We'd be undoing a grave error of the Progressives that contributed to the wreckage before you.
I'm also unaware of historical systems that compare reasonably with ours.
That is a spectacular example of special pleading that you just provided there. Plenty of countries thought they had democracies before their government starting removing voting rights.
Oh? Stating that I don't know about alternative possibilities (precisely none of which you have offered here) is asking for an exception? Are you feeling well? The normal mode from you is closer to bullying, not this sloppiness.
Re: (Score:2)
So why put the Senators an extra degree away from the voters?
We'd be undoing a grave error of the Progressives that contributed to the wreckage before you.
You're partisanship is showing. Thank you for sharing with us your underlying motivation - not that it was ever really unclear.
I'm also unaware of historical systems that compare reasonably with ours.
That is a spectacular example of special pleading that you just provided there. Plenty of countries thought they had democracies before their government starting removing voting rights.
Oh? Stating that I don't know about alternative possibilities (precisely none of which you have offered here) is asking for an exception?
Multiple fascist regimes took away voting rights from their people while installing their "new and improved" or "traditionally awesome" government. I am not aware of a single example of a case of a country that called itself a democracy that took away established voting rights and did not do that while sliding towards fascism.
In other words there is a reason why only fascist
Re: (Score:2)
You're partisanship is showing.
s/partisanship/patriotism/
From you, "partisan" is an indicator of correctness. Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not aware of a single example of a case of a country that called itself a democracy that took away established voting rights and did not do that while sliding towards fascism.
Your team is sodomizing our democracy with mail-in ballots.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not aware of a single example of a case of a country that called itself a democracy that took away established voting rights and did not do that while sliding towards fascism.
Your team is sodomizing our democracy with mail-in ballots.
Your baseless allegation is not a terribly amusing distraction. My statement remains true that I am not aware of a single case of a country that called itself a democracy that took away established voting rights and did not do that while sliding towards fascism. Can you provide a counter example?
Re: (Score:2)
I am not aware of a single case of a country that called itself a democracy that took away established voting rights and did not do that while sliding towards fascism.
We're still not a democracy. We're a federal republic tending, toward a strange necropolis under "your team's" zombie apocalypse.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not aware of a single case of a country that called itself a democracy that took away established voting rights and did not do that while sliding towards fascism.
We're still not a democracy
Do we currently elect our lawmakers? If so we are a democracy. You can go for the CIA world fact book dancing-around-the-meaning-of-words definition but at the end of the night countries who elect their lawmakers are democracies. Countries who start by saying "you can elect all of these people", and then reduce that to "you can elect this smaller subset of people" have with no exceptions that I am aware of made that transition while sliding towards fascism.
Re: (Score:1)
We'd be undoing a grave error of the Progressives that contributed to the wreckage before you.
You completely fail to explain what makes that so. You have yet to reveal any change in the senate since the 17th passed. Tell us, what made them better before then? People constantly (re)elect corrupt governors. Why give some tycoon the senate as their megaphone in DC?
Re: (Score:2)
The only sane solution is to abolish for-profit health insurance and replace it with universal single payer
That should be abundantly clear.
Let me see if I've followed what you're saying. Regulatory capture is bad, so...the only sane solution is...the ultimate regulatory capture?
“It became necessary to destroy the system to save it,” [thisdayinquotes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Let me see if I've followed what you're saying. Regulatory capture is bad, so...the only sane solution is...the ultimate regulatory capture?
Wrong. As I already plainly laid out, the regulatory capture that has happened already is that the Health Insurance industry has captured the government and they are setting their own rules for their own benefit.
âoeIt became necessary to destroy the system to save it,â
I have no desire to save the existing system. The existing system is detrimental to the consumer, the economy, and the entire nation. The system needs to be destroyed, instead we keep propping it up to the sole benefit of the Health Insurance industry itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that it's really hard to do anything about the government in the oppressor role.
I guess if one views the government as some sort of deity, then perhaps the oppression becomes a form of ecstasy?
Re: (Score:1)
Except that it's really hard to do anything about the government in the oppressor role.
Nonsense. We can completely replace its leadership every two (four) years. And unlike the dollars, the votes are evenly distributed, in theory... The power is ours to squander.
Re: (Score:2)
the difference between a single, government oppressor and a set of Health Insurance/Pharma/Legal System oppressors is mostly one of cardinality.
Not in the least. The Government is beholden to its citizens. The Health Insurance industry is only beholden to itself and its shareholders. The Government is responsible for maximizing health care outcomes; the Health Insurance industry is responsible for maximizing profit.
Except that it's really hard to do anything about the government in the oppressor role.
It's much easier to turn over congress than it is to change the direction of travel for a giant corporation. On top of that, the government has to have accurate death records and could be held liable for the increase in death by pr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's much easier to turn over congress than it is to change the direction of travel for a giant corporation.
*pssst*: (government is the ur-corporation)
Re: (Score:2)
It's much easier to turn over congress than it is to change the direction of travel for a giant corporation.
*pssst*: (government is the ur-corporation)
In the broken health care system that exists in this country, the government is reduced to - at most - a middle man. They have essentially no real power in the current setup, and it's time to give power back to the people. There is no way to accomplish that without the wholesale destruction of the for-profit model that we exist under today. Just like in so many other cases, there is no reason why the powerful would want to voluntarily give up power.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no way to accomplish that without the wholesale destruction of the for-profit model that we exist under today.
Whatever we do, we cannot allow actual market competition and liberty with minimal regulatory constraint.
Once we blow up any proper notion of free-market capitalism, your "no way" assertion starts to get kinda truthy.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no way to accomplish that without the wholesale destruction of the for-profit model that we exist under today.
Whatever we do, we cannot allow actual market competition
Health care is not a product that is suitable to market competition, as the market has shown repeatedly. Everyone needs health care, which means every company offering it knows they are guaranteed customers as a result. We then tried to help the industry with the ACA, which only gave them more power.
What we've created in this country is a tutorial on the problem with pursuing a market-only solution to this problem, we ended up with the market participants dictating for the consumer what they must do
Re: (Score:2)
with minimal regulatory constraint.
We let the Health Insurance industry set all the regulations - as you pointed out they themselves executed a perfect example of regulatory capture - and we see what happened as a result. The industry has regulated consumers out of choice, and charged them extra for that.
Special pleading.
As with rent control [amazon.com], excessive regulation distorts the markets and drives up costs. This is neither bad luck, nor magic.
Re: (Score:2)
with minimal regulatory constraint.
We let the Health Insurance industry set all the regulations - as you pointed out they themselves executed a perfect example of regulatory capture - and we see what happened as a result. The industry has regulated consumers out of choice, and charged them extra for that.
Special pleading.
I'm not sure what those two words together mean to you, but your use of them certainly doesn't match this commonly used definition [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]. Indeed I have frequently asked you to examine your own beliefs, and you have refused to do so.
As with rent control, excessive regulation distorts the markets and drives up costs. This is neither bad luck, nor magic.
Indeed the health care disaster is very much by the design of the Health Insurance industry. Delivery of health care was never a goal of the Health Insurance industry, and it never will be. The regulations that you believe are hampering them are doing the opposite, but through your
Re: (Score:2)
Delivery of health care was never a goal of the Health Insurance industry, and it never will be.
The special pleading that health care be treated differently, and quasi-religious faith that a government, composed of people, is somehow an improvement over companies composed of people is totally quaint.
Maximizing the private sector with minimal public sector regulation and oversight is how we maximize health care delivery and minimize both cost and tyranny.
You may now spin on with your fables.
Re: (Score:2)
Delivery of health care was never a goal of the Health Insurance industry, and it never will be.
The special pleading that health care be treated differently, and quasi-religious faith that a government, composed of people, is somehow an improvement over companies composed of people is totally quaint.
We've already established that this is not special pleading. You should try for a different label, and maybe you'll find one that applies here.
Maximizing the private sector with minimal public sector regulation and oversight is how we maximize health care delivery and minimize both cost and tyranny.
The actual experiences of actual Americans in this exact experiment show us that this won't work. We've given the Health Insurance industry all the power they could ask for and they gave us a terrible product, with terrible outcomes, at a terrible cost.
How could you possibly give them fewer regulations if your goal was any delivery at all? The goal should be
Re: (Score:2)
We've already established that this is not special pleading.
"We" ain't establishd jack about your special pleading.
The actual experiences of actual Americans in this exact experiment show us that this won't work.
They do?
Re: (Score:2)
We've already established that this is not special pleading.
"We" ain't establishd jack about your special pleading.
Then feel free to explain why, in spite of the fact that I cited a reputable source for a definition of special pleading that clearly showed I was not using special pleading, your special plea to the contrary should be accepted as a factual depiction of reality.
The actual experiences of actual Americans in this exact experiment show us that this won't work.
They do?
The only regulations that impact the Health Insurance industry are the ones they came up with and passed off to the federal government to make into law. We couldn't give them fewer regulations if we wanted to. In the meantime, the Health Insuranc
Re: (Score:2)
"We" ain't establishd jack about your special pleading.
Then feel free to explain why, in spite of the fact that I cited a reputable source for a definition of special pleading
So did I, chum: https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan-s-rules-for-bullshit-busting-and-critical-thinking?utm_source=pocket-newtab [getpocket.com] in this JE [slashdot.org]
This is among the reasons why discussions with you seem a one-way street most of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
"We" ain't establishd jack about your special pleading.
Then feel free to explain why, in spite of the fact that I cited a reputable source for a definition of special pleading
So did I, chum: https://getpocket.com/explore/... [getpocket.com]
Let's take a look at what is laid out in that article. There is a section specifically on special pleading:
special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble (e.g., How can a merciful God condemn future generations to torment because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple? Special plead: you donâ(TM)t understand the subtle Doctrine of Free Will. Or: How can there be an equally godlike Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the same Person? Special plead: You donâ(TM)t understand the Divine Mystery of the Trinity. Or: How could God permit the followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam â" each in their own way enjoined to heroic measures of loving kindness and compassion â" to have perpetrated so much cruelty for so long? Special plead: You donâ(TM)t understand Free Will again. And anyway, God moves in mysterious ways.)
The recurring theme there is the notion of "you don't understand". I made no such claim. I laid out simple facts on the Health Insurance industry that showed the destruction it has laid on consumers and the American economy as a whole. Rather than attempting to challenge any of the statements, you have repeatedly - and incorrectly - attempted to apply this argument, which has indeed become your ow
Re: (Score:2)
However, I see that you've switched to the usual bullying mode here, which alleviates concerns about your general well-being.
Re: (Score:2)
I see assertions about health care and insurance companies, but no specific facets of healthcare rendering it immune to generally understood economic principles.
That has been established many times before. Health care is not a product that is suited to the free market, as it cannot be bought and sold the same way we sell food, cars, computers, houses, etc. We've been trying for decades now to fit it to a free market system and it has led to loss of health, loss of wealth, and outright death.
There are over 54 billion reasons why our health care system is the least effective per dollar of any in the world. We pay the most, and for what we pay we get the least
Re: (Score:2)
That has been established many times before.
No, it hasn't.
Re: (Score:2)
That has been established many times before.
No, it hasn't.
I cannot force you to read any non-conservative writings out there. It has been demonstrated by many people that a free market model does not serve health care well, as it is not a product that is purchased and consumed like any other. The factors that drive down costs of other goods do not apply to health care in the USA or in any other country. We have instead seen that the market based approach here in the USA has repeatedly yielded increasing costs of health care, often beyond the rate of inflation.
Re: (Score:1)
Eh, you can stay in denial, or accept the role you play
Re: (Score:2)
We have instead seen that the market based approach here in the USA has repeatedly yielded increasing costs of health care, often beyond the rate of inflation.
Read Thomas Sowell, Friedrich Hayek, or Milton Friedman for actual economic knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have instead seen that the market based approach here in the USA has repeatedly yielded increasing costs of health care, often beyond the rate of inflation.
Read Thomas Sowell, Friedrich Hayek, or Milton Friedman for actual economic knowledge.
Or you could read a book written by someone who spent decades in many different roles in health care [amazon.com]. The economic opinions of people who make too much money to worry about health care costs, who come in with strong free market biases and don't give a shit about what the system does to the lower 80% of our country, are not useful here.
Re: (Score:1)
Only your own opinion and bias precludes non-nebulousity of anything I have offered up
Re: (Score:2)
What's needful is for the people who agree with you to congregate in a state, e.g. Massachusetts, and tax yourselves appropriately according to your political opinions.
That suggests that you recognize indeed that nobody who petitions for Universal Single Payer Health Care - or other government services - expects them to be free. Right in your statement you said "tax yourselves appropriately", which flies completely counter to your bullshit about "free stuff".
Give everyone "free" health care
And then you threw your logic out the window. We've established that nobody expects Universal Single-Payer to be free. Now you're pretending that someone does, and you're apparently going to start an argument base
Re: (Score:2)
Are you contending that I would somehow be able to go from my 1040 to my doctor bill?
Of course not. "Your team" is going to tax the balls off a brass monkey and then offer "free" health care/housing/education/whatever to keep the proles in line.
Re: (Score:2)
Your garbage argument implies an explicit tie between taxation and healthcare.
I'm saying there should be. For-profit health insurance should die immediately, and a single payer option funded by taxes should replace it. Can I make that any clearer?
Are you contending that I would somehow be able to go from my 1040 to my doctor bill?
In the same way you go from your 1040 to paying for road construction, emergency responders, national security, or anything else.
then offer "free" health care
Nobody who even spends a tiny bit of time reading in to this argument is under the illusion that anyone expects free health care, unless you consider us to have free emergency responders, free national securit