Alan Grayson

ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Alan Grayson

ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

I have no obligation to thank you for that unintelligible drivel. :3

 

Yes, if you tried to understand anything it might destroy your delusion that you're compassionate just for supporting higher taxes on other people. Compassion without sacrifice there's no better drug than that.

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Another phony compassionate

Another phony compassionate congressman like Greyson:


rab
rab's picture
Posts: 273
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I think the

EXC wrote:

I think the science is pretty clear that genuine compassion is BS. There's always strings attached. What about the phony compassion of many here? Their version of compassion is saying the rich should pay more and bitching about insurance companies not providing. They're extremely compassionate as long as it's someone else's money. Just proves there's no real compassion. And if I do act with phony leftist compassion, isn't it just to avoid the disdain of others?

Oh, those poor rich people. Maybe you should start a non-profit for them. Wouldn't want them having to give up their penthouses and luxurious hotels, vacation spots, and tax havens, now would we. ?

Support the Separation of Church & State!
Freedom From Religion Foundation


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:once again, i

iwbiek wrote:

once again, i would like to bring personal experience to bear:

i am an american living in slovakia.

i have lived under both systems, public and private.

with my old job in the US, i could afford private healthcare.  i paid around $350 a month. 

here in slovakia, the system is based on nominal premiums paid to the state insurer with government subsidies.  in other words, about $30 a month.  if one does not go for regular medical and dental check-ups at least every 6 months, insurance does not pay for any procedures to correct problems incurred during the time one did not go for regular preventative check-ups.  one has total freedom to choose any general practitioner and dentist they want.

in my personal experience, hospitals and doctors here are on the same level quality-wise as the USA, and the regular check-ups are more thorough and of a higher quality (and my GP in the states was excellent).

women get 2 years' paid maternity leave.  that's right, 2 fucking years--they actually get to raise their kids.  imagine that?  this is paid out of the state social insurance, which is paid for by the company that employs the woman.  the government also gives subsidies for each child--so much for the first, and less for each subsequent.

i pay my taxes and my insurance premiums happily.  i feel secure.  i feel secure for my wife.  i'm happy that i and everyone around me, even the laziest motherfucker in the street, doesn't have to worry about getting sick.

bottom line: in my experience, public is better.  can anyone else here speak from more than googled data and personal bias?  if so, weigh in.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Your's is a subjective assessment.

Slovakia

Population: 5,463,046 (July 2009 est.) country comparison to the world: 112 
GDP - per capita (PPP): $21,900 (2008 est.)
Population below poverty line: 21% (2002)
Government type: parliamentary democracy
Imports: $73.62 billion (2008 est.) country comparison to the world: 44

 

Tax rate
Corporate 19%
Individual 19% 
Payroll tax 19%
VAT / GST / Sales - 0


===================


United States

Population: 307,212,123 (July 2009 est.) country comparison to the world: 4 
GDP - per capita (PPP): $46,900 (2008 est.)
Population below poverty line: 12% (2004 est.)
Government type: Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition
Imports: $2.112 trillion (2008 est.) country comparison to the world: 1 


Tax rate
Corporate           
15-39% (federal)
Individual 0-12% (state) 0-35% (federal)
Payroll tax 0-10.3% (state)
VAT / GST / Sales 2.9-15.3% (federal) 0-10 
 

New York City (8,363,710) has more people than your entire country. The US probably supports your ass.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
rab wrote:EXC wrote:I think

rab wrote:

EXC wrote:

I think the science is pretty clear that genuine compassion is BS. There's always strings attached. What about the phony compassion of many here? Their version of compassion is saying the rich should pay more and bitching about insurance companies not providing. They're extremely compassionate as long as it's someone else's money. Just proves there's no real compassion. And if I do act with phony leftist compassion, isn't it just to avoid the disdain of others?

Oh, those poor rich people. Maybe you should start a non-profit for them. Wouldn't want them having to give up their penthouses and luxurious hotels, vacation spots, and tax havens, now would we. ?

But people were employed to build those penthouses and hotels. Both need maintanace. Hotels need to be staffed. Vacation resorts also employ people.

 

In other words: No rich people, no jobs

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote: Do you think

Ken G. wrote:

 Do you think they migh be hiding something ?   www.brasschecktv.com/page/722.html

Quixotic.

I'm applying my hypothesis that acts of altruism are motivated by the prospect of personal gain here.

 

Grayson is making an allusion to malicious activity but as is evident he has failed to prove anything.
"Do you think they might be hiding something? " is a loaded question.
I don't see were Grayson "stuck it" to Federal Reserve attorney as the Brasscheck TV claims.

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

aiia wrote:

Ken G. wrote:

 Do you think they migh be hiding something ?   www.brasschecktv.com/page/722.html

Quixotic.

I'm applying my hypothesis that acts of altruism are motivated by the prospect of personal gain here.

 

Grayson is making an allusion to malicious activity but as is evident he has failed to prove anything.
"Do you think they might be hiding something? " is a loaded question.
I don't see were Grayson "stuck it" to Federal Reserve attorney as the Brasscheck TV claims.

 

 

Probably where he called her a K street whore.

 

Just a guess.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-grayson28-2009oct28,0,957932.story?track=rss

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:aiia

ClockCat wrote:

aiia wrote:

Ken G. wrote:

 Do you think they migh be hiding something ?   www.brasschecktv.com/page/722.html

Quixotic.

I'm applying my hypothesis that acts of altruism are motivated by the prospect of personal gain here.

 

Grayson is making an allusion to malicious activity but as is evident he has failed to prove anything.
"Do you think they might be hiding something? " is a loaded question.
I don't see were Grayson "stuck it" to Federal Reserve attorney as the Brasscheck TV claims.

 

 

Probably where he called her a K street whore.

 

Just a guess.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-grayson28-2009oct28,0,957932.story?track=rss

"Probably where he called her a K street whore" is in reference to what?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
What the health reform bill

What the health reform bill should really be about:

Dealing with health care WASTE

Healthcare system wastes up to $800 billion a year -

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-HealthcareReform/idUSTRE59P0L320091026

 

 60 minutes

Healthcare Fraud

http://www.healthtransformation.net/cs/policies_issues/health_based_health_reform/fraud_in_the_news

 http://www.healthtransformation.net/cs/healthcarefraud

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10554
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Define waste, and why it

Define waste, and why it would be worse somehow by regulating it than by leaving the capitalists who allowed it in the first place in charge. Every time the right suggests waste is a problem they ignore the fact that if it is a problem, it's their own damn fault. Same goes for fraud. How are you going to fix the problems by defending them? It's the height of stupidity.

Back to the subject at hand, as far as US politicians go, I kind of like this guy.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


rab
rab's picture
Posts: 273
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:But people were

aiia wrote:

But people were employed to build those penthouses and hotels. Both need maintanace. Hotels need to be staffed. Vacation resorts also employ people.

 

In other words: No rich people, no jobs

It's a two way street. What would the rich do without launders, builders, maintainence persons, clerks, fisherman, farmers, etc. Their actions of late are actually hurting the poor and middle class. CEO salaries are (I think the current estimate was) 300% higher than the average worker. They have tax shelters and we the poor slobs pick up the tab.

Support the Separation of Church & State!
Freedom From Religion Foundation


rab
rab's picture
Posts: 273
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Back to the

Vastet wrote:
Back to the subject at hand, as far as US politicians go, I kind of like this guy.

You and me both.

Support the Separation of Church & State!
Freedom From Religion Foundation


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Every time the

Vastet wrote:
Every time the right suggests waste is a problem they ignore the fact that if it is a problem, it's their own damn fault. Same goes for fraud. How are you going to fix the problems by defending them? It's the height of stupidity.

QFT.

.... just had to.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
rab wrote:It's a two way

rab wrote:

It's a two way street. What would the rich do without launders, builders, maintainence persons, clerks, fisherman, farmers, etc.

So you're solution to the gap between rich and poor is to cook all the geese that lay golden eggs now. So then they'll be no more money to pay taxes or hire the middle class. Where do these people go for employment once you tax the rich out of existence?

rab wrote:

Their actions of late are actually hurting the poor and middle class. CEO salaries are (I think the current estimate was) 300% higher than the average worker. They have tax shelters and we the poor slobs pick up the tab.

How does the fact that a CEO makes a high salary harm you? Does it restrict your liberty or impare your ability to survive? If capitalist aliens exist in a far away galaxy and they pay their CEOs high salaries, how does this affect you? 

The problem is we must share a small planet with limited resourses with the rich, not that the rich make a high salary. What we need to restrict is what rich people and poor people do to use up and monopolize natural resources. The mere fact that someone makes a high income does not necessarily affect or harm you in any way.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Where do these

EXC wrote:

Where do these people go for employment once you tax the rich out of existence?

Your argument would be even funnier if you used the "if you tax the rich that much they'll purposefully earn less money."  Actually your way was funnier, nevermind. 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Vastet wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Every time the right suggests waste is a problem they ignore the fact that if it is a problem, it's their own damn fault. Same goes for fraud. How are you going to fix the problems by defending them? It's the height of stupidity.

QFT.

.... just had to.

How is waste the fault of capitalism?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Your argument

Sapient wrote:

Your argument would be even funnier if you used the "if you tax the rich that much they'll purposefully earn less money."  Actually your way was funnier, nevermind. 

Yes, I'm sure the rich are going to be so willing to risk their money on investments so they can have any profit taken in taxes. The rich just love giving away their money for nothing in return.

Classic dodge, attack the questioner rather than actually answer the question.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
rab wrote:aiia wrote:But

rab wrote:

aiia wrote:

But people were employed to build those penthouses and hotels. Both need maintanace. Hotels need to be staffed. Vacation resorts also employ people.

 

In other words: No rich people, no jobs

It's a two way street.

How so?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:What about the

EXC wrote:

What about the phony compassion of many here? Their version of compassion is saying the rich should pay more and bitching about insurance companies not providing. They're extremely compassionate as long as it's someone else's money.

You're just conflating the politics with the people to build another straw man EXC.

The rich should pay more is good policy, not compassion. Mostly the rich should pay more because they take more for less in terms of resources and space, and this doesn't come cheap to a society, there needs to be some counter-balance to ensure the standard of living in the community at large remains high. Where there's no counterbalance whatsoever then you get Sierra Leone, ravaged by mass exploitation of another too easy profit turn for the already too wealthy to discuss, And where there's not enough, you get the big "global economic downturn" of recent years.

Although the general feeling in the left for those hurt most by the lack of counter-balances for the exceedingly rich is Compassion, doesn't mean the politic itself is just an appeal to emotion. Just because a policy of taking back more from the uber-gluttonous for the sake of the community would benefit the welfare line, doesn't mean that's all there is to it.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

EXC wrote:

Sapient wrote:

Your argument would be even funnier if you used the "if you tax the rich that much they'll purposefully earn less money."  Actually your way was funnier, nevermind. 

Yes, I'm sure the rich are going to be so willing to risk their money on investments so they can have any profit taken in taxes. The rich just love giving away their money for nothing in return.

Classic dodge, attack the questioner rather than actually answer the question.

 

 

Ahahahahaha. You are hilarious. "They won't invest if they are taxed! They won't try to make money if they are taxed! They won't want to be rich if being rich means they are taxed!" 

"You are attacking me, even though I quoted something that shows you clearly mocking my argument instead of talking about me! PERSECUTION!" 

of 

 

 

Keep on grasping EXC.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Mostly the rich

Eloise wrote:

Mostly the rich should pay more because they take more for less in terms of resources and space,

Then charge the rich for using natural resources and space. I'm all for charging people for what they use. But just because someone has a lot of money does not necessarily mean they are using more than others. Where the hell does the idea of income tax come from? Punish people for working alot or being sucessful at creating wealth. Pay as you go is rational, taxing success and hard work is insane.

How do make more effiecient use of the planet's limited resources? Through invention and adaptation of new technologies. How does new technology get developed? Through investment and hard work, exactly what you want to tax. Why not tax inefficient use of resouses then instead of sucess and hard work?

 

Eloise wrote:
Although the general feeling in the left for those hurt most by the lack of counter-balances for the exceedingly rich is Compassion

And what about the compassion of people that bring children into the world they can't or won't take about? What about the burden they place on society and the planet? Shouldn't they pay more because they take more in resouces and space?

I think the science is pretty clear that compassion doesn't exist. Everyone's god or moral standard is whatever is convienient for themselves. This is true for rich and poor, religious and atheist. I think you'd be better served by supporting a rational system of social contracts to create opprotunities in society, rather than persist with the fantasy that people can be shamed into being 'compassionate'.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


rab
rab's picture
Posts: 273
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:How does the fact

EXC wrote:

How does the fact that a CEO makes a high salary harm you? Does it restrict your liberty or impare your ability to survive? If capitalist aliens exist in a far away galaxy and they pay their CEOs high salaries, how does this affect you? 

Here's the problem. The gap between the rich's 1% and the middle class is widening. Not good! Here's part of the reason:

ethicsdaily.com/news.php

When I worked in a non-union factory, minimum wage went up. So I figured what I'd be making above minimum. To my dismay, despite the wage increase, I would be making less above minimum than I was before. Meanwhile, the owner and CEO continued to bet on the horses.

They get richer, while the middle class struggles earing less and less.

Support the Separation of Church & State!
Freedom From Religion Foundation


rab
rab's picture
Posts: 273
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
Grayson's You Tube

Grayson's You Tube Channel:

www.youtube.com/user/RepAlanGrayson

He honors the dead.

 

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
rab wrote:When I worked in a

rab wrote:

When I worked in a non-union factory, minimum wage went up. So I figured what I'd be making above minimum. To my dismay, despite the wage increase, I would be making less above minimum than I was before. Meanwhile, the owner and CEO continued to bet on the horses.

They get richer, while the middle class struggles earing less and less.

Why didn't you and the other workers start a competing business if it's so easy to make big bucks by owning this type business?

Maybe because the owner is a gambler and you and the other workers are not. You all are interested in security so you don't take chances or even try to get rich. So you all decided to take security and struggle with a little money over taking a gamble. But why should the gamblers take part of their winnings and give it the non-gamblers?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Eloise

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Mostly the rich should pay more because they take more for less in terms of resources and space,

Then charge the rich for using natural resources and space. I'm all for charging people for what they use. But just because someone has a lot of money does not necessarily mean they are using more than others. Where the hell does the idea of income tax come from?

Income tax scales come basically around because tax systems are crudely knocked together over the course of decades by one then the other conflicting ideology attempting to put a centrist spin on their partisan "ideal model", it's a bittersweet comprimise of democratic negotiations, for both sides. For the right, at least they can still find ways to dodge it, for the left the comfort is that at least it exists (one step closer than nothing).

The problem is, if we put the tax where it most belongs, for example on cheap labour, executive perks, luxury spending, that kind of thing... it takes away all the tax dodges that dogged capitalists love so much. So it either never passes, or if it does, it's the first thing to go when the right wing gets power.

So, in summary, I don't think it should be an income tax either... however, it absolutely necessarily needs be a tax if you want to live in a civilised society of a decent standard, so wherever it goes is fine by me, as long as it gets close to the target, which is gluttonous indifference.

EXC wrote:

How do make more effiecient use of the planet's limited resources? Through invention and adaptation of new technologies.

Not necessarily. To a significant degree technology also makes less efficient use of the planets resources than simpler means; even sometimes denaturing the system past its usefulness altogether.  Technology has answered many questions of its importance in human betterment, but it's asked at least as many as well.

 

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:
Although the general feeling in the left for those hurt most by the lack of counter-balances for the exceedingly rich is Compassion

And what about the compassion of people that bring children into the world they can't or won't take about? What about the burden they place on society and the planet? Shouldn't they pay more because they take more in resouces and space?

People are resources, ya dopey...****. Jeee-bus EXC.

Reproduction is a contribution in a society where standards allow. You'd think capitalism would recognise this and see the merit of the argument for an planned high level of community welfare to stop wasting valuable human resource.  But instead the right wing complains that they exist... go figure.

And No, unwanted children to not take more in resources and space than rich people, don't be ridiculous, an entire family of 50 poor people lives on less resources and space in their whole lifetime than one rich person might in a year. If we were to tax poor families on their comparative use of resources and land, guess what the number would be tending towards? That's right, zero.

EXC wrote:

I think the science is pretty clear that compassion doesn't exist. Everyone's god or moral standard is whatever is convienient for themselves. This is true for rich and poor, religious and atheist.

What science?

EXC wrote:

I think you'd be better served by supporting a rational system of social contracts to create opprotunities in society, rather than persist with the fantasy that people can be shamed into being 'compassionate'.

WTF EXC? How do you keep coming back to the same tired BS in every argument. I just told you, taxing uberwealth is good economics if you also want a country you can live in. How is this anything but a rational social contract?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Income tax

Eloise wrote:

Income tax scales come basically around because tax systems are crudely knocked together over the course of decades by one then the other conflicting ideology attempting to put a centrist spin on their partisan "ideal model", it's a bittersweet comprimise of democratic negotiations, for both sides. For the right, at least they can still find ways to dodge it, for the left the comfort is that at least it exists (one step closer than nothing).

The reason we have income tax is because that's the easiest way for government to collect the maximum income. There's no line in the income tax forms that ask how you made your money. One could invent a technology that reduces the use of resources or one could exploit resources in a wasteful manner to make the profit. Tax rates are the same for both. It's whoever has the money not who is using the planets resources in a gluttonous manner.

Eloise wrote:

Not necessarily. To a significant degree technology also makes less efficient use of the planets resources than simpler means; even sometimes denaturing the system past its usefulness altogether.

Because there is no penalty for doing things this way. There still more profit to be made using natural resources in a wasteful rather than efficient way. Also any gains in efficiency are taken away through the resulting population growth.

Eloise wrote:

People are resources, ya dopey...****. Jeee-bus EXC.

To who??? Seems more like we're a cancer on this planet.

Eloise wrote:

Reproduction is a contribution in a society where standards allow.

But we don't have any standard for planned population growth. Children are net non-contributors for a long time.

Eloise wrote:

You'd think capitalism would recognise this and see the merit of the argument for an planned high level of community welfare to stop wasting valuable human resource.

Who is capitalism? Investors just look at can they get a good return on investment in a short period of time. They're not trying to engineer a perfect society for many generations. It should be up to the people that decide to bring a child into the world to take care of them.

Eloise wrote:

  But instead the right wing complains that they exist... go figure.

Yes because you believe in entitlements for people and not social contracts. So the right wing has to continually pay for people that will never pay them back.

Eloise wrote:

And No, unwanted children to not take more in resources and space than rich people, don't be ridiculous, an entire family of 50 poor people lives on less resources and space in their whole lifetime than one rich person might in a year. If we were to tax poor families on their comparative use of resources and land, guess what the number would be tending towards? That's right, zero.

Well if that's the case, then just tax based on use of resources. That's the way to get the rich to pay their fair share.

What science?

Eloise wrote:

WTF EXC? How do you keep coming back to the same tired BS in every argument. I just told you, taxing uberwealth is good economics if you also want a country you can live in. How is this anything but a rational social contract?

A contract is when each party is required to give something of value to get something in return. You apparently support entitlements where this is no requirement to give back in any way. This is not a contract.

I just want to have a job so I can save some money so I can have so security and an enjoy life a little. That's all I care about. I'll move to wherever my money goes farthest and pay cash for whatever services I need. When government provides me a good job instead of rich capitalist investors, only then will I believe this.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Tax rates are the

EXC wrote:
Tax rates are the same for both. It's whoever has the money not who is using the planets resources in a gluttonous manner.

Like I said, I too think that Income tax is not the ideal place for taxes on excessive consumerism but barring another method fairly compensating the community for resources engulfed by rich perks and wealth accumulation suddenly coming into existence tomorrow, we need it.

I don't think I can give "need" enough emphasis for it to sink in, so maybe you should read up on pre civil war Sierra Leone, educate yourself in the consequences of deconstructing the state to leave the democratic majority powerless against corrupt capitalist monoliths.

When you're done, Clockcat just posted a thread on Somalia. Consider that for a bit, maybe. How would you like to retire in a world of basic standards like those now entrenched in Somalia. Would you honestly be satisfied that your capitalist ideology was serving your ultimate interests if that happened?

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Not necessarily. To a significant degree technology also makes less efficient use of the planets resources than simpler means; even sometimes denaturing the system past its usefulness altogether.

Because there is no penalty for doing things this way. There still more profit to be made using natural resources in a wasteful rather than efficient way. Also any gains in efficiency are taken away through the resulting population growth.

No, I meant because technology isn't all that matters to the well-being of... well, anything at all. The argument that wealthy investors are the ultimate source of capital for future tech is, at best, peripheral.

And there are penalties inherent in drastically altering or wasting natural resources, many ultimately worse than any society can impose by government.

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

People are resources, ya dopey...****. Jeee-bus EXC.

To who??? Seems more like we're a cancer on this planet.

Huh? How do you switch modes like that. One minute you're saying we need to do everything in our power to ensure openness to future technology then you ask why humans should be preserved as a resource... ????

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Reproduction is a contribution in a society where standards allow.

 Children are net non-contributors for a long time.

OMGosh, what the hell are you trying to say? EVERYONE has a childhhod, EXC. By what fiat are you entitled to yours, that doesn't apply to the present or future juvenile populations? 

EXC wrote:

But we don't have any standard for planned population growth.

Woah! wait up a minute, start at the beginning. How can you know what kind of population is viable and sustainable if you don't first set the standards of basic living that you want them sustained in.  You need to establish a benchmark for health, education and lifestyle in your society - then you can start considering what level of population growth it can handle, otherwise you're just picking a random number.

 

 

EXC wrote:

Who is capitalism? Investors just look at can they get a good return on investment in a short period of time. They're not trying to engineer a perfect society for many generations.

Yeah, but see, my point is capitalists should really start considering the short term gains of buying into that exact long term project. The main one being they won't destitute the societies they feed from before their own time in the big chair ends.

EXC wrote:

It should be up to the people that decide to bring a child into the world to take care of them.

Yeah yeah, and up to the environment to take care of it's forests and up to the sea to take care of it's reefs.. etc etc... the only thing a person should think about in regard to the world around them is what they can take from it legally and sell to others. Maybe there just is no cure for narrow-minded ignorance.

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

  But instead the right wing complains that they exist... go figure.

Yes because you believe in entitlements for people and not social contracts.

No I believe the greater community is entitled to massive recompense for the engulfment of global property and wherewithal by the purposeless act of wealth creation for its own pure sake by social contract.

Also I think Health care is A. too commercially unattractive to be made efficient by private interests, B. Primarily in the public interest anyway, so that is from where it most logically should be administrated.

EXC wrote:

So the right wing has to continually pay for people that will never pay them back.

The people have to continually give up their society's natural wealth and well being for superfluous folly and they never are properly compensated for that, so whats the difference?

 

EXC wrote:

Well if that's the case, then just tax based on use of resources. That's the way to get the rich to pay their fair share.

BAHAHAHAHA! Know any rich people who would accept such a "burden" on their superfluous activities?

EXC wrote:

When government provides me a good job instead of rich capitalist investors, only then will I believe this.

You are misled that the private sector is at all capable of satisfactorily providing the jobs needed for a real workforce.

International Labour Organisation

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---integration/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_099001.pdf

William Mitchell M.Ec PHD wrote:

Why should public sector job creation be fashionable? The short answer is that persistent
labour underutilisation is a huge economic waste and the private sector will never provide
enough working hours at acceptable wages to satisfy the workforce. A longer answer
requires an understanding of the basic operations of a modern monetary economy, which
recognises that fiat currency systems are public monopolies that introduce imperfect
competition into the monetary system, and that the imposition of taxes coupled with
insufficient government spending generates unemployment.

The Author in case you'd like to check my source: http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/coffee/bios.cfm?staff_number=1

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


rab
rab's picture
Posts: 273
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Why didn't you and

EXC wrote:

Why didn't you and the other workers start a competing business if it's so easy to make big bucks by owning this type business?

Maybe because the owner is a gambler and you and the other workers are not. You all are interested in security so you don't take chances or even try to get rich. So you all decided to take security and struggle with a little money over taking a gamble. But why should the gamblers take part of their winnings and give it the non-gamblers?

You hit upon something else. I left that company a month after that for a higher paid job. That factory has since closed it doors to overseas competition. Our politicians, along with "advice" from corporations, decided to pass something called The North American Free Trade Act. It only hurt workers. This also lead to the spike in CEO pay.

 

Support the Separation of Church & State!
Freedom From Religion Foundation


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10554
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I think it's long past time

I think it's long past time that one of EXC's most common lines of bitching is turned back in his face. He's always suggesting that a common person can jump into a saturated market and compete with billion dollar corporations, and should do exactly that if they want socialised health care. Then he gives a few capitalist alternatives that may or may not work as a counter. Well EXC, put your money where your mouth is. If you're really capable of fixing capitalism, what the fuck are you doing here? Run for congress, win, run for presidency, win, and institute these so-called solutions. You're accomplishing exactly as much if not less than those who support a guaranteed fix via a social solution that countless nations have proved works. Where's your example? You don't have one. So make one.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3284
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:Your's is a

aiia wrote:

Your's is a subjective assessment.

no shit.  that's why i prefaced everything with "personal experience."  i just thought it might be helpful for quite possibly the ONLY person on this message board who has lived as a working adult under BOTH types of systems to state which one he prefers.  i also distinctly recall inviting only those with the same dual experience (if any) to give their viewpoint.  i don't know why you're quoting the fucking almanac at me. 

aiia wrote:

 

The US probably supports your ass.

now who's being subjective?

well, i'm an american citizen and worked in america for most of my early adulthood, 4 years of which i paid for my own healthcare.  and no, friend, the US NEVER supported my ass.  which was all fine with me, because i was lucky enough to be able to support my own ass.

as for slovakia's collective ass, if the US has enough money to burn to support a distant post-communist central european country with almost nothing to offer in return, then it should have no problem supporting the asses (or, in some cases, assholes) of its own citizens.

now, since i figure subjectivity is a valid angle from which to examine the debate over which form of healthcare is "better" for americans ("better" itself being a subjective term), and since i seem to be one of the most qualified here to speak from the subjective angle, i'll limit my arguments to that realm.  at least it's a fresh perspective, since we've seen all the stats a hundred fucking million times.  thanks. 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


rab
rab's picture
Posts: 273
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
I appreciated your comments

I appreciated your comments and perspective iwbiek. Some Americans have this superior attitude when it comes to our country. But I would love to have the health care system you have. Here in the U.S., many fear this boogyman thing called socialism. They equate it with Hitler and the Nazi's. I could give my reasons why I think that is, but I think that should be a topic for another thread.

Support the Separation of Church & State!
Freedom From Religion Foundation


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3284
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
rab wrote:They equate it

rab wrote:

They equate it with Hitler and the Nazi's.

yeah, i know what you mean.  it comes from loose terminology, reliance on warmed-over truisms, and just plain educational laziness.  the nazis persecuted the communists and even the social democrats as much as any ethnicity.  in fact, many don't know, but that was their main accusation against the jews: they're all bolsheviks.

but nevermind...

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:This is

ClockCat wrote:

This is mostly empty rhetoric and lies. But it is good rhetoric for getting people to vote the way you want to. Assigning death from natural causes to Republicans was my favorite empty, meaningless rhetoric part of the speech. Pretending that this bill is anything but obvious corporatism is my next favorite part of this speech. Demanding that all people purchase health care is somehow the government providing us with health care. The fact that this is essentially an extremely regressive tax in which relatively poor young people subsidize the health care of relatively rich old people doesn't matter. This is the issue that the dems have latched on through and they are going to see it though. The fact that it is a regressive corporatist handout to insurance companies doesn't matter. Apply enough vacuous, tear-jerking rhetoric to this and it almost sounds like a good idea.

"I will yeild my time to America. We will be hearing from YOU!"

What a joke. But it is great political rhetoric. This is moving and largely devoid of reason and so it is perfect for a politician trying to jerk us around.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Jormungander wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

This is mostly empty rhetoric and lies. But it is good rhetoric for getting people to vote the way you want to. Assigning death from natural causes to Republicans was my favorite empty, meaningless rhetoric part of the speech. Pretending that this bill is anything but obvious corporatism is my next favorite part of this speech. Demanding that all people purchase health care is somehow the government providing us with health care. The fact that this is essentially an extremely regressive tax in which relatively poor young people subsidize the health care of relatively rich old people doesn't matter. This is the issue that the dems have latched on through and they are going to see it though. The fact that it is a regressive corporatist handout to insurance companies doesn't matter. Apply enough vacuous, tear-jerking rhetoric to this and it almost sounds like a good idea.

"I will yeild my time to America. We will be hearing from YOU!"

What a joke. But it is great political rhetoric. This is moving and largely devoid of reason and so it is perfect for a politician trying to jerk us around.

 

You sound concerned.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

 I think it was a great speech. He covers the topics logically and respectably, that other people are not talking about.

 

His points are quite valid. I for example don't have health insurance. I was sick this week and had to pay $80 for a visit to the doctor, and $180 for a prescription.

 

If I didn't happen to have the money available, then it would have been out of my reach.

 

 

 

Also, care to explain his "lies"? I would like to hear you elaborate on those.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10554
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I missed this. aiia

I missed this.

aiia wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Every time the right suggests waste is a problem they ignore the fact that if it is a problem, it's their own damn fault. Same goes for fraud. How are you going to fix the problems by defending them? It's the height of stupidity.

QFT.

.... just had to.

How is waste the fault of capitalism?

How about you define waste first? Then I'll ask how it is the fault of some higher power that meddles in the free market to make capitalism look bad.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 In response to Palin's attack on Rep Grayson, Grayson actually complimented Palin. Grayson praised Palin for having a hand large enough to fit Grayson's entire name on it. He thanked Palin for alleviating the growing shortage of platitudes in Central Florida.

Grayson added that Palin deserved credit for getting through the entire hour-long program without quitting. Grayson also said that Palin really had mastered Palin's imitation of Tina Fey imitating Palin. Grayson observed that Palin is the most-intelligent leader that the Republican Party has produced since George W. Bush.

When asked to comment about what effect Palin's criticism might have, Grayson pointed out, "As the Knave's horse says in Alice in Wonderland, 'dogs will believe anything.'"

 

"I look forward to an honest debate with Governor Palin on the issues, in the unlikely event that she ever learns anything about them," Grayson added.

 

http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2010/03/ever-outlandish-alan-grayson-tops-himself-with-palin-rant.html

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:   In

ClockCat wrote:

 

 

 In response to Palin's attack on Rep Grayson, Grayson actually complimented Palin. Grayson praised Palin for having a hand large enough to fit Grayson's entire name on it. He thanked Palin for alleviating the growing shortage of platitudes in Central Florida.

 

 

Lol.  The guy is a smartass, which I like.  I doubt he is helping his cause though.  He is rabble rousing the rabble that agrees with him and rabble rousing the rabble that disagrees with him.  Cuz' everyone knows what we need is more hate and invective.

Grayson added that Palin deserved credit for getting through the entire hour-long program without quitting. Grayson also said that Palin really had mastered Palin's imitation of Tina Fey imitating Palin. Grayson observed that Palin is the most-intelligent leader that the Republican Party has produced since George W. Bush.

When asked to comment about what effect Palin's criticism might have, Grayson pointed out, "As the Knave's horse says in Alice in Wonderland, 'dogs will believe anything.'"

 

"I look forward to an honest debate with Governor Palin on the issues, in the unlikely event that she ever learns anything about them," Grayson added.

 

http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2010/03/ever-outlandish-alan-grayson-tops-himself-with-palin-rant.html

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

What should he have done other than treat Sarah Palin like she has nothing important to say? She insulted Grayson at a public RALLY. How is that not rabble rousing? Should he have just taken the (rather pathetic) insults directed at him? 

 

 

I wouldn't. How you appear in public matters if you are an elected official. Grayson gets a gold star so far. 

 

By the way, he won the latest poll for republican primaries to go against Grayson. 

 

http://wdbo.com/localnews/2010/03/poll-grayson-is-the-top-gop-ch.html

 

Yes. He won the GOP POLL. He is more popular among Republicans than the Republicans are.

 

Seriously. When you look to run a guy against him, and polls say HE is the challenger you should front against himself...hahaha. That is some level of epicness.

 

"When asked if he might run in the Republican primary, Grayson said, "as this poll shows, if I did, then I would win.""

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If this bill passes,

If this bill passes, Republicans claim that premiums will go up. WHAT THE FUCK HAVE PREMIUMS BEEN DOING SO FAR, EVEN BEFORE OBAMA!

This is nothing but Republicans being paid off to protect profits and CEOs and big business that have used blackmail to maintain the status quo. Big business simply says to government, "If you do this, we will fuck the public even more"

It is corporate anarchy. Big business only cares about profits, it doesn't care about the affordability of life of the middle and poor. There is no fucking reason 1 pill should cost 50 bucks. There is no reason a gallon of milk should cost 5 bucks, much less a pound of meat costing 5 bucks.

"Market demands", bullshit! It is merely a free for all and does not foster an atmosphere of affordability.

I do not want to see a day, when a trailer the size I live in costs $300,000. I remember the townhouse I lived in as a kid. I know what it sold for when we moved out, for something that small I thought, even for it's time, was outrageous, but now, I am quite sure that fucking shoebox, merely based on it's location, is probably close to, if not over $300,000.

You cant have the price of everything explode without wages keeping up with it. When wages stagnate and the price of things go up, people get less and less and have to work more and more. That does not create stability, it makes a few people rich, but at the expense of the rest of society.

If these big companies would stop spending so much on marketing, CEOs and stop bilking the government and taxpayers to line the pockets of shareholders, they would find, that if what they sell was affordable, and their workers didn't have to worry about health care or the cost of living, and didn't have to be borgs working 24/7, long term, our society would be healthier and more stable.

I have NO sympathy for the republican attitude of "we don't need oversight". We had 8 years of "hands off the market", actually longer when one takes into account all the corporate bubbles, such as airlines in the 80s, dot.com bubbles in the 90s, and now this.

I am sick of that "MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE" attitude. It has NEVER been for me about what you want as an individual, but how WE collectively as a society allow big business dictate our lives and rape society by pretending that they aren't in love with "EVERY MAN FOR THEMSELVES".

I can live off of what I live off of, but I am lucky enough to have a mother who bought me the house I live in. There is no way I could afford to pay a mortgage or rent and bills. I even heard from a MIDDLE CLASS CO-WORKER, who has a husband who OWNS his own business, AND THEY are behind on their bills. The Republican rich class solution? WORK MORE.

Until when? Until one chicken wing costs 5 bucks? Until one Snickers bar costs 3 bucks? WHEN, WHEN DOES THE GREED STOP? And what should the public do? Use their homes as locker rooms and if they are lucky go home long enough to take a 5 minute nap.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:So the right wing has

Quote:
So the right wing has to continually pay for people that will never pay them back.

What? Like they do tons to educate society on matters of money. DON'T HAND ME THAT CRAP! They look to exploit the public by bombarding them with things they don't need or cant afford and don't give a shit whose pockets they pick.

If they don't want to pay for people via government force, then they should learn responsibility and not put society in the position of asking government for protection from their slash and burn tactics.

And if I were a CEO making 500 mill in  one year an the government took half of that in taxes, how the fuck would that make me poor? DON'T GIVE ME THIS SHIT about the poor poor rich class being in danger. It is nothing but fucking jaded blackmail.

The country is made of 3 classes, not one. And if the rich of the richest don't want government poking into their lives, then they have the responsibility to do the right thing and make life affordable for those in the middle and the poor, on their own, otherwise they shouldn't bitch when people ask for government protection. Less government depends on responsibility, and I see nothing responsible about what drug companies, insurance companies, car companies, banks and big business in general have been doing for the past 30 years.

I've heard far too many stories from the middle and poor, and even my own mother, about cost of living and how it is hurting everyone. The people who have the most power to fix it. wont because they are more interested in making a buck short term, than creating a stable society long term.

I have been around long enough to know how much things have changed and the bullshit arguments about "less regulation" "less taxes" will fix the problem.

The PAY GAP and cost of everything IS THE PROBLEM, NOT someone's personal wants or desires. You cannot expect the working class to keep paying more and more and working more and more while getting less and less. You will end up with more people depending on government, which rightfully, you say you don't want.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I have had this argument

I have had this argument countless times and find it FAR TOO IMPORTANT to let go.

Let me make this clear. I have and will never be against one's personal desires. If one wants to live in a mansion, go for it. But you can't ignore the health of society and the pay gap exploding costs and expect those in the middle and poor who do the work who make you rich, to sit there and say "ok, keep increasing prices and your profit margins at our expense".

Our society is sold the idea that becoming the next Donald Trump or or Micheal Jordon or Tiger Woods is the only true measure of contributing member of society. BULLSHIT, for everyone who makes it to those high degrees, there are hundreds of thousands more who wont get there, by virtue that it is a competitive market(AS IT SHOULD BE), but it should not be so fucking lopsided that those who do the work to put those at the top cant live.

It sickens me that people think that a title or paycheck or one's class automatically make them moral. EVERY class is needed to make our economy work.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Henry Ford

Brian37 wrote:

The PAY GAP and cost of everything IS THE PROBLEM, NOT someone's personal wants or desires. You cannot expect the working class to keep paying more and more and working more and more while getting less and less. You will end up with more people depending on government, which rightfully, you say you don't want.

I agree with you, Brian.

I wish to remind people of Henry Ford's pricing scheme.  When he got the Model A going, he priced it comparatively low.  He told his fellow "captains of industry" that if his own workers couldn't afford to buy one, just how many did they think he could sell?  Let me repeat.  He deliberately priced the cars so his workers could afford them without taking out a loan.  And how many CEOs follow the same maxim today?  There are some, but they are definitely in the minority.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Sapient,I

Jormungander wrote:

Sapient,

I thought that the public option was to be funded only by premiums. Wasn't that the promise that politicians were giving us? If you can't afford private health insurance now, then how will you afford the non-free government health insurance later?

Unless we've been told lies about how the public option would work (and that could very well be the case), you would still have to pay an insurance premium and it would work just like private health insurance. So I don't see how you will have healthcare even if there is a public option.

Medicare is a limited public option and it works great. It's expensive, but it's at least 30% cheaper than the private option and it eliminates waiting for approval that worsen your condition, eliminate worry about whether you will get treated or not and give the general public a bit more control of their lives, evening the playing field in terms of opportunity significantly between the haves and have nots. Ask anyone in senate - they are all on public healthcare, provided by the fed - it works great!

The reason none of the politicians are keen on a general public option is that in fact it will work great. Also, once instantiated, it would be political suicide to try to remove it. You go ahead and try to get ANYONE in congress or senate to say that Medicare should be abolished and you will have found a fringe or politically suicidal candidate.

Would the public option work? It works in Denmark, I can tell you that much. I don't bother my doctor every day with stuff, I don't have the time. But I am less afraid to stand up to my employer, because I know I at least my healthcare does not depend on his whim.

Government run health care authoritarian? Really? And corporate run health care is what? Democratic? Let me give you a quick and accurete difference between government and corporate health care and indeed government and corporate ANYTHING, when it comes to autoritharian systems:

Government: input by the population depends - anything the government does is as democratic as the government itself is democratic. There is a real possibility of influence by the people and the population expects and indeed DEMANDS transparency.

Corporate: input by the population here is exactly ZERO. We have no say on the board meetings, we can do absolutely nothing about what the corporation decides to do and we have no right to even know what's going on behind the closed doors. If any corporation became a country, it would be Saddam's Iraq - a perfect dictatorial tyrany, designed for autoritharian practices.

Any notion that you can "vote with your dollars" is a story for the kiddies, especially when it comes to health care. You become discontent with your insurance company if they don't deliver, and that happens ONLY if you get sick. What are you going to do? Take your "business" elsewhere? NONE of the corporate insurers wants you buying their product, because you are an expense, NOT a customer. So you are not going to go shopping at some other insurer for insurance, you will be lucky to keep the one that is denying your coverage. If you honestly believe free market works in health care, you are a slobering cretin.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
read the fine print

ZuS wrote:

Corporate: input by the population here is exactly ZERO. We have no say on the board meetings, we can do absolutely nothing about what the corporation decides to do and we have no right to even know what's going on behind the closed doors. If any corporation became a country, it would be Saddam's Iraq - a perfect dictatorial tyrany, designed for autoritharian practices.

Any notion that you can "vote with your dollars" is a story for the kiddies, especially when it comes to health care. You become discontent with your insurance company if they don't deliver, and that happens ONLY if you get sick. What are you going to do? Take your "business" elsewhere? NONE of the corporate insurers wants you buying their product, because you are an expense, NOT a customer. So you are not going to go shopping at some other insurer for insurance, you will be lucky to keep the one that is denying your coverage. If you honestly believe free market works in health care, you are a slobering cretin.

In support of ZuS:

Having been on corporate health insurance in the US until just this last year, I can tell you from personal experience you have zipola in the way of input.

You have the choices your employer provides you at the cost your employer determines.  You have no control over what is covered or not, what your limits are and there are always limits, what your copays are, what hospital systems, doctors, and pharmacies are in your offered plans.  Your options are worse, not better, if your company is international and you are assigned to a foreign country.  One of your choices is to purchase additional private insurance if you can get it.  If you are over age 40 or so, you probably can't get approved.  If  you are approved, be sure your "previous conditions" will allow the private insurance to deny any claims.  Another choice is to see an "out of network" provider and pay double to triple to the entire cost out of your own pocket.  If you have a disagreement about your cost or care, you can plan to spend days on the phone bouncing between insurance flunkies and your provider and you can reliably plan on paying what the insurance company said you were going to pay when you finally give up.

There seems to me to be no difference between some insurance flunkie deciding what I am going to get and pay for health care and some government flunkie deciding.  Same diff. 

Did you know it is against the law in the US to sue your insurance company for denying care?  I have a friend who is dying of cancer because her private HMO denied an MRI that her doctor requested for six YEARS.  What would have been a simple operation has turned into a long painful battle.  Her husband will not be able to sue when she dies.  This is not a "free market" in any defensible interpretation of the term.  And some people think even more barriers to litigation is a reasonable option for reducing costs.  All that will do is allow continued premium increases without the litigious justification for increases in costs.  Trust me, they will just come up with some other reason for outrageous premiums and co-pays and multimillion dollar bonuses at the expense of their clients.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:There seems to me

cj wrote:

There seems to me to be no difference between some insurance flunkie deciding what I am going to get and pay for health care and some government flunkie deciding.  Same diff. 

Agree on all points, except this little bit. While this indeed can be the case in an authoritarian Saddam's Iraq (it wasn't, by the way, pre-war Iraqis had health insurance Americans would be proud of - except for the sanctions), it depends on the government system: the more democratic it is, the more input and transparency is allowed. This was exactly the point of my post - the difference between corporate and state is that corporate per definition is a perfect hierarchical tyrani and will act like one in all ways that it can. The only way to get a tyranical regime to obay a democratic population is to force it. American government is nowhere near as closed as CIGNA is, because CIGNA goes for the $, while US govt. goes for reelection.

Case in point: Medicare! Do you EVER hear complains about "government flunkies" deciding ANYTHING when it comes to administration of Medicare? Of course not. If you are eligable, you use it, that's all - nothing between you and the health care. If anyone on the Senate floor as much as insinuated that Medicare should be pay-as-you-go or case-by-case administrated (not counting AG - his proposal is for allowing people to enter for $, not to impose payment on the people already in), they would be lynched and tossed out on their ass in their respective states. This can never happen to a CIGNA CEO, even if he is personally responsible for deaths of thousands of people.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.