• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 5 votes

I DON'T WANT YOUR NAZI HEALTH CARE!


  • Please log in to reply
120 replies to this topic

#31 Esoparagon

  • Guest
  • 227 posts
  • 32
  • Location:Australia

Posted 20 October 2009 - 10:45 PM

I'm glad I know that at any time I can get medical care and it will barely cost me anything if anything at all. Awhile back I visited my doctor with some complaints, got some X-rays and everything. I didn't pay a thing and didn't even expect to. My American friend on MSN was like 'that's so cool'.

No, not really. That's your government taking care of you the way they should. Otherwise, you may as well have no government.

#32 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 20 October 2009 - 11:23 PM

Healthcare is already rationed by the insurance industry

Waht the hell are you talking about? Insurance companies don't even provide healthcare. They provide insurance.

Denial of coverage is rationing. Happens all the time.

There are many many solutions that are actually sane and helpful that do not involve putting us on the path to government run healthcare which would be a complete catastrophe if you care about health. I don't know if you know anything about government run... anything here in the US. It is predictable failure in a huge way.

I don't really care to list all of the sane solutions that are out there, I know about a lot of them and if you cared about health you could look them up yourself. If you care about putting power in the hands of politicians, increasing the size of the US federal government, redistribution of wealth, etc etc, go ahead and ignore the threats this poses to your health and root Obama! Obama! Change change change! all the way to the grave


The countries that have healthcare are a case-in-point that government run health care need not be a disaster. In fact, in general, public health delivery seems to be of better quality than private. Many government-run programs have been successful in the US. It does seem to be a religious tenet an the right that the government cannot do anything right. It has nothing to do with anything. Whose government? The king's? The people's? Her majesty's secret service is a government run organization. The US constitution calls for a government post office. Does that mean the founding fathers were socialists? Hardly. They recognized some functions needed to be provided by government for the good of the country. The post office has been a source of patronage since its inception, but when not starved of funds delivers mail, (and now advertising,) quite efficiently. The fire department? Volunteers in rural areas, city service elsewhere. Seems to work. Government police? I wouldn't want any other kind in a Democracy, where they answer ultimately to elected officials. Would you want to privatize the Attorney Generals' offices? Seems efficient enough as it is to me.

Ideology is bunk. What matters is the dedication of the people within an organization, and their motivation. Private organizations can be a disaster for the general public, or not. Same goes for government. The "Government is always bad" meme is an excuse by wealthy private interests to weaken citizen's control over them so they can profit as they will. The "Free Market" is only a feedback mechanism, and one whose flaws (unstable equilibria, or local minima yielding undesireable results) need other inputs to balance.

#33 tunt01

  • Guest
  • 2,308 posts
  • 414
  • Location:NW

Posted 21 October 2009 - 12:01 AM

i agree the govt can do a lot of things right, even healthcare. but i have a hard time trusting congress to put together a plan that is:

1. not based on class warfare where we slam the rich w/ a bazillion taxes for handouts to the poor. this is a capitalist society not a socialist welfare state.
2. paid for TODAY by people's ongoing incomes, and not put on the backs of taxpayers in the future (ie. our children)
3. creates incentives for all parties to lower costs in a market-based way, rather than taking a blunt instrument approach and just saying "we will pay $X for this procedure, $Y for that procedure, and $Z for that test" it has to be a functioning system, where buyers (patients) and sellers (doctors, medical practitioners, hospitals, clinics) are driving costs down so that the best price/quality wins.

show me a bill in congress that has this kind of structure and ill write my congressman and senators, telling them to vote yes on a public option.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#34 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 21 October 2009 - 12:08 AM

Healthcare is already rationed by the insurance industry

Waht the hell are you talking about? Insurance companies don't even provide healthcare. They provide insurance.

Denial of coverage is rationing. Happens all the time.

It's a free country and you signed the contract. If you don't like the contract you signed, find another health insurance company with a better one.


If you want to complain about the performance of the health insurance companies, go talk to the government that has put so many insane regulations on them in order to make it impossible for them to do their job.

Just a couple of examples here, there are other major issues,
http://www.cato.org/...11/hb111-16.pdf

All states increase the cost of health insurance by requiring consumers
to purchase certain types of coverage, whether or not they want the
particular coverage
. As a result of these ‘‘mandated coverage’’ laws:
● Teetotalers must purchase coverage for alcoholism treatment (45
states).
● Nonsmokersmust purchase coverage for smoking-cessation programs
(2 states).
● Nondrug users must purchase coverage for drug-abuse treatment
(34 states).
● Many consumers must purchase coverage for services they consider
quackery, such as acupuncture (11 states), chiropractic (44 states),
and naturopathy (4 states).
● Consumers are required to purchase coverage for services that may
be more economical to purchase directly, such as various screening
exams (mammograms, 50 states; cervical cancer and/or human papillomavirus,
29 states; colorectal cancer, 28 states; newborn hearing,
17 states; ovarian cancer, 3 states; and prostate cancer, 33 states),
as well as uncomplicated deliveries (21 states) and well-child care
(31 states).
● Ten states require residents to purchase coverage for hairpieces.
174
Health Insurance Regulation
● Many consumers must purchase insurance that covers services or
people in relationships that they find morally offensive, such as
coverage for contraceptives (31 states), human papillomavirus vaccine
(16 states), in vitro fertilization (13 states), and domestic partners
(13 states).
● States have also required consumers to purchase coverage for medical
treatments that later proved harmful to health, such as hormone
replacement therapy (2 states) and high-dose chemotherapy with
autologous bone marrow transplant for breast cancer (at least 1 state,
Minnesota).

--There are a lot more of these, for example some states require mental health coverage, etc.

http://online.wsj.co...3109310680.html

The Competition Cure
A better idea to make health insurance affordable everywhere.
"Competition" has become a watchword of Team Obama's push for its health-care bill. Specifically, the Administration has defended its public insurance option as a necessary competitive goad to the private health insurance industry.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius routinely calls for more choice and competition in health care. In his weekly address this past weekend, President Obama raised the issue directly: "The source of a lot of these fears about government-run health care is confusion over what's called the public option. This is one idea among many to provide more competition and choice, especially in the many places around the country where just one insurer thoroughly dominates the marketplace." We take it this refers to a state in which one insurer holds most of the business.

It is no secret that this page is all for competition in the marketplace. If indeed that's the goal, allow us to suggest a path to it that will be a lot easier than erecting the impossible dream of a public option: Let insurance companies sell health-care policies across state lines.

This excellent idea has been before Congress since at least 2005, when Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona proposed it. It came up again recently in an exchange between Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday and John Rother, executive vice president of AARP.

Mr. Wallace: "If you really want competition why not remove the restriction which now says that if I live in Washington, D.C. I've got to buy a D.C. health plan, and instead create a national market for health insurance, so that if there's a cheaper plan in Pennsylvania, I could buy in Pennsylvania?"

Mr. Rother: "There are states and localities where health care is much less expensive than others, and if we allow people to buy all their insurance from those places, it will raise the rates there. And it's called risk selection. It's a real problem, given the fact that health care costs can vary substantially from one place to another. So I think while the idea sounds appealing, the consequence would be it would make health care more expensive for those people who live in those low-cost areas."

How did Mr. Rother arrive at this conclusion?

His claim assumes that what makes insurance expensive in places like New Jersey—where the annual cost of an individual plan for a 25-year-old male in 2006 was $5,880—is merely the higher cost of medical services in the Garden State. He sounds an alarm in the rest of the country by suggesting that an individual living in, say, Kentucky—where an annual plan for a 25-year-old male cost less than $1,000 in 2006—would be asked to subsidize plan members living in high-priced states.

That's not how interstate insurance would work. Devon Herrick, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis who has written extensively on this subject, notes that insurance companies operating nationally would compete nationally. The reason a Kentucky plan written for an individual from New Jersey would save the New Jerseyan money is that New Jersey is highly regulated, with costly mandated benefits and guaranteed access to insurance.

Affordability would improve if consumers could escape states where each policy is loaded with mandates. "If consumers do not want expensive 'Cadillac' health plans that pay for acupuncture, fertility treatments or hairpieces, they could buy from insurers in a state that does not mandate such benefits," Mr. Herrick has written.

A 2008 publication "Consumer Response to a National Marketplace in Individual Insurance," (Parente et al., University of Minnesota) estimated that if individuals in New Jersey could buy health insurance in a national market, 49% more New Jerseyans in the individual and small-group market would have coverage. Competition among states would produce a more rational regulatory environment in all states.

This doesn't mean sick people who have kept up their coverage but are more difficult to insure would be left out. Congressman Shadegg advocates government funding for high-risk pools, noting that their numbers are tiny. The big benefit would come from a market supply of affordable insurance.

Mr. Rother also said "risk selection" is a problem. But the coverage mandates cause that. As more healthy people opt out of health insurance because it is too expensive relative to what they consume, the pool transforms into a group of older, sicker people. Prices go higher still and more healthy people flee. High-mandate states are in what experts call an "adverse selection death spiral."

Interstate competition made the U.S. one of the world's most efficient, consumer driven markets. But health insurance is a glaring exception. When the competition caucus in Team Obama has to look for Plan B, this is it.


Edited by RighteousReason, 21 October 2009 - 12:23 AM.


#35 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 21 October 2009 - 12:09 AM

Healthcare is already rationed by the insurance industry

Waht the hell are you talking about? Insurance companies don't even provide healthcare. They provide insurance.

Denial of coverage is rationing. Happens all the time.

There are many many solutions that are actually sane and helpful that do not involve putting us on the path to government run healthcare which would be a complete catastrophe if you care about health. I don't know if you know anything about government run... anything here in the US. It is predictable failure in a huge way.

I don't really care to list all of the sane solutions that are out there, I know about a lot of them and if you cared about health you could look them up yourself. If you care about putting power in the hands of politicians, increasing the size of the US federal government, redistribution of wealth, etc etc, go ahead and ignore the threats this poses to your health and root Obama! Obama! Change change change! all the way to the grave


The countries that have healthcare are a case-in-point that government run health care need not be a disaster. In fact, in general, public health delivery seems to be of better quality than private. Many government-run programs have been successful in the US. It does seem to be a religious tenet an the right that the government cannot do anything right. It has nothing to do with anything. Whose government? The king's? The people's? Her majesty's secret service is a government run organization. The US constitution calls for a government post office. Does that mean the founding fathers were socialists? Hardly. They recognized some functions needed to be provided by government for the good of the country. The post office has been a source of patronage since its inception, but when not starved of funds delivers mail, (and now advertising,) quite efficiently.


"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems."


US Post Office To Run $7 Billion Deficit In 2009 - source US Post Office
http://www.topgunfp....eficit-in-2009/

Edited by RighteousReason, 21 October 2009 - 12:12 AM.


#36 Cyberbrain

  • Guest, F@H
  • 1,755 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Thessaloniki, Greece

Posted 21 October 2009 - 05:09 AM

I don't understand why the government has mandated it for every one to pay health care costs strictly by insurance. It demotivates doctors since they must adhere to regulations and it limits the user.

WHY can't we just pay things for our selves? Why can't we have public and private options? For instance in Cyprus you can go to a public hospital and everything is almost free, but if you need a serious operation or just want to get top of the line health care with no waiting lines then you can also go to a private hospital or provider and you can pay yourself or with private insurance. You can also call a doctor to come over to your house (something I might add we don't have here in the US and we should)!

I don't like how either the government or insurance companies limit our freedom and force us to follow their bureaucracies. Both systems need radical reform imo.

It's a free country and you signed the contract. If you don't like the contract you signed, find another health insurance company with a better one.

It's not easy switching companies. It could take months to do so and you could be denied. And that could cost you your life if you need an operation right now.

Edited by Cyberbrain, 21 October 2009 - 05:11 AM.


#37 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 21 October 2009 - 11:40 AM

I don't understand why the government has mandated it for every one to pay health care costs strictly by insurance. It demotivates doctors since they must adhere to regulations and it limits the user.

WHY can't we just pay things for our selves? Why can't we have public and private options? For instance in Cyprus you can go to a public hospital and everything is almost free, but if you need a serious operation or just want to get top of the line health care with no waiting lines then you can also go to a private hospital or provider and you can pay yourself or with private insurance. You can also call a doctor to come over to your house (something I might add we don't have here in the US and we should)!

I don't like how either the government or insurance companies limit our freedom and force us to follow their bureaucracies. Both systems need radical reform imo.

It's a free country and you signed the contract. If you don't like the contract you signed, find another health insurance company with a better one.

It's not easy switching companies. It could take months to do so and you could be denied. And that could cost you your life if you need an operation right now.

That's just the thing. We need to eliminate regulation and free up the insurance markets to allow true competition, not more regulation and government control. I don't see why nobody makes this connection between the crappy insurance industry and the stranglehold government has put them in, and then go around acting as though the industry is a free market, and THAT is what it to blame for the problems, with the only solution being more government. There are so many things wrong with that line of reasoning.

Also, there is no reason you can't have non-profit hospitals that are run privately, we have very successful private non-profit hospitals in this country. Charity should be done in the private sector where free markets, competition, and individual investors make the best possible choice- not done by a monolithic government that redistributes wealth at the point of a gun inefficiently and corruptly. I don't see why people don't understand why the latter option is wrong in so many ways when compared to the former.

http://www.foxnews.c...medicare-waste/

Tracking Your Taxes: Medicare Waste Goes Unchecked
As the single largest buyer of medical products, you'd think Medicare would at least get a volume discount. But it doesn't even get the best price.

By William LaJeunesse
FOXNews.com
Monday, October 05, 2009

From wheelchairs and walkers to orthopedic shoes and needles, Medicare buys tens of thousands of products every day for elderly Americans. And as the single largest buyer of medical products, you'd think it would at leastget a volume discount.

But it doesn't. In fact, Medicare doesn't even get the best price.

According to their own auditors, Medicare knowingly overpays for almost everything it buys. Examples include:

-- $7,215 to rent an oxygen concentrator, when the purchase price is $600.

-- $4,018 for a standard wheelchair, while the private sector pays $1,048.

-- $1,825 for a hospital bed, compared to an Internet price of $1,071.

-- $3,335 for a respiratory pump, versus an advertised price of $1,987.

-- $82 for a diabetic supply kit, instead of a $47 price on the Web.

Last year, the Health and Human Services Department tried to replace its archaic fixed-price fee schedule for 10 commonly purchased products with a competitive bidding program in 10 cities. The department said the program could save Medicare $125 million in a single year, or $1 billion if adopted nationwide. But Congress stepped in to stop it.

"There were products that we had as much as 75 percent savings. The average was 29 percent," said Mike Leavitt, the former HHS secretary who oversaw the program.

"It would have saved billions if we could've actually implemented it, but Congress deferred it. In Washington speak, that means we put it off forever," he said.

Leavitt blames Congressmen Pete Stark (D-Calif.) and Dave Camp (R-Mich.) for introducing legislation that terminated the contracts and postponed the program for 18 months. Leavitt says the congressional intervention helps explain why many are suspicious of claims that Washington can cut enough waste to actually pay for health care reform, as President Obama told a joint session of Congress last month.

"Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan," Leavitt said.

"The problem here is one man's waste is another man's living, and whenever there is an effort put forward to actually make an efficiency, someone goes on the offensive and hires lobbyists and does what they can to constrain Congress from doing it," Leavitt said.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the health care industry is currently spending $2 million a day lobbying Congress. Leavitt's pilot program died after small business suppliers claimed it would have put them out of business. Eventually, industry agreed to help pay the cost of terminated contracts that Medicare had already negotiated.

Industry officials argued the new system would unfairly disqualify some suppliers, and others with little experience would get the business, causing a decline in quality and service.


Edited by RighteousReason, 21 October 2009 - 11:46 AM.


#38 yoyo

  • Guest
  • 582 posts
  • 21

Posted 21 October 2009 - 12:19 PM

free people are not economically equal and people that are economically equal are not free


this is 'freedom' as per the virginia planter class. positing life as a zero sum game; to be able to subjugate others is the only worthwhile freedom.

#39 yoyo

  • Guest
  • 582 posts
  • 21

Posted 21 October 2009 - 12:21 PM

Providing good health care and making a profit are contrary aims.

Complete insanity. I don't even know where to begin with something like that. Go read Atlas Shrugged.



Well, I lolled.

#40 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 21 October 2009 - 12:56 PM

free people are not economically equal and people that are economically equal are not free


this is 'freedom' as per the virginia planter class. positing life as a zero sum game; to be able to subjugate others is the only worthwhile freedom.

You are agreeing with me here right? One finds moral imperative in forcing economic equality if one "posits life as a zero sum game; to be able to subjugate others is the only worthwhile freedom" (well said btw) because economic inequality is supposedly solely derived through the subjugation of others. Which is of course utter nonsense in this country in this day and age. This kind of reasoning is what drives the story of Atlas Shrugged, originally titled "The Strike", because those evil subjugaters decide to comply with the logic- by stopping the supposed "subjugation"- i.e. stop being economically productive. And of course the entire world crashes down on the heads of the looters and moochers spouting this type deranged moral imperative.

Incredible book by the way, highly recommended :)

Edited by RighteousReason, 21 October 2009 - 01:06 PM.


#41 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 21 October 2009 - 03:04 PM

I don't see why nobody makes this connection between the crappy insurance industry and the stranglehold government has put them in


well....

quite frankly most of what the government has put them in they lobbied for in order to limit their own competition and increase their own profits. Right now by far the largest share of the health care dollar disappears in insurance companies. It eclipses even that which goes to the pharmaceutical industry, only 8% actually goes to doctors (not profit, this includes overhead). This explains more than 100% of the disparity between the cost of health care between the canadian, UK's, french, and our own system per capita).
the system is entirely corrupt, and is nothing remotely similar to a free market. It is even less similar to a free market than it is in more socialist countries. It is more feudalist, with the insurance companies occupying the posts of earls, barons, and counts. The health insurance industry will probably endorse the health reform bill in the end because most versions of it force more people to buy their service or face heavy fines, which really is great for the health insurance barons wanting more tribute.

Other anti competitive things to keep in mind which exacerbate the issue include.
-Insurance that covers prescription drugs must pay for the drugs no matter how much they are and cannot directly negotiate on price. Patients also do not directly negotiate on drug price since most of them are just covered automatically through employment and have absolutely no idea how much they actually pay for things.
-Private insurance (meaning not being covered through an employer, but just buying your own) is almost a total scam insofar as everyone buys the cheapest option. When the price goes up, they drop their old plan and buy the cheapest option again, except those who got sick and are forced to stay in the original group they were put in; this group ends up being composed of mostly sick people and the price of insurance in that group goes up to the point that these super sick people may as well have no insurance, and the point of insurance is to cover you if you need it. The same is true with the high deductible insurance plans.
-Medicare covers prescription drugs which must be paid for from the government, but the government does not negotiate on price because it would be effectively a government price control.
-Laboratory tests are billed at orders of magnitude beyond their actual cost (this is defended because there is so much inefficiency in getting lab tests done that this inefficiency swallows most of those extra orders of magnitude).
-Doctors are sued like crazy so they have learned to practice defensive medicine. ie they order a crap load of unneeded tests and consults because if they don't they will get sued and loose everything 1 in 1000 times. Insurance and medicare rightly try not to pay for these unneeded things, but end up paying mos of the time because doctors have learned to defend their decisions in this regard very well, and indeed, if these things were not paid for somehow doctors simply wouldn't work because the risk/reward ratio in medicine would dramatically favor not working (it is moving closer to that situation now anyway).
-Diagnostic tests cost an order of magnitude more than they should.
-Doctors spend more time navigating bureaucracy than dealing with patients. Insurance companies set up more and more bureaucracy to make it hard to collect money from them, Rather than increasing efficiency and improving patient care it worsens both. So does medicare.
-doctors must go to expensive medical schools, they can't just learn themselves and the prove they have knowledge by taking tests. The first two years of medical school were a waste of time I could have learned just by reading books for a few months (which is really what I did do anyway). The second two years of practical medical experience are important. This type of inefficiency is of course present throughout our society in any occupation that has any educational requirements. Self directed study for many is more effective than University study.
-Medicare and insurance companies pay some percentage of what is billed. Typically low. Health providers raise their rates to compensate. People without health insurance cannot pay less than the full rate otherwise it doesn't count as the full rate, and they are therefore fleeced, unless they are poor, in which case they pay nothing and are still treated.

-the inefficiencies of every level of the system are absolutely enormous, and continue to compound. I think there is some kind of negative moor's law in effect in this industry.

#42 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 21 October 2009 - 03:51 PM

I don't see why nobody makes this connection between the crappy insurance industry and the stranglehold government has put them in


well....

quite frankly most of what the government has put them in they lobbied for in order to limit their own competition and increase their own profits. Right now by far the largest share of the health care dollar disappears in insurance companies. It eclipses even that which goes to the pharmaceutical industry, only 8% actually goes to doctors (not profit, this includes overhead). This explains more than 100% of the disparity between the cost of health care between the canadian, UK's, french, and our own system per capita).
the is entirely corrupt, and is nothing remotely similar to a free market. It is even less similar to a free market than it is in more socialist countries. It is more feudalist, with the insurance companies occupying the posts of earls, barons, and counts. The health insurance industry will probably endorse the health reform bill in the end because most vsystem ersions of it force more people to buy their service or face heavy fines, which really is great for the health insurance barons wanting more tribute.



Exactly, it's indeed not to be blamed on a free market but on the structure of the government itself which allows big companies to buy politicians/power inside the government.


This is why, actually, that there are so many misunderstandings about economic systems. People wanting the government to protect them from the "big, ruthless companies" think that these companies are evil capitalist corporations and want the government to help them fight the corps, when in fact it's the government itself which allowed these corporations to exist, because it helps them to acquire monopolies in markets and makes it hard for other companies to compete with these big ones, which allows the big companies to offer crappy services and products without serious consequences.

Big corportations that buy government power are as bad as the government and in no way related to the pure form capitalism; laissez faire capitalism, which most people blame when they experience injustices stemming, in some way or the other, from the government itself.

It's funny, then, that all the evil that comes out of the existence of a big, strong government only makes people want an even bigger government because they can't see the reality, that the government is the problem. We should just let the market work and do it's thing, in the long term it'll be better for everyone.

Edited by forever freedom, 21 October 2009 - 03:54 PM.


#43 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 21 October 2009 - 09:08 PM

I don't see why nobody makes this connection between the crappy insurance industry and the stranglehold government has put them in


well....

quite frankly most of what the government has put them in they lobbied for in order to limit their own competition and increase their own profits.


If you argue that the problem is because of the corrupt and non-competitive oligopolies that exist right now who are lobbying and getting in bed with the government (which I would largely agree is the problem)- clearly the answer is not to have more government involvement and control- that, while ignoring ALL the other free market solutions which can create more and better competition and clean up the government interference and corruption

Edited by RighteousReason, 21 October 2009 - 09:20 PM.


#44 yoyo

  • Guest
  • 582 posts
  • 21

Posted 21 October 2009 - 10:18 PM

there isn't such a thing as a 'small government' if you mean one that inherently can't give aid to corporations that buy it off, outside of 'weak state' places like somalia where there isn't any government and you just have thugs. before new deal or trust busting or other 'big government' there was still lots of graft and special interest money. have you ever read about american history? the only solution is better democratic control of institutions.

You are agreeing with me here right? One finds moral imperative in forcing economic equality if one "posits life as a zero sum game; to be able to subjugate others is the only worthwhile freedom" (well said btw) because economic inequality is supposedly solely derived through the subjugation of others. Which is of course utter nonsense in this country in this day and age. This kind of reasoning is what drives the story of Atlas Shrugged, originally titled "The Strike", because those evil subjugaters decide to comply with the logic- by stopping the supposed "subjugation"- i.e. stop being economically productive. And of course the entire world crashes down on the heads of the looters and moochers spouting this type deranged moral imperative.


no, i was disagreeing, just characterizing your position. i might have been wrong though, it sounds like you have gone whole hog into the randian thing. which while an interesting though badly prosed fantasy, is like having a position on medicine based on watching star trek.

#45 yoyo

  • Guest
  • 582 posts
  • 21

Posted 21 October 2009 - 10:23 PM

and, a 'free market' is very dependent on organizing body, almost always government, to ensure it runs well. corporations try to monopolize, and to get out of commodity production to 'value-added' which gets them to monopolistic competition. someone has to ensure they are all being honest, not 'polluting' in a generalized sense, and that the competition points are easily found w/o too much work by purchasor: usually price, some aspect of quality. if products are too differentiated, the transaction cost to compare them is too great because there are multiple ways the products differ. so things like basic saftey standards reduces degrees of difference and increase pressure to have good prices. free markets aren't a natural state of affairs.

#46 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 21 October 2009 - 10:27 PM

which while an interesting though badly prosed fantasy, is like having a position on medicine based on watching star trek.

That's a nice line but completely baseless

#47 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 21 October 2009 - 10:28 PM

and, a 'free market' is very dependent on organizing body, almost always government, to ensure it runs well. corporations try to monopolize, and to get out of commodity production to 'value-added' which gets them to monopolistic competition. someone has to ensure they are all being honest, not 'polluting' in a generalized sense, and that the competition points are easily found w/o too much work by purchasor: usually price, some aspect of quality. if products are too differentiated, the transaction cost to compare them is too great because there are multiple ways the products differ. so things like basic saftey standards reduces degrees of difference and increase pressure to have good prices. free markets aren't a natural state of affairs.

A free market capitalist system does not automatically equate with total anarchy, I don't think anybody has made any reference to the latter until you just now. And saying free markets aren't a natural state of affairs is pure insanity...

there isn't such a thing as a 'small government' if you mean one that inherently can't give aid to corporations that buy it off, outside of 'weak state' places like somalia where there isn't any government and you just have thugs. before new deal or trust busting or other 'big government' there was still lots of graft and special interest money. have you ever read about american history? the only solution is better democratic control of institutions.


Of course there is such a thing as a 'small government', and that does not mean one that does not have the theoretical capacity to aid corporations. It simply means not regulating with police force things it has no business regulating, and not spending money on things it has no business being involved in (and thus not collecting the taxes / printing the money for those purposes)- that doesn't mean it is incapable of collecting those taxes, as it has the military and police forces on its side.

Edited by RighteousReason, 21 October 2009 - 10:36 PM.


#48 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 21 October 2009 - 10:38 PM

Providing good health care and making a profit are contrary aims.

Complete insanity.


saying free markets aren't a natural state of affairs is pure insanity...


:)


insanity, get it?

Edited by maxwatt, 22 October 2009 - 01:34 AM.
Inappropriate image (Image may be subject to copyright.)


#49 yoyo

  • Guest
  • 582 posts
  • 21

Posted 22 October 2009 - 01:35 AM

and, a 'free market' is very dependent on organizing body, almost always government, to ensure it runs well. corporations try to monopolize, and to get out of commodity production to 'value-added' which gets them to monopolistic competition. someone has to ensure they are all being honest, not 'polluting' in a generalized sense, and that the competition points are easily found w/o too much work by purchasor: usually price, some aspect of quality. if products are too differentiated, the transaction cost to compare them is too great because there are multiple ways the products differ. so things like basic saftey standards reduces degrees of difference and increase pressure to have good prices. free markets aren't a natural state of affairs.

A free market capitalist system does not automatically equate with total anarchy, I don't think anybody has made any reference to the latter until you just now. And saying free markets aren't a natural state of affairs is pure insanity...

there isn't such a thing as a 'small government' if you mean one that inherently can't give aid to corporations that buy it off, outside of 'weak state' places like somalia where there isn't any government and you just have thugs. before new deal or trust busting or other 'big government' there was still lots of graft and special interest money. have you ever read about american history? the only solution is better democratic control of institutions.


Of course there is such a thing as a 'small government', and that does not mean one that does not have the theoretical capacity to aid corporations. It simply means not regulating with police force things it has no business regulating, and not spending money on things it has no business being involved in (and thus not collecting the taxes / printing the money for those purposes)- that doesn't mean it is incapable of collecting those taxes, as it has the military and police forces on its side.


well a state strong enough not to be anarchy is one that powerful interests will try to use for their benefit. getting rid of consumer protections or guarenteed health care doesn't stop corruption; its mostly orthogonal.

randoid vision of rich people as the victims of society and 'exploited' by paying taxes or having to comply with regulations while everyone else is just dumb leeching sheeple subhumans just has nothing to do with reality, putting aside its absurd arrogance and selfishness.

#50 AdamSummerfield

  • Guest
  • 351 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Derbyshire, England

Posted 22 October 2009 - 01:47 AM

I don't want your nasty smelly socialist nazi healthcare system! I want my freedom!




http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

http://www.youtube.c...feature=channel

#51 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 22 October 2009 - 01:53 AM

Providing good health care and making a profit are contrary aims.

Complete insanity.


saying free markets aren't a natural state of affairs is pure insanity...


:)

Posted Image

insanity, get it?


It's a Batman reference (the Joker?? Hello??) Not a Nazi reference. You admins are freaking clueless.

#52 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 22 October 2009 - 01:55 AM

and, a 'free market' is very dependent on organizing body, almost always government, to ensure it runs well. corporations try to monopolize, and to get out of commodity production to 'value-added' which gets them to monopolistic competition. someone has to ensure they are all being honest, not 'polluting' in a generalized sense, and that the competition points are easily found w/o too much work by purchasor: usually price, some aspect of quality. if products are too differentiated, the transaction cost to compare them is too great because there are multiple ways the products differ. so things like basic saftey standards reduces degrees of difference and increase pressure to have good prices. free markets aren't a natural state of affairs.

A free market capitalist system does not automatically equate with total anarchy, I don't think anybody has made any reference to the latter until you just now. And saying free markets aren't a natural state of affairs is pure insanity...

there isn't such a thing as a 'small government' if you mean one that inherently can't give aid to corporations that buy it off, outside of 'weak state' places like somalia where there isn't any government and you just have thugs. before new deal or trust busting or other 'big government' there was still lots of graft and special interest money. have you ever read about american history? the only solution is better democratic control of institutions.


Of course there is such a thing as a 'small government', and that does not mean one that does not have the theoretical capacity to aid corporations. It simply means not regulating with police force things it has no business regulating, and not spending money on things it has no business being involved in (and thus not collecting the taxes / printing the money for those purposes)- that doesn't mean it is incapable of collecting those taxes, as it has the military and police forces on its side.


well a state strong enough not to be anarchy is one that powerful interests will try to use for their benefit. getting rid of consumer protections or guarenteed health care doesn't stop corruption; its mostly orthogonal.

randoid vision of rich people as the victims of society and 'exploited' by paying taxes or having to comply with regulations while everyone else is just dumb leeching sheeple subhumans just has nothing to do with reality, putting aside its absurd arrogance and selfishness.


Sounds like you are trying to play off Atlas Shrugged as something completely different than what it is. Or maybe you just so completely misinterpreted it that you actually believe something like that. Whatever, it's wrong. Read it again.

Edited by RighteousReason, 22 October 2009 - 02:00 AM.


#53 fatboy

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 0

Posted 22 October 2009 - 02:29 AM

free people are not economically equal and people that are economically equal are not free


Huh? If my net worth and earning power is the same as yours then neither one of us is "free". Seems a tad restrictive. I guess either one of us could give the other a dollar or two to create the imbalance necessary for "freedom". The bookkeeping could get a bit messy in a larger population, though.

Edited by fatboy, 22 October 2009 - 02:43 AM.


#54 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 22 October 2009 - 03:03 AM

Providing good health care and making a profit are contrary aims.

Complete insanity.


saying free markets aren't a natural state of affairs is pure insanity...


:)



insanity, get it?


It's a Batman reference (the Joker?? Hello??) Not a Nazi reference. You admins are freaking clueless.

Then why does it say Socialism???

Posted Image

#55 fatboy

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 0

Posted 22 October 2009 - 04:13 AM

Then why does it say Socialism???


I'm still trying to figure out out why that is pejorative. I'll keep trying.

Edited by fatboy, 22 October 2009 - 04:14 AM.


#56 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 22 October 2009 - 01:04 PM

Providing good health care and making a profit are contrary aims.

Complete insanity.


saying free markets aren't a natural state of affairs is pure insanity...


:)



insanity, get it?


It's a Batman reference (the Joker?? Hello??) Not a Nazi reference. You admins are freaking clueless.

Then why does it say Socialism???

Posted Image



I don't know if anyone affirmed this, but what does Nazi have to do with Socialism (i hope no one said it.. that'd be a real show of ignorance)?? Also i couldn't see why that Obama image was deleted, especially after Maxwatt posts this image of Bush. I usually agree with moderators but this time the mod is obviously biased in his judgment because of political views.

The reason given by Maxwatt for deleting the Obama picture: "Reason for edit: Inappropriate image (Image may be subject to copyright.)". LOL are you friggin' kidding me? You'd have to most of the pics posted on Imminst if you were to always abide by this standard, Maxwatt.

Edited by forever freedom, 22 October 2009 - 01:13 PM.


#57 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 22 October 2009 - 03:57 PM

What does Nazi have to do with socialism? How soon we forget. National Socialist German Worker's Party was the official name of the NAZI party. So Obama can with consistency be called a Nazi and a socialist. In truth he is neither. People are confusing mild reforms with a radical agenda.

It turns out the joker socialist image is public domain; the artist never copyrighted it, so he is missing out on royalties for all those T-shirts and posters.

#58 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 22 October 2009 - 04:21 PM

What does Nazi have to do with socialism? How soon we forget. National Socialist German Worker's Party was the official name of the NAZI party. So Obama can with consistency be called a Nazi and a socialist. In truth he is neither. People are confusing mild reforms with a radical agenda.


Yes i know what Nazi means. Just because they have "Socialist" in their name doesn't make them socialists. Hitler himself expressed regreat for the party's name having incorporated the word "socialist". The Nazi party was NOT socialist.. not in the sense that we're discussing here.

By the way, Nazis sent communists to concentration camps. I know communists are different from socialists in this context but it puts things in perspective.


It turns out the joker socialist image is public domain; the artist never copyrighted it, so he is missing out on royalties for all those T-shirts and posters.


If it's public doman then why don't you at least restore the image to RighteousReason's post.

And why didn't you check if it was public domain before deleting it? And why aren't you always as strict with copyrights with several other pictures on Imminst???

Edited by forever freedom, 22 October 2009 - 04:24 PM.


#59 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 22 October 2009 - 09:03 PM

What does Nazi have to do with socialism? How soon we forget. National Socialist German Worker's Party was the official name of the NAZI party. So Obama can with consistency be called a Nazi and a socialist. In truth he is neither. People are confusing mild reforms with a radical agenda.


Yes i know what Nazi means. Just because they have "Socialist" in their name doesn't make them socialists. Hitler himself expressed regreat for the party's name having incorporated the word "socialist". The Nazi party was NOT socialist.. not in the sense that we're discussing here.

By the way, Nazis sent communists to concentration camps. I know communists are different from socialists in this context but it puts things in perspective.


It turns out the joker socialist image is public domain; the artist never copyrighted it, so he is missing out on royalties for all those T-shirts and posters.


If it's public doman then why don't you at least restore the image to RighteousReason's post.

And why didn't you check if it was public domain before deleting it? And why aren't you always as strict with copyrights with several other pictures on Imminst???

Righteousreason already reposted the image. I was searching google image trying to figrure out what he was trying to say, and received a warning that the image "may be subject to copyright", something I did not remember having encountered before. I still don't know exactly what point he was trying to make, but it seems he was only trying to be provocative and muddy the waters.

#60 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 22 October 2009 - 11:25 PM

And why didn't you check if it was public domain before deleting it? And why aren't you always as strict with copyrights with several other pictures on Imminst???

You must be new here




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users