PDA

View Full Version : Capitalist vs Socialist: Healthcare Bill



PoliCon
12-25-2010, 05:37 PM
FOR WEE WEE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4msVk_sdtdQ

Novaheart
12-25-2010, 11:39 PM
The current healthcare bill sucks, because too many Americans were too stupid and blinded to demand Single Payer.

This video contains no relevant data.
Relevant data would be the expenditure per person the US currently has compared to other First World countries with single payer care, or if you want to keep it closer to come, compare it to the expenditure per person by the Alabama Department of Corrections.

PoliCon
12-25-2010, 11:57 PM
The current healthcare bill sucks, because too many Americans were too stupid and blinded to demand Single Payer.

This video contains no relevant data.
Relevant data would be the expenditure per person the US currently has compared to other First World countries with single payer care, or if you want to keep it closer to come, compare it to the expenditure per person by the Alabama Department of Corrections.

You mean you wanna know what the comparison is between a capitalist system of healthcare and a socialist system of healthcare?

here - watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4msVk_sdtdQ

Rockntractor
12-26-2010, 12:11 AM
You mean you wanna know what the comparison is between a capitalist system of healthcare and a socialist system of healthcare?

here - watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4msVk_sdtdQ

He claimed to be a conservative in another thread today, conservatives can be a lot of things but they are not for socialist medicine, and the same goes for Mitt Romney!

NJCardFan
12-26-2010, 12:36 AM
The current healthcare bill sucks, because too many Americans were too stupid and blinded to demand Single Payer.

This video contains no relevant data.
Relevant data would be the expenditure per person the US currently has compared to other First World countries with single payer care, or if you want to keep it closer to come, compare it to the expenditure per person by the Alabama Department of Corrections.

Um, as someone who works in corrections, if you're going to compare using this, then I wish to opt out right now.

lacarnut
12-26-2010, 12:40 AM
The current healthcare bill sucks, because too many Americans were too stupid and blinded to demand Single Payer.

This video contains no relevant data.
Relevant data would be the expenditure per person the US currently has compared to other First World countries with single payer care, or if you want to keep it closer to come, compare it to the expenditure per person by the Alabama Department of Corrections.

What sucks is that Obama has exempted 200 large corporations, his union buddies and federal workers from this abortion of a bill. If single payer was passed, you are not that retarded to think that the above mentioned entities would be placed under that umbrella do you ?????????

Novaheart
12-26-2010, 01:14 AM
What sucks is that Obama has exempted 200 large corporations, his union buddies and federal workers from this abortion of a bill. If single payer was passed, you are not that retarded to think that the above mentioned entities would be placed under that umbrella do you ?????????



Single Payer is not the same as a National Health Service, and it's not a slippery slope to a National Health Service.

Single Payer allows greater worker and business mobility.

Single Payer is good for small business and self employed people, thus Single Payer encourages small business start ups.

Since you are going to end up on Medicare anyway, it makes a lot more sense to be paying into Medicare and using Medicare during your working years, rather than giving all your premiums to Met Life and then getting dumped into Medicare.

It's not a liberal versus conservative issue. Supporting the insurance companies is not a conservative position, it's a gullible and wasteful position.

Rockntractor
12-26-2010, 01:22 AM
It's not a liberal versus conservative issue.
You might get away with that lie somewhere else but there is 0 conservative support for single payer and although I have noticed you hold a handful of conservative views you are no conservative.
Try being honest for a change and people will be more accepting of you.

Zathras
12-26-2010, 02:21 AM
You might get away with that lie somewhere else but there is 0 conservative support for single payer and although I have noticed you hold a handful of conservative views you are no conservative.
Try being honest for a change and people will be more accepting of you.

heh heh, you're asking this degenerate to be honest? That's like saying Obumbles is the best president ever. No way in hell is he a conservative.

Novaheart
12-26-2010, 02:21 AM
You might get away with that lie somewhere else but there is 0 conservative support for single payer and although I have noticed you hold a handful of conservative views you are no conservative.
Try being honest for a change and people will be more accepting of you.

So it was conservatives who kept Single Payer from even being considered by the Democratic Congress?

Rockntractor
12-26-2010, 02:36 AM
So it was conservatives who kept Single Payer from even being considered by the Democratic Congress?

Conservatives do not want socialized medicine of any kind.

PoliCon
12-26-2010, 02:42 AM
Conservatives do not want socialized medicine of any kind.

Of course the left claims that if you're not in favor of government run and regulated anything - you're a shill for the rich/corporations. :rolleyes:

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-26-2010, 04:56 AM
Of course the left claims that if you're not in favor of government run and regulated anything - you're a shill for the rick/corporations. :rolleyes:

And the right claims if you're for government run anything and even the most meager regulation of any industry--you're a communist who hates America and murders kittens.

Let's not pretend hyperbole is limited to one side.

PoliCon
12-26-2010, 10:41 AM
And the right claims if you're for government run anything and even the most meager regulation of any industry--you're a communist who hates America and murders kittens.

Let's not pretend hyperbole is limited to one side.

What the hell else do you want to call the government running things that should be handled by people personally and individually?

Rockntractor
12-26-2010, 10:56 AM
What he hell else do you want to call the government running things that should be handled by people personally and individually?

What he hell?:confused:

PoliCon
12-26-2010, 10:58 AM
What he hell?:confused:

I'm sorry were you saying something?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx4WLGa7GaE

Wei Wu Wei
12-26-2010, 11:42 AM
The current bill does suck. I don't know any self-identified socialists who actually like this health care bill.

Wei Wu Wei
12-26-2010, 11:43 AM
The majority of people who are happy about this bill are Democrats who are just excited that their team scored a point.

That and young people who are able to stay on their parents insurance, I admit that that is a good thing.

PoliCon
12-26-2010, 11:48 AM
The current bill does suck. I don't know any self-identified socialists who actually like this health care bill.

Bullshit. Except for the idiots on campus who are too stupid to see the forest for the trees - socialists LOVE this bill because they know what it is: an open door. Of course they will put up token complaints against it - but they know that not that the government has a hand in it - the chances of getting the governments hand OUT of it are slim and none.

Wei Wu Wei
12-26-2010, 12:10 PM
Bullshit. Except for the idiots on campus who are too stupid to see the forest for the trees - socialists LOVE this bill because they know what it is: an open door. Of course they will put up token complaints against it - but they know that not that the government has a hand in it - the chances of getting the governments hand OUT of it are slim and none.

Perhaps some socialists that you talk to LOVE this bill, but the Leftist anti-capitalist people that I talk to voice near universal opposition to this bill. For socialists, the primary problem with the health care industry is the profit motive. Leftists do not accept that health care or health insurance should be treated as any other commodity, because of it's social necessity.

This bill isn't a public option, it's not single payer, it's not medicare for all, it's none of these things. I suppose one can say that this introduces new regulation into the industry, but that's nothing new, there's been regulation in this industry for a long time, and in fact in most major important industries there are too. I think it's a bit misguided to suggest that this set of weak regulations is somehow the first foot in the door, because the first foot in the door was a long time ago.

PoliCon
12-26-2010, 12:14 PM
Perhaps some socialists that you talk to LOVE this bill, but the Leftist anti-capitalist people that I talk to voice near universal opposition to this bill. For socialists, the primary problem with the health care industry is the profit motive. Leftists do not accept that health care or health insurance should be treated as any other commodity, because of it's social necessity.You dumbass there is no capitalism in this bill. :rolleyes: As long as government is controlling things the best you have is fascism. The capitalist solution would be to deregulate the industry.


This bill isn't a public option, it's not single payer, it's not medicare for all, it's none of these things. I suppose one can say that this introduces new regulation into the industry, but that's nothing new, there's been regulation in this industry for a long time, and in fact in most major important industries there are too. I think it's a bit misguided to suggest that this set of weak regulations is somehow the first foot in the door, because the first foot in the door was a long time ago.


Of course it's the foot in the door. Already companies are being forced to shed their own health insurance policies because of cost increases resultant form this socialist bill - and where are these uninsured people going to have to turn? They can't just not have insurance - the bill makes that a crime - so where do they go? The socialist government run medicaid. :rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
12-26-2010, 12:23 PM
You dumbass there is no capitalism in this bill. :rolleyes: As long as government is controlling things the best you have is fascism.

I agree.


The capitalist solution would be to deregulate the industry.

This is an impossible state to remain in. Even if they do deregulate the industry, it's only a matter of time before the big corporations in that industry lobby congress to regulate it in their favor. If it's in the interests of the company to rig the system in their favor, why wouldn't they?

Not to mention that the industry runs by maximizing how much money goes in, while minimizing payouts. They will do anything they can to avoid paying out claims.

For example, the regulation about pre-existing conditions: these companies will take any excuse they can, even getting childhood hospital reports about some illness you had when you were 12, and deny your health care access because of it. Does this sound like it's best for the American people? Is it best for the consumer? Is it best for anyone other than the majority stockholders of these companies?

Sometimes profit motive runs against the interests of society. Sometimes they run parallel, but this is not one of those cases.

Other than some allegiance to Capitalism, why is it better to deregulate the industry rather than re-prioritizing it so that it puts people ahead of profits? Lots of people will say "because that's Socialism!" or "Because I support Capitalism!". But why?

Sometimes practicality has to come before ideology, this is something that any Socialist has to learn, but it's also an important lesson for any supporter of Capitalism.





Of course it's the foot in the door. Already companies are being forced to shed their own health insurance policies because of cost increases resultant form this socialist bill - and where are these uninsured people going to have to turn? They can't just not have insurance - the bill makes that a crime - so where do they go? The socialist government run medicaid. :rolleyes:

The costs of health care have been steadily rising for decades, and this bill does have provisions in place for small business owners.

The government run programs like medicare and medicaid are for select groups of needy people, not for anyone. This bill isn't going to put you in jail if you don't buy health care, you're just going to have one less tax exception. For people who have to get health care, their options will be private-only options. For-profit health care, not socialist health care.

PoliCon
12-26-2010, 12:47 PM
I agree. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.




This is an impossible state to remain in. Says the fascist/socialist. :rolleyes:


Even if they do deregulate the industry, it's only a matter of time before the big corporations in that industry lobby congress to regulate it in their favor. If it's in the interests of the company to rig the system in their favor, why wouldn't they? Not to mention that the industry runs by maximizing how much money goes in, while minimizing payouts. They will do anything they can to avoid paying out claims. Only those that cannot compete try to rig things in their favor. And how much business would a company that exists to pay out have should it become known that they never pay out? :rolleyes: Another company will come along and steal their customers away by *gasp* paying out! :rolleyes:




For example, the regulation about pre-existing conditions: these companies will take any excuse they can, even getting childhood hospital reports about some illness you had when you were 12, and deny your health care access because of it. Does this sound like it's best for the American people? Is it best for the consumer? Is it best for anyone other than the majority stockholders of these companies? If you fail to disclose - they have a case. If you disclose and they cover you - YOU have a case. simple contract law. No need for excessive government regulations. NEXT STRAWMAN!


Sometimes profit motive runs against the interests of society. Sometimes they run parallel, but this is not one of those cases. Other than some allegiance to Capitalism, why is it better to deregulate the industry rather than re-prioritizing it so that it puts people ahead of profits? Lots of people will say "because that's Socialism!" or "Because I support Capitalism!". But why? It's not a businesses job to be socially conscious. It's their job to meet the needs of their clients and when they fail to do that - clients take their business elsewhere unless of course Government interferes in the process.




Sometimes practicality has to come before ideology, this is something that any Socialist has to learn, but it's also an important lesson for any supporter of Capitalism. Bullshit. You're not talking about practicality - you're talking about progressivism. You know better than everyone else so we should all be forced to comply with what you know is best for us.


The costs of health care have been steadily rising for decades, and this bill does have provisions in place for small business owners.Yes because of government interference in the market. Where the government does not interfere - and where there is no mandated insurance coverage - costs have been decreasing even as quality of care has been increasing. GO FIGURE THAT!




The government run programs like medicare and medicaid are for select groups of needy people, not for anyone. This bill isn't going to put you in jail if you don't buy health care, you're just going to have one less tax exception. For people who have to get health care, their options will be private-only options. For-profit health care, not socialist health care. DUMBASS - what program do you think will be picking up the people who can no longer afford their healthcare premiums? medicaid. Oh they may use nice fancy names and make it seem like it's private insurance - they may subcontract the work out to insurance companies - but it's still medicaid. The government still mandates what is paid or not paid - and the pay outs will still be taken from tax dollars. FURTHERMORE - you're a fucking liar trying to claim that people will not be sent to jail for not having coverage. You are one seriously dishonest little troll.

Wei Wu Wei
12-26-2010, 01:10 PM
Only those that cannot compete try to rig things in their favor. And how much business would a company that exists to pay out have should it become known that they never pay out? :rolleyes: Another company will come along and steal their customers away by *gasp* paying out! :rolleyes:

This is not how it works. You know that multi-billion dollar businesses are able to influence the opinions of consumers, you also know that that people are not totally rational creatures, and I think it's safe to say that most people agree that the "cheaters never win and winners never cheat" rule isn't as steadfast as we might like to think.

There are a lot of cheaters winning every day on wallstreet, in government, in finance, even in labor.

While these general rules of commerce do hold true for small businesses (mr smiths shop down the street competing against mr jones' shop a few blocks down), they don't hold true once these businesses are big enough to Buy Congress.

Really, I don't think it's a matter of honesty, it's a matter of practicality, the top executives of big companies have one primary job, increase profits. If they are not working their hardest to maximize their profits, they will lose their jobs. If all of your competitors are in congress lobbying and writing bills for our elected representatives to sign, why wouldn't any smart businessman do the same? In big business, the world that merges with big government, if you aren't playing the game you lose.

I think the old rules of small-business capitalism such as fair open competition do not hold for the big guys, because they hold enough power to change the very board that the game is played on.



If you fail to disclose - they have a case. If you disclose and they cover you - YOU have a case. simple contract law. No need for excessive government regulations. NEXT STRAWMAN!

Sure thing. Well, the point still stands that it is in their business interests to do whatever they can legally (even changing the laws if necessary) to maximize money going in, and minimizing money going out.

The problem is that when this is your main goal, sometimes other goals (like providing care for people efficiently) are actually undermined.


I also think it's a bit ingenuous to paint the picture of "one day everything was harmonious and worked for everyone, and then X FACTOR came in and ruined it all, and if it weren't for X then everything would be good."

Many people use this to argue for purity, for getting rid of X. This, I believe, is a very dangerous ideology for my own personal reasons.

However, I think that history shows that there was never a time when things were right, our history has been a nonstop conflict, filled with problems and contradictions that are constantly trying to be resolved. It's never enough, in my opinion, to place the blame for societies dysfunctions on one thing (in this case, GOVERNMENT). Rather, it's important to realize that our society is inherently one of conflict, contradiction, and problems, and there's no one factor that can be blamed for it.

PoliCon
12-26-2010, 01:22 PM
This is not how it works. You know that multi-billion dollar businesses are able to influence the opinions of consumers, you also know that that people are not totally rational creatures, and I think it's safe to say that most people agree that the "cheaters never win and winners never cheat" rule isn't as steadfast as we might like to think.

Sheeply have no one to blame but themselves.
There are a lot of cheaters winning every day on wallstreet, in government, in finance, even in labor. Very true - and all of them winning because of government interference in the market.


While these general rules of commerce do hold true for small businesses (mr smiths shop down the street competing against mr jones' shop a few blocks down), they don't hold true once these businesses are big enough to Buy Congress.once again an issue of government interference in the market. Get government out of the market and this becomes IMPOSSIBLE.


Really, I don't think it's a matter of honesty, it's a matter of practicality, the top executives of big companies have one primary job, increase profits. If they are not working their hardest to maximize their profits, they will lose their jobs. If all of your competitors are in congress lobbying and writing bills for our elected representatives to sign, why wouldn't any smart businessman do the same? In big business, the world that merges with big government, if you aren't playing the game you lose. You keep bringing up issues related to government interference in the market and acting like they are the fault of capitalism and not of government interference in the market. None of what you speak of would be possible if we removed Government from the market and allowed the markets to function FREELY. Reality is - the insurance industry we currently have only exists because of government interference in the market. Prior to this government interference most people got insurance through fraternal organizations such as the moose where people of like mind pooled their resources and had a vested interest in taking care of each other.


I think the old rules of small-business capitalism such as fair open competition do not hold for the big guys, because they hold enough power to change the very board that the game is played on.I'm really getting fucking tired of repeating myself.



Sure thing. Well, the point still stands that it is in their business interests to do whatever they can legally (even changing the laws if necessary) to maximize money going in, and minimizing money going out.

The problem is that when this is your main goal, sometimes other goals (like providing care for people efficiently) are actually undermined. ONCE AGAIN - You keep bringing up issues related to government interference in the market and acting like they are the fault of capitalism and not of government interference in the market. None of what you speak of would be possible if we removed Government from the market and allowed the markets to function FREELY. Reality is - the insurance industry we currently have only exists because of government interference in the market. Prior to this government interference most people got insurance through fraternal organizations such as the moose where people of like mind pooled their resources and had a vested interest in taking care of each other.



I also think it's a bit ingenuous to paint the picture of "one day everything was harmonious and worked for everyone, and then X FACTOR came in and ruined it all, and if it weren't for X then everything would be good."

Many people use this to argue for purity, for getting rid of X. This, I believe, is a very dangerous ideology for my own personal reasons.Don't care. Doesn't make it any less true. Government is the problem not the solution.


However, I think that history shows that there was never a time when things were right, our history has been a nonstop conflict, filled with problems and contradictions that are constantly trying to be resolved. It's never enough, in my opinion, to place the blame for societies dysfunctions on one thing (in this case, GOVERNMENT). Rather, it's important to realize that our society is inherently one of conflict, contradiction, and problems, and there's no one factor that can be blamed for it.I'm not discussing society and societal problems. I'm discussing the free market and government interference in the market. Nice attempt at red herring. :rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
12-26-2010, 01:46 PM
Very true - and all of them winning because of government interference in the market. once again an issue of government interference in the market. Get government out of the market and this becomes IMPOSSIBLE.
You keep bringing up issues related to government interference in the market and acting like they are the fault of capitalism and not of government interference in the market. None of what you speak of would be possible if we removed Government from the market and allowed the markets to function FREELY. Reality is - the insurance industry we currently have only exists because of government interference in the market. Prior to this government interference most people got insurance through fraternal organizations such as the moose where people of like mind pooled their resources and had a vested interest in taking care of each other.
I'm really getting fucking tired of repeating myself.

You keep describing government intervention in the markets as if it's a distinct separate issue. It's not. You are drawing a line between the harmonious functioning free market versus any government intervention. These two realms often overlap and they always have.

You say it would work if we removed Government from the market? How is that possible? Who is to remove government from the market? politicians get money from businesses, businesses get the rules changed in their favor. It's a quid pro quo. When you reach a certain level of government, it inevitably becomes tied with big business, and when your business gets big enough it inevitably gets it's hands into government.

If lobbying for a law will increase your profits by a decent percent, what sort of Capitalist CEO would NOT do it? If there's two companies and there's a law that benefits one of these companies at the expense of the other, what do you think will happen if one of the companies decides to sit out and not get involved with lobbying? If they just said "no I believe my company belongs in the free market so I will not send lobbyists to congress", well guess what, the law gets written in such a way that hurts them, their stock prices drop, and someone high level executive is out of a job for not doing everything he can for the company.

This idea that "the system once worked perfectly, it was internally consistent and harmonious, but one day X entered the picture and it is the cause of all problems with the system" is very heavily reflected in Fascist literature. Look at the writings of Hitler and Mussolini , the reason the citizenry was willing to reject Jewish people and communists is because they set up a very similar framework - with anti-semitism it was: "society and economy functioned perfectly and harmoniously until the Jew came in the picture and ruined it, and we would be a perfect society with a perfect economy if only we solved the Jewish problem". These leaders were also vehemently anti-communist, and accused communists of undermining all of their institutions. The reality of Jewish people is much more complex, they are good and bad, they've been part of society and outcasts of society, they do great things and they do terrible things, just like everyone else.

the Jew was the X-factor for 20th century fascism. I think it's dangerous to assert any ideology that says "things were great and would be great if it weren't for X", because it ignores the complexities of X and also ignores our own inconsistencies and problems in order to place the blame.

Likewise, I think it's important to admit that our system is flawed, it's inherently flawed and the flaws and inconsistencies are not because of any one external threat that can or should be removed, but rather because of the inherent contradictory qualities in any system.





ONCE AGAIN - You keep bringing up issues related to government interference in the market and acting like they are the fault of capitalism and not of government interference in the market. None of what you speak of would be possible if we removed Government from the market and allowed the markets to function FREELY. Reality is - the insurance industry we currently have only exists because of government interference in the market. Prior to this government interference most people got insurance through fraternal organizations such as the moose where people of like mind pooled their resources and had a vested interest in taking care of each other.
Don't care. Doesn't make it any less true. Government is the problem not the solution.

To put it simply and as a question: At what period did the American Economy work "as it should?" If your framework is correct, it should be a time when the government was not involved in the economy.




I'm not discussing society and societal problems. I'm discussing the free market and government interference in the market. Nice attempt at red herring. :rolleyes:

Why is free market purity more important than addressing the major problems our country faces?

Wei Wu Wei
12-26-2010, 01:48 PM
Also we've drifted a bit from the OP, but I still say that this bill is not socialist nor something that any socialist I know supports.

PoliCon
12-26-2010, 02:16 PM
You keep describing government intervention in the markets as if it's a distinct separate issue. It's not. You are drawing a line between the harmonious functioning free market versus any government intervention. These two realms often overlap and they always have. If the government is manipulating and interfering in the market - that market is by very basic definition NOT FREE. :rolleyes:


You say it would work if we removed Government from the market? How is that possible? Who is to remove government from the market? politicians get money from businesses, businesses get the rules changed in their favor. It's a quid pro quo. When you reach a certain level of government, it inevitably becomes tied with big business, and when your business gets big enough it inevitably gets it's hands into government. You might want to take a second and learn a little history.


If lobbying for a law will increase your profits by a decent percent, what sort of Capitalist CEO would NOT do it? If there's two companies and there's a law that benefits one of these companies at the expense of the other, what do you think will happen if one of the companies decides to sit out and not get involved with lobbying? If they just said "no I believe my company belongs in the free market so I will not send lobbyists to congress", well guess what, the law gets written in such a way that hurts them, their stock prices drop, and someone high level executive is out of a job for not doing everything he can for the company. Can't lobby for a law if government does not make laws that interfere in the market.


This idea that "the system once worked perfectly, it was internally consistent and harmonious, but one day X entered the picture and it is the cause of all problems with the system" is very heavily reflected in Fascist literature. Look at the writings of Hitler and Mussolini , the reason the citizenry was willing to reject Jewish people and communists is because they set up a very similar framework - with anti-semitism it was: "society and economy functioned perfectly and harmoniously until the Jew came in the picture and ruined it, and we would be a perfect society with a perfect economy if only we solved the Jewish problem". These leaders were also vehemently anti-communist, and accused communists of undermining all of their institutions. The reality of Jewish people is much more complex, they are good and bad, they've been part of society and outcasts of society, they do great things and they do terrible things, just like everyone else. Are you seriously going to point to Hitler and Mussolini as champions of the free market?? :rolleyes: The leader of national SOCIALISM as a free market champion?? if you're going to be this stupid I have to wonder why anyone bothers to respond to you at all.


the Jew was the X-factor for 20th century fascism. I think it's dangerous to assert any ideology that says "things were great and would be great if it weren't for X", because it ignores the complexities of X and also ignores our own inconsistencies and problems in order to place the blame. Another red herring. Big difference between making a scape goat out of an ethnicity - people- and pointing to style of governance and offering verifiable evidence of that style being complicity in making the problems we have. So lets stop trying to draw false parallels and deal with the reality that is you're preferred governmental style is the whole reason why there is a problem in the first place.


Likewise, I think it's important to admit that our system is flawed, it's inherently flawed and the flaws and inconsistencies are not because of any one external threat that can or should be removed, but rather because of the inherent contradictory qualities in any system.



yes it is flawed. The flaw is the amount of government interference we have in the market. We should remove the government from the market and watch how much better off people would be. :)



To put it simply and as a question: At what period did the American Economy work "as it should?" If your framework is correct, it should be a time when the government was not involved in the economy.It worked best when it governed least. Every time the government threw up a tariff or passed a regulation - every time it got more involved in manipulating and interfering in the markets - it made things worse.





Why is free market purity more important than addressing the major problems our country faces? A man less blind can see how they are the same.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-26-2010, 02:18 PM
Of course the left claims that if you're not in favor of government run and regulated anything - you're a shill for the rich/corporations. :rolleyes:


What the hell else do you want to call the government running things that should be handled by people personally and individually?

I like NASA. Am I a communist?
I also like the fact that we have an FDA. Why does it have to be NO REGULATION WHATSOEVER?
Personally, I prefer living in the world of 2010 to the world of 1810.

PoliCon
12-26-2010, 02:21 PM
I like NASA. Am I a communist?
I also like the fact that we have an FDA. Why does it have to be NO REGULATION WHATSOEVER?

You want government regulation - fine. Make your case at the STATE level. The federal government has to business doing most of the things it currently does.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-26-2010, 02:28 PM
You want government regulation - fine. Make your case at the STATE level. The federal government has to business doing most of the things it currently does.

I think it'd suck not being able to go to other states if certain states have 'tainted' food. The FDA is a federal regulatory body I fully support.

You want to attack Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid? Fine. There's legitimate arguments IMO in attacking those. They're in dire need of reform.

But there's a difference between Welfare, and Regulation. And our regulatory bodies cost pocket change compared to the Big Three (Medicare, SS, and the Military).

Wei Wu Wei
12-26-2010, 02:30 PM
If the government is manipulating and interfering in the market - that market is by very basic definition NOT FREE. :rolleyes:

The Free Market is a myth.



Can't lobby for a law if government does not make laws that interfere in the market.

Cool my plan is that everyone is nice to each other. Can't have murder if everyone is nice to each other. A sound plan.



Are you seriously going to point to Hitler and Mussolini as champions of the free market?? :rolleyes:

No. I didn't say they were champions of the free market, I'm saying that style of argument, that conceptual framework that places the "good system" as a harmonious, functioning system that has fallen victim to an external X Factor is extremely reminiscent of fascist ideology.


The leader of national SOCIALISM as a free market champion??

nah buddy. didn't say that.



Another red herring. Big difference between making a scape goat out of an ethnicity - people- and pointing to style of governance and offering verifiable evidence of that style being complicity in making the problems we have. So lets stop trying to draw false parallels and deal with the reality that is you're preferred governmental style is the whole reason why there is a problem in the first place.

My preferred governmental style? I'm pretty unsatisfied with how things have been going.

There's no need to make this about me.



yes it is flawed. The flaw is the amount of government interference we have in the market. We should remove the government from the market and watch how much better off people would be. :)

This is what I'm talking about. It's extremely dishonest about the flaws and limitations that are inherent to any system. It doesn't come from an outside force, say - government. While outside forces can and do disturb things, it/s a fantasy to assume that the system ever was or ever will be in harmony if we could solve the problem of the X Factor.

Any system you propose or that I propose will have internal contractions that lead to larger scale problems.



It worked best when it governed least. Every time the government threw up a tariff or passed a regulation - every time it got more involved in manipulating and interfering in the markets - it made things worse.

When? At what time was government not involved with the economy? Was the American Economy of that time period (whenever it was) ideal and working as we'd like it to work?




A man less blind can see how they are the same.

Yet you yourself pointed out that business men are in the business of business, not in solving social problems. Unless you believe these two different things always align together, this cannot be true.

PoliCon
12-26-2010, 02:34 PM
I think it'd suck not being able to go to other states if certain states have 'tainted' food. The FDA is a federal regulatory body I fully support. I don't. Most of what they regulate has nothing what ever to do with real food safety - and most of what they regulate is easily overcome with common sense and a little basic knowledge. No business that carries tainted food is going to last long and they should be held responsible for what they knowingly do to harm another.


You want to attack Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid? Fine. There's legitimate arguments IMO in attacking those. They're in dire need of reform.Reform hell! Try repeal.


But there's a difference between Welfare, and Regulation. And our regulatory bodies cost pocket change compared to the Big Three (Medicare, SS, and the Military). They do cost a great deal less - directly. What about their indirect costs though? Are you aware that the vast majority of the spikes in food costs have been because of government regulations? In particular - but not exclusively - the ethanol subsidy has greatly increased food costs.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-26-2010, 02:40 PM
You want government regulation - fine. Make your case at the STATE level. The federal government has to business doing most of the things it currently does.


I don't. Most of what they regulate has nothing what ever to do with real food safety - and most of what they regulate is easily overcome with common sense and a little basic knowledge. No business that carries tainted food is going to last long and they should be held responsible for what they knowingly do to harm another.
Reform hell! Try repeal.
They do cost a great deal less - directly. What about their indirect costs though? Are you aware that the vast majority of the spikes in food costs have been because of government regulations? In particular - but not exclusively - the ethanol subsidy has greatly increased food costs.

So you feel there should be absolutely no regulation whatsoever on the economy?
None?
No job safety laws?
Child labor laws?
Nothing?

Wei Wu Wei
12-26-2010, 02:47 PM
So you feel there should be absolutely no regulation whatsoever on the economy?
None?
No job safety laws?
Child labor laws?
Nothing?

To be fair, those things were attained because of the struggle of American communists and socialists.

So if someone is vehemently anti-communist, they'll probably agree with this.

Wei Wu Wei
12-26-2010, 02:49 PM
No business that carries unhealthy food will be successful because people are rational beings who make decisions based on all of the facts in a carefully logical way. That's why fast food places are doing so poorly.

That's also why advertising tends to be people carefully explaining the rational facts and reasons for purchasing products you need, rather than using manipulation techniques to appeal to subconscious desires to get us to buy shit on a constant basis.

PoliCon
12-26-2010, 02:55 PM
The Free Market is a myth. Prove it.





Cool my plan is that everyone is nice to each other. Can't have murder if everyone is nice to each other. A sound plan. idiocy.





No. I didn't say they were champions of the free market, I'm saying that style of argument, that conceptual framework that places the "good system" as a harmonious, functioning system that has fallen victim to an external X Factor is extremely reminiscent of fascist ideology. And this is different from your claims that the rich and corporations are to blame for everything in what way? :rolleyes:




nah buddy. didn't say that. You like to imply it - as do most idiots on the left.




My preferred governmental style? I'm pretty unsatisfied with how things have been going.

There's no need to make this about me. well then stop trying to sidetrack the discussion from the issue at hand.





This is what I'm talking about. It's extremely dishonest about the flaws and limitations that are inherent to any system. It doesn't come from an outside force, say - government. While outside forces can and do disturb things, it/s a fantasy to assume that the system ever was or ever will be in harmony if we could solve the problem of the X Factor.

Any system you propose or that I propose will have internal contractions that lead to larger scale problems.Certainly true of your choice of systems - but you really cannot point to one single example of the free market resulting in larger scale problems. All of the problems come when people seek to limit and control the market.





When? At what time was government not involved with the economy? Was the American Economy of that time period (whenever it was) ideal and working as we'd like it to work?



and how does the fact that we have yet to allow the market to be completely free make it any less desirous to have it be free? And yet its been the times we have moved towards free market principles that we have experienced the greatest gains in prosperity - and when we have moved toward greater regulation that we have experienced our worst down turns. PERFECT examples - the 1920s and the great depression. 1829s - move towards economic freedom - BOOM! great depression - move towards government control - BUST on top of BUST.


Yet you yourself pointed out that business men are in the business of business, not in solving social problems. Unless you believe these two different things always align together, this cannot be true. Freedom is always to be pursued and desired. Economically as much if not more than socially.

PoliCon
12-26-2010, 02:59 PM
So you feel there should be absolutely no regulation whatsoever on the economy?
None?
No job safety laws?
Child labor laws?
Nothing?

If someone is willing to take the risk of life and limb - let him. Are you ready to regulate sports and leisure activities as well? I mean if you're not going to say that skiing is too dangerous for you to do of your own free will why say the same about glass blowing?

Wei Wu Wei
12-26-2010, 03:08 PM
If someone is willing to take the risk of life and limb - let him. Are you ready to regulate sports and leisure activities as well? I mean if you're not going to say that skiing is too dangerous for you to do of your own free will why say the same about glass blowing?

Because you generally don't have to ski in order to feed your family.

PoliCon
12-26-2010, 03:17 PM
Because you generally don't have to ski in order to feed your family.

No one is forcing you to take a dangerous job either.

Wei Wu Wei
12-26-2010, 03:17 PM
Prove it.

You admit yourself that it has never existed?

All of these rules of competition that you are relying on only work in a Free Market system, which has never existed nor will ever exist.




And this is different from your claims that the rich and corporations are to blame for everything in what way? :rolleyes:

Because I'm not claiming that everything is good and rich people are evil and they mess things up. I'm also not claiming that we should just get rid of rich people or corporations.

I'm simply recognizing that the history of this country and our economy has been one filled with conflicts and inconsistencies, including class struggle. It's not as simple as just erasing one class, and I never claimed that.




You like to imply it - as do most idiots on the left.

Well perhaps you misinterpreted me but I think it's important to draw distinctions between American Capitalism, State Capitalism, Red Fascism and other systems. I never meant to imply that Hitler was a free market advocate. However, we also need to realize that we do not have a free market system so using free market arguments when talking about the system that we do have doesn't work.




Certainly true of your choice of systems - but you really cannot point to one single example of the free market resulting in larger scale problems. All of the problems come when people seek to limit and control the market.

The free market is a myth so of course I can't give examples that include it because it doesn't exist nor has it ever.

I can, however, point to plenty of examples where deregulation of industries or markets led to huge scale problems.





and how does the fact that we have yet to allow the market to be completely free make it any less desirous to have it be free? And yet its been the times we have moved towards free market principles that we have experienced the greatest gains in prosperity - and when we have moved toward greater regulation that we have experienced our worst down turns. PERFECT examples - the 1920s and the great depression. 1829s - move towards economic freedom - BOOM! great depression - move towards government control - BUST on top of BUST.
Freedom is always to be pursued and desired. Economically as much if not more than socially.

There were other things occurring during those time periods besides simply the policies of the administration in power. There were very active organizations of working people who pushed for much of the things we take for granted today. I'm not about to post a 10 page history analysis of the late 1800's and early 1900's, maybe later, but I will say that it's absolutely not as simple as "more government vs less government".

There were a great many forces at work in our society at that time.

PoliCon
12-26-2010, 03:28 PM
You admit yourself that it has never existed?I admit nothing more or less than the burden of proof is yours.


All of these rules of competition that you are relying on only work in a Free Market system, which has never existed nor will ever exist. if it's regulated it's not free.


Because I'm not claiming that everything is good and rich people are evil and they mess things up. I'm also not claiming that we should just get rid of rich people or corporations. The hell you're not. :rolleyes: Who the hell do you think you're fooling wee wee?


I'm simply recognizing that the history of this country and our economy has been one filled with conflicts and inconsistencies, including class struggle. It's not as simple as just erasing one class, and I never claimed that. Class struggle only exists when you people make it exists with your envy.



Well perhaps you misinterpreted me but I think it's important to draw distinctions between American Capitalism, State Capitalism, Red Fascism and other systems. I never meant to imply that Hitler was a free market advocate. However, we also need to realize that we do not have a free market system so using free market arguments when talking about the system that we do have doesn't work. Bullshit. Just because we've never had a completely free market does not mean that it is not desirous or improper if applied. It just means we have yet to have had the courage to put aside our desire and natural inclination to control things.





The free market is a myth so of course I can't give examples that include it because it doesn't exist nor has it ever.

I can, however, point to plenty of examples where deregulation of industries or markets led to huge scale problems. Bullshit. Every example you point to I can and will be happy to debunk.







There were other things occurring during those time periods besides simply the policies of the administration in power. There were very active organizations of working people who pushed for much of the things we take for granted today. I'm not about to post a 10 page history analysis of the late 1800's and early 1900's, maybe later, but I will say that it's absolutely not as simple as "more government vs less government". and yet every time we move towards more government the economy lags and when we move towards less government - the economy accelerates.


There were a great many forces at work in our society at that time.Irrelevant. There are always forces at work in society. :rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
12-26-2010, 03:47 PM
*sigh* this is getting tiring because you seem more interested in winning or proving me wrong than anything else.

i'm not out to deceive anyone, i'm not looking to trick you or anything like that. i don't care enough about you to try to deceive you.



I admit nothing more or less than the burden of proof is yours.
if it's regulated it's not free.

There's never been a free market and so much of the rhetoric that explains "how the economy works" presupposes that we do have a free market. That's the major flaw.



The hell you're not. :rolleyes: Who the hell do you think you're fooling wee wee?

You Poli! I'm fooling yooouuuuuu!



Class struggle only exists when you people make it exists with your envy.

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.”


Bullshit. Just because we've never had a completely free market does not mean that it is not desirous or improper if applied. It just means we have yet to have had the courage to put aside our desire and natural inclination to control things.

Bullshit. Just because we've never had a classless, communist society does not mean that it is not desirous or improper if applied. It just means we have yet to have had the courage to put aside our desire and natural inclination to exploit people.

See it works both ways.

Look, like I spelled out many times in this thread, I reject the entire framework of your argument, not just the content.



Bullshit. Every example you point to I can and will be happy to debunk.

okay we can do this one at a time
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2007-04-21-electricity_N.htm


and yet every time we move towards more government the economy lags and when we move towards less government - the economy accelerates.

1950's


Irrelevant. There are always forces at work in society. :rolleyes:

awaiting your explanation about the 1950's

m00
12-26-2010, 09:53 PM
Perhaps some socialists that you talk to LOVE this bill, but the Leftist anti-capitalist people that I talk to voice near universal opposition to this bill.

Doesn't go far enough? :p

m00
12-26-2010, 10:00 PM
I think it'd suck not being able to go to other states if certain states have 'tainted' food. The FDA is a federal regulatory body I fully support.

What's tainted? Heck, in Norway rotten fish soaked in lye is a national food. :p I think humans are smart enough to figure out what we should be eating. How ever did we survive before there was labels on goods telling us how many calories everything has?

Obviously, if person A knowingly sells person B poisoned food (without any sort of warning), and person B dies from eating it, person A is legally culpable. What more do you need?

Wei Wu Wei
12-26-2010, 10:08 PM
Doesn't go far enough? :p

Doesn't address the root problem and is essentially the same old corporate welfare like everything else in the past few decades.

There are some good things in this bill, but it's basically another big business bailout with a few sprinkles of regulation on top.

Madisonian
12-26-2010, 10:14 PM
... is essentially the same old corporate welfare like everything else in the past few decades.

... but it's basically another big business bailout with a few sprinkles of regulation on top.

I will agree 100% with at least this much of what you said.
This was a shit bill aimed at political payoffs and hundreds of other things thrown in that had nothing to do with health care, controlling costs or doing anything but increasing the share of the GDP that the government seeks to control.

m00
12-26-2010, 10:23 PM
Doesn't address the root problem and is essentially the same old corporate welfare like everything else in the past few decades.

There are some good things in this bill, but it's basically another big business bailout with a few sprinkles of regulation on top.

I'd agree with this, yeah. I think there is something more devious though, and that it's blatantly moving yet another thing which has traditionally been a private choice and putting it firmly under the domain of government. This is why people call it "Socialist." There are very few holes we can dig as a country that we can't climb out of (given enough time and common sense)... but once a freedom is gone it's very hard to get back.

I'm very concerned with people becoming "ok" that we as a supposedly free people have no control over what happens to our bodies. Our bodies are government property. And yes, that's Communism.

lacarnut
12-26-2010, 10:26 PM
Single Payer is not the same as a National Health Service, and it's not a slippery slope to a National Health Service.

Single Payer allows greater worker and business mobility.

Single Payer is good for small business and self employed people, thus Single Payer encourages small business start ups.

Since you are going to end up on Medicare anyway, it makes a lot more sense to be paying into Medicare and using Medicare during your working years, rather than giving all your premiums to Met Life and then getting dumped into Medicare.

It's not a liberal versus conservative issue. Supporting the insurance companies is not a conservative position, it's a gullible and wasteful position.

You are a fool if you think that the government can run any business efficiently. Just look at how lousy the Post Office is run. A deficit every year with the price of stamps going up and up. In other words, the government could not run a whorehouse economically.

Madisonian
12-26-2010, 10:30 PM
I'd agree with this, yeah. I think there is something more devious though, and that it's blatantly moving yet another thing which has traditionally been a private choice and putting it firmly under the domain of government. This is why people call it "Socialist." There are very few holes we can dig as a country that we can't climb out of (given enough time and common sense)... but once a freedom is gone it's very hard to get back.

I'm very concerned with people becoming "ok" that we as a supposedly free people have no control over what happens to our bodies. Our bodies are government property. And yes, that's Communism.

Our bodies became government property the day the 16th amendment was passed, February 3, 1913.
That was the day we were sold into involuntary servitude by our federal and state legislators.
Everything since that day has just been natural progression.

PoliCon
12-26-2010, 11:29 PM
"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.” wow a leftist with money says this so it must be true. :rolleyes:




Bullshit. Just because we've never had a classless, communist society does not mean that it is not desirous or improper if applied. It just means we have yet to have had the courage to put aside our desire and natural inclination to exploit people.

See it works both ways.Except your way always leads to poverty and decreased production. My way always leads to prosperity and increased production. Fancy that.


Look, like I spelled out many times in this thread, I reject the entire framework of your argument, not just the content. We all already know this wee wee. You reject any concept that does not fit your preconceived notions about class warfare and socialism. It's okay though. I'm still going to fight against your crap if for no other reason than some impressionable kid might stumble on your words and they need to see what a crock of shit they really are.





okay we can do this one at a time
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2007-04-21-electricity_N.htm Trouble is - deregulation is not real. Oh sure there is lip service to free market forces - but it's just lip service. The government still has mountians of paperwork and regulations you have to meet before you can set up shop. How many new power plants have the government allow to be built in the last 10 years? Demand is up and no one can build new power plants so of course prices are going to rise. And all because the government has the industry choked off with regulation. :rolleyes:




1950's



awaiting your explanation about the 1950'seasy - WWII forced FDR to abandon the vast majority of his new deal crap which allowed the economy to not only recover - but to boom and as the government poured on more and more regulation the boom slowed and slowed until it began to shrink again. THEN JFK cut taxes and we had another bit of boom - then LBJ came along and we had nothing but expansion of government and shrinkage of the economy until Reagan came along and cut taxes again - low and behold - BOOM another expanding economy! One that lasted through with only minor set backs until 2007 when the dems took back the congress and started again with regulations and expansion of government power. :rolleyes:

NJCardFan
12-27-2010, 01:46 AM
I think it'd suck not being able to go to other states if certain states have 'tainted' food. The FDA is a federal regulatory body I fully support.

You want to attack Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid? Fine. There's legitimate arguments IMO in attacking those. They're in dire need of reform.

But there's a difference between Welfare, and Regulation. And our regulatory bodies cost pocket change compared to the Big Three (Medicare, SS, and the Military).

Let me ask you something then. Why is the FDA never held responsible when a drug that they approve ends up hurting people? Avandia for instance. FDA approved the drug, however, only GlaxoSmithCline is being help responsible. Now why is that? Isn't it the job of the FDA to make sure the drug is safe? And when it is deemed unsafe, why do they get a pass?

Wei Wu Wei
12-27-2010, 10:36 AM
Except your way always leads to poverty and decreased production. My way always leads to prosperity and increased production. Fancy that.


Not really.
We all already know this wee wee. You reject any concept that does not fit your preconceived notions about class warfare and socialism. It's okay though. I'm still going to fight against your crap if for no other reason than some impressionable kid might stumble on your words and they need to see what a crock of shit they really are.

Actually I explained the problem here:

"I'm saying that style of argument, that conceptual framework that places the "good system" as a harmonious, functioning system that has fallen victim to an external X Factor is extremely reminiscent of fascist ideology. "




Trouble is - deregulation is not real. Oh sure there is lip service to free market forces - but it's just lip service. The government still has mountians of paperwork and regulations you have to meet before you can set up shop. How many new power plants have the government allow to be built in the last 10 years? Demand is up and no one can build new power plants so of course prices are going to rise. And all because the government has the industry choked off with regulation. :rolleyes:

So deregulation is not real, and it's basically impossible to do anything because of a jungle of paperwork, and your plan is simply "free market, problem solved"? There's a few steps missing there buddy.



easy - WWII forced FDR to abandon the vast majority of his new deal crap which allowed the economy to not only recover - but to boom and as the government poured on more and more regulation the boom slowed and slowed until it began to shrink again. THEN JFK

I said 1950's. FDR died in 1945 and JFK took office in 1961.

You conveniently skipped the entire 1950's where Eisenhower continued New Deal projects, started the interstate highway project, tax rates were at near 90% for the top brackets, and Social Security was greatly expanded. During this time the middle class saw it's biggest growth in American History.

This isn't following your rule of "more government = always bad"

and don't forget: don't mention other things going on at that time, we are only looking at policies


Irrelevant. There are always forces at work in society.

Constitutionally Speaking
12-27-2010, 12:16 PM
Single Payer is not the same as a National Health Service, and it's not a slippery slope to a National Health Service.

Single Payer allows greater worker and business mobility.

Single Payer is good for small business and self employed people, thus Single Payer encourages small business start ups.

Since you are going to end up on Medicare anyway, it makes a lot more sense to be paying into Medicare and using Medicare during your working years, rather than giving all your premiums to Met Life and then getting dumped into Medicare.

It's not a liberal versus conservative issue. Supporting the insurance companies is not a conservative position, it's a gullible and wasteful position.


Single payer IS NOT good for small business. What would be good for EVERYONE (except the lazy) is for tax credits to be eliminated for employer paid health insurance and for those credits to apply for employers who pay their employees "health insurance dollars". This would be equal to what they currently spend for health insurance and the employee can use it for insurance premiums - with any $ left over to be saved in an investment portfolio that can be used at any time for health related issues and that can, at retirement be used just as a normal savings/investment account could.

There would also be a tax credit for the individuals that use this money to purchase health insurance. It would re-install the end user of health services to the VITAL role of quality and price controller.

Wei Wu Wei
12-27-2010, 12:25 PM
Single payer IS NOT good for small business.

Why not? Everyone says that health care costs hurt small businesses the most because the cost burden of covering all of your workers is very high. With a single payer system, small businesses wouldn't have to provide expensive health benefits for their workers. That's a very large labor cost that is simply eliminated.

Novaheart
12-27-2010, 12:52 PM
Single payer IS NOT good for small business. What would be good for EVERYONE (except the lazy) is for tax credits to be eliminated for employer paid health insurance and for those credits to apply for employers who pay their employees "health insurance dollars". This would be equal to what they currently spend for health insurance and the employee can use it for insurance premiums - with any $ left over to be saved in an investment portfolio that can be used at any time for health related issues and that can, at retirement be used just as a normal savings/investment account could.

That's just some convoluted way of replacing the convoluted way we currently do things.

Bottom lines:

• Everyone is going to get healthcare, one way or another. The system that some foolishly believe will give them better service, because they support insurance companies, is giving them good quality managed care and preventive medicine at a pretty high price, but not nearly as high a price as the emergency care those without primary care get.

• People bitch about the quality of VA hospitals, there would be no need for VA hospitals with Single Payer.

• There is no need for Workers Comp health care with Single Payer. Workers comp insurance rates go through the floor when you get Single Payer.

• We are never going to return to the false memory of doctors who accept chickens as payment, and workers who gladly went to the doctor because doctors were just so inexpensive before insurance. Bullshit. People died rather than pay for doctors and hospitals.

• "Private enterprise has produced the highest quality medical system in the world."
Wrong.

1- Hospitals were started by charities and governments, rich people were treated and died at home.

2- The "Pharmaceutical Companies" did not invent the vast majority of the miracle drugs we have known and that keep coming. Those drugs come from the laboratories of the United States and other First World nations at government funded institutes and universities. You want to know a drug wholly invented by a drug company? Viagra. NIH invents cancer drugs, Bayer invents pain killers and poisons, and some company in England invented Viagra.

Medicine as we know it was "invented" by publicly funded institutions. Want to know where health insurance came from? Kaiser Steel. And it wasn't a bad idea. Actually, it worked pretty well back when people worked for Kaiser Steel from 18 to 65. But those days are gone, and clearly there was more money in health insurance than there was in steel because Kaiser Permanente is still going and Kaiser Steel is dead.

Wei Wu Wei
12-27-2010, 01:10 PM
You dumbass there is no capitalism in this bill. :rolleyes: As long as government is controlling things the best you have is fascism. The capitalist solution would be to deregulate the industry. :

This caught my eye.

The best you can have is fascism?


So do you believe Fascism is better than Democratic Socialism (like in some Scandinavian nations)?

The hallmark of Fascist regimes in the past has been very strong anti-communist sentiment. In fact, only a month after Hitler came to power there was a stupid fire in a building and he used this to scapegoat communists and passed a bunch of new laws that allowed him to crack down on communist speech and he actively threw communist organizers into concentration camps along with jews and other undesirables.

Constitutionally Speaking
12-27-2010, 01:15 PM
This caught my eye.

The best you can have is fascism?


So do you believe Fascism is better than Democratic Socialism (like in some Scandinavian nations)?

The hallmark of Fascist regimes in the past has been very strong anti-communist sentiment. In fact, only a month after Hitler came to power there was a stupid fire in a building and he used this to scapegoat communists and passed a bunch of new laws that allowed him to crack down on communist speech and he actively threw communist organizers into concentration camps along with jews and other undesirables.


That "hallmark" is ONLY because they were virtually the same ideologies and they competed for the same audience.

Many of Hitler's closest allies in Germany had been members of various Communist/socialist parties and Hitler himself was torn in the early days as to which party he would join.

It amuses me that so many on the left try to make a HUGE distinction between socialism and fascism when they are two sides of the very same coin.

Constitutionally Speaking
12-27-2010, 01:19 PM
Why not? Everyone says that health care costs hurt small businesses the most because the cost burden of covering all of your workers is very high. With a single payer system, small businesses wouldn't have to provide expensive health benefits for their workers. That's a very large labor cost that is simply eliminated.


Have you heard of those things called taxes????

Constitutionally Speaking
12-27-2010, 01:23 PM
That's just some convoluted way of replacing the convoluted way we currently do things.




No it is not.

The MAJOR problem we have with our system is that the end consumer of health services is disconnected from the cost and the people who actually pay for the services are not affected by those services.

The payer has no incentive to give quality service and the user has no incentive to take care of himself.

My idea fixes both. In addition, it provides another method to save for retirement and lessens the burden on SS and medicare.

Wei Wu Wei
12-27-2010, 02:02 PM
That "hallmark" is ONLY because they were virtually the same ideologies and they competed for the same audience.

Many of Hitler's closest allies in Germany had been members of various Communist/socialist parties and Hitler himself was torn in the early days as to which party he would join.

It amuses me that so many on the left try to make a HUGE distinction between socialism and fascism when they are two sides of the very same coin.

They both arise out of the same historical moment, the same social situation.

However, they are not the same. They share a few things in common, but they are more like total inverses of each other. In fact, even Mussolini was upfront about it, saying the following:


Our path would lead inexorably into state capitalism, which is nothing more nor less than state socialism turned on its head.

This is why it's very important to examine these, we are approaching a historical moment similar to those experienced in many other countries in the past, and there is large social unrest and people are looking for an answer.


Fascism parades itself as the inversion of Socialism. The backwards symmetry, however, should not be mistaken as sameness of content.

Wei Wu Wei
12-27-2010, 02:04 PM
Have you heard of those things called taxes????

Are taxes spread between all or most citizens going to be higher than the health care costs that small businesses currently have to carry?

It wouldn't be totally free, obviously, but wouldn't it be cheaper for small employers to pay a tax and not have to pay for insuring all their employees?

Constitutionally Speaking
12-27-2010, 06:38 PM
Are taxes spread between all or most citizens going to be higher than the health care costs that small businesses currently have to carry?

It wouldn't be totally free, obviously, but wouldn't it be cheaper for small employers to pay a tax and not have to pay for insuring all their employees?


Aw COME ON!!!!

We already are seeing the hatred being built up toward small businesses via the Bush tax cut extension debate.

It will get passed on to the businesses almost exclusively and instead of just paying for insurance coverage, they will have the additional burden of paying the government bureaucracy for "oversight" and such.

PoliCon
12-27-2010, 07:52 PM
Actually I explained the problem here:

"I'm saying that style of argument, that conceptual framework that places the "good system" as a harmonious, functioning system that has fallen victim to an external X Factor is extremely reminiscent of fascist ideology. "

You guys always like to compare anything you don't agree with - with fascism totally ignoring that fascism is progressive socialism. :rolleyes:




So deregulation is not real, and it's basically impossible to do anything because of a jungle of paperwork, and your plan is simply "free market, problem solved"? There's a few steps missing there buddy.I'm saying that the so called deregulation of the electrical utilities has been nothing more than smoke and mirrors.





I said 1950's. FDR died in 1945 and JFK took office in 1961. No shit! :eek: Really??? :eek: :rolleyes:


You conveniently skipped the entire 1950's where Eisenhower continued New Deal projects, Ike did huh? Had nothing to do with his congress or anything else it was all ike's doing eh?




started the interstate highway project, Do you have the slightest clue as to the purpose and ownership of the interstate highways system?


tax rates were at near 90% for the top brackets, and Social Security was greatly expanded. During this time the middle class saw it's biggest growth in American History. The growth of the middle class does not equate to increased prosperity you know. You forget that the middle class can expand from BOTH ends - from the bottom as well as from the top. Furthermore -one of the keys to the expansion in the 50s was sound fiscal policy in that our currency was strong - it was based on precious metals still - and exactly how much manufacturing capacity did europe have at the end of the war? Could it be that their losses were our gains? Perspective makes all the difference in the world.


This isn't following your rule of "more government = always bad"As government expanded during the 50s the economy slowed proportionately.


and don't forget: don't mention other things going on at that time, we are only looking at policiesAs government expanded during the 50s the economy slowed proportionately.

PoliCon
12-27-2010, 07:53 PM
Why not? Everyone says that health care costs hurt small businesses the most because the cost burden of covering all of your workers is very high. With a single payer system, small businesses wouldn't have to provide expensive health benefits for their workers. That's a very large labor cost that is simply eliminated.
eliminated my ass. :rolleyes: Shifting it is not the same as eliminating it dumbass.

PoliCon
12-27-2010, 08:00 PM
They both arise out of the same historical moment, the same social situation.

However, they are not the same. They share a few things in common, but they are more like total inverses of each other. In fact, even Mussolini was upfront about it, saying the following:

<SNIP>

Fascism parades itself as the inversion of Socialism. The backwards symmetry, however, should not be mistaken as sameness of content.Only in the minds of the marxist intelligentsia. :rolleyes: In the eyes of actual economists:


As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

Madisonian
12-27-2010, 08:11 PM
One thing a lot of people forget or don't know when they talk about the 90% top marginal rates under whatever president or 70% under another is that with those rates came literally hundreds of deductions that are either no longer allowed or have AGI bases.

You used to be able to itemize
100% of medical at 0 base (now excess of 7.5% AGI)
100% of all sales taxes
100% of all misc employee expenses
and on and on.

It was not unheard of to have 25-40% of your taxes offset by itemized deductions. When Reagan lowered the marginal rates in the 80's many of these deductions went away and in some cases (mine was an example at the time) even though the marginal rates went down, I ended up paying about $1000 more to the IRS than if the rates and structure would not have changed.

So whether here or at DU, you can't talk about tax rates in the 50's, 60's, etc. in a vacuum. It is also why I tend to scoff at the "rates went down but revenues went up" rhetoric. The Reagan proposed and congressional approved changes cost a lot of people more money than had nothing been done if you had deductions that were eliminated or reduced.

sgrooms
12-28-2010, 10:44 AM
One thing a lot of people forget or don't know when they talk about the 90% top marginal rates under whatever president or 70% under another is that with those rates came literally hundreds of deductions that are either no longer allowed or have AGI bases.

You used to be able to itemize
100% of medical at 0 base (now excess of 7.5% AGI)
100% of all sales taxes
100% of all misc employee expenses
and on and on.

It was not unheard of to have 25-40% of your taxes offset by itemized deductions. When Reagan lowered the marginal rates in the 80's many of these deductions went away and in some cases (mine was an example at the time) even though the marginal rates went down, I ended up paying about $1000 more to the IRS than if the rates and structure would not have changed.

So whether here or at DU, you can't talk about tax rates in the 50's, 60's, etc. in a vacuum. It is also why I tend to scoff at the "rates went down but revenues went up" rhetoric. The Reagan proposed and congressional approved changes cost a lot of people more money than had nothing been done if you had deductions that were eliminated or reduced.

Well I will freely admit I didn't know that. I always knew there were deductions, and I wondered why in those times people would continue to try and make money when the govt set about taking 90% of it. This makes more sense.

linda22003
12-28-2010, 10:53 AM
Well I will freely admit I didn't know that. I always knew there were deductions, and I wondered why in those times people would continue to try and make money when the govt set about taking 90% of it. This makes more sense.

Of course. Hell, I remember when credit card interest was deductible!

Wei Wu Wei
12-28-2010, 11:30 AM
One thing a lot of people forget or don't know when they talk about the 90% top marginal rates under whatever president or 70% under another is that with those rates came literally hundreds of deductions that are either no longer allowed or have AGI bases.

You used to be able to itemize
100% of medical at 0 base (now excess of 7.5% AGI)
100% of all sales taxes
100% of all misc employee expenses
and on and on.

It was not unheard of to have 25-40% of your taxes offset by itemized deductions. When Reagan lowered the marginal rates in the 80's many of these deductions went away and in some cases (mine was an example at the time) even though the marginal rates went down, I ended up paying about $1000 more to the IRS than if the rates and structure would not have changed.

So whether here or at DU, you can't talk about tax rates in the 50's, 60's, etc. in a vacuum. It is also why I tend to scoff at the "rates went down but revenues went up" rhetoric. The Reagan proposed and congressional approved changes cost a lot of people more money than had nothing been done if you had deductions that were eliminated or reduced.

This does make more sense.

It seems what you're describing would result in a great benefit for small businesses because a greater percentage of their income goes towards businesses and growth, and they tend to pull in less profit at the end of the day than the big businesses.

I'm all for a tax code that benefits small businesses and helps them grow and offer competition against the big guys.


Still, even with all of the itemization, the top tax rates would still be effectively 50-65% , significantly more than today's 30-something.

I never understood why people say that raising taxes no matter what at any time regardless of current tax rates is always bad. I think that's a little hyperbolic and silly, just like suggesting that raising taxes is always categorically a great idea - it's not.

Madisonian
12-28-2010, 05:13 PM
Of course. Hell, I remember when credit card interest was deductible!

Yep...
Credit card, car loans, signature loans and anything else you paid interest on was deductible even person to person loans as long as you provided the name of the person to whom you paid the interest.
You could deduct the taxes you paid on almost anything purchased whether it was sales taxes, use taxes, excise taxes at a federal or state level.
I was an electrician back then and I could deduct all my tools, meters, clothing without AGI floors or ceilings.
I could deduct all medical expenses except OTC stuff so glasses, insurance, prescriptions, office visits, dental was coming off without having to meet a 7.5% AGI floor.

This was all back before the feds figured out what a bunch of lemmings the taxpayers were and that they would buy off on the concept that paying a smaller percentage on everything you earned was better than paying a higher percentage on income levels that were substantially reduced in terms of AGI because of deductions.

m00
12-28-2010, 05:23 PM
So do you believe Fascism is better than Democratic Socialism (like in some Scandinavian nations)?

Which forms of the above have you ever lived under?

Constitutionally Speaking
12-28-2010, 08:02 PM
They both arise out of the same historical moment, the same social situation.

However, they are not the same. They share a few things in common, but they are more like total inverses of each other. In fact, even Mussolini was upfront about it, saying the following:



This is why it's very important to examine these, we are approaching a historical moment similar to those experienced in many other countries in the past, and there is large social unrest and people are looking for an answer.


Fascism parades itself as the inversion of Socialism. The backwards symmetry, however, should not be mistaken as sameness of content.



They ARE sameness of content. The differences are so minute as to be inconsequential.

sgrooms
12-28-2010, 09:29 PM
Of course. Hell, I remember when credit card interest was deductible!

You're kidding...

Constitutionally Speaking
01-04-2011, 09:31 PM
Why not? Everyone says that health care costs hurt small businesses the most because the cost burden of covering all of your workers is very high. With a single payer system, small businesses wouldn't have to provide expensive health benefits for their workers. That's a very large labor cost that is simply eliminated.


Wei,


All you need to know about it is that over 250 businesses have already been granted an exception and thousands more would if they could. They applied for the exception because it threatened to harm their business.

It is a KILLER for small business and for jobs.

Novaheart
01-04-2011, 10:13 PM
Wei,


All you need to know about it is that over 250 businesses have already been granted an exception and thousands more would if they could. They applied for the exception because it threatened to harm their business.

It is a KILLER for small business and for jobs.

Single Payer is not a killer for small business. Single Payer is good for small business, but thanks to health insurance corporations, their toadies in Congress, and plenty of rank and file short sighted morons, we won't have single payer anytime soon.

However, I have predicted that it will be the Republicans who pass single payer.

Novaheart
01-04-2011, 10:14 PM
Wei,


All you need to know about it is that over 250 businesses have already been granted an exception and thousands more would if they could. They applied for the exception because it threatened to harm their business.

It is a KILLER for small business and for jobs.

I'll bet you think that McDonalds dropped its health coverage.

Rockntractor
01-04-2011, 10:22 PM
I'll bet you think that McDonalds dropped its health coverage.

Why would they, they are among the brown nosers that got an exemption.

Novaheart
01-04-2011, 10:27 PM
Why would they, they are among the brown nosers that got an exemption.

Mcdonalds doesn't really have a health insurance plan for their hourly employees. They have that POS "mini-med" garbage and of course, they also have Medicaid and simply no-pay.

Every now and then someone figures out how much welfare the employees of a Walmart recieve each year, I wonder if anyone has done it for Mcdonalds. Oddly in all the years I have spent on bulletin boards, I have never seen a Republican complain about taxpayer subsidies for Walmart and Mcdonalds.

PoliCon
01-04-2011, 10:45 PM
Single Payer is not a killer for small business. Single Payer is good for small business, but thanks to health insurance corporations, their toadies in Congress, and plenty of rank and file short sighted morons, we won't have single payer anytime soon.

However, I have predicted that it will be the Republicans who pass single payer.

any system that involves the federal government is not a good system.

Novaheart
01-05-2011, 12:20 AM
any system that involves the federal government is not a good system.

That's simpleminded.

NJCardFan
01-05-2011, 02:02 AM
That's simpleminded.

OK, name me one thing that the government does that isn't an incredible boondoggle or bureaucracy?

Constitutionally Speaking
01-05-2011, 06:19 AM
Single Payer is not a killer for small business. Single Payer is good for small business, but thanks to health insurance corporations, their toadies in Congress, and plenty of rank and file short sighted morons, we won't have single payer anytime soon.

However, I have predicted that it will be the Republicans who pass single payer.



Single payer will be the end of many small businesses.

Molon Labe
01-05-2011, 10:03 AM
The Free Market is a myth.


So is Marx's endstate and theory of human nature, but that's another thread.


The main problem with health care is AFFORDABILITY.
It's the Insurance companies and the government that are making healthcare unaffordable. Government enforced monopoly of health care is called HMOs.

Managed, socialized, coerced healthcare has not and will not work either.
Tell me just why you believe anyone should be forced to subsidize the medical care of others by force?

How about for starters in this realistic political climate we show how serious we all are about providing health care for people and make ALL health care expenses 100% tax deductable rather than having the 8% cost restrictions?

You know...50 years ago Doctors understood much better the responsibility of pro bono medical care for the disadvanteged or emergency needs and provided it. But with the way it's been since, we've bred any sense of charity out of most of this field thanks to these coercive regulations.

PoliCon
01-05-2011, 11:05 AM
That's simpleminded.

and yet so accurate and true. Sometimes the simple answers are the best answers.

Novaheart
01-05-2011, 12:04 PM
Single payer will be the end of many small businesses.

Because?

Molon Labe
01-05-2011, 02:14 PM
Because?

Because the f'in government will run private companies out of business. Single payer is so deceptive...well...at least to those of us who understand how the federal government works.

You can't compete with a health care company that has Nukes

Wei Wu Wei
01-05-2011, 02:19 PM
But it's not small businesses that would be run out of business, it would be large insurance corporations.

What it would mean is that small businesses and employers would not have to be responsible for extremely high health care costs for their employers, and also they wouldn't have to worry about their employees all falling ill. Sure they might have to pay a higher tax somewhere, but wouldn't the extreme reduction in cost of health care coverage more than offset that?


Also, as for these major insurance corporations, I submit that our nation, the American working and middle classes, and most people would bebetter off without our health care system being run by profit-first, people-second entities.

Molon Labe
01-05-2011, 02:49 PM
But it's not small businesses that would be run out of business, it would be large insurance corporations.

What it would mean is that small businesses and employers would not have to be responsible for extremely high health care costs for their employers, and also they wouldn't have to worry about their employees all falling ill. Sure they might have to pay a higher tax somewhere, but wouldn't the extreme reduction in cost of health care coverage more than offset that?


Also, as for these major insurance corporations, I submit that our nation, the American working and middle classes, and most people would bebetter off without our health care system being run by profit-first, people-second entities.

It's not about profits...it's about love of money.

When your education system is primarily used to promote management and conformity over critical thinking skills, you get a population who tows "the bottom line". There is no teaching people to question and distrust positions of power. On the contrary, the system is designed to encourage people to embrace it. So if there's lack of empathy for fellow man over dollar......then the left has controlled that system my entire life, so they helped create it...They can own it.


So...
How about making it affordable for people to PAY for services.

How about a health care system where the only insurance is needed for catastrophic coverage, like it was 50 years ago?

Let's get rid of insurance companies all together. It's a waste of money anyways. Insurance is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetuated.

Molon Labe
01-05-2011, 03:15 PM
Free market health care > Socialist managed care

http://www.aapsonline.org/freemarket/berry.htm



Individual freemarket pro bono health care > Socialist coerced care

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlQS991uzh8

http://echofreeclinic.org/home.html

Imagine if these guys didn't have to pay the federal government confiscatory taxes and didn't have to pay for the overhead to file insurance and paperwork.