|
by Slapnuts, Level 71
Last updated at October 26, 2009, 7:01 am
|
I remember when this whole health-care overhaul business started up this year everyone proclaimed the evils of the "massive money-making insurance companies". There is something only slightly ironic in that regard when you consider the fact that they really don't make massive profits. Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year and generally they are around 6% give or take a point here or there. Coors Beer, Hershey (thank WoW-playing Texans?) and Clorox all did better numbers than the insurance industry.
It seems there are various opinions on Windows 7's reception within the tech industry though most consumers, friends and associates I have talked to seem to be pretty positive. Dvorak not being a fan doesn't surprise me all that much. While I have been using the RC since launch my retail copy isn't here yet. At some point this week I will probably do a reformat and install it.
Save the planet, eat your dog? Leave it to the green-freaks come up with some wacky ideas like this. Two professors wrote a book complaining about domestic pets and their carbon footprint which apparently rivals that of SUVs to Volvos depending on the pet. They want to instead promote animals which contribute to society like chickens and and pigs and limit domesticated animals which are bad for the environment. We humans are vile people and should probably just go back to living like the Neanderthals.
This article is a week or so old but I think it is a bit more applicable this week thanks to limited release of Troy Duffy's Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day. This may be an indie release but I can pretty much promise it does better than the bomb that was Tucker Max's "Beer in Hell". Duffy too has pissed off a lot of people in the industry but his first movie has a cult following and massive home video sales. I don't know if the sequel will ever go wide but I am interested in seeing it regardless.
Interested in a $42,000 tax credit for a Tesla Roadster? All you have to do is move to Colorado before December 31st. If I was a Colorado resident I would be incensed over government money going toward the electric supercar. Surely these funds could be spent via far more important means, like maybe helping Coors Brewing Company turn better profits?
Paranormal Activity is a massive, massive hit. It cost $15,000 to make and has now grossed over $64 million. It even beat out Saw VI this weekend proving that audiences can show some taste once in a while, but not often.
Duct tape is the fix-it-all, handyman's dream but I don't think it's quite appropriate for detaining 6-year-olds at school. The principal needs to be held accountable here as well as the secretary for basically doing nothing when she first saw the kid done up in duct tape. If shes good looking maybe the kid can duct tape her up when he gets older and return the favor? Check out the video here.
Yes the Chicago Bears were trash today. Feel free to flame them in comments for doing a really good Tennessee Titans impression.
I can't quite figure out how the hell this happened other than the shelves not being bolted to the wall and the contents being too heavy. Regardless it is an impressive crash and spill.
More soccer coverage on the Epic Drop? What is this insanity!

136 comments
Gamblex Oct 26, 2009 at 7:17 am
+1 votes
I really wish Paranormal Activity was playing somewhere close to where I live.
jflanden Oct 26, 2009 at 12:29 pm
+3 votes
Don't buy into the hype, it's a ******* terrible movie.
Here, I'll summarize the movie: girlfriend says she has been haunted by ghosts since 8 so her boyfriend buys a camera and films them while they sleep.
Night 1: nothing
Night 2: They hear a yell?
Night 3: door moves back and forth
Night 5: She sleep walks out of the house then sits on their bench outside.
Night 10: the bed sheet moves up a bit.
Night 20: she sleep walks and just stares at her boyfriend for a couple hours then goes back to bed.
Night 22: they powder the floor then they see footprints
Night 25: she gets dragged out of the room by some invisible force and boyfriend grabs her back into room
Night 27: she runs out of room screaming then boyfriend follows and she comes back and throws him into the camera
The End. $15,000 movie is $15,000 movie.
The movie is only "suspenseful", if any, because the commercials hype the **** out of it. I dozed off about 2 times while watching this boring as hell movie.
Here, I'll summarize the movie: girlfriend says she has been haunted by ghosts since 8 so her boyfriend buys a camera and films them while they sleep.
Night 1: nothing
Night 2: They hear a yell?
Night 3: door moves back and forth
Night 5: She sleep walks out of the house then sits on their bench outside.
Night 10: the bed sheet moves up a bit.
Night 20: she sleep walks and just stares at her boyfriend for a couple hours then goes back to bed.
Night 22: they powder the floor then they see footprints
Night 25: she gets dragged out of the room by some invisible force and boyfriend grabs her back into room
Night 27: she runs out of room screaming then boyfriend follows and she comes back and throws him into the camera
The End. $15,000 movie is $15,000 movie.
The movie is only "suspenseful", if any, because the commercials hype the **** out of it. I dozed off about 2 times while watching this boring as hell movie.
gottodisagree Oct 26, 2009 at 1:38 pm
+3 votes
name 1 movie that cant be summed like that
it's an excellent movie for its budget, i'm sorry you need some hollywood explosion orcs and gore to find a movie good
it's an excellent movie for its budget, i'm sorry you need some hollywood explosion orcs and gore to find a movie good
jflanden Oct 26, 2009 at 3:59 pm
+1 votes
To be honest, the genre itself is quite ****ty, though I enjoyed "Drag Me To Hell" 100times more than this movie.
Godsmak Oct 26, 2009 at 4:41 pm
-3 votes
jflanden said
To be honest, the genre itself is quite ****ty, though I enjoyed "Drag Me To Hell" 100times more than this movie.
jflanden Oct 26, 2009 at 9:08 pm
+1 votes
I guess admitting that you watch Entourage is your way of coming out of the closet.
Yiska Oct 26, 2009 at 9:36 pm
+1 votes
jflanden said
I guess admitting that you watch Entourage is your way of coming out of the closet.
Godsmak Oct 27, 2009 at 12:14 am
+1 votes
jflanden said
I guess admitting that you watch Entourage is your way of coming out of the closet.
Get a new diss kid.
jflanden Oct 27, 2009 at 1:40 am
+0 votes
Godsmak said
That doesn't even make sense when it pertains to Entourage.
Get a new diss kid.
Get a new diss kid.
I'm sure you already seen this but it sums up the show almost perfectly: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1914477
Godfather Oct 27, 2009 at 1:50 am
+1 votes
Cool story bro. Maybe you and Joe Rogan should get a room.
The guys at college humor are almost as bad though.
The guys at college humor are almost as bad though.
Godsmak Oct 27, 2009 at 2:59 am
+0 votes
jflanden said
The show is gay as ****. Entourage is known for being a "Sex and the City" for closet gays.
I'm sure you already seen this but it sums up the show almost perfectly: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1914477
I'm sure you already seen this but it sums up the show almost perfectly: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1914477
Fett Oct 27, 2009 at 3:37 am
+2 votes
Godsmak said
Did one of the actors from Entourage bang your sister?
Godsmak Oct 27, 2009 at 1:58 pm
-1 votes
Fett said
Considering he knows what closet gays watch I presume they just banged him...
Yiska Oct 27, 2009 at 3:06 am
+1 votes
jflanden said
The show is gay as ****. Entourage is known for being a "Sex and the City" for closet gays.
I'm sure you already seen this but it sums up the show almost perfectly: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1914477
I'm sure you already seen this but it sums up the show almost perfectly: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1914477
Munk Oct 26, 2009 at 8:13 pm
+1 votes
jflanden said
To be honest, the genre itself is quite ****ty, though I enjoyed "Drag Me To Hell" 100times more than this movie.
Swedookie Oct 26, 2009 at 1:39 pm
+1 votes
I didn't think it was so scary either. Definitley not the scariest movie ever. Just for comparison I thought Blair Witch was scarier and more suspenseful. I think I saw the movie with another ending though..
F8L Fool Oct 27, 2009 at 6:38 am
+1 votes
Definitely is 90% hype. A total of 10 seconds were scary at best.
I found myself laughing far more than feeling any sense of fear or disbelief.
I also totally predicted the ending, out loud to the entire theater, a mere five minutes into it.
I found myself laughing far more than feeling any sense of fear or disbelief.
I also totally predicted the ending, out loud to the entire theater, a mere five minutes into it.
BodisUncle Oct 26, 2009 at 6:12 pm
+1 votes
It's a movie for girls. If you're not a girl don't see it. Girls like ghosts and physic stuff. I haven't watched SAW 6 but I did hear it was a lot better than the others. If you don't have a ****** don't watch ghost movies.
All ghost movies are a like, either they show absolutely nothing, or they're like the Patrick Swayze movie.
All ghost movies are a like, either they show absolutely nothing, or they're like the Patrick Swayze movie.
uhhohh Oct 27, 2009 at 12:14 am
+1 votes
Go with friends, preferably girls, and you will enjoy the movie. I had more fun listening to friends reactions and the people in the theater than the movie itself. It wasn't that bad though, if you can respect the fact it was shot on a $15,000 budget.
BodisUncle Oct 27, 2009 at 6:27 am
+1 votes
I like how the movie costs so little and is what I imagine mainly filmed in one room. Robert McKee the author of "Story" says people should do exactly this in their first movies because its cheap, easy to film and easy for people to understand whats going on.
But it's a ghost movie. I saw the Patrick Swayze version, I'm done. Tell me when people start making movies like King Kong again. I liked the original Saw because it felt like something like that could happen. And something similar to that did happen, to a much lesser extent and only to one guy. There's video of it on liveleak I'm sure.
A lot of other horror films were good not because they felt real but because they were original and had original characters. Unless all of a sudden ghosts are something new, this isn't original.
But it's a ghost movie. I saw the Patrick Swayze version, I'm done. Tell me when people start making movies like King Kong again. I liked the original Saw because it felt like something like that could happen. And something similar to that did happen, to a much lesser extent and only to one guy. There's video of it on liveleak I'm sure.
A lot of other horror films were good not because they felt real but because they were original and had original characters. Unless all of a sudden ghosts are something new, this isn't original.
Vir Oct 26, 2009 at 9:04 am
+2 votes
I saw the vikings getting robbed. When the refs made favre throw that interception, man what a rip off!
I loved Brett giving up on catching the runback too.
I loved Brett giving up on catching the runback too.
Dyzz Oct 26, 2009 at 9:20 am
+0 votes
Vir said
I saw the vikings getting robbed. When the refs made favre throw that interception, man what a rip off!
I loved Brett giving up on catching the runback too.
I loved Brett giving up on catching the runback too.
Vir Oct 26, 2009 at 9:31 am
+1 votes
I'm not sure which favre play I like better. The "**** this, I got pushed I'm quitting on this play":
or the "Let me try a soccer slide rather than football tackle!"
or the "Let me try a soccer slide rather than football tackle!"
Dyzz Oct 26, 2009 at 9:38 am
+0 votes
The vikings just arent as good as they look. They have really only played one team who has a good D (baltimore), and even then thier D this year is in shambles.
The saints are in a similiar situation i believe. Thier offense is good, but they have only played 1 team with a superb defense. I think the saints are just generally playing GOOD, and that usually doesnt last.
Broncos are unimpressive too. You can argue they beat the patriots, like espn says is a big feat, but seriously. The patriots almost lost to baltimore and won on penalties. They almost lost to the bills, but won because the retard decided to run the ball back in the last minute of the game. ( the patriots could go winless and the sports writers would proclaim they are still the most dominate force in football.)
The only really good team i see at the moment that is completely solid and has really no major flaws, is the Colts.
The saints are in a similiar situation i believe. Thier offense is good, but they have only played 1 team with a superb defense. I think the saints are just generally playing GOOD, and that usually doesnt last.
Broncos are unimpressive too. You can argue they beat the patriots, like espn says is a big feat, but seriously. The patriots almost lost to baltimore and won on penalties. They almost lost to the bills, but won because the retard decided to run the ball back in the last minute of the game. ( the patriots could go winless and the sports writers would proclaim they are still the most dominate force in football.)
The only really good team i see at the moment that is completely solid and has really no major flaws, is the Colts.
Vir Oct 26, 2009 at 9:53 am
+0 votes
The patriots are overhyped just because they blew a **** team out. They lost to the Jets, which is looking pretty bad right now. The saints barely beat the Dolphins and the Jets. I think you're right, the Colts are the best team in football, and the other undefeated teams aren't all that impressive.
But my god, are the bad teams...bad. Oakland is hopeless. When they pulled Jamarcus I was actually sad, because I wanted to see if he could set a record for turnovers in a game. The raiders say they're starting him next week against San Diego. Picking up San Diego Defense is probably a good bet in fantasy.
The Browns are ****, as are the bucs, and the rams, and the chiefs. The bills are ******* awful too, and so are the redskins...and I didn't even mention the lions. I can't remember seeing so many teams playing so badly.
But my god, are the bad teams...bad. Oakland is hopeless. When they pulled Jamarcus I was actually sad, because I wanted to see if he could set a record for turnovers in a game. The raiders say they're starting him next week against San Diego. Picking up San Diego Defense is probably a good bet in fantasy.
The Browns are ****, as are the bucs, and the rams, and the chiefs. The bills are ******* awful too, and so are the redskins...and I didn't even mention the lions. I can't remember seeing so many teams playing so badly.
uhhohh Oct 26, 2009 at 10:01 am
+1 votes
I'll agree with the Colts being the best team in the NFL, but they really haven't had the chance to prove anything. Close wins over Jacksonville and Miami, who are sub .500 teams, and 2 wins vs win-less teams.
Vir Oct 26, 2009 at 10:13 am
+1 votes
Miami is probably better than their record, but yeah you're right. There are too many have-nots this year, so it's hard to gauge the good teams until they play one another.
Chucho Oct 26, 2009 at 4:48 pm
+1 votes
http://www.nfl.com/teams/schedule?team=MIA
All of our easy games are coming up, I still have hope!
All of our easy games are coming up, I still have hope!
Dyzz Oct 26, 2009 at 10:14 am
+1 votes
Jacksonville and Miami may not have good records, but they have played pretty impressively in some of the games, that resulted in losses.
Dyzz Oct 26, 2009 at 10:09 am
+1 votes
Yeah, i dunno tho, the chargers offense is playing the game, but thier d is just so shat up. Oakland i dont think can win, but they may put some points up. I think the dolphins may be one of the most underrated teams. They are pretty beat up and are consistently pushing some pretty good teams into bad situations or possible losses.
Im pretty disappointed with my team (baltimore). Our offense became one of the best in the NFL in less than one season. Our defense tho, went the way of the titans almost overnight. Rex Ryan and Bart Scott left, but that shouldnt cause our secondary to literally become the 24th ranked. We need a CB BAD. Its so bad, you can watch were Ed Reed is, and the QB's on the other team will purposely throw to the otherside of the field for free yards/td's. If they throw it to ed reed's area its an Interception or incomplete pass. We arent even blitzing properly and getting pressure on teh QB's. I never thought i would see the day that baltimore's offense would have to overcome how terrible the defense is. If you go back and look, our first 3 wins. Only one was a real win, and that was a gimme against the browns. We almost lost to a beat to **** Chargers team and the ******* chiefs almost beat us. WTF.
Im pretty disappointed with my team (baltimore). Our offense became one of the best in the NFL in less than one season. Our defense tho, went the way of the titans almost overnight. Rex Ryan and Bart Scott left, but that shouldnt cause our secondary to literally become the 24th ranked. We need a CB BAD. Its so bad, you can watch were Ed Reed is, and the QB's on the other team will purposely throw to the otherside of the field for free yards/td's. If they throw it to ed reed's area its an Interception or incomplete pass. We arent even blitzing properly and getting pressure on teh QB's. I never thought i would see the day that baltimore's offense would have to overcome how terrible the defense is. If you go back and look, our first 3 wins. Only one was a real win, and that was a gimme against the browns. We almost lost to a beat to **** Chargers team and the ******* chiefs almost beat us. WTF.
Vir Oct 26, 2009 at 10:24 am
+1 votes
Yeah, i dunno tho, the chargers offense is playing the game, but thier
d is just so shat up. Oakland i dont think can win, but they may put
some points up. I think the dolphins may be one of the most underrated
teams. They are pretty beat up and are consistently pushing some pretty
good teams into bad situations or possible losses.
Yeah, the Dolphins seem pretty damn good, they should have had both indy and the saints beat. The Jets are pretty banged up (Lost Leon Washington this week, lost Kris Jenkins the week before). The Dolphins could still make a run at the NFC east, they're 2-0 in the division, and they've got some easy out of division games coming up.
Speaking of the chargers, I picked up LT in my fantasy league. Someone actually cut him last week, lol. I mean, I know he's having a **** season, but who gives up on a RB like that so early?
As for Rexy and Bart Scott, we're really happy to have them over here. Beats the hell out of Mangini, even if just for the press conference quotes.
d is just so shat up. Oakland i dont think can win, but they may put
some points up. I think the dolphins may be one of the most underrated
teams. They are pretty beat up and are consistently pushing some pretty
good teams into bad situations or possible losses.
Yeah, the Dolphins seem pretty damn good, they should have had both indy and the saints beat. The Jets are pretty banged up (Lost Leon Washington this week, lost Kris Jenkins the week before). The Dolphins could still make a run at the NFC east, they're 2-0 in the division, and they've got some easy out of division games coming up.
Speaking of the chargers, I picked up LT in my fantasy league. Someone actually cut him last week, lol. I mean, I know he's having a **** season, but who gives up on a RB like that so early?
As for Rexy and Bart Scott, we're really happy to have them over here. Beats the hell out of Mangini, even if just for the press conference quotes.
Dyzz Oct 26, 2009 at 2:09 pm
+1 votes
Yeah, i dont think you guys are going to the superbowl this year, but give sanchez a year or two, and rex the same time to beef up the defense, and the jets are going to be pretty nasty.
Bennington Oct 26, 2009 at 9:52 am
+3 votes
Lol?
Favre puts more effort into the play after the ball is thrown than pretty much any other QB. He's routinely on sportscenter/etc for making a 30 yard run and throwing a clutch block after the throw.
But keep on Favre hating, it's the thing to do these days.
Favre puts more effort into the play after the ball is thrown than pretty much any other QB. He's routinely on sportscenter/etc for making a 30 yard run and throwing a clutch block after the throw.
But keep on Favre hating, it's the thing to do these days.
Vir Oct 26, 2009 at 9:54 am
+0 votes
Bennington said
Lol?
Favre puts more effort into the play after the ball is thrown than pretty much any other QB. He's routinely on sportscenter/etc for making a 30 yard run and throwing a clutch block after the throw.
But keep on Favre hating, it's the thing to do these days.
Favre puts more effort into the play after the ball is thrown than pretty much any other QB. He's routinely on sportscenter/etc for making a 30 yard run and throwing a clutch block after the throw.
But keep on Favre hating, it's the thing to do these days.
Bennington Oct 26, 2009 at 10:04 am
+2 votes
He's 40 years old, weights 220 pounds and plays quarterback. You honestly think he's going to be bring down one of those D-linemen or centers? Yeah he looks majorly "douchy" actually keeping up with the play and doing what he can (watch the first video again: he gets a hand on the guy and makes him have to change direction. Not too shabby for someone 100 pounds heavier being escorted by, what, 4 other guys?).
******* team players, who needs 'em.
******* team players, who needs 'em.
Vir Oct 26, 2009 at 10:15 am
+0 votes
Bennington said
He's 40 years old, weights 220 pounds and plays quarterback. You honestly think he's going to be bring down one of those D-linemen or centers? Yeah he looks majorly "douchy" actually keeping up with the play and doing what he can (watch the first video again: he gets a hand on the guy and makes him have to change direction. Not too shabby for someone 100 pounds heavier being escorted by, what, 4 other guys?).
******* team players, who needs 'em.
******* team players, who needs 'em.
the falling down when nobody touched him on the second play was even better.
It's probably the right move, but he still looks like a ******.
Dyzz Oct 26, 2009 at 10:13 am
+1 votes
Your obviously a fanboi. He looked like a 40 year old lazy ass yesterday. He's been looking good all year, but yesterday, he looked his age.
dcs Oct 26, 2009 at 9:37 am
+1 votes
I got to agree. If a team played so poorly the decision came down to a refs call, then you deserve to lose (though i do not agree it was a refs call, but even if it was). But lots of vikings players seem to forget the steeler td that was called back was also questionable.
Long and short of it, steelers defense scoring more than vikings offense... tends to hurt their chances of winning.
Long and short of it, steelers defense scoring more than vikings offense... tends to hurt their chances of winning.
Slapnuts Oct 26, 2009 at 4:33 pm
+1 votes
Good ole favre being favre. Ill admit I didnt expect them to start off this well but I figured he was about due for some of these games.
Chucho Oct 26, 2009 at 4:52 pm
+1 votes
Eh, that interception wasn't his fault. Minnesota gave them that game. Bull**** call on that TD play.
WTB AD running over Gay.
WTB AD running over Gay.
Slapnuts Oct 26, 2009 at 7:28 am
+1 votes
Meh, I watch them, usually rentals though. The kill scenes are cool but since like #3 things are so convoluted plot wise that they deserve their fair share of hate.
Newna Oct 26, 2009 at 8:00 am
+3 votes
Spinnaz said
I like how it's cool to hate on Saw now.
Terraburn Oct 26, 2009 at 8:43 am
+2 votes
I used the Windows 7 RC and wasn't too impressed. Then again I don't have that many issues with Vista so it wasn't as big a leap up as others are saying.
I didn't see the Bears game but it is a rough time to be a Bucs fan let me tell you. Also **** the Yankess. I hope the Phillies eat them alive in the WS.
Boob on boob ftw.
I didn't see the Bears game but it is a rough time to be a Bucs fan let me tell you. Also **** the Yankess. I hope the Phillies eat them alive in the WS.
Boob on boob ftw.
Deztro Oct 26, 2009 at 11:48 am
+1 votes
I got a lot of "wow you are wearing a bucs shirt still" from my professors today at school. It is a young team with a young coach.... at this point, the only place to go is up right?
I agree with your feelings on the yankees, as I bleed Red Sox blood. **** all the yankees and their fanbois. I hope the Phillies crush them.
I agree with your feelings on the yankees, as I bleed Red Sox blood. **** all the yankees and their fanbois. I hope the Phillies crush them.
Slapnuts Oct 26, 2009 at 4:55 pm
+1 votes
Cant stand the yankees, at all, what so ever. They are a microcosm of everything that is wrong with baseball.
niidaime Oct 27, 2009 at 3:29 am
+1 votes
baseball sux, my hometeam of mariners used to be the ****(a-rod, randy the bird slayer, ken griffey when he used to be good) and i was forced into playing little league so i used to like it... then i grew up and realized how uncompetitive baseball was, (lol salary caps? WTFroids?!Mark Mcgwire u were my hero!) and overall just boring as **** to watch.
Even golf can be more exciting when tiger woods is playing. Now I change the channel when I see baseball highlights come up on ESPN (which by the way is way too much). Ichiro still rocks though and I am sad I have not ever seen him out in the wild yet although I live pretty close to him.
Even golf can be more exciting when tiger woods is playing. Now I change the channel when I see baseball highlights come up on ESPN (which by the way is way too much). Ichiro still rocks though and I am sad I have not ever seen him out in the wild yet although I live pretty close to him.
cos- Oct 26, 2009 at 8:48 am
+4 votes
If you look at growth in profits over the last 5 year, I don't think big pharma and insurance companies are complaining. Medical products and machinery are up 15.6% in terms of profits according to the fortune 500, Pharmacy and other services 13.4%, Pharmaceuticals 12.1%, Wholesalers: Health care 11.7%, Health care insurance and managed care 8.8%.
Granted they are not doing as good as Aerospace and Defense(23.2% rise in profits due to massive Pentagon funding c.q. militairy keynesian mechanisms), let alone Metals(57.9%) or Oil and Gas(48.7%). However I doubt pharmaceutical companies will complain, big pharma is sitting at at third place with a comfortable 19.3% return on revenues followed by medical products and machinery at 4th place(16.3% returns on revenues). One should note here the fact that they are are both supported by state-insured patents and other monopolistic devices which any serious free-market enthusiast should oppose if they are consistent.
With the new health care bill which is probably gonna pass, it's going to be an even bigger bonanza for the health-care industry. Another 30-40 million new customers who are forced to sign up to a health-care plan, probably forcing lots of bankrupties, but that's only a minor consideration compared to more serious issues like insuring profits for insurance companies.
Granted they are not doing as good as Aerospace and Defense(23.2% rise in profits due to massive Pentagon funding c.q. militairy keynesian mechanisms), let alone Metals(57.9%) or Oil and Gas(48.7%). However I doubt pharmaceutical companies will complain, big pharma is sitting at at third place with a comfortable 19.3% return on revenues followed by medical products and machinery at 4th place(16.3% returns on revenues). One should note here the fact that they are are both supported by state-insured patents and other monopolistic devices which any serious free-market enthusiast should oppose if they are consistent.
With the new health care bill which is probably gonna pass, it's going to be an even bigger bonanza for the health-care industry. Another 30-40 million new customers who are forced to sign up to a health-care plan, probably forcing lots of bankrupties, but that's only a minor consideration compared to more serious issues like insuring profits for insurance companies.
Vir Oct 26, 2009 at 11:03 am
-2 votes
cos- said
If you look at growth in profits over the last 5 year, I don't think big pharma and insurance companies are complaining. Medical products and machinery are up 15.6% in terms of profits according to the fortune 500, Pharmacy and other services 13.4%, Pharmaceuticals 12.1%, Wholesalers: Health care 11.7%, Health care insurance and managed care 8.8%.
Granted they are not doing as good as Aerospace and Defense(23.2% rise in profits due to massive Pentagon funding c.q. militairy keynesian mechanisms), let alone Metals(57.9%) or Oil and Gas(48.7%). However I doubt pharmaceutical companies will complain, big pharma is sitting at at third place with a comfortable 19.3% return on revenues followed by medical products and machinery at 4th place(16.3% returns on revenues). One should note here the fact that they are are both supported by state-insured patents and other monopolistic devices which any serious free-market enthusiast should oppose if they are consistent.
With the new health care bill which is probably gonna pass, it's going to be an even bigger bonanza for the health-care industry. Another 30-40 million new customers who are forced to sign up to a health-care plan, probably forcing lots of bankrupties, but that's only a minor consideration compared to more serious issues like insuring profits for insurance companies.
Granted they are not doing as good as Aerospace and Defense(23.2% rise in profits due to massive Pentagon funding c.q. militairy keynesian mechanisms), let alone Metals(57.9%) or Oil and Gas(48.7%). However I doubt pharmaceutical companies will complain, big pharma is sitting at at third place with a comfortable 19.3% return on revenues followed by medical products and machinery at 4th place(16.3% returns on revenues). One should note here the fact that they are are both supported by state-insured patents and other monopolistic devices which any serious free-market enthusiast should oppose if they are consistent.
With the new health care bill which is probably gonna pass, it's going to be an even bigger bonanza for the health-care industry. Another 30-40 million new customers who are forced to sign up to a health-care plan, probably forcing lots of bankrupties, but that's only a minor consideration compared to more serious issues like insuring profits for insurance companies.
Wow, Pharma companies have higher profits as a huge glut of baby boomers retire and the government gives them free health care.
WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT, ITS OBVIOUSLY THE FAULT OF THE HUGE EVIL CAPITALIST CORPORATIONS AND NOT DEMOGRAPHICS OR THE GOVERNMENT!
cos- Oct 26, 2009 at 11:15 am
+4 votes
I didn't say anything about the causes. I haven't taken a good look at it, but yea probably demographics play a role. The point wasn't what the causes are of profits, the point was that they do in fact make substantial profits contrary to what Slapnuts implies.
My point is, that health-care(just like the police, the fire department, water supply and other public services) shouldn't be there to make profits out of it. There are numerous occasions on which insurance companies denied access to health-care because their bottom line interfered with real human needs. Resulting in deaths of children who could have easily been helped. Furthermore this system, has led to 17% of the US population living without health-care insurance, which according to a Harvard study results in 41000 people dying every year because they don't have health-care. I know you don't give a damn, why complain when you've got everything you need, who cares about some dumb minorities who can't take care of themselves, probably their own fault. But I do, I do care. Nobody should die because of some dumb ***** who want to enrich themselves at the expense of human lives. Only free-market theologians or total cynics will try to defend this state of affairs.
My point is, that health-care(just like the police, the fire department, water supply and other public services) shouldn't be there to make profits out of it. There are numerous occasions on which insurance companies denied access to health-care because their bottom line interfered with real human needs. Resulting in deaths of children who could have easily been helped. Furthermore this system, has led to 17% of the US population living without health-care insurance, which according to a Harvard study results in 41000 people dying every year because they don't have health-care. I know you don't give a damn, why complain when you've got everything you need, who cares about some dumb minorities who can't take care of themselves, probably their own fault. But I do, I do care. Nobody should die because of some dumb ***** who want to enrich themselves at the expense of human lives. Only free-market theologians or total cynics will try to defend this state of affairs.
Vir Oct 26, 2009 at 11:27 am
-4 votes
cos- said
I didn't say anything about the causes. I haven't taken a good look at it, but yea probably demographics play a role. The point wasn't what the causes are of profits, the point was that they do in fact make substantial profits contrary to what Slapnuts implies.
My point is, that health-care(just like the police, the fire department, water supply and other public services) shouldn't be there to make profits out of it. There are numerous occasions on which insurance companies denied access to health-care because their bottom line interfered with real human needs. Resulting in deaths of children who could have easily been helped. Furthermore this system, has led to 17% of the US population living without health-care insurance, which according to a Harvard study results in 41000 people dying every year because they don't have health-care. I know you don't give a damn, why complain when you've got everything you need, who cares about some dumb minorities who can't take care of themselves, probably their own fault. But I do, I do care. Nobody should die because of some dumb ***** who want to enrich themselves at the expense of human lives. Only free-market theologians or total cynics will try to defend this state of affairs.
My point is, that health-care(just like the police, the fire department, water supply and other public services) shouldn't be there to make profits out of it. There are numerous occasions on which insurance companies denied access to health-care because their bottom line interfered with real human needs. Resulting in deaths of children who could have easily been helped. Furthermore this system, has led to 17% of the US population living without health-care insurance, which according to a Harvard study results in 41000 people dying every year because they don't have health-care. I know you don't give a damn, why complain when you've got everything you need, who cares about some dumb minorities who can't take care of themselves, probably their own fault. But I do, I do care. Nobody should die because of some dumb ***** who want to enrich themselves at the expense of human lives. Only free-market theologians or total cynics will try to defend this state of affairs.
Then give you're own money to charity, Don't steal mine Thanks. PS-Nice made up BS stories. UR WHOLE ARGUMENT IS:
"LOTS OF CHILDREN DIEEEEEEEEE U MUST SUPPORRRRT MY COMMIE IDEAZ!!!!!"
PLZ MOVE TO THE EU.
cos- Oct 26, 2009 at 11:41 am
+5 votes
If you could point out exactly what it is that I said which was bull****, it would be easier for me to respond.
I wasn't aware of the fact that when certain policies will result in suffering people this doesn't qualify as a valid argument against these policies anymore. Maybe you could eleborate on this.
What exactly is communist about state intervention? The US practiced massive state intervention all troughout the 19th century, imposing the highest tarrifs in the world and regulation banning foreigners from owning US banks/companies. Right now the US is spending like 600 billion on "defence"(which means subsidies to large corporations like Boeing aswell as producing just waste). Why doesn't this qualify as "commie ideaz"? This recalls archbishop Camara his comment; "When I give food to the hungry they call me a saint. But when I ask why the hungry have no food, they call me a communist".
Besides I'm not a communist, as I've told you many many times. I don't convert to the same tactic of calling you a facist every time do I?
Also I live in the EU.
I wasn't aware of the fact that when certain policies will result in suffering people this doesn't qualify as a valid argument against these policies anymore. Maybe you could eleborate on this.
What exactly is communist about state intervention? The US practiced massive state intervention all troughout the 19th century, imposing the highest tarrifs in the world and regulation banning foreigners from owning US banks/companies. Right now the US is spending like 600 billion on "defence"(which means subsidies to large corporations like Boeing aswell as producing just waste). Why doesn't this qualify as "commie ideaz"? This recalls archbishop Camara his comment; "When I give food to the hungry they call me a saint. But when I ask why the hungry have no food, they call me a communist".
Besides I'm not a communist, as I've told you many many times. I don't convert to the same tactic of calling you a facist every time do I?
Also I live in the EU.
Vir Oct 26, 2009 at 11:45 am
-3 votes
cos- said
If you could point out exactly what it is that I said which was bull****, it would be easier for me to respond.
I wasn't aware of the fact that when certain policies will result in suffering people this doesn't qualify as a valid argument against these policies anymore. Maybe you could eleborate on this.
What exactly is communist about state intervention? The US practiced massive state intervention all troughout the 19th century, imposing the highest tarrifs in the world and regulation banning foreigners from owning US banks/companies. Right now the US is spending like 600 billion on "defence"(which means subsidies to large corporations like Boeing aswell as producing just waste). Why doesn't this qualify as "commie ideaz"? This recalls archbishop Camara his comment; "When I give food to the hungry they call me a saint. But when I ask why the hungry have no food, they call me a communist".
Besides I'm not a communist, as I've told you many many times. I don't convert to the same tactic of calling you a facist every time do I?
Also I live in the EU.
I wasn't aware of the fact that when certain policies will result in suffering people this doesn't qualify as a valid argument against these policies anymore. Maybe you could eleborate on this.
What exactly is communist about state intervention? The US practiced massive state intervention all troughout the 19th century, imposing the highest tarrifs in the world and regulation banning foreigners from owning US banks/companies. Right now the US is spending like 600 billion on "defence"(which means subsidies to large corporations like Boeing aswell as producing just waste). Why doesn't this qualify as "commie ideaz"? This recalls archbishop Camara his comment; "When I give food to the hungry they call me a saint. But when I ask why the hungry have no food, they call me a communist".
Besides I'm not a communist, as I've told you many many times. I don't convert to the same tactic of calling you a facist every time do I?
Also I live in the EU.
EVERYTHING YOU POSTED EVER
dub Oct 26, 2009 at 11:36 am
+1 votes
You're wasting your time, cos. Arguing morals will go on and on forever, Americans have to understand that a universal coverage will ultimately save money.
Money is the only common ground people have.
Money is the only common ground people have.
Vir Oct 26, 2009 at 11:47 am
+1 votes
dub said
You're wasting your time, cos. Arguing morals will go on and on forever, Americans have to understand that a universal coverage will ultimately save money.
Money is the only common ground people have.
Money is the only common ground people have.
dub Oct 26, 2009 at 12:06 pm
+1 votes
You should care about money, because today's debt is always tomorrow's taxes.
"Freedom" is what the majority iof a country decides it is. I want to legally smoke pot, but I'm forbidden to do so. Why on earth would you criminalize a ******* plant? Your idea of freedom however seems to be rather close to anarcho-capitalism.
Of course "freedom and liberty" always sounds good as an argument and who in their right mind would be against individual freedom, but sometimes you have to step back from these phrases and think about the alternatives.
Currently you have a system that has the wrong incentives (treatment yields higher profits than preventive care) and a horribly inefficient form of univeral health-care (emergency rooms) that leads to cost-shifting. I'm afraid the solution to this problem needs to include mandatory insurance. In this case, the choice of staying uncovered by a minority is diametrically opposed to social welfare of the majority.
This is before talking about morals. Personally I think you'd have to be morally bankrupt to argue against universal coverage.
"Freedom" is what the majority iof a country decides it is. I want to legally smoke pot, but I'm forbidden to do so. Why on earth would you criminalize a ******* plant? Your idea of freedom however seems to be rather close to anarcho-capitalism.
Of course "freedom and liberty" always sounds good as an argument and who in their right mind would be against individual freedom, but sometimes you have to step back from these phrases and think about the alternatives.
Currently you have a system that has the wrong incentives (treatment yields higher profits than preventive care) and a horribly inefficient form of univeral health-care (emergency rooms) that leads to cost-shifting. I'm afraid the solution to this problem needs to include mandatory insurance. In this case, the choice of staying uncovered by a minority is diametrically opposed to social welfare of the majority.
This is before talking about morals. Personally I think you'd have to be morally bankrupt to argue against universal coverage.
Vir Oct 26, 2009 at 12:16 pm
+0 votes
You should care about money, because today's debt is always tomorrow's taxes.
Not really, today's debt will be tomorrow's default. Americans have no control over this, it's pointless to even worry about. I can lecture and try to inform people of such things, but they do not want to be bothered.
"Freedom" is what the majority iof a country decides it is.
Dub, this is easily debunked. If a majority of the country decides freedom for black people is being the property of others, that doesn't make it "Freedom".
I want to
legally smoke pot, but I'm forbidden to do so. Why on earth would you
criminalize a ******* plant?
Haha, I wouldn't. As for why the governments do, probably to protect the idiots who could not do so responsibly.
Your idea of freedom however seems to be
rather close to anarcho-capitalism.
I don't think anarcho-capitalism could work. The main function of government should be to protect from force and fraud, and thus I believe in a regulated market while anarcho-capitalists believe in a totally free market and no social services.
Of course "freedom and liberty" always sounds good as an argument and
who in their right mind would be against individual freedom, but
sometimes you have to step back from these phrases and think about the
alternatives.
What makes you think I haven't?
Currently you have a system that has the wrong incentives (treatment
yields higher profits than preventive care)
There is no doctor that will let someone get sick on purpose for profit motive. I'm around doctors everyday, none of them think like that, ever.
and a horribly inefficient
form of univeral health-care (emergency rooms) that leads to
cost-shifting. I'm afraid the solution to this problem needs to include
mandatory insurance. In this case, the choice of staying oncovered by a
minority is diametrically opposed to social welfare.
If people want to stay uncovered, that should be their choice. If they want to walk into an emergency room for EMERGENCY treatment that is fine too, the government should foot the bill. And then collect the fee via the IRS.
Instead you can walk into an emergency room now, give a fake name, get treated for free, and walk out. They must take you no matter what. There is a homeless guy in NYC who would constantly use the 911 system to get an ambulence ride across town, then say he was fine once he made it to the hospital.
Our system is ******, not due to a free market, but to rampant do-gooderism which makes people think the government should pay for everything.
This is before talking about morals. Personally I think you'd have to be morally bankrupt to argue against universal coverage.
Personally, I think you have to be morally bankrupt to say you should steal from one person to pay for the medical coverage of the next person. That is theft.
Not really, today's debt will be tomorrow's default. Americans have no control over this, it's pointless to even worry about. I can lecture and try to inform people of such things, but they do not want to be bothered.
"Freedom" is what the majority iof a country decides it is.
Dub, this is easily debunked. If a majority of the country decides freedom for black people is being the property of others, that doesn't make it "Freedom".
I want to
legally smoke pot, but I'm forbidden to do so. Why on earth would you
criminalize a ******* plant?
Haha, I wouldn't. As for why the governments do, probably to protect the idiots who could not do so responsibly.
Your idea of freedom however seems to be
rather close to anarcho-capitalism.
I don't think anarcho-capitalism could work. The main function of government should be to protect from force and fraud, and thus I believe in a regulated market while anarcho-capitalists believe in a totally free market and no social services.
Of course "freedom and liberty" always sounds good as an argument and
who in their right mind would be against individual freedom, but
sometimes you have to step back from these phrases and think about the
alternatives.
What makes you think I haven't?
Currently you have a system that has the wrong incentives (treatment
yields higher profits than preventive care)
There is no doctor that will let someone get sick on purpose for profit motive. I'm around doctors everyday, none of them think like that, ever.
and a horribly inefficient
form of univeral health-care (emergency rooms) that leads to
cost-shifting. I'm afraid the solution to this problem needs to include
mandatory insurance. In this case, the choice of staying oncovered by a
minority is diametrically opposed to social welfare.
If people want to stay uncovered, that should be their choice. If they want to walk into an emergency room for EMERGENCY treatment that is fine too, the government should foot the bill. And then collect the fee via the IRS.
Instead you can walk into an emergency room now, give a fake name, get treated for free, and walk out. They must take you no matter what. There is a homeless guy in NYC who would constantly use the 911 system to get an ambulence ride across town, then say he was fine once he made it to the hospital.
Our system is ******, not due to a free market, but to rampant do-gooderism which makes people think the government should pay for everything.
This is before talking about morals. Personally I think you'd have to be morally bankrupt to argue against universal coverage.
Personally, I think you have to be morally bankrupt to say you should steal from one person to pay for the medical coverage of the next person. That is theft.
dub Oct 26, 2009 at 12:31 pm
+1 votes
Not really, today's debt will be tomorrow's default.
I was talking about public debt. Or do you think America defaults?
If a majority of the country decides freedom for black people is being the property of others, that doesn't make it "Freedom"
Why do you take this argument to extreme levels? Of course I'm not talking about slavery, rape or murder, but generally your individual freedom ends where the law begins and that law is subject to change.
Our system is ******, not due to a free market, but to rampant do-gooderism which makes people think the government should pay for everything.
What's the alternative? Let the people that lack the means to buy coverage rot in the streets? I agree, that would lower costs. Might be hard to get that bill passed though, means you should focus on ways to lower costs for everybody.
I also don't understand why anyone wouldn't be opposed to a corporate bureaucrat in between your doctor and yourself. If you ever visited some business classes I'm sure you'd be opposed to that kind of thinking when it comes to health coverage.
I was talking about public debt. Or do you think America defaults?
If a majority of the country decides freedom for black people is being the property of others, that doesn't make it "Freedom"
Why do you take this argument to extreme levels? Of course I'm not talking about slavery, rape or murder, but generally your individual freedom ends where the law begins and that law is subject to change.
Our system is ******, not due to a free market, but to rampant do-gooderism which makes people think the government should pay for everything.
What's the alternative? Let the people that lack the means to buy coverage rot in the streets? I agree, that would lower costs. Might be hard to get that bill passed though, means you should focus on ways to lower costs for everybody.
I also don't understand why anyone wouldn't be opposed to a corporate bureaucrat in between your doctor and yourself. If you ever visited some business classes I'm sure you'd be opposed to that kind of thinking when it comes to health coverage.
Vir Oct 26, 2009 at 12:58 pm
+1 votes
I was talking about public debt. Or do you think America defaults?
Default or devaluation looks like the long term plan here. Unless they're going to be grown ups at some point, raise interest rates and cut spending. Of course, that would lead to a depression.
Why do you take this argument to extreme levels? Of course I'm not
talking about slavery, rape or murder, but generally your individual
freedom ends where the law begins and that law is subject to change.
You said "What the law says is freedom, is freedom", I brought up the slavery point to prove your point was not logical. Governments don't define freedom, freedom is simply exemption from external control. Maybe you're pointing out that governments tend to take away individual freedoms, and that I'd agree with.
What's the alternative? Let the people that lack the means to buy
coverage rot in the streets?
Huh? We already have Medicaid that covers people who "lack the means". I think we've been through this before.
I also don't understand why anyone wouldn't be opposed to a corporate
bureaucrat in between your doctor and yourself.
They aren't. In the worst cases, if you feel you've been treated unfairly you can take a private corporation to court. If the government treats you unfairly, good luck taking them to court. Of course, your experience might be different, since you're not an American.
Default or devaluation looks like the long term plan here. Unless they're going to be grown ups at some point, raise interest rates and cut spending. Of course, that would lead to a depression.
Why do you take this argument to extreme levels? Of course I'm not
talking about slavery, rape or murder, but generally your individual
freedom ends where the law begins and that law is subject to change.
You said "What the law says is freedom, is freedom", I brought up the slavery point to prove your point was not logical. Governments don't define freedom, freedom is simply exemption from external control. Maybe you're pointing out that governments tend to take away individual freedoms, and that I'd agree with.
What's the alternative? Let the people that lack the means to buy
coverage rot in the streets?
Huh? We already have Medicaid that covers people who "lack the means". I think we've been through this before.
I also don't understand why anyone wouldn't be opposed to a corporate
bureaucrat in between your doctor and yourself.
They aren't. In the worst cases, if you feel you've been treated unfairly you can take a private corporation to court. If the government treats you unfairly, good luck taking them to court. Of course, your experience might be different, since you're not an American.
dub Oct 26, 2009 at 1:09 pm
+1 votes
Default or devaluation looks like the long term plan here.
You'd rather see a raise in taxes than a cut in spending considering your current administration. Default is not an option. Too many people have a stake in the American economy to even consider it.
You said "What the law says is freedom, is freedom"
http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm#2
Huh? We already have Medicaid that covers people who "lack the means". I think we've been through this before.
That is the point. Your current form of universal coverage is terrible, so why don't you want change it to something more cost-efficient?
In the worst cases, if you feel you've been treated unfairly you can take a private corporation to court
How do I sue someone when I'm dead?
You'd rather see a raise in taxes than a cut in spending considering your current administration. Default is not an option. Too many people have a stake in the American economy to even consider it.
You said "What the law says is freedom, is freedom"
http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm#2
Huh? We already have Medicaid that covers people who "lack the means". I think we've been through this before.
That is the point. Your current form of universal coverage is terrible, so why don't you want change it to something more cost-efficient?
In the worst cases, if you feel you've been treated unfairly you can take a private corporation to court
How do I sue someone when I'm dead?
Vir Oct 26, 2009 at 1:26 pm
+1 votes
You'd rather see a raise in taxes than a cut in spending considering
your current administration. Default is not an option. Too many people
have a stake in the American economy to even consider it.
Raising taxes will be attempted, but it won't really matter. The options are raise interest rates, defend the dollar and endure a depression, or to print our way out of debt via inflation, or outright default. I think outright default is less likely than inflation, but it could happen.
I'd like to think they're going to raise rates, cut spending, and defend the dollar, but they've decided the short term is more important than the long term.
That is the point. Your current form of universal coverage is terrible,
so why don't you want change it to something more cost-efficient?
Insuring more people isn't "cost-efficient".
How do I sue someone when I'm dead?
Your next of kin do, if need be. Weren't you complaining about extreme examples earlier? Anyway, the simple threat of massive lawsuits keep corporations in check somewhat. What's you're point here, you think that a private health care insurer will be more likely to let you die without treatment than a government? That's Rubbish.
your current administration. Default is not an option. Too many people
have a stake in the American economy to even consider it.
Raising taxes will be attempted, but it won't really matter. The options are raise interest rates, defend the dollar and endure a depression, or to print our way out of debt via inflation, or outright default. I think outright default is less likely than inflation, but it could happen.
I'd like to think they're going to raise rates, cut spending, and defend the dollar, but they've decided the short term is more important than the long term.
That is the point. Your current form of universal coverage is terrible,
so why don't you want change it to something more cost-efficient?
Insuring more people isn't "cost-efficient".
How do I sue someone when I'm dead?
Your next of kin do, if need be. Weren't you complaining about extreme examples earlier? Anyway, the simple threat of massive lawsuits keep corporations in check somewhat. What's you're point here, you think that a private health care insurer will be more likely to let you die without treatment than a government? That's Rubbish.
dub Oct 26, 2009 at 1:44 pm
+1 votes
Raising taxes will be attempted, but it won't really matter.
You talk like it's impossible to balance America's budget. Of course it is possible. 5 dollars say Obama will more or less stick with the current level of spending but jack up gov't revenue (taxes).
Insuring more people isn't "cost-efficient"
I already talked about this: People without insurance will see a doctor at later stages which drives up costs and leads to cost-shifting to people with insurance.
Anyway, the simple threat of massive lawsuits keep corporations in check somewhat
.... no?
What's you're point here, you think that a private health care insurer will be more likely to let you die without treatment than a government? That's Rubbish.
You seem to have much faith in market forces which is remarkable given all the market imperfections in the health-care industry.
I'm all for free markets in 99% of the time, HC isn't one of it though.
You talk like it's impossible to balance America's budget. Of course it is possible. 5 dollars say Obama will more or less stick with the current level of spending but jack up gov't revenue (taxes).
Insuring more people isn't "cost-efficient"
I already talked about this: People without insurance will see a doctor at later stages which drives up costs and leads to cost-shifting to people with insurance.
Anyway, the simple threat of massive lawsuits keep corporations in check somewhat
.... no?
What's you're point here, you think that a private health care insurer will be more likely to let you die without treatment than a government? That's Rubbish.
You seem to have much faith in market forces which is remarkable given all the market imperfections in the health-care industry.
I'm all for free markets in 99% of the time, HC isn't one of it though.
Vir Oct 26, 2009 at 2:06 pm
+2 votes
You talk like it's impossible to balance America's budget. Of course it
is possible. 5 dollars say Obama will more or less stick with the
current level of spending but jack up gov't revenue (taxes).
Sure it's possible. By spending 2 trillion dollars a year? No it's not. You think Obama's going to raise taxes on a declining GDP during an economic downturn and make up the difference there?
Even keynes wouldn't argue that.
I already talked about this: People without insurance will see a doctor
at later stages which drives up costs and leads to cost-shifting to
people with insurance.
Right. But people without insurance here still see doctors, and if they have better coverage they will see doctors more often. In your mythical world where doctors perform preventive maintenance and somehow magically stop Americans from being fat, maybe it would help. The fact is, all we're going to have is more doctors visits and higher costs.
You seem to have much faith in market forces which is remarkable given all the market imperfections in the health-care industry.
You seem to have much faith in government forces which is remarkable given all the government imperfections in every other industry they occupy in the US.
is possible. 5 dollars say Obama will more or less stick with the
current level of spending but jack up gov't revenue (taxes).
Sure it's possible. By spending 2 trillion dollars a year? No it's not. You think Obama's going to raise taxes on a declining GDP during an economic downturn and make up the difference there?
Even keynes wouldn't argue that.
I already talked about this: People without insurance will see a doctor
at later stages which drives up costs and leads to cost-shifting to
people with insurance.
Right. But people without insurance here still see doctors, and if they have better coverage they will see doctors more often. In your mythical world where doctors perform preventive maintenance and somehow magically stop Americans from being fat, maybe it would help. The fact is, all we're going to have is more doctors visits and higher costs.
You seem to have much faith in market forces which is remarkable given all the market imperfections in the health-care industry.
You seem to have much faith in government forces which is remarkable given all the government imperfections in every other industry they occupy in the US.
dub Oct 26, 2009 at 2:25 pm
+1 votes
Sure it's possible. By spending 2 trillion dollars a year? No it's not.
I'm too lazy to check your 2 trillion figure and I also don't know how much of this is regular spending or part of one of those 541 bailouts, but neither your public debt or your current deficit (pre-crisis) was shockingly high when seen as a percentage of GDP.
You think Obama's going to raise taxes on a declining GDP during an economic downturn and make up the difference there?
Does his term official end the day the crisis is over?
In your mythical world where doctors perform preventive maintenance and somehow magically stop Americans from being fat, maybe it would help
It's pretty simple to understand that if you treat people earlier in the casual chain, costs will go down. You also need to make sure that doctors choose the cost-efficient treatment and not the most expensive when given several alternatives. There's no reason to keep people out of surgeries at the moment.
You seem to have much faith in government forces which is remarkable given all the government imperfections in every other industry they occupy in the US.
No I don't.
I'm too lazy to check your 2 trillion figure and I also don't know how much of this is regular spending or part of one of those 541 bailouts, but neither your public debt or your current deficit (pre-crisis) was shockingly high when seen as a percentage of GDP.
You think Obama's going to raise taxes on a declining GDP during an economic downturn and make up the difference there?
Does his term official end the day the crisis is over?
In your mythical world where doctors perform preventive maintenance and somehow magically stop Americans from being fat, maybe it would help
It's pretty simple to understand that if you treat people earlier in the casual chain, costs will go down. You also need to make sure that doctors choose the cost-efficient treatment and not the most expensive when given several alternatives. There's no reason to keep people out of surgeries at the moment.
You seem to have much faith in government forces which is remarkable given all the government imperfections in every other industry they occupy in the US.
No I don't.
cos- Oct 26, 2009 at 12:36 pm
+1 votes
Not gonna respond to every issue you raised here. But just a few questions, why is government the only tyranny you see? Why don't coorporations qualify? I just can't comprehend the whole anti-government mood. I understand the government is very flawed but it's the only thing you potentially have a say in. Coorporations are just total tyrannies in their structure.
John Dewey once said: "Unless industrial feudalism is replaced by industrial democracy, politics will remain the shadow cast by business over society". I pretty much agree with that statement.
Also do you think people in general will be better off if only government would not interfere with markets? Or do you just not care about the fate of some people and argue for some kind of social darwinism?
John Dewey once said: "Unless industrial feudalism is replaced by industrial democracy, politics will remain the shadow cast by business over society". I pretty much agree with that statement.
Also do you think people in general will be better off if only government would not interfere with markets? Or do you just not care about the fate of some people and argue for some kind of social darwinism?
Vir Oct 26, 2009 at 1:19 pm
-1 votes
Not gonna respond to every issue you raised here. But just a few
questions, why is government the only tyranny you see?
It's not.
Why don't
coorporations qualify?
Typically I don't see corporations as tyrannical, they can not take away my rights. They can try to steal from me, or commit fraud. The government should exist to check that. I don't really have any love for multinational corporations, I think most organizations as they become larger are more problematic for the individual.
I just can't comprehend the whole
anti-government mood.
It's not anti-government per-se. It's anti-collectivist government.
I understand the government is very flawed but
it's the only thing you potentially have a say in.
Really, and what say do I have? Do you think people have much of a say in the American government? You believe corporations to be so evil, yet government protects them from the ultimate punishment, failure. Or at least they protect the ones they have "chosen".
Coorporations are
just total tyrannies in their structure.
I don't get this at all. Corporations are not structured to take away your rights. They are structured to take away your money, but in general that should be in exchange for something you want of your own free will (ie, NOT SOMETHING THE GOVERNMENT FORCES YOU TO BUY).
John Dewey once said: "Unless industrial feudalism is replaced by
industrial democracy, politics will remain the shadow cast by business
over society". I pretty much agree with that statement.
I don't think people are bright enough to realize that the problem isn't just business or the government, but the problem is the two playing together for profit.
Also do you think people in general will be better off if only
government would not interfere with markets?
"Better Off" and "interfere" are pretty broad terms here. As far as interference goes, I'm of the opinion that the government can regulate things to a point (ie, put the snake oil salesman out of business), but that they should not bail out companies, nor award contracts to private companies.
Once government is given the power to hand out subsidies to business, then business has a reason to lobby them. The end result is stuff like our current corn subsides, the free bailout money to the banks, the 1999 bill that was mostly written BY the banks, various military companies etc.
I don't know that people would be better off in the short run, but they'd certainly be more free.
Or do you just not care
about the fate of some people and argue for some kind of social
darwinism?
How much money do you give to charity each month? Since you're making this personal, want to compare what myself and my wife give to you?
Anyway, in an ideal society, welfarism would not be needed. I'd love to do without the various handouts (welfare, medicaid, medicare).
It would be the last thing I'd cut in the US though, since there would be riots in the streets the next day.
questions, why is government the only tyranny you see?
It's not.
Why don't
coorporations qualify?
Typically I don't see corporations as tyrannical, they can not take away my rights. They can try to steal from me, or commit fraud. The government should exist to check that. I don't really have any love for multinational corporations, I think most organizations as they become larger are more problematic for the individual.
I just can't comprehend the whole
anti-government mood.
It's not anti-government per-se. It's anti-collectivist government.
I understand the government is very flawed but
it's the only thing you potentially have a say in.
Really, and what say do I have? Do you think people have much of a say in the American government? You believe corporations to be so evil, yet government protects them from the ultimate punishment, failure. Or at least they protect the ones they have "chosen".
Coorporations are
just total tyrannies in their structure.
I don't get this at all. Corporations are not structured to take away your rights. They are structured to take away your money, but in general that should be in exchange for something you want of your own free will (ie, NOT SOMETHING THE GOVERNMENT FORCES YOU TO BUY).
John Dewey once said: "Unless industrial feudalism is replaced by
industrial democracy, politics will remain the shadow cast by business
over society". I pretty much agree with that statement.
I don't think people are bright enough to realize that the problem isn't just business or the government, but the problem is the two playing together for profit.
Also do you think people in general will be better off if only
government would not interfere with markets?
"Better Off" and "interfere" are pretty broad terms here. As far as interference goes, I'm of the opinion that the government can regulate things to a point (ie, put the snake oil salesman out of business), but that they should not bail out companies, nor award contracts to private companies.
Once government is given the power to hand out subsidies to business, then business has a reason to lobby them. The end result is stuff like our current corn subsides, the free bailout money to the banks, the 1999 bill that was mostly written BY the banks, various military companies etc.
I don't know that people would be better off in the short run, but they'd certainly be more free.
Or do you just not care
about the fate of some people and argue for some kind of social
darwinism?
How much money do you give to charity each month? Since you're making this personal, want to compare what myself and my wife give to you?
Anyway, in an ideal society, welfarism would not be needed. I'd love to do without the various handouts (welfare, medicaid, medicare).
It would be the last thing I'd cut in the US though, since there would be riots in the streets the next day.
Secksie Oct 26, 2009 at 2:42 pm
+1 votes
Vir, given that we need a way to increase government revenue in the long run (unless you support defaulting on our debt), wouldn't coopting the health insurance revenues by socializing health care be a logical way of a) Providing a demonstrable source of revenue to the rest of the world by coopting those of private health insurers and B) decreasing the bloatedness of the system. I know you're going to say that it will be badly run and government bureaucracy would ruin it, but assuming that it wasn't and they didn't, couldn't it actually help everything?
Vir Oct 26, 2009 at 2:54 pm
+1 votes
Vir,
given that we need a way to increase government revenue in the long run, wouldn't coopting the
health insurance revenues by socializing health care be a logical way
of a) Providing a demonstrable source of revenue to the rest of the
world by coopting those of private health insurers
What profits are you going to have from a government run system? Are you suggesting the government should take over the whole healthcare system, then charge employers or citizens just as the private companies do? I'm not sure that is a winning revenue model since the margins are slim already. Adding everyone to the rolls will likely make it a net loss.
and B) decreasing
the bloatedness of the system. I know you're going to say that it will
be badly run and government bureaucracy would ruin it, but assuming
that it wasn't and they didn't, couldn't it actually help everything?
If insuring more people magically lowered costs and we had infinite money to pump into it, sure.given that we need a way to increase government revenue in the long run, wouldn't coopting the
health insurance revenues by socializing health care be a logical way
of a) Providing a demonstrable source of revenue to the rest of the
world by coopting those of private health insurers
What profits are you going to have from a government run system? Are you suggesting the government should take over the whole healthcare system, then charge employers or citizens just as the private companies do? I'm not sure that is a winning revenue model since the margins are slim already. Adding everyone to the rolls will likely make it a net loss.
and B) decreasing
the bloatedness of the system. I know you're going to say that it will
be badly run and government bureaucracy would ruin it, but assuming
that it wasn't and they didn't, couldn't it actually help everything?
A better idea would be to embrace pro-growth policies, and perhaps reform the tax code (or the whole system).
(unless you support defaulting on our debt)
I do not like the idea of devaluation (inflation) or default. I would have liked to have seen the government ring fence itself off from this mess, not spend any money, and protect the dollar in the long run. Yeah we would have had a depression, but the alternatives look much worse.
Plus, I'm not convinced all this spending is going to lead to recovery. The administrations job numbers certainly didn't pan out.
I can understand why devaluing the dollar makes sense at this point though. It's just not a very moral answer to the problem.
Secksie Oct 26, 2009 at 3:04 pm
+1 votes
Vir said
Vir,
given that we need a way to increase government revenue in the long run, wouldn't coopting the
health insurance revenues by socializing health care be a logical way
of a) Providing a demonstrable source of revenue to the rest of the
world by coopting those of private health insurers
What profits are you going to have from a government run system? Are you suggesting the government should take over the whole healthcare system, then charge employers or citizens just as the private companies do? I'm not sure that is a winning revenue model since the margins are slim already. Adding everyone to the rolls will likely make it a net loss.
and B) decreasing
the bloatedness of the system. I know you're going to say that it will
be badly run and government bureaucracy would ruin it, but assuming
that it wasn't and they didn't, couldn't it actually help everything?
If insuring more people magically lowered costs and we had infinite money to pump into it, sure.given that we need a way to increase government revenue in the long run, wouldn't coopting the
health insurance revenues by socializing health care be a logical way
of a) Providing a demonstrable source of revenue to the rest of the
world by coopting those of private health insurers
What profits are you going to have from a government run system? Are you suggesting the government should take over the whole healthcare system, then charge employers or citizens just as the private companies do? I'm not sure that is a winning revenue model since the margins are slim already. Adding everyone to the rolls will likely make it a net loss.
and B) decreasing
the bloatedness of the system. I know you're going to say that it will
be badly run and government bureaucracy would ruin it, but assuming
that it wasn't and they didn't, couldn't it actually help everything?
A better idea would be to embrace pro-growth policies, and perhaps reform the tax code (or the whole system).
(unless you support defaulting on our debt)
I do not like the idea of devaluation (inflation) or default. I would have liked to have seen the government ring fence itself off from this mess, not spend any money, and protect the dollar in the long run. Yeah we would have had a depression, but the alternatives look much worse.
Plus, I'm not convinced all this spending is going to lead to recovery. The administrations job numbers certainly didn't pan out.
I can understand why devaluing the dollar makes sense at this point though. It's just not a very moral answer to the problem.
Vir Oct 26, 2009 at 5:30 pm
+1 votes
Secksie said
I actually support the government running the majority of the health insurance industry, while allowing people to buy private "premium" insurance. The reason for this is that the main reason insurance costs are ludicrous is not because of the insurance companies being horrible profit seekers but because of pharmaceutical companies giving us the most expensive medical costs in the world. If the government took over running the insurance, they would essentially be forced to make the pharmaceutical companies charge us reasonable prices (like what happens in the rest of the world), therefore lowering insurance costs and making it easy to make profit. It would also increase companies profit margins since they would not have to pay insurance for their workers. The only downside is that I'm not sure if the government is competent enough to implement it effectively. And 6% profit on average sounds small, but given the amount of money that is spent by people on insurance, it's a huge amount of money in dollars.
Simply put, there is no money in nationalization unless you're willing to cut services. It's a pipe dream to believe this government will be any more effecent than the private/public system we have.
Ideally we wouldn't scam our way out of this recession, but actually grow our way out of it by producing viable goods and services. I doubt that will happen though.
cos- Oct 26, 2009 at 3:15 pm
+1 votes
Depends on what you call rights. If rights are those described in say, the declaration of human rights, corporations are constantly taking them away. Take say article 23, I think it's not hard to make a case which shows a company like Caterpillar's anti-union tactics to be in blatant violation of this article.
Or article 24, there's no doubt labour practices in third world countries are violating(some reports are talking about 72 hour workdays) this article.
Or maybe most importantly article 25("Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."), no doubt corporations make sure this "right" will never be enforced. Simply because it would threaten their bottom line.
To what extent a government is democratic you can influence it somewhat. This is sharp contrast with a corporation which is only accountable to the public in the same way a dictatorship can be accountable to the public. Sure, a corporation in itself doesn't have the same power a government has, it's probably not gonna kill your sister or anything(unless you live in Nigeria). But the fact that we spend most of our life on a job were we are not treated like human beings, rather like tools of production, should really bother us in my opinion.
Freedom is not just the right to consume what you want. It's also having a say in what you are producing, having a say in what your consuming, having a say in your community, in other words having a say in those things that affect you as a human being. The fallacy that I see a lot of so called libertarians make is that they disregard those aspects of what I would call a free society.
My two questions were not ment to be insulting. I was seriously wondering whether you think people should look out for themselves and disregard all the other people around them when they are suffering. Or whether you think the world would just be better off for all people once government gets it's evil hands out of the market and our affairs. I think I didn't quite get a conclusive answer. The reason we should keep giving welfare is not because there's plenty of people who suffer but because "there would be riots in the streets the next day"?
Or article 24, there's no doubt labour practices in third world countries are violating(some reports are talking about 72 hour workdays) this article.
Or maybe most importantly article 25("Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."), no doubt corporations make sure this "right" will never be enforced. Simply because it would threaten their bottom line.
To what extent a government is democratic you can influence it somewhat. This is sharp contrast with a corporation which is only accountable to the public in the same way a dictatorship can be accountable to the public. Sure, a corporation in itself doesn't have the same power a government has, it's probably not gonna kill your sister or anything(unless you live in Nigeria). But the fact that we spend most of our life on a job were we are not treated like human beings, rather like tools of production, should really bother us in my opinion.
Freedom is not just the right to consume what you want. It's also having a say in what you are producing, having a say in what your consuming, having a say in your community, in other words having a say in those things that affect you as a human being. The fallacy that I see a lot of so called libertarians make is that they disregard those aspects of what I would call a free society.
My two questions were not ment to be insulting. I was seriously wondering whether you think people should look out for themselves and disregard all the other people around them when they are suffering. Or whether you think the world would just be better off for all people once government gets it's evil hands out of the market and our affairs. I think I didn't quite get a conclusive answer. The reason we should keep giving welfare is not because there's plenty of people who suffer but because "there would be riots in the streets the next day"?
Vir Oct 26, 2009 at 5:27 pm
+1 votes
Freedom is not just the right to consume what you want. It's also
having a say in what you are producing, having a say in what your
consuming
You certainly have freedom in what you are producing. You aren't forced into labor like a communist country, are you? You also have say in what you are consuming. You can choose to consume what you want, unless of course the government starts forcing people to buy healthcare.
The fallacy that I
see a lot of so called libertarians make is that they disregard those
aspects of what I would call a free society.
The fallacy I see on the left is when they talk about freedom, what they seem to want is slavery.
My two questions were not ment to be insulting. I was seriously
wondering whether you think people should look out for themselves and
disregard all the other people around them when they are suffering.
Obviously I do not.
Or
whether you think the world would just be better off for all people
once government gets it's evil hands out of the market and our affairs.
I think I didn't quite get a conclusive answer.
You received a very conclusive answer, you just chose to ignore it.
The reason we should
keep giving welfare is not because there's plenty of people who suffer
but because "there would be riots in the streets the next day"?
I was just being realistic about the state of welfare today. If you want me to be moral about it, fine.
If you care about people suffering, then you'd give to people directly without advocating the state stealing from other people to fulfill your philanthropic needs. Calling for higher taxes and more welfare does not make you a philanthropist, or a good person in general. It makes you a little tyrant who wants to force people to give charity. It's easy to be generous with other people's time and money, isn't it?
having a say in what you are producing, having a say in what your
consuming
You certainly have freedom in what you are producing. You aren't forced into labor like a communist country, are you? You also have say in what you are consuming. You can choose to consume what you want, unless of course the government starts forcing people to buy healthcare.
The fallacy that I
see a lot of so called libertarians make is that they disregard those
aspects of what I would call a free society.
The fallacy I see on the left is when they talk about freedom, what they seem to want is slavery.
My two questions were not ment to be insulting. I was seriously
wondering whether you think people should look out for themselves and
disregard all the other people around them when they are suffering.
Obviously I do not.
Or
whether you think the world would just be better off for all people
once government gets it's evil hands out of the market and our affairs.
I think I didn't quite get a conclusive answer.
You received a very conclusive answer, you just chose to ignore it.
The reason we should
keep giving welfare is not because there's plenty of people who suffer
but because "there would be riots in the streets the next day"?
I was just being realistic about the state of welfare today. If you want me to be moral about it, fine.
If you care about people suffering, then you'd give to people directly without advocating the state stealing from other people to fulfill your philanthropic needs. Calling for higher taxes and more welfare does not make you a philanthropist, or a good person in general. It makes you a little tyrant who wants to force people to give charity. It's easy to be generous with other people's time and money, isn't it?
cos- Oct 27, 2009 at 7:32 am
+1 votes
We are not "forced" into labour. We do have a choice, either we work for a boss or we starve. Some people are more privileged(journalists, academics etc.), they can choose what they want to work on, but for the majority of the population the choice is starvation or working for a boss. That's a choice alright, but it's quite obvious what most people have to choose.
I personally find this a false choice, why not make our economy more democratic? Let workers have a say in what they are producing, let them decide how their products are going to be made, how the money is going to be spend, who's going to work for the firm and so on. Eliminate the drudgery and alienation that results from working under someone's control.
It's interesting that you bring up slavery. Most slave-owners did present some pretty good arguments in favour of slavery. They argued that, wage-labour or less euphemistically wage-slavery is worse than slavery. Why? Well, if it's your property you know you're going to take good care of it, when you're renting something you know it's not yours and you will not care much, since you'll easily be able to replace it. That's pretty plausible. Ofcourse for me it's not an argument in favour of slavery, it's an argument against both of them. Actually there's a new book by a wall street journal journalist detailing what happened to the former black slaves after they were "freed". I'd urge you to read it since it's interesting, the blacks were effectively enslaved again, this time however under the wage regime. Which was harsh and brutal especially for blacks, but for every 19th century worker it was a terrible system. Due to hard struggle, labour has achieved the rights it deserved, resulting in for example the new deal and other welfare measures, which atleast somewhat alleviated poverty. In the last 30 years however labour has been smashed and the results are obvious, wages have stagnated for about 70% of the population, with the richest 0.1% seeing a sevenfold increase in wages.
Your line of argument, assumes that there is some sort of natural distribution of income, this natural distribution is represented by capitalism, when the state intervenes in this holy distribution process it's called theft. That's not quite how I see it. I think we should put aside the notion of a natural distribution of income, more importantly I think we should put aside the notion that consuming is the primary factor driving humans to produce. We should look at what seems to us to be a reasonable distribution of income, not on the basis of natural distribution axiomas, but on a notion of a just society. I don't think it's obvious for example that someone cleaning the toilets should earn the least while some university professor earns like 10 times as much. I would much rather be a university professor then a toilet cleaner, why not pay those who do the dirty work more? Or why not pay everybody equal, this would eliminate the obsession with consumption, and put more emphasis on the human need to create, to be productive, to work in conjunction with others.
I personally find this a false choice, why not make our economy more democratic? Let workers have a say in what they are producing, let them decide how their products are going to be made, how the money is going to be spend, who's going to work for the firm and so on. Eliminate the drudgery and alienation that results from working under someone's control.
It's interesting that you bring up slavery. Most slave-owners did present some pretty good arguments in favour of slavery. They argued that, wage-labour or less euphemistically wage-slavery is worse than slavery. Why? Well, if it's your property you know you're going to take good care of it, when you're renting something you know it's not yours and you will not care much, since you'll easily be able to replace it. That's pretty plausible. Ofcourse for me it's not an argument in favour of slavery, it's an argument against both of them. Actually there's a new book by a wall street journal journalist detailing what happened to the former black slaves after they were "freed". I'd urge you to read it since it's interesting, the blacks were effectively enslaved again, this time however under the wage regime. Which was harsh and brutal especially for blacks, but for every 19th century worker it was a terrible system. Due to hard struggle, labour has achieved the rights it deserved, resulting in for example the new deal and other welfare measures, which atleast somewhat alleviated poverty. In the last 30 years however labour has been smashed and the results are obvious, wages have stagnated for about 70% of the population, with the richest 0.1% seeing a sevenfold increase in wages.
Your line of argument, assumes that there is some sort of natural distribution of income, this natural distribution is represented by capitalism, when the state intervenes in this holy distribution process it's called theft. That's not quite how I see it. I think we should put aside the notion of a natural distribution of income, more importantly I think we should put aside the notion that consuming is the primary factor driving humans to produce. We should look at what seems to us to be a reasonable distribution of income, not on the basis of natural distribution axiomas, but on a notion of a just society. I don't think it's obvious for example that someone cleaning the toilets should earn the least while some university professor earns like 10 times as much. I would much rather be a university professor then a toilet cleaner, why not pay those who do the dirty work more? Or why not pay everybody equal, this would eliminate the obsession with consumption, and put more emphasis on the human need to create, to be productive, to work in conjunction with others.
Vir Oct 27, 2009 at 12:44 pm
+1 votes
We are not "forced" into labour. We do have a choice, either we work
for a boss or we starve.
Not really. You can always go into business for yourself, or just farm. You are not forced to work for a 'boss'. The only thing you're forced to do is pay taxes, go to school, and register for selective service.
Some people are more privileged(journalists,
academics etc.), they can choose what they want to work on, but for the
majority of the population the choice is starvation or working for a
boss.
Journalists have bosses usually, as do academics (or at the very least they must do work based on what gets grant money). Of course, you're confusing personal freedom with free stuff.
I personally find this a false choice, why not make our economy more
democratic? Let workers have a say in what they are producing, let them
decide how their products are going to be made, how the money is going
to be spend, who's going to work for the firm and so on.
You already choose what you produce, as for the other stuff, that is what managers and CEO's are for. No, the guy cleaning the toilets shouldn't be choosing who's going to work for your company.
In the last 30
years however labour has been smashed and the results are obvious,
wages have stagnated for about 70% of the population, with the richest
0.1% seeing a sevenfold increase in wages.
The worst developments for labor were the pushing of women into the workforce and globalization.
Your line of argument, assumes that there is some sort of natural
distribution of income, this natural distribution is represented by
capitalism.
I don't think I made this argument at all. Can you quote me on this? I don't use phrases like "natural distribution of income". It's likely you're arguing against a straw man.
when the state intervenes in this holy distribution process
it's called theft.
When the state takes money from you by force, it's theft.
That's not quite how I see it. I think we should put
aside the notion of a natural distribution of income, more importantly
I think we should put aside the notion that consuming is the primary
factor driving humans to produce.
You claimed people work because they must eat, now you're pushing away your own theory?
We should look at what seems to us to
be a reasonable distribution of income, not on the basis of natural
distribution axiomas, but on a notion of a just society.
Who decides what a just society is? You? How qualified are you to make such decisions? How many jobs have you worked?
I don't think
it's obvious for example that someone cleaning the toilets should earn
the least while some university professor earns like 10 times as much.
University professors are bad examples for a few reasons. First they often don't end up making 10 times as much as a janitor. Secondly, their jobs are often heavily government subsidized. Regardless, there are (at least) ten times more people who can clean toilets than those who can become university professors.
I would much rather be a university professor then a toilet cleaner,
why not pay those who do the dirty work more?
Just because you would much rather do something doesn't mean you can. Not everyone can grow up to be an astronaut.
Or why not pay everybody
equal
Who's going to choose to clean the toilets if you pay everyone equally?
for a boss or we starve.
Not really. You can always go into business for yourself, or just farm. You are not forced to work for a 'boss'. The only thing you're forced to do is pay taxes, go to school, and register for selective service.
Some people are more privileged(journalists,
academics etc.), they can choose what they want to work on, but for the
majority of the population the choice is starvation or working for a
boss.
Journalists have bosses usually, as do academics (or at the very least they must do work based on what gets grant money). Of course, you're confusing personal freedom with free stuff.
I personally find this a false choice, why not make our economy more
democratic? Let workers have a say in what they are producing, let them
decide how their products are going to be made, how the money is going
to be spend, who's going to work for the firm and so on.
You already choose what you produce, as for the other stuff, that is what managers and CEO's are for. No, the guy cleaning the toilets shouldn't be choosing who's going to work for your company.
In the last 30
years however labour has been smashed and the results are obvious,
wages have stagnated for about 70% of the population, with the richest
0.1% seeing a sevenfold increase in wages.
The worst developments for labor were the pushing of women into the workforce and globalization.
Your line of argument, assumes that there is some sort of natural
distribution of income, this natural distribution is represented by
capitalism.
I don't think I made this argument at all. Can you quote me on this? I don't use phrases like "natural distribution of income". It's likely you're arguing against a straw man.
when the state intervenes in this holy distribution process
it's called theft.
When the state takes money from you by force, it's theft.
That's not quite how I see it. I think we should put
aside the notion of a natural distribution of income, more importantly
I think we should put aside the notion that consuming is the primary
factor driving humans to produce.
You claimed people work because they must eat, now you're pushing away your own theory?
We should look at what seems to us to
be a reasonable distribution of income, not on the basis of natural
distribution axiomas, but on a notion of a just society.
Who decides what a just society is? You? How qualified are you to make such decisions? How many jobs have you worked?
I don't think
it's obvious for example that someone cleaning the toilets should earn
the least while some university professor earns like 10 times as much.
University professors are bad examples for a few reasons. First they often don't end up making 10 times as much as a janitor. Secondly, their jobs are often heavily government subsidized. Regardless, there are (at least) ten times more people who can clean toilets than those who can become university professors.
I would much rather be a university professor then a toilet cleaner,
why not pay those who do the dirty work more?
Just because you would much rather do something doesn't mean you can. Not everyone can grow up to be an astronaut.
Or why not pay everybody
equal
Who's going to choose to clean the toilets if you pay everyone equally?
cos- Oct 27, 2009 at 3:47 pm
+1 votes
Like I said, there are those that are privileged and can choose what they want to work on. You can't however hard you'll try, pretend like everyone has this choice, they most certainly don't, hence we see so many people working under a hierarchical system. With the example of journalists and professors, I ment to say that they are relatively free from vertical control in the workplace. Maybe journalism wasn't the best example but academics certainly are quite free(once they get tenure).
How exactly do I choose what I'm producing? When I work in a supermarket I don't have anything to say about what I'm doing. You could say well you had the choice to work in a supermarket or in construction, well yea, but that's like saying you've got the right to work under this dictatorship or another one. The vertical control inside the firm is more or less similar.
You didn't say there's a natural distribution of income, rather you assume it when making the argument that government intervention is theft. Why do corporations not steal from people when they extract surplus value from their labour? You don't believe this do you? Well hence I assumed you believed that market relations represent a natural distribution of income, and any interference with the holy market is theft.
My comments were hypothetical. I believe people would work even if there was to be no material stimulus to do a certain job. These jobs can be done for other reasons(pure interest and pleasure derived from work or just social bonds because certain jobs just have to be done for the good of society).
Surely not everybody wants to be an astronaut. But if in my society there were to be jobs left that have to be done, and can not be done by machinery for example, then the community has to decide how to fix this problem. This can either be done by material stimulus(I don't like this idea tbh) or by just sharing the job among members of the community.
How exactly do I choose what I'm producing? When I work in a supermarket I don't have anything to say about what I'm doing. You could say well you had the choice to work in a supermarket or in construction, well yea, but that's like saying you've got the right to work under this dictatorship or another one. The vertical control inside the firm is more or less similar.
You didn't say there's a natural distribution of income, rather you assume it when making the argument that government intervention is theft. Why do corporations not steal from people when they extract surplus value from their labour? You don't believe this do you? Well hence I assumed you believed that market relations represent a natural distribution of income, and any interference with the holy market is theft.
My comments were hypothetical. I believe people would work even if there was to be no material stimulus to do a certain job. These jobs can be done for other reasons(pure interest and pleasure derived from work or just social bonds because certain jobs just have to be done for the good of society).
Surely not everybody wants to be an astronaut. But if in my society there were to be jobs left that have to be done, and can not be done by machinery for example, then the community has to decide how to fix this problem. This can either be done by material stimulus(I don't like this idea tbh) or by just sharing the job among members of the community.
Vir Oct 27, 2009 at 4:00 pm
+1 votes
cos- said
Like I said, there are those that are privileged and can choose what they want to work on. You can't however hard you'll try, pretend like everyone has this choice, they most certainly don't, hence we see so many people working under a hierarchical system. With the example of journalists and professors, I ment to say that they are relatively free from vertical control in the workplace. Maybe journalism wasn't the best example but academics certainly are quite free(once they get tenure).
How exactly do I choose what I'm producing? When I work in a supermarket I don't have anything to say about what I'm doing. You could say well you had the choice to work in a supermarket or in construction, well yea, but that's like saying you've got the right to work under this dictatorship or another one. The vertical control inside the firm is more or less similar.
You didn't say there's a natural distribution of income, rather you assume it when making the argument that government intervention is theft. Why do corporations not steal from people when they extract surplus value from their labour? You don't believe this do you? Well hence I assumed you believed that market relations represent a natural distribution of income, and any interference with the holy market is theft.
My comments were hypothetical. I believe people would work even if there was to be no material stimulus to do a certain job. These jobs can be done for other reasons(pure interest and pleasure derived from work or just social bonds because certain jobs just have to be done for the good of society).
Surely not everybody wants to be an astronaut. But if in my society there were to be jobs left that have to be done, and can not be done by machinery for example, then the community has to decide how to fix this problem. This can either be done by material stimulus(I don't like this idea tbh) or by just sharing the job among members of the community.
How exactly do I choose what I'm producing? When I work in a supermarket I don't have anything to say about what I'm doing. You could say well you had the choice to work in a supermarket or in construction, well yea, but that's like saying you've got the right to work under this dictatorship or another one. The vertical control inside the firm is more or less similar.
You didn't say there's a natural distribution of income, rather you assume it when making the argument that government intervention is theft. Why do corporations not steal from people when they extract surplus value from their labour? You don't believe this do you? Well hence I assumed you believed that market relations represent a natural distribution of income, and any interference with the holy market is theft.
My comments were hypothetical. I believe people would work even if there was to be no material stimulus to do a certain job. These jobs can be done for other reasons(pure interest and pleasure derived from work or just social bonds because certain jobs just have to be done for the good of society).
Surely not everybody wants to be an astronaut. But if in my society there were to be jobs left that have to be done, and can not be done by machinery for example, then the community has to decide how to fix this problem. This can either be done by material stimulus(I don't like this idea tbh) or by just sharing the job among members of the community.
supermarket I don't have anything to say about what I'm doing. You
could say well you had the choice to work in a supermarket or in
construction, well yea, but that's like saying you've got the right to
work under this dictatorship or another one. The vertical control
inside the firm is more or less similar.
You have a billion choices of what you can work on in life, and yes, you get to choose. When confronted with facts, you claim you're only talking about hypotheticals.
You're trying to make freedom look like slavery, and slavery look like freedom. You've been brainwashed by communists.
Klynx Oct 26, 2009 at 7:59 pm
+2 votes
This is before talking about morals. Personally I think you'd have to be morally bankrupt to argue against universal coverage.
Personally, I think
you have to be morally bankrupt to say you should steal from one person
to pay for the medical coverage of the next person. That is theft.
I'll reply to this part of your discussion here just to interject my thanks again. I love reading someone sane talk about this.
"But we can't cover everyone in the country."
"Exactly! We can't afford to! It's stealing from the healthy to give to the sick!"
"Why is one man's life worth less than another?"
"It isn't! You can get emergency treatment with our current hospital system even if you are uninsured."
And so on and so forth. I almost wholeheartedly agree (99.99%). My only quibble is that research is funded by those with money and interest, which happen to be mostly pharmaceutical companies. A research grant into x lifelong treatment to control a condition or disease will be funded much more quickly than one to find a way to eliminate the disease outright. It's why in a world where we can split the atom, make mice glow in the dark, replace a man's heart with another person's, and many other amazing feats of science, we still haven't found a better way of dealing with influenza than a seasonal vaccine to a prevalent strand in hopes of one year's safety.
Thoughts on that?
Personally, I think
you have to be morally bankrupt to say you should steal from one person
to pay for the medical coverage of the next person. That is theft.
I'll reply to this part of your discussion here just to interject my thanks again. I love reading someone sane talk about this.
"But we can't cover everyone in the country."
"Exactly! We can't afford to! It's stealing from the healthy to give to the sick!"
"Why is one man's life worth less than another?"
"It isn't! You can get emergency treatment with our current hospital system even if you are uninsured."
And so on and so forth. I almost wholeheartedly agree (99.99%). My only quibble is that research is funded by those with money and interest, which happen to be mostly pharmaceutical companies. A research grant into x lifelong treatment to control a condition or disease will be funded much more quickly than one to find a way to eliminate the disease outright. It's why in a world where we can split the atom, make mice glow in the dark, replace a man's heart with another person's, and many other amazing feats of science, we still haven't found a better way of dealing with influenza than a seasonal vaccine to a prevalent strand in hopes of one year's safety.
Thoughts on that?
Vir Oct 27, 2009 at 12:53 pm
+1 votes
A
research grant into x lifelong treatment to control a condition or
disease will be funded much more quickly than one to find a way to
eliminate the disease outright. It's why in a world where we can split
the atom, make mice glow in the dark, replace a man's heart with
another person's, and many other amazing feats of science, we still
haven't found a better way of dealing with influenza than a seasonal
vaccine to a prevalent strand in hopes of one year's safety.
How many viral infections have we ever found a cure to? The only thing I can think of is small pox.
I don't think this is due to the economics of the situation, but the science. Don't most cold and flu bugs mutate so often that finding any kind of "cure" would be unlikely?
research grant into x lifelong treatment to control a condition or
disease will be funded much more quickly than one to find a way to
eliminate the disease outright. It's why in a world where we can split
the atom, make mice glow in the dark, replace a man's heart with
another person's, and many other amazing feats of science, we still
haven't found a better way of dealing with influenza than a seasonal
vaccine to a prevalent strand in hopes of one year's safety.
How many viral infections have we ever found a cure to? The only thing I can think of is small pox.
I don't think this is due to the economics of the situation, but the science. Don't most cold and flu bugs mutate so often that finding any kind of "cure" would be unlikely?
Klynx Oct 27, 2009 at 7:11 pm
+1 votes
Vir said
A
research grant into x lifelong treatment to control a condition or
disease will be funded much more quickly than one to find a way to
eliminate the disease outright. It's why in a world where we can split
the atom, make mice glow in the dark, replace a man's heart with
another person's, and many other amazing feats of science, we still
haven't found a better way of dealing with influenza than a seasonal
vaccine to a prevalent strand in hopes of one year's safety.
How many viral infections have we ever found a cure to? The only thing I can think of is small pox.
I don't think this is due to the economics of the situation, but the science. Don't most cold and flu bugs mutate so often that finding any kind of "cure" would be unlikely?
research grant into x lifelong treatment to control a condition or
disease will be funded much more quickly than one to find a way to
eliminate the disease outright. It's why in a world where we can split
the atom, make mice glow in the dark, replace a man's heart with
another person's, and many other amazing feats of science, we still
haven't found a better way of dealing with influenza than a seasonal
vaccine to a prevalent strand in hopes of one year's safety.
How many viral infections have we ever found a cure to? The only thing I can think of is small pox.
I don't think this is due to the economics of the situation, but the science. Don't most cold and flu bugs mutate so often that finding any kind of "cure" would be unlikely?
My point is that of economics. Like Levitt says, economics is the strongest tool in the world, because it encompasses all the reasons anyone does anything: incentive. The size of the pharmaceutical industry (thanks to incredible marketing) and the healthcare industry together create incentives that draw researchers and scientists away from solutions that are better in the long term for the human race, in my opinion.
I'm not brash enough to assume I know a solution though.
Slapnuts Oct 26, 2009 at 4:36 pm
+1 votes
You are talking about Pharma while the article was about health insurance. You are trying to lump them all together to make your point seem a bit valid when the article was about a much smaller segment and referenced quotes accordingly.
Vir Oct 26, 2009 at 9:05 am
+1 votes
Cutler is my fantasy QB. QQ.
I still managed to win. I picked up Miles Austin when he had that big game a few weeks ago, and I also started ochocinco and driver. Wheeeeee.
I still managed to win. I picked up Miles Austin when he had that big game a few weeks ago, and I also started ochocinco and driver. Wheeeeee.
Dyzz Oct 26, 2009 at 2:10 pm
+1 votes
Vir said
Cutler is my fantasy QB. QQ.
I still managed to win. I picked up Miles Austin when he had that big game a few weeks ago, and I also started ochocinco and driver. Wheeeeee.
I still managed to win. I picked up Miles Austin when he had that big game a few weeks ago, and I also started ochocinco and driver. Wheeeeee.
(Yes, i know flacco didnt play. I was being sarcastic and making fun of Cutler for those who dont get it).
Klynx Oct 27, 2009 at 7:20 pm
+1 votes
Vir said
Cutler is my fantasy QB. QQ.
I still managed to win. I picked up Miles Austin when he had that big game a few weeks ago, and I also started ochocinco and driver. Wheeeeee.
I still managed to win. I picked up Miles Austin when he had that big game a few weeks ago, and I also started ochocinco and driver. Wheeeeee.
unlikely Oct 26, 2009 at 9:26 am
-3 votes
Someone is jealous about Verdak writing more popular blogs than he ever has, except for the few times he has literally offered free stuff in return for likes. At least Verdak gets likes for content, as opposed to literally PAYING for likes.




Your Comment is being posted. Please wait...