Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
The Chief
climber
Down the hill & across the Valley from......
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2015 - 08:53pm PT
|
Repugs like Chief...
There ya go again KENM.
Nope, NOT a REpug. Never have been actually. Was an IND, then re-registered as a DEM up until last Feb when I changed back to IND and ignorantly voted for Obama, twice. Both times I believed that he'd come through with his "Hope" promises. Both times he has yet to deliver. Go figure.
Now, try again, Doc... 1/10 so far.
This 5.8 mill have not been eradicated....
Have you been sticking your head up DRF's azz, KenM?
That just lowered your score back to, 0/10.
|
|
Larry Nelson
Social climber
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2015 - 10:04pm PT
|
Many here have said that Bush was just a puppet for some backroom secret interests.
Others have said that Obama is just a puppet for some backroom secret interests.
So the president is just a puppet anyhow?
Besides that, the entrenched bureaucracy of government just rolls along under it's own momentum and agenda regardless of which party is in power.
If that's all true, then what we really need is to elect the person who will do what America really wants...
Entertain us!
And it can be a win/win if The White House also becomes America's favorite reality TV show.
Practically everyone living below the poverty line already has a big screen TV so we wouldn't have to spring for any extra Obama TV's.
The cabinet could be filled with world policy experts who already live in Hollywood.
That's right, into your living rooms each night, the trials and tribulations, the joys and frustrations, of the first family.
What could be better?
I can hear it now:
Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present: President Kardashian.
|
|
Ay Aye
Social climber
MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2015 - 08:20am PT
|
Torper Sutats;
Soon forward apparatus of human erstwhile political maneuverings of great boss describe to android overlord the mating humanoid species negative. Please to make leisure transition.
-Fead Yk Op
|
|
John Duffield
Mountain climber
New York
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2015 - 08:31am PT
|
It remains to be proven, if the US electorate, will elect a woman. In 2008, the "3 am Phone Call" ad, didn't benefit Romney but it gave the election, to Barack Obama. 51+% of the electorate, is women.
When the water heater broke and I was away, my wife bypassed a Woman and went to find a Man. It was an interesting lesson.
In Europe, where they have had many female Heads of State, a tone deaf Left, continues to double down on the migrant nightmare, using women as cannon fodder for their agenda. In many places, women are afraid to go out now. Reminds me of "Stay the Course". Hard to believe.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2015 - 08:32am PT
|
Nov 13, 2015 - 08:05am PT
Ha ha ha, I predicted this months ago:
"According to other Republicans, some in the party establishment are so desperate to change the dynamic that they are talking anew about drafting Romney — despite his insistence that he will not run again. Friends have mapped out a strategy for a late entry to pick up delegates and vie for the nomination in a convention fight, according to the Republicans who were briefed on the talks, though Romney has shown no indication of reviving his interest."
They are right to be concerned. If Marcomentum or Jebstablishment is going to happen, it needs to get going. The first primaries are nearly upon us, and as the article points out, folks tune out politics (as they should) during the holidays. While I still think Rubio will be their guy, there is a real possibility that trump or Carson will win.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 13, 2015 - 09:39am PT
|
John posted As you can see from the chart shown, as employment improves, the share of wages paid as a percent of GDP improves, ceteris paribus. The problem we face now isn't that "corporations don't want to pay fair wages," it's that corporations don't want to hire as much as they have in other postwar recoveries. It's worthwhile to ask why that is.
John, you make some great points and ask some great questions, but it troubles me that your point requires skating by any explanation of why "corporations don't want to pay fair wages." What evidence are you considering to even begin overlooking the idea that companies are able to pay less for more and are shifting costs to their employees without fear? Without addressing this the rest of your argument is specious. "Cause John said so" isn't really cutting it.
Sure looks to me like despite paying less for healthcare overall, employers are making their employees share a higher portion of the cost. Can you explain how that isn't exactly what you described couldn't possibly be part of the problem?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2015 - 09:55am PT
|
The simple answer is that both employers and employees are paying more for health care. The fact that employees are paying a higher share of the total bill than they did previously doesn't mean that employers are paying less money.
As I've argued for about as long as I've been on this forum, we have a most bizarre and inefficient system of paying for health care that is really a relic of high taxes during World War II. If your employer hires a third party to pay for your health care, the cost is deductible from dollar one. If you pay your bills yourself, those payments are not deductible until they exceed 6% of your adjusted gross income. Add to that distortion the substitution of the tort system for freedom of contract in health care, and you have a system with built-in bias toward high costs and inefficiency.
Instead of doing something to change it, the Democrats - alone - passed Obamacare. I, and most other opponents of that legislation, predicted that this would raise costs without improving care. Proponents of the legislation said it would save money. All it really did was raise costs for those already covered, while leaving the exchanges with insufficient premiums and/or inferior provider panels. And, of course, there was the lie that "If you like your doctor/plan, you can keep your doctor/plan."
Long story less long, the policies of the Democrats did nothing to lower the cost - or even the trend in costs - of health care. Employers pay more money, and so do employees.
The real question I have is what constitutes a fair wage? For that matter, what constitutes a fair price? Most of the discussion I see on these topics reminds me of what I like to call student economic morality, i.e. my landlord is greedy because he or she wants to charge as much rent as they can get for my apartment. I want to get as much apartment as I can get for my money, but I'm not greedy.
Most people I know go to work because they determine that they are better off doing so than not doing so. If this is a voluntary transaction (and after the 13th Amendment, the only involuntary servitude is in prison), and there is no law requiring you to work, tell me how the wage is unfair.
John
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 13, 2015 - 12:13pm PT
|
John posted The simple answer is that both employers and employees are paying more for health care. The fact that employees are paying a higher share of the total bill than they did previously doesn't mean that employers are paying less money.
Except that the data I provided showed exactly that. Employers' costs have basically flattened while employees' have continued to rise. Meanwhile, median income during the same period of time has gone down about $5,000. Corporate profits and overall business health has grown significantly over this period, apparently at great cost to the average American.
John continued As I've argued for about as long as I've been on this forum, we have a most bizarre and inefficient system of paying for health care that is really a relic of high taxes during World War II. If your employer hires a third party to pay for your health care, the cost is deductible from dollar one. If you pay your bills yourself, those payments are not deductible until they exceed 6% of your adjusted gross income. Add to that distortion the substitution of the tort system for freedom of contract in health care, and you have a system with built-in bias toward high costs and inefficiency.
And as I've described repeatedly, while that may be a basic unfairness in the way that healthcare is provided, it is not itself the root driver of healthcare cost increases. You must really be emotionally attached to that viewpoint to stick to it so consistently. Tort reform is almost a rounding error in the face of overall healthcare costs. I've provided numerous reports (CBO, etc) showing how it's not true and you've ignored them.
John posted I, and most other opponents of that legislation, predicted that this would raise costs without improving care.
Obamacare has, in fact, improved care. Costs increases have, in fact, been reduced. Easily verifiable. It's not a perfect law and was not my best case scenario but it is also suffering from the fact Republicans refuse to make basic fixes. I'm sure something better could have come out of it but Republicans decided that abandoning their own ideas would be better for them politically so here we are. Hopefully it fails and then we can just go single payer, a demonstrably more efficient and quality driven system by any measure.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2015 - 12:24pm PT
|
"Instead of doing something to change it, the Democrats - alone - passed Obamacare. I, and most other opponents of that legislation, predicted that this would raise costs without improving care. "
Democrats...and Americans in general, according to most polls...preferred a single payer option or opening medicare to all. Republicans resist this, and any kind of change to the current system, whatsoever. The ACA is far from ideal, but it was progress in the direction of fixing a f*#ked up system.
John, Republicans have had NO INTEREST in the US healthcare or insurance system for decades. Any of the hand-wringing whining that Republicans did about the ACA is pretty meaningless to any thoughtful, aware person when we all know they have done diddly-squat to make any real changes on their own, and had shite for ideas during Obama's effort to do something.
The oft-repeated cartoon, that remains entirely true:
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 13, 2015 - 12:29pm PT
|
John posited The real question I have is what constitutes a fair wage? For that matter, what constitutes a fair price? Most of the discussion I see on these topics reminds me of what I like to call student economic morality, i.e. my landlord is greedy because he or she wants to charge as much rent as they can get for my apartment. I want to get as much apartment as I can get for my money, but I'm not greedy.
The problem here is that you have supplanted "student economic principles" for morality. Economic conservatives like to take certain economic concepts as moral truths. Trying to get the highest possible price for a product may in fact be greedy. You know that being "greedy" is bad and that you are a good person therefore you can't possibly be greedy, you're just obeying "fundamental economic laws of supply and demand."
The economic question is "what is the maximum price I can charge for this product?" The moral question is "what is the maximum good I can do with this product?" Sometimes the answers overlap.
|
|
Sierra Ledge Rat
Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2015 - 12:31pm PT
|
Everyone is correct about the healthcare system.
Problem is, the politicians are in the pockets of big business and tort attorneys, which means that there will never be any truly meaningful changes.
You gotta get greedy businesses and greedy lawyers out of the decision-making process.
Healthcare is NOT business. The business model is not applicable to healthcare. I don't care what any fukking MBA tells you, the incentives in business create all the wrong policies in healthcare. Capitalism is NOT applicable to everything.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2015 - 12:32pm PT
|
I just can't come to grips with the idea of healthcare being driven primarily about profits. There's a morality disconnect in the very premise.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2015 - 12:33pm PT
|
|
|
Sierra Ledge Rat
Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2015 - 12:34pm PT
|
I just can't come to grips with the idea of healthcare being driven primarily about profits. This is EXACTLY what drives all of the WRONG policies in healthcare. What's good for business is not what's good for healthcare policy and practice. Patients are NOT customers.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2015 - 12:38pm PT
|
JohnE.. serious question
Which is better?
A. Trying to fix what we now have.
B. Going back to what we had.
If you answer B, then when are the Republicans going to help those with pre existing conditions get affordable healthcare?
My preference would be..
C. Single payer, take the profit motive out of health insurance.
Which party is more likely to offer that?
I believe that when the Republicans start heading in that direction, then the Dems will quickly move in that direction also. But as long as they have to defend Obamacare, then things will just get worse.
But I would also be interested in what your design for the future of healthcare would be. What we had, or do you have something else in mind?
D. new solution.. ( what is it )
|
|
Sierra Ledge Rat
Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2015 - 12:41pm PT
|
Here is how Republican healthcare works:
1. When you get sick, your health insurance gets cancelled
2. You can't get any health insurance after that because of "pre-existing conditions."
3. So you go to the E.R. for everything because you'll get treated no matter what
4. The hospital writes-off the "indigent" care and passes the costs onto people who still have health insurance, and to the taxpayers
5. Hospital and insurance CEOs get rich
6. The average American goes into bankruptcy from medical bills and ends up on welfare
7. People with health insurance oppose universal healthcare because they don't want to pay for anyone else's care
8. ^^^^ But they already are
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2015 - 12:46pm PT
|
Try to find a coherent policy proposal by the Republican-held congress. They've held both houses for a year now. Got one?
Make a case for one the Republican frontrunner's plans - one that isn't one or two paragraphs like "It'll be great, lemme tell ya, great", or "let the private sector sort it out".
Dare you.
SLR is spot-on.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!