Gettiing back on subject, it is very troubling that a small Gestapo like mob sponsored by lobbyists can do this much damage. This is the modern history of the Republican Party.
Last edited:
Health Care Bill Debate
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
I have noticed a lot of right wingers fail to post references and take quotes and situations out of context in order to misrepresent a situation.
The arguement for Universal Healthcare is not about access to organs in limited supply. It is about access to quality healthcare at reasonble cost. It is about reducing federal spending. It is about keeping people healthy for as long as possible.
hospitals themselves have turned out to be somewhat mafia-esque
they been dumping the homeless clad in hospital gowns on to the street out here in la. i guess the canyons would be the next venue. perhaps even a single gunshot b/w the eyes
joepistole: "I have noticed a lot of right wingers fail to post references and take quotes and situations out of context in order to misrepresent a situation.
The arguement for Universal Healthcare is not about access to organs in limited supply. It is about access to quality healthcare at reasonble cost. It is about reducing federal spending. It is about keeping people healthy for as long as possible."
It's just childish obstructionism. Dittoheads don't want to debate the issues- they are instead out to obstruct reasonable debate, and to promote irrational fear in order to hide their deeper (and more rational) fear: Their ideology can't stand up to reason. They are increasingly desperate, because they know that if the Obama Presidency enjoys further political and economic gains, they're finished politically.
The arguement for Universal Healthcare is not about access to organs in limited supply. It is about access to quality healthcare at reasonble cost. It is about reducing federal spending. It is about keeping people healthy for as long as possible."
It's just childish obstructionism. Dittoheads don't want to debate the issues- they are instead out to obstruct reasonable debate, and to promote irrational fear in order to hide their deeper (and more rational) fear: Their ideology can't stand up to reason. They are increasingly desperate, because they know that if the Obama Presidency enjoys further political and economic gains, they're finished politically.
hehe
lemme up the ante
the ftucs is code for jive talking nigger
aint that right, mad?
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
joe, I find it extremely amusing your liberal talking point seminar mentality, and you claim to be a independent thinking person?
Like your Gestapo comment, got your lead talking point from Nancy now, didn't you?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...n_hall_protesters_are_carrying_swastikas.html
Nancy Pelosi claims protesters are:
"carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaC-uMzvKKM&hd=1
Now really joe, the desperation is getting hyper maniacal from you and the left, now go get some more talking points.
or maybe its just an apt description.
Look at the last video, you can see the video with the Republican mob carrying Nazi symbol as well.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...s-town-hall-protestors-are-fringe-birther-mob
Now I know you will find it hard to even imagine that not everyone thinks about Nancy Pelosi every day.
As for the Gestapo comparisons that speaks for itself and began with the Brooks Brothers Riots in Dade County durng the 2000 election orchestrated by Republicans to stop vote counts.
No Pelosi had nothing to do with my use of the word "Gestapo". Unlike ditto heads, I don't receive daily marching orders in my email as do the ditto heads. I think for myself, something alien to all ditto heads I know. But you should try it sometime.
And as for Pelosi's reference to Nazi symbols at the Town Hall events. Yeah, I saw the signs with the storm troop ensignas being carried by the "protestors" on the evening news.
Now really Buffalo Roam, try thinking for yourself one day...not just following the herd.
Last edited:
we leave that tactic up to you republicans
Whoops. The Republican National Committee (RNC) has apparently inadvertently released its list of talking points on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
then....
ja
release the hounds!
Last edited:
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Look at the last video, you can see the video with the Republican mob carrying Nazi symbol as well.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...s-town-hall-protestors-are-fringe-birther-mob
Now I know you will find it hard to even imagine that not everyone thinks about Nancy Pelosi every day.
As for the Gestapo comparisons that speaks for itself and began with the Brooks Brothers Riots in Dade County durng the 2000 election orchestrated by Republicans to stop vote counts.
No Pelosi had nothing to do with my use of the word "Gestapo". Unlike ditto heads, I don't receive daily marching orders in my email as do the ditto heads. I think for myself, something alien to all ditto heads I know. But you should try it sometime.
And as for Pelosi's reference to Nazi symbols at the Town Hall events. Yeah, I saw the signs with the storm troop ensignas being carried by the "protestors" on the evening news.
Now really Buffalo Roam, try thinking for yourself one day...not just following the herd.
Yes, joe, if you care to look at the one sign, it is a sign with a message pointed at the Democrats and their Gestapo Tactics, and you,yourself have accused the Conservatives of being Nazis, so turn about isn't fair play now?
Yes, and just how much more will Obama's Cap and Trade, Universal Health Care, harm the States and People?
Obamas Defense Corps, just how will that be used? eliminating habeas corpus? extra Judaical punishment? crash into our houses to make sure that we are living a acceptable green live as defined by Obama and the Ecco nuts, enforced inoculations in the name of public health........
Yes joe more talking points from you.
Yes joe more liberal demonization and talking points;
joe do you really have any historical perspective of what a Nazi really is, and what they did in the World, from these quotes you show absolutely no critical thinking or independence of thought, nothing but Liberal talking points and hyperbole, and a oxymoronic thought process.
Yes joe, it seems You and the Democrats remind me of the Nazis and their war on the Jews...have replaced "Jew" with Conservative.
Your dismissal of all those who question the actions of the government on the issue of healthcare as activists is arrogant and anti-democratic. Are there some activists at these events, I wouldn't be surprised to find that there were. But does one give up his right to speak out when one becomes an "activist"? Is activist now the equivalent of felon? Did they lose the right to vote? Furthermore, I seriously doubt that all or, or even the majority of the people at these meetings are activists. To quote a recent article:
Democrats pointed to the rowdy, sometimes vicious tone of some of the comments and said that the protests were part of a well-funded and organized effort to derail the health care plan. Wednesday's protest drew activists from the Tea Party movement and the so-called Dump Dodd campaign.
But many who attended were not affiliated with an established group. Maryann Culkin, a stay-at-home mother from Avon, said she represents no one but herself. She went to Stop & Shop simply because she wanted to have a word or two with her congressman.
"For the first time in my life, I'm embarrassed and scared of where my country is going," Culkin told Murphy. She is worried about how the government will pay for Obama's health care policies.
Murphy said it didn't matter to him whether those attending were part of a coordinated effort or just on their own.
If only you would be as open minded and accepting of the right of the people to speak out as REp Murphy.But many who attended were not affiliated with an established group. Maryann Culkin, a stay-at-home mother from Avon, said she represents no one but herself. She went to Stop & Shop simply because she wanted to have a word or two with her congressman.
"For the first time in my life, I'm embarrassed and scared of where my country is going," Culkin told Murphy. She is worried about how the government will pay for Obama's health care policies.
Murphy said it didn't matter to him whether those attending were part of a coordinated effort or just on their own.
"Any time I'm talking to my constituents in an unfiltered way I consider it productive," he said in a phone interview afterward.
Murphy acknowledged that a few angry voices dominated the gathering, at least initially. But he said that didn't bother him. "Was that out of a Norman Rockwell town meeting painting? No. But there are big issues being discussed in Washington ... and people have a right to be concerned, even angry about it."
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-murphy-tea-party-0806.artaug06201412,0,1204957.storyMurphy acknowledged that a few angry voices dominated the gathering, at least initially. But he said that didn't bother him. "Was that out of a Norman Rockwell town meeting painting? No. But there are big issues being discussed in Washington ... and people have a right to be concerned, even angry about it."
No, I was objecting to his artificial rush to immediately pass something, anything, ASAP. NO TIME TO READ IT! NO TIME TO DEBATE IT! DO IT NOW! Even Tiassa and I agree on that issue.
You do realize that's a kind of bizarre fantasy, right? That most people have more choice of treatment, doctor, hospital, etc, under any of the existing single payer systems than most Americans have now?madanth said:
You seem to have confused buying health insurance with receiving medical care. "Multiple providers" of what?
Uh, you were talking about "choice", above. What do you envision as the role of the insurance companies in your system, there?madanth said:
In Switzerland, making a corporate profit on providing basic medical insurance is a criminal offense. The Swiss system provides better medical care than the US system, and costs about 2/3 as much overall, per capita.madanth said:
Last edited:
(Insert Title Here)
To what degree, though, is that part of the larger process? Obama made health care a prominent part of his campaign platform. He, perhaps foolishly, promised a bill before the end of the year. But public opinion is very superficial. Gustav's Gallup source notes part of that aspect in motion: "... these findings underscore the conclusion that Americans' views on the push for healthcare reform are in a state of flux, perhaps mirroring the back and forth debate in Congress on this contentious issue."
People of diverse political stripes agree—to the point of a 2:1 majority—that our health care system needs fixing. The question of how the system should be fixed is much more fragmented. And it is true that the conservative appeal to emotion is, more often than not, effective.
In Washington state, we did away with our MVET, which was the state's primary revenue source; we don't have an income tax, and the sales tax is regulated by the counties. A majority of voters jumped on the bandwagon for "$30 car tabs", which never did come about. The language of the measure, raised by perennial anti-government fraudster Tim Eyman, allowed the state some wiggle room. I think I paid $48 to register my 20 year-old Camry this year.
But at the same time, the vote killed $3 billion worth of road repairs in and around Seattle alone. I remember when I moved to Oregon in 1991, I was enamored with the quality of road surfaces, and my only real complaint was that nobody seemed to know how to design parking lot entries; everything I drove but the F-100 pickup scraped going into most parking lots around Salem. But driving on Interstate 5 was an entirely new experience in Oregon, which always seemed strange since it's a federal highway. And the streets. Sure, they weren't perfect, but nothing is, and compared to the streets up here? Holy shit.
But, yes, Seattle is the kind of city where potholes in the roads are dangerous to your car and, if you're not careful when driving, your life. We even joke about naming some of them as lakes. The MVET vote killed all that. People voted for their wallets. And then, realizing that they would never get $30 car tabs for their new Acura or SUV, started bitching about the roads that weren't being repaired. Didn't we vote to fix the roads? Well, yes. And then you voted to kill those funds.
And the problem spread. We actually have (or had, considering the economy) a "rainy day fund" (instituted by a Democratic governor who managed a surplus budget for a couple years), and there was some discussion about whether a stupid vote to slash state revenues was justification for tapping the emergency money.
But people have since been lamenting service cuts, and everyone thinks their favorite cause—education, state health plan, tax favors for businesses—are the part of the budget that should remain untouched. It's very hard for people to grasp that if they want all these services, they need to pay for them. You know ... no taxes, free beer, and vagina trees. It just doesn't work.
So of course this whole scare tactic about the costs of a health care plan will have some effect on the discussion. I can't imagine that it wouldn't. But those who think the system is just fine are thinking almost exclusively of themselves, and from a very myopic perspective. Health care affects the whole society. It affects education, which affects crime. It affects productivity, which affects profitability. If mere human dignity isn't enough, one would think a statistical appeal should have some influence.
And if the marketplace wasn't so problematic, people wouldn't be demanding a government solution. Some would assert that the free market will handle the situation, but if that's the case, why hasn't it? Why are things getting worse?
Yes, profits are necessary to keep a private enterprise functional. But when they become the primary focus of a business, they become the primary focus of the business. This is how insurance companies justify mass recission. This is how they explain their method of dropping customers at the very moment of need. And at least one former executive has gone before Congress to explain how it works. The companies might say they need to protect themselves against fraud, but that's not what's going on. Some insurance companies are even rewarding employees for finding excuses to cancel coverage after the fact. What the hell is the point of insurance if it's not going to pay out on a claim?
This is what drives people to look for other solutions. The devil is in the detail, though. Congress is rushing because that is the market demand they feel. And now the GOP is coordinating a series of protests, and their supporters are calling it "grass roots" when it is, in fact, a top-down effort. The whole point of these protests isn't to find a solution, but to stifle the discussion itself.
And faced with an electorate that falls all over itself for appeals to emotion, we might understand why the politicians want this one off their desks.
Life is imitating art. It probably has for a long time, but the sensation seems more acute these days.
To the other, don't expect me to roll anytime soon.
I'm going to skip ahead for a moment.
Well, what do you expect? To the one, within 24-36 hours of the news cycle breaking the fact that these town hall disruptions are being organized from the top down, here you come extolling the virtues of the movement's "grass roots" aspect. It's not grass roots. It's being coordinated by lobbyists and PR firms closely associated with the Republican Party. Your timing is somewhere between predictable and impeccably ridiculous.
And the lion's share of the noise is about taxes and other financial concerns. What, when people are bitching about money, others should somehow presume that the concern is about something other than money? How does that work?
And when you offer fallacies—
—by objecting to propositions that aren't even on the table, what are people supposed to think?
And consider this, please:
Think of the fact that people often complain about the length of my posts. Imagine how much longer they would be if I had to preface every argument with reminders of what I've already said?
I mean, yeah, that post was written in response to someone else, but should I have to preface everything I say by reiterating everything I've already said?
And it's not like Saturday was the first time I ever made that point. Nor is it like you've never seen that point from me before:
That record runs back to just before Obama was elected. The next one in the list happens to be a larger quote of the Mark Steel point about the banks.
But my point is that I don't think there's any real question that my argument isn't against profit in and of itself, but rather the notions of excess and priorities. That is, when one's quest for increasing profits sacrifices the purpose of commerce as a means of fulfilling societal needs, the system is askew. When profit becomes the first priority of being in business, the system is askew.
I say profit like it's a bad thing?
Frankly I think the statement is right in line with my usual contention that making profit the first priority of a business venture is unhealthy. I'm merely reiterating what I've said many times before, such as last weekend when I wrote,
And yet you deign to remind me that, "No institution, private or government, can long continue to operate at a loss."
I'm sorry, sir, but I call bullshit.
And this is how it goes. You play cheap, superficial politics over and over again, and when smacked with the obvious themes of your argument, you complain of petty insults.
What, sir, are people supposed to think? When you put up more sincere considerations, they often seem like tokens. To wit:
At the outset I will say that this perspective is not without its value. But, for the moment, I would continue with my present theme. What are people supposed to think? There are a couple of curiosities about this offering:
I admit it's rather a strange offering coming from you.
In consideration of the merits of the proposal itself, though, we should also consider profit margin caps on certain endeavors—such as health care provision—strict accounting rules to ensure that companies aren't simply squandering money through cronyist expenses and other deceptive practices, and rate protections to prevent the health sector from imitating the auto insurance sector in the way it raises rates. After all, when "We won't raise rates for an accident that isn't your fault" is a deviant selling point to consumers, there is something quite wrong. A tree falling on your car in the driveway, or a drunk smashing into you at a red light—or even when the car is parked—shouldn't reflect poorly on your risk as a policyholder. And it's only been as economic troubles mount, and auto insurance companies compete in a destabilizing market, that anyone gets around to the obvious. What a "bonus", eh? How nice of them to finally acknowledge the obvious. "Accident forgiveness", my ass.
At the core of any solution are a couple of points that the present public discourse seems to disdain: That a healthy society is a more productive and secure society; and that the purpose of health care should be the provision of health care.
All else should come from those points. The idea of free enterprise has long been defended according to the idea that commerce provides societal needs. As industry leaders have fallen away from that principle, they have demanded either the same or even greater liberty for their selfish interests. One's rights do not come without obligations. And for too long, our business community has resisted those obligations. The state of our economy and health care industry alike reflect what that resistance has earned us.
_____________________
Notes:
Newport, Frank. "Americans on Healthcare Reform: Top 10 Takeaways". Gallup. July 31, 2009. Gallup.com. August 6, 2009. http://www.gallup.com/poll/121997/Americans-Healthcare-Reform-Top-Takeaways.aspx
Madanthonywayne said:
To what degree, though, is that part of the larger process? Obama made health care a prominent part of his campaign platform. He, perhaps foolishly, promised a bill before the end of the year. But public opinion is very superficial. Gustav's Gallup source notes part of that aspect in motion: "... these findings underscore the conclusion that Americans' views on the push for healthcare reform are in a state of flux, perhaps mirroring the back and forth debate in Congress on this contentious issue."
People of diverse political stripes agree—to the point of a 2:1 majority—that our health care system needs fixing. The question of how the system should be fixed is much more fragmented. And it is true that the conservative appeal to emotion is, more often than not, effective.
In Washington state, we did away with our MVET, which was the state's primary revenue source; we don't have an income tax, and the sales tax is regulated by the counties. A majority of voters jumped on the bandwagon for "$30 car tabs", which never did come about. The language of the measure, raised by perennial anti-government fraudster Tim Eyman, allowed the state some wiggle room. I think I paid $48 to register my 20 year-old Camry this year.
But at the same time, the vote killed $3 billion worth of road repairs in and around Seattle alone. I remember when I moved to Oregon in 1991, I was enamored with the quality of road surfaces, and my only real complaint was that nobody seemed to know how to design parking lot entries; everything I drove but the F-100 pickup scraped going into most parking lots around Salem. But driving on Interstate 5 was an entirely new experience in Oregon, which always seemed strange since it's a federal highway. And the streets. Sure, they weren't perfect, but nothing is, and compared to the streets up here? Holy shit.
But, yes, Seattle is the kind of city where potholes in the roads are dangerous to your car and, if you're not careful when driving, your life. We even joke about naming some of them as lakes. The MVET vote killed all that. People voted for their wallets. And then, realizing that they would never get $30 car tabs for their new Acura or SUV, started bitching about the roads that weren't being repaired. Didn't we vote to fix the roads? Well, yes. And then you voted to kill those funds.
And the problem spread. We actually have (or had, considering the economy) a "rainy day fund" (instituted by a Democratic governor who managed a surplus budget for a couple years), and there was some discussion about whether a stupid vote to slash state revenues was justification for tapping the emergency money.
But people have since been lamenting service cuts, and everyone thinks their favorite cause—education, state health plan, tax favors for businesses—are the part of the budget that should remain untouched. It's very hard for people to grasp that if they want all these services, they need to pay for them. You know ... no taxes, free beer, and vagina trees. It just doesn't work.
So of course this whole scare tactic about the costs of a health care plan will have some effect on the discussion. I can't imagine that it wouldn't. But those who think the system is just fine are thinking almost exclusively of themselves, and from a very myopic perspective. Health care affects the whole society. It affects education, which affects crime. It affects productivity, which affects profitability. If mere human dignity isn't enough, one would think a statistical appeal should have some influence.
And if the marketplace wasn't so problematic, people wouldn't be demanding a government solution. Some would assert that the free market will handle the situation, but if that's the case, why hasn't it? Why are things getting worse?
Yes, profits are necessary to keep a private enterprise functional. But when they become the primary focus of a business, they become the primary focus of the business. This is how insurance companies justify mass recission. This is how they explain their method of dropping customers at the very moment of need. And at least one former executive has gone before Congress to explain how it works. The companies might say they need to protect themselves against fraud, but that's not what's going on. Some insurance companies are even rewarding employees for finding excuses to cancel coverage after the fact. What the hell is the point of insurance if it's not going to pay out on a claim?
This is what drives people to look for other solutions. The devil is in the detail, though. Congress is rushing because that is the market demand they feel. And now the GOP is coordinating a series of protests, and their supporters are calling it "grass roots" when it is, in fact, a top-down effort. The whole point of these protests isn't to find a solution, but to stifle the discussion itself.
And faced with an electorate that falls all over itself for appeals to emotion, we might understand why the politicians want this one off their desks.
Life is imitating art. It probably has for a long time, but the sensation seems more acute these days.
To the other, don't expect me to roll anytime soon.
I'm going to skip ahead for a moment.
Well, what do you expect? To the one, within 24-36 hours of the news cycle breaking the fact that these town hall disruptions are being organized from the top down, here you come extolling the virtues of the movement's "grass roots" aspect. It's not grass roots. It's being coordinated by lobbyists and PR firms closely associated with the Republican Party. Your timing is somewhere between predictable and impeccably ridiculous.
And the lion's share of the noise is about taxes and other financial concerns. What, when people are bitching about money, others should somehow presume that the concern is about something other than money? How does that work?
And when you offer fallacies—
—by objecting to propositions that aren't even on the table, what are people supposed to think?
And consider this, please:
Think of the fact that people often complain about the length of my posts. Imagine how much longer they would be if I had to preface every argument with reminders of what I've already said?
What is the point of health insurance, then? To pay a company money as long as you're healthy, only to be dropped when you need them to pay out for an illness? Once upon a time, representatives of the business community described the purpose of private enterprise as fulfilling societal needs. These days, it's all about profit. That is, the purpose of the health care industry is not to provide health care, a societal need, but rather to accrue profit for its shareholders and executives.
The thing is that businesses cannot survive without profit. The problem at present, of course, is that companies seek to increase profits at the expense of product quality or, in the case of the health care industry, availability.
(#2232345/35)
The thing is that businesses cannot survive without profit. The problem at present, of course, is that companies seek to increase profits at the expense of product quality or, in the case of the health care industry, availability.
(#2232345/35)
I mean, yeah, that post was written in response to someone else, but should I have to preface everything I say by reiterating everything I've already said?
And it's not like Saturday was the first time I ever made that point. Nor is it like you've never seen that point from me before:
What we got from bipartisanship is a mixed result at best. The practical results of the welfare reform are that the ledger looks a little better while the people are worse off for the "progress" made.
And this is the great challenge facing health care reform. Compromising with Republican and conservative principles means willfully reducing the value of human beings compared to numbers in a ledger. It means going out of our way to favor health care companies that would cancel the policies of paying members at the time when they most need their health insurance—e.g., when they're sick. It means affirming that the purpose of the health care industry has nothing to do with health care itself, but rather with the making of money. Profit, specifically increasing wealth as compared to maintaining it, is supposed to be one of the benefits a business strives for in serving a market need; it is not supposed to be the sole purpose of a commercial venture ....
.... Necessity is not the mother of invention at present. Rather, greed is the sire of innovation. And our present economic turmoil is what happens when we put profit before necessity.
"Growth" is a powerful political word, but it cannot continue unchecked forever. The Conway Game of Life is a fairly simple mathematical tool that reminds us of this reality, although you need not become a mathematician to understand the general rule. Nature itself suffices, and one can simply watch what happens when a biosystem overgrows. It contracts or, in some cases, dies off altogether.
Rather than dealing with this reality, though, Americans seem to prefer a more myopic fantasy in which anything that slows growth is an evil dragon to be slain. Confronted with assertions of reality, the political argument falls back to abstract assertions of liberty. In short, it is our right to be irresponsible not only with our own lives and well-being, but also with those of others. After all, responsibility is bad for growth; it is bad for the economy.
(#2307137/62)
We've heard for decades about the beneficent role of business in the community, and it's a fine theory. But it's all just talk. Sure, it can come true, but that's bad for profits, and bad for executive compensation, dividends for investors, and golden parachutes. When Oliver Stone wrote, "Greed is good", it was part of a cautionary tale. The last thing people were supposed to do was raise it as a motto and try to prove the statement true. Naught but blood and gloom and tears since gods began, sir. And making the dollar a divine entity, building a capitalist religion around a trickle-down fantasy, has done nothing to fulfill the benevolent role of business in society. Nothing is done simply because it's right, but rather because it can somehow turn a profit, or at least cushion the loss.
The fundamental problem is one of conscience and good faith.
(#2304074/64)
Someone has to pay for it. Someone has to pay for anything. But there are some aspects of our society that should be at least partially exempt from those forces; the challenge, of course, is how to make it happen ....
.... When profit comes first, substance and quality are mere sales gimmicks.
(#2301924/25)
In more realistic considerations, what is a society capable of? Universal healthcare would have been something of a joke in feudal Europe, even if people moved past the fact that serfs were, well, serfs. The society simply wasn't able to provide it. But we're at a point that the question becomes viable, because there are times when we can save a life, or a limb, or a faculty, and the primary objection to doing so is profit. This is abusrd: Do the job, and we'll figure out the rest later. Well, it's time to figure out the rest. Nobody should have to choose which finger to save and which to lose because they can't afford to keep them both. Nobody should have to choose to die in order to not accrue debt that will be passed on to their family.
(#2276011/36)
Democrats were used to a liberal press maybe twenty years ago. However, once society threw out integrity in favor of economic growth, decency in favor of profit, juicy tidbits became the staple of the press.
(#2255745/8)
Certain things just need to be done, but conservatives and free marketeers don't want those things done unless they can profit from it. And the more excessive the profits, the better.
(#2252226/46)
While the government may be incompetent in most things, it has a duty to try. Private enterprise? Their only duty is profit.
When I was living in Eugene, Oregon, a local measure boosted the property taxes. My father, at that time a Perotnoiac, made the observable point that, as a renter, I, too, would pay the property tax increase in my rent. If the tax goes up five dollars, he said, my rent would go up five dollars. Being young, I argued profit margins with him, and we actually tried to figure out whether it would be six dollars or seven dollars. At any rate, the difference on my place turned out to be fairly small, about ten dollars. The rent increase was fifty dollars. Property management didn't just recover their profit margin, they used the tax increase to boost their margins. And then conservatives turned around and whipped up anger over the tax increases. And, of course, people bought it, despite the fact that the lion's share of their increased burden went to pad the bank accounts of property management executives two states away ....
.... When we have a general proposition of Institution v. People, our instincts tend to put us with the people instead of the institutions. But are the institutions the same? Obviously not. But what's curious here is that the people antagonize the institution that theoretically exists for their benefit, while encouraging exploitative—and, as we see in the current financial crisis, dangerous—behavior among institutions that exist specifically for private profit.
(#2228412/85)
What, though, is the purpose of a corporation? Profit.
Our private health care industry is not primarily about providing health care. Rather, it is about profit. Not subsistence and necessary growth, but greed.
(#2121866/83)
When I was younger, my father was a Reagan Republican and a genuine capitalist. The principles of running a business that he taught me seem a rare practice. The virtue of "business" as a social class or institution is almost entirely theoretic. Yes, there are some businesses that still apply these principles, but the news—and our economy—is dominated by the philosophy and outcome of a different outlook.
The creation of a national health plan would displace a tremendous amount of money currently circulating in the private sector. And despite our government's reputation for redundancy and bloating, a national health plan would also displace a large number of workers. Statistics during the campaign put the cost of a private health plan at around twelve thousand dollars a year. If the only surface value in that sector was to account for growth—e.g., any profit would be dedicated to the future of the plan, instead of investors' wealth—what would that cost be?
We're talking, theoretically, trillions of dollars a year circulating through the national health plan. Making it work and making it last are problematic propositions.
And consider the actual healthcare providers themselves, whether it be the hospitals or pharmaceuticals. These are private ventures, with the exceptions being, for the most part, some of the hospitals. What kind of resources will we dedicate to keeping them in line? There is no guarantee that, in response to a federal plan, the costs of equipment and drugs won't go up. Remember that, at present, the primary purpose of the health care industry is not the provision of health care. The primary purpose of any industry right now is profit.
(#2119992/43)
Into my lifetime there persisted a strange principle about business. People used to justify capitalism by saying that businesses provided essential goods and services. And, while it is true that they do, this is only symptomatic of the real purpose of any private company. Across the pond in England, some have wondered how the banks failed in terms of their obligations to society. But commentator Mark Steel wonders whether that is a fair question: "They didn't fulfil society's needs," he wrote, "because that's not their aim. Their aim is to make as much profit as possible for their shareholders."
(#2090868/35)
While none of those statements are definitive, the reality is that merely feeding the people we already have on the planet is a secondary consideration compared to personal profit. While the world wrangles with even greater than usual food-supply and -distribution problems, we still have grain going to waste in farm country because nobody is willing or able to pay a certain price for it, and the American government still pays out subsidies to farmers in order to prevent them from growing certain crops so that the price of food doesn't get too low.
(#2068169/61)
And this is the great challenge facing health care reform. Compromising with Republican and conservative principles means willfully reducing the value of human beings compared to numbers in a ledger. It means going out of our way to favor health care companies that would cancel the policies of paying members at the time when they most need their health insurance—e.g., when they're sick. It means affirming that the purpose of the health care industry has nothing to do with health care itself, but rather with the making of money. Profit, specifically increasing wealth as compared to maintaining it, is supposed to be one of the benefits a business strives for in serving a market need; it is not supposed to be the sole purpose of a commercial venture ....
.... Necessity is not the mother of invention at present. Rather, greed is the sire of innovation. And our present economic turmoil is what happens when we put profit before necessity.
"Growth" is a powerful political word, but it cannot continue unchecked forever. The Conway Game of Life is a fairly simple mathematical tool that reminds us of this reality, although you need not become a mathematician to understand the general rule. Nature itself suffices, and one can simply watch what happens when a biosystem overgrows. It contracts or, in some cases, dies off altogether.
Rather than dealing with this reality, though, Americans seem to prefer a more myopic fantasy in which anything that slows growth is an evil dragon to be slain. Confronted with assertions of reality, the political argument falls back to abstract assertions of liberty. In short, it is our right to be irresponsible not only with our own lives and well-being, but also with those of others. After all, responsibility is bad for growth; it is bad for the economy.
(#2307137/62)
• • •
We've heard for decades about the beneficent role of business in the community, and it's a fine theory. But it's all just talk. Sure, it can come true, but that's bad for profits, and bad for executive compensation, dividends for investors, and golden parachutes. When Oliver Stone wrote, "Greed is good", it was part of a cautionary tale. The last thing people were supposed to do was raise it as a motto and try to prove the statement true. Naught but blood and gloom and tears since gods began, sir. And making the dollar a divine entity, building a capitalist religion around a trickle-down fantasy, has done nothing to fulfill the benevolent role of business in society. Nothing is done simply because it's right, but rather because it can somehow turn a profit, or at least cushion the loss.
The fundamental problem is one of conscience and good faith.
(#2304074/64)
• • •
Someone has to pay for it. Someone has to pay for anything. But there are some aspects of our society that should be at least partially exempt from those forces; the challenge, of course, is how to make it happen ....
.... When profit comes first, substance and quality are mere sales gimmicks.
(#2301924/25)
• • •
In more realistic considerations, what is a society capable of? Universal healthcare would have been something of a joke in feudal Europe, even if people moved past the fact that serfs were, well, serfs. The society simply wasn't able to provide it. But we're at a point that the question becomes viable, because there are times when we can save a life, or a limb, or a faculty, and the primary objection to doing so is profit. This is abusrd: Do the job, and we'll figure out the rest later. Well, it's time to figure out the rest. Nobody should have to choose which finger to save and which to lose because they can't afford to keep them both. Nobody should have to choose to die in order to not accrue debt that will be passed on to their family.
(#2276011/36)
• • •
Democrats were used to a liberal press maybe twenty years ago. However, once society threw out integrity in favor of economic growth, decency in favor of profit, juicy tidbits became the staple of the press.
(#2255745/8)
• • •
Certain things just need to be done, but conservatives and free marketeers don't want those things done unless they can profit from it. And the more excessive the profits, the better.
(#2252226/46)
• • •
While the government may be incompetent in most things, it has a duty to try. Private enterprise? Their only duty is profit.
When I was living in Eugene, Oregon, a local measure boosted the property taxes. My father, at that time a Perotnoiac, made the observable point that, as a renter, I, too, would pay the property tax increase in my rent. If the tax goes up five dollars, he said, my rent would go up five dollars. Being young, I argued profit margins with him, and we actually tried to figure out whether it would be six dollars or seven dollars. At any rate, the difference on my place turned out to be fairly small, about ten dollars. The rent increase was fifty dollars. Property management didn't just recover their profit margin, they used the tax increase to boost their margins. And then conservatives turned around and whipped up anger over the tax increases. And, of course, people bought it, despite the fact that the lion's share of their increased burden went to pad the bank accounts of property management executives two states away ....
.... When we have a general proposition of Institution v. People, our instincts tend to put us with the people instead of the institutions. But are the institutions the same? Obviously not. But what's curious here is that the people antagonize the institution that theoretically exists for their benefit, while encouraging exploitative—and, as we see in the current financial crisis, dangerous—behavior among institutions that exist specifically for private profit.
(#2228412/85)
• • •
What, though, is the purpose of a corporation? Profit.
Our private health care industry is not primarily about providing health care. Rather, it is about profit. Not subsistence and necessary growth, but greed.
(#2121866/83)
• • •
When I was younger, my father was a Reagan Republican and a genuine capitalist. The principles of running a business that he taught me seem a rare practice. The virtue of "business" as a social class or institution is almost entirely theoretic. Yes, there are some businesses that still apply these principles, but the news—and our economy—is dominated by the philosophy and outcome of a different outlook.
The creation of a national health plan would displace a tremendous amount of money currently circulating in the private sector. And despite our government's reputation for redundancy and bloating, a national health plan would also displace a large number of workers. Statistics during the campaign put the cost of a private health plan at around twelve thousand dollars a year. If the only surface value in that sector was to account for growth—e.g., any profit would be dedicated to the future of the plan, instead of investors' wealth—what would that cost be?
We're talking, theoretically, trillions of dollars a year circulating through the national health plan. Making it work and making it last are problematic propositions.
And consider the actual healthcare providers themselves, whether it be the hospitals or pharmaceuticals. These are private ventures, with the exceptions being, for the most part, some of the hospitals. What kind of resources will we dedicate to keeping them in line? There is no guarantee that, in response to a federal plan, the costs of equipment and drugs won't go up. Remember that, at present, the primary purpose of the health care industry is not the provision of health care. The primary purpose of any industry right now is profit.
(#2119992/43)
• • •
Into my lifetime there persisted a strange principle about business. People used to justify capitalism by saying that businesses provided essential goods and services. And, while it is true that they do, this is only symptomatic of the real purpose of any private company. Across the pond in England, some have wondered how the banks failed in terms of their obligations to society. But commentator Mark Steel wonders whether that is a fair question: "They didn't fulfil society's needs," he wrote, "because that's not their aim. Their aim is to make as much profit as possible for their shareholders."
(#2090868/35)
• • •
While none of those statements are definitive, the reality is that merely feeding the people we already have on the planet is a secondary consideration compared to personal profit. While the world wrangles with even greater than usual food-supply and -distribution problems, we still have grain going to waste in farm country because nobody is willing or able to pay a certain price for it, and the American government still pays out subsidies to farmers in order to prevent them from growing certain crops so that the price of food doesn't get too low.
(#2068169/61)
That record runs back to just before Obama was elected. The next one in the list happens to be a larger quote of the Mark Steel point about the banks.
But my point is that I don't think there's any real question that my argument isn't against profit in and of itself, but rather the notions of excess and priorities. That is, when one's quest for increasing profits sacrifices the purpose of commerce as a means of fulfilling societal needs, the system is askew. When profit becomes the first priority of being in business, the system is askew.
I say profit like it's a bad thing?
So perhaps you're satisfied with a health care system oriented around profit instead of health.
Frankly I think the statement is right in line with my usual contention that making profit the first priority of a business venture is unhealthy. I'm merely reiterating what I've said many times before, such as last weekend when I wrote,
The thing is that businesses cannot survive without profit. The problem at present, of course, is that companies seek to increase profits at the expense of product quality or, in the case of the health care industry, availability.
And yet you deign to remind me that, "No institution, private or government, can long continue to operate at a loss."
I'm sorry, sir, but I call bullshit.
And this is how it goes. You play cheap, superficial politics over and over again, and when smacked with the obvious themes of your argument, you complain of petty insults.
What, sir, are people supposed to think? When you put up more sincere considerations, they often seem like tokens. To wit:
At the outset I will say that this perspective is not without its value. But, for the moment, I would continue with my present theme. What are people supposed to think? There are a couple of curiosities about this offering:
• One market: This would require an expansion of federal power compared to the present. Perhaps you are conceding the need for some expansion, and choosing what you perceive as the lesser. Nonetheless, you are calling for an expansion of federal authority.
• Mandating, penalties, seizure of refund, surcharge: You suggest that some kind of penalty would be needed to give incentive for participation or, rather, to disincentivize non-participation. Begging your pardon, sir, but did you not, just last month, post an advert decrying, in part, just that kind of penalty? Two of the four examples in the Tax Club advert you posted cited the penalties.
• Mandating, penalties, seizure of refund, surcharge: You suggest that some kind of penalty would be needed to give incentive for participation or, rather, to disincentivize non-participation. Begging your pardon, sir, but did you not, just last month, post an advert decrying, in part, just that kind of penalty? Two of the four examples in the Tax Club advert you posted cited the penalties.
I admit it's rather a strange offering coming from you.
In consideration of the merits of the proposal itself, though, we should also consider profit margin caps on certain endeavors—such as health care provision—strict accounting rules to ensure that companies aren't simply squandering money through cronyist expenses and other deceptive practices, and rate protections to prevent the health sector from imitating the auto insurance sector in the way it raises rates. After all, when "We won't raise rates for an accident that isn't your fault" is a deviant selling point to consumers, there is something quite wrong. A tree falling on your car in the driveway, or a drunk smashing into you at a red light—or even when the car is parked—shouldn't reflect poorly on your risk as a policyholder. And it's only been as economic troubles mount, and auto insurance companies compete in a destabilizing market, that anyone gets around to the obvious. What a "bonus", eh? How nice of them to finally acknowledge the obvious. "Accident forgiveness", my ass.
At the core of any solution are a couple of points that the present public discourse seems to disdain: That a healthy society is a more productive and secure society; and that the purpose of health care should be the provision of health care.
All else should come from those points. The idea of free enterprise has long been defended according to the idea that commerce provides societal needs. As industry leaders have fallen away from that principle, they have demanded either the same or even greater liberty for their selfish interests. One's rights do not come without obligations. And for too long, our business community has resisted those obligations. The state of our economy and health care industry alike reflect what that resistance has earned us.
_____________________
Notes:
Newport, Frank. "Americans on Healthcare Reform: Top 10 Takeaways". Gallup. July 31, 2009. Gallup.com. August 6, 2009. http://www.gallup.com/poll/121997/Americans-Healthcare-Reform-Top-Takeaways.aspx
Last edited:
StreetPeaches
Registered Senior Member
Geez! There are alot of people that want our (US) healthcare system to be availableto everyone, not just rich people. What is with all the hatred of our govt? I love &respect our govt. Even if my party of choice loses the election. My patriotism doesn't have an on/off switch. I'm glad the issue is being discussed and finally something done to end Wall Street medicine and end the insurance company manipulation of American health. How could anyone prefer Wall Street profiteers to decide what healthcare we need? I lovemy country and the govt that leads it.
I am glad to see you can quote. If you read what I posted, I was pointing out similarities between Nazi political tactics and the tactics used by the Republican Party. Any honest observer of history cannot over look the startling and blatent use of Nazi tactics by the Republican Party since the arrival of the shrubs. When you have nothing of substance to offer, you have to use the tactics of fear; of us versus them; the fanatism; the dumping on intellectuals and places of higher learning; discouraging differing opinions; discourage use of information sources not sanctioned by the party; elimination of civil rights (Habeas Corpus). Yeah, all that reminds me of what the Nazi's and other totaltarians have done. I know full well what the Nazi's did and how they did it...much better than you apparently do.
As for the rest of you post, if I didn't know better I would say you were on hallucinogens, because it makes no sense whatever. Three is nothing in Cap and Trade or Obama's policies that permits the government to illegally enter homes or remove Habeas corpus. If you want to complain about the elimination of Habeas corpus you are a little late. Obama just restored it after george II (Republican) took it away.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
joe thanks for the belly laugh, my sides are spliting, you do add comic relief to a sad situation, please continue with your talking points, and keep marching in lock step.
tiassa for some reason your refferences are all comming out as phone numbers
Anyway, have you ever thought the best way to prove them wrong would be to pick a state (any state but a left leaning state) and compleatly abolish the private system (buy it out) and implement a free system there and SHOW people how stupid there idea of "evil socialised med" actually is?
That or do a deal with canda to do the same thing (though that is problematic in that you would have to cross the boarder)
Anyway, have you ever thought the best way to prove them wrong would be to pick a state (any state but a left leaning state) and compleatly abolish the private system (buy it out) and implement a free system there and SHOW people how stupid there idea of "evil socialised med" actually is?
That or do a deal with canda to do the same thing (though that is problematic in that you would have to cross the boarder)