Reply With Quote
If they're incompetent on their own they usually spend less money, at least.
What difference does it make whether or not our government is incompetent on it's own, or just that way because they're unable to resist lobbyists who make them incompetent? The end result is the same.
If they're incompetent on their own they usually spend less money, at least.
Again, it's a Democracy; these are professional politicians. They don't know anything but running for and winning elections. THAT is what they see as their job. "Governing" is just a means to an end.
It is insanity that we give so much of our productivity and riches (and the riches of generations to come) to people like this; but we do - more and more. They are not enlightened; a very small number are anything but selfish and self-interested - the "ideologues" are that way because that is what their cons uents want them to be; otherwise they would change.
I don't see why you are at all concerned about, or alarmed by the revelation you are apparently having now.
I completely agree. That doesn't mean it's the right way to proceed.
So you agree with me that this has nothing to do with convictions, but merely polls and special interests. Basically you deem it an aberration as much as I do. And I agree.
This is far from a 'new revelation'. If you follow what I was answering to, you'll notice this stems from the fact that somebody here wants these people to govern by polls.
This same Congress under a different executive passed fairly unpopular legislation in the past. The TARP comes to mind. Obviously that appealed to special interests, which these days rank higher than polls in a politician's preference.
That their priorities are aligned like that is neither new or surprising. But it is and has always been alarming. I think it needs to be pointed out that it's wrong, specially when somebody condones the practice.
Last, but not least, democracy is not populism. Some people don't seem to know the distinction these days.
Last edited by ElNono; 03-05-2010 at 11:21 AM.
Fair point. If we're going to be stuck paying for an incompetent government we might as well use a coupon.If they're incompetent on their own they usually spend less money, at least.
I hate those who are imposing their authoritarian views on others.
The free market works when you let it.
Why did you quote my questions? You didn't answer any of them.
This will not fix medicare. It will make it harder on the states.
If he wants to reduce costs, then he needs to make changes that work. Root problem analysis. Attacking the symptoms just exasperate the problem.
Exactly, but it deflects the blame from the executive. And I agree this is just a palliative on Medicare that screws you on many other fronts.
Pretty much.
Neither.
I don't.
Why do you?
Hmm.... I guess by your definition, stock holders of major capitolist corporations are socialists. I never thought of WalMart, Exxon, etc. to be socialist endeavors.
True. However, insurance should be a choice. Nobody should not be compelled to buy a product they don't want. When you do this, no matter how you want to sweeten the pot, it is authoritarianism at it's worst.
That's how corporations and small businesses do it. Now, many are requiring their employees lose weight, stop smoking, etc. to reduce their costs of insuring them.
I disagree. Those who cannot pay are already factored in the prices. When you make things cheaper at an individual level, the product gets used more and abused more. The costs can only go up.
The only way to reduce these costs always fall of deft ears. The left will never allow true tort reform, relaxation of some regulations, increasing compe ion, and increases of co-pays for those on the public take.
Health care is not socialism. It is a choice.
How do you reconcile these two posts?
Are you sure you know how insurance works?
Indeed corporations are a form of socialism.
Just as insurance companies socialize the risk of loss from medical events, corporations socialize risk of capital loss from economic events.
Don't get me started on the lack of good corporate governancevin the US (although the US does a LOT better than many other countries).
You are forced, by dint of the fact you MUST interact with the economy in general in the exchange of goods and services, to buy into all manner of things you "don't want". You just aren't aware of it.True. However, insurance should be a choice. Nobody should not be compelled to buy a product they don't want. When you do this, no matter how you want to sweeten the pot, it is authoritarianism at it's worst.
The only thing that would change would be the manner in which you are forced to do it. Either you can have it up front, where problems can be dealt with in some rational manner, or have it all hidden where endemic inefficiencies will sap economic growth and overall standards of living without correction.
I would rather have everything up front and deal with the problems in a comprehensive manner.
Consider the following:I disagree [that insurance minimizes economic disruption]. Those who cannot pay are already factored in the prices. When you make things cheaper at an individual level, the product gets used more and abused more. The costs can only go up.
Man without insurance saves a fair amount, then gets in a motor vehicle accident or cancer well beyond his abililty to pay for it. He must then default on his mortgage and his debts. So not only is the cost borne by the hospital and ultimately the insurance companies that actually DO pay, these costs get borne by the people who loaned him money. They must then turn around and charge more for capital than they would otherwise to recoupe THEIR losses.
Now, the people who loaned him money don't normally consider the "healthy" or not factor in their decisions, and couldn't have reasonably foreseen his accident/illness.
The cost shifting goes on regardless of what you think should happen.
Please stop using the thoroughly debunked "if only they would allow tort reform, everything would be magically cheaper and solve all our problems" BS.The only way to reduce these costs always fall of deft ears. The left will never allow true tort reform, relaxation of some regulations, increasing compe ion, and increases of co-pays for those on the public take.
Tort reform is happening already, and every rational economic esimtate of the impact is that, while measurable, it is not the panacea always seem to imply it is. Sheesh. I think everybody at this point agrees that 1) it would do something and 2) it wouldn't do so much that it needs to be the a#1 priority.
????Health care is not socialism. It is a choice.
That is a bit like saying "Eating is not socialism. It is a choice."
I really truly don't get what you are saying here.
No...it doesn't. Here's a question, are you opposed to U.S. companies outsourcing jobs overseas?
I'm opposed to oppressive government regulation that drives companies to outsource and move operations overseas.
Really? It has nothing to do with the Chinese working for $1/hour?
I don't like it, but they are doing what the government pushes them into doing. The tax system needs to be changes to bring employment back here. Tax consumption, not production.
You simplistic ers are so duped by corporate/conservative "everything is the govt's fault" bull .
What you think will bring jobs back to USA is abolishing "oppressive" EPA, OSHA, contract law, employer-provided health insurance, consumer/product safety, minimum wage, unemployment insurance so Americans, can be ground down, contaminated, killed, and the environment with them, working like Chinese or Indians.
The only way jobs come back to USA is if Americans descend to the same low standard of living and working in ed up environments as Chinese and Indians do.
Even then US capitalists (and corporate CFOs) know the real returns are from gambling in the financial casinos, not making widgets or being stuck managing complex, messy stuff like human beings.
It's obvious that Yonivore and Wild Cobra are both slurping the Republican . It has nothing to do with government and everything to do with keeping profits high and costs low.
If the government is to blame, it's due to imposing things such as minimum wage, worker safety regulations, and employee healthcare. Things that are non existent in other countries in the world.
By your logic we should get rid of all those things because the government is forcing these companies to go overseas so they don't have to abide by any of those things to keep costs down.
Bottom line when it comes to insurance, it's a business, but you can't run a business when it comes to peoples lives. We're not talking about hamburgers and sneakers, we're talking about life. The insurance companies don't care about people, they just care about dollars because they run their companies like a business. Which they shouldn't do.
Hmmmm. They run their companies like a business?
Wow. What a concept.
Moron alert.
They should be running them like a non profit. You know where they don't make profits off of the health and misfortune of others.
This id a free nation. If you believe such things, then get with like-minded people and start one yourself. You can probably get a government grant for start-up money.
Otherwise, stop bashing capitalism and the freedoms we enjoy.
profit over life.. sums up the GOP nicely.
My God man.
People are free to do with thier money as they please. Without personal assets, would we have the health care system we have?
Rather than complain about the freedoms of this nation, put your money where your mouth is, or STFU.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
