Goodbye public option, we hardly knew ya

[Ausm]

The only people who are going to work for less than minimum wage are the illegals doing it now. I thought deregulation in the mortgage/banking industries lead to the current economic situation.

You trying to make a point to a right wing tool.... The GOP's love for profits and deregulation is one of the main reasons we are fucked now.

 

[Robor]

You trying to make a point to a right wing tool.... The GOP's love for profits and deregulation is one of the main reasons we are fucked now.

No, no, no... It's all Obama's fault.

/we're getting way OT by the way :sneaky:

 

[theeedude]

I guess we'll just have to wait for the system to collapse from external stress. A country that spends 2x as much as its competitors on health care while getting worse outcomes is under competitive pressure to evolve or be left behind.

 

[Ausm]

I guess we'll just have to wait for the system to collapse from external stress. A country that spends 2x as much as its competitors on health care while getting worse outcomes is under competitive pressure to evolve or be left behind.

Healthcare for profit is moronic to begin with but I am not holding my breath for any substantial changes.

 

[drebo]

The only people who are going to work for less than minimum wage are the illegals doing it now. I thought deregulation in the mortgage/banking industries lead to the current economic situation.

The singular cause of our economic situation is government intervention.

The rising costs in our economy, from food to gas to houses to medicine to toilet paper to christmas tree lights, are all a result of government intervention.

The introduction of Medicare/Medicaid set maximum possible payouts for Medicare/Medicaid patients for doctors and forced doctors to accept Medicare/Medicaid. Because there was a maximum, the doctors charged the maximum...for ALL their patients. Systemic price inflation ensued.

Food prices could point to subsidies by the government to farmers to NOT grow food or to grow food for food-based ethanol programs, lowering the supply of food.

The housing bubble has been well explained, but we'll rehash it briefly: artificial credit created by the government allowed banks to lend beyond their means combined with government regulations requiring banks to maintain a certain number of sub-prime loans combined with government guarantee of Fannie and Freddie, all lead to an increase in the number of homes able to be financed and an increase in the number of undesirable loan customers. Yes, the banks engaged in some nefarious lending practices, but they would not have been able to had the government not guaranteed them and provided the artificial credit with which they could play.

All major contributors to the hard times most people are seeing. All government intervention.

 

[Patranus]

How are you going to compete with Mexico, China, etc when they make a fraction of what our minimum wage workers get?

Pretty sure your statement answers your own question.

During the great depression the implementation of minimum wage laws costs jobs for people who were willing to do the work at a lower wage. Before minimum wage laws, people routinely operated elevators even though automatic elevators existed. It was cheaper for a building owner to hire someone to operate the existing elevator than retrofitting the elevator with automation. Once minimum wage laws were passed this changed and it became cost effective for the building owner to retrofit their existing elevators forcing the to fire the elevator operators.

Many of the elevator operators wanted to continue to work. They were happy with their jobs and their pay but the federal government would not all the free market to dictate their wages. In the end, minimum wage laws cost them their jobs because the federal government created an artificial floor for wages creating a situation where it was impossible to compete EVEN THOUGH THEY WANTED TO WORK FOR THOSE WAGES.

Minimum wage laws inherently attempt to defy the simplest of economic concepts such as supply and demand.

(again, minimum wage is regulated through the "commerce clause" when no interstate commerce occurs when an employer pays a worker.)

 

[drebo]

You trying to make a point to a right wing tool.... The GOP's love for profits and deregulation is one of the main reasons we are fucked now.

Care to elaborate?

See my previous post detailing how government intervention directly lead to the problems we have now.

How exactly has the free market caused the housing bubble and the collapse of many banking institutions?

 

[Patranus]

You trying to make a point to a right wing tool.... The GOP's love for profits and deregulation is one of the main reasons we are fucked now.

Regulation is at fault for not allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines and that is something that most people on both sides think is needed.

Sounds to me like regulation is driving up the cost of health care.

 

[Ausm]

Care to elaborate?

See my previous post detailing how government intervention directly lead to the problems we have now.

How exactly has the free market caused the housing bubble and the collapse of many banking institutions?

I didn't say jack shit about free markets and i was commenting on another person's post.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I guess we'll just have to wait for the system to collapse from external stress. A country that spends 2x as much as its competitors on health care while getting worse outcomes is under competitive pressure to evolve or be left behind.

Considering that insurance company costs are only several percent of the 2 trillion dollars, how do you think you are going to cut that figure by $1,000,000,000,000?

Specifics, not pontification please.

This is pretty much the Dem equivalent of "If we depose Saddam, we'll have global terrorism under control". If you dared disagree, you were an idiot yet pressed for details, they ran to rhetoric.

Can you do better? BTW, there isn't a trillion in administrative waste so don't go there. Don't go "well France has"... France isn't derailing it's system for something else, and this isn't France.

Good luck, because no one has yet been able to answer this question with much more than "But THEY DO IT"

 

[drebo]

I didn't say jack shit about free markets and i was commenting on another person's post.

His comment was to me, and your assumption that the 'GOP's lust for profits and deregulation' is responsible for economic condition implies that you believe the free market is responsible for it.

If you have nothing constructive to add to the debate, get the fuck out.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Your point is taken, but I don't think it's quite accurate or goes quite deep enough.

Minimum wage sets a precident. In California, the lowest hourly wage you can make is $8.50/hr. As a result, someone with a year of experience thinks they should be worth $9.50/hr, etc.

Get rid of the lower-bound and the entire wage scale shifts downward, from top to bottom, dramatically lowering costs and prices.



Emphasis added. There are. There are litterally thousands of charitable organizations in the US. Many people, though, feel as if the continual forced redistribution of wealth by the government should be enough and opt not to donate to domestic charities. Even so, charitable organizations take in a LOT of money each year.

Despite all that, though, what's wrong with bringing back the familial welfare system? If my brother can't work because he was born without a hand, I should be taking care of him, not the government. Same thing with injury. If my sister got laid off, why is it taboo for her to live with me and my wife until she gets back on her feet? Why is it the responsibility of the government?

You're living in a dream world. Reduce costs to the company and the executives will get a bigger bonus, and shareholders bigger dividends, but the average worker will get 0 in raises and the consumer will see 0 in savings.

We used to have your glorious free market system (or close to it)...it was called robber barons. Was great for the rich, and enslaved/killed the poor. The force of evil that corrupts economics and societal harmony is called greed, not government, and it's largely the plaything of corporations.

 

[Patranus]

You're living in a dream world. Reduce costs to the company and the executives will get a bigger bonus, and shareholders bigger dividends, but the average worker will get 0 in raises and the consumer will see 0 in savings.

We used to have your glorious free market system (or close to it)...it was called robber barons. Was great for the rich, and enslaved/killed the poor. The force of evil that corrupts economics and societal harmony is called greed, not government, and it's largely the plaything of corporations.

If the demand is lowered (because people at the bottom are making less money) then the cost must come down.

 

[drebo]

You're living in a dream world. Reduce costs to the company and the executives will get a bigger bonus, and shareholders bigger dividends, but the average worker will get 0 in raises and the consumer will see 0 in savings.

We used to have your glorious free market system (or close to it)...it was called robber barons. Was great for the rich, and enslaved/killed the poor. The force of evil that corrupts economics and societal harmony is called greed, not government, and it's largely the plaything of corporations.

That's not how the world works. If wages go down, prices must also go down, otherwise no one will buy anything. Margins do not and should not have to change at all.

Robber barons were an entirely different problem. Additionally, why is it the government's responsibility to make sure that no one becomes "too successful?"

 

[PrinceofWands]

That's not how the world works. If wages go down, prices must also go down, otherwise no one will buy anything. Margins do not and should not have to change at all.

Robber barons were an entirely different problem. Additionally, why is it the government's responsibility to make sure that no one becomes "too successful?"

It is EXACTLY how it works. Many corporations, faced with rising labor costs (among other rising costs), began offshoring their labor to cheaper areas - effectively lowering their labor costs (often by a SUBSTANTIAL amount). The result was unemployed workers with $0 income (not just lower income) and product/service prices that remained the same or increased out of step with general inflation. Show me again how lower labor costs help the consumer.

The reasons your ideal scenario fails, if you're interested, are population and credit. There are so many people in the world as potential workers and consumers of any given product that pricing out even a large percentage doesn't particularly diminish potential business earnings. Moreover, those that can't actually afford the products will utilize easily available credit to obtain them. They will then default on the credit, of course, and screw all workers and consumers in the process. This does not significantly impact the upper class of course, who have more than enough elasticity to absorb these fluctuations...and since they're in control of it all anyway they just force the impact onto other segments.

That is EXACTLY what robber barony was also. It was unregulated market, manufacturing, and commerce control by the wealthy who also held political or political advisory positions. It was ended when the government acted on behalf of workers and consumers to implement regulations on business, industry, and the markets (regrettably they never implemented similar controls on politics). This stemmed the rise of violence which was approaching revolutionary levels in many areas.

There are two, and ONLY two, controls on the power to abuse that wealth provides - government regulation, and personal violence. I'm fine with either, which do you want?

 

[Fern]

William W McGuire, United Health Group
Total Compensation: $124.8 mil in 2005
5-Year Compensation Total: $342,284,000,000

He'd been there 15+ years. With some elementary math, one can see that a billion isn't a stretch at all. But then he's probably worth just that much more than almost all other human beings and should be protected and worshiped.

The only bright spot is that he may have to give some back.

His cash compensation is far less than that - it's was bit under $14M.

The rest was from options which don't cost the company any money.

BTW: I'm pretty sure he was busted by the SEC for back dating options and won't be working anywhere for some time (10 yrs or so).

Edit: Elsewhere I posted what the top exec's at health insurance companies made, it wasn't all that much - just a drop in the bucket.

Fern

 

[Darwin333]

All in all, Englishmen are awesome and Americans are pussies that are scared of their own shadows.

Yup, all the REAL men are in England. I do find it rather odd that you guys haven't been able to win a real war since we left without the help of a bunch of pussies. Pussies who also managed to kicked the shit out of you guys, with a bit of help from the Frogs of course. Out of curiosity, which pissed you off more us kicking your ass or the French?

 

[Fern]

Remember, many Republicans are morally opposed to poor people receiving health care.

They believe poor people have some sort of fault: drug addiction, sloth, lack of faith in the Capitalist system, wrong color skin, or are just being punished by God.

It is wrong for the government and society as a whole to help these people. They should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and embrace Conservative Morals and Free Market Capitalism.

Good Lord!

How will we ever have a decent debate on health care (and other issues) with this kind of inanity?

They don't oppose poor people having health care. (For one thing they already do, it's called Medicaid). They oppose being forced to pay for other peoples' HC.

Fern

 

[Patranus]

It is EXACTLY how it works. Many corporations, faced with rising labor costs (among other rising costs), began offshoring their labor to cheaper areas - effectively lowering their labor costs (often by a SUBSTANTIAL amount). The result was unemployed workers with $0 income (not just lower income) and product/service prices that remained the same or increased out of step with general inflation. Show me again how lower labor costs help the consumer.

You just explained how lower labor costs helps the consumer and employee.

 

[Darwin333]

It is EXACTLY how it works. Many corporations, faced with rising labor costs (among other rising costs), began offshoring their labor to cheaper areas - effectively lowering their labor costs (often by a SUBSTANTIAL amount). The result was unemployed workers with $0 income (not just lower income) and product/service prices that remained the same or increased out of step with general inflation. Show me again how lower labor costs help the consumer.

Walmart alone disproves your premise that lower costs of production can and will lower the prices consumers pay. As long as there is adequate competition in the market that will generally be the case. Its the same reason the libs argue that increased corporate taxes do not always lead to the entirety of the costs being passed on to the consumer via increased cost of goods/services.

The reasons your ideal scenario fails, if you're interested, are population and credit. There are so many people in the world as potential workers and consumers of any given product that pricing out even a large percentage doesn't particularly diminish potential business earnings. Moreover, those that can't actually afford the products will utilize easily available credit to obtain them. They will then default on the credit, of course, and screw all workers and consumers in the process. This does not significantly impact the upper class of course, who have more than enough elasticity to absorb these fluctuations...and since they're in control of it all anyway they just force the impact onto other segments.

Lots of used to be rich folks that disagree with the above as well. Not to mention the contraction of credit that is and will further prevent consumers from going extended more credit than they deserve. The biggest issue I see with credit today is that the banks aren't sharing in the losses when they make a bad loan. The way its supposed to work is the borrower gets hurt but the lender takes a hit as well. This gives incentives to both parties to make good decisions concerning credit. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on which side your on) our politicians don't think certain banks should take a loss when they make bad decisions so the market isn't allowed to work.

There are two, and ONLY two, controls on the power to abuse that wealth provides - government regulation, and personal violence. I'm fine with either, which do you want?

Ironically, it seems there are only two ways to control the power to abuse that the government provides- wealth, and personal violence. Obviously what the people want no longer matters and even when we elect "change" we get the same damn thing.

 

[Fern]

So the whole effort has been a waste of time. Actually worse than a waste of time as the current bill is worse than doing nothing. Congratulations to the insurance lobbyists. Their greed has trumped common sense and the common good yet again.

Tort reform is bullshit. Let the courts sort out actual liability and damages in malpractice cases based on the facts of the case. Limiting damages limits justice by using arbitrary limits thought up by health industry lobby.

Obama = Leadership missing in action.

Tort reform isn't really about limiting actual damages, at least not any I would support. It's about limiting "punitive' danages. Punitive damages are arbitrary and often excessive. Punishment for malpractice, or anything else for that matter, should be applied equally per offense and not based on whims of a jury (composed of non-professional in the matter) driven by the slick words of a tort lawyer who stands to make a killing if successful.

Why should the punishment for doctor who screws up be a large payment to some lawyer? Gawd, that makes no sense.

Fern

 

[sandorski]

You Should just Be honored That he Posted more Than a One word Answer.

indeed

 

[shadow9d9]

Well, if you want to call me a hack, then so be it. At least I'm not a sore loser in denial of the truth.

I provided evidence of what you are incorrect about. You provide nothing.

 

[Fern]

The public option has been sold as a way to introduce competition into the market place. We already have dozens and dozens of existing health insurance companies. Why can't Congress just figure out a way to let these companies compete across state lines?

Instead of having just one competitor (the public option), there would be many many more competitors.

Fern

 

[PrinceofWands]

You just explained how lower labor costs helps the consumer and employee.

No, I just showed how lower labor costs helps the executives and capital investors, while HARMING the worker and the consumer.