How the politics of the day are effecting the poorest of our country.

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Do you think consumers should be deciding what medicines to take and what medical procedures to have or not have then?

Between themselves and their doctors, basically yes.

I mean you want to move choice back to consumer, right? What do you mean by that?

I mean exactly what I say. The majority of people are not the deciders of their health insurance plan nor the health care company offering it. Some people don't even get to choose their own doctor.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp
Do you think consumers should be deciding what medicines to take and what medical procedures to have or not have then?

Between themselves and their doctors, basically yes.

I mean you want to move choice back to consumer, right? What do you mean by that?

I mean exactly what I say. The majority of people are not the deciders of their health insurance plan nor the health care company offering it. Some people don't even get to choose their own doctor.

But why should they be forced to pay a doctor? I mean shouldn't it be up to the consumer if they want to pay for medical advice or do it themselves?
Seems like a government mandate that they turn over their hard earned money to a doctor.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp
Do you think consumers should be deciding what medicines to take and what medical procedures to have or not have then?

Between themselves and their doctors, basically yes.

I mean you want to move choice back to consumer, right? What do you mean by that?

I mean exactly what I say. The majority of people are not the deciders of their health insurance plan nor the health care company offering it. Some people don't even get to choose their own doctor.

But why should they be forced to pay a doctor? I mean shouldn't it be up to the consumer if they want to pay for medical advice or do it themselves?
Seems like a government mandate that they turn over their hard earned money to a doctor.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp
Do you think consumers should be deciding what medicines to take and what medical procedures to have or not have then?

Between themselves and their doctors, basically yes.

I mean you want to move choice back to consumer, right? What do you mean by that?

I mean exactly what I say. The majority of people are not the deciders of their health insurance plan nor the health care company offering it. Some people don't even get to choose their own doctor.

But why should they be forced to pay a doctor? I mean shouldn't it be up to the consumer if they want to pay for medical advice or do it themselves?
Seems like a government mandate that they turn over their hard earned money to a doctor.

What the hell are you talking about?

Prescription drugs, for example. If you believe free markets are the answer, why should we have a government mandate that someone pay for a doctor visit in order to get some medicines? Seems to me like a patient should be able exercise his rights as a consumer and decide for himself if he wants to pay for a doctor's advice.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: charrison


And if you believe it has no effect, raise it min wage to $100/ hour. Poverty is solved.
Min wage laws hurt low skill workers the most and that is a fact.

Righty: Hey, this cake won't bake with the over at 100 degrees. Cakes suck.

Liberal: try setting the over to 350 degrees. It'll bake nicely.

Righty: BS, you liberal! If that's true then set it to 5000 degrees and REALLY bake it great!

Why does a righty have such a hard time understanding that a minimum wage might do good at $7, or $9, or $11, and not at $100?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp
Do you think consumers should be deciding what medicines to take and what medical procedures to have or not have then?

Between themselves and their doctors, basically yes.

I mean you want to move choice back to consumer, right? What do you mean by that?

I mean exactly what I say. The majority of people are not the deciders of their health insurance plan nor the health care company offering it. Some people don't even get to choose their own doctor.

But why should they be forced to pay a doctor? I mean shouldn't it be up to the consumer if they want to pay for medical advice or do it themselves?
Seems like a government mandate that they turn over their hard earned money to a doctor.

What the hell are you talking about?

Prescription drugs, for example. If you believe free markets are the answer, why should we have a government mandate that someone pay for a doctor visit in order to get some medicines? Seems to me like a patient should be able exercise his rights as a consumer and decide for himself if he wants to pay for a doctor's advice.

Well, now instead of using straw man, you're making some sense.

In the long run, and I mean the long run, I'd agree with that. But we don't need to go that far to make health care work, i.e., make it affordable and more efficient. I'm trying to show you the tops of trees and you keep looking at the stars.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: charrison


And if you believe it has no effect, raise it min wage to $100/ hour. Poverty is solved.
Min wage laws hurt low skill workers the most and that is a fact.

Righty: Hey, this cake won't bake with the over at 100 degrees. Cakes suck.

Liberal: try setting the over to 350 degrees. It'll bake nicely.

Righty: BS, you liberal! If that's true then set it to 5000 degrees and REALLY bake it great!

Why does a righty have such a hard time understanding that a minimum wage might do good at $7, or $9, or $11, and not at $100?

His point is that gov't doesn't know what a minimum wage should be.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
The inherent message in all of this, among other things, is "fucking educate yourself and work hard so you are not scraping bottom in our economy".

Also with regards to minimum wage... there have been a multitude of studies that show that minimum wage increases BENEFIT the poor.... hence why they are pushed by Dem's.

Even if MW was still $4.25/hr... there is always some country where someone would do the same job for less than half the money. MW does not ship jobs overseas and it does not reduce the number of people employed at MW... it merely increases the cost component of some goods and services due to labor rates.

Why are the jobs moving overseas? Cause of cost advantages. You cut the minimum wage and lower taxes for businesses and you'll start seeing jobs come back.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus
Funny, i guess you can't paint all minimum wage increases as being destructive to the labor market now, can you?

It's almost as if... conservatives don't know how the market works in the real world.

Funny I guess you cant realize that minimum wage increase do have in impact and the negative impact hurt the poor the worst.

Maybe you should write a study then

http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/90051397.pdf

Read the whole thing:

An alternative interpretation of the full spec- trum of results is that the New Jersey minimum- wage increase did not reduce total employment, but it did slightly reduce the average number of hours worked per employee. Neumark and Was- cher (1995b) reject this interpretation. Although we are less quick to rule out this possibility, we are skeptical about any conclusion concerning aver- age hours worked per employee that relies so heavily on the informally collected Berman/ EPI sample, and the exclusion of controls for the length of the reporting interval. Moreover, within New Jersey the BNW data indicate that hours grew more at restaurants in the lowest wage areas of the state, where the minimum-wage increase was more likely to be a binding constraint. This ?nding runs counter to the view that total hours declined in response to the New Jersey minimum- wage increase.

The Berman data set was the one that showed actual decline in Employment (not just hours worked). I would be more inclined to believe in the less hours worked than total employment decline, since most of these papers (that I've seen) show no statistical significant change in employement - my gut feeling is that the hours worked just get cut.


I'd be interested in seeing a paper that evaluates the actual income change of the workers in the affected industries though.The goal of the policy is to increase the income of the low-income workers, so that's the metric we should be looking it. If gov't raises minmum wage by 15% (assume post-tax for simplicity) and the expected response of BK/McDs/* is to cut your hours 10%, you're still 5% "richer" and have 10% more free time.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus
Funny, i guess you can't paint all minimum wage increases as being destructive to the labor market now, can you?

It's almost as if... conservatives don't know how the market works in the real world.

Funny I guess you cant realize that minimum wage increase do have in impact and the negative impact hurt the poor the worst.

Maybe you should write a study then

http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/90051397.pdf

Read the whole thing:

An alternative interpretation of the full spec- trum of results is that the New Jersey minimum- wage increase did not reduce total employment, but it did slightly reduce the average number of hours worked per employee. Neumark and Was- cher (1995b) reject this interpretation. Although we are less quick to rule out this possibility, we are skeptical about any conclusion concerning aver- age hours worked per employee that relies so heavily on the informally collected Berman/ EPI sample, and the exclusion of controls for the length of the reporting interval. Moreover, within New Jersey the BNW data indicate that hours grew more at restaurants in the lowest wage areas of the state, where the minimum-wage increase was more likely to be a binding constraint. This ?nding runs counter to the view that total hours declined in response to the New Jersey minimum- wage increase.

The Berman data set was the one that showed actual decline in Employment (not just hours worked). I would be more inclined to believe in the less hours worked than total employment decline, since most of these papers (that I've seen) show no statistical significant change in employement - my gut feeling is that the hours worked just get cut.


I'd be interested in seeing a paper that evaluates the actual income change of the workers in the affected industries though.The goal of the policy is to increase the income of the low-income workers, so that's the metric we should be looking it. If gov't raises minmum wage by 15% (assume post-tax for simplicity) and the expected response of BK/McDs/* is to cut your hours 10%, you're still 5% "richer" and have 10% more free time.

That paragraph has lots of conflicting ideas, but it sounds like in the last part of the paragraph, if you isolate the lowest wage areas (the ones affected most by minimum wage increases), hours worked actually grew

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: charrison


And if you believe it has no effect, raise it min wage to $100/ hour. Poverty is solved.
Min wage laws hurt low skill workers the most and that is a fact.

Righty: Hey, this cake won't bake with the over at 100 degrees. Cakes suck.

Liberal: try setting the over to 350 degrees. It'll bake nicely.

Righty: BS, you liberal! If that's true then set it to 5000 degrees and REALLY bake it great!

Why does a righty have such a hard time understanding that a minimum wage might do good at $7, or $9, or $11, and not at $100?

Why does a lefty have such a hard understanding that a minimum wage increases are not negative consequence free.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp
Do you think consumers should be deciding what medicines to take and what medical procedures to have or not have then?

Between themselves and their doctors, basically yes.

I mean you want to move choice back to consumer, right? What do you mean by that?

I mean exactly what I say. The majority of people are not the deciders of their health insurance plan nor the health care company offering it. Some people don't even get to choose their own doctor.

But why should they be forced to pay a doctor? I mean shouldn't it be up to the consumer if they want to pay for medical advice or do it themselves?
Seems like a government mandate that they turn over their hard earned money to a doctor.

What the hell are you talking about?

Prescription drugs, for example. If you believe free markets are the answer, why should we have a government mandate that someone pay for a doctor visit in order to get some medicines? Seems to me like a patient should be able exercise his rights as a consumer and decide for himself if he wants to pay for a doctor's advice.

Well, now instead of using straw man, you're making some sense.

In the long run, and I mean the long run, I'd agree with that. But we don't need to go that far to make health care work, i.e., make it affordable and more efficient. I'm trying to show you the tops of trees and you keep looking at the stars.

Get rid of FDA too, who are they to tell us we can't take Fen Phen?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Get rid of FDA too, who are they to tell us we can't take Fen Phen?

Again, the straw man. :roll:

But if I must reply to the above, shall I ask how many people have died from drugs approved by the FDA? What is the FDA's stance on marijuana as a medicine? Have you not seen this?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus
Funny, i guess you can't paint all minimum wage increases as being destructive to the labor market now, can you?

It's almost as if... conservatives don't know how the market works in the real world.

Funny I guess you cant realize that minimum wage increase do have in impact and the negative impact hurt the poor the worst.

Maybe you should write a study then

http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/90051397.pdf

Read the whole thing:

An alternative interpretation of the full spec- trum of results is that the New Jersey minimum- wage increase did not reduce total employment, but it did slightly reduce the average number of hours worked per employee. Neumark and Was- cher (1995b) reject this interpretation. Although we are less quick to rule out this possibility, we are skeptical about any conclusion concerning aver- age hours worked per employee that relies so heavily on the informally collected Berman/ EPI sample, and the exclusion of controls for the length of the reporting interval. Moreover, within New Jersey the BNW data indicate that hours grew more at restaurants in the lowest wage areas of the state, where the minimum-wage increase was more likely to be a binding constraint. This ?nding runs counter to the view that total hours declined in response to the New Jersey minimum- wage increase.

The Berman data set was the one that showed actual decline in Employment (not just hours worked). I would be more inclined to believe in the less hours worked than total employment decline, since most of these papers (that I've seen) show no statistical significant change in employement - my gut feeling is that the hours worked just get cut.


I'd be interested in seeing a paper that evaluates the actual income change of the workers in the affected industries though.The goal of the policy is to increase the income of the low-income workers, so that's the metric we should be looking it. If gov't raises minmum wage by 15% (assume post-tax for simplicity) and the expected response of BK/McDs/* is to cut your hours 10%, you're still 5% "richer" and have 10% more free time.

That paragraph has lots of conflicting ideas, but it sounds like in the last part of the paragraph, if you isolate the lowest wage areas (the ones affected most by minimum wage increases), hours worked actually grew

If you see something like that, you either have to come up with an explanation or dismiss it as a fluke/coincidence. Given it was again from the Berman phone survey data set, I would attribute it to the latter.

I cannot think of a reason why hours employed/worked would increase when the hourly cost of the employee increases. Hourly workers don't have at-will control of their schedule, so I don't see how the substitution effect could dominate here. In other words, it is not up the the employee to create his/her own schedule, so s/he doesn't have the ability to decide to work more now that s/he is making more per hour.

 

[soccerballtux]

With companies like yours it's ok. Market competition will drive the workers from your company away with policies like that.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: IamDavidI see the books, I know the bottom line. My bonuses are only getting bigger and profits are looking great.. Me being a capitalist makes it hard to swallow but I can tell you all beyond a shadow of a doubt NOTHING Washington does will stop the rich from getting richer.

This sort of thing has happened before throughout history. Eventually, at some point, people may begin producing guillotines again and/or mouthing Marxist, Red slogans, and the wealthy people will have to barricade themselves and their families behind walls and use helicopters for travel (for fear of kidnappings). If the nation suffers from a bloodbath, it shouldn't come as a big surprise.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: senseamp
In free market health care, employees would be self medicating. They'd decide which drugs and procedures they need and do a cost and benefit analysis using their vast medical knowledge. Time to get rid of prescription requirements for drugs, and sell surgical kits at Walmart for the DIY crowd. Then we'll have a free market in health care.

You do make a good point. Under real capitalism the government wouldn't regulate health care at all (except through litigation for malpractice, wrongful death, injuries, and breach of contract in the courts). Anyone could put out a shingle and claim to be a doctor. I don't advocate it, but I wouldn't be surprised if a great many procedures could end up being done much less expensively by "doctors", especially rather simple matters that are currently very expensive.

 

[IamDavid]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: IamDavidI see the books, I know the bottom line. My bonuses are only getting bigger and profits are looking great.. Me being a capitalist makes it hard to swallow but I can tell you all beyond a shadow of a doubt NOTHING Washington does will stop the rich from getting richer.

This sort of thing has happened before throughout history. Eventually, at some point, people may begin producing guillotines again and/or mouthing Marxist, Red slogans, and the wealthy people will have to barricade themselves and their families behind walls and use helicopters for travel (for fear of kidnappings). If the nation suffers from a bloodbath, it shouldn't come as a big surprise.

hope it never comes to anything like this but it would be understandable.