The left is paying for support of Obamas healthcare program(actual proof inside)

[kiff]

gov't allowed for deregulation, a major contributor to the current problem.

but "deregulation" wasn't the root of the problem, just an attempt to cope with the growing pile of bunk assets.

do you really think lenders are empathetic, church-going folk?
gimme a break.

the supposed apathy was the problem. if pure greed made the lending policies, the whole thing never would have happened

edit: and no, I'm not promoting greed

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

He just doesn't agree with the solution. You jump into the "oh so you don't care bit".

Where did I say that? You're making a HUGE leap to make that implication from what I said.

when you say something like "it's only a small portion of the population," it sounds as though you're relating the size of the problem to its severity.
that's all.

Why little faith? Let me turn that around. What have they done to earn it?

gee golly.
now that I think about it, not a single thing ever I guess.
nope, they never done a durn thing to earn a little trust.

feels like it's still 1886, boy howdy.
I trust em when they go to war. but how dare they give me cheap health insurance!

but it's unlikely that those pools of risk would have been floating around out there were it not for the Fed pushing an ever-low interest rate and all but guaranteeing their junk loans.

so we agree, the Fed isn't flawless.
but the markets, left to their own devices, haven't proved to be any more competent.

Call it a poor choice of words on your part if you wish, but I explained why I interepreted it the way I did.

I used the word in accordance with your attitude in it's original context.

Issuing risky loans is not typically a smart thing to do and it generally isn't done without outside pressure.

the pressure for these firms to perform at the level which they did arose from both internal and external forces on the system.

What are you talking about? I'm talking about the number of uninsured, by all accounts, being less than 15% of the population of the US. The other 85% have health coverage.

typing too fast I think, I worded it wrong.
what I meant is that the 85% who are covered will end up paying for the remaining 15 in one way or another. the life sustaining procedures they are allowed to don't grow on trees.

they 1) can't manage federal programs well or cost effectively, and 2) have no motive other than what makes them bigger and more powerful.

the post office ran fine up until the technology boom and recession.
medicare? veterans aid?
I guess it's all evil and powerful and scary.

TAKING OVER THE HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY.
taking over those businesses.

I just don't make the connection between a public option and "OMG HOSTILE TAKEOVER FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS."

that's why I say rabble.
because you sound delirious.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

when you say something like "it's only a small portion of the population," it sounds as though you're relating the size of the problem to its severity.
that's all.

I'm relating the size of the SOLUTION to it's severity. It's a very important distinction. I recognize there is a problem, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with this solution.

typing too fast I think, I worded it wrong.
what I meant is that the 85% who are covered will end up paying for the remaining 15 in one way or another. the life sustaining procedures they are allowed to don't grow on trees.

Yes, most of that is done through donations. What? You didn't know Americans (and American corporations) could be charitable without being compelled??

the post office ran fine up until the technology boom and recession.

So? This year is the first year they actually started consolidating postal routes. Don't you think they could have done that YEARS ago?

medicare? veterans aid?

Both of those programs are losing enormous amounts of money already.

I guess it's all evil and powerful and scary.

In general, increasing the size (or rather scope) of the government reduces the benefit that government gives to it's citizens.

I just don't make the connection between a public option and "OMG HOSTILE TAKEOVER FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS."

that's why I say rabble.
because you sound delirious.

How can you not see that government mandated costs equates to government takeover?? If the government controls the means, who cares what the method is?

Repeating "rabble" ad nauseum makes it look like you don't understand the issue well enough to be discussing it. Whether you do or not, that's the impression you're giving.

 

[hal]

gee golly. now that I think about it, not a single thing ever I guess. nope, they never done a durn thing to earn a little trust. feels like it's still 1886, boy howdy. I trust em when they go to war. but how dare they give me cheap health insurance!

Are you mocking? Perhaps instead you should make a point?

but the markets, left to their own devices, haven't proved to be any more competent.

Ah, but they haven't been "left to their own devices" now have they?

I used the word in accordance with your attitude in it's original context.

Then you clearly don't comprehend what I was saying. Everything I said was inclusive of the entire nation and not a specific cultural group.

the pressure for these firms to perform at the level which they did arose from both internal and external forces on the system.

There's no doubt a lot of goofy **** was done with the money, but you're totally ignoring the government involvement upon which it all hinged. Without the all-powerful fed backing and encouraging those junk loans, there's very little chance so many institutions would've bit so hard on what looked, to some of them, like an infallible opportunity to hedge their bets. It's called a housing bubble for a reason and you have to look at the reason for the inflation.

 

[MÆST]

so we agree, the Fed isn't flawless.
but the markets, left to their own devices, haven't proved to be any more competent.

Right there is the problem. Markets are most effective when they are free. The existence of the Fed is antithetical to a free market supply of money. When the OMC meets and decides on its monetary policy (which before lately was mostly performing operations to fine tune the interest rate), they are co-opting a job that free banking could accomplish. (I say could because there have been very few instances in history where an nation even came close to ideal free banking ... for some reason governments like to control the issuance of money ... hmm, wonder why.)

If the Fed ends up setting rates below what the market clearing free market rate would have been, which current evidence suggests Greenspan did, credit is cheaper for everyone, and demand increases. This is inflation. During this time, general price inflation (CPI) did not rise as fast as the influx of new money would suggest. This is because prices do not instances reflect changes in the quantity of money, and more importantly, prices do not increase uniformly across all industries.

Where did this inflation go you ask? Largely to housing, the medical industry, higher education, and anything else the government likes to get its hands on. The government, and the banking system, are the first to get their hands on newly created money, not me or you. These entities then direct the funds industries they are highly involved in, subsidize, or encourage. (CRA, Fannie/Freddie, student loans, medicare/aid payments etc.) Suffice it to say there is no wonder that we had a huge housing bubble, a medical cost crisis, and higher education prices are through the roof. The market for these industries are the furthest from free.

Show me a market that is incompetent, and I'll show you are market that is not left to its own devices.

 

[Zur]

for some reason governments like to control the issuance of money ... hmm, wonder why.)

What ? Don't you know why ? Before money existed people just shook hands and exchanged goods. Money is just a way to store time and work in a easy-to-handle form. Without it, a government wouldn't take part in any transaction and it would also be very impractical to charge VAT on goods that can't be divided into parts. That's what money is. I won't go into explaining why money flow needs to be controlled as that has to do with inflation. You probably know the basics anyway.

 

[MÆST]

What ? Don't you know why ? Before money existed people just shook hands and exchanged goods. Money is just a way to store time and work in a easy-to-handle form. Without it, a government wouldn't take part in any transaction and it would also be very impractical to charge VAT on goods that can't be divided into parts. That's what money is. I won't go into explaining why money flow needs to be controlled as that has to do with inflation. You probably know the basics anyway.

That's not what I was getting at. After all, money (a convenient medium of exchange) can arise outside of of any government dictate. Ancient cultures used anything from shells, to gold, to giant stone wheels as money. And many cultures had some accepted form of money before any meaningful central government existed.

My point was that a central government came about, it always took control of the traditional money system or created a new one. Such control often started as something as innocent as stamping standardized gold and silver coins with the leader's face on it of course, but eventually as governments realized that with this control, they could finance their wars and fill the treasury by debasing the currency. Even at the time when countries were on commodity standards this was done. The authority simply declared it would issue a new coin design. The old coins were to be turned in, and a new coin would be issued, and the government assured the people that the new coin would be worth just as much. But when they got the coins in and melted them down, they would add a bit of cheap metal to the mix. The new coins would have a new design, and be the same size, but they would not have the same gold content. The gold that was leftover from this process, went to the governments treasury to fund wars, or whatever the head of state wanted.

Money is not needed for taxation, nor is taxation the reason why governments want to control the money supply (the reason I explained above). Hundreds of years ago, the supply of money was very small, but the poor were surely taxed even if they had no money. The tax collector just took a percentage of their crop yield.

Debasing a commodity money system had a limit. The government could only get away with a certain amount of coin clipping and alloy debasement before the people would reject. In the fiat money system the world has now, governments have an unheard of ability to inflate and debase their currency. They just print some more paper notes or in the computer age, add a few zeroes to someone's account.

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

Yes, most of that is done through donations.

oh I guess there's no problem then.
because donations are like money falling out of the sky.

So? This year is the first year they actually started consolidating postal routes. Don't you think they could have done that YEARS ago?

like I said, it ain't perfect.

Both of those programs are losing enormous amounts of money already. In general, increasing the size (or rather scope) of the government reduces the benefit that government gives to it's citizens.

the fact that they're losing money only goes to show the poor logistics behind that particular institution. it's not indicative of the way government is inherently capable of performing. the Fed could stand to take a hint or 2 from the UK whose gov't is more than apt at fulfilling the need for socialized medicine without draining their coffers.

How can you not see that government mandated costs equates to government takeover??

the gov't plan is to give people options.
it's not a hostile takeover, I don't know how else to say it.

Repeating "rabble" ad nauseum makes it look like you don't understand the issue well enough to be discussing it.

as long as you repeat "takeover" I'll continue to relate you to a rabble rouser.

Are you mocking? Perhaps instead you should make a point?

I made my point.
it was a generality aimed at the American public.

we get all gung-ho to go kick Saddam's ass (which was an entirely unnecessary detriment to our geopolitical standing) but when the gov't tries to give people health care they get up in arms like he's about to yank the carpet out from under them.
we need some god damn perspective in this debate.

Ah, but they haven't been "left to their own devices" now have they?

not all of them, no.

Everything I said was inclusive of the entire nation and not a specific cultural group.

ethnocentrism has nothing to do with a particular ethnic group.
I used the word correctly to describe your sentiment in its original context.
get over it.

There's no doubt a lot of goofy **** was done with the money, but you're totally ignoring the government involvement upon which it all hinged.

not quite.
I already acknowledged that gov't involvement was a major contributor.
but the housing loans market is very different from the health coverage market.
one is in the business of making money, the other is in the business of not spending more than it has to. and at the end of the day, both are going to f*ck the little guy in spite of to what degree the Fed is involved.

I hedge my bets on the human condition and on realism.
this means greed and control for power will permeate any system dealing with so much money, regardless of who is pulling the strings and in which direction.

Right there is the problem. Markets are most effective when they are free.
Show me a market that is incompetent, and I'll show you are market that is not left to its own devices.

this is still largely an economic theory.

show me in practice an institution/market which operates free of gov't regulation and (over time) does so without incidence of inflated costs and/or cost cutting initiatives that suppress the will of their consumer.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

oh I guess there's no problem then.
because donations are like money falling out of the sky.

When they can build new hospitals out of the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN DONATIONS, I hardly think that a few people unable to pay for sub-$10,000 care make a big dent in their bottom line.

like I said, it ain't perfect.
the fact that they're losing money only goes to show the poor logistics behind that particular institution. it's not indicative of the way government is inherently capable of performing. the Fed could stand to take a hint or 2 from the UK whose gov't is more than apt at fulfilling the need for socialized medicine without draining their coffers.
the gov't plan is to give people options.

What are you talking about?

First, why would you bring up government run programs that "aren't perfect" as examples of how well the government manages things? Why would I assume the government can manage NEW programs when it can't manage the ones it already has well? I don't understand how you can say "The government will manage this fine" out of one side of your mouth, while out the other side admitting that every social program they've instituted so far has major problems.

Second, the UK system IS LOSING TONS OF MONEY. Read up on the NHS, they are facing the same problems every other government run healthcare system in the world is: They can't keep up with the cost of care. Additionally, the UK has a MASSIVE tax rate compared to us, and they are STILL having trouble.

Third, the government plan has options in it, but that is not the same thing as giving people options. What they are doing here, in essence, is telling the healthcare industry how much they can charge for services, the insurance industry what they must pay for services, and, eventually, requiring all of this to happen through government approved channels (HIE). If every company is the same, why would you shop around?

it's not a hostile takeover, I don't know how else to say it.
as long as you repeat "takeover" I'll continue to relate you to a rabble rouser.

So you'll use a reasonable argument as an excuse to call names. Perhaps you'd like to show me how this cannot be construed as an industry takeover? They want to control ALL COSTS. If the government controls every aspect of one sector, then what else would you call it?

 

[hal]

ethnocentrism has nothing to do with a particular ethnic group. I used the word correctly to describe your sentiment in its original context. get over it.

How can you even say that? Break down the word. Ethno - center - ism. Figure it out. Or consult a dictionary.

1. Belief in the superiority of one's own ethnic group.
2. Overriding concern with race.
3. The belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture.
4. The tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own.

Reminder: we're talking about systems of government and not cultures or ethnic groups.

one is in the business of making money, the other is in the business of not spending more than it has to. and at the end of the day, both are going to f*ck the little guy in spite of to what degree the Fed is involved.

Those two things go hand in hand. The last sentence assumes a lot, not to mention the idea that the fed (which is also made up of people just like the private sector) is somehow an innocent and benevolent entity.

show me in practice an institution/market which operates free of gov't regulation and (over time) does so without incidence of inflated costs and/or cost cutting initiatives that suppress the will of the their consumer.

Uh, a free market is dynamic, so it ebbs and flows according to market conditions and the consumer has the power.

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

When they can build new hospitals out of the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN DONATIONS, I hardly think that a few people unable to pay for sub-$10,000 care make a big dent in their bottom line.

but most of the uninsured, who will only show up to a hospital after they have become too sick to do anything else, are not receiving sub-10k care. it ends up being much more than that because they waited.

First, why would you bring up government run programs that "aren't perfect" as examples of how well the government manages things? Why would I assume the government can manage NEW programs when it can't manage the ones it already has well? I don't understand how you can say "The government will manage this fine" out of one side of your mouth, while out the other side admitting that every social program they've instituted so far has major problems.

what are you talking about?
I said no program is perfect, gov't involvement or not.

just because our gov't hasn't always handled social programs to "perfection" doesn't mean that every single one has been a failure, nor is this absolutely indicative of government's capability.

Second, the UK system IS LOSING TONS OF MONEY. Read up on the NHS, they are facing the same problems every other government run healthcare system in the world is: They can't keep up with the cost of care. Additionally, the UK has a MASSIVE tax rate compared to us, and they are STILL having trouble.

meh, there's a global recession going on.

and the tax rate makes an irrelevant point, it's as though the cost of your health insurance is included. most of those people who I have been able to talk with are happy with their system.

If every company is the same, why would you shop around? They want to control ALL COSTS. If the government controls every aspect of one sector, then what else would you call it?

the goal is for those costs to come down considerably from the rate at which premiums are currently inflating beyond individual's salaries. the average person will find that this newfound competition and/or the public option much more effective and conducive to their needs.

and hey, if they f*ck it up, you can always vote them out and let someone else try.

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

How can you even say that? Break down the word. Ethno - center - ism. Figure it out. Or consult a dictionary.

1. Belief in the superiority of one's own ethnic group.
2. Overriding concern with race.
3. The belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture.
4. The tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own.

good job Hal.
notice how there are numerous connotations to the word?
the way in which I used it was clearly to point our your air of superiority based on America's view of it's own liberty. this has nothing to do with a particular ethnic group.

you were using your perspective of personal liberty to make broad assumptions about the view of alien groups. you were being ethnocentric in that regard.

an innocent and benevolent entity.

lol I said they're both going to f*ck us when they get the chance.
that has nothing to do with innocence and benevolence.

the consumer has the power.

in theory, yes.
the consumer has the power when they're shopping at say... Macy's.
the consumer only has the illusion of power when it comes to the sort of entities that you and I are discussing.

 

[Phopojijo]

the consumer has the power.

Note:

Gasoline Prices
Telecommunications.

 

[hal]

but most of the uninsured, who will only show up to a hospital after they have become too sick to do anything else, are not receiving sub-10k care. it ends up being much more than that because they waited.

And yet others will go for every sniff and sneeze. Touche.

just because our gov't hasn't always handled social programs to "perfection" doesn't mean that every single one has been a failure, nor is this absolutely indicative of government's capability.

History is a pretty good indicative. Handing over power to the government all throughout history has generally ended up in failure.

good job Hal.
notice how there are numerous connotations to the word?
the way in which I used it was clearly to point our your air of superiority based on America's view of it's own liberty. this has nothing to do with a particular ethnic group.

you were using your perspective of personal liberty to make broad assumptions about the view of alien groups. you were being ethnocentric in that regard.

You made a poor choice of words, admit it. Perhaps you were thinking of chauvinism?

in theory, yes.
the consumer has the power when they're shopping at say... Macy's.
the consumer only has the illusion of power when it comes to the sort of entities that you and I are discussing.

Again, you're ignoring all of the government intervention factors. Take that away and reconsider.

Note:
Gasoline Prices
Telecommunications.

What's your point? Commodity trading? Monopolies?

 

[Sir_Brizz]

but most of the uninsured, who will only show up to a hospital after they have become too sick to do anything else, are not receiving sub-10k care. it ends up being much more than that because they waited.

There are very few care options that cost more than $10k for a problem. The lionshare of most people's medical bills when they have surgery is post-operative care.

what are you talking about?
I said no program is perfect, gov't involvement or not.

just because our gov't hasn't always handled social programs to "perfection" doesn't mean that every single one has been a failure, nor is this absolutely indicative of government's capability.

It IS indicative of their capability, though. I don't understand how you can disconnect social policy from bad social programs. Not only are all them doing poorly, they are also LOSING TONS OF MONEY. And the main point here is that the government IS NOT DOING THEIR JOB RIGHT NOW. What have they done to show you that they plan to in the future? The federal budget this year is larger than last year, we have astronomical deficits (blowing what your least favorite President of all time did in the last 8 years in a single year), we have programs that are due to run out of money within the next 30 years... so where is the parachute here? What program is the government running right now that leads you to believe that they can work out any new program?

meh, there's a global recession going on.

So? The NHS has been riding the edge since 2006.

and the tax rate makes an irrelevant point, it's as though the cost of your health insurance is included. most of those people who I have been able to talk with are happy with their system.

I don't really know anyone from England. The ones I do know rarely ever go to the doctor as it is because they are young and healthy. But I've read lots of people liking it and lots of horror stories, so I'm not inclined to believe that it is any better than our current system (unless "free" is the only qualification for "better"). Still, I like to keep my money and choose what to spend it on.

the goal is for those costs to come down considerably from the rate at which premiums are currently inflating beyond individual's salaries. the average person will find that this newfound competition and/or the public option much more effective and conducive to their needs.

and hey, if they f*ck it up, you can always vote them out and let someone else try.

No, you can't.

If this healthcare bill passes, this is what we get. This idea that someone else will swoop in and get rid of it because it doesn't work is just a bunch of smoke. What social programs do we have that that has happened with? That's right, none.

 

[Phopojijo]

What's your point? Commodity trading? Monopolies?

Having "choice" doesn't mean that your choices aren't going to collude, particularly for the more rural/remote locations.

There's also no standardization of service.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Having "choice" doesn't mean that your choices aren't going to collude, particularly for the more rural/remote locations.

There's also no standardization of service.

Telecommunications is heavily taxed but not heavily regulated.

 

[Phopojijo]

Actually it's becoming more heavily regulated with the FCC as of late... ripping up throttling, etc.

 

[hal]

Having "choice" doesn't mean that your choices aren't going to collude, particularly for the more rural/remote locations.

There's also no standardization of service.

You mean because you "choose" to live in a rural area you have fewer "choices"?

I don't know how telecommunications is handled in Canada, but in the US you have a choice of carriers and they compete with each other, meaning that if they don't cut it you can always switch.

 

[Phopojijo]

You mean because you "choose" to live in a rural area you have fewer "choices"?

I don't know how telecommunications is handled in Canada, but in the US you have a choice of carriers and they compete with each other, meaning that if they don't cut it you can always switch.

Telecommunications in Canada actually is a bit more Hands-Off than the States (and suffers as a result)... though the CRTC is seriously looking into bitchslapping them a bit.

The problem with choice of carriers is that every time they compete, they collude thrice.

It took Government action to prevent carriers from throttling... in Canada the CRTC still hasn't said no to Rogers and Bell (and about 5 other, less popular, but giant ISPs) on that regard -- and as a result -- they're now throttling resellers so that even if you get an independent ISP, Bell or Rogers will crap out P2P (including Skype and VPNs and anything else "encrypted traffic" because "you might be bittorrenting behind there") the nanosecond it leaves the indie's little network (assuming they're not just a Bell/Rogers reseller anyway) and tries to contact anyone.

So yeah, this is NOT a case where Canada's a glowing example... I ****ing wrote my MP (member of Parliament) several times about this issue.

I'm just bringing it up to show how your Government regulation dodge a few bullets and how "hands off" just means the little guys get knifed in the back and the big guys get rich.