dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
10
share rss forum feed


sirwoogie
Blah
Premium
join:2002-01-02
Carleton, MI
reply to Matt3

Re: Change

Wow... cranky. It's a pessimistic post... get used to it.

Things have changed for the worse overall, not better. While I agree that certain perceptions from the world have changed, the important ones have not. Fortunately, the current president isn't a bumbling idiot as the previous one was. Yes, Obama hasn't shown much to be encouraged about:

• Absolutely no course change on hiding the fact of spying on Americans (e.g. this topic).
• Not punishing those that ordered or performed torture. Most especially for using your own Justice department to increase the pressure to close all cases that relate to this (e.g. photos, trials in California, etc.).
• A veiled attempt to close Guantanamo while simultaneously further the use of a camp in Afghanistan.
• Continuing the bailout of industries and corporate entities. Downright becoming a dictator with respect to automotive companies.
• Encouraging (in fact threatening... "we don't get it passed this year, it'll never pass") a completely socialistic health care program.

and so on. I agree, he has done some good things. But when you have nowhere to go but up, that doesn't necessarily translate into success. Also, don't use the excuse of "give him time." He's had time to do things, and the things he has done have made it worse for Americans overall.



Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12

Again, I don't view all the things you've mentioned in the same light as you. I could go bullet-point by bullet-point and offer my counter-points, but in politics, opinions (and facts) rarely change the views of others.

So, I'll leave it with this -- I completely disagree with you.


amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 recommendation

reply to sirwoogie

Health care socialist?

said by sirwoogie:

• Encouraging (in fact threatening... "we don't get it passed this year, it'll never pass") a completely socialistic health care program.
We already have socialized health care. Public law sets quality standards for goods and services higher than a truly "free market" would produce. The result is that those who can't afford this artificially (socially) created market are threatened with prison if they attempt to purchase lessor medical services from someone who isn't duly licensed by *the* medical association. Or, tries to purchase lessor products (like medicine) from a neighbor who makes it in their bathtub.

I'm not necessarily saying we should have a truly "lassez faire," market-driven health care system. But, it's creative to say that what we have now isn't socialized.

IMO, what we have to today is incredibly perverse. We limit health care choices for the poor. We deny them the opportunity to purchase inferior goods and services if that's all they can afford. We do this so everyone else's "market-based" choices will be easier. (Their "market" outcomes more predictable than if they had to perform their own due diligence in a wild, raw, "free" market of willing buyers and willing sellers.). And then, when it's suggested that this is essentially a *wealth transfer* from the poor (denying them a market of willing buyers and sellers which would exist in a free market), we're told that anyone who would suggest this is a *socialist.*

Mark


Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12

Click for full size
Right-Wing Socialism Argument - The Reality
The socialism argument always makes me laugh.

Here's why:

»correspondents.theatlantic.com/c···like.php


jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL

said by Matt3:

The socialism argument always makes me laugh.
Percentage of American corporations that the government is entitled to own: 0%. No graph needed.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

said by jester121:

Percentage of American corporations that the government is entitled to own: 0%. No graph needed.
Hardly entitled. Paid for them. Way overpaid for them, actually, to stop them from dying off.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
reply to jester121

said by jester121:

said by Matt3:

The socialism argument always makes me laugh.
Percentage of American corporations that the government is entitled to own: 0%. No graph needed.
You're right. Clearly the solution is to let them fail, force hundreds of thousands to become unemployed, and further burden the system.


jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL

said by Matt3:

You're right. Clearly the solution is to let them fail, force hundreds of thousands to become unemployed, and further burden the system.
Ah, it's all about "the system" isn't it? I thought the Democrats were all about the individual and standing up the little guy? Central planning takes care of that nicely (at least until it's actually tried outside of a textbook or manifesto.)

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to amigo_boy

said by amigo_boy:

said by sirwoogie:

• Encouraging (in fact threatening... "we don't get it passed this year, it'll never pass") a completely socialistic health care program.
We already have socialized health care. Public law sets quality standards for goods and services higher than a truly "free market" would produce. The result is that those who can't afford this artificially (socially) created market are threatened with prison if they attempt to purchase lessor medical services from someone who isn't duly licensed by *the* medical association. Or, tries to purchase lessor products (like medicine) from a neighbor who makes it in their bathtub.

I'm not necessarily saying we should have a truly "lassez faire," market-driven health care system. But, it's creative to say that what we have now isn't socialized.

IMO, what we have to today is incredibly perverse. We limit health care choices for the poor. We deny them the opportunity to purchase inferior goods and services if that's all they can afford. We do this so everyone else's "market-based" choices will be easier. (Their "market" outcomes more predictable than if they had to perform their own due diligence in a wild, raw, "free" market of willing buyers and willing sellers.). And then, when it's suggested that this is essentially a *wealth transfer* from the poor (denying them a market of willing buyers and sellers which would exist in a free market), we're told that anyone who would suggest this is a *socialist.*

Mark
Yep, free market doesn't exist. Capitalism turns everything into a natural monopoly with the military/police/courts to enforce the monopoly.

Other examples, zoning code where anything other than an empty lot in the municipal limit requires a zoning code waiver which is at the board's personal vaguely following a master plan that changes every 5 years.

Unions that bribe the feds and state govts to legislatively enforce closed shops.

In my experience, and the comments of my cynical doctor relatives, all of medicine follows a flow chart enforced by malpractice lawsuits, NIH (read federal govt) studies, and personality cult supporting peer review journal articles. The flow charts almost always say treat symptoms, the cause is irrelevant until you fall down unconscious Prozac and Oxycontin and Adderal fix all, or spend $50K per incident in xray/ct/mri/dye tracing for a stubbed toe since it might be toe cancer, or the paper cut might be infected. Violating the flowchart is instantly wining a malpractice lawsuit. 90% of the health care, outside of surgery, can be done by a McDonalds worker following the flow chart, with the same salary, nurses and doctors are just pork jobs. Nurse assistants sort of are an implementation of the McDonalds worker concept.

Another problem is treatments that work 5% over placebo, yet costs $1000s, but by "ethics" and malpractice lawsuits you have to do. Cancer treatment is filled with them. Your going to die, face it, spending more $ than you will earn in your lifetime on your treatment is insane.

Its funny when you read these studies on drugs that have a 40% placebo cure rate and the drug has a %45 drug cure rate (looking at an antacid). Maybe its time to just prescribe Supernull 45mg.

50 years ago cholesterol levels were irrelevant, because there were no drugs for them. Now with cooked studies, drug companies make a fortune off old fat asses that stuff their face with burgers and fries and wonder why they have heart attacks and are so fat (no your 60 inch waist line and your motorized wheelchair means your "healthy" and not going to die of tuberculosis). Loose the ****ing weight, no drugs and no insurance for you. You have a desk job, your not in a cotton field or a coal mine from dawn to dusk, an 8000 calorie diet was for your ancestors, not you. Its like giving a lung transplant to a smoker.

The lack of co-payments in medicare/medicaid and medicare/supplementary medicare insurance people makes them run to the doc every time for a paper cut wasting $100s if not $1000s.

Also research for a cure is not allowed in the USA. If you propose a cure, you will never get funding, and your university director will shut you down for being psuedoscience, and establishment will bad mouth you if you go looking for private investors/donations. A cure never made any doctor or company money. NIH/university/drug company system will NEVER EVER find a cure for AIDS or Cancer, its financial suicide. Only the treatments that promise to be the most expensive ever get R&Ded. So your Medicare style socialized medicine system for all will skyrocket like a hockeystick from 5% of the US GDP to maybe 50% or higher, this country's economy will just exist on giving healthcare, we will be like Saudia Arabia, but with healthcare instead of oil.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to Matt3

said by Matt3:

You're right. Clearly the solution is to let them fail, force hundreds of thousands to become unemployed, and further burden the system.
Taking them over is just the end step in corporate welfare, why worry about cranky stockholders, we promise we wont complain, but we do want 100% of your dividends as income tax. The scheme is that they are now/will be a great source of tax revenue, 100% tax, its delicious. Plus all those jobs create tax revenue (FICA/etc). That bailout money, unless there is typical corporate graft, will become wages with a 35% cut into taxes, or higher (sales, property, etc), so the govt is just giving itself $ using the car company as a front.

expert007

join:2006-01-10
Buffalo, NY

All this ranting is impressive, but no one seems to want to acknowledge that the Federal Gov't actually has an exit strategy for GM, and it's less than 5 years. MUCH less than 5 years.

Sorry to rain on your right wing parade.