lazy federal employees costing us a fortune for nothing....

vision · Post by **vision** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:52 pm

Spidey wrote:What's next...houses and cars, why stop at health care and education? And yes that is an honest question.

Yes. Human beings have made incredible strides in our ability to provide for ourselves, yet we don't reap the benefits of it due to the greed and intolerance of others. I'm absolutely a collectivist and damn proud of it. I believe individuality is an illusion. What matters most in life is people, not things, but some things are important, like access the food, shelter, medicinal services, information, and other basics that provide a baseline for quality of life. I believe a great civilization is made of great people, and a great person is one who puts others before oneself. I think Jesus would agree.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:57 pm

Krom wrote:
Spidey wrote:Well, what you see as a goal of civilization and what I do are probably two different things.

You are probably far more of a collectivist than I am.

What's next...houses and cars, why stop at health care and education? And yes that is an honest question.
Because if you don't have to worry about those two, you can probably get the rest on your own.

And if “civilization” worked the way it should, you wouldn’t need to worry about the first two things either, because they would be affordable for the average person, and help could still be given to those in need.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 5:36 pm

And how exactly are you going to make civilization work the way it should? Hold hands and sing kumbaya?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 5:44 pm

No….glory glory Hallelujah.

No, but government can work in different ways to insure things are “fair” without always resorting to redistribution.

Unfortunately this is the only paradigm people seem to expect.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 6:13 pm

Spidey wrote:What's next...houses and cars, why stop at health care and education? And yes that is an honest question.

well, in Denmark, there is no cost for public transit, and both Denmark and Sweden subsidize housing for those who cannot afford homes. So, no there is no reason to stop. As I keep trying to point out, you are heading within a generation to a society where nearly 60 percent of all adults will have no real opportunity for employment. We have to figure out a way to make that work for someone other than the investor class.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 6:35 pm

callmeslick wrote:We have to figure out a way to make that work for someone other than the investor class.

Yup. We need a new model for the future. Old ideas aren't going to work anymore.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 6:52 pm

How ironic, considering socialism is one of those very models that won’t work, if nobody has a job.

So your "new model" is doomed to failure in a short timeframe.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 7:07 pm

I don't disagree on that point.

But the conservative solution of deregulating and burying their heads in the sand also won't work.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 7:12 pm

To call socialized healthcare wealth redistribution is to miss the point of socialized healthcare, which is to find a solution to a captive, yet dysfunctional market. How it's paid for is a separate issue. You never seem to see anyone complaining that military spending is wealth redistribution, but isn't it the exact same thing?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 7:19 pm

Possibly, but the constitution requires the government to defend the country.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 7:52 pm

And promote the general welfare.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 9:15 pm

Awesome…where’s my free food and shelter.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 11:38 pm

Those are relatively functional markets.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 1:58 am

Spidey wrote:How ironic, considering socialism is one of those very models that won’t work, if nobody has a job. So your "new model" is doomed to failure in a short timeframe.

Who the hell said anything about socialism? We need a new model, but socialism is a good starting point to build from. Plus, assuming the US doesn't make itself obsolete by adhering to old ideas, people in future will work, but it will be a different kind of work and for different reasons. None of the candidates besides Sanders are talking about this sort of thing.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 5:46 am

Spidey wrote:Possibly, but the constitution requires the government to defend the country.

at the current level of expenditure? Hardly. Defending the country and policing the entire freaking planet are two different things.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 5:47 am

Spidey wrote:Awesome…where’s my free food and shelter.

do you have the need for them?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:43 am

callmeslick wrote:
Spidey wrote:Awesome…where’s my free food and shelter.
do you have the need for them?

Why do you have to have a need? Why work when the govt. will give it to you. How will that philosophy make America great and pay the bills?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 8:17 am

woodchip wrote: Why do you have to have a need? Why work when the govt. will give it to you. How will that philosophy make America great and pay the bills?

did you read anything about preparing for the 21st century economy? Because, you aren't all that far away from an economy where a lot of people won't have jobs. Further, who suggests giving food aid, or housing aid to anyone without true need, in the current economic reality?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 8:55 am

Vander wrote:Those are relatively functional markets.

True, so fix the market, your solution seems a little like taking a bazooka to hunt squirrels.

Oh, and I should mention that in my opinion the government is partly responsible for the dysfunction in the healthcare market. (pre ACA) And there are things in the ACA that actually exacerbate those problems, such as the profit cap, that will at some point after the additional customer levels taper off, actually encourage inflation in the market.

callmeslick wrote:
Spidey wrote:Awesome…where’s my free food and shelter.
do you have the need for them?

Yes…duh

Don’t understand the point of that question

callmeslick wrote:
Spidey wrote:Possibly, but the constitution requires the government to defend the country.
at the current level of expenditure? Hardly. Defending the country and policing the entire freaking planet are two different things.

Different argument.

……….

Oh ok, now I see your point on need.

Well the government has different options here, it can provide people with what they need, or fix the problems that create those needs.

Of course fixing the root problems are way too complex for our government to solve and doing so would not give the power & control that providing stuff gives.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 12:04 pm

woodchip wrote:Why work when the govt. will give it to you.

Are you really that lazy and unimaginative to do nothing but sit on your ass every day? Having basic needs covered allows ambitious, creative, generous people the freedom to do great things. Sure there will always be people who have no desire to contribute to society, but that attitude is the exception, not the rule. There are a lot of really bright, hard-working people out there who never get a chance to shine because they are bogged down by our current greed-infested system. Who will pay for it? All of us, when the work we do stops going toward making other people rich and benefits us directly.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 12:30 pm

vision wrote:Are you really that lazy and unimaginative to do nothing but sit on your ass every day?

I know people who fit that description to a TEE.

And having your basic needs met does not necessarily mean you will have the resources to do those hobbies and other enriching things.

And be careful vision, you are entering a concept where a lot of people are flipping out over because people are working for themselves without all of the support that working for a company provides.

Self employed people are reaching an all time high, and ironically it's the left that is the most concerned.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 1:09 pm

Spidey wrote:
vision wrote:Are you really that lazy and unimaginative to do nothing but sit on your ass every day?
I know people who fit that description to a TEE.

We all do. Are you that person? How many of your loved ones are? It still doesn't matter. Our species is extremely efficient. Even if you consider those people "dead weight" we can still support them, easily.

Spidey wrote:And having your basic needs met does not necessarily mean you will have the resources to do those hobbies and other enriching things.

No ★■◆●. But it makes it easier to fulfill your dreams, now doesn't it? That's the point. The more freedom people have to explore and invent, the more society benefits. There are plenty of "average" people with innovative ideas who never get the opportunity to realize them because they don't have the financial freedom, time, or emotional energy to pursue them. Let's change that.

Spidey wrote:And be careful vision, you are entering a concept where a lot of people are flipping out over because people are working for themselves without all of the support that working for a company provides. Self employed people are reaching an all time high, and ironically it's the left that is the most concerned.

What has this got to do with anything? Automation and robotics are poised to wipe out entire industries, whether you are self-employed in that industry or not. I don't know what you mean by "the left is most concerned" unless you mean "the left is the only side paying attention."

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 1:15 pm

Spidey wrote:Self employed people are reaching an all time high, and ironically it's the left that is the most concerned.

concerned about what? At least 3/4 of all the self-employed people I know are either left-leaning or outright activist in nature. I think you're projecting from a narrow view of what self-employment entails. I cannot understand why the 'left' would be at all concerned over self-employment as that is going to be a component of any viable 21st century economy.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 1:37 pm

Well, maybe you should get some of your news from investigative sources, rather than MSN click bait.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 5:42 pm

Spidey wrote:Well, maybe you should get some of your news from investigative sources, rather than MSN click bait.

catchy comeback, saying exactly zero to back up your observation. Care to flesh out your own words?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:03 pm

Well, from what I understand the left is kind of miffed because they spent all of that time and energy making business the caretakers of our society, only to have people going out and becoming self-employed, thus not having the benefit of all of that hard work.

I can't say just how many people feel this way, because the article didn't get into any of that.

Yes I got this from main stream media, and no I’m not giving any links, because I don’t feel like searching the web for something I didn’t get from there in the first place.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:18 pm

Spidey wrote:Well the government has different options here, it can provide people with what they need, or fix the problems that create those needs.

Of course fixing the root problems are way too complex for our government to solve and doing so would not give the power & control that providing stuff gives.

I see it as the obligation to try and do BOTH. Since fixing the root causes is a generation-long process, and requires constant progress which is hard to get out of our system, something must be done for those in need in the short term. Not a matter of power or control, it just acknowledges what is in the best interests of society as a whole.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:22 pm

Spidey wrote:Well, from what I understand the left is kind of miffed because they spent all of that time and energy making business the caretakers of our society, only to have people going out and becoming self-employed, thus not having the benefit of all of that hard work.

how does the left, the anti-corporate faction fighting tooth and nail over excessive business influence(especially financial business) translate into being the group making business the caretakers(if indeed anyone has done so at all). Left leaners are big on small, local(preferably, organic, gluten-free and not harming any animals or using genetic modification)businesses and micro-economics. Maybe you need to re-acquaint yourself with the general tendencies of Progressive thought before guessing.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 6:29 am

vision wrote:
woodchip wrote:Why work when the govt. will give it to you.
Are you really that lazy and unimaginative to do nothing but sit on your ass every day? Having basic needs covered allows ambitious, creative, generous people the freedom to do great things. Sure there will always be people who have no desire to contribute to society, but that attitude is the exception, not the rule. There are a lot of really bright, hard-working people out there who never get a chance to shine because they are bogged down by our current greed-infested system. Who will pay for it? All of us, when the work we do stops going toward making other people rich and benefits us directly.

I suggest you go into the inner cities and then tell me how many of those on welfare are contributing to the betterment of society. And no, I'm not that lazy as I've run my own const. business for the last 40 years. You on the other hand evidently see's some appeal to that sort of model so I wonder if you don't have a streak of lazy in you.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 6:31 am

callmeslick wrote:
Spidey wrote:Well, from what I understand the left is kind of miffed because they spent all of that time and energy making business the caretakers of our society, only to have people going out and becoming self-employed, thus not having the benefit of all of that hard work.
how does the left, the anti-corporate faction fighting tooth and nail over excessive business influence(especially financial business) translate into being the group making business the caretakers(if indeed anyone has done so at all). Left leaners are big on small, local(preferably, organic, gluten-free and not harming any animals or using genetic modification)businesses and micro-economics. Maybe you need to re-acquaint yourself with the general tendencies of Progressive thought before guessing.

I think you need to become acquainted with conservative thought if you think liberal progressives have a lock on your aforementioned items .

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 6:52 am

woody, I don't think any faction has an absolute lock on those ideas, merely that the left is hardly anti-small business. They just get painted thusly for political purposes.
Also, the myth that vast numbers of people are out there receiving benefits because they are too lazy to contribute is just that, a myth. Most of the beneficiaries are employed, most are white, many are rural. In my experience around food pantries and other efforts of outreach to the poor communities that I've done, the vast majority of the folks receiving benefits are well-intentiioned, contribute and would like to contribute more.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 7:12 am

callmeslick wrote:
Spidey wrote:Well, from what I understand the left is kind of miffed because they spent all of that time and energy making business the caretakers of our society, only to have people going out and becoming self-employed, thus not having the benefit of all of that hard work.
how does the left, the anti-corporate faction fighting tooth and nail over excessive business influence(especially financial business) translate into being the group making business the caretakers(if indeed anyone has done so at all). Left leaners are big on small, local(preferably, organic, gluten-free and not harming any animals or using genetic modification)businesses and micro-economics. Maybe you need to re-acquaint yourself with the general tendencies of Progressive thought before guessing.

Guessing…gluten…lol.

No, I told you I was watching a “news story”, you are the one making the ad hoc argument, this has nothing to do with corporations, large vs. small business…or gluten. It's about the "self employed". (as I stated)

The story was about people deciding to work without things like…

Paid holidays
Paid vacations
Unemployment insurance
Retirement plans
Workman’s comp.
Paid breaks
Etc…

And those who are concerned about it. Geeze man, try not to knee jerk so much.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 11:40 am

Spidey wrote:True, so fix the market, your solution seems a little like taking a bazooka to hunt squirrels.

How do you fix a market with such perverse incentives? Is it any wonder that prices will continue to rise when the market power people have, pooling ourselves, largely only benefits insurance companies? We will pay what we have to pay, until we can't pay anymore. Talk about wealth redistribution!

I say cut out the leech that sits between the consumer and market bargaining power.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:21 pm

Profit is not a perverse incentive, all of our basic needs are met in a for profit system.

You have your finger on the correct player in the game in regards to where the problem lies, but you misidentify that problem as insurance company profits, where in fact insurance company profits are not the real culprit.

You’re close…the actual problem is in fact the disconnect between the consumer and the provider that distorts the market.

But replacing the leech with another player in the same position, even if that player has no profit motive still causes the same market distortion. That being the providers can charge some large faceless entity be it an insurance company or a government, for all they can get, with no regard to the actual market value of their product.

I will ask you one question Vander…and I have asked you and others this question before, and each time it gets dodged like a fusion pimp.

Looking at the military in this country as an example of all kinds of excesses, please explain how health care would be any different, and how prices would be controlled by an entity with nothing to lose no matter what they spend?

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 5:12 pm

Spidey wrote:Profit is not a perverse incentive, all of our basic needs are met in a for profit system.

Like utilities? When I say perverse incentives, I'm talking about the discrepency between the value of the product to the consumer and the cost to the provider. How much does a knee operation cost a provider in parts and labor versus how much you would pay to not be crippled for the rest of your life. You will pay whatever they charge! How do you have a functioning market with a dynamic like that?

Insurance companies are great for spreading risk, for which they're absolutely entitled a profit. But their place in this market as the arbitor of bargaining power doesn't work to lower prices for the consumer because they are yet another profit taking entity benefiting from the liklihood that we'll pay whatever we have to pay.

Spidey wrote:I will ask you one question Vander…and I have asked you and others this question before, and each time it gets dodged like a fusion pimp.

Looking at the military in this country as an example of all kinds of excesses, please explain how health care would be any different, and how prices would be controlled by an entity with nothing to lose no matter what they spend?

I make no argument that public insurance is without pitfalls. Any such endeavor is susceptible to industry capture, mission creep, and scams and grifts I can't even begin to comprehend. But is there a better way to decouple consumer pooling from profit motive? We already have a fairly successful government health insurance program. It's expensive, but then it also covers those who cost the most!

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:18 pm

Wasn’t thinking utilities per se, more like food, shelter and such, but even the utilities here in Philadelphia have shareholders who make profits.

“How do you have a functioning market with a dynamic like that?”

I think that dynamic only exists because of what I mentioned before…providers are charging large companies, not you directly, I believe if they had to bill people directly they would be forced to charge prices people could afford, or go out of business. Unless another dynamic was in play that interfered with market forces, such as absolute need, and that would be a concern, but providers do want to get paid, so they will have to make some concessions.

“Insurance companies are great for spreading risk, for which they're absolutely entitled a profit. But their place in this market as the arbitor of bargaining power doesn't work to lower prices for the consumer because they are yet another profit taking entity benefiting from the liklihood that we'll pay whatever we have to pay.”

Agreed, but since most people have their insurance thru their work, again the direct connection between provider and customer is broken.

“But is there a better way to decouple consumer pooling from profit motive?”

Again you fall back to “profit bad” and I just can’t answer you in any meaningful way if you believe this is the root of the problem.

And as I have said...you still have the issue of provider profits* to deal with, unless you plan to get rid of those as well, in a single payer system.

* outweigh insurance profits by a wide margin.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:52 pm

Spidey wrote:I think that dynamic only exists because of what I mentioned before…providers are charging large companies, not you directly, I believe if they had to bill people directly they would be forced to charge prices people could afford, or go out of business.

When providers charge people directly, it is usually an order of magnitude more than what they charge an insurance company! I understand it's like that in the currently broken market rather than whatever market you're envisioning, but are you suggesting individuals negotiate their own lower rates for their life saving procedures? Do some hospital shopping when you have a heart attack? Hope you have more than one close by! Maybe put your stroke on layaway.

This is where insurance is a benefit by spreading risk, but any insurance will be a buffer separating you from the cost of a procedure. You aren't paying $50,000 for an operation. You're paying your monthly premium.

Spidey wrote:Again you fall back to “profit bad” and I just can’t answer you in any meaningful way if you believe this is the root of the problem.

And as I have said...you still have the issue of provider profits* to deal with, unless you plan to get rid of those as well, in a single payer system.

* outweigh insurance profits by a wide margin.

I don't say profit is necessarily bad. Insurance is a valid product worthy of profit! I'm suggesting that the only power that we have as consumers against providers is by pooling ourselves to negotiate better rates. Standing together to say "no, we're not going to pay $100,000 for that procedure that costs the provider $10,000. We'll pay $15,000, or you'll get nothing at all." Alone, we have no power. We've abdicated this power to insurance companies, who use it for their benefit.

So yes, it is my hope that a single payer system would use the power this great and singular pool of consumers creates as a better force against absurd provider profits. The elimination of insurance profits would just be a welcome bonus in terms of reducing cost.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Mar 23, 2016 12:02 am

“When providers charge people directly, it is usually an order of magnitude more than what they charge an insurance company! I understand it's like that in the currently broken market rather than whatever market you're envisioning,”

Yes, in this environment where the industry is so fubar that they don’t even need the uninsured business.

“but are you suggesting individuals negotiate their own lower rates for their life saving procedures?”

No, actually I believe there should be industry standard pricing.

Dude, I understand the theory behind single payer, but I simply don't trust this government to actually make it work correctly. And yes, even if the government completely screws up implementation, at least one problem will be solved...I just think there are some other ways to solve the problems, that nobody is even willing to consider because everyone is enamored with single payer.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Mar 23, 2016 5:38 am

Spidey wrote:Profit is not a perverse incentive, all of our basic needs are met in a for profit system.

seriously? Just wait until water gets into short supply. As it is, profit is a motive to gouge the average citizen because of the basic nature of the need.

Looking at the military in this country as an example of all kinds of excesses, please explain how health care would be any different, and how prices would be controlled by an entity with nothing to lose no matter what they spend?

sure, it requires vigilance and oversight, but it can be done. The rest of the world manages.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Mar 23, 2016 7:16 am

There is absolutely no evidence that the government is going to change its ways any time soon.

“But this time it’ll be different…I promise.”

...........

Speaking of supply and demand, insufficient supply is one of the price drivers in the healthcare industry, please explain how single payer addresses that issue. Hell while you are at it please explain where the ACA addresses that issue.