TEA party protesters and what we really want. by SignyM

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

TEA party protesters and what we really want.

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 14:59
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5148
PAGE 3 of 3

Friday, April 24, 2009 3:27 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SS and Medicare reimbursement for the health industry is highly regulated (DRG's). The health industry, not so much. The health INSURANCE industry - not at all.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 3:31 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

KIRK- That wasn't mean to be a snide question.

But medical schools are regulated by the AMA, which a private organization of doctors. Medical licensing, through the "State Boards" is NOT actually regulated by "the state" but by Federation of State Medical Boards, which is a private, non-profit organization. A doctor who loses his license does so because of a Medical Board.
www.fsmb.org

Nursing and other medical licenses are similarly regulated by their own professional Boards, not "the state" or the Feds. Hospitals, labs, and other medical programs are not accredited by the Feds or the states, but by the Joint Commissions, which is a private, independent non-profit organization.
www.jointcommission.org/AboutUs/

Health insurances ARE regulated by individual states, but only to respond to allegations of fraud or contractual abuse (and they tend to be piss-poor about it.) Medicare DOES put limits on procedural costs, but that's not the area where cost is going up.

All togther, this seems very much like an industry that is regulated by itself. So I'm not seeing where all of this government regulation comes in, but if you have infor that I don't, I'm always happy to learn.

---------------------------------
They pit us like dogs against each other and rake it in. And I'll bet they laugh when they hear dupes like you defend the system that fucks you over and rewards them so nicely! But the one thing they'll stamp out in horror as if it were the spark of conflagration is any whiff of socialism. That should tell you something.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 4:04 PM

RIPWASH

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Rip - YOU are the one with a point to make. It is up to YOU to illustrate your point to show it is a good one.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Passed over this at some point for some reason . . .

I was merely pointing out the flaws I saw in Sigy's line of thinking and thought my arguement was illustrated adequately, but perhaps not. If you have questions about my points, please ask for clarification and I'll do my best to explain what I meant.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 4:23 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Frem,

In regards to word processors...

I like Microsoft Word. It's much better than Wordstar on my old Apple II+.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 4:30 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Rip

I hope we are OK. I sometimes have a short temper.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 25, 2009 3:10 AM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
The health industry is highly regulated by Government
How?

---------------------------------

You are correct that the States are primarily responsible for regulation of insurance companies, but it wasn't until the 1970's when the Federal Government got involved in regulating insurance and health care that costs started to get out of control. In the 70's even crappy jobs offered low cost health insurance and it wasn't a huge burden on employers. All of the Federal regulations do seem to be good intentioned, but the unintended consequences of them have caused heath care costs to explode. One example would be when they established minimum standards for company run health plans. Requiring one size fits all coverage means more access to unnecessary treatment for the masses. The massive expansion of Medicare benefits at a time when our population is ageing is another example of Federal Government manipulation of the Health Care system. I agree with you that private insurance has become a problem but they are the only ones around who's best interests are served by holding down health care costs, everyone else but the consumer benefits as cost go up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 25, 2009 6:09 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Anthony ?

To each their own, I hate the goddamn thing - like any other microshit product, I spend more time fighting it and it's do-it-my-way-or-else attitude than I do getting anything done, and the last PC someone installed Vista on went out the window while I was trying to research Gerstmanns...

I DID dig out the Underwood Five and burnt the midnight oil, complete with pencil behind ear to make corrections with and handed the rough draft off to alice (who called me a luddite and a dinosaur, among other things) to scan and proofread, so we'll see how that goes.

And just so the post isn't completely off-topic...

Maybe it'd be better to say I wouldn't mind Government being a check against corporate abuses instead of being an enabler - as I have pointed out time and time again, they have a solid history of being exactly that.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 25, 2009 6:54 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Anyway, Sarge, part of my answer to your statement is in my previous post.

There is nothing "voluntary" about capitalism. You think that just because you're free to roam your prison cell that you're free.

Compared to what? Certainly nothing you've proposed sounds like freedom to me. Anarchy'd be a step up, but I'm pretty sure you aren't pitching for that.

My guess is you're defining capitalism a bit differently than I do, thus including corporatism and some other things you don't like. When I say capitalism, I'm talking about a minimal structure of law protecting property rights and that's about it.

Perhaps you see not being able to steal from other people as a limitation of freedom, and I guess in the strictest sense it is, but it's one I can live with. Especially if the alternative is to serve myself up as a "subject" of the state.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 25, 2009 7:13 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
They pit us like dogs against each other and rake it in. And I'll bet they laugh when they hear dupes like you defend the system that fucks you over and rewards them so nicely! But the one thing they'll stamp out in horror as if it were the spark of conflagration is any whiff of socialism. That should tell you something.

This is interesting. It seems to really get at the core of your viewpoint and I think I see why we disagree so often. The thing is, I'm not defending the system that keeps these fuckers in power. I'm very much against it. But I think you've mis-identified what that system is. It sure isn't free market capitalism.

Did you read any of the links on corporatism that I posted a while back? Because that's what you're really against. And so am I. In a real free market, these jerks would go down in flames. But, just as so many should be going down right now and aren't, they use government intervention as their principle tool to preserve their wealth and power.

Watch closely. The players behind the CEO's, the tidy corners where the real wealth and power pile up, aren't afraid of what the Republicans call socialism. They love it. Every little bit of it increases their power. Every time laws are passed that treat "workers" as naive children that must be coddled and protected from the big bad, it further secures their power. It further promotes the assumptions that keep people thinking in terms of "employment".

You mentioned that people fail to question unemployment. What strikes me as even more ubiquitous is that they don't challenge the notion of "employment". To the average person, making money and earning a living is firmly embedded with the idea of having a "job". Of serving themselves up to a de-facto slave owner. But you don't challenge that notion at all. You merely want to replace the slave owner with "government".

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:16 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
it wasn't until the 1970's when the Federal Government got involved in regulating insurance and health care that costs started to get out of control.

Can you point to the regulations that were adopted at the time, and show how they caused prices to skyrocket? This sounds like an oft-repeated story, but one that may not have any real truth behind it.

---------------------------------
They pit us like dogs against each other and rake it in. And I'll bet they laugh when they hear dupes like you defend the system that fucks you over and rewards them so nicely! But the one thing they'll stamp out in horror as if it were the spark of conflagration is any whiff of socialism. That should tell you something.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:35 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I guess where we differ Sarge is that IMHO "freemarket capitalism" is a fantasy... a fantasy designed by the current beneficiaries to obscure reality. IF such a thing were ever to exist it would quickly evolve to corporatism and/ or monopolism. That's part and parcel of my observation which leads me to conclude that money and power concentrate over time, that its a near-universal trend. I see it happening everywhen from ancient Sumeria thru pharaohnic and Chinese dynasties, Roman and Greek empires, the Roman Church, the rise of kings, modern-day empires, the merchant princes, corporations, the Aztecs, and so forth. The ending of THAT arc is either destruction from external forces or revolution. I really haven't seen many exceptions- have you? (The only possible exceptions that I know of are the cities of the Indus and the Aegean cultures.)

Anyway, that's why I don't talk much about what YOU think of as capitalism: it's not what we're facing, and its IMHO an unstable system which would quickly deteriorate even if it were created.

---------------------------------
They pit us like dogs against each other and rake it in. And I'll bet they laugh when they hear dupes like you defend the system that fucks you over and rewards them so nicely! But the one thing they'll stamp out in horror as if it were the spark of conflagration is any whiff of socialism. That should tell you something.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:44 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

But yanno what Sarge? Why don't we just agree that BOTH of us think corporatism should disappear? We can worry about "free market" capitalism later.

---------------------------------
They pit us like dogs against each other and rake it in. And I'll bet they laugh when they hear dupes like you defend the system that fucks you over and rewards them so nicely! But the one thing they'll stamp out in horror as if it were the spark of conflagration is any whiff of socialism. That should tell you something.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 25, 2009 4:28 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But yanno what Sarge? Why don't we just agree that BOTH of us think corporatism should disappear? We can worry about "free market" capitalism later.

'Cause the next question is, "How do we get rid of it?", and from my point of view the solutions most are recommending merely feed the monster. The notion that government can "manage" an economy without corrupt concentrations of power and wealth is far more a fantasy than laissez-faire.

Ultimately, I don't think any systemic changes will do the trick in-and-of themselves. What's called for is a real change in awareness in the population. Until they realize that they don't have to live as brainwashed consumer drones, they'll keep lining up for their regular fleecing. They'll sleepwalk through life, happy to be provided with "job", and serve the purposes of those in power - whether those in power are robber barons or bloated bureaucrats.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 25, 2009 4:47 PM

SERGEANTX

I'd also hope you'd address a point that I frequently make, but you seldom respond to. And that's the fact that corporations exist because of government and not despite it. They enjoy specific advantages and legal protections over other forms of private enterprise. And, ever increasingly, they use government to enhance their privileged positions.

They manipulate regulation to limit competition, they lobby for special favors in the form of tax breaks and pork barrel treats, and when push comes to shove they demand bailouts to preserve their ubiquitous power. The "stock and trade" of modern corporatism is broad and powerful government control. In such a context, how does expanding the scope of government make any sense at all?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 26, 2009 7:31 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sarge, I think my answer is yes, but... Yes the corporate form is enshrined in law, BUT I think something like it would exist even if government didn't, and possibly even in more virulent forms (all you have to do is look at the Yakuza and the Mafia to realize that corporate forms exist even when prohibited).

Just thinking out loud here, and in no particular order of importance... There are several fundamental underlying factors I perceive at work.

One is the basic concept of non-entropic forces: gravity, for instance- which engenders within itself a positive feedback loop: more begets more. The more mass the more gravity, the more gravity the more mass is attracted to more gravity... We're so used to "entropy" being the only arc ... water runs downhill... gases diffuse... energy disperses... that it is counterintuitive that SOME things don't behave that way. So people tend to assume that money and power diffuse, when in reality they naturally coalesce and concentrate, like gravity.

The other is the conversion of "not us" to "us", materially and energetically. Advancing technology is able to access more energy, or with greater efficiency, and will eventually out-compete more primitive forms: For example I think the reason WHY agriculture eventually overtook gathering-hunting was not that the supply of food was more stable and of better quality... paleo- archeology CONSISTENTLY shows that primitive farmers underwent longer-term privation and malnutrition than wanderers... but that farming allowed people to accumulate the kinds of "STUFF that wanderers would have to leave behind: the loom, the potting wheel etc. ie primitive technology which made hand-work more efficient. Then, as Rue pointed out, the NEXT leap in technology was to be able to harness energy OTHER THAN HUMAN energy: animals. And the next leap after that was being able to harness energy beyond animals: water-power like the mill and power-loom, coal, oil etc.

When you have a system with "free energy" you will develop an economic ecology full of niches and levels. Even computer-simulated evolutions will develop a system of producers (bit-gatherers), parasites, predators, and symbiotes (in that order, I think).

And then, or course, none of this would be possible if humans weren't social creatures capable of transmitting abstract ideas.

I think the overall arc is towards the most "viral" system, and this is counterposed by environmental factors (which reward durabiliity). But in that light, humans are nothing more than the "genes" of a larger system.

All of these thoughts are jumbled together, I haven't synthesized them yet. But ultimately I think we need to understand our economic and social and environmental dynamics and take control of them or they will take control of us, catastrophically.

---------------------------------
They pit us like dogs against each other and rake it in. And I'll bet they laugh when they hear dupes like you defend the system that fucks you over and rewards them so nicely! But the one thing they'll stamp out in horror as if it were the spark of conflagration is any whiff of socialism. That should tell you something.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 27, 2009 4:38 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sarge, what say you?

My point, if I had to sum it all up, is that its simply not sufficient to tear down the tower and scatter power because it will re-collect, sooner rather than later. As counterintuitive and possibly self-contradictory as this may sound, one must replace the current system with ANOTHER system which not only meets the needs of the people for a reasonably tolerable life (or you will invoke revolution) but also actively and assertively REDISTRIBUTES power back to the individual.

---------------------------------
They pit us like dogs against each other and rake it in. And I'll bet they laugh when they hear dupes like you defend the system that fucks you over and rewards them so nicely! But the one thing they'll stamp out in horror as if it were the spark of conflagration is any whiff of socialism. That should tell you something.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 27, 2009 5:00 AM

BYTEMITE

I agree, to an extent... I'm hopeful that whatever happens to finally get the mainstream thinking about another system will also serve as a vehicle for removing the aristocracy and leveling everything again.

It pretty much will have to happen that way, really, because a system that retakes wealth is just going to end up with a new wealthy class. And the new poor will have to overthrow them, and the two classes will just keep reversing roles, and you then have a dialectic going. :(

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 27, 2009 6:46 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Exactly

---------------------------------
They pit us like dogs against each other and rake it in. And I'll bet they laugh when they hear dupes like you defend the system that fucks you over and rewards them so nicely! But the one thing they'll stamp out in horror as if it were the spark of conflagration is any whiff of socialism. That should tell you something.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 2:59 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

SO, why don't we start with THIS....

Quote:
Anti-union business leaders...{ha}ve been spending furiously on anti-reform ads and lobbying. And now the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is threatening a “firestorm bordering on Armageddon” if Democrats in Congress try to get {labor law} reform onto President Obama’s desk. ... This drumbeat won’t be letting up anytime soon. Corporate interests have even named their anti-reform front group the “Alliance To Save Main Street Jobs.”

... Job killers really are stalking America today. ... Over the last quarter-century, these real-life job killers — the power suits who run Wall Street and Corporate America — have essentially turned job killing into standard business operating procedure. In effect, they’ve been on a job-killing spree. Their motive: keep CEO pockets stuffed. Their M.O.: merge and purge.

So, we have unemployment because... it suits the suits.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE