My Totally Awesome Healthcare Reform Plan by SergeantX

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

My Totally Awesome Healthcare Reform Plan

POSTED BY: SERGEANTX
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 13:06
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 8748
PAGE 2 of 2

Sunday, August 9, 2009 8:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Profit isn't robbery, Signy. Thank God.

It's not illegal. That doesn't mean it's not robbery. Say you own a shovel. You dig a garden and grow some fine vegetables which belong to you. Great.
Now, let's say you DON'T own a shovel. A guy gives you a shovel, and in return HE gets to keep everything you grew, and you get to negotiate with him how much you get back. Sound fair?
I thought not.

Quote:
Copyrights and Patents are valuable to me. I hope that someday I will write something worthy of sale, and that no one will copy that something and sell it as their own, depriving me of income.

Yah. You'll patent "something, some day". Sure. And it won't be jerked out of your hands by a corporation. Right.

Quote:
Interest Rates are mutually agreed upon terms for borrowing money. If only one party agrees to the deal, nothing happens. So, no robbery.

How about them credit cards, huh? Able to change interest rates retroactively w/o prior notice or agreement?

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

Sunday, August 9, 2009 9:39 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
S-X - I believe you may be misreading Congress just a tad (or I could be), in that "mandated" means more like: if there is a public option and you don't opt out of it for something pricier, you need to at least ENROLL, not that congress will be knocking on your door with their hands out.

My understanding is that the individual mandate has nothing to do with the public option. It's a concession to insurance industry demands. Obama is offering us up to them in trade for "universal coverage". They basically said, "OK, we'll cover everyone, no questions asked, if you force the stragglers to play our game."

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

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

Sunday, August 9, 2009 9:54 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Profit isn't robbery, Signy. Thank God.
It's not illegal. That doesn't mean it's not robbery.

The idea that non-laboring owners or investors contribute nothing and merely leech of the backs of labor is the central premise of socialism. The fact that pretty much everything else in socialism is built on this assumption is what keeps me from taking it seriously.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

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

Sunday, August 9, 2009 10:05 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Signy,

Say I don't own a shovel, and some guy is willing to let me use his, based on mutually agreed upon terms. Are you suggesting that people can't enter into mutually agreeable contracts? Or are you suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to own shovels, and do with them as they please?

And please don't behave condescendingly towards the idea that I will publish a work one day. It's been my lifelong ambition, and one I intend to fulfill. If I self publish, I expect to keep the fruits of my labors. If I publish with the help of a publisher, then I expect they will see a significant percentage of profit from the exchange.

Where is the robbery?

Ah, Credit Cards. I think they have deceptive practices. But this isn't rich people we're talking about. It's fake people.

Do you have a problem with fake people? I have problems with fake people, too, sometimes.

--Anthony

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

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

Sunday, August 9, 2009 11:52 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

SARGE- The quintessential owner is the stock owner, which neither manages, works, nor sells. ie. Non-laboring owners or investors contribute nothing.

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

Sunday, August 9, 2009 11:58 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
SARGE- The quintessential owner is the stock owner, which neither manages, works, nor sells. ie. Non-laboring owners or investors contribute nothing.

I know that's your belief, but it's demonstrably false. I see no reason to repeat the argument, since we've gone around that bush before. I'm just pointing out that when you start with a premise the other person disagrees with, the rest of the argument is moot.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

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

Sunday, August 9, 2009 4:40 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Signy,

If you want to start a bakery, and I put in the money to buy the building, the tools, and the ingredients, I am a non-laboring investor.

But I sure contributed a hell of a lot.

--Anthony

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

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

Sunday, August 9, 2009 9:05 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

The public 'option' is only truly an option if you can opt out of it.

I suspect that people who wish to keep private health insurance will essentially be paying for health insurance twice: Once via taxes, and then again with what's left after taxes.

That is not, to my mind, a very good option.

--Anthony

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

There are solutions to that, which can be implemented via taxation. Here you get hit with a medicare 'surcharge' on your taxation, if you are in high earning bracket, which disappears if you take out private health insurance. In effect, the wealthy are encouraged to go private.

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

Monday, August 10, 2009 1:53 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

The public 'option' is only truly an option if you can opt out of it.

I suspect that people who wish to keep private health insurance will essentially be paying for health insurance twice: Once via taxes, and then again with what's left after taxes.

That is not, to my mind, a very good option.

--Anthony

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

Something else that comes to mind, Anthony...

Since I *DO* have private insurance coverage, shouldn't I be able to "opt out" of paying taxes that cover other people for things like Medicare, Medicaid, and Workers' Compensation insurance?

I mean, am I not being pickpocketed already, and paying for the insurance of several people?

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

Monday, August 10, 2009 2:03 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I mean, am I not being pickpocketed already, and paying for the insurance of several people?

That's a good point. So, I was thinking, could you send me some cash? Nothing extravagant. $500 a month would go along way. I mean, you're being pickpocketed already, right? At least I'm asking politely.

Thanks.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

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

Monday, August 10, 2009 4:42 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
it's demonstrably false

Please repeat your point(s) because I have no recollection of anything that negated my opinion.

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

Monday, August 10, 2009 5:17 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
it's demonstrably false
Please repeat your point(s) because I have no recollection of anything that negated my opinion.

In any economy the most fundamental decisions to be made are "what do we do"? In a capitalist economy, where the means of production are privately held, that decision is made, in aggregate, but "non-laboring" owners and investors. The more you own, the more you are entrusted to make these decisions.

So, let's say you own a shovel and there are several people who would like to borrow it. You could loan it to a skilled, hard working farmer who will take good care of your shovel, or you can loan it to the town drunk. If you loan it the farmer, he'll grow lots of food. The town drunk, well, who knows? The point is, it's an important decision. Not just for you, but for the whole town. And, given that most decisions will be more subtle than deciding between a good farmer and a town drunk, the decision is often a difficult one, requiring considerable diligence to get it right.

In a socialist economy, the same decisions need to be made. If the state owns the shovel, there's still the issue of who should use it. You could have an appointed bureaucrat make the call, or an elected board, or decide through direct democracy, but the decision still needs to be made. And it's still just as important.

The point is, investors in a capitalist economy aren't contributing nothing. They're making these decisions with every investment. If they decide well, and their capital is used for services and products that people want and need, they are rewarded with profit. If they decide poorly, they lose their ass. In the strictest sense they are laboring. Ask any serious investor how much time they spend looking over forecasts and monitoring the news. It's not an easy game. It's certainly not "nothing".

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

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

Monday, August 10, 2009 7:08 AM

UNABASHEDVIXEN

AnthonyT said:

Quote:
Charity at gunpoint isn't charity at all. It's bloody robbery. Even as a child, I was able to grasp the concept that while Robin Hood was fun to watch on television and in movies, robbing the rich was still a crime, no matter how 'comfy' they were.

Taxes aren't charity. They are the price you pay for living in society. Go live in a cabin in the woods if you don't want to contribute. But you choose to live among others, which means what you do affects them, and what they do affects you.

Taxes are a mutually agreed upon arrangement - no one is forcing you to be a citizen of the United States. But by being one, you implicitly agree to pay. It's not theft, for you or for the wealthy.

Did you enjoy your public education? How about those roads you drive on, or that water you drink, or any other of the hundreds of services we pay taxes for? Health care is one more, and since I sense an appeal to a greater humanitarian sense isn't going to work (and that's not a criticism, honestly - I get that some people need a concrete benefit to themselves and society), consider this: healthy people are happier, more productive, and contribute more, in monetary terms and in other ways, than sick people. And preventative health care (ie having access to health care in non-urgent times) costs far less than urgent health care.

Without universal health care, there's no way I would have the job I have - I think I mentioned I work for a Member of Parliament. It's a demanding job, and without regular access to health professionals I would not be able to handle my job and my depression. I would most likely either be working part-time or at a much lower paying, more entry level type job. Or, I'd be on permanent medical leave. How is that better for society? By making what I make (about $50 000 Canadian) I'm in a higher tax bracket - at a minimum wage job I'd pay minimal taxes. Our health care system allows me to make more, and pay more. Maybe I'm paying for my medical care myself, through my taxes, I'm not sure.

Rue said:

Quote:
I can't help but think that when you hear something about public health care you reflexively think Cuba. Perhaps you should visit Canada and get to know some Canadians\Canadiens to get a better perspective. Eh?

Come on up! I'll show you around! I'm only a few hours from the New York state border!

*
People before profits

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

Monday, August 10, 2009 7:22 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
They're making these decisions with every investment. If they decide well, and their capital is used for services and products that people want and need, they are rewarded with profit. If they decide poorly, they lose their ass.

I wish.

Wouldn't it be lovely if that were the case? Problem is, as we've seen time and time again, if they decide poorly, they are paid handsomely for it, they are bailed out with taxpayer money, and they are encouraged to go forth and decide poorly again and again.

If they truly lost their ass, they'd be gone, and we wouldn't have to deal with them anymore. As it stands, we get the "privilege" of giving the richest 0.5% of Americans the largest bailouts in history, in order to "punish" them for losing more money than anyone in history.

Mike

Sweeping generalizations are always wrong!

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

Monday, August 10, 2009 9:26 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
I wish.

Me too

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

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

Tuesday, August 11, 2009 6:17 AM

UNABASHEDVIXEN

I thought y'all would enjoy this:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/how-socialized-health-care-works-in-canada/

*
People before profits

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

Tuesday, August 11, 2009 8:44 AM

RUE

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

"Come on up! I'll show you around! I'm only a few hours from the New York state border!"

Is it Toronto ? That's my all-time favorite city. I hail from western New York State and all together have probably spent a year near Toronto.

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

Silence is consent.

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

Tuesday, August 11, 2009 9:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sorry for the delay. And if this discussion goes offtrack for too long, I'll start another thread. I'll try to address the utility, necessity, and pitfalls of capitalism in one (hopefully short) post.

First, the assumption that one "needs" to sell equities for flexible investment capital is not true. Capital also comes in the form of loans or bonds. You don't need "capitalism" (equity sales) to raise capital. The notion that w/o equity sales we are doomed to a monolithic, dinosaur-like government investment bureaucracy is just that- a notion. Sheer propaganda.

The downside to equity sales is that shares between companies are interchangeable on the market. Since shareholders are interestd in primarily making money from money, if quarterly earnings fall, shareholders will dump those stocks in favor of others. There is no long-term investment in the health of a company or its ...

oops, more later

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

Tuesday, August 11, 2009 10:33 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sorry for the delay. And if this discussion goes offtrack for too long, I'll start another thread. I'll try to address the utility, necessity, and pitfalls of capitalism in one (hopefully short) post.

That sounds like an interesting discussion, but how about the statement I was contesting?

Quote:
Non-laboring owners or investors contribute nothing.

Capital allocation isn't nothing. It's an important function in a complex economy. Sure, there are other ways to do it, maybe even better ways to do it, but in capitalism, that's what owners and investors do.

The idea that profit is robbery makes for provocative slogans, but it's not true.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

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

Tuesday, August 11, 2009 10:41 AM

RUE

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

"The idea that profit is robbery makes for provocative slogans, but it's not true."

Then maybe it's cheating people ? Since you are not paying them the full value of what they do ? (which is, by definition, profit)

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

Silence is consent.

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

Tuesday, August 11, 2009 11:19 AM

UNABASHEDVIXEN

No, Ottawa actually. Toronto is also very close to the border, but further south.

Torontonians love Toronto too. The rest of Canada, not so much

I'm originally from northern British Columbia, a province everyone should visit at least once - you have no idea how beautiful it is.

*
People before profits

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

Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:06 PM

RUE

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

AH! I worked with a man (recently retired) from Ottawa.

Toronto has most of the major bank and corporate headquarters. It could be seen as a collection of sucking sponges getting the best and most from everywhere else.

At least, that's what I've heard. What's the real deal then ?

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

Silence is consent.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE