Quote :

"So you think ~20k is reasonable for a fairly routine 3-day stay in a hospital? You don't think this man at least has a right to understand why he was charged so much?"

It's clearly not reasonable, but that's the going rate. Without insurance, a trip to the emergency room can be 1500-5000 dollars. If you're staying over night, you're looking in the 10,000+ dollar range.

You need to be asking, "why are these prices so high?" Your knee jerk answer is likely to be, "Ummm, uhhhh....because...profit! Health care shouldn't be for profit!" And, yet, we can see many many other similar services that are completely for profit and prices are relatively stable. Clearly, there is something else at play here, and until you come to terms with the fact that government policies play a major role in driving up prices, your input in this discussion is worthless.

2/15/2012 11:13:50 AM

^^LOL. Private my ass. It is the govt that has to ok your charges hoss. You arent allow to bill the govt one price and someone else another. That is medicare FRAUD. Scary, you dont want to be called that now. (Although recently they did allow you to give a discount to cash payers, but you have to code it that way.)

"Hospital prices are overseen by federal regulators, who allow the charges as standard"

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 11:15 AM. Reason : .]

2/15/2012 11:15:27 AM

Quote :

"Actually no. This whole time we've been talking about how much a business charged a customer in a private transaction"

Do you see you are talking out of both ends? I want the govt to control healthcare so they dont rip people off. This hospital is ripping people off (despite being told what it can bill by the govt, and COUNTLESS other things it HAS to do as mandated by GOVT) it is a private business now.

Dude you have gotten your wish, the govt is firmly in control of what you call a "private transaction". Just look at the facts, you dont have to take my word for it.

2/15/2012 11:21:36 AM

Quote :

" And, yet, we can see many many other similar services that are completely for profit and prices are relatively stable. Clearly, there is something else at play here, and until you come to terms with the fact that government policies play a major role in driving up prices, your input in this discussion is worthless."

Ok, please tell us what are these private services like an emergency room?

2/15/2012 11:23:20 AM

^^^^ I totally understand why you believe costs are high. I also think you are incredibly wrong. My position is not based on the fact that I don't understand what you're talking about.

But you're equating healthcare to other industries. It's not the same. There are basic, fundamental differences that exist in healthcare that do not exist in other industries. These differences will exist whether the government is involved or not and they will create a fixed market in favor of the hospitals. It doesn't matter if government is involved or not, hospitals will still have the ability to charge whatever they want after the fact. So why should we not review where the money goes and simply take them at their word?

^^^ So what you're basically saying in this case is that the judicial branch is reviewing policies put in place by the legislative and executive branches? Hmm. It will be interesting to see to what degree you are wrong when this case gets resolved.

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 11:29 AM. Reason : ]

2/15/2012 11:25:33 AM

Quote :

"There are basic, fundamental differences that exist in healthcare that do not exist in other industries"

this is wrong and people thinking this is true is why its such a mess

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 11:30 AM. Reason : a]

2/15/2012 11:30:25 AM

Quote :

"I totally understand why you believe costs are high. I also think you are incredibly wrong. My position is not based on the fact that I don't understand what you're talking about. "

You clearly don't understand. I want to know why you believe costs are high.

Quote :

"But you're equating healthcare to other industries. It's not the same. There are basic, fundamental differences that exist in healthcare that do not exist in other industries."

Okay, and what are those basic fundamental differences that cause prices to go up 10-15% a year?

Quote :

"Ok, please tell us what are these private services like an emergency room?"

The emergency room is one unique service. Asking that question is like asking "what private services are like a car mechanic"? "What private businesses are like a grocery store?"

2/15/2012 11:42:44 AM

Quote :

"Ok, please tell us what are these private services like an emergency room?"

Well, for an essential item that one would die without, try food. Despite the fact that one is at the mercy of food providers to live, I don't see massive price gouging going on with food.

Quote :

"this is wrong and people thinking this is true is why its such a mess"

This isn't quite true. There is one aspect of health care that is fairly unique, and that is true emergent care, where one does not necessarily have the time or option to choose their health care provider. Of course, insurance in various forms can easily and reasonably cover this. Our problems with health care have to do with insurance being used to cover everything from emergency care to stubbed toes.

2/15/2012 11:43:12 AM

Quote :

"Okay, and what are those basic fundamental differences that cause prices to go up 10-15% a year?"

better lobbyists

2/15/2012 11:45:14 AM

Quote :

"There is no utopia mrfrog. You cannot provide the best of everything, to everyone and it be free to all."

This has nothing to do with what I said. You invoke the distraction again when you say:

Quote :

"In your movie theater example, are you suggesting that the individual pay for the services they use?"

My point was that in the movie theater:
- you agree to pay
- you agree to pay a certain amount

At least one of these is untrue for most visits to a hospital and both are untrue for some types of care.

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 11:55 AM. Reason : ]

2/15/2012 11:55:08 AM

If someone is about to perform a life saving surgery on me, I'll agree to a one billion dollar hospital bill. Then I'll just not pay the bill.

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 11:59 AM. Reason : ]

2/15/2012 11:59:38 AM

Quote :

"Well, for an essential item that one would die without, try food. Despite the fact that one is at the mercy of food providers to live, I don't see massive price gouging going on with food. "

Why do you think there is not price gauging on food?

Because competition, supply and demand dictate the prices of Food. Food is not federally controlled in a manner that affects its basic free market pricing, unlike healthcare..

2/15/2012 12:39:04 PM

Here's the good cop, bad cop scenario as I see it.

C: These are the conservative positions.
1. People might not always get the heath care they want/need
2. People will be accountable for their own costs

P: These are the progressive positions.
1. People should always get health care.
2. If needed (or just always), the costs will be distributed to the whole of society.

My problem with people like eyedrb is not that they argue C2, even though they keep arguing as if it is. My problem is that they argue C2 while at the same time, turning a blind eye to P1. They are then, in effect, arguing the position of C2&P1.

It's the same bull with balancing the budget, which I'll sum up as:

C:
1. cut spending
2. cut taxes

P:
1. increase spending
2. raise taxes

Both the C and P positions are deficit-neutral. But what we actually get in Washington (what we have gotten for the last 30 years) is C2&P1. It's bull and I want to strangle the people who ascribe to the mainstream political narrative for this reason.

Every conservative arguing that they're taking the "tough love" position needs to take a hard look back at themselves. They're complacency toward other realities is what causes things like the disaster of the Bush presidency, and it will cause even more disaster as long as opposition politicians are willing to let them have the "everyone wins" narrative which really just means everyone loses.

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 1:04 PM. Reason : ]

2/15/2012 12:57:42 PM

^^lmao. the gov subsidizes the shit out of corn which has a gigantic effect on both food prices and health, it stops incoming agricultural imports through protectionist tariffs, and it lets monsanto own a monolpoly on seed patents.

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 1:00 PM. Reason : ^^]

2/15/2012 1:00:04 PM

Quote :

"My problem with people like eyedrb is not that they argue C2, even though they keep arguing as if it is. My problem is that they argue C2 while at the same time, turning a blind eye to P1. They are then, in effect, arguing the position of C2&P1."

P2 is entirely indefensible from a moral and logical standpoint. I mean, when you say "people should get health care", I generally agree, but what is the mechanism you're using to deliver that health care? Do people have a right to the labor and services of other people by virtue of the fact that they exist? If so, why? Is that ethical? Following that logic, doesn't every person have right to any doctor's services, and shouldn't they be able to sue the doctor for not providing that service?

2/15/2012 1:05:06 PM

let's just sum things up in this thread.

so what you're saying is the healthcare system will be in the same place as the public school system and the post office is in 4 or 5 years.

gotcha.

2/15/2012 1:12:16 PM

Quote :

"^^lmao. the gov subsidizes the shit out of corn which has a gigantic effect on both food prices and health, it stops incoming agricultural imports through protectionist tariffs, and it lets monsanto own a monolpoly on seed patents."

I agree with you, but my point is that food prices aren't gouged because the market/competition has much more of an influence on it than with healthcare.

I.E. the government does not mandate the prices/costs/distribution of food.

2/15/2012 1:16:17 PM

Quote :

"My point was that in the movie theater: - you agree to pay - you agree to pay a certain amount "

That was how healthcare USED to work.

Now lets say someone, I wont say who to not offend certain people, forces that business to see provide whatever the person wants but require no payment. You dont think that will have ANY effect on the cost of those who actually have to pay? Someone has to in order to keep the doors open.

Emergent care is certainly different from routine care. It is tough to agree to a payment when you are knocked out or the cause of your "chest pain" is not yet known. Some people CHOOSE to purchase insurance to lessen the financial risks associated with these unexpected events. However, someone, I wont say who, continues to dicatate to these PRIVATE groups stuff that HAS to be covered, thus driving up the costs. Can I choose to buy insurance that doesnt cover condoms? Not if someone...gets their way.

As for your good cop/bad cop thing. It is a false statement, as d35 has explained. It is one thing to say people should get healthcare and another to say one should be forced to get healthcare or pay for someone elses. Just look how far we have come from providing basic health needs to "society". Now people have "rights" to viagra, color contacts, braces, and coming soon condoms. If someone approached you in a grocery store and demanded you buy their condoms you would tell them to fuck off. Esp if they started throwing their "right" to your money in your face. No?

And I wasnt comparing healthcare to a movie theater, just making fun of the man who is shocked that meds cost more in a hospital than a private business. Just as popcorn and coke is much cheaper at Sams than a movie theater.

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 1:18 PM. Reason : .]

2/15/2012 1:17:36 PM

Quote :

"P2 is entirely indefensible from a moral and logical standpoint."

I don't care. Morals are ambiguous. Lots of nations do this exact thing. There's no natural law preventing P2 from happening, and plenty of people are completely hunky dory with it. A liberal may just as well make signs that read REDISTRIBUTE MY WEALTH as signs that read PAY FOR MY HEALTH CARE!

Did you forget what the income distribution was between conservative and progressive states? Progressives are, on the whole, more wealthy. Should we look at the capital balances, then they are, as a group, asking to play a redistribution game where they lose.

My problem is that when you don't get what you want because of your morals (oh the humanity), you're content to let people slip into debt slavery. The true conservative position would not let that happen. The true conservative position would let people deliver medical services who aren't accredited by the medical boards that government and crony capitalists pull the puppet strings of. They would allow people to willingly receive medical care while waving a large portion of the medical malpractice protections. That is, receive care without any need for this item on the bill:

Quote :

"-Offset for legal liability risk $7000"

The poor patient never consented to the price for this and may accept care minus this "service". So tell me, why is it sooo bad for the government to pay for peoples service, while at the same time forcing poor people to receive (and pay for) rich people medical service.

2/15/2012 1:20:16 PM

Quote :

"Progressives are, on the whole, more wealthy."

so, if progressives are more wealthy and are so willing to give their shit to the gov't, why does it take a law to make them give their shit away to the gov't? I mean, Warren Buffett is so concerned that he pays less in taxes than his secretary, that he continues to accept and demand a compensation packag that ensures that he pays less in taxes than his secretary.

Quote :

"The true conservative position would not let that happen. The true conservative position would let people deliver medical services who aren't accredited by the medical boards that government and crony capitalists pull the puppet strings of. They would allow people to willingly receive medical care while waving a large portion of the medical malpractice protections."

I don't see any conservatives on here arguing for the gov't controlled shenanigans on healthcare. against whom are you arguing?

2/15/2012 1:24:23 PM

Quote :

"As for your good cop/bad cop thing. It is a false statement, as d35 has explained. It is one thing to say people should get healthcare and another to say one should be forced to get healthcare or pay for someone elses. Just look how far we have come from providing basic health needs to "society". Now people have "rights" to viagra, color contacts, braces, and coming soon condoms."

The individual mandate is a tax on the poor. And you've played directly into, not the conservative position, but the crony-capitalism position. You said yourself that these are two different things:

- to say people should get healthcare
- to say one should be forced to get healthcare or pay for someone elses

The first point is the individual mandate position. I hate you with a burning passion for the fact that your political cult of personality allowed the individual mandate to pass without sufficient balancing measures. You can't have the individual mandate and at the same time take the free market position. You have to man up and admit that for the free-market position, people will have to suffer, exactly like Ron Paul has done in Republican debates.

My position is, and remains, that you throw the country down the shithole by pretending that the two above points are separable. I will keep calling you out on it until you actually address it.

2/15/2012 1:30:42 PM

mrfrog you're already extending him a lot of respect by addressing him as a real, live, fully grown human with an adult intellect

don't expect shit here except wasting your own time

2/15/2012 1:35:58 PM

i'll go ahead and post so you don't have to double post

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 2:01 PM. Reason : see? saved the double post]

2/15/2012 1:36:38 PM

It's amazing how you can only fixate on the broadest, most insignificant aspects of the exchange because the contents are so off-limits to you

And fuck revisiting the foundations, because that'd mean a spark of self-awareness

2/15/2012 1:37:38 PM

Quote :

"I don't care. Morals are ambiguous. Lots of nations do this exact thing. There's no natural law preventing P2 from happening, and plenty of people are completely hunky dory with it."

Whether people are fine with using force has nothing to do with whether the policy is moral or not. I think that using force is wrong.

Quote :

"My problem is that when you don't get what you want because of your morals (oh the humanity), you're content to let people slip into debt slavery. The true conservative position would not let that happen. The true conservative position would let people deliver medical services who aren't accredited by the medical boards that government and crony capitalists pull the puppet strings of. They would allow people to willingly receive medical care while waving a large portion of the medical malpractice protections. That is, receive care without any need for this item on the bill:"

I couldn't tell you what the true moral conservative position is. My position does not allow for debt slavery, because debt should always be allowed to be discharged. The government holds debt over people's head, but I have a problem with usury in general.

I'm fine with people going to a doctor that isn't approved by the AMA cartel. If they agree, then they agree, and they still have the recourse of litigation.

Quote :

"The individual mandate is a tax on the poor. And you've played directly into, not the conservative position, but the crony-capitalism position. You said yourself that these are two different things: - to say people should get healthcare - to say one should be forced to get healthcare or pay for someone elses"

How in the fuck did you get "individual mandate" from that first point? People should get health care. People should get food. "Should" does not imply that the government is the entity to provide it. "Should" means, ideally, these services will be provided to as many people as possible. How many people get served will depend on a lot of factors. How much time and money does it take to become a medical professional? What factors in our society are resulting in health problems? What underlying cultural issues result in good or poor health?

In a free market, services will naturally be extended over time. 100% of people will never get the best care available. We live in a world with finite resources. The question is how do goods and services get distributed - state force, or peaceful, voluntary transactions.

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 1:48 PM. Reason : ]

2/15/2012 1:38:50 PM

So do you also oppose bans on quack commercials and propaganda, luring people away from legitimate medical treatment into expensive, ineffective hoaxes?

2/15/2012 1:40:08 PM

Quote :

"I don't see any conservatives on here arguing for the gov't controlled shenanigans on healthcare. against whom are you arguing?"

The individual mandate made sense combined with a government funded health care subsidy. It made very dubious sense, but at least a little sense, when combined with the public option.

It was your politicians that fought tooth and nail to KEEP the individual mandate and destroy everything else including the public option. This is your fault. It is your propensity to focus on one thing and then turn a blind eye to everything else. The conservative voting block of this nation is in agreement that the public option should not happen and is NOT in agreement about the individual mandate.

The individual mandate was the last thing on the conservative agenda, which is exactly my point. It should be thrown out before the public option, not after. Your priorities reflect your real agenda, and that is an agenda that supports crony-capitalism.

2/15/2012 1:40:16 PM

I too agree with you being able to go to doctors who arent certified. That is your decision, but doesnt that fly in the face of all those warm and fuzzy consumer protections most lefties love?

Im not sure where you are getting my position. I oppose a mandate and value a more free market approach. You can only get there through LESS govt intervention, not more. (which is the direction we have been moving in for decades btw)

Under both a govt controlled and fully free market some people will suffer. However, the free market approach is still the more preferred. Under govt provided care you have to ration, which means waiting or just declining services completely. Basically level of care drops, or at least becomes stagnant. (why chicago has more MRIs than all of canada) You have basically created a race to the bottom and restricted choice under the myth of fairness. Under a true free market you ration but based on ability to pay. This is by far the most easily to accept, nonviolent way to ration. And because you dont have the money to pay for your services that doesnt mean you will always do without, people will have the CHOICE to donate to your cause or operate for free or less money. There is, in a free market, a real financial pressure to be healthier while keeping at least of the option of all types of care open to everyone. The industry will continue to move forward.

Most conservatives I know hate the "public option", which was nothing but a quick death to any private insurance, AND the mandate. They also hate that govt is getting MORE involved in healthcare as the costs increase. Shocking.

So your ideal solution would be medicare for all? How long do you think that is sustainable?

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 1:52 PM. Reason : .]

2/15/2012 1:49:53 PM

Quote :

"So do you also oppose bans on quack commercials and propaganda, luring people away from legitimate medical treatment into expensive, ineffective hoaxes?"

If there are bans on this, they certainly aren't very effective. Pills are advertised on cable television every day that do more harm than good. Fitness and nutrition protocols with dubious claims are peddled on television. State propaganda, of course, is found on literally every cable news network.

The future is information delivery through the Internet. It's becoming much easier to separate truth from deception. No, deception will not disappear, but bans on advertising for goods/services that don't work as advertised don't seem to work.

2/15/2012 1:53:42 PM

Quote :

"C: 1. cut spending 2. cut taxes P: 1. increase spending 2. raise taxes Both the C and P positions are deficit-neutral"

really? come on. Im not sure how I missed this gem earlier.

Especially mixed in with you complaining about a "tax on the poor" mandate.

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 2:00 PM. Reason : .]

2/15/2012 1:59:49 PM

^

Vitamins are a multi-billion dollar industry, etc etc

2/15/2012 2:06:36 PM

Quote :

"I agree with you, but my point is that food prices aren't gouged because the market/competition has much more of an influence on it than with healthcare. I.E. the government does not mandate the prices/costs/distribution of food."

I getcha. I was just saying while they may not directly enforce certain food prices, their meddling in the industry has an wider effects on all of us. Corn products have become filler in so many food items, especially those targetted at the poor, and the result is poor health. So while food prices may not be through the roof for individuals, subsidies defintely raise costs in other areas. Not to mention the taxes going from your pocket to farmers.

way off-track from whatever the original point was, heh.

2/15/2012 2:45:51 PM

Quote :

"really? come on. Im not sure how I missed this gem earlier."

Did you think you were communicating anything with this other than advertising that you've gone braindead?

2/15/2012 3:16:28 PM

^no, I think it was just an incredibly naive and simplistic view.

More accurate would be:
C:
Cut spending on entitlements. Raise on military and crony capitalism
Cut Taxes

P: Increase spending on entitlements and crony capitalism. Cut military
Raise taxes on a select minority based on class envy, not math.

Both of which are NOT deficit-neutral

But maybe I am brain dead and we are running record surpluses and have for over 50 years.

Those pesky facts.

2/15/2012 3:29:56 PM

Here's an experiment:

Ask a Republican, any Republican in office, if we should lower taxes. I think you know the answer we'll get.

Ask a Democrat, any Democrat in office, if we should cut benefits.

This is incontrovertible. I really don't think anyone is going to disagree with the above answers.

Quote :

"Cut spending on entitlements. Raise on military and crony capitalism Cut Taxes"

See, I make propositions that are generally agreed on, and you don't. Do Democrats NOT raise spending on military and crony capitalism? What happened in the last 4 years? Not all Republicans will directly answer that they'll cut entitlements. They will all answer that they will reduce taxes. Will they be happy to vote for cutting entitlements? I don't know, it's likely. But these are unemployable generalizations.

Quote :

"P: Increase spending on entitlements and crony capitalism. Cut military Raise taxes on a select minority based on class envy, not math. "

Why thank you for your talking points. I am so convinced by your blatant hostility.

Quote :

"But maybe I am brain dead and we are running record surpluses and have for over 50 years. "

deficits = expenses - income

2/19/2012 9:26:55 PM

^no. Deficits= spending > income

Hostility? So you think raising taxes only on people earning over 250k will solve our debt problem? It doesnt get us anywhere close. All you need is to put your emotions aside and look at the numbers.

Military is one of the first things Dems like to cut. Cutting it appeals to their base. I also said both sides do crony capitalism.

Quote :

"Ask a Republican, any Republican in office, if we should lower taxes. I think you know the answer we'll get. Ask a Democrat, any Democrat in office, if we should cut benefits. This is incontrovertible. I really don't think anyone is going to disagree with the above answers. "

Totally agree

Do you see the fundamental difference though? One is pushing to allow one to keep what they earn. The other is pushing to get more of what someone else earns.

2/20/2012 10:42:07 AM

I think it'd be interesting to see if we took every last penny of income from the 1% how far that would go towards balancing the budget. just curious. someone wanna humour me?

2/20/2012 12:08:09 PM

Quote :

"If you took all the income of people over $200,000, it would yield about $1.89 trillion, enough revenue to cover the 2012 bill for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—but not the same bill in 2016, as the costs of those entitlements are expected to grow rapidly. "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704621304576267113524583554.html

2/20/2012 2:03:59 PM

so, in other words "tax the rich" won't work, lol

2/20/2012 2:13:42 PM

Which is why I said

Quote :

"Raise taxes on a select minority based on class envy, not math."

it upset somebody.

I know one of them is thinking. "Well the deficit is 1.4T, that will cover it. Lets do it."

2/20/2012 2:20:29 PM

I don't think anybody wants to tax the rich to pay off the debt directly, nor does anyone think that would work. I think what most liberals and progressives want is to tax the rich to fund social programs and other redistributive measures so that the average American is better equipped to make money and drive the economy. You know, we used to call it "Having a middle class." and it's how we got our first major middle class expansion in the 40's through the 60's. A middle class also generates debt-reducing revenue a lot faster than what we have now, which is Banana Republic levels of inequality, and where most of the money goes to very few people who avoid taxes either by going offshore or taking advantage of loopholes/writeoffs, etc.

Aaronburro, is it really that objectionable to you that millionaires and billionaires be taxed at the very least, at the same rate you, aaronburro, are? Because that would constitute a tax increase for most of them. Do you think it's okay that you pay a higher tax rate for money you earn by actually working than the rate they pay on their stock gains? Do you oppose raising taxes on them out of spite for liberals, or what? I just don't get it.

[Edited on February 21, 2012 at 10:20 AM. Reason : .]

2/21/2012 10:12:50 AM

Quote :

"Do you think it's okay that you pay a higher tax rate for money you earn by actually working than the rate they pay on their stock gains?"

Yes. I would prefer there to be no tax on capital gains (or income for that matter)

So as we have gotten more social programs has our middle class grown? Or do you suggest that a program that affects millions and pays them to NOT work has less of an affect than a couple hundred people earning more money?

2/21/2012 12:12:35 PM

Quote :

"The emergency room is one unique service. Asking that question is like asking "what private services are like a car mechanic"? "What private businesses are like a grocery store?"

You're the one who said there were similar private services. I want to know the business in your mind has to operate under the same constraints as an emergency room.

A mechanic can say no to a customer when repairing the vehicle would be too inconvenient, or not profitable enough.
Grocery shoppers aren't there to buy the one thing that will sustain them, and they aren't dependent on the grocery store to tell them what that one thing is.

2/21/2012 9:08:42 PM

Quote :

"You know, we used to call it "Having a middle class." and it's how we got our first major middle class expansion in the 40's through the 60's."

right ... that had nothing to do with the fact that we were one of the few, if not the only, industrialized production centers immediately after world war 2, and therefore did not have to deal with the outsourcing issues we now have? you can't tax and social welfare a middle class into existence. you need low-skill, relatively high pay jobs, and lots of them. those jobs are not coming back. ever.

2/21/2012 10:15:57 PM

Quote :

"you can't tax and social welfare a middle class into existence. you need low-skill, relatively high pay jobs, and lots of them"

This statement is self-contradicting.

You're saying that you can't create a middle class by giving them money, but to have a middle class, they need to be given money (albeit by an employer).

In your equation, why can an employer giving someone money create a class, but not a government giving someone money? Is money not money?

2/21/2012 10:30:28 PM

Quote :

"I don't think anybody wants to tax the rich to pay off the debt directly, nor does anyone think that would work. I think what most liberals and progressives want is to tax the rich to fund social programs and other redistributive measures so that the average American is better equipped to make money and drive the economy."

that's fine, but we STILL can't afford that, even if we taxed the piss out of the rich. The point is that we can't fucking afford it, period. Taxing the rich more doesn't help, because we can't fucking afford it.

Quote :

"and it's how we got our first major middle class expansion in the 40's through the 60's. "

and then we look at the heyday of the welfare state, the 60s and beyond, where those policies really started taking effect, and what do we see? the country goes broke, and shit gets a whole lot worse.


^ because the gov't is simply taking money from one and giving to another. The money being given to the "middle" isn't being given through increased productivity, rather it's just being redistributed.

[Edited on February 21, 2012 at 10:32 PM. Reason : ]

2/21/2012 10:31:02 PM

Quote :

"why can an employer giving someone money create a class, but not a government giving someone money? Is money not money? "

bless your heart

2/22/2012 9:18:55 AM

Love to see you guys phase between "zomg printing press" and "we just shuffle money around"

2/22/2012 12:19:35 PM

Quote :

"You're saying that you can't create a middle class by giving them money, but to have a middle class, they need to be given money (albeit by an employer). In your equation, why can an employer giving someone money create a class, but not a government giving someone money? Is money not money?"

Why do employers pay people?

Because they are compensating for a production of value. This value, and the money compensation can be transferred or used elsewhere in the market. Creating even more opportunities for value creation/transfer.

What value is being produced through entitlements? None. Sure, on the short term, it may stimulate growth, but it is empty. At some point through the chain, if no value is created, this redistribution strategy fails once the producers are being compensated with their own money.

If the money is simply created out of thin air (see the fed) the dollar depreciates, making anyone holding cash less wealthy. Effectively making those that hold hard assets and resources, more wealthy. Do you see where this is going?... The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

The rise of technology and automation is reducing the need for low skill workers. Therefore driving down demand and compensation for these tasks. This is compounded even further by the idea that blue collar jobs are less glamorous than getting a corporate cubicle job after going to college for some humanities/business (aka non-technical or specialized) degree.

Make sense?

2/22/2012 12:28:56 PM

Quote :

"and then we look at the heyday of the welfare state, the 60s and beyond , where those policies really started taking effect, and what do we see? the country goes broke, and shit gets a whole lot worse."

Hmmm maybe you're talking about that blip right at the end of LBJ's term?




Hmmm, whatever could have happened in the 80's that suddenly plunged the country into debt...

Quote :

"What value is being produced through entitlements? None. Sure, on the short term, it may stimulate growth, but it is empty. At some point through the chain, if no value is created, this redistribution strategy fails once the producers are being compensated with their own money."

No, not really. When that money grants education (Such as the GI Bill), the value is in the enrichment of the workers who would otherwise stagnate as manual laborers. Instead they can either work as skilled professionals or become entrepreneurs themselves.

When the money grants stability (Like unemployment benefits) it preserves value that might otherwise by lost in a fire-sale-to-pay-the-rent and makes long-term career development less vulnerable to short-term financial problems.

When you put money into keeping people healthy and fed, they are more capable of obtaining and retaining a job for themselves.

When the money goes into public goods like infrastructure, the entire market is made more efficient and closer to frictionless, expanding opportunities for both workers and businesses.

A dude will catch a lot more fish if you give him a rod, quickly outpacing the cost of the rod itself.

Quote :

"^ because the gov't is simply taking money from one and giving to another. The money being given to the "middle" isn't being given through increased productivity, rather it's just being redistributed."

lol well their bosses certainly aren't giving them more money for increased productivity




Redistribution can definitely increase growth and productivity. If money is sitting the coffers of a rich person who is not spending it, that's essentially money that is absent from the economy. If you hand it to a person who is more likely to spend it quickly (Such as in the middle or lower classes) then that spending creates demand, which creates jobs, which speeds up growth. Money doesn't exert the same demand regardless of the pocket it's in.

Starting in the 60's more and more money went to the owners and managers, as real wages stagnated. Then, taxes for the top brackets dropped in the 80's. So you have more fruits from economic growth going to a smaller amount of people who are paying a smaller proportion of their income. No duh the debt increases, it would increase under those conditions even if welfare output remained constant.

[Edited on February 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2012 12:31:50 PM