Are insurance companies the problem, not the solution to healthcare?
Immortalist
why he voted NO, stating:
"We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices
only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance
system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault
the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault
legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation,
indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry,
the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny
care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying
to make a profit. That is our system."
"Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution.
They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive
bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals
and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance
companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills.
The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased
by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by
3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes
to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with
insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the
U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get
sick."
"But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit
insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of
accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the
government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private
health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so
high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue,
much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to
even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance
companies - a bailout under a blue cross."
"By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions,
a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited
concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal.
The Center for American Progress' blog, Think Progress, states, 'since
the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option,
health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare
stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a
public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health
industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start
flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the
legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit
managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only
industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not
to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush
Administration policy."
"During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would
have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The
'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of
competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an
initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An
amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue
single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of
the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even
greater favors for insurance companies."
"Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between
the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy
considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and
banks' hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an
economic recovery. However in the real economy - in which most
Americans live - the recession is not over. Rising unemployment,
business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering
Main Street."
"This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall
Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies
which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear,
especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out
among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care
system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive,
aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports
in these areas through socializing the cost of health care."
"Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to
recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit,
single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people
and good for America's businesses, with of course the notable
exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals."
Please know the struggle for real health care reform will continue.
Contribute, we can make a difference.
ZerkonXXXX
> "... the government is requiring
> at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the
> very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at
> least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from
> taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies,
> and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a blue
> cross."
......
> Are insurance companies the problem?
Given the above as being obvious and correct, that this is a even a
question is a problem.
John Galt
The "above" is neither obvious nor correct, however.
JG
Anarcissie
<ZEeKm.162645$Gs.1...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com>,
John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ZerkonXXXX wrote:
> > On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:48:21 -0800, Immortalist wrote:
> >
> >> "... the government is requiring
> >> at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the
> >> very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at
> >> least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from
> >> taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies,
> >> and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a blue
> >> cross."
> >
> >> Are insurance companies the problem?
> >
> > Given the above as being obvious and correct, that this is a even a
> > question is a problem.
>
> The "above" is neither obvious nor correct, however.
The behavior of a profit-seeking entity (an insurance
corporation, for example) in an authoritarian system
(the medical care system, for example) is likely to be
problematical for the beings from whom the p.s.e.
proposes to extract value.
A more extreme example would be a slave trader in a
polity which supported slavery.
I would not call the insurance companies the
fundamental problem, however. The fundamental problem
is the authoritarianism of the medical care system.
All the insurance companies are doing is taking
advantage of the authoritarianism and the
mystification, ignorance and submissiveness which it
produces.
tg
> In article
> <ZEeKm.162645$Gs.109...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com>,
I don't know that you can avoid what you are talking about. Consumers
have limited market power in this case, even if you eliminate the
State-enforced monopoly of doctors, hospitals, pharma, and device
corporations.
If you are in a car crash and have a broken leg, even if not life-
threatening, how will you 'shop' for the best service at the best
price? If you have some disease, you can't take the time to gather
experience in seeking the best approach---it isn't like sampling all
the local restaurants to see which has food that you like.
-tg
Jerry Okamura
problem. The cost of ANY insurance will rise at least by the medical
inflation rate. And since medical inflation is runnig at or abor 8% per
year, the cost of the insurance will rise by at least that amount every
year. Medical inflation is a problem because you cannot effectively control
prices when the user of the service is not the one paying for the service.
So, any kind of insurance is part of the problem, because the user of the
service will try to use the service because they are not the one paying for
the service. And NO, going to a single payer system like Kucinch favors is
not going to solve the medical inflation part of the problem, for the same
reason, the individual WILL USE the service regardless of how much that
service cost. They don't care how much that service cost, because they are
not the ones paying for it. But there is an even more important question.
The question is, how important is FREEDOM? You have considerably less
freedom, when you are dependent on someone else to provide for what you need
or want. You have the most freedom when you take care of your own needs.
"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:79416839-ca49-47bb...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Rod Speed
There is very little authoritarianism in the current medical system.
Anarcissie
<5c68f126-b2ec-410e...@d10g2000yqh.googl
egroups.com>,
tg <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Whether the authoritarianism of the medical care
system of the U.S. is partly or entirely necessary is
an interesting question. Even if it is not entirely
necessary, it is certainly a fact and thus is the
underlying problem of which the behavior of
profit-seeking entities like insurance companies are
one aspect.
The point I was trying to make, I guess, is that we do
not have an Adam-Smithian situation in which different
parties bargain and trade voluntarily from positions of
approximately equal power. That being the case, the
role of p.s.e.'s is not so benign; the customers are
not free participants but a resource which can be
exploited.
As the limits of the present exploitation are reached,
government force is being brought to bear to see if yet
more wealth can be extracted from this resource. Or at
least that is how I read the requirement that everyone
buy insurance from the same set of companies which
are held to be inefficient, inhumane, and so forth.
Assuming the exploitation of this finite resource
continues to be expanded, it seems necessary that
it will eventually reach the point of diminishing
returns, whereupon I would expect it to implode
catastrophically. For example, in the case of H1N1
vaccine, in spite of a great deal of sound, fury and
money, only a small portion of the amount supposedly
needed has been produced, and needless to say much of
this has been sequestered for the use of important
people like financiers. I believe this is a model for
a more general collapse.
I realize my view is logical and therefore suspect.
Rod Speed
> NO!! The insurance companies are not the problem. Medical inflation is the problem.
Have fun explaining how come EVERY OTHER MODERN
FIRST AND SECOND WORLD COUNTRY GETS ITS
HEALTH CARE FOR HALF THE PERCENTAGE OF
GDP THAT THE US IS STUPID ENOUGH TO PISS
AGAINST THE WALL, and they ALL do better on every
sensible measure like longevity and years in good health too.
> The cost of ANY insurance will rise at least by the medical inflation rate.
Have fun explaining how come the Japanese get to pay just $10
per night for a hospital stay if they are happy with a shared 4
bed room and just $90 per night if they prefer a private room.
> And since medical inflation is runnig at or abor 8% per year, the cost of the insurance will rise by at least that
> amount every year.
Doesnt in Japan.
> Medical inflation is a problem because you cannot effectively control prices when the user of the service is not the
> one paying for the service.
Tell that to the Japs. Dont be TOO surprised when
they just laugh in your stupid pig ignorant face, again.
And you dont get to effectively control prices when
you've just had a heart attack and are dying either, fool.
> So, any kind of insurance is part of the problem, because the user of the service will try to use the service because
> they are not the one paying for the service.
And the Japanese get to pay just $10 per night for a
hospital stay if they are happy with a shared 4 bed room
and just $90 per night if they prefer a private room, ANYWAY.
> And NO, going to a single payer system like Kucinch favors is not going to solve the medical inflation part of the
> problem,
Doesnt need to. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE COSTS HALF
THE PERCENTAGE OF GDP THAT THE STUPID US SYSTEM DOES.
> for the same reason, the individual WILL USE the service regardless of how much that service cost.
So you seriously believe that hordes rock up for a heart bypass
whether they need it or not, because the insurance pays for it ?
> They don't care how much that service cost, because they are not the ones paying for it.
If you are having a heart attack and are dying, you dont care what
it costs to stop that, even if you do have to pay for that yourself, fool.
> But there is an even more important question. The question is, how important is FREEDOM?
I'd rather be FREE to not have to die because I dont have the money
or insurance or a single payer system to deal with my heart attack, thanks.
> You have considerably less freedom, when you are dependent on someone else to provide for what you need or want.
Wrong when they are legally required to deal with your heart attack, fool.
> You have the most freedom when you take care of your own needs.
I tried that when I was having a heart attack but it was just tad difficult
or organise a stent that way. I discovered that I didnt actually have
anything handy to do the angiogram with and wasnt too keen on
learning how to so a stent on myself the first time around either.
Cant imagine why for the life of me.
Poetic Justice
> Jerry Okamura wrote
>
>> NO!! The insurance companies are not the problem. Medical inflation is the problem.
>
> Have fun explaining how come EVERY OTHER MODERN
> FIRST AND SECOND WORLD COUNTRY GETS ITS
> HEALTH CARE FOR HALF THE PERCENTAGE OF
> GDP THAT THE US IS STUPID ENOUGH TO PISS
> AGAINST THE WALL, and they ALL do better on every
> sensible measure like longevity and years in good health too.
What my health care costs me is my problem not the government's.
--
John Galt
What are you talking about? None of these exist in a monopoly.
>
> If you are in a car crash and have a broken leg, even if not life-
> threatening, how will you 'shop' for the best service at the best
> price?
You won't, but that's not the typical case. What's typical is the 99.5%
of medical services that are planned and scheduled at the convenience of
the user, and for which they are able to choose their provider.
If you have some disease, you can't take the time to gather
> experience in seeking the best approach---it isn't like sampling all
> the local restaurants to see which has food that you like.
It's more like that than you would think, actually. There's a company in
the Netherlands that actually conducts reverse auctions of medical
services. You open a matter that says "I need a hip replacement", attach
your documentation, and the hospitals and doctors bid for your business.
JG
>
> -tg
Rod Speed
You claiming its a fact doesnt make it a fact.
You are free to refuse medical treatment any time you like.
The only time you will get it anyway is if you are barking mad etc.
> and thus is the underlying problem
Easy to claim, have fun actually substantiating that claim.
> of which the behavior of profit-seeking entities
> like insurance companies are one aspect.
> The point I was trying to make, I guess, is that we do
> not have an Adam-Smithian situation in which different
> parties bargain and trade voluntarily from positions of
> approximately equal power.
Thats an entirely separate matter to whether its authoritarian.
> That being the case, the role of p.s.e.'s is not so benign;
> the customers are not free participants but a resource
> which can be exploited.
You can make the same stupid claim about sick people.
Or poor people, etc etc etc.
> As the limits of the present exploitation are reached,
> government force is being brought to bear to see if
> yet more wealth can be extracted from this resource.
You're completely off with the fucking fairys now.
> Or at least that is how I read the requirement that everyone
> buy insurance from the same set of companies which
> are held to be inefficient, inhumane, and so forth.
It isnt from the same set of companys, the govt operation has been added.
And everyone doesnt have to buy insurance either, most obviously the poorest of the poor.
> Assuming the exploitation of this finite
> resource continues to be expanded,
That aint what is happening either.
ALL thats happening is that those who currently choose to
not bother with insurance because they are young and fit
and healthy and have no kids and so dont need health
insurance, are being forced to have insurance or be fined.
And that is being done so that they contribute to the cash flow
that is used to pay for the medical services being provided.
Thats how the single payer non insurance systems work too, everyone
who pays tax contributes to what pays for medical services.
> it seems necessary that it will eventually reach the point of diminishing
> returns, whereupon I would expect it to implode catastrophically.
Have fun listing even a single example of that ever happening.
> For example, in the case of H1N1 vaccine, in spite of a
> great deal of sound, fury and money, only a small portion
> of the amount supposedly needed has been produced,
Thats because of the difficulty in producing the volume thats allegedly needed.
> and needless to say much of this has been sequestered
> for the use of important people like financiers.
Pig ignorant lie.
> I believe this is a model for a more general collapse.
More fool you. What will actually happen is that it will eventually
dawn on everyone that H1N1 is a complete yawn mortality wise and
we'll carry on regardless, just like with did with bird flu etc etc etc.
There wont be any collapse, general or otherwise.
The worst that can possibly happen is that insurance premiums
end up so high that hordes of employers stop paying them and
the individuals cant pay them, and then the US will just extend
the medicare system to everyone, just like virtually all the rest
of the modern first and second world has, and carry on regardless.
> I realize my view is logical
Like hell it is.
> and therefore suspect.
All your shit is that in spades.
Rod Speed
Wrong, as always.
Only govt can do the only viable alternatives to the stupid insurance system.
tg
Uh huh. I guess I can just go out and start practicing medicine
tomorrow and the gummint will cheer me on. And I can make some drugs
in my basement and sell them with no consequences.
>
>
> > If you are in a car crash and have a broken leg, even if not life-
> > threatening, how will you 'shop' for the best service at the best
> > price?
>
> You won't, but that's not the typical case. What's typical is the 99.5%
> of medical services that are planned and scheduled at the convenience of
> the user, and for which they are able to choose their provider.
>
> If you have some disease, you can't take the time to gather
>
> > experience in seeking the best approach---it isn't like sampling all
> > the local restaurants to see which has food that you like.
>
> It's more like that than you would think, actually. There's a company in
> the Netherlands
Since I don't live in the Netherlands, that doesn't help me at all---
we are talking about the US system in case you missed that. But the
point is that a disappointing meal at a restaurant doesn't bankrupt me
or kill me.
Once you make the choice of a procedure and a surgeon, you don't get a
second chance---you don't get a refund on your money, and it isn't
even like swapping out the carb in a car as a diagnostic; the damage
is done.
Absent a highly regulated system (like the Netherlands) and sound
information on outcomes (like the Brits have), the consumer is just
shooting craps with his/her health.
-tg
John Galt
Wow. So, suddenly, an EDUCATIONAL BARRIER TO ENTRY is suddenly the same
as a monopoly? And a government quality regulation is also the same?
You have no idea what a "monopoly" is. Look it up.
>
>>
>>> If you are in a car crash and have a broken leg, even if not life-
>>> threatening, how will you 'shop' for the best service at the best
>>> price?
>> You won't, but that's not the typical case. What's typical is the 99.5%
>> of medical services that are planned and scheduled at the convenience of
>> the user, and for which they are able to choose their provider.
>>
>> If you have some disease, you can't take the time to gather
>>
>>> experience in seeking the best approach---it isn't like sampling all
>>> the local restaurants to see which has food that you like.
>> It's more like that than you would think, actually. There's a company in
>> the Netherlands
>
> Since I don't live in the Netherlands, that doesn't help me at all---
That's hardly relevant. You're taking the position the consumer either
shouldn't or can't become an educated consumer in the case of health
care services. That's an issue of ignorance, not inability. The Dutch
example is simply that -- an example of why that's incorrect.
> we are talking about the US system in case you missed that. But the
> point is that a disappointing meal at a restaurant doesn't bankrupt me
> or kill me.
It could very well do the latter. But, more to the point, the vast
majority of poorly rendered health care services don't kill you, either.
>
> Once you make the choice of a procedure and a surgeon, you don't get a
> second chance---you don't get a refund on your money, and it isn't
> even like swapping out the carb in a car as a diagnostic; the damage
> is done.
It may or may not be. Again, it's not even close to accurate to infer
that 100% of botched medical procedures lead to death, or even disability.
>
> Absent a highly regulated system (like the Netherlands) and sound
> information on outcomes (like the Brits have), the consumer is just
> shooting craps with his/her health.
We always are. That;s why you need to be educated on your outcomes. If
you have cancer, you can have it treated close to home if you like, but
there's little question that there are certain places in the US that are
unquestionably better than others in this regard, and those places are
well known. A highly regulated system isn't going to change that, unless
it is to dictate that you can no longer seek out the best outlet for the
care you need.
JG
Beam Me Up Scotty
Unless you need a prescription or walk into an emergency room or need a
cutting edge treatment....
When you get a $12.00 aspirin there is little authoritarianism.
--
John Stafford
Balderdash. The USA medical establishment is rife with elitism that
favors the MD as one who cannot be reputed. Such is a major cause of
problems in educating, recruiting and empowering nurses and others.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Anarcissie wrote
No authoritarianism there, just a check that what you need medication wise is appropriate.
> or walk into an emergency room
No authoritarianism there, you are free to reject what medical
services they offer you if you dont believe they are appropriate etc.
> or need a cutting edge treatment....
No authoritarianism there, I got that when I needed it and it didnt cost me a cent either.
> When you get a $12.00 aspirin there is little authoritarianism.
There isnt any in any of your other examples either.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Anarcissie wrote
>>> I would not call the insurance companies the
>>> fundamental problem, however. The fundamental
>>> problem is the authoritarianism of the medical care
>>> system. All the insurance companies are doing is
>>> taking advantage of the authoritarianism and the
>>> mystification, ignorance and submissiveness which it
>>> produces.
>> There is very little authoritarianism in the current medical system.
> Balderdash.
Your sig is supposed to be last, with a line with just -- on it in front of it, stupid.
> The USA medical establishment is rife with elitism
Elitism aint authoritarianism. We have different words for a reason, stupid.
> that favors the MD as one who cannot be reputed.
Try that again in english.
> Such is a major cause of problems in educating,
> recruiting and empowering nurses and others.
Nothing to do with what was being discussed there.
John Stafford
> I would not call the insurance companies the
> fundamental problem, however. The fundamental problem
> is the authoritarianism of the medical care system.
It begins there, certainly. For anyone who is not too lazy to research
the subject of authoritarianism in the medical field, read "_The
Methodology of Discourse Analysis_" by Penny A. Powers, PhD all the way
to the end to find chapter 4.
John Stafford
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> John Stafford wrote
> > Rod Speed wrote
> >> Anarcissie wrote
>
> >>> I would not call the insurance companies the
> >>> fundamental problem, however. The fundamental
> >>> problem is the authoritarianism of the medical care
> >>> system. All the insurance companies are doing is
> >>> taking advantage of the authoritarianism and the
> >>> mystification, ignorance and submissiveness which it
> >>> produces.
>
> >> There is very little authoritarianism in the current medical system.
>
> > Balderdash.
>
> Your sig is supposed to be last, with a line with just -- on it in front of
> it, stupid.
I'll take that as constructive advice.
>
> > The USA medical establishment is rife with elitism
>
> Elitism aint authoritarianism. We have different words for a reason, stupid.
>
> > that favors the MD as one who cannot be reputed.
>
> Try that again in english.
Is reputed such a big word?
> > Such is a major cause of problems in educating,
> > recruiting and empowering nurses and others.
>
> Nothing to do with what was being discussed there.
It is one of the fundamental problems of American medicine - too much
focus upon one class of authority, hence limiting in options and
competition, higher costs.
Rod Speed
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=QKj3n4tSKLQC
too fucking turgid to bother with.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> John Stafford wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Anarcissie wrote
>>>>> I would not call the insurance companies the
>>>>> fundamental problem, however. The fundamental
>>>>> problem is the authoritarianism of the medical care
>>>>> system. All the insurance companies are doing is
>>>>> taking advantage of the authoritarianism and the
>>>>> mystification, ignorance and submissiveness which it
>>>>> produces.
>>>> There is very little authoritarianism in the current medical system.
>>> Balderdash.
>> Your sig is supposed to be last, with a line with just -- on it in front of it, stupid.
> I'll take that as constructive advice.
>>> The USA medical establishment is rife with elitism
>> Elitism aint authoritarianism. We have different words for a reason, stupid.
>>> that favors the MD as one who cannot be reputed.
>> Try that again in english.
> Is reputed such a big word?
Taint the size of the word thats the problem, it makes no sense at all.
>>> Such is a major cause of problems in educating,
>>> recruiting and empowering nurses and others.
>> Nothing to do with what was being discussed there.
> It is one of the fundamental problems of American
> medicine - too much focus upon one class of authority,
Whatever thats supposed to mean.
Presumably you actually mean that doctors dont regard nurses very higher diagnostic wise etc.
When the real problem with the american medical system is hospital
costs, that isnt the reason american hospital costs are so uttely obscene.
> hence limiting in options and competition, higher costs.
Yes, but the costs with GPs isnt the problem.
John Jones
of helping someone depends on how many objects they have power over.
America likes to help people who have power over lots of objects. It may
look like sycophancy for the powerful... but.. ...it really does look
like sycophancy for the powerful.
Jerry Okamura
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ltmd8F...@mid.individual.net...
> Jerry Okamura wrote
>
>> NO!! The insurance companies are not the problem. Medical inflation is
>> the problem.
>
> Have fun explaining how come EVERY OTHER MODERN
> FIRST AND SECOND WORLD COUNTRY GETS ITS
> HEALTH CARE FOR HALF THE PERCENTAGE OF
> GDP THAT THE US IS STUPID ENOUGH TO PISS
> AGAINST THE WALL, and they ALL do better on every
> sensible measure like longevity and years in good health too.
Simple answer, all other countries, ration care more, and mandate the price
they will pay for the care more. But they all have a problem with medical
inflation. Because whatever their medical inflation rate, it is higher than
their overall inflation rate. Don't take my word for it, find out for
yourself. You can find that information with a little work on your part.
Don't pretend it is not a problem, when it is a problem.
>
>> The cost of ANY insurance will rise at least by the medical inflation
>> rate.
>
> Have fun explaining how come the Japanese get to pay just $10
> per night for a hospital stay if they are happy with a shared 4
> bed room and just $90 per night if they prefer a private room.
What has that got to do with the cost of health insurance?
>
>> And since medical inflation is runnig at or abor 8% per year, the cost of
>> the insurance will rise by at least that amount every year.
>
> Doesnt in Japan.
Read and learn
http://www.uwsp.edu/business/CWERB/1stQtr90/SpecialReportQtr1_90.htm
Jerry Okamura
someone else to pay for what you need or want, you have considerably less
freedom, then when you pay for what you need or want. It is also a question
of independence or dependence. When you pay for what you need or want, you
are more independent. When you depend on someone else to pay for what you
need or want, you are essentially a slave, because in order to get what you
need or want, you have to satisfy the government before they will give you
what you need or want. And when you depend on someone else to pay for your
needs, you have given them the right to pay for your needs, or not pay for
your needs.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>> NO!! The insurance companies are not the problem. Medical inflation is the problem.
>> Have fun explaining how come EVERY OTHER MODERN
>> FIRST AND SECOND WORLD COUNTRY GETS ITS
>> HEALTH CARE FOR HALF THE PERCENTAGE OF
>> GDP THAT THE US IS STUPID ENOUGH TO PISS
>> AGAINST THE WALL, and they ALL do better on every
>> sensible measure like longevity and years in good health too.
> Simple answer,
Bare faced lie in fact.
> all other countries, ration care more,
THERE IS NO RATIONING OF CARE BY ANYONE IN THE JAPANESE SYSTEM.
> and mandate the price they will pay for the care more.
And that clearly works fine when on any sensible measure
like longevity and years in good health, they ALL do better
than the US does on HALF the percentage of GDP.
> But they all have a problem with medical inflation.
There is no problem, they afford their health care fine.
And medical inflation is inevitable while ever what we can do improves
every year and we can treat more medical problems and you dont
have to die of that medical problem or put up with it etc.
> Because whatever their medical inflation rate, it is higher than their overall inflation rate.
That is inevitable regardless of the health care funding system,
we can do improves every year and we can treat more medical
problems and you dont have to die of that medical problem or
put up with it etc.
With a few exceptions, that costs more. The main exception is with
vaccination that avoids much higher long term medical costs like with polio etc.
> Don't take my word for it, find out for yourself. You can find that information with a little work on your part.
Dont need to do either. I rubbed your stupid nose in why its inevitable and unavoidable.
Even everyone paying for their medical services out of their own
pockets with no insurance whatever wont change that basic.
> Don't pretend it is not a problem, when it is a problem.
Its not a problem at all, basically the increase in living standards makes
it affordable when the country has a decent health care funding system.
After all, health is one of the things most care about having,
so they are quite happy to pay for the new medical services
that become available, when the alternative is dying of a
serious medical problem or having a medical problem
produce real downsides in your life that are avoidable.
>>> The cost of ANY insurance will rise at least by the medical inflation rate.
>> Have fun explaining how come the Japanese get to pay just $10
>> per night for a hospital stay if they are happy with a shared 4
>> bed room and just $90 per night if they prefer a private room.
> What has that got to do with the cost of health insurance?
Thats what the health insurance pays for, fool.
>>> And since medical inflation is runnig at or abor 8% per year, the
>>> cost of the insurance will rise by at least that amount every year.
>> Doesnt in Japan.
> Read and learn
> http://www.uwsp.edu/business/CWERB/1stQtr90/SpecialReportQtr1_90.htm
Doesnt say that Japan gets that rate of increase in insurance premiums, fool.
Rod Speed
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>>> NO!! The insurance companies are not the problem.
>>>>> Medical inflation is the problem.
>>>> Have fun explaining how come EVERY OTHER MODERN
>>>> FIRST AND SECOND WORLD COUNTRY GETS ITS
>>>> HEALTH CARE FOR HALF THE PERCENTAGE OF
>>>> GDP THAT THE US IS STUPID ENOUGH TO PISS
>>>> AGAINST THE WALL, and they ALL do better on every
>>>> sensible measure like longevity and years in good health too.
>>> What my health care costs me is my problem not the government's.
>> Wrong, as always.
>> Only govt can do the only viable alternatives to the stupid insurance system.
> It is a question of how important is your freedom.
Anyone with even half a clue prefers the freedom to get the medical
services that you need when you have a serious medical problem, fool.
> When you depend on someone else to pay for what you need or want, you have considerably less freedom, then when you
> pay for what you need or want.
Like hell you do when they are legally obliged to deliver you
the appropriate medical services for your medical problem.
> It is also a question of independence or dependence.
Like hell it is.
> When you pay for what you need or want, you are more independent.
Like hell you are if that medical service is more than you can afford.
> When you depend on someone else to pay for what you need or want, you are essentially a slave,
Like hell you do when they are legally obliged to deliver you
the appropriate medical services for your medical problem.
> because in order to get what you need or want, you have to satisfy the government before they will give you what you
> need or want.
The ONLY thing you have to satisfy the govt on is that you
are legally entitled to the medical services that you need, fool.
> And when you depend on someone else to pay for your needs, you have given them the right to pay for your needs, or not
> pay for your needs.
Like hell you do when they are legally obliged to deliver you
the appropriate medical services for your medical problem.
Mason C
wrote:
And how much freedom do you have if your can't pay for what you need or
want? Never mind "want." How much freedom does a penniless, homeless
person have? How much freedom does a worker laid off and without
health insurance?
The rich have freedom. 97% of the posters here have freedom -- because
they can afford it. Who speaks for those who don't have that freedom?
Once we finally get rid of the damned "middle class" all the rest will have
freedom.
Me. I have freedom. I'm on Medicare -- that private insurance for the old.
Down with all government.
tg
'Government quality regulation'? Amazing. And yet you also claim that
a highly regulated system is going to 'dictate' that you can't seek
the 'best outlet for the care you need.'
So, you were in favor of regulation before you were against it.
You guys are real geniuses eh.
-tg
John Galt
Hm? You want to change the topic?
Fine. Start a new thread. I'm sure it will be fascinating. :-)
Just don't pretend that a quality control regulatory framework is
anything like a monopoly. That's bullshit, plain and simple, and is the
sort of thing that is often espoused by people trying to blur the lines
between political systems, claiming that they are similar when they are
not.
JG
Fred Weiss
> Once you make the choice of a procedure and a surgeon, you don't get a
> second chance---you don't get a refund on your money, and it isn't
> even like swapping out the carb in a car as a diagnostic; the damage
> is done.
And the solution to that is to eliminate choice?
What a lovely choice that is.
> Absent a highly regulated system (like the Netherlands) and sound
> information on outcomes (like the Brits have), the consumer is just
> shooting craps with his/her health.
Whereas a gov't run system, which offers little or no choice, is
better? You don't even get to shoot craps. You just have whatever they
are willing to offer shoved down your throat.
Maybe Tiggy can explain why Canadians - denied the choice there - come
*here* for the most advanced medical procedures and/or to get timely
treatment. Maybe he can tell us what will happen when our system goes
down the drain where the Canadians will go then.
Thailand perhaps?
Fred Weiss
*Anarcissie*
> > egroups.com>,
I knew I could count on you, Rod, to bear with me to the
bitter end. Unfortunately we have left all those who would
actually read what I have to say behind and are now
wandering in the desert wilderness while our erstwhile
companions return to such familiar mudholes as the
famed traveling Canadian medical-care recipients. You
might as well join them yourself now.
Meanwhile I will look forward to the not-too-far
distant day when I may intone, "Told you so. Told
you so." If you write enough of this prophetic
stuff you've got to hit it right once in awhile.
tg
But in a new thread you will still dodge the issue and make up genius
phrases like 'government quality regulation'. You would have made a
fine Soviet apparatchik with that kind of bureaucratic doublespeak.
-tg
John Galt
There have been no issues dodged. The bottom line is that you're trying
to sell the nonsensical idea that government regulation is the same as a
monopoly; and we're going to play that little gem back in this thread
until you admit how stupid what you said is.
JG
<snip>
ta
mo⋅nop⋅o⋅ly
/məˈnɒpəli/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [muh-nop-uh-lee] Show IPA
Use monopoly in a Sentence
See web results for monopoly
See images of monopoly
–noun, plural -lies.
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular
market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.
So you are saying that the State has exclusive control over medical
services because:
- the state controls the licensing of medical doctors
- the state controls the standards for what medical doctors can do
- the state controls the educational system that gets to define what
is considered "knowledge"
- the state controls what constitutes legitimate "illness", and
therefore controls what therapies can be distributed by doctors and
what treatments patients can be reimbursed for.
?
<snip>
tg
Kind of, but remember I said it was a *State-enforced* monopoly. The
State grants exclusive control, as the definition says, over various
parts of the system to various entities.
The simplest example is prescriptions. How is it not a monopoly to
have one group of people decide whether or not I can purchase a
product that they (doctors) do not even produce?
-tg
Rod Speed
>>>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Like hell it is.
>>> and therefore suspect.
We knew we could count on you to try bullshitting your way out of a wet paper bag, and failing.
> Unfortunately we have left all those who would
> actually read what I have to say behind and are now
> wandering in the desert wilderness while our erstwhile
> companions return to such familiar mudholes as the
> famed traveling Canadian medical-care recipients.
Just another of your pathetic little fantasys.
> You might as well join them yourself now.
You might as well go and fuck yourself, again.
> Meanwhile I will look forward to the not-too-far distant
> day when I may intone, "Told you so. Told you so."
There were always fools like you that tried that line when every
other modern first and second world country got enough of a clue
to try to do something about their health care funding system.
NOT ONE of them was ever able to do that.
> If you write enough of this prophetic stuff you've got to hit it right once in awhile.
You wont this time, you watch.
Rod Speed
> tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote
>> Once you make the choice of a procedure and a surgeon, you don't get
>> a second chance---you don't get a refund on your money, and it isn't even
>> like swapping out the carb in a car as a diagnostic; the damage is done.
> And the solution to that is to eliminate choice?
He never ever said that. No one is proposing eliminating choice in that area.
> What a lovely choice that is.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
>> Absent a highly regulated system (like the Netherlands) and sound
>> information on outcomes (like the Brits have), the consumer is just
>> shooting craps with his/her health.
> Whereas a gov't run system, which offers little or no choice,
Another bare faced lie. There is plenty of choice in the medicare system.
IN FACT THERE IS MUCH MORE CHOICE FOR THOSE WHO CANNOT
AFFORD TO PAY FOR THE MEDICAL SERVICES THEY NEED WITHOUT IT.
And even with the VA system, you are always free to ignore it and
pay for what medical services you need outside it if you want to.
> is better?
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
> You don't even get to shoot craps.
Another bare faced lie.
> You just have whatever they are willing to offer shoved down your throat.
Another bare faced lie.
> Maybe Tiggy can explain why Canadians - denied the choice there - come *here*
> for the most advanced medical procedures and/or to get timely treatment.
They dont in enough numbers to matter.
> Maybe he can tell us what will happen when our system goes down the drain
It wont when the alternative costs HALF the percentage of GDP.
> where the Canadians will go then.
> Thailand perhaps?
They already do that for the stuff that the Canadian system doesnt cover like cosmetic surgery.
So do hordes of americans too.
Jerry Okamura
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7luj07F...@mid.individual.net...
Jerry Okamura
"Mason C" <maso...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote in message
news:ejjkf5hk5a3fah184...@4ax.com...
That is the price for freedom. Freedom means you have to figure out a way
to take care of your own needs and try not to depend on someone else to
provide for your own needs. The more you depend on someone else, the less
freedom you have.
>
> The rich have freedom. 97% of the posters here have freedom -- because
> they can afford it. Who speaks for those who don't have that freedom?
They should speak for themselves. If you want to be free, you have the
responsibility to do what is necessary to be free. If you cannot afford
whatever you want, it was your fault, no one elses, that put you in that
position.
>
> Once we finally get rid of the damned "middle class" all the rest will
> have
> freedom.
Freedom without EVERYONE being free, has no meaning whatsoever.
>
> Me. I have freedom. I'm on Medicare -- that private insurance for the
> old.
No, you only think you are free. You depend on medicare to pay for your
medical needs. When you depend on anyont for anything you are not truly
free.
>
> Down with all government.
Without government you would not have that Medicare benefit you think is so
great.
Rod Speed
> "It is impossible to deal honestly with a fool".
Just because some fool claims something, doesnt make it gospel, fool.
Rod Speed
> Mason C <maso...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote
>>>> Wrong, as always.
Nope. You arent free to rape any woman you feel like raping, you arent
free to drive on whatever side of the road you feel like driving on, you
arent free to drive as fast as you like thru a built up area, you arent free
to go on a shooting spree and kill anyone you feel like killing, etc etc etc.
> Freedom means you have to figure out a way to take care of your own needs and try not to depend on someone else to
> provide for your own needs.
You're always free to try to do your own heart bypass when you are
having a heart attack, and free to try doing your own hip replacement too.
> The more you depend on someone else, the less freedom you have.
You're always free to try to do your own heart bypass when you are
having a heart attack, and free to try doing your own hip replacement too.
>> The rich have freedom. 97% of the posters here have freedom --
>> because they can afford it. Who speaks for those who don't have
>> that freedom?
> They should speak for themselves.
They're more interested in getting their serious medical problem fixed.
> If you want to be free, you have the responsibility to do what is necessary to be free.
Then why havent you fucked off to Somalia where you are free
to rape any woman you feel like raping, free to drive on whatever
side of the road you feel like driving on, free to drive as fast as
you like thru a built up area, free to go on a shooting spree and
kill anyone you feel like killing, etc etc etc ?
> If you cannot afford whatever you want, it was your fault, no one elses, that put you in that position.
Wota terminal fuckwit.
>> Once we finally get rid of the damned "middle class" all the rest will have freedom.
> Freedom without EVERYONE being free, has no meaning whatsoever.
You arent free to rape any woman you feel like raping, you arent free
to drive on whatever side of the road you feel like driving on, you arent
free to drive as fast as you like thru a built up area, you arent free to
go on a shooting spree and kill anyone you feel like killing, etc etc etc.
So you're actually stupid enough to claim that freedom has no meaning what so ever ?
>> Me. I have freedom. I'm on Medicare -- that private insurance for the old.
> No, you only think you are free.
You in spades.
> You depend on medicare to pay for your medical needs. When you depend on anyont for anything you are not truly free.
You arent free to rape any woman you feel like raping, you arent free
to drive on whatever side of the road you feel like driving on, you arent
free to drive as fast as you like thru a built up area, you arent free to
go on a shooting spree and kill anyone you feel like killing, etc etc etc.
You are not truly free either. So fuck off to Somalia and be truly free there.
>> Down with all government.
> Without government you would not have that Medicare benefit you think is so great.
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist terminal fuckwits ?
(David P.)
>
>Are insurance companies the problem, not the solution to healthcare?
No, election politics is the problem, because the insurance
lobby told the pols they won't be re-elected if they install
a Euro-type system.
.
.
--
Rod Speed
> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
Thats what the insurance lobby ALWAYS claims when EVERY modern
first and second world country installed a Euro-type system anyway.
Michael Coburn
> In article
> <5c68f126-b2ec-410e...@d10g2000yqh.googl egroups.com>,
> tg <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 10, 11:12 am, Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > In article
>> > <ZEeKm.162645$Gs.109...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com>,
>> > John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > ZerkonXXXX wrote:
>> > > > On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:48:21 -0800, Immortalist wrote:
>> >
>> > > >> "... the government is requiring
>> > > >> at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance
>> > > >> from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which
>> > > >> will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much
>> > > >> of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to
>> > > >> even more costs, more subsidies,
>> > > >> and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a
>> > > >> blue cross."
>> >
> not entirely necessary, it is certainly a fact and thus is the
> underlying problem of which the behavior of profit-seeking entities like
> insurance companies are one aspect.
>
> The point I was trying to make, I guess, is that we do not have an
> Adam-Smithian situation in which different parties bargain and trade
> voluntarily from positions of approximately equal power. That being the
> case, the role of p.s.e.'s is not so benign; the customers are not free
> participants but a resource which can be exploited.
>
> As the limits of the present exploitation are reached, government force
> is being brought to bear to see if yet more wealth can be extracted from
> this resource. Or at least that is how I read the requirement that
> everyone buy insurance from the same set of companies which are held to
> be inefficient, inhumane, and so forth.
When you step back and look at the _WHOLE_ picture, as opposed to falling
into the frame, things take on a different character. At present the
providers pass the cost of indigent care to the insurance companies ans
other paying customers and the insurance companies pass the cost to the
employers who pass it to the employees/consumers. The heart of the
reform is to tax those with incomes in excess of a million bucks to
provide the indigent care through the insurance companies thus moving
that load from the middle class to the wealthy.
Medical provider and insurance company profit can only be dealt with
using monoposony power. A single payer system is the ultimate, but
extending the number of persons on Medicare through the use of a Public
Option will increase the power of the group to control medical costs.
The Insurance companies will, of necessity, participate in the cost
reductions because if they continue to pay the inflated fees, passing
them to the consumers then they will not be able to compete.
> Assuming the exploitation of this finite resource continues to be
> expanded, it seems necessary that it will eventually reach the point of
> diminishing returns, whereupon I would expect it to implode
> catastrophically. For example, in the case of H1N1 vaccine, in spite of
> a great deal of sound, fury and money, only a small portion of the
> amount supposedly needed has been produced, and needless to say much of
> this has been sequestered for the use of important people like
> financiers.
Oh horse shit!
> I believe this is a model for a more general collapse.
>
> I realize my view is logical and therefore suspect.
Some good some bad....
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Michael Coburn
> NO!! The insurance companies are not the problem.
The _FACT_ that insurance company consumer population and profits
increase as the cost of medical care increases should be enough to
illustrate the adverse economics of the private insurance companies as a
viable _MARKET_ participant. As the cost of health care rises due to
innovation and marvelous new inventions then so too does the risk of
bankruptcy should anyone in your family ever have a serious illness. And
it is this risk that motivates the consumer of medical insurance. As such
there is no benefit whatsoever to the insurance sector as a group in
refusing to pay whatever the providers might want to charge. And
INDIVIDUAL insurance companies will fair no better than individual
consumers in attempting to regulate the provider charges.
> Medical inflation is
> the problem. The cost of ANY insurance will rise at least by the
> medical inflation rate. And since medical inflation is runnig at or
> abor 8% per year, the cost of the insurance will rise by at least that
> amount every year. Medical inflation is a problem because you cannot
> effectively control prices when the user of the service is not the one
> paying for the service.
You are, of course, a moron. We can't control the cost of medical
services as individuals. Only a total idiot Republican would believe such
stupidity.
> So, any kind of insurance is part of the
> problem, because the user of the service will try to use the service
> because they are not the one paying for the service.
Sure, moron. We will all run out and throw ourselves under a crosstown
bus so we can take advantage of the free medical care. And again we see
the deranged and utterly stupid position of Jerry Okamura and the
Republican party.
> And NO, going to a
> single payer system like Kucinch favors is not going to solve the
> medical inflation part of the problem, for the same reason, the
> individual WILL USE the service regardless of how much that service
> cost. They don't care how much that service cost, because they are not
> the ones paying for it.
The stupidity just never stops.
> But there is an even more important question.
> The question is, how important is FREEDOM? You have considerably less
> freedom, when you are dependent on someone else to provide for what you
> need or want. You have the most freedom when you take care of your own
> needs.
Why don't you give yourself a liver transplant, Jerry?
>> privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring
>> at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the
>> very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at
>> least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from
>> taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more
>> subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under
>> a blue cross."
>>
Kucinich is a self serving moonbat. That doesn't mean he is wrong. But
it does mean that he is too idealistic and therefore unable to advance
health care reform. His vote against HR 3962 is indicative of many who
believe that it does not go far enough. If all of those who share that
belief, and/or a strong belief in a woman's right to choose would have
voted for the bill, it would have been a lot more lopsided in favor.
Rod Speed
> Anarcissie wrote
>> tg <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote
>>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote>>>>>> Immortalist wrote
Not really.
> At present the providers pass the cost of indigent care to the
> insurance companies ans other paying customers and the
> insurance companies pass the cost to the employers
Yes.
> who pass it to the employees
Nope, they mostly dont do that.
> /consumers.
Yes.
> The heart of the reform is to tax those with incomes in excess of
> a million bucks to provide the indigent care through the insurance
> companies thus moving that load from the middle class to the wealthy.
The trouble is that there arent enough of those who wont just avoid that taxation to pay for that.
> Medical provider and insurance company profit
> can only be dealt with using monoposony power.
Thats just plain wrong too. The other way of doing that would be to
setup a govt insurance opposition in competition with the insurance
companys and drive the cost of insurance down that way.
Lot easier said than done tho, that approach would see the worst
risks end up with the govt insurance operation and it may well be
that the insurance company profits would keep increasing just
because they end up with the lowest risk customers.
> A single payer system is the ultimate,
Yes.
> but extending the number of persons on Medicare through the use of a
> Public Option will increase the power of the group to control medical costs.
Maybe. There is a real possibility that an attempt to do that would just
see more and more doctors and hospitals just refuse to provide medical
services to those who use Medicare to pay too little for those services.
> The Insurance companies will, of necessity, participate in the
> cost reductions because if they continue to pay the inflated fees,
> passing them to the consumers then they will not be able to compete.
So superficial, particularly if they end up with lower risk customers.
>> Assuming the exploitation of this finite resource continues to be
>> expanded, it seems necessary that it will eventually reach the point
>> of diminishing returns, whereupon I would expect it to implode
>> catastrophically. For example, in the case of H1N1 vaccine, in
>> spite of a great deal of sound, fury and money, only a small portion
>> of the amount supposedly needed has been produced, and needless to
>> say much of this has been sequestered for the use of important
>> people like financiers.
> Oh horse shit!
Indeed.
Fred Weiss
> Fred Weiss wrote
> > Maybe Tiggy can explain why Canadians - denied the choice there - come *here*
> > for the most advanced medical procedures and/or to get timely treatment.
>
> They dont in enough numbers to matter.
It matters to those who find it necessary to come here.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare-canada27-2009sep27,0,5111855.story
It also matters in Britain:
"3,000 NHS staff get private care"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6879553.ece
As for the "enough numbers" argument in general, you could also note
that the Berlin Wall didn't matter to most East Germans either. Only a
relatively small number were willing to risk their lives to get over
it. You could also say the same thing about bloggers in Cuba who are
now being beaten and jailed. There are no doubt not "enough numbers to
matter" of them either.
> > Maybe he can tell us what will happen when our system goes down the drain
>
> It wont when the alternative costs HALF the percentage of GDP.
Rationing and generally inferior care does cost less - if that's what
you want.
And, frankly, I don't care if it's satisfactory for you. It's not to
me and it's my rights which you are infringing.
If you think most people are willing to accept mediocre medical care,
we certainly don't need a trillion dollar program to provide it.
Fred Weiss
Michael Gordge
>
> Then why havent you fucked off to Somalia.......
The flag of a complete and utter leftist coward who has shown himself
to be totally unable to rationally defend / explain his dopey evil
anti-human leftist knuckle-dragging ideology.
Ewe fucking stupid pig ignorant commie cunt Rod, the meaning of life
is not avoiding death.
MG
Michael Gordge
> There have been no issues dodged. The bottom line is that you're trying
> to sell the nonsensical idea that government regulation is the same as a
> monopoly;
There is plenty non-sensical in what tg writes, however that is not
one of them, if that is what she wrote then she is 100% correct.
When the government regulates e.g. invents a tax on imports, places
tariffs, when they invent bogus import licenses and other licenses of
production which is all done under the bogus nonsense of protecting
local jobs and businesses, when they regulate a subsidy to farmers to
grow corn for fuel and not for food, then by default / as a direct
cause, they are creating monopolies.
Many of the wealthiest companies throughout most western countries
have become or become a monoply in their industry as a direct result
of convincing usually a bunch of dopey brain dead right wing
politicians, that their industry (local jobs) needs protection from
"imports" and of course the union backed left wing bunch are too
fucking stupid to know what was really going on.
Regulations and monopolies go hand in hand, regulations (monoploy
creation) is nothing more than the state picking winners and losers,
looking for votes.
MG
Michael Gordge
> The simplest example is prescriptions. How is it not a monopoly to
> have one group of people decide whether or not I can purchase a
> product that they (doctors) do not even produce?
The drug manufacturing and supply industry is a very good example of
monopolies created directly via state regulations, well done tg.
MG
Rod Speed
> Jerry Okamura wrote
>> NO!! The insurance companies are not the problem.
> The _FACT_ that insurance company consumer population and
> profits increase as the cost of medical care increases should
> be enough to illustrate the adverse economics of the private
> insurance companies as a viable _MARKET_ participant.
Yes.
> As the cost of health care rises due to innovation and marvelous
> new inventions then so too does the risk of bankruptcy should
> anyone in your family ever have a serious illness.
That varys. Vaccination is an obvious example of the reverse effect,
innovation and marvelous new inventions actually dramatically reduces the
risk of bankruptcy by avoiding the most expensive infections like polio etc.
> And it is this risk that motivates the consumer of medical insurance.
Yes.
> As such there is no benefit whatsoever to the insurance sector as a
> group in refusing to pay whatever the providers might want to charge.
That is just plain wrong. They get to have lower premiums if they do that.
> And INDIVIDUAL insurance companies will fair no better than
> individual consumers in attempting to regulate the provider charges.
And that is wrong in spades. INDIVIDUAL insurance companys force
hospitals to charge them MUCH less than individuals get slugged for
the same medical services, because of their market power.
>> Medical inflation is the problem. The cost of ANY insurance
>> will rise at least by the medical inflation rate. And since medical
>> inflation is runnig at or abor 8% per year, the cost of the insurance
>> will rise by at least that amount every year. Medical inflation is a
>> problem because you cannot effectively control prices when the
>> user of the service is not the one paying for the service.
> You are, of course, a moron.
He is indeed. So stupid that he cant manage to grasp that he cant
go raping anyone he feels like raping, cant drive on any side of the
road he likes, cant kill anyone he feels like killing, etc etc etc.
> We can't control the cost of medical services as individuals.
We can to a small extent by refusing to pay what the worst of the
gougers want to charge for simple medical services like a visit to the GP.
The problem is that its the hospital charges that are the
problem, and the individual cant even force them to charge
what they charge the insurance companys when the individual
is paying for the hospital services out of their own pocket.
> Only a total idiot Republican would believe such stupidity.
He's a rabid raving loony liberterian.
>> So, any kind of insurance is part of the problem,
>> because the user of the service will try to use the service
>> because they are not the one paying for the service.
> Sure, moron. We will all run out and throw ourselves under a
> crosstown bus so we can take advantage of the free medical
> care. And again we see the deranged and utterly stupid
> position of Jerry Okamura and the Republican party.
>> And NO, going to a
>> single payer system like Kucinch favors is not going to solve the
>> medical inflation part of the problem, for the same reason, the
>> individual WILL USE the service regardless of how much that service
>> cost. They don't care how much that service cost, because they are
>> not the ones paying for it.
> The stupidity just never stops.
>> But there is an even more important question.
>> The question is, how important is FREEDOM? You have considerably
>> less freedom, when you are dependent on someone else to provide for
>> what you need or want. You have the most freedom when you take care
>> of your own needs.
> Why don't you give yourself a liver transplant, Jerry?
He needs a brain transplant much more urgently.
Rod Speed
>>> Maybe Tiggy can explain why Canadians - denied
>>> the choice there - come *here* for the most advanced
>>> medical procedures and/or to get timely treatment.
>> They dont in enough numbers to matter.
> It matters to those who find it necessary to come here.
Pathetic.
> It also matters in Britain:
> "3,000 NHS staff get private care"
They dont go to the US to get that, fuckwit.
> As for the "enough numbers" argument in general, you could also
> note that the Berlin Wall didn't matter to most East Germans either.
Indeed.
> Only a relatively small number were willing to risk their lives to get over it.
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist fuckwits ?
>>> Maybe he can tell us what will happen when our system goes down the drain
>> It wont when the alternative costs HALF the percentage of GDP.
> Rationing and generally inferior care does cost less
Every other modern first world country gets a BETTER result on
every measure that matters like longevity and years in good health.
And the US system rations in spades, most obviously with those
who are denied health insurance due to pre existing conditions.
> And, frankly, I don't care if it's satisfactory for you. It's
> not to me and it's my rights which you are infringing.
You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
Your 'rights' in spades.
> If you think most people are willing to accept mediocre medical care,
Every other modern first world country gets a BETTER result on
every measure that matters like longevity and years in good health.
And those who are denied insurance due to pre existing conditions
are stuck with utterly obscene medical care, MUCH WORSE than
they would get in every other modern first and second world country.
> we certainly don't need a trillion dollar program to provide it.
That number is straight from your arse, we can tell from the smell.
Michael Gordge
> Thats what the insurance lobby ALWAYS claims when EVERY modern
> first and second world country installed a Euro-type system anyway.
Just because ewe fools keep repeating yourselves doesn't makes ewes
right.
MG
Mason C
Jerry Okamura
which is relevant to what I said, how?
>
>> Freedom means you have to figure out a way to take care of your own needs
>> and try not to depend on someone else to provide for your own needs.
>
> You're always free to try to do your own heart bypass when you are
> having a heart attack, and free to try doing your own hip replacement too.
You are free when you pay for your own health needs, you are not free when
you depend on someone else to pay for your health needs.
>
>> The more you depend on someone else, the less freedom you have.
> You're always free to try to do your own heart bypass when you are
> having a heart attack, and free to try doing your own hip replacement too.
>
>>> The rich have freedom. 97% of the posters here have freedom --
>>> because they can afford it. Who speaks for those who don't have
>>> that freedom?
>
You are not free when you depend on the government to give you what you want
or need, and it does not matter if you are rich or poor.
>> They should speak for themselves.
>
> They're more interested in getting their serious medical problem fixed.
Well, yes. People tend to be selfish that way. They wil sacrifice their
freedoms to save their life.
>
>> If you want to be free, you have the responsibility to do what is
>> necessary to be free.
>
> Then why havent you fucked off to Somalia where you are free
> to rape any woman you feel like raping, free to drive on whatever
> side of the road you feel like driving on, free to drive as fast as
> you like thru a built up area, free to go on a shooting spree and
> kill anyone you feel like killing, etc etc etc ?
I will go to Somalia, if you will go to North Korea.
>
>> If you cannot afford whatever you want, it was your fault, no one elses,
>> that put you in that position.
>
> Wota terminal fuckwit.
Why?
>
>>> Once we finally get rid of the damned "middle class" all the rest will
>>> have freedom.
>
>> Freedom without EVERYONE being free, has no meaning whatsoever.
>
> You arent free to rape any woman you feel like raping, you arent free
> to drive on whatever side of the road you feel like driving on, you arent
> free to drive as fast as you like thru a built up area, you arent free to
> go on a shooting spree and kill anyone you feel like killing, etc etc etc.
To be free, means you have to act responsibly. If you do not act
responsibly, you don't deserve to have the freedom that you had.
>
> So you're actually stupid enough to claim that freedom has no meaning what
> so ever ?
>
>>> Me. I have freedom. I'm on Medicare -- that private insurance for the
>>> old.
>
>> No, you only think you are free.
>
> You in spades.
ALL of us, who depend on anyone else but ourselves to give us what we want
or need.
Michael Coburn
Tax avoidance normally increases economic activity and investment. So if
the taxation is avoided it increases tax revenue somewhere else by
providing income opportunity to the entrepreneurial people. One of the
most interesting things about taxes on very high incomes is that the
taxation does not change the behavior of those being taxed. As the income
is totally unearned, it is essentially "free money".
See "Economic Rent":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent
>> Medical provider and insurance company profit can only be dealt with
>> using monoposony power.
>
> Thats just plain wrong too. The other way of doing that would be to
> setup a govt insurance opposition in competition with the insurance
> companys and drive the cost of insurance down that way.
>
> Lot easier said than done tho, that approach would see the worst risks
> end up with the govt insurance operation and it may well be that the
> insurance company profits would keep increasing just because they end up
> with the lowest risk customers.
The low risks are the result of employer insurance pools. Only the young
and healthy are in the work force and hence in the employer pools. That
is part of the design of the current system that will remain intact. It
is an essential part of the current Senate payolla politics that cannot
be overcome.
>> A single payer system is the ultimate,
>
> Yes.
>
>> but extending the number of persons on Medicare through the use of a
>> Public Option will increase the power of the group to control medical
>> costs.
>
> Maybe. There is a real possibility that an attempt to do that would just
> see more and more doctors and hospitals just refuse to provide medical
> services to those who use Medicare to pay too little for those services.
That is the "cost shifting" that occurs. The providers simply refuse to
provide services at the lower prices and instead get their income from
the higher paying purchasers (the insurance companies). But when the
pool of higher paying customers shrinks and the pool of government
purchasers expands then the providers can't get away with that shifting
as easily as they did before. The higher paying consumers start to get
very pissed off due to the exorbitant costs and that is when the costs
will come down. The insurance companies will have to pay less for the
services ALSO.
>> The Insurance companies will, of necessity, participate in the cost
>> reductions because if they continue to pay the inflated fees, passing
>> them to the consumers then they will not be able to compete.
>
> So superficial, particularly if they end up with lower risk customers.
They will always have lower risk customers so long as employer insurance
pools exist. But that is how we do it here in the USA. The employers
like it that way and they own the US Senate through the lobby. We have
to do some pretty squirrelly stuff to get anything past the Senate. And
that is what we are doing...... Squirrelly stuff. A single payer system
would immediately remove that big hook that the large corporations have
in the ass of their employees. A less competitive Public Option, not so
much.
>>> Assuming the exploitation of this finite resource continues to be
>>> expanded, it seems necessary that it will eventually reach the point
>>> of diminishing returns, whereupon I would expect it to implode
>>> catastrophically. For example, in the case of H1N1 vaccine, in spite
>>> of a great deal of sound, fury and money, only a small portion of the
>>> amount supposedly needed has been produced, and needless to say much
>>> of this has been sequestered for the use of important people like
>>> financiers.
>
>> Oh horse shit!
>
> Indeed.
>
>>> I believe this is a model for a more general collapse.
>
>>> I realize my view is logical and therefore suspect.
>
>> Some good some bad....
--
Les Cargill
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:07:23 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
> Tax avoidance normally increases economic activity and investment. So if
> the taxation is avoided it increases tax revenue somewhere else by
> providing income opportunity to the entrepreneurial people. One of the
> most interesting things about taxes on very high incomes is that the
> taxation does not change the behavior of those being taxed. As the income
> is totally unearned, it is essentially "free money".
>
> See "Economic Rent":
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent
>
When RoyL was here, he showed us that income tax is not a good
rent capture mechanism. Especially if it taxes what is essentially
labor.
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
Michael Coburn
If you tax very high incomes (over 2-3 million a year) you will be taxing
economic rent according to the neoclassical economists.
RoyL was a natural resource taxer and absolutely right. You don't
remember that he started out as an asset tax man. I am still an asset
tax man, but with a lot heavier tax on land than on other assets.
The highly progressive income tax was/is the only way that a tax on
economic rent can be realized in the USA (I think) because the other
forms of direct taxation are constitutionally prohibited.
Anarcissie
You're assuming here that the monopsony will favor
the payer. That would be true if the monopsony were
a person or group who would suffer a loss of utility
through payment and would therefore offer price
resistance, but if it's run by the government it
will be under the same plutocratic control as
everything else the government does, and the payers
will be of a different class than those making the
payments. The directors of the monopsony will be of
the same class, and may even be the same people, as
those selling the services which the monopsony is
buying. They should get along well.
That problem might be avoided if, say, the monopsony
were a buyers' cooperative where the members elected
the directors, but that's not what is being proposed.
As we know from simple observation, general elections
in the U.S. (and probably elsewhere) result in
plutocracy, not a government interested in the welfare
or desires of the average citizen. Even when the
voters vote for "change" they get more of same. The
substantial questions of how the government is to
behave are not subject to elections.
This is what I mean when I say there is no force
available under the proposed arrangements to drive the
price of medical care down. The main force limiting
the present system has been the fact that millions of
people cannot or will not buy medical insurance or care
because the price is too high. This problem is now
going to be solved by the application of government
force -- one will be required to buy, or the money will
be extracted by some other means. At least, that's
what I read. I reason that, in the absence of a
countervailing force, the price will simply rise until
it reaches some other limit, probably an unpleasant
one.
(Actually, I believe a general economic collapse will
preempt the specific collapse of the medical payment
system, but that's just a guess.)
> > Assuming the exploitation of this finite resource continues to be
> > expanded, it seems necessary that it will eventually reach the point of
> > diminishing returns, whereupon I would expect it to implode
> > catastrophically. For example, in the case of H1N1 vaccine, in spite of
> > a great deal of sound, fury and money, only a small portion of the
> > amount supposedly needed has been produced, and needless to say much of
> > this has been sequestered for the use of important people like
> > financiers.
>
> Oh horse shit!
Well, again, that is what I read. I am personally not
interested in H1N1 vaccine so I have not been following
the story closely, but I was amused to learn that being
in high finance not only brings $1000 bottles of
champagne for brunch but supplies of H1N1 vaccine as
well.
Jerry Okamura
"Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hdf85...@news6.newsguy.com...
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:02:39 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> NO!! The insurance companies are not the problem.
>
> The _FACT_ that insurance company consumer population and profits
> increase as the cost of medical care increases should be enough to
> illustrate the adverse economics of the private insurance companies as a
> viable _MARKET_ participant. As the cost of health care rises due to
> innovation and marvelous new inventions then so too does the risk of
> bankruptcy should anyone in your family ever have a serious illness. And
> it is this risk that motivates the consumer of medical insurance. As such
> there is no benefit whatsoever to the insurance sector as a group in
> refusing to pay whatever the providers might want to charge. And
> INDIVIDUAL insurance companies will fair no better than individual
> consumers in attempting to regulate the provider charges.
Which is relevant how?
>
>> Medical inflation is
>> the problem. The cost of ANY insurance will rise at least by the
>> medical inflation rate. And since medical inflation is runnig at or
>> abor 8% per year, the cost of the insurance will rise by at least that
>> amount every year. Medical inflation is a problem because you cannot
>> effectively control prices when the user of the service is not the one
>> paying for the service.
>
> You are, of course, a moron. We can't control the cost of medical
> services as individuals. Only a total idiot Republican would believe such
> stupidity.
Who is the moron? You control the cost of anything by the way you use the
service. Besides, I stated a fact, i.e. that medical inflation is running
at or above 8% per year. Can you prove that the medical inflation rate is
not running at or above 8% per year?
>
>> So, any kind of insurance is part of the
>> problem, because the user of the service will try to use the service
>> because they are not the one paying for the service.
>
> Sure, moron. We will all run out and throw ourselves under a crosstown
> bus so we can take advantage of the free medical care. And again we see
> the deranged and utterly stupid position of Jerry Okamura and the
> Republican party.
You seem to avoid the issue by resorting to personal insults. Why do you do
that? Maybe because you really cannot say that what I said is not the
truth?
>
>> And NO, going to a
>> single payer system like Kucinch favors is not going to solve the
>> medical inflation part of the problem, for the same reason, the
>> individual WILL USE the service regardless of how much that service
>> cost. They don't care how much that service cost, because they are not
>> the ones paying for it.
>
> The stupidity just never stops.
Well, how can you reduce the medical inflation rate, if the user of the
service is not the one paying for the service?
>
>> But there is an even more important question.
>> The question is, how important is FREEDOM? You have considerably less
>> freedom, when you are dependent on someone else to provide for what you
>> need or want. You have the most freedom when you take care of your own
>> needs.
>
> Why don't you give yourself a liver transplant, Jerry?
Relevance?
Rod Speed
> Les Cargill wrote
>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>> Tax avoidance normally increases economic activity and investment.
Like hell it does when its shifted to countrys that dont tax it.
>>> So if the taxation is avoided it increases tax revenue somewhere
>>> else by providing income opportunity to the entrepreneurial people.
Yes, it does provide income opportunitys in the tax
havens, but thats no use for the US tax collector.
>>> One of the most interesting things about taxes on very high incomes
>>> is that the taxation does not change the behavior of those being taxed.
Corse it does on where they keep their money.
>>> As the income is totally unearned,
That is just plain wrong with CEO salarys.
>>> it is essentially "free money".
Like hell it is.
>>> See "Economic Rent":
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent
>> When RoyL was here, he showed us that income tax is not a good
>> rent capture mechanism. Especially if it taxes what is essentially labor.
> If you tax very high incomes (over 2-3 million a year)
Its very hard to do that with individuals, because its so easy for them
to rearrange their assets or income so they are very difficult to tax.
And there are fuck all with that sort of income anyway, so the total you can collect is fuck all too.
> you will be taxing economic rent according to the neoclassical economists.
Not when they avoid paying it.
Rod Speed
>> Not really.
>> Yes.
>>> /consumers.
>> Yes.
Commented on elsewhere.
> See "Economic Rent":
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent
>>> Medical provider and insurance company profit can only be dealt with
>>> using monoposony power.
>> Thats just plain wrong too. The other way of doing that would be to
>> setup a govt insurance opposition in competition with the insurance
>> companys and drive the cost of insurance down that way.
>> Lot easier said than done tho, that approach would see the worst
>> risks end up with the govt insurance operation and it may well be
>> that the insurance company profits would keep increasing just
>> because they end up with the lowest risk customers.
> The low risks are the result of employer insurance pools.
Its much more complicated than that.
> Only the young and healthy are in the work force
That is just plain wrong. And plenty of them have
significant care costs, most obviously with their kids.
> and hence in the employer pools. That is part of the
> design of the current system that will remain intact.
Thats very arguable if the congressional mandates on what
must be included in the health insurance end up in the final
bill that gets passed and that results in much higher insurance
premiums for employers and that sees many more of them
give up on paying for the health insurance of their employees.
> It is an essential part of the current Senate payolla politics that cannot be overcome.
We'll see...
>>> A single payer system is the ultimate,
>> Yes.
>>> but extending the number of persons on Medicare through the use of a
>>> Public Option will increase the power of the group to control medical costs.
>> Maybe. There is a real possibility that an attempt to do that would just
>> see more and more doctors and hospitals just refuse to provide medical
>> services to those who use Medicare to pay too little for those services.
> That is the "cost shifting" that occurs.
Nope, thats much more those who arent covered by medicare or insurance.
> The providers simply refuse to provide services at the lower prices and
> instead get their income from the higher paying purchasers (the insurance
> companies). But when the pool of higher paying customers shrinks
It remains to be seen if it will shrink or not given that insurance looks
likely to be mandated for those who dont qualify for medicare etc.
> and the pool of government purchasers expands
There is no proposal that will do that in the bill currently.
> then the providers can't get away with that shifting as easily as they did before.
That would only be true if the medicare system was extended.
In fact its the insurance system being extended instead.
> The higher paying consumers start to get very pissed off due to
> the exorbitant costs and that is when the costs will come down.
How odd that it hasnt even when the US pisses TWICE the percentage
of GDP against the wall on health care costs than anywhere else.
> The insurance companies will have to pay less for the services ALSO.
They've been doing that for a very long time now, most obviously
with what they are prepared to pay for in the hospital system.
>>> The Insurance companies will, of necessity, participate in the
>>> cost reductions because if they continue to pay the inflated fees,
>>> passing them to the consumers then they will not be able to compete.
>> So superficial, particularly if they end up with lower risk customers.
> They will always have lower risk customers so long as employer insurance pools exist.
Yes, but with the govt insurance operation they also get to
offload plenty of the higher risk customers to that as well.
> But that is how we do it here in the USA.
Not for much longer, you watch.
> The employers like it that way
Doesnt matter a damn what they like.
> and they own the US Senate through the lobby.
Like hell they do.
> We have to do some pretty squirrelly stuff to get anything past the Senate.
Wasnt necessary with Medicare.
> And that is what we are doing...... Squirrelly stuff.
Nothing has got past the senate yet, squirelly or not.
> A single payer system would immediately remove that big hook
> that the large corporations have in the ass of their employees.
Yes, but the political system appears too fucked to go that route any time soon.
> A less competitive Public Option, not so much.
Not at all in fact.
Rod Speed
>>>>>> Wrong, as always.
Even you cant actually be THAT stupid.
>>> Freedom means you have to figure out a way to take care of your own needs and try not to depend on someone else to
>>> provide for your own needs.
>> You're always free to try to do your own heart bypass when you are
>> having a heart attack, and free to try doing your own hip replacement too.
> You are free when you pay for your own health needs,
Nope, not when it costs more than you can pay for you aint.
> you are not free when you depend on someone else to pay for your health needs.
Wrong when they are legally obliged to pay for your health needs.
>>> The more you depend on someone else, the less freedom you have.
>> You're always free to try to do your own heart bypass when you are
>> having a heart attack, and free to try doing your own hip replacement too.
>>>> The rich have freedom. 97% of the posters here have freedom -- because they can afford it. Who speaks for those
>>>> who don't have that freedom?
> You are not free when you depend on the government to give you what you want or need, and it does not matter if you
> are rich or poor.
You arent free to rape any woman you feel like raping, you arent
free to drive on whatever side of the road you feel like driving on,
you arent free to drive as fast as you like thru a built up area, you
arent free to go on a shooting spree and kill anyone you feel like
killing, etc etc etc, whether you are rich or poor.
>>> They should speak for themselves.
>> They're more interested in getting their serious medical problem fixed.
> Well, yes. People tend to be selfish that way. They wil sacrifice their freedoms to save their life.
And you have sacrificed your freedom to rape any woman you
feel like raping, to drive on whatever side of the road you feel
like driving on, to drive as fast as you like thru a built up area, to go
on a shooting spree and kill anyone you feel like killing, etc etc etc.
So you are in fact just another completely mindless hypocrite.
>>> If you want to be free, you have the responsibility to do what is
>>> necessary to be free.
>> Then why havent you fucked off to Somalia where you are free to rape any woman you feel like raping, free to drive on
>> whatever side of the road you feel like driving on, free to drive as fast as you like thru a built up area, free to
>> go on a shooting spree and kill anyone you feel like killing, etc etc etc ?
> I will go to Somalia, if you will go to North Korea.
I wasnt the one mindlessly raving on about freedom.
>>> If you cannot afford whatever you want, it was your fault, no one elses, that put you in that position.
>> Wota terminal fuckwit.
> Why?
Born like it most likely.
>>>> Once we finally get rid of the damned "middle class" all the rest will have freedom.
>>> Freedom without EVERYONE being free, has no meaning whatsoever.
>> You arent free to rape any woman you feel like raping, you arent free
>> to drive on whatever side of the road you feel like driving on, you
>> arent free to drive as fast as you like thru a built up area, you
>> arent free to go on a shooting spree and kill anyone you feel like
>> killing, etc etc etc.
> To be free, means you have to act responsibly.
Wrong, as always.
> If you do not act responsibly, you don't deserve to have the freedom that you had.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>> So you're actually stupid enough to claim that freedom has no meaning what so ever ?
>>>> Me. I have freedom. I'm on Medicare -- that private insurance for the old.
>>> No, you only think you are free.
>> You in spades.
> ALL of us, who depend on anyone else but ourselves to give us what we want or need.
You arent free to rape any woman you feel like raping, you arent free
Rod Speed
Thats not an assumption, thats a fact. Look at how medicare does that sometime.
> That would be true if the monopsony were
> a person or group who would suffer a loss of utility
> through payment and would therefore offer price
> resistance, but if it's run by the government it
> will be under the same plutocratic control as
> everything else the government does,
Have fun explaining how come medicare does just what he said.
> and the payers will be of a different class than those making the payments.
That works fine with medicare.
> The directors of the monopsony will be of the same
> class, and may even be the same people, as those
> selling the services which the monopsony is buying.
Like hell they are. The directors of the monosony are govt paper shufflers, stupid.
> They should get along well.
Try telling that to those who get shafted by medicare.
Dont be TOO surprised when they just laugh in your silly little pig ignorant face, again.
> That problem might be avoided if, say, the monopsony
> were a buyers' cooperative where the members elected
> the directors, but that's not what is being proposed.
Thats just one way of avoiding it.
> As we know from simple observation, general elections
> in the U.S. (and probably elsewhere) result in plutocracy,
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
> not a government interested in the welfare or desires of the average citizen.
Have fun explaining social security and medicare.
> Even when the voters vote for "change" they get more of same.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont.
Nothing like that happened in Britain or Canada.
> The substantial questions of how the government
> is to behave are not subject to elections.
Wrong, as always.
> This is what I mean when I say there is no force
> available under the proposed arrangements to
> drive the price of medical care down.
And that is just plain wrong. Medicare has done just that.
> The main force limiting the present system has been the
> fact that millions of people cannot or will not buy medical
> insurance or care because the price is too high.
Wrong again.
> This problem is now going to be solved by the application
> of government force -- one will be required to buy, or the
> money will be extracted by some other means.
It cant be from the dregs of society. There is no money to extract.
> At least, that's what I read.
You need new glasses and a brain to apply to what you read.
> I reason that, in the absence of a countervailing
> force, the price will simply rise until it reaches
> some other limit, probably an unpleasant one.
Have fun explaining why it doesnt in single payer systems.
> (Actually, I believe a general economic collapse will preempt
> the specific collapse of the medical payment system,
More fool you. The voters will go for a single payer system first, just like they
did in EVERY OTHER MODERN FIRST AND SECOND WORLD COUNTRY.
> but that's just a guess.)
Yep, and a pig ignorant one at that.
>>> Assuming the exploitation of this finite resource continues to be
>>> expanded, it seems necessary that it will eventually reach the
>>> point of diminishing returns, whereupon I would expect it to implode
>>> catastrophically. For example, in the case of H1N1 vaccine, in
>>> spite of a great deal of sound, fury and money, only a small
>>> portion of the amount supposedly needed has been produced, and
>>> needless to say much of this has been sequestered for the use of
>>> important people like financiers.
>> Oh horse shit!
> Well, again, that is what I read.
Then you need to read more widely.
> I am personally not interested in H1N1 vaccine
> so I have not been following the story closely,
Thats obvious.
> but I was amused to learn that being in high finance
> not only brings $1000 bottles of champagne for
> brunch but supplies of H1N1 vaccine as well.
But does NOT see it 'sequestered', liar.
Rod Speed
> Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote
>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>> NO!! The insurance companies are not the problem.
>> The _FACT_ that insurance company consumer population and profits
>> increase as the cost of medical care increases should be enough to
>> illustrate the adverse economics of the private insurance companies
>> as a viable _MARKET_ participant. As the cost of health care rises
>> due to innovation and marvelous new inventions then so too does the
>> risk of bankruptcy should anyone in your family ever have a serious
>> illness. And it is this risk that motivates the consumer of medical
>> insurance. As such there is no benefit whatsoever to the insurance
>> sector as a group in refusing to pay whatever the providers might
>> want to charge. And INDIVIDUAL insurance companies will fair no
>> better than individual consumers in attempting to regulate the
>> provider charges.
> Which is relevant how?
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>>> Medical inflation is
>>> the problem. The cost of ANY insurance will rise at least by the
>>> medical inflation rate. And since medical inflation is runnig at or
>>> abor 8% per year, the cost of the insurance will rise by at least
>>> that amount every year. Medical inflation is a problem because you
>>> cannot effectively control prices when the user of the service is
>>> not the one paying for the service.
>> You are, of course, a moron. We can't control the cost of medical
>> services as individuals. Only a total idiot Republican would believe
>> such stupidity.
> Who is the moron?
You.
> You control the cost of anything by the way you use the service.
Another pig ignorant lie.
> Besides, I stated a fact, i.e. that medical inflation is running at or above 8% per year. Can you prove that the
> medical inflation rate is not running at or above 8% per year?
Yep, it isnt in Japan.
>>> So, any kind of insurance is part of the problem, because the user of the service will try to use the service
>>> because they are not the one paying for the service.
>> Sure, moron. We will all run out and throw ourselves under a
>> crosstown bus so we can take advantage of the free medical care. And again we see the deranged and utterly stupid
>> position of Jerry
>> Okamura and the Republican party.
> You seem to avoid the issue by resorting to personal insults.
He isnt avoiding any issue, just adding statements of fact about you to the points he is making.
> Why do you do that? Maybe because you really cannot say that what I said is not the truth?
He clearly said that you are lying, moron.
>>> And NO, going to a
>>> single payer system like Kucinch favors is not going to solve the
>>> medical inflation part of the problem, for the same reason, the
>>> individual WILL USE the service regardless of how much that service
>>> cost. They don't care how much that service cost, because they are
>>> not the ones paying for it.
>> The stupidity just never stops.
> Well, how can you reduce the medical inflation rate, if the user of the service is not the one paying for the service?
By having a single payer system that tells the industry what it will
pay, or by directly telling the industry what they can charge, stupid.
>>> But there is an even more important question.
>>> The question is, how important is FREEDOM? You have considerably
>>> less freedom, when you are dependent on someone else to provide for
>>> what you need or want. You have the most freedom when you take
>>> care of your own needs.
>> Why don't you give yourself a liver transplant, Jerry?
> Relevance?
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Les Cargill
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:52:14 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> Michael Coburn wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:07:23 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>> <snip>
>>> Tax avoidance normally increases economic activity and investment. So
>>> if the taxation is avoided it increases tax revenue somewhere else by
>>> providing income opportunity to the entrepreneurial people. One of the
>>> most interesting things about taxes on very high incomes is that the
>>> taxation does not change the behavior of those being taxed. As the
>>> income is totally unearned, it is essentially "free money".
>>>
>>> See "Economic Rent":
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent
>>>
>>>
>> When RoyL was here, he showed us that income tax is not a good rent
>> capture mechanism. Especially if it taxes what is essentially labor.
>>
>> <snip>
>
> If you tax very high incomes (over 2-3 million a year) you will be taxing
> economic rent according to the neoclassical economists.
>
No, I understand - what is labor and what is rent is anything but
clear in some cases. Surgeons' income is a lot rent, for example.
Ballplayers really *aren't*, until you get into endorsements.
> RoyL was a natural resource taxer and absolutely right. You don't
> remember that he started out as an asset tax man. I am still an asset
> tax man, but with a lot heavier tax on land than on other assets.
>
I only dropped his name because he really knows this stuff, and
I wanted to more or less footnote/attribute where it came from.
> The highly progressive income tax was/is the only way that a tax on
> economic rent can be realized in the USA (I think) because the other
> forms of direct taxation are constitutionally prohibited.
>
Hard to say.
--
Les Cargill
Jerry Okamura
I dunno, how is what you said relevant to what is being discussed.
>
>>>> Freedom means you have to figure out a way to take care of your own
>>>> needs and try not to depend on someone else to provide for your own
>>>> needs.
>
>>> You're always free to try to do your own heart bypass when you are
>>> having a heart attack, and free to try doing your own hip replacement
>>> too.
>
>> You are free when you pay for your own health needs,
>
> Nope, not when it costs more than you can pay for you aint.
That is the price of freedom. If you want to be safe from every possible
thing that can happen to you, that can only be achieved with the lost of our
freedoms.
>
>> you are not free when you depend on someone else to pay for your health
>> needs.
>
> Wrong when they are legally obliged to pay for your health needs.
But they are not legally obligated to pay, and I asked you what leads you to
believe that they are legally obligated to pay? You did not answer that
question when I asked it before, yet you keep making the same statement over
and over again.
>
>>>> The more you depend on someone else, the less freedom you have.
>
>>> You're always free to try to do your own heart bypass when you are
>>> having a heart attack, and free to try doing your own hip replacement
>>> too.
Which is relevant how?
>
>>>>> The rich have freedom. 97% of the posters here have freedom --
>>>>> because they can afford it. Who speaks for those who don't have that
>>>>> freedom?
>
>> You are not free when you depend on the government to give you what you
>> want or need, and it does not matter if you are rich or poor.
>
> You arent free to rape any woman you feel like raping, you arent
> free to drive on whatever side of the road you feel like driving on,
> you arent free to drive as fast as you like thru a built up area, you
> arent free to go on a shooting spree and kill anyone you feel like
> killing, etc etc etc, whether you are rich or poor.
Who said that freedom has no consequences? You can be as free as possible,
as long as you act responsibly. When you do not act responsibly, then
government will take that freedom away from you.
Rod Speed
>>>>>>>> Wrong, as always.
> I dunno,
You did manage to get that bit right, presumably by accident.
> how is what you said relevant to what is being discussed.
Even you cant actually be THAT stupid.
>>>>> Freedom means you have to figure out a way to take care of your
>>>>> own needs and try not to depend on someone else to provide for
>>>>> your own needs.
>>>> You're always free to try to do your own heart bypass when you are
>>>> having a heart attack, and free to try doing your own hip
>>>> replacement too.
>>> You are free when you pay for your own health needs,
>> Nope, not when it costs more than you can pay for you aint.
> That is the price of freedom.
Nope. You arent free to rape any woman you feel like raping,
you arent free to drive on whatever side of the road you feel
like driving on, you arent free to drive as fast as you like thru
a built up area, you arent free to go on a shooting spree and
kill anyone you feel like killing, etc etc etc.
> If you want to be safe from every possible thing that can happen to you, that can only be achieved with the lost of
> our freedoms.
You've already lost the freedom to rape any woman you feel like raping,
you've already lost the freedom to drive on whatever side of the road
you feel like driving on, you've already lost the freedom to drive as fast
as you like thru a built up area, you've already lost the freedom to go
on a shooting spree and kill anyone you feel like killing, etc etc etc.
>>> you are not free when you depend on someone else to pay for your health needs.
>> Wrong when they are legally obliged to pay for your health needs.
> But they are not legally obligated to pay,
Corse they are. If you have paid your insurance premiums,
or you qualify for medicare or the VA system, they are
legally obliged to pay for your health needs.
> and I asked you what leads you to believe that they are legally obligated to pay?
Its obvious with medicare and the VA system and should be
obvious when you have paid your insurance premiums as well.
> You did not answer that question when I asked it before, yet you keep making the same statement over and over again.
Because it stays true, fool.
>>>>> The more you depend on someone else, the less freedom you have.
>>>> You're always free to try to do your own heart bypass when you are
>>>> having a heart attack, and free to try doing your own hip replacement too.
> Which is relevant how?
Its an example of a freedom you still have.
>>>>>> The rich have freedom. 97% of the posters here have freedom --
>>>>>> because they can afford it. Who speaks for those who don't
>>>>>> have that freedom?
>>> You are not free when you depend on the government to give you what
>>> you want or need, and it does not matter if you are rich or poor.
>> You arent free to rape any woman you feel like raping, you arent
>> free to drive on whatever side of the road you feel like driving on,
>> you arent free to drive as fast as you like thru a built up area, you
>> arent free to go on a shooting spree and kill anyone you feel like
>> killing, etc etc etc, whether you are rich or poor.
> Who said that freedom has no consequences?
Thats rubbing your stupid pig ignorant nose in the freedom you DONT have.
> You can be as free as possible, as long as you act responsibly.
If you really were free, you'd be free to act irresponsibly too, fool.
> When you do not act responsibly, then government will take that freedom away from you.
So you aint free, fool.
Michael Coburn
You can complicate it as much as you want, virus. The chronically ill
are not the typically employed and the great majority of those who are
employed are not the old and the sick. That is not the least bit
complicated nor is it something that a sentient being would attempt to
disagree with. Where does that leave the virus?
>> Only the young and healthy are in the work force
>
> That is just plain wrong. And plenty of them have significant care
> costs, most obviously with their kids.
While it is true that some who are employed have significant kid care
costs the same age based health claim holds true for the kids in general
in that they are the healthiest part of the whole lot. So coots don't
have kids but their insurance premiums are 3 to 4 times that of the 30
year old. The family policies add the 0-25 rate for the first and second
kid and no more after that. Family of 6 is the same as family of 4. So
the kidless coots pay the same as the families of 6. Based on head count
that is arguably 6 times the young and healthy rate. The insurance
companies are _NOT_ in the business of losing money. And so, virus, I am
not "just plain wrong" at all. EMPLOYER POOLS ARE AUTOMATIC AGE
DISCRIMINATORS. That is a statistical fact that will keep the insurance
companies and the employer provided health insurance racket in business
unless there is a depression and a Public Option. As people lose their
jobs and are forced into proprietorship tending lawns they will "join"
the public option.
>> and hence in the employer pools. That is part of the design of the
>> current system that will remain intact.
>
> Thats very arguable if the congressional mandates on what must be
> included in the health insurance end up in the final bill that gets
> passed and that results in much higher insurance premiums for employers
> and that sees many more of them give up on paying for the health
> insurance of their employees.
All fine and well and good, virus, but the employers are mandated to
provide the insurance and the statistical certainty of age still plays.
So if shit flows uphill and the sky is red then the Seattle Sea Hawks
will win this year's Super Bowl. As a group, employed people are
healthier than the unemployed and their companies have at least a minimal
bargaining power with insurance providers. This bargaining power is the
actual "justification" for employer provided health insurance. It is
less expensive for the employees to use the company bargaining power than
to go at it one on one with the insurance company. The exchange and the
PO will cut into that employer power. But the employers will still act
in the same way as a "labor union" when bargaining with the insurance
companies. The smaller companies lack that power and end up paying
higher premiums. It has more to do with the bargaining power and less to
do with the size of the pool and spreading of risk that the lying pigs
want to admit. After all, the same insurance companies insure both the
large and the small and the pool is actually the sum of the insured
persons in all the companies contracted.
>> It is an essential part of the current Senate payolla politics that
>> cannot be overcome.
>
> We'll see...
>
>>>> A single payer system is the ultimate,
>
>>> Yes.
>
>>>> but extending the number of persons on Medicare through the use of a
>>>> Public Option will increase the power of the group to control medical
>>>> costs.
>
>>> Maybe. There is a real possibility that an attempt to do that would
>>> just see more and more doctors and hospitals just refuse to provide
>>> medical services to those who use Medicare to pay too little for those
>>> services.
>
>> That is the "cost shifting" that occurs.
>
> Nope, thats much more those who arent covered by medicare or insurance.
(sigh)
>> The providers simply refuse to provide services at the lower prices and
>> instead get their income from the higher paying purchasers (the
>> insurance companies). But when the pool of higher paying customers
>> shrinks
>
> It remains to be seen if it will shrink or not given that insurance
> looks likely to be mandated for those who dont qualify for medicare etc.
>
>> and the pool of government purchasers expands
>
> There is no proposal that will do that in the bill currently.
With a "strong" Public Option, the PO insurance provider will probably
negotiate starting at Medicare rates and moving up from there. The pool
of government purchasers will expand from the current 40 million on
Medicare to some unknown number in the PO that may or may not be
significant. No matter what happens, the PO is a "union" of persons
seeking insurance that will have more bargaining power than the
individuals would have had. But I got nailed by the virus on this one.
The pool of employer insured persons _MAY_ also increase in excess of the
real world job loss statistics. The rising unemployment rate must also
be considered here and the move of people from manufacturing to services
that leaves a lot of people out in the smaller employer or proprietor
world. So although there will be a lot more "insured" persons it remains
to be seen whether these persons are going through large employers or
through the Public Option. "It's the economy stupid".
>> then the providers can't get away with that shifting as easily as they
>> did before.
>
> That would only be true if the medicare system was extended.
>
> In fact its the insurance system being extended instead.
This adding a lot of new insured is a fact. So the handlers of the virus
may get one right. And the monopsony position for "government" may not
be improved. But something that will be improved is the bargaining power
of those who are not employed by large businesses. Even if the Public
Option turns out to be just a "union" of all the persons not employed by
big business across the whole nation then their bargaining power and
their premium rates will have been reduced. Any Public Option is a good
thing for the small entrepreneurs and the older people younger than 65.
>> The higher paying consumers start to get very pissed off due to the
>> exorbitant costs and that is when the costs will come down.
>
> How odd that it hasnt even when the US pisses TWICE the percentage of
> GDP against the wall on health care costs than anywhere else.
As individuals they have had no way to bring it down. There has been no
competition to speak of in the big insurer and big employer game. There
has been absolutely nothing that the individual could do regarding health
insurance or health care costs and the insurance companies as a group
improve their profits as health care costs increase. It is the fear of
bankruptcy that compels the household provider to insure the family.
>> The insurance companies will have to pay less for the services ALSO.
>
> They've been doing that for a very long time now, most obviously with
> what they are prepared to pay for in the hospital system.
No. They have not been doing so to any significant degree. They have
been passing the excess charges from the providers to the insurance
purchasers and they will continue to do so. In dealing with the
providers they face the same problem as the individual faces in dealing
with the insurance sector. Each individual company is an individual
facing, what is essentially a single provider (in a geographic area).
That provider (or group of providers as the AMA) operates with monopoly
or cartel power providing an essential good. The insurance companies are
fragmented in their negotiations with the providers just as individuals
are fragmented in their negotiations with the insurance companies. If
and when there is a single payer system then these roles will be reversed.
Disallowing trusts among the insurance companies and allowing state based
negotiations may be a bad move. If the insurance companies were much
more transparent and highly regulated then the "trusts" might actually
serve to reduce costs just as a government run single payer system
would. It appears to me that the providers are getting a very sweet deal
in the current scheme of things where the _ONLY_ cost control is the
Public Option, Medicare, and Medicaid. By eliminating trust
relationships and forcing state based pools we may have the worst of all
worlds. We have a highly fragmented payer network.
>>>> The Insurance companies will, of necessity, participate in the cost
>>>> reductions because if they continue to pay the inflated fees, passing
>>>> them to the consumers then they will not be able to compete.
>
>>> So superficial, particularly if they end up with lower risk customers.
>
>> They will always have lower risk customers so long as employer
>> insurance pools exist.
>
> Yes, but with the govt insurance operation they also get to offload
> plenty of the higher risk customers to that as well.
That is actually a better deal. These higher risk people now have more
bargaining power than they had before. They will pay lower provider
fees. The insurance companies will experience a near term profit
increase that will diminish rather quickly due to competition among
them. The costs of services will be shifted from the PO to the private
insurance companies just as the Medicare costs are so shifted. That will
reduce the current subsidy to employers that exists due to age and
fitness and "union". More people will leave their jobs for the freedom
of the open market.
>> But that is how we do it here in the USA.
>
> Not for much longer, you watch.
>
>> The employers like it that way
>
> Doesnt matter a damn what they like.
>
>> and they own the US Senate through the lobby.
>
> Like hell they do.
In this area, virus, you will refer to me a "sir". The people of Maine,
and Montana and Iowa are all fine with the Public Option. Yet the
Senators from those States openly opposed it in the Senate finance
committee. This is because the candidate that can buy the most media
time and coverage will win the election for the Senate in his/her state.
The voters of Montana send in $1 each for the campaign fund in Montana
and the fund has about $650k (the voters are 3/5ths of the population).
The medical lobby group spends more than that for lunch. This is why
underpopulated states seem to be against the public option and why the
underpopulated states are predominately Republican as regards the
Senate. Max Baucus is the quintessential "Blue Dog". When the people of
California sens in $1 then the people's campaign war chest has $20M or
so. If you are a large corporation which Senator will you buy?????
>> We have to do some pretty squirrelly stuff to get anything past the
>> Senate.
>
> Wasnt necessary with Medicare.
>
>> And that is what we are doing...... Squirrelly stuff.
>
> Nothing has got past the senate yet, squirelly or not.
Any sentient being that thinks a single payer system can get past the
lobby butt suckers in the Senate is on drugs.
>> A single payer system would immediately remove that big hook that the
>> large corporations have in the ass of their employees.
>
> Yes, but the political system appears too fucked to go that route any
> time soon.
The virus contradicts itself AGAIN.
>> A less competitive Public Option, not so much.
>
> Not at all in fact.
The PO is a threat to the status quo. That is all that matters and it
will have a very hard time of it in the Senate. Anything more
threatening stands no chance at all.
>>>>> Assuming the exploitation of this finite resource continues to be
>>>>> expanded, it seems necessary that it will eventually reach the point
>>>>> of diminishing returns, whereupon I would expect it to implode
>>>>> catastrophically. For example, in the case of H1N1 vaccine, in
>>>>> spite of a great deal of sound, fury and money, only a small portion
>>>>> of the amount supposedly needed has been produced, and needless to
>>>>> say much of this has been sequestered for the use of important
>>>>> people like financiers.
>
>>>> Oh horse shit!
>
>>> Indeed.
>
>>>>> I believe this is a model for a more general collapse.
>
>>>>> I realize my view is logical and therefore suspect.
>
>>>> Some good some bad....
Michael Coburn
Yet the Canadian and other examples do not seem to validate this hatred
and fear of "the state". The people pay a lot less for medical care than
do the people in the US.
> That problem might be avoided if, say, the monopsony were a buyers'
> cooperative where the members elected the directors, but that's not what
> is being proposed.
Do we not have "elections" in these United States? I know that
Republicans want K Street and the revolving door and many of the
Democrats may more discreetly support the concept. But the American
people do not support it and if government is broken because of this
sickness then the sickness should be cured as opposed to shooting the
patient.
(repeal 17th amendment and quadruple the membership of the House)
> As we know from simple observation, general elections
> in the U.S. (and probably elsewhere) result in plutocracy, not a
> government interested in the welfare or desires of the average citizen.
Repeal the 17th amendment and quadruple the membership of the House and
all will be fine and well.
> Even when the voters vote for "change" they get more of same. The
> substantial questions of how the government is to behave are not subject
> to elections.
Yet you and others believe that non-elected corporations are better.
That really does not make a lot of sense, you know.
> This is what I mean when I say there is no force available under the
> proposed arrangements to drive the price of medical care down. The main
> force limiting the present system has been the fact that millions of
> people cannot or will not buy medical insurance or care because the
> price is too high. This problem is now going to be solved by the
> application of government force -- one will be required to buy, or the
> money will be extracted by some other means. At least, that's what I
> read. I reason that, in the absence of a countervailing force, the
> price will simply rise until it reaches some other limit, probably an
> unpleasant one.
That is what the Public Option is all about. By creating a very large
bargaining organization to be added to Medicare and Medicaid bargaining
power, the costs of medical services can be controlled. You, of course,
will claim that the Public Option (PO) will be corrupted in the same way
as everything having to do with government is corrupted and vile. Yet
the success of Medicare in reducing the cost of medical care for its
members is undeniable.
> (Actually, I believe a general economic collapse will preempt the
> specific collapse of the medical payment system, but that's just a
> guess.)
All anarchists dream of economic collapse and the next wave of feudalism.
>> > Assuming the exploitation of this finite resource continues to be
>> > expanded, it seems necessary that it will eventually reach the point
>> > of diminishing returns, whereupon I would expect it to implode
>> > catastrophically. For example, in the case of H1N1 vaccine, in spite
>> > of a great deal of sound, fury and money, only a small portion of the
>> > amount supposedly needed has been produced, and needless to say much
>> > of this has been sequestered for the use of important people like
>> > financiers.
>>
>> Oh horse shit!
>
> Well, again, that is what I read. I am personally not interested in
> H1N1 vaccine so I have not been following the story closely, but I was
> amused to learn that being in high finance not only brings $1000 bottles
> of champagne for brunch but supplies of H1N1 vaccine as well.
The effects of such a black market, even if it existed, are a "nit".
>> > I believe this is a model for a more general collapse.
>> >
>> > I realize my view is logical and therefore suspect.
>>
>> Some good some bad....
--
Michael Coburn
> Michael Coburn wrote
>> Les Cargill wrote
>>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>> Tax avoidance normally increases economic activity and investment.
>
> Like hell it does when its shifted to countrys that dont tax it.
Countries that don't tax will get the benefit of "tax avoidance". Hence,
there is nothing wrong with the statement that "Tax avoidance increases
economic activity and investment". However, the current free trade system
steals all the benefits of any government action and promotes
authoritarian multinationalism. The US government protects the
ownership rights (that is the primary expense of government) of those who
move production offshore by taxing the domestic producers and consumers.
The most obvious solution to this problem is import tariffs. The less
obvious solution is asset taxation as opposed to income taxation and most
especially natural resource taxation. The least obvious solution is very
high tax rates on income derived from sources other than domestic
activity. Why would anyone tax productive domestic activity (i.e. true
wages) if they want more production??????
>>>> So if the taxation is avoided it increases tax revenue somewhere else
>>>> by providing income opportunity to the entrepreneurial people.
>
> Yes, it does provide income opportunitys in the tax havens, but thats no
> use for the US tax collector.
Oh but it is, virus. There are _MANY_ opportunities that CANNOT be moved
offshore. And much depends on how the "tax havens" are designed. What
if capital gains and dividends from domestic manufacturing get a big tax
break????? HMMMMMMM????? The sentient can see that if taxes on big
income people are 70 - 80 percent while capital gains from domestic
enterprise is 30% then we will get a lot more domestic enterprise. It
would be a VERY "sneaky" tariff.
>>>> One of the most interesting things about taxes on very high incomes
>>>> is that the taxation does not change the behavior of those being
>>>> taxed.
>
> Corse it does on where they keep their money.
It depends on how the "avoidance" is structured.
>>>> As the income is totally unearned,
>
> That is just plain wrong with CEO salarys.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CEO's are somewhat like sports stars in that the only other thing they
could do is clean the streets. The difference between the street sweeper
income and the CEO income is all "Paretian Rent" see "economic rent
again".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent#Neoclassical_Paretian_rent
It is possible to argue that the excess income paid to CEO's is "producer
surplus" (and I would actually argue for that as well). But this would
mean that the term "economic rent" would no longer be maligned and
smeared by Neoclasical claptrap and tap dancing.
>>>> it is essentially "free money".
>
> Like hell it is.
In neoclassical terms, all the payments over and above the payment in
excess of what is absolutely necessary to keep something (anything)
operating in its current capacity is either economic rent or producer
surplus. Those who contend that a high tax rate on WAGE income above a
million dollars will cause a shortage of CEO's are insane. It will not
cause a shortage of sports stars either.
>>>> See "Economic Rent":
>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent
>
>>> When RoyL was here, he showed us that income tax is not a good rent
>>> capture mechanism. Especially if it taxes what is essentially labor.
>
>> If you tax very high incomes (over 2-3 million a year)
>
> Its very hard to do that with individuals, because its so easy for them
> to rearrange their assets or income so they are very difficult to tax.
But that is the actual OBJECTIVE. We seek the adjustment in their
finances that will improve domestic opportunities through domestic
production. To this extent a tax on very high incomes will change the
actions of the rent suckers. But as the change is advantageous to the
domestic economy then the action is good policy. It depends on what is
tax advantaged and what is tax disadvantaged.
> And there are fuck all with that sort of income anyway, so the total you
> can collect is fuck all too.
It is ever an amazement to me that no matter how many times it is
explained that, the objective is not the tax that will be collected at
these rates, it never sinks in. The same idiots are still on that
"there aren't enough tax revenues from the very rich" hobby horse. By
taxing domestic dividends and capital gains at lower rates than extreme
incomes from wages, interest, rents, royalties and foreign operations
there will be more _REAL_ investment in domestic productive capacity. The
current LOW tax rates on ordinary income do not offer any significant
inducement to production and certainly there are few, if any, advantaged
domestic activities. The Republicans and other rich bitch butt suckers
want to cut capital gains taxes as they did in 1997 thus causing an
economic bubble in the NASDAQ and in HOUSING and in FINANCIAL DRIVEL.
The proper solution is to tax the hell out income from sources other than
domestic PRODUCTION and to lengthen the term of long term capital gains
except for investments in domestic activity. This cannot work if the tax
on income from non-participating activities is too damned low as it is
right now.
>> you will be taxing economic rent according to the neoclassical
>> economists.
>
> Not when they avoid paying it.
(sigh)
>> RoyL was a natural resource taxer and absolutely right. You don't
>> remember that he started out as an asset tax man. I am still an asset
>> tax man, but with a lot heavier tax on land than on other assets.
>
>> The highly progressive income tax was/is the only way that a tax on
>> economic rent can be realized in the USA (I think) because the other
>> forms of direct taxation are constitutionally prohibited.
Michael Gordge
> The most obvious solution to this problem is import tariffs.
Exercises in masochism and sadism are a solution to nothing, ewe brain
dead fucking commie idiot.
It is only ever fucking useless brain dead commie conservative
socialist fascist retarded control freaks who nauseatingly rabbit on
about tax without first talking about the role / function (cost) of
government.
MG
Michael Gordge
> The insurance
> companies are _NOT_ in the business of losing money.
Oh wow, how fucking profound, and I suppose ewe being the leftist
masochist ewe are, that ewe prefer to run around like a headless
fucking chook beating yourself up with tariffs and wanting to stagnate
and rot and go no where.
Fuck ewe leftist retards are stupid.
MG
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>> Les Cargill wrote
>>>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Tax avoidance normally increases economic activity and investment.
>> Like hell it does when its shifted to countrys that dont tax it.
> Countries that don't tax will get the benefit of "tax avoidance".
Nope, only the best tax havens get any benefit at all.
> Hence, there is nothing wrong with the statement that "Tax
> avoidance increases economic activity and investment".
There's everything wrong with it, because clearly those countrys
attempting to increase economic activity and investment dont
get either when tax avoidance doesnt produce it in that country.
> However, the current free trade system steals
> all the benefits of any government action
Like hell it does. Consumers also benefit from much lower prices on what they buy.
> and promotes authoritarian multinationalism.
Doesnt do that either, just promotes multinationalism, which happens anyway.
> The US government protects the ownership rights
> (that is the primary expense of government)
Like hell it is. The primary expense of modern first and second
world govts is providing what the voters have decided they want
govt to do, and thats mostly stuff like social security, medicare
and other welfare in the case of the primary expense of govt
now in the sense of what the taxes pay for.
> of those who move production offshore by
> taxing the domestic producers and consumers.
They also tax those who move production offshore too,
tho its much easier for them to avoid that taxation with
the prices they appear to pay for the offshore production.
> The most obvious solution to this problem is import tariffs.
There is no problem, and they are no solution to that either.
> The less obvious solution is asset taxation as opposed to income
> taxation and most especially natural resource taxation.
Doesnt work when there are fuck all natural resources to tax.
> The least obvious solution is very high tax rates on income
> derived from sources other than domestic activity.
Cant fly, because those are so easily avoided.
> Why would anyone tax productive domestic activity
> (i.e. true wages) if they want more production??????
Because not taxing wages wouldnt see more production
and tax has to come from somewhere and wages are
one of the easiest things to tax and collect with the
exception of the cash economy.
>>>>> So if the taxation is avoided it increases tax revenue somewhere
>>>>> else by providing income opportunity to the entrepreneurial people.
>> Yes, it does provide income opportunitys in the tax
>> havens, but thats no use for the US tax collector.
> Oh but it is, virus. There are _MANY_ opportunities that CANNOT be moved offshore.
Fuck all of those work with avoided taxation.
> And much depends on how the "tax havens" are designed.
> What if capital gains and dividends from domestic
> manufacturing get a big tax break????? HMMMMMMM?????
Doesnt do a damned thing about the massive
difference in labor costs between america and china.
> The sentient can see that if taxes on big income people are
> 70 - 80 percent while capital gains from domestic enterprise
> is 30% then we will get a lot more domestic enterprise.
Nope, because there is still the problem with the massive
difference in labor costs that completely swamps that.
> It would be a VERY "sneaky" tariff.
Not even possible.
>>>>> One of the most interesting things about taxes on very high
>>>>> incomes is that the taxation does not change the behavior of
>>>>> those being taxed.
>> Corse it does on where they keep their money.
> It depends on how the "avoidance" is structured.
Nope.
>>>>> As the income is totally unearned,
>> That is just plain wrong with CEO salarys.
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, fart.
> CEO's are somewhat like sports stars in that the
> only other thing they could do is clean the streets.
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.
ALL of them have done a hell of a lot more than that, unlike the sports stars.
> The difference between the street sweeper income and the
> CEO income is all "Paretian Rent" see "economic rent again".
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent#Neoclassical_Paretian_rent
> It is possible to argue that the excess income paid to CEO's is
> "producer surplus" (and I would actually argue for that as well).
More fool you.
> But this would mean that the term "economic rent" would no longer
> be maligned and smeared by Neoclasical claptrap and tap dancing.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
>>>>> it is essentially "free money".
>> Like hell it is.
> In neoclassical terms, all the payments over and above the payment in
> excess of what is absolutely necessary to keep something (anything)
> operating in its current capacity is either economic rent or producer surplus.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
> Those who contend that a high tax rate on WAGE income
> above a million dollars will cause a shortage of CEO's are
> insane. It will not cause a shortage of sports stars either.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
>>>>> See "Economic Rent":
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent
>>>> When RoyL was here, he showed us that income tax is not a good rent
>>>> capture mechanism. Especially if it taxes what is essentially labor.
>>> If you tax very high incomes (over 2-3 million a year)
>> Its very hard to do that with individuals, because its so easy for them
>> to rearrange their assets or income so they are very difficult to tax.
> But that is the actual OBJECTIVE.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
> We seek the adjustment in their finances that will improve
> domestic opportunities through domestic production.
Not even possible.
> To this extent a tax on very high incomes will change the actions of the rent suckers.
Not in a way that will do a damned thing for domestic production.
> But as the change is advantageous to the domestic economy
Pity it aint.
> then the action is good policy. It depends on what
> is tax advantaged and what is tax disadvantaged.
Nope, what you are trying to do isnt even possible.
>> And there are fuck all with that sort of income
>> anyway, so the total you can collect is fuck all too.
> It is ever an amazement to me that no matter how many times it is
> explained that, the objective is not the tax that will be collected at
> these rates, it never sinks in. The same idiots are still on that
> "there aren't enough tax revenues from the very rich" hobby horse.
> By taxing domestic dividends and capital gains at lower rates than
> extreme incomes from wages, interest, rents, royalties and foreign
> operations there will be more _REAL_ investment in domestic
> productive capacity.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
> The current LOW tax rates on ordinary income do
> not offer any significant inducement to production
Neither does your hare brained alternative.
> and certainly there are few, if any, advantaged domestic activities.
True in spades of your hare brained alternative.
> The Republicans and other rich bitch butt suckers want to cut capital
> gains taxes as they did in 1997 thus causing an economic bubble in
> the NASDAQ and in HOUSING and in FINANCIAL DRIVEL. The
> proper solution is to tax the hell out income from sources other
> than domestic PRODUCTION and to lengthen the term of long
> term capital gains except for investments in domestic activity.
Not even possible to distinguish between them.
> This cannot work if the tax on income from non-participating
> activities is too damned low as it is right now.
It cant work if it isnt either.
>>> you will be taxing economic rent according to the neoclassical economists.
>> Not when they avoid paying it.
> (sigh)
Heavy breathing cuts no mustard.
Michael Gordge
> Nope, only the best tax havens get any benefit at all.
Oh looook how funny, tweedle-dee is trying to fuck over tweedle-dum.
MG
Jerry Okamura
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:56:58 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>> Les Cargill wrote
>>>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>
>>>>> Tax avoidance normally increases economic activity and investment.
>>
>> Like hell it does when its shifted to countrys that dont tax it.
>
> Countries that don't tax will get the benefit of "tax avoidance". Hence,
> there is nothing wrong with the statement that "Tax avoidance increases
> economic activity and investment". However, the current free trade system
> steals all the benefits of any government action and promotes
> authoritarian multinationalism. The US government protects the
> ownership rights (that is the primary expense of government) of those who
> move production offshore by taxing the domestic producers and consumers.
> The most obvious solution to this problem is import tariffs. The less
> obvious solution is asset taxation as opposed to income taxation and most
> especially natural resource taxation. The least obvious solution is very
> high tax rates on income derived from sources other than domestic
> activity. Why would anyone tax productive domestic activity (i.e. true
> wages) if they want more production??????
>
not think they are better off operating somewhere else, rather than here in
this country?
Michael Coburn
> Michael Coburn wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:52:14 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Coburn wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:07:23 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> Tax avoidance normally increases economic activity and investment. So
>>>> if the taxation is avoided it increases tax revenue somewhere else by
>>>> providing income opportunity to the entrepreneurial people. One of
>>>> the most interesting things about taxes on very high incomes is that
>>>> the taxation does not change the behavior of those being taxed. As
>>>> the income is totally unearned, it is essentially "free money".
>>>>
>>>> See "Economic Rent":
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent
>>>>
>>>>
>>> When RoyL was here, he showed us that income tax is not a good rent
>>> capture mechanism. Especially if it taxes what is essentially labor.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>> If you tax very high incomes (over 2-3 million a year) you will be
>> taxing economic rent according to the neoclassical economists.
>>
>>
> No, I understand - what is labor and what is rent is anything but clear
> in some cases. Surgeons' income is a lot rent, for example. Ballplayers
> really *aren't*, until you get into endorsements.
You are less confused than most. Natural resource rent is created by
scarcity which is the result of population growth in respect of fixed
natural resources. But it can be created by monopoly power over _ANY_
necessary resource such as medical services or even taxi cabs
(medallions). IMHO the key element of rent _PRIVATIZATION_ is government
force where government can be as simple as you standing over "your" land
with a sharp stick stopping others from picking the naturally occurring
berries or from accessing a natural lake for water unless these others
grant certain goods or services unto you. The privatization of rent is
always based on the concept of ownership protected by government force.
Ball players and other celebrities do not need any government force to
establish and maintain the "ownership" (inapplicable analogy here) of
their inalienable abilities. The abilities of a Micky Mantel can't be
purchased from Micky and traded on an exchange without the mind and body
actually PERFORMING. A comatose Micky gathers no rent while an "owner"
of an oil deposit does. And the deposit can be separated from the
"owner" and still have value. Same with taxi medallions. Surgeons are a
mixed bag in that more surgeons are available but as yet unschooled. If
the wages of surgeons are artificially increased by refusing to school
more surgeons then some portion of the wage is rent. If the wages of
surgeons is necessary to draw competent surgeons into the field then
there is no rent. This can also apply to H1B surgeons. Competency is the
key here in that a surgeon must be certified by COMPETENT authority and
it is not possible to be so certified without the proper level of
knowledge and skill. Rent occurs when people are prevented from
acquiring the knowledge and skill or are barred by inappropriate
immigration requirements.
>> RoyL was a natural resource taxer and absolutely right. You don't
>> remember that he started out as an asset tax man. I am still an asset
>> tax man, but with a lot heavier tax on land than on other assets.
>>
>>
> I only dropped his name because he really knows this stuff, and I wanted
> to more or less footnote/attribute where it came from.
He was very good at formalizing and defending the concept of rent by
sticking absolutely to natural resource rents. There is no way to refute
the existence of such rents or the harm caused by privatization of same.
>> The highly progressive income tax was/is the only way that a tax on
>> economic rent can be realized in the USA (I think) because the other
>> forms of direct taxation are constitutionally prohibited.
>>
>>
> Hard to say.
Why is this "hard to say"??? It is possible to disagree with the
proposition that extreme incomes are economic rent. But it may, indeed,
be irrelevant in the larger picture. It seems to me that the difference
between "economic rent" and "producer surplus" is one of unearned versus
earned respectively. When producer surplus is heavily taxed then the
activities of the producer might be reduced. When economic rent is taxed
then there is no reduction to production because there is no actual
producer. So to the extent that a tax on extreme incomes will not harm
production or might well increase production then to that extend _rent_
being taxed.
tg
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:40:39 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
> > Michael Coburn wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:52:14 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
>
> >>> Michael Coburn wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:07:23 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>> Tax avoidance normally increases economic activity and investment. So
> >>>> if the taxation is avoided it increases tax revenue somewhere else by
> >>>> providing income opportunity to the entrepreneurial people. One of
> >>>> the most interesting things about taxes on very high incomes is that
> >>>> the taxation does not change the behavior of those being taxed. As
> >>>> the income is totally unearned, it is essentially "free money".
>
> >>>> See "Economic Rent":
>
> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent
>
***
. The privatization of rent is
> always based on the concept of ownership protected by government force.
> Ball players and other celebrities do not need any government force to
> establish and maintain the "ownership" (inapplicable analogy here) of
> their inalienable abilities. The abilities of a Micky Mantel can't be
> purchased from Micky and traded on an exchange without the mind and body
> actually PERFORMING. A comatose Micky gathers no rent while an "owner"
> of an oil deposit does. And the deposit can be separated from the
> "owner" and still have value. Same with taxi medallions. Surgeons are a
> mixed bag in that more surgeons are available but as yet unschooled. If
> the wages of surgeons are artificially increased by refusing to school
> more surgeons then some portion of the wage is rent. If the wages of
> surgeons is necessary to draw competent surgeons into the field then
> there is no rent. This can also apply to H1B surgeons. Competency is the
> key here in that a surgeon must be certified by COMPETENT authority and
> it is not possible to be so certified without the proper level of
> knowledge and skill. Rent occurs when people are prevented from
> acquiring the knowledge and skill or are barred by inappropriate
> immigration requirements.
Sorry but this is not up to your usual standards. Any apprenticeship
system is a monopoly since entry is controlled; in the case of
medicine the monopoly *is* enforced by the government. Your argument
would require that the 'competent authority' not be made up of or
influenced by those whose livelihood benefits from constrained
supply. That's very difficult to achieve.
-tg
Michael Coburn
Why would any productive person give a rat's ass whether the corporate
headquarters of a given corporation is located here if that corporation
doesn't pay a _*HUGE*_ amount of taxes?
If they actually left then that would be OK so long as the US government
did not protect their property rights. What is not OK is the widening
wealth gap created by the management and the stockholders residing here
UNDERPAYING TAXES and using the US government to protect their offshore
production.
And don't bother posting the usual rightarded garbage about the _SHARE_
of taxes paid by the rich. It is insufficient regardless of what the
_SHARE_ of total taxation it might be.
Michael Coburn
> On Nov 14, 11:58 am, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> [quoted text muted]
> ***
>
> . The privatization of rent is
>> [quoted text muted]
>
> Sorry but this is not up to your usual standards. Any apprenticeship
> system is a monopoly since entry is controlled;
So long as the apprenticeship is by choice and not controlled by coercion
(this includes financial coercion of the universities) then there is not
much of a problem.
> in the case of medicine
> the monopoly *is* enforced by the government.
This is actually not the case. Many people want to pursue a career in
medicine. The government does not stop them from doing so. But it is a
legitimate function of government to insure competency in the medical
field. Affirmative action in this case would be endowments for
universities and funding for expansion if needed and very low interest
student loans based on performance.
> Your argument would
> require that the 'competent authority' not be made up of or influenced
> by those whose livelihood benefits from constrained supply. That's very
> difficult to achieve.
Repeal the 17th amendment and quadruple the membership of the House of
Representatives. Oh how quickly this crap would get fixed.
Les Cargill
but if you want to tax rents, why not *just tax rents*? Trying
to project the rent-content of a good or service just based
on a guess mired in quantity seems error prone.
Some people really do *earn* a great deal of money. The Google
guys do depend on some measure of IP protection, but they've
built a significant media business out of very close
to thin air.
--
Les Cargill
tg
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:38:20 -0800, tg wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 11:58 am, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> [quoted text muted]
> > ***
>
> > . The privatization of rent is
> >> [quoted text muted]
>
> > Sorry but this is not up to your usual standards. Any apprenticeship
> > system is a monopoly since entry is controlled;
>
> So long as the apprenticeship is by choice and not controlled by coercion
> (this includes financial coercion of the universities) then there is not
> much of a problem.
>
> > in the case of medicine
> > the monopoly *is* enforced by the government.
>
> This is actually not the case. Many people want to pursue a career in
> medicine. The government does not stop them from doing so. But it is a
> legitimate function of government to insure competency in the medical
> field.
Doesn't answer my point. The government grants the authority 'insure
competency' to a guild (doctors) in whose interest it is to minimize
competition. You can't get around that. The government also grants
authority to that guild to restrict access to medicines and to
businesses (hospitals) to restrict access to equipment.
> Affirmative action in this case would be endowments for
> universities and funding for expansion if needed and very low interest
> student loans based on performance.
>
> > Your argument would
> > require that the 'competent authority' not be made up of or influenced
> > by those whose livelihood benefits from constrained supply. That's very
> > difficult to achieve.
>
> Repeal the 17th amendment and quadruple the membership of the House of
> Representatives. Oh how quickly this crap would get fixed.
>
Of course. Just call the convention, and I'm sure you'll get the vote
of Idaho and Montana and other enlightened states.
-tg
Rod Speed
> Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote
>> tg wrote
>>> Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote
>>>> [quoted text muted]
>>> . The privatization of rent is
>>>> [quoted text muted]
>>> Sorry but this is not up to your usual standards. Any apprenticeship
>>> system is a monopoly since entry is controlled;
>> So long as the apprenticeship is by choice and not controlled by
>> coercion (this includes financial coercion of the universities) then
>> there is not much of a problem.
>>> in the case of medicine the monopoly *is* enforced by the government.
>> This is actually not the case. Many people want to pursue a career in
>> medicine. The government does not stop them from doing so. But it is
>> a legitimate function of government to insure competency in the medical field.
> Doesn't answer my point.
Yes it does.
> The government grants the authority 'insure competency' to a
> guild (doctors) in whose interest it is to minimize competition.
> You can't get around that.
Yes you can, by not letting them control the numbers.
> The government also grants authority to that guild to restrict access to
> medicines and to businesses (hospitals) to restrict access to equipment.
But doesnt prevent anyone from investing in new hospitals.
>> Affirmative action in this case would be endowments for
>> universities and funding for expansion if needed and very
>> low interest student loans based on performance.
>>> Your argument would
>>> require that the 'competent authority' not be made up of or
>>> influenced by those whose livelihood benefits from constrained
>>> supply. That's very difficult to achieve.
>> Repeal the 17th amendment and quadruple the membership of the
>> House of Representatives. Oh how quickly this crap would get fixed.
Just another silly little trucker fantasy.
Michael Gordge
> Yes you can, by not letting them control the numbers.
You fucking dishonest leftist prick, as if you would ever support
deregulation of any and all things medical.
MG
Michael Coburn
> Michael Coburn wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:40:39 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>>>> The highly progressive income tax was/is the only way that a tax on
>>>> economic rent can be realized in the USA (I think) because the other
>>>> forms of direct taxation are constitutionally prohibited.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hard to say.
>>
>> Why is this "hard to say"??? It is possible to disagree with the
>> proposition that extreme incomes are economic rent. But it may,
>> indeed, be irrelevant in the larger picture. It seems to me that the
>> difference between "economic rent" and "producer surplus" is one of
>> unearned versus earned respectively. When producer surplus is heavily
>> taxed then the activities of the producer might be reduced. When
>> economic rent is taxed then there is no reduction to production because
>> there is no actual producer. So to the extent that a tax on extreme
>> incomes will not harm production or might well increase production then
>> to that extend _rent_ being taxed.
>>
>>
> but if you want to tax rents, why not *just tax rents*?
Direct taxes other than the income tax are unconstitutional.
> Trying to
> project the rent-content of a good or service just based on a guess
> mired in quantity seems error prone.
The secret of success in this endeavor is to tax _EXTREME_ incomes and
not just _HIGH_ incomes. In that way a lot of the rent escapes the tax
man, but you are sure that you are taxing rent. Most certainly a tax on
wages below the mean is NOT NORMALLY a tax on rent where a tax on wages
in excess of 5 times the mean would probably be a tax on rent. A tax on
wages of more than 100 times the mean is much more likely to be a tax on
rent and should be taxed at a lot higher rate. And _NO_ individual
_EARNS_ more than 20 million a year. Ordinary income in that range is
all rent.
> Some people really do *earn* a great deal of money. The Google guys do
> depend on some measure of IP protection, but they've built a significant
> media business out of very close to thin air.
Fine and dandy. Do you think they _earn_ income in excess of $10M per
year? And BTW, royalties are government enforced rent privatization.
The renewal of the copyright on Micky Mouse was obscene. We sure are
lucky that Newton didn't patent the calculus with a perpetual patent and
have his heirs with their greedy paws in every pocket.
Jerry Okamura
Because when they move to some other country, they are doing it partly to
avoid paying taxes in the US? Because when they move, they bring the jobs
with them, where every they go to run their headquarters operation? Because
when they move to some other country, this country has less control over
their activities?
>
> If they actually left then that would be OK so long as the US government
> did not protect their property rights. What is not OK is the widening
> wealth gap created by the management and the stockholders residing here
> UNDERPAYING TAXES and using the US government to protect their offshore
> production.
Don't care about the fact that would violate the Fifth Amendment of the
Constitution?
>
> And don't bother posting the usual rightarded garbage about the _SHARE_
> of taxes paid by the rich. It is insufficient regardless of what the
> _SHARE_ of total taxation it might be.
>
If you really care about equality, then you should care about the fact that
a few people are paying most of the taxes. That is by no means what the
term equality means.
John Stafford
Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
> The secret of success in this endeavor is to tax _EXTREME_ incomes and
> not just _HIGH_ incomes.
Michael, if you look at the statistics for earnings by family you will
find that the US Government specifically excludes certain 'families'
because the figures would completely skew the stats. IOW, any one of
those undisclosed families has more wealth than the rest of us, in total.
Just a little data point.
John Stafford
<38181db1-7c0b-4cb2...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
You are dead to me, Gordge. Kill file. I suggest the rest do the same
because you are beyond hope, Starve you and you will die. A real human
being does not even need a mind to behave as you do. You could be a
'bot. In fact, you are not even that bright.
Learn up, or shrivel and die.
You are dead to me.
Michael Coburn
> On Nov 14, 3:26 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:38:20 -0800, tg wrote:
>> > On Nov 14, 11:58 am, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> [quoted text muted]
>> > ***
>>
>> > . The privatization of rent is
>> >> [quoted text muted]
>>
>> > Sorry but this is not up to your usual standards. Any apprenticeship
>> > system is a monopoly since entry is controlled;
>>
>> So long as the apprenticeship is by choice and not controlled by
>> coercion (this includes financial coercion of the universities) then
>> there is not much of a problem.
>>
>> > in the case of medicine
>> > the monopoly *is* enforced by the government.
>>
>> This is actually not the case. Many people want to pursue a career in
>> medicine. The government does not stop them from doing so. But it is
>> a legitimate function of government to insure competency in the medical
>> field.
>
> Doesn't answer my point. The government grants the authority 'insure
> competency' to a guild (doctors) in whose interest it is to minimize
> competition. You can't get around that.
It is _NOT_ in the best interest of a government employee from academia
who will return to academia after his/her government stint to limit the
supply of physicians or to limit the training of same. That is how you
"get around" the problem. There is NOTHING wrong with practicing
physicians having major input into the certification specifications. But
that should be the end of their involvement.
> The government also grants
> authority to that guild to restrict access to medicines and to
> businesses (hospitals) to restrict access to equipment.
Why use a "guild"????
>> Affirmative action in this case would be endowments for
>> universities and funding for expansion if needed and very low interest
>> student loans based on performance.
>>
>> > Your argument would
>> > require that the 'competent authority' not be made up of or
>> > influenced by those whose livelihood benefits from constrained
>> > supply. That's very difficult to achieve.
>>
>> Repeal the 17th amendment and quadruple the membership of the House of
>> Representatives. Oh how quickly this crap would get fixed.
>>
>>
> Of course. Just call the convention, and I'm sure you'll get the vote of
> Idaho and Montana and other enlightened states.
I think that Idaho and Montana and Wyoming and all the rest of the state
legislatures would be very pleased to repeal the 17th amandment. That
EMPOWERS them and the people of their state. And the expansion of the
House of Representatives does not need their approval.
Michael Coburn
You ignorant lying asshole. The premise was they they were NOT paying
significant taxes or, more pointedly, not paying taxes to the extent of
the benefits they are receiving.
> Because when they move, they bring the
> jobs with them, where every they go to run their headquarters operation?
The number of jobs in the headquarters is minuscule, idiot.
> Because when they move to some other country, this country has less
> control over their activities?
That us a two way K Street, moron. If they aren't here then they don't
have as much political power here.
>>
>> If they actually left then that would be OK so long as the US
>> government did not protect their property rights. What is not OK is
>> the widening wealth gap created by the management and the stockholders
>> residing here UNDERPAYING TAXES and using the US government to protect
>> their offshore production.
>
> Don't care about the fact that would violate the Fifth Amendment of the
> Constitution?
Why don't you stupid shits that site the Constitution make an attempt at
understanding it. The "takings" clause has nothing to do with some other
government taxing the crap out of stuff inside THEIR borders or otherwise
nationalizing assets of Americans.
What a total waste of bandwidth you are, Jerry.
>>
>> And don't bother posting the usual rightarded garbage about the _SHARE_
>> of taxes paid by the rich. It is insufficient regardless of what the
>> _SHARE_ of total taxation it might be.
>>
> If you really care about equality, then you should care about the fact
> that a few people are paying most of the taxes. That is by no means
> what the term equality means.
--
Rod Speed
> Les Cargill wrote
>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>>>> The highly progressive income tax was/is the only way that a tax
>>>>> on economic rent can be realized in the USA (I think) because the
>>>>> other forms of direct taxation are constitutionally prohibited.
>>>> Hard to say.
>>> Why is this "hard to say"??? It is possible to disagree with the
>>> proposition that extreme incomes are economic rent. But it may,
>>> indeed, be irrelevant in the larger picture. It seems to me that
>>> the difference between "economic rent" and "producer surplus" is
>>> one of unearned versus earned respectively. When producer surplus
>>> is heavily taxed then the activities of the producer might be
>>> reduced. When economic rent is taxed then there is no reduction to
>>> production because there is no actual producer. So to the extent
>>> that a tax on extreme incomes will not harm production or might
>>> well increase production then to that extend _rent_ being taxed.
>> but if you want to tax rents, why not *just tax rents*?
> Direct taxes other than the income tax are unconstitutional.
>> Trying to project the rent-content of a good or service
>> just based on a guess mired in quantity seems error prone.
> The secret of success in this endeavor is to tax _EXTREME_ incomes and not just _HIGH_ incomes.
They're essentially untaxable with individuals, basically because
its so easy for those with extreme incomes to turn that extreme
income into other than income where it cant be taxed anymore.
> In that way a lot of the rent escapes the tax man, but you are sure that you are taxing rent.
Completely stupid to be taxing just rent.
> Most certainly a tax on wages below the mean is NOT
> NORMALLY a tax on rent where a tax on wages in excess
> of 5 times the mean would probably be a tax on rent.
Nope, mostly it isnt with individuals.
> A tax on wages of more than 100 times the mean is much more likely to be a tax on rent
Wrong, as always.
> and should be taxed at a lot higher rate.
Nope, because its so easy for those to turn it into other than income.
> And _NO_ individual _EARNS_ more than 20 million a year.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant failed truck driver fantasyland.
> Ordinary income in that range is all rent.
Wrong, as always.
>> Some people really do *earn* a great deal of money. The Google
>> guys do depend on some measure of IP protection, but they've
>> built a significant media business out of very close to thin air.
> Fine and dandy. Do you think they _earn_ income in excess of $10M per year?
Yep, its their business skills that are doing that. Its not as if others havent
tried to do that. Its only them that succeeded so dramatically at it and
that means that they really did earn it, essentially by putting in place
whatever it took to make theirs successful when their competitors failed.
Nothing is ever more EARNED than that.
> And BTW, royalties are government enforced rent privatization.
Another silly little fantasy. At most govt enabled. They're always free to waive royaltys.
> The renewal of the copyright on Micky Mouse was obscene.
Yes.
> We sure are lucky that Newton didn't patent the calculus with a perpetual patent
Taint patentable.
Rod Speed
Nope, thats what the british have and it doesnt fix the problem.
>> Even when the voters vote for "change" they get more of same. The
>> substantial questions of how the government is to behave are not
>> subject to elections.
>
> Yet you and others believe that non-elected corporations are better.
> That really does not make a lot of sense, you know.
>
>> This is what I mean when I say there is no force available under the
>> proposed arrangements to drive the price of medical care down. The
>> main force limiting the present system has been the fact that
>> millions of people cannot or will not buy medical insurance or care
>> because the price is too high. This problem is now going to be
>> solved by the application of government force -- one will be
>> required to buy, or the money will be extracted by some other means.
>> At least, that's what I read. I reason that, in the absence of a
>> countervailing force, the price will simply rise until it reaches
>> some other limit, probably an unpleasant one.
> That is what the Public Option is all about. By creating a very large
> bargaining organization to be added to Medicare and Medicaid
> bargaining power, the costs of medical services can be controlled.
Have fun explaining why the even larger insurance operations that are already there dont.
> You, of course, will claim that the Public Option (PO)
> will be corrupted in the same way as everything having
> to do with government is corrupted and vile.
He hasnt run that particular line.
> Yet the success of Medicare in reducing the cost
> of medical care for its members is undeniable.
It is indeed.
>> (Actually, I believe a general economic collapse will preempt the specific
>> collapse of the medical payment system, but that's just a guess.)
> All anarchists dream of economic collapse
Yes, and its pure drug crazed fantasy.
> and the next wave of feudalism.
Nope, they dont dream of that.
tg
From wiki-p:
A guild is an association of craftsmen in a particular trade.
The earliest guilds were formed as confraternities of workers. They
were organized in a manner something between a trade union, a cartel
and a secret society. They often depended on grants of letters patent
by an authority or monarch to enforce the flow of trade to their self-
employed members, and to retain ownership of tools and the supply of
materials.
end quote
Fits doctors, lawyers, plumbers, and so on.
I don't think we are disagreeing about the *possibility* of having
regulations while minimizing the concentration of market power. But in
the real world, your revolving door of government service has been
demonstrated to foster corruption not prevent it.
> >> Affirmative action in this case would be endowments for
> >> universities and funding for expansion if needed and very low interest
> >> student loans based on performance.
>
> >> > Your argument would
> >> > require that the 'competent authority' not be made up of or
> >> > influenced by those whose livelihood benefits from constrained
> >> > supply. That's very difficult to achieve.
>
> >> Repeal the 17th amendment and quadruple the membership of the House of
> >> Representatives. Oh how quickly this crap would get fixed.
>
> > Of course. Just call the convention, and I'm sure you'll get the vote of
> > Idaho and Montana and other enlightened states.
>
> I think that Idaho and Montana and Wyoming and all the rest of the state
> legislatures would be very pleased to repeal the 17th amandment. That
> EMPOWERS them and the people of their state. And the expansion of the
> House of Representatives does not need their approval.
>
My goal would be to have an upper house which is population-based as
well, which would diminish the power of cows and sheep to influence
national policy.
I agree with expanding the House, but gerrymandering would also have
to be prohibited---some kind of algorithm-generated grid would not be
that hard to set up.
-tg
Jerry Okamura
Yes, and they definitely will accomplish that by locating in another country
won't they?
>
>> Because when they move, they bring the
>> jobs with them, where every they go to run their headquarters operation?
>
> The number of jobs in the headquarters is minuscule, idiot.
Yep, but they are high paying jobs aren't they? These jobs are among the
highest paying ones aren't they?
>
>> Because when they move to some other country, this country has less
>> control over their activities?
>
> That us a two way K Street, moron. If they aren't here then they don't
> have as much political power here.
So? A tradeoff, have more political power, or pay more in taxes.
>
>>>
>>> If they actually left then that would be OK so long as the US
>>> government did not protect their property rights. What is not OK is
>>> the widening wealth gap created by the management and the stockholders
>>> residing here UNDERPAYING TAXES and using the US government to protect
>>> their offshore production.
>>
>> Don't care about the fact that would violate the Fifth Amendment of the
>> Constitution?
>
> Why don't you stupid shits that site the Constitution make an attempt at
> understanding it. The "takings" clause has nothing to do with some other
> government taxing the crap out of stuff inside THEIR borders or otherwise
> nationalizing assets of Americans.
Which is relevant how?
>
> What a total waste of bandwidth you are, Jerry.
Only because you like to start arguments, but you don't have the guts to
finsih the argument, except on your terms.
Anarcissie
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anarcissie wrote:
> > You're assuming here that the monopsony will favor the payer.
>
> Thats not an assumption, thats a fact. Look at how medicare does that
> sometime.
Medicare is not a monopsony. When I (I am on Medicare)
go for medical care, I will be competing with other
buyers who are not on Medicare, generally to my
disadvantage. Of course Medicare is cheaper than
private insurance, so the loss of buying power is
balanced by the benefit of retaining my money. But in
any case, it's not a monopsony.
> > That would be true if the monopsony were
> > a person or group who would suffer a loss of utility
> > through payment and would therefore offer price
> > resistance, but if it's run by the government it
> > will be under the same plutocratic control as
> > everything else the government does,
>
> Have fun explaining how come medicare does just what he said.
>
> > and the payers will be of a different class than those making the payments.
>
> That works fine with medicare.
>
> > The directors of the monopsony will be of the same
> > class, and may even be the same people, as those
> > selling the services which the monopsony is buying.
>
> Like hell they are. The directors of the monosony are govt paper shufflers,
> stupid.
>
> > They should get along well.
>
> Try telling that to those who get shafted by medicare.
>
> Dont be TOO surprised when they just laugh in your silly little pig ignorant
> face, again.
>
> > That problem might be avoided if, say, the monopsony
> > were a buyers' cooperative where the members elected
> > the directors, but that's not what is being proposed.
>
> Thats just one way of avoiding it.
>
> > As we know from simple observation, general elections
> > in the U.S. (and probably elsewhere) result in plutocracy,
>
> Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
>
> > not a government interested in the welfare or desires of the average
> > citizen.
>
> Have fun explaining social security and medicare.
>
> > Even when the voters vote for "change" they get more of same.
>
> Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont.
>
> Nothing like that happened in Britain or Canada.
>
> > The substantial questions of how the government
> > is to behave are not subject to elections.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
> > This is what I mean when I say there is no force
> > available under the proposed arrangements to
> > drive the price of medical care down.
>
> And that is just plain wrong. Medicare has done just that.
>
> > The main force limiting the present system has been the
> > fact that millions of people cannot or will not buy medical
> > insurance or care because the price is too high.
>
> Wrong again.
>
> > This problem is now going to be solved by the application
> > of government force -- one will be required to buy, or the
> > money will be extracted by some other means.
>
> It cant be from the dregs of society. There is no money to extract.
>
> > At least, that's what I read.
>
> You need new glasses and a brain to apply to what you read.
>
> > I reason that, in the absence of a countervailing
> > force, the price will simply rise until it reaches
> > some other limit, probably an unpleasant one.
>
> Have fun explaining why it doesnt in single payer systems.
>
> > (Actually, I believe a general economic collapse will preempt
> > the specific collapse of the medical payment system,
>
> More fool you. The voters will go for a single payer system first, just like
> they
> did in EVERY OTHER MODERN FIRST AND SECOND WORLD COUNTRY.
>
> > but that's just a guess.)
>
> Yep, and a pig ignorant one at that.
>
> >>> Assuming the exploitation of this finite resource continues to be
> >>> expanded, it seems necessary that it will eventually reach the
> >>> point of diminishing returns, whereupon I would expect it to implode
> >>> catastrophically. For example, in the case of H1N1 vaccine, in
> >>> spite of a great deal of sound, fury and money, only a small
> >>> portion of the amount supposedly needed has been produced, and
> >>> needless to say much of this has been sequestered for the use of
> >>> important people like financiers.
>
> >> Oh horse shit!
>
> > Well, again, that is what I read.
>
> Then you need to read more widely.
>
> > I am personally not interested in H1N1 vaccine
> > so I have not been following the story closely,
>
> Thats obvious.
>
> > but I was amused to learn that being in high finance
> > not only brings $1000 bottles of champagne for
> > brunch but supplies of H1N1 vaccine as well.
>
> But does NOT see it 'sequestered', liar.
Anarcissie
Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > You're assuming here that the monopsony will favor the payer. That
> > would be true if the monopsony were a person or group who would suffer a
> > loss of utility through payment and would therefore offer price
> > resistance, but if it's run by the government it will be under the same
> > plutocratic control as everything else the government does, and the
> > payers will be of a different class than those making the payments. The
> > directors of the monopsony will be of the same class, and may even be
> > the same people, as those selling the services which the monopsony is
> > buying. They should get along well.
>
> Yet the Canadian and other examples do not seem to validate this hatred
> and fear of "the state". The people pay a lot less for medical care than
> do the people in the US.
I lived in Canada for a few years and made use of the
Canadian medical system. I agree that it provided
better service for much less money than the American
system of the same era and probably continues to do so
today. However, it seems to me that what we might call
the Canadian social contract is much different from
that of the U.S. I could go into detail on this but
you probably don't want to hear it. Suffice it to say
that the historical development of Canadian medical
insurance and practice is such that the medical-care
establishment there was never able to form itself into
the enormously powerful, enormously exploitive entity
we observe in the U.S. As a result, there is, or at
least was, a balance of power which tended to restrain
price increases. I don't see how you could retrofit
that system in the U.S., and the substrate -- the
social contract -- is different here.
> > That problem might be avoided if, say, the monopsony were a buyers'
> > cooperative where the members elected the directors, but that's not what
> > is being proposed.
>
> Do we not have "elections" in these United States? I know that
> Republicans want K Street and the revolving door and many of the
> Democrats may more discreetly support the concept. But the American
> people do not support it and if government is broken because of this
> sickness then the sickness should be cured as opposed to shooting the
> patient.
>
> (repeal 17th amendment and quadruple the membership of the House)
The political system could probably be improved, but I
was restricting my comments to the general subject of
this discussion. As things stand, we do not generally
observe the interests of the people being transmitted
by voting into policies of the government.
I don't understand your proposal to repeal the 17th
Amendment -- would that not cause the election of
senators to revert to the state legislatures? That
seems like an odd key for you to be playing in.
> > As we know from simple observation, general elections
> > in the U.S. (and probably elsewhere) result in plutocracy, not a
> > government interested in the welfare or desires of the average citizen.
>
> Repeal the 17th amendment and quadruple the membership of the House and
> all will be fine and well.
>
> > Even when the voters vote for "change" they get more of same. The
> > substantial questions of how the government is to behave are not subject
> > to elections.
>
> Yet you and others believe that non-elected corporations are better.
> That really does not make a lot of sense, you know.
I don't. The only way I can see to get the medical
care system under reasonable control would be for the
buyers to form buyers' cooperatives. If enough people
did this, it might at least address the interests of
working- and middle-class people. But no one is
interested.
> > This is what I mean when I say there is no force available under the
> > proposed arrangements to drive the price of medical care down. The main
> > force limiting the present system has been the fact that millions of
> > people cannot or will not buy medical insurance or care because the
> > price is too high. This problem is now going to be solved by the
> > application of government force -- one will be required to buy, or the
> > money will be extracted by some other means. At least, that's what I
> > read. I reason that, in the absence of a countervailing force, the
> > price will simply rise until it reaches some other limit, probably an
> > unpleasant one.
>
> That is what the Public Option is all about. By creating a very large
> bargaining organization to be added to Medicare and Medicaid bargaining
> power, the costs of medical services can be controlled. You, of course,
> will claim that the Public Option (PO) will be corrupted in the same way
> as everything having to do with government is corrupted and vile. Yet
> the success of Medicare in reducing the cost of medical care for its
> members is undeniable.
Well, we'll see about it. I suspect the Public Option
is going to be crippled in service to the medical
establishment.
> > (Actually, I believe a general economic collapse will preempt the
> > specific collapse of the medical payment system, but that's just a
> > guess.)
>
> All anarchists dream of economic collapse and the next wave of feudalism.
I wouldn't call it dreaming. In the history of the
modern world, every state that has attempted empire
has come to ruin, usually economic collapse but often
physical and moral bankruptcy as well. The United
States is now on this path and I don't see why its fate
should be any different from that of so many other
countries. I don't dream about this in the sense of
wish-fulfilling fantasy, although I do look forward to
the day when the the U.S. will stop slaughtering random
foreigners, as it may when it finally runs out of gas.
The recent financial crises and the present depression
(papered over with funny money) may already be
the symptoms of an empty tank, so the general
collapse may not be all that far off.
> >> > Assuming the exploitation of this finite
resource continues to be
> >> > expanded, it seems necessary that it will eventually reach the point
> >> > of diminishing returns, whereupon I would expect it to implode
> >> > catastrophically. For example, in the case of H1N1 vaccine, in spite
> >> > of a great deal of sound, fury and money, only a small portion of the
> >> > amount supposedly needed has been produced, and needless to say much
> >> > of this has been sequestered for the use of important people like
> >> > financiers.
> >>
> >> Oh horse shit!
> >
> > Well, again, that is what I read. I am personally not interested in
> > H1N1 vaccine so I have not been following the story closely, but I was
> > amused to learn that being in high finance not only brings $1000 bottles
> > of champagne for brunch but supplies of H1N1 vaccine as well.
>
> The effects of such a black market, even if it existed, are a "nit".
I'm pointing out the example of a pattern.
Rod Speed
>>> You're assuming here that the monopsony will favor the payer.
>> Thats not an assumption, thats a fact. Look at how medicare does that sometime.
> Medicare is not a monopsony.
Corse it is for the group of individuals it covers.
> When I (I am on Medicare) go for medical care,
> I will be competing with other buyers who are
> not on Medicare, generally to my disadvantage.
But Medicare itself is the only buyer with regard to what it will pay.
> Of course Medicare is cheaper than private insurance,
> so the loss of buying power is balanced by the benefit of
> retaining my money. But in any case, it's not a monopsony.
Wrong, as always.
Rod Speed
That is essentially what medicare and the insurance companys are.
> If enough people did this, it might at least address
> the interests of working- and middle-class people.
Not a chance.
> But no one is interested.
Its just not feasible.
>>> This is what I mean when I say there is no force available under the
>>> proposed arrangements to drive the price of medical care down. The
>>> main force limiting the present system has been the fact that
>>> millions of people cannot or will not buy medical insurance or care
>>> because the price is too high. This problem is now going to be
>>> solved by the application of government force -- one will be
>>> required to buy, or the money will be extracted by some other
>>> means. At least, that's what I read. I reason that, in the
>>> absence of a countervailing force, the price will simply rise until
>>> it reaches some other limit, probably an unpleasant one.
>>
>> That is what the Public Option is all about. By creating a very
>> large bargaining organization to be added to Medicare and Medicaid
>> bargaining power, the costs of medical services can be controlled.
>> You, of course, will claim that the Public Option (PO) will be
>> corrupted in the same way as everything having to do with government
>> is corrupted and vile. Yet the success of Medicare in reducing the
>> cost of medical care for its members is undeniable.
> Well, we'll see about it. I suspect the Public Option is
> going to be crippled in service to the medical establishment.
I doubt it. This is the best opportunity since the great depression
to put a bomb under the system, just like Medicare did at that
time, now that the fuckwit repugs have just completely
imploded the entire world financial system, AGAIN.
The voters wont be forgetting that for a decade or more, you watch.
>>> (Actually, I believe a general economic collapse will preempt the specific
>>> collapse of the medical payment system, but that's just a guess.)
>> All anarchists dream of economic collapse and the next wave of feudalism.
> I wouldn't call it dreaming.
Corse it is. Pure fantasy.
> In the history of the modern world, every state that has
> attempted empire has come to ruin, usually economic collapse
Another pig ignorant lie. What has actually happened is that they
just fade away into obscurity when they have passed their useby date.
Thats what happened to the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and most recently Britain.
> but often physical and moral bankruptcy as well.
Even sillier.
> The United States is now on this path and I don't see why its fate
> should be any different from that of so many other countries.
Yes, but it wont be your silly little fantasy, you watch.
> I don't dream about this in the sense of wish-fulfilling fantasy,
> although I do look forward to the day when the the U.S. will
> stop slaughtering random foreigners,
That will take foreigners stopping doing stuff like 9/11 first.
While ever they do stuff like that, they will get fucked
over when they are stupid enough to do that with by
far the most militarily significant world power remaining.
And even someone as stupid as you should have noticed
that it aint just the US involved in Afghanistan.
> as it may when it finally runs out of gas.
Yes, but that aint gunna be any time soon, you watch.
> The recent financial crises and the present depression
> (papered over with funny money) may already be
> the symptoms of an empty tank,
Fools ran the same line in the great depression.
> so the general collapse may not be all that far off.
Fools ran the same line in the great depression.
>>>>> Assuming the exploitation of this finite
> resource continues to be
>>>>> expanded, it seems necessary that it will eventually reach the
>>>>> point of diminishing returns, whereupon I would expect it to
>>>>> implode catastrophically. For example, in the case of H1N1
>>>>> vaccine, in spite of a great deal of sound, fury and money, only
>>>>> a small portion of the amount supposedly needed has been
>>>>> produced, and needless to say much of this has been sequestered
>>>>> for the use of important people like financiers.
>>>>
>>>> Oh horse shit!
>>>
>>> Well, again, that is what I read. I am personally not interested in
>>> H1N1 vaccine so I have not been following the story closely, but I
>>> was amused to learn that being in high finance not only brings
>>> $1000 bottles of champagne for brunch but supplies of H1N1 vaccine
>>> as well.
>>
>> The effects of such a black market, even if it existed, are a "nit".
> I'm pointing out the example of a pattern.
There is no pattern.