Oregon passes tax increases on corporations and the wealthy..

[GenSeneca]

I don't think your pollyanna idea will work either. It's certainly not working for most of us.

My idea hasn't been tried... Yet you claim it's not working...

"The war against working people should be understood to be a real war…. Specifically in the U.S., which happens to have a highly class-conscious business class…. And they have long seen themselves as fighting a bitter class war, except they don’t want anybody else to know about it."

— Noam Chomsky

Now you're quoting Communists...

How could this be happening; how did we get to this point?

Because of people like YOU! Instead of demanding government violate the rights of other people for your own personal gain, you should be demanding government respect and protect the rights of every individual.

It will take a revolution of some sort, I would hope a philosophical one, but I fear it will be violent one instead.

Communist revolutions are never simply philosophical, they are always violent because enslaving a population requires massive, brutal force.

 

[PLC1]

Because of people like YOU! Instead of demanding government violate the rights of other people for your own personal gain, you should be demanding government respect and protect the rights of every individual.

Wouldn't stopping the upward flow of wealth that Mare is talking about be protecting the rights of every individual?

or is business really just a big monopoly game?

 

[GenSeneca]

Wouldn't stopping the upward flow of wealth that Mare is talking about be protecting the rights of every individual?

She doesn't want to simply stop the forced redistribution of wealth going to the elite, she wants to reverse the flow. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Eliminating government's ability to violate rights would mean that neither side could legally violate the rights of the other in order to have a forced redistribution of wealth.

Now, I think you should explain what you mean by "stopping the upward flow of wealth" before I comment further.

 

[PLC1]

She doesn't want to simply stop the forced redistribution of wealth going to the elite, she wants to reverse the flow. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Eliminating government's ability to violate rights would mean that neither side could legally violate the rights of the other in order to have a forced redistribution of wealth.

Now, I think you should explain what you mean by "stopping the upward flow of wealth" before I comment further.

Oh, I'm not sure just what all could be done. Perhaps not giving multi billion dollar bailouts to entities that are too big to fail, particularly when the moguls of said entities are already "contracted" to receive multi million dollar bonuses. Perhaps stopping the legal bribery known as "lobbying" in which the wealthy are able to purchase politicians who will vote for their own interests. We could put a stop to the subsidies of unprofitable businesses that do nothing but channel government money into private bank accounts. The government could quit taking 10% out of the checks of low level wage earners in the name of "social Security" and "Medicare", then using that money for day to day expenses. We could establish a real health care reform in which the only losers would be the big insurers who are making billions while ordinary people are unable to afford needed medical care. The government could finally and at long last put an end to illegal immigration, so that citizens of this great nation would have a shot at getting a job, instead of looking the other way while big contributors cut costs and improve the bottom line by hiring illegal aliens.

I'm sure there is more, but that is just off he top of my head.

 

[GenSeneca]

Oh, I'm not sure just what all could be done. Perhaps not giving multi billion dollar bailouts to entities that are too big to fail, particularly when the moguls of said entities are already "contracted" to receive multi million dollar bonuses. Perhaps stopping the legal bribery known as "lobbying" in which the wealthy are able to purchase politicians who will vote for their own interests. We could put a stop to the subsidies of unprofitable businesses that do nothing but channel government money into private bank accounts.

Have you listened to anything I have said? It would appear not... What do all those things have in common? GOVERNMENT - Take away governments power to confer special privileges and the bailouts stop, the subsidies stop, the lobbying is massively reduced... Why don't you see that government is the problem? Why are you convinced that government is the victim of corruption rather than it's facilitator?

We could establish a real health care reform in which the only losers would be the big insurers who are making billions while ordinary people are unable to afford needed medical care.

Right, it's those EVIL insurance companies and their OBSCENE 2.5% profit margin that are causing the cost of health care to skyrocket... It is maddening to see you spewing such leftist drivel.

The government could finally and at long last put an end to illegal immigration, so that citizens of this great nation would have a shot at getting a job, instead of looking the other way while big contributors cut costs and improve the bottom line by hiring illegal aliens.

Hiring illegals is ILLEGAL, we dont' need more laws, government needs to enforce the ones we already have. Why do you have so much faith in government when they are so completely inept at everything?

 

[PLC1]

Have you listened to anything I have said? It would appear not... What do all those things have in common? GOVERNMENT - Take away governments power to confer special privileges and the bailouts stop, the subsidies stop, the lobbying is massively reduced... Why don't you see that government is the problem? Why are you convinced that government is the victim of corruption rather than it's facilitator?

OK, so the government is the problem. Is doing away with government the solution, or is reforming government the solution?

Right, it's those EVIL insurance companies and their OBSCENE 2.5% profit margin that are causing the cost of health care to skyrocket... It is maddening to see you spewing such leftist drivel.

Leftist drivel, is it? Consider this:

Lawmakers accuse WellPoint, parent company of Anthem Blue Cross, of profiteering

The full committee's chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), said that other documents raised the possibility that WellPoint may have manipulated "actuarial assumptions" to remain within guidelines set by California law requiring health insurers to spend at least 70% of premiums on medical care.

So, they have to fudge the figures to stay within the guidelines of spending 70% on medical cafe, yet they're only making 2.5% profit? Do those figures add up to you?

Hiring illegals is ILLEGAL, we dont' need more laws, government needs to enforce the ones we already have. Why do you have so much faith in government when they are so completely inept at everything?

Correct. Now, who is going to enforce the law, and how?

 

[GenSeneca]

OK, so the government is the problem. Is doing away with government the solution, or is reforming government the solution?

Limited government is the solution. Restrict governments role to the few specific tasks outlined in the constitution in hopes that with fewer obligations on their plate they may actually find the time to enforce laws already on the books.

Leftist drivel, is it?

Yes, leftist drivel. There was recently an Obama supporter who went and shot up her co-workers, exptrapolating from that one example, or even a couple of examples, that ALL Obama supporters were homicidal maniacs would not be a logical conclusion.

You are pointing to one example as proof that ALL insurance companies are profiteering, that is not a logical conclusion.

Also, the underlying cause of skyrocketing costs for health insurance are the rising costs of providing care. Even if you eliminated ALL profit from the entire health care chain, that would do absolutely nothing to reduce the costs of providing care.

Correct. Now, who is going to enforce the law, and how?

I thought enforcing the law was the job of government... If they aren't capable of even doing that, then why do we have a government?

 

[PLC1]

Limited government is the solution. Restrict governments role to the few specific tasks outlined in the constitution in hopes that with fewer obligations on their plate they may actually find the time to enforce laws already on the books.

Sure, why not? Let's restrict government to doing, what? Are you arguing for a strict interpretation of the Constitution? What does "promote the general welfare" mean?

Yes, leftist drivel. There was recently an Obama supporter who went and shot up her co-workers, exptrapolating from that one example, or even a couple of examples, that ALL Obama supporters were homicidal maniacs would not be a logical conclusion.

You are pointing to one example as proof that ALL insurance companies are profiteering, that is not a logical conclusion.

Also, the underlying cause of skyrocketing costs for health insurance are the rising costs of providing care. Even if you eliminated ALL profit from the entire health care chain, that would do absolutely nothing to reduce the costs of providing care.

That was an example, just one example, but of a big insurance company having to fudge figures to show that even 70% of the premiums it collected went to actual medical care. Sure, the underlying cause, or at least one of them, for soaring costs is the cost of procedures. So, why do procedures cost so much? Medical care has to be streamlined so that costs don't get out of control. Doctors have to be rewarded on the basis of being good doctors, not on being a good at business.

What we need is catastrophic coverage for everyone. That way, the individual has an incentive to shop around and control costs, but isn't bankrupted by an acute medical problem.

I thought enforcing the law was the job of government... If they aren't capable of even doing that, then why do we have a government?

Of course they're capable. They aren't enforcing that particular law because their supporters don't want them to.

 

[GenSeneca]

Sure, why not? Let's restrict government to doing, what? Are you arguing for a strict interpretation of the Constitution? What does "promote the general welfare" mean?

Clearly the founders wanted us to have a Communist State and unlimited power in the federal government... That or they were smart enough to spell out exactly what powers the federal government could exercise and the general welfare clause is equally limited to only those powers constitutionally granted to the federal government.

That was an example, just one example, but of a big insurance company having to fudge figures to show that even 70% of the premiums it collected went to actual medical care.

And from that you have extrapolated that ALL insurance companies operate just as fraudulently?

Medical care has to be streamlined so that costs don't get out of control.

Perhaps we should take this to another thread but I'm curious what you consider "streamlining" to be... Because it's one of those vague terms like "CHANGE" that means different things to different people.

Doctors have to be rewarded on the basis of being good doctors, not on being a good at business.

I take it you mean doctors shouldn't practice defensive medicine... Do you not understand why doctors use defensive medicine?

What we need is catastrophic coverage for everyone.

Shall we put a gun to everyone's head and force them to buy it?

 

[OldTrapper]

Basically both of you are right, and both are wrong.

The main argument is to restrict the power of government, and return them to the confines of their Constitutional role on the federal level. The only way to do this is with term limits, and Congress is the one that would have ot do it, and obviously it will not get done. There are too many people willing to vote for the ones who will give them the most of other peoples money to encourage them to do so. The other option is a revolution which may ultimately be the solution.

On the "redistribution of wealth", the "rich" have been stealing from the worker, and the common person, through the power of Congress for decades. So, while their wealth has increased the standard of living for the common person has been decreasing. Energy costs, food costs, housing, whatever, have consistently gone up while the average wage, save for the government employee, has been declining in real dollars for 30 years.

Even the welfare programs are designed to take from the middle class to distribute to the "rich". If one considers who really profits from the food stamp program, and it is not the poor since it is a subsistence amount to them, all of what is taken ends up in the pockets of those who own the food supply. Another good example of this is the Farm Aid programs. The large corporations, and the rich, receive about 60% of the moneys spent, and the small family farm receives the leftovers. This is not to mention that the program has never saved even one family farm, and has served only to enrich the large corporate farm.

With that in mind, I would feel no regret if that wealth was returned to its rightful owners, the people themselves. Act as if this is communism, or socialism, if you want. I just don't think the middle class should be destroyed simply because of the greed, and power, of the wealthy. Even the middle class should be allowed to enjoy the results of their labor. And that would be true capitalism.

 

[PLC1]

Clearly the founders wanted us to have a Communist State and unlimited power in the federal government... That or they were smart enough to spell out exactly what powers the federal government could exercise and the general welfare clause is equally limited to only those powers constitutionally granted to the federal government.

Clearly

And from that you have extrapolated that ALL insurance companies operate just as fraudulently?

If not, how did that one get so prominent? Shouldn't competition have taken it down by now?

Perhaps we should take this to another thread but I'm curious what you consider "streamlining" to be... Because it's one of those vague terms like "CHANGE" that means different things to different people.


I take it you mean doctors shouldn't practice defensive medicine... Do you not understand why doctors use defensive medicine?

Of course I do. They have to CYA in everything they do, which, of course, ramps up the cost of care.

I'm not sure just how we could streamline the delivery of medical services. There is probably not one simple solution.

Say a lab technician makes $40 an hour, the cost of the lab and equipment adds another $20, and a blood test takes an hour to do (just supposing).

Does that blood test cost $60, or is the cost more like $600? We both know the answer to that, but where does the rest of the money go? That I don't know, but a lot of it goes to the army of office workers whose expertise is not medicine, but how to get the government/insurance/patients to pay.

Shall we put a gun to everyone's head and force them to buy it?

The choice is to require it, to pay for the uninsured in other ways, or to let people go without care. There isn't a fourth choice that I can think of. Your choice is A, B, or C?

 

[GenSeneca]

Basically both of you are right, and both are wrong.

The main argument is to restrict the power of government, and return them to the confines of their Constitutional role on the federal level. The only way to do this is with term limits, and Congress is the one that would have ot do it, and obviously it will not get done. There are too many people willing to vote for the ones who will give them the most of other peoples money to encourage them to do so. The other option is a revolution which may ultimately be the solution.

On the "redistribution of wealth", the "rich" have been stealing from the worker, and the common person, through the power of Congress for decades. So, while their wealth has increased the standard of living for the common person has been decreasing. Energy costs, food costs, housing, whatever, have consistently gone up while the average wage, save for the government employee, has been declining in real dollars for 30 years.

Even the welfare programs are designed to take from the middle class to distribute to the "rich". If one considers who really profits from the food stamp program, and it is not the poor since it is a subsistence amount to them, all of what is taken ends up in the pockets of those who own the food supply. Another good example of this is the Farm Aid programs. The large corporations, and the rich, receive about 60% of the moneys spent, and the small family farm receives the leftovers. This is not to mention that the program has never saved even one family farm, and has served only to enrich the large corporate farm.

With that in mind, I would feel no regret if that wealth was returned to its rightful owners, the people themselves. Act as if this is communism, or socialism, if you want. I just don't think the middle class should be destroyed simply because of the greed, and power, of the wealthy. Even the middle class should be allowed to enjoy the results of their labor.

And that would be true capitalism.

Uh... No... that's not Capitalism. I have a thread on Capitalism if you would like to discuss what is, and is not, Capitalism.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

My idea hasn't been tried... Yet you claim it's not working...
Now you're quoting Communists...

How many times have I asked for even one example where your system has worked? Several times. Noam Chomsky was hardly a communist.

Because of people like YOU! Instead of demanding government violate the rights of other people for your own personal gain, you should be demanding government respect and protect the rights of every individual.

It's funny, the 90%/10% split of wealth in favor of the rich people, all the articles I have posted noting the egregious abuses of the people in power and you are still maintaining that we have a level playing field and we should stop using the small amount of power left to the people and let the rich run the world. Once again you have misconstrued my position to make yourself look better (I guess), it's not my personal gain I wish to see but rather that all the people get what they need to live a human life--something well within our power if the greediest of us are limited in their frenzy of acquisition.

Communist revolutions are never simply philosophical, they are always violent because enslaving a population requires massive, brutal force.

No one is advocating a commie revolution, I was thinking more of a human revolution, a revolution of enlightenment, a revolution of compassion, and a move from the rock logic of the past into the water logic of the future.

 

[GenSeneca]

If not, how did that one get so prominent? Shouldn't competition have taken it down by now?

They are not allowed to compete across state lines, so no, competition doesn't play the role it would in a Free Market.

Of course I do. They have to CYA in everything they do, which, of course, ramps up the cost of care.

And why do they have to?

I'm not sure just how we could streamline the delivery of medical services. There is probably not one simple solution.

Sure there is... make the Healthcare Market a Free Market.

That I don't know, but a lot of it goes to the army of office workers whose expertise is not medicine, but how to get the government/insurance/patients to pay.

Adding more government programs, regulations and red tape will not alleviate that problem, it will only make it worse.

The choice is to require it, to pay for the uninsured in other ways, or to let people go without care. There isn't a fourth choice that I can think of. Your choice is A, B, or C?

A. Forcing people to purchase insurance is a violation of their rights.
B. Forcing people to pay for the health care of someone else is also a violation of rights.
C. Letting people go without insurance (you said care and that was fallacious) would violate the rights of no one.

Given those options, I would go with C.

Now if you wish to discuss the topic of health care further, I suggest we move the conversation to your thread.

 

[GenSeneca]

How many times have I asked for even one example where your system has worked? Several times.

Again, if it hasn't been tried, why do you insist that it has failed?

Noam Chomsky was hardly a communist.

Anarcho-Socialist then... Where has that system ever worked?

you are still maintaining that we have a level playing field

I have said repeatedly that it is NOT a level playing field but eliminating the governments legal ability to violate individual rights would level it. But you cannot discuss this, or any topic, without constructing strawmen (OUTRIGHT LIES) to buttress your case.

Once again you have misconstrued my position to make yourself look better (I guess), it's not my personal gain I wish to see

Oh you mean you don't feel good about being "compassionate" with other peoples money? You don't derive some personal satisfaction from using government to force your altruist morality on everyone?

all the people get what they need to live a human life

And you want to do that through the use of force and the violation of individual rights. Or do you wish to deny that fact?

something well within our power if the greediest of us are limited in their frenzy of acquisition.

​

No one is advocating a commie revolution, I was thinking more of a human revolution, a revolution of enlightenment, a revolution of compassion, and a move from the rock logic of the past into the water logic of the future.

"water logic" that's a pleasant way of saying you want to violate individual rights with force under the guise of "compassion".

How exactly would your Utopian system be any different from Communism?