L@@K! Killer deal! Birth control pills $9/month at Target!!! IN-STOCK

what is all politics, if not 'redistribution of wealth'?

the only people who say 'redistribution of wealth' as if it's (1) a bad thing or (2) exclusive to the income and assets of the 1% are people whose faith in the confidence fairies of the free market are not shaken - not even when they realize their entire belief system is predicated on a tautological argument (i.e., the outcomes of the free market are fair - therefore not to be distrupted - because they are the outcomes of the free market).

the government spends a dollar - on a condom, on a missile, on a tax cut - no part of it is *not* redistribution of wealth. the allocation of resources in the face of competing interests is what politics accomplishes. to call only a portion of it 'redistribution of wealth' is dangerously silly (dangerous because people believe it).
 
The one percenters are not for a free market and do not benefit from a free market. They hate libertarians and Ron Paul as much as you do. They want government intrusion into our markets as much as possible because they benefit from it. For example, why would anybody who profits from federal involvement in student loans support a free-market guy?
 
[quote name='Spokker']The one percenters are not for a free market and do not benefit from a free market. They hate libertarians and Ron Paul as much as you do. They want government intrusion into our markets as much as possible because they benefit from it. For example, why would anybody who profits from federal involvement in student loans support a free-market guy?[/QUOTE]

Only you and your fellow libertarians stand on principle? Everyone else must have ulterior motives?

Are you trying to be insulting or are you just delusional?
 
[quote name='Spokker']

If we induce competition into the market for health insurance and cut back on the regulations then perhaps getting the one or few plans offered through your employer becomes less important because insurance is affordable on the open market, and we increase our job mobility and all that other nonsense.
[/QUOTE]

A lot of employers pay for a large portion of their employees premiums. Good luck getting people to give up that benefit so they can pay 100% of the premiums on their own.


[quote name='Spokker']
If you look at what Epstein is saying, his advice is redistribution last, deregulation first. Once we have a more free-market health insurance system, then we can look at who is falling through the cracks. But keep in mind that we are not providing a person with preexisting conditions insurance, we are providing them health care at this point, and the tough decisions are going to have to be made over who enjoy the benefits of our scarce resources if we don't wish to see the system go broke. These decisions can be made by the government, the private insurer or the village for all I care, but they will have to be made.

[/QUOTE]

Epstein's suggestion that we need to get rid of state licensing laws for doctors before helping the people that are falling through the cracks is ridiculous.

"Pre-existing condition" does not mean that the person is currently receiving treatment. You would know this if you actually filled out an application for individual health insurance.

How can you possibly support this mythical "free market" system when you have no ideas on how to handle the completely socialized parts of our current system?
 
[quote name='willardhaven']This dude is driving around without health care while complaining about PPACA? This is probably one of the best Vs. threads in a while.[/QUOTE]
The last time we had this level of dissonance was with TurboChicken and solid snake. They even posted links to shitty sites and shitty youtube videos. It must be a coincidence that they're all libertarians.
 
[quote name='Spokker']The one percenters are not for a free market and do not benefit from a free market. They hate libertarians and Ron Paul as much as you do. They want government intrusion into our markets as much as possible because they benefit from it. For example, why would anybody who profits from federal involvement in student loans support a free-market guy?[/QUOTE]

How do you feel about child labor laws?

I've got to run out for a few hours, so I'm going to proactively type up my response to your response to this question:

fuck you.
 
[quote name='camoor']Only you and your fellow libertarians stand on principle? Everyone else must have ulterior motives?

Are you trying to be insulting or are you just delusional?[/QUOTE]

He is being intentionally insulting so people will crap on him and he can then post about that instead.

He points out that many people are happy with their insurance as proof we should have kept the status quo.

Meanwhile by definition the majority of people do not have serious illnesses and do not experience the way unprofitable people are treated.

But this won't be engaged.
 
[quote name='Spokker']
Requiring insurers and private organizations to cover these things might raise premiums for everyone whether they need the services or not (the studies are inconclusive so far). But look, if a company wants to offer it, and many do, you can choose to get it.[/QUOTE]
This is the thing that pissed me off the most back when I had health insurance. Why the hell should I pay higher premiums because some people need repeat and expensive testing or medicines? They should be the ones forced to pay the high premiums. I underused my health care plan when I had it, yet it went up from $90 something for basic coverage to over $200 something within 3 years. Yeah. That's fair.

It's like the government levying a fee on the utilities so that poor shnooks can have a basic phone in their home and those utilities passing that fee down to other customers. Why should we have to pay so Jimmy The Redneck with his 4 teef and 12 kids by 6 different women can yap on the phone? Same goes for car insurance. Why should I have to pay because some people drive around without insurance on their cars?
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']

It's like the government levying a fee on the utilities so that poor shnooks can have a basic phone in their home and those utilities passing that fee down to other customers. Why should we have to pay so Jimmy The Redneck with his 4 teef and 12 kids by 6 different women can yap on the phone? Same goes for car insurance. Why should I have to pay because some people drive around without insurance on their cars?[/QUOTE]

Huh? You realize if that was the way they ran the phone biz, only cities would have phone service right? I don't even know how you came up with Jimmy the Redneck thing, nothing about that makes sense. Plenty of normal people live in rural areas.
 
[quote name='soulvengeance']Huh? You realize if that was the way they ran the phone biz, only cities would have phone service right? I don't even know how you came up with Jimmy the Redneck thing, nothing about that makes sense. Plenty of normal people live in rural areas.[/QUOTE]
I know. But I was just making a point that why should the rest of society who can pay for a phone have to pay so people who cannot afford one can have it. It's ridiculous. Although it does come back to the gov't charging the telecommunications companies the fees in the first place and not somehow blocking them from passing it onto consumers.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']I know. But I was just making a point that why should the rest of society who can pay for a phone have to pay so people who cannot afford one can have it. It's ridiculous. Although it does come back to the gov't charging the telecommunications companies the fees in the first place and not somehow blocking them from passing it onto consumers.[/QUOTE]
That's not how any of it works.

The phone program is subsidized through tax dollars and cellphones are not only cheaper than landlines, but more portable and convenient. There is simply no way to spin it away from being necessary in modern day living. Federal regulatory fees are one thing and more akin to a tax, which should be specified on your bill, whereas the non-federal fee is just the telecom nickel and dime-ing you.

As for insurance, you don't seem to understand the concept of pooling risk, but as a functioning adult, you should.
 
[quote name='dohdough']That's not how any of it works.

The phone program is subsidized through tax dollars and cellphones are not only cheaper than landlines, but more portable and convenient. There is simply no way to spin it away from being necessary in modern day living. Federal regulatory fees are one thing and more akin to a tax, which should be specified on your bill, whereas the non-federal fee is just the telecom nickel and dime-ing you.

As for insurance, you don't seem to understand the concept of pooling risk, but as a functioning adult, you should.[/QUOTE]
So then tax money is being spent so poor folks can text/call their other poor friends? Lovely. As for the insurance thing, I only care about MY bill and don't give a rat's ass about anyone elses' unless mine goes up because of them.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']So then tax money is being spent so poor folks can text/call their other poor friends? Lovely. As for the insurance thing, I only care about MY bill and don't give a rat's ass about anyone elses' unless mine goes up because of them.[/QUOTE]

I don't think all poor people live in rural areas. Heck, even some suburbs are in rural areas. What are you even talking about? Don't worry, since you don't have insurance, the first time you have to go there for an emergency, we'll all be paying for it since you won't be able to pay for it. See how that works? If people really want things to work, they need to be doing credit checks at the hospital door. Can't afford it? Too bad, you get to die outside.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The gauntlet was already thrown and Spokker already decided he was not going to answer.

He will however continue to talk out of both sides of his mouth when people point this out.,[/QUOTE]

He's going on and on about "competition," "deregulation,'" and "free market" but won't talk about Medicare or Medicaid.

The truth is that in a deregulated market, the health insurance companies will simply rely on these programs as a bail-out when a customer starts to cost them money. They'll just drop the coverage (despite the fact that the customer was most likely profitable for years), and let the government take care of them. This is exactly what they have been doing in the individual market, and this is one of the reasons why PPACA, as flawed as it is, was passed.
 
That is how Medicare got its start. The government sold it to the insurance companies as taking old and vastly unprofitable off their hands. Stopped patient dumping by hospitals for seniors decades before Reagan and EMTALA stopped it for everyone.
 
[quote name='soulvengeance']I don't think all poor people live in rural areas. Heck, even some suburbs are in rural areas. What are you even talking about? Don't worry, since you don't have insurance, the first time you have to go there for an emergency, we'll all be paying for it since you won't be able to pay for it. See how that works? If people really want things to work, they need to be doing credit checks at the hospital door. Can't afford it? Too bad, you get to die outside.[/QUOTE]
Even better idea is that our country could stop sending billions/trillions overseas in foreign aid and adopt a system like Canada or the UK have. Personally I kinda wish things would go back to how it was when I was a kid. I went to a local doctor who didn't accept ANY insurance plans whatsoever. You paid him $30-40 for the visit and he typically had a lil back room where he dispensed medicine from to help you get better when you were truly sick.

Now if I want to go to the local Redi-Care(walk in health clinic) it costs me $100 and regardless of how many times I tell them I can't afford meds they hand me scripts and send me on my not so merry way.

That's why I've been using a free clinic from the local university for the last several years. They have doctors who volunteer their time on a Thursday to come in and help the community out. Of course, I've been given bad advice on several conditions thus far or had doctors who basically told me that my issue was 'not in their field of expertise' while gritting their teeth because they were apparently pissed off the day they decided to help out.:roll: Luckily for me, this clinic refers you to specialists if need be, who then take care of you FOC. So then even if I get a pissy doctor who just wants to go home from volunteering I can at least get treated right by someone who knows what the fuck they're doing.

It just seems like anymore the first thing doctors have is their hand out to be paid instead of remembering their Hippocratic oath. I'm not saying they shouldn't make money or expect to get paid, but the days of being asked 'where does it hurt' being the first question you're asked when you go into the emergency room has been replaced by 'we need to make a copy of your insurance card'. It's just sickening, almost as sickening as your line about die outside. Nice. Real nice. :roll::whistle2:#
 
[quote name='chiwii']A lot of employers pay for a large portion of their employees premiums. Good luck getting people to give up that benefit so they can pay 100% of the premiums on their own. [/quote]The premium is already factored into your pay. Just as it doesn't matter who pays payroll taxes, the employer or the employee, it doesn't matter who pays the premium, the employer or the employee.
[quote name='chiwii']
"Pre-existing condition" does not mean that the person is currently receiving treatment. You would know this if you actually filled out an application for individual health insurance.
[/QUOTE]I never said or implied that a person with a pre-existing condition is receiving treatment. They cannot get insurance because they have a pre-existing condition, and therefore would either be required to pay out of pocket or rely on some redistribution of wealth scheme to obtain health care.

Accepting a person with a pre-existing condition defeats the purpose of insurance.
 
[quote name='camoor']Only you and your fellow libertarians stand on principle? Everyone else must have ulterior motives? [/QUOTE]Just letting you know that the one-percenters also benefit from federal programs. The libertarians and free-market guys are not necessarily for what we refer to as the bankers and Wall Street.

As for motives, well, the motives are well-meaning. In order to create greater access to higher education, the government has decided to subsidize and guarantee loans. By doing that, cost becomes less of an issue when it comes to going to college. Few would be against this.

But there are unintended consequences. When the price doesn't mean much, it has the tendency to go higher because people do not shop around or perform basic cost-benefit analyses about their education and futures. Schools feel comfortable raising costs because there is always more "financial aid" (loans) around the corner. Book publishers feel comfortable raising costs because there is always more "financial aid". States feel comfortable cutting funding for schools because their students will simply get more "financial aid." Universities have no incentive to cut administrators and become more efficient in order to keep tuition down because there is always more "financial aid" around the corner.

Students take seriously the advice about how important college is (it is), and therefore will go ahead and take less seriously the idea of not going to a more expensive university or not going at all, because there is always more "financial aid" around the corner. In any case, all of the above entities respond to incentives as well meaning as their intentions are.

So the one-percenters (Sallie Mae and others in the college system) are happy to oblige. They would be stupid not to. They are not evil. They are helping the federal government, students and colleges increase access to higher education.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Spokker']Just letting you know that the one-percenters also benefit from federal programs. The libertarians and free-market guys are not necessarily for what we refer to as the bankers and Wall Street.[/QUOTE]

Oh I know. In this game, you libertarians and free-market guys are the "useful idiots"
 
Spokker - I don't know what you think is going to happen when you goto an emergency room without insurance.

First off they will probably charge you double to triple what they would charge an insurance company. They love customers who can pay, because without an insurance company at your back, you have no financial bargaining power they can shove charges down your neck and you have little recourse to fight it.

As for declaring bankruptcy, it's not a magical "get out of jail free" card. I know I wouldn't want someone else crawling all over my finances, and it puts you at a severe disadvantage for getting loans.

You sound like you understand business - what would you do about a customer you were forced to serve for free? Would you roll out the red carpet treatment, or would you do the absolute bare minimum to get his deadbeat ass out the door?
 
[quote name='Spokker']The premium is already factored into your pay. Just as it doesn't matter who pays payroll taxes, the employer or the employee, it doesn't matter who pays the premium, the employer or the employee.[/quote]
How does this word salad answer chiwii's question?

I never said or implied that a person with a pre-existing condition is receiving treatment. They cannot get insurance because they have a pre-existing condition, and therefore would either be required to pay out of pocket or rely on some redistribution of wealth scheme to obtain health care.

Accepting a person with a pre-existing condition defeats the purpose of insurance.
Click to expand...
This is the complete opposite of how insurance works and the reason for it's existence. Is paying into insurance a "redistribution of wealth scheme" if you don't use it? What if you do?

And why is it that you didn't address the rest of chiwii's post?

[quote name='Spokker']Just letting you know that the one-percenters also benefit from federal programs. The libertarians and free-market guys are not necessarily for what we refer to as the bankers and Wall Street.

As for motives, well, the motives are well-meaning. In order to create greater access to higher education, the government has decided to subsidize and guarantee loans. By doing that, cost becomes less of an issue when it comes to going to college. Few would be against this.

But there are unintended consequences. When the price doesn't mean much, it has the tendency to go higher because people do not shop around or perform basic cost-benefit analyses about their education and futures. Schools feel comfortable raising costs because there is always more "financial aid" (loans) around the corner. Book publishers feel comfortable raising costs because there is always more "financial aid". States feel comfortable cutting funding for schools because their students will simply get more "financial aid." Universities have no incentive to cut administrators and become more efficient in order to keep tuition down because there is always more "financial aid" around the corner.

Students take seriously the advice about how important college is (it is), and therefore will go ahead and take less seriously the idea of not going to a more expensive university or not going at all, because there is always more "financial aid" around the corner. In any case, all of the above entities respond to incentives as well meaning as their intentions are.

So the one-percenters (Sallie Mae and others in the college system) are happy to oblige. They would be stupid not to. They are not evil. They are helping the federal government, students and colleges increase access to higher education.[/QUOTE]
Yeah...it's not like the cutting of funds for higher education for the past 30 years, commoditization of loans, expanded programs, updated facilities, and/or increased reliance on grants/scholarships has anything to do with it either! It's stickly because the government mucked it up because GUBMENT!!!
 
[quote name='Spokker']

But there are unintended consequences. When the price doesn't mean much, it has the tendency to go higher because people do not shop around or perform basic cost-benefit analyses about their education and futures. [/QUOTE]
Despite what you and my extremely hard headed friend apparently both beleive, college is not about job training. The point of going is not that it will pay off financially. And this is from the guy who made the thread asking if it did still pay off financially. If all anyone ever cared about is getting paid we wouldn't have half the people going into the social sciences for example, which despite what you probably think, we do need.
 
[quote name='camoor']
As for declaring bankruptcy, it's not a magical "get out of jail free" card. I know I wouldn't want someone else crawling all over my finances, and it puts you at a severe disadvantage for getting loans. [/QUOTE]I never said that it's a get out of jail free card. There are consequences.[quote name='dohdough'] It's stickly because the government mucked it up because GUBMENT!!![/QUOTE]
I laid out the process in which cost increases occur. I didn't say, "Just because government."
 
[quote name='Spokker']I never said that it's a get out of jail free card. There are consequences.[/QUOTE]

You're not concerned about that?

I mean - god forbid - say you get something bad, something that requires long term care.

The hospital is only interested in patching you up - they won't help you with chemo or non-emergency surgery or expensive medicine or whatever you really need.

Once you declare bankruptcy you'll be broke as a joke - you still can't afford those treatments and if you have pre-existing conditions then you'll be screwed for getting a new policy.

You sound young, so feel free to indulge in your mostly harmless libertarian fantasies, but please get health insurance. What you're doing right now is really stupid.
 
[quote name='camoor']
You sound young, so feel free to indulge in your mostly harmless libertarian fantasies, but please get health insurance. What you're doing right now is really stupid.[/QUOTE]
If I'm unwilling to get health insurance, you are going to make me get it. If I can't get health insurance, you are going to provide it for me. We simply have to play the waiting game. We should know more by June.
 
[quote name='Spokker']If I'm unwilling to get health insurance, you are going to make me get it. If I can't get health insurance, you are going to provide it for me. We simply have to play the waiting game. We should know more by June.[/QUOTE]

For a Libertarian, you have much more faith in the speed of our legislative process then do I.
 
[quote name='camoor']For a Libertarian, you have much more faith in the speed of our legislative process then do I.[/QUOTE]
It's going to depend on whether or not the Supreme Court thinks the fine for not having health care is actually a tax. If so, the ruling may be delayed.

And I am not necessarily a Libertarian. I like looking at the different systems and I don't believe that any one system has all the answers.

As I explained before, I believe that the kinds of systems profiled in Sick Around the World are quite promising (while being realistic about their weaknesses). I simply do not believe they pass constitutional muster. If they do, then we should look long and hard at the Swiss system, as well as the information benefits of the Taiwanese system. Nearly anything is better than what we have now, and we have neither a free-market or universal system at the present time.

At the same time, looking at reforms that induce competition that make the market for insurance and health care look more like a free-market is not unwise. In fact, some of those systems do throw in some free-market principles like competition.
 
[quote name='Spokker']I never said that it's a get out of jail free card. There are consequences.[/quote]
You mean like probate?

I laid out the process in which cost increases occur. I didn't say, "Just because government."
Click to expand...
You laid it out all right...by saying that if government kept its dirty hands off education, all the problems would magically go away while not understanding how each of your examples again highlight how little you know about financial aid, the textbook industry, and how a university operates or is funded.

[quote name='camoor']For a Libertarian, you have much more faith in the speed of our legislative process then do I.[/QUOTE]
FYI. The newly accepted nomeclature of libertarians in vs. is now LIEbertarians.
 
[quote name='Spokker']It's going to depend on whether or not the Supreme Court thinks the fine for not having health care is actually a tax. If so, the ruling may be delayed.

And I am not necessarily a Libertarian. I like looking at the different systems and I don't believe that any one system has all the answers.

As I explained before, I believe that the kinds of systems profiled in Sick Around the World are quite promising (while being realistic about their weaknesses). I simply do not believe they pass constitutional muster. If they do, then we should look long and hard at the Swiss system, as well as the information benefits of the Taiwanese system. Nearly anything is better than what we have now, and we have neither a free-market or universal system at the present time.

At the same time, looking at reforms that induce competition that make the market for insurance and health care look more like a free-market is not unwise. In fact, some of those systems do throw in some free-market principles like competition.[/QUOTE]

But you are.

You keep talking about the Constitution, but you are really talking about a hardline extremist Liberatarian interpretation of the Consititution.

The fact that you don't know/acknowledge the fact that you are a hardcore Libertarian doesn't make it any less true.
 
[quote name='dohdough']You mean like probate?[/QUOTE]

Yeah. It's easy for him to say he understands the consequences if he's never really had to face them.

I just don't see how anyone who understands what they are talking about could say that about life-or-death issues.

Spokker - if you can't afford the treatments and you die then your worries about Libertarian philisophical purity won't mean fuck-all.
 
[quote name='camoor']
You keep talking about the Constitution, but you are really talking about a hardline extremist Liberatarian interpretation of the Consititution.
[/QUOTE]We'll know soon enough! :bouncy:
[quote name='camoor']
Spokker - if you can't afford the treatments and you die then your worries about Libertarian philisophical purity won't mean fuck-all.[/QUOTE]This goes without saying. I won't be worrying about anything at all at that point.
 
[quote name='Spokker']We'll know soon enough! :bouncy:[/QUOTE]

Not really. The Supreme Court are just men and women. They can and do make decisions based on their political prejudices. Also they are not infallible - if they were then their decisions would never be overturned.
 
[quote name='camoor']Not really. The Supreme Court are just men and women. They can and do make decisions based on their political prejudices. Also they are not infallible - if they were then their decisions would never be overturned.[/QUOTE]

No argument there. They can overturn themselves or we can attempt to amend the constitution, which is a very difficult thing to do. On the other hand, their decisions do have considerable influence. If the individual mandate is struck down, then back to the drawing board. If it isn't, party time.
 
[quote name='Spokker']No argument there. They can overturn themselves or we can attempt to amend the constitution, which is a very difficult thing to do. On the other hand, their decisions do have considerable influence. If the individual mandate is struck down, then back to the drawing board. If it isn't, party time.[/QUOTE]

True. I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on this.
 
The business group's lawyers say they weren't backing away from their bankrupt plaintiff. "She wants to continue in the case. And as long as she doesn't want healthcare, she qualifies as a plaintiff in our mind," Harned said.
Click to expand...

Good for them. Methinks "the business group's lawyers" are about to get summarily fired.

Awesome find Msut.
 
That's a great find. The lawyers are confused, though. It's clear that the woman and/or her husband still want health care, they just don't want to pay for health insurance. Since they clearly don't have the money to pay their medical bills, they really want free healthcare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top