Dear All charity organizations

[85Sooner]

Thank you for requesting my donations throughout the years. I loved to donate and be helpful when I could.

As of today, please remove my name from your mailing lists. As I understand it, our new Government officials have taken on your causes and will be providing all the needs and wants to those folks who you have been so graciously trying to help. Thus my donations will not be needed in the future.

If you have an idea where I need to go to get in line for the freebies, please let me know.

Warmest regards

[Scott D]

I hear some guy is giving freebies out at a TV store in the greater Austin area. You should check with him.

[85Sooner]

heh no freebies here.

btw where do I go to get my mortgage paid. oops I forgot I earn over 42 k and am white.

[Scott D]

it's funny you say that, wasn't the guy you voted for trying to convince us that it would be a good thing for the government that he would have led to buy people's mortgages from them? Maybe you should fire an email to Sen. McCain and see if he's still willing to buy your mortgage.

[85Sooner]

it's funny you say that, wasn't the guy you voted for trying to convince us that it would be a good thing for the government that he would have led to buy people's mortgages from them? Maybe you should fire an email to Sen. McCain and see if he's still willing to buy your mortgage.

I didn't like him either and voted against every representative I could who voted for he bailout. Try again.

[Scott D]

I don't need to try again, just send an email to McCain asking him if he's interested in buying your mortgage. So seriously, did you go with Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin?

[Widescreen]

My "donations" will be extracted from my paycheck directly to the US Treasury. At least I won't feel selfish.

[swardboy]

Uh, 85Sooner, I get it. Libs think gubment is the answer. They have no soul for individual responsibility regarding good works. Just look at Biden's charitable giving. Pathetic.

[SoonerBorn68]

Uh, 85Sooner, I get it. Libs think gubment is the answer. They have no soul for individual responsibility regarding good works. Just look at Biden's charitable giving. Pathetic.

You will give and like it, open up your wallet or the gubment will lock you up or kill you.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

heh no freebies here.

btw where do I go to get my mortgage paid. oops I forgot I earn over 42 k and am white.

So if you own over 42K and you are black...you are exempt?

[OUWxGuesser]

So question on principles...

Lets say in an imaginary dream world, government welfare/universal health care was ONLY for those that contributed to society (or were unable to do so for whatever reason - handicapped, etc.). This way, no one would be free-riding just because they could. Would you still be against universal healthcare and welfare programs? Just trying to understand the right.

Before anyone goes ripping me for being a crazy liberal, I actually place myself in the middle of the spectrum (and will vote either way depending on the year). The idea of less or at least a fiscally conservative gov. is appealing, but so too is the idea of the government being able to support those that had unfortunate situations befall them.

[Stoop Dawg]

So question on principles...

Lets say in an imaginary dream world, government welfare/universal health care was ONLY for those that contributed to society (or were unable to do so for whatever reason - handicapped, etc.). This way, no one would be free-riding just because they could. Would you still be against universal healthcare and welfare programs? Just trying to understand the right.

Before anyone goes ripping me for being a crazy liberal, I actually place myself in the middle of the spectrum (and will vote either way depending on the year). The idea of less or at least a fiscally conservative gov. is appealing, but so too is the idea of the government being able to support those that had unfortunate situations befall them.

I don't consider myself "on the right", but I'll take a stab at this.

Even if "free-loaders" were removed from the situation, I don't believe that all people deserve the same level of welfare/universal health care. I believe that the level of welfare/universal welfare that one receives should be relative one's choices and work ethic. The more you produce, the more you get.

Now, if there are people who (in this imaginary dream world) work for a living but still can't make ends meet, or who have some financial crisis befall them, whose job is it to help them out? The government? Charity organizations? Friends & Family? I don't know the definitive answer to this one. I would prefer that local charity organizations bear the brunt of this, as they are the ones most able to discern real need from lazy greed. However, it may be the case that there isn't enough charitable giving to support all those in need.

I'm not necessarily opposed to govt aid for short-term needs. But considerable care needs to be taken to prevent abuses. IMO, the govts real responsibility to the people is to provide quality education and regulations that ensure equality in the work place - so that the hard workers actually do earn the most benefits.

Just taking money from the "rich" and giving it to the "poor" is not the answer. At the same time, we shouldn't allow the "rich" to ride the productivity of the workers while holding those same workers "down". How best to go about that is, of course, open for debate.

[mdklatt]

Even if "free-loaders" were removed from the situation, I don't believe that all people deserve the same level of welfare/universal health care. I believe that the level of welfare/universal welfare that one receives should be relative one's choices and work ethic. The more you produce, the more you get.


If you you're a cashier at Wal-Mart do you deserve emergency care but not cancer treatment? Where do you draw the line?

[mdklatt]

Just taking money from the "rich" and giving it to the "poor" is not the answer.

How do the rich get rich in the first place? It may be true that no poor man ever gave anybody a job, but no rich man ever got wealthy in the first place by selling stuff to the poor. Economic growth depends on the circulation of money, not the accumulation of it. If the wealthy have all the money, who's going to buy their ****?

[Widescreen]

If the wealthy have all the money, who's going to buy their ****?
Obama, duh.

[StoopTroup]

What about Half-White guys who make over 40K...how much do they pay?

[Stoop Dawg]

How do the rich get rich in the first place? It may be true that no poor man ever gave anybody a job, but no rich man ever got wealthy in the first place by selling stuff to the poor. Economic growth depends on the circulation of money, not the accumulation of it. If the wealthy have all the money, who's going to buy their ****?

It seems to me (though I have no hard proof) that most "rich" people tend to accumulate assets, not cash. So circulation of money seems like it should be preserved. Maybe someone with a better understanding of economics can correct/clarify that statement.

Ultimately, though, I've already stated that I believe that regulations should be in place to ensure that those who are responsible for creating corporate profits should be fairly compensated for those services. And yes, I realize that that statement is littered with vague & subjective terms. We can discuss methods of accomplishing that if you want, but the general idea is to provide a "level playing field" then let people succeed or fail on their own.

[Stoop Dawg]

If you you're a cashier at Wal-Mart do you deserve emergency care but not cancer treatment? Where do you draw the line?

That's always the pertinent question. Is it rhetorical, or are you interested in where I personally draw the line?

[85Sooner]

How do the rich get rich in the first place? It may be true that no poor man ever gave anybody a job, but no rich man ever got wealthy in the first place by selling stuff to the poor. Economic growth depends on the circulation of money, not the accumulation of it. If the wealthy have all the money, who's going to buy their ****?

Tell that to Trumps dad. He might disagree with you. I know alot of people who have gotten rich by buying low rent properties and renting them to section 8 folks. Of course its not the poor people paying. its us workers.

[tommieharris91]

It seems to me (though I have no hard proof) that most "rich" people tend to accumulate assets, not cash. So circulation of money seems like it should be preserved. Maybe someone with a better understanding of economics can correct/clarify that statement.

Basically true. The rich people are able to save money (and that is the real key), and then put that money into assets (stocks, bonds, other stuff that can be sold instead of consumed) to make their saved money grow.


Ultimately, though, I've already stated that I believe that regulations should be in place to ensure that those who are responsible for creating corporate profits should be fairly compensated for those services. And yes, I realize that that statement is littered with vague & subjective terms. We can discuss methods of accomplishing that if you want, but the general idea is to provide a "level playing field" then let people succeed or fail on their own.

Give them shares of the company that the people add value for. More than a few good companies compensate their employees with shares of stock.

[mdklatt]

It seems to me (though I have no hard proof) that most "rich" people tend to accumulate assets, not cash. So circulation of money seems like it should be preserved. Maybe someone with a better understanding of economics can correct/clarify that statement.

We've been living the Friedman dream the past 8 years (lowest taxes and less regulation than we've had in a long time), and middle class wages have stagnated. There's been no trickle down. Not all boats have risen on a rising tide. Of course, we now see that the rising tide was largely an illusion built on a house of credit default swaps, but the stagnant middle is getting bent over by that and they didn't even get to enjoy the fun while it lasted.



the general idea is to provide a "level playing field" then let people succeed or fail on their own

What's your definition of "fail"? To the Republicans, the answer to any economic problem is "get a better job". The problem with that is that we can't all be doctors and lawyers. Have Wal-Mart cashiers "failed" to the point where they don't deserve decent health care? They are just as important to the success of Wal-Mart as the CEO, so why should they get thrown under the bus?

[Stoop Dawg]

Give them shares of the company that the people add value for. More than a few good companies compensate their employees with shares of stock.

I think that a good education is also key.

There was a guy at my previous employer that participated in the 401k so that he could get the company match (which is smart). But he withdrew all of they money every year (with steep penalties) so he could spend it. Giving people like that stock options (or even outright shares of stock) wouldn't help them much, if at all.

People need to know how to manage (and save) money. Look at how many lottery winners end up bankrupt. Education is key.

[mdklatt]

That's always the pertinent question. Is it rhetorical, or are you interested in where I personally draw the line?

No, not rhetorical. At what point do you consider people to be not pulling their weight?

[tommieharris91]

What's your definition of "fail"? To the Republicans, the answer to any economic problem is "get a better job". The problem with that is that we can't all be doctors and lawyers. Have Wal-Mart cashiers "failed" to the point where they don't deserve decent health care? They are just as important to the success of Wal-Mart as the CEO, so why should they get thrown under the bus?

Whatever happened to the "Yes We Can!!" message that Obama was throwing out? If people try hard enough, they can be doctors and lawyers.

Also, what if Wal-Mart goes to all self-checkouts? Allovasudden Wal-Mart doesn't need "important" cashiers to run their business.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

As soon as Obama and Biden pony up a good amount of their wealth for this share the wealth idea is the day I will consider that perhaps we USAns might just need to share a little. Until then, I think it is my God given right to hold onto my money and choose the donations I care to give... Obama and Biden want YOU to share your money with them so they can government it out to people, but not their money...Biden's charitable giving is worse than pathetic.

[mdklatt]

Whatever happened to the "Yes We Can!!" message that Obama was throwing out? If people try hard enough, they can be doctors and lawyers.

Is there supposed to be a winky there? Or are you seriously promoting the idea that everybody should be doctors and lawyers?

[mdklatt]

As soon as Obama and Biden pony up a good amount of their wealth for this share the wealth idea

Don't politicians have to pay income tax, too?

[tommieharris91]

Is there supposed to be a winky there? Or are you seriously promoting the idea that everybody should be doctors and lawyers?

No, but if people really want to be a doctor or lawyer, they should have the freedom to do so. I think the capital should be available as well, and I love the idea of prudent, sensible student loans.

[mdklatt]

No, but if people really want to be a doctor or lawyer, they should have the freedom to do so. I think the capital should be available as well, and I love the idea of prudent, sensible student loans.

That's great on an individual basis, but what about society as a whole? I get the feeling that the prevailing Republican attitude is "it's not my fault you don't have a good job and can't afford health care". The problem is that it's physically impossible for everybody to have a "good job", so fail is built into the system.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Don't politicians have to pay income tax, too?

You know darn well that they made their millions and haven't practiced what they preached... They want to increase taxes and play with your money and move it around. I say its my money, I'll move it around as I SEE fit, not some government bureaucracy. I have no problems with paying taxes as a citizen, I get to live and enjoy the benefits of the USA. I expect to see money well used and I don't think that has happened since Reagan.

[mdklatt]

You know darn well that they made their millions and haven't practiced what they preached.

They want to raise taxes on themselves. Haven't practiced what they preached? Hmm. They're going to pay more taxes than 99% of the people bitching about it (most of whom aren't going to pay higher taxes in the first place).

[Sooner_Havok]

I love the idea of prudent, sensible student loans.

Hell no! If I had to go massively and painfully into debt to pay for college, everyone else can too ;)

[TheHumanAlphabet]

They want to raise taxes on themselves. Haven't practiced what they preached? Hmm. They're going to pay more taxes than 99% of the people bitching about it (most of whom aren't going to pay higher taxes in the first place).

If we had a flat tax or a consumption tax, then I would agree with you. But we don't and we have a tax system and structure that has many loopholes and those with the money have more ability to use those legal methods to dodge the full brunt of the tax that many who earn less and are moving up can count on and use...

[mdklatt]

If we had a flat tax or a consumption tax, then I would agree with you. But we don't and we have a tax system and structure that has many loopholes and those with the money have more ability to use those legal methods to dodge the full brunt of the tax that many who earn less and are moving up can count on and use...

Can't we just close the loopholes without scrapping the idea of a progressive tax?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Why do we need a progressive tax? A flat tax or consumption tax is fairer.

But to your point, it would be better than what we have now.

[mdklatt]

Why do we need a progressive tax? A flat tax or consumption tax is fairer.


Once again, "fair" is being confused with "arbitrary". A flat tax is only fair if the amount of societal benefit your receive is exactly proportional to your income. Which it isn't. Also, are you so ideologically committed to a flat tax that you'd like to see your own taxes go up so that everyone above you can pay less?

I don't see what's so inherently fair about a consumption tax, either. How does the amount of money you spend correlate to the benefit your receive from society? Once again, it's merely arbitrary.

It's like the whole playoff/BCS debate. A playoff is not more "fair" than the BCS, just different.

[Stoop Dawg]

What's your definition of "fail"?

"Fail" is when you lose everything and begin to live at the minimum lifestyle allowed by our government. That lifestyle, IMO, should be uncomfortable to the point that people living at that level are extremely motivated to rise above it. I don't have a hard and fast grasp of what that level entails. It would require significant thought and a fair bit of trial & error. We may be there now, I don't know. Anecdotally, we're not.


They are just as important to the success of Wal-Mart as the CEO, so why should they get thrown under the bus?

While Wal-Mart could not survive without checkers, the qualification and job requirements of a checker is far inferior to that of a CEO. Are you implying that checkers and CEOs should be compensated the same? I don't think you are, but it's not clear from your question. I think it's obvious that the CEO must earn a higher salary. Otherwise, you're going to end up with an unqualified person in that job and the company is going to suffer. The question, then, is how much salary differential is "fair"?


No, not rhetorical. At what point do you consider people to be not pulling their weight?

Well, your question is whether a Wal-Mart checker should not receive cancer treatment. I'd say that they do. OTOH, I don't think that someone who purchased the "economy" health care plan in order to keep their premiums low should get, say, fertility benefits.

So to answer your question directly, the "line" for a Wal-Mart checker who chooses the most basic health insurance plan is somewhere between cancer treatment and fertility benefits.

[Stoop Dawg]

That's great on an individual basis, but what about society as a whole? I get the feeling that the prevailing Republican attitude is "it's not my fault you don't have a good job and can't afford health care". The problem is that it's physically impossible for everybody to have a "good job", so fail is built into the system.

Too vague. There is no "good job" or "bad job". There are varying degrees of benefits paid to different jobs that require different skills and commitments.

You've used "Wal-Mart checker" as an example of a "bad job" several times, but it's entirely possible (even likely) that "Wal-Mart checker" is an extremely "good job" to some people. I can give you examples of these people if you are not able to think up any on your own. But I bet you can.

It's impossible to prove or disprove the notion that its impossible for everybody to have a "good job". All I can do is point out that there are a LOT of "good jobs" out there right this minute waiting for someone to take the bull by the horns and get after it. Once all of those jobs are full and the only jobs left are the "bad jobs" then maybe your assertion will be easier for me to accept.

[mdklatt]

While Wal-Mart could not survive without checkers, the qualification and job requirements of a checker is far inferior to that of a CEO. Are you implying that checkers and CEOs should be compensated the same?


Absolutely not. But how much are we going to punish someone for having a crappy job? That crappy job benefits Wal-Mart and its customers because Wal-Mart keeps prices low in part by hiring cashiers for 39 hours/week so they're not eligible for benefits.




So to answer your question directly, the "line" for a Wal-Mart checker who chooses the most basic health insurance plan is somewhere between cancer treatment and fertility benefits.

I can live with that. The problem is that a lot of Wal-Mart employees don't have even basic insurance. And this isn't just a Wal-Mart problem of course.

[Vaevictis]

One of our economics professors has an interesting "idea" for health care.

All services for which demand is inelastic, the government pays for. All services for which demand is elastic, the individual pays for.

What this means is that services that you absolutely must have, that you don't really have a choice about, the government pays for. Everything else, you pay for.

His justification is that in the inelastic case, the market doesn't and can't work. It's inherently broken. There is no efficiency to be found in a free market under that case.

[mdklatt]

Too vague. There is no "good job" or "bad job".


In this context we're talking about health insurance and/or enough money to pay for it. Like I said before, the Republican answer for economic problems is always "work harder and get yourself a better-paying job". The problem with that is that there are always going to be people in low-paying jobs because those low-paying jobs need to get done and nobody is willing to someone very much to do them.

[mdklatt]

One of our economics professors has an interesting "idea" for health care.

All services for which demand is inelastic, the government pays for. All services for which demand is elastic, the individual pays for.

What this means is that services that you absolutely must have, that you don't really have a choice about, the government pays for. Everything else, you pay for.


Health insurance already seems to work this way to large extent. Pay a copay every time you go to see the doctor, but all the catastrophic stuff is covered (if you're lucky). Which is exactly how insurance should work.

[Stoop Dawg]

Absolutely not. But how much are we going to punish someone for having a crappy job? That crappy job benefits Wal-Mart and its customers because Wal-Mart keeps prices low in part by hiring cashiers for 39 hours/week so they're not eligible for benefits.

"Wal-Mart checker" is not a crappy job to everyone. There are plenty of people who can benefit from a job that requires no real skills to speak of and provides no health benefits.

Let me ask you this. How many Wal-Mart checkers *could* go be a long-haul truck driver but choose not to because they don't want to work the hours and be away from their family? The benefits provided for any given job are generally on par with the amount of "effort" (training, commitment, hours, stress, etc.) required to perform that job. Some people choose the "easy" job, and that job inevitably gives fewer benefits. I've got no problem with that, but it's a choice they made. If you raise the benefits of "Wal-Mart checker" to be the same as "Wal-Mart CEO", then who in their right mind would choose "Wal-Mart CEO"? Nobody.

To clarify, if you artificially raise the benefit level of a "crappy" job then the market will necessarily raise the benefit level of the "good" jobs in order to attract workers. All you've accomplished is inflation. Furthermore, the definition of "crappy job" is purely subjective.

[Stoop Dawg]

In this context we're talking about health insurance and/or enough money to pay for it. Like I said before, the Republican answer for economic problems is always "work harder and get yourself a better-paying job". The problem with that is that there are always going to be people in low-paying jobs because those low-paying jobs need to get done and nobody is willing to someone very much to do them.

I don't agree with the premise that all jobs must provide health insurance. There are a lot of people in this country who need a job, but not one that provides health insurance (or enough money to pay for it). Trying to make every job provide health insurance (or comparable pay) would devastate our economy.

[Curly Bill]

"Wal-Mart checker" is not a crappy job to everyone. There are plenty of people who can benefit from a job that requires no real skills to speak of and provides no health benefits.

Let me ask you this. How many Wal-Mart checkers *could* go be a long-haul truck driver but choose not to because they don't want to work the hours and be away from their family? The benefits provided for any given job are generally on par with the amount of "effort" (training, commitment, hours, stress, etc.) required to perform that job. Some people choose the "easy" job, and that job inevitably gives fewer benefits. I've got no problem with that, but it's a choice they made. If you raise the benefits of "Wal-Mart checker" to be the same as "Wal-Mart CEO", then who in their right mind would choose "Wal-Mart CEO"? Nobody.

To clarify, if you artificially raise the benefit level of a "crappy" job then the market will necessarily raise the benefit level of the "good" jobs in order to attract workers. All you've accomplished is inflation. Furthermore, the definition of "crappy job" is purely subjective.

Good post.

[Vaevictis]

If you raise the benefits of "Wal-Mart checker" to be the same as "Wal-Mart CEO", then who in their right mind would choose "Wal-Mart CEO"? Nobody.

Trust me when I say that, for the most part, the same people who are "Wal-Mart CEO" would still want to be "Wal-Mart CEO" under such a system.

Getting to that level is the result of intrinsic motivation, not extrinsic.

That said, there's a whole bunch of jobs in-between where your point is 100% valid.

[Stoop Dawg]

Health insurance already seems to work this way to large extent. Pay a copay every time you go to see the doctor, but all the catastrophic stuff is covered (if you're lucky). Which is exactly how insurance should work.

Yeah, what's with all those commercials about people who had "good" health insurance but had to file bankruptcy because of huge medical bills? I haven't read our insurance policy in detail. Should I be worried about something? I'm under the impression that "catastrophic stuff" is generally covered.

[Half a Hundred]

One of our economics professors has an interesting "idea" for health care.

All services for which demand is inelastic, the government pays for. All services for which demand is elastic, the individual pays for.

What this means is that services that you absolutely must have, that you don't really have a choice about, the government pays for. Everything else, you pay for.

His justification is that in the inelastic case, the market doesn't and can't work. It's inherently broken. There is no efficiency to be found in a free market under that case.

Econ 101 never gets into how every "fact" taught within that class has about 20 market failures that prove it wrong.

Developed countries didn't just decide to have an overarching welfare state. There were distinct problems that arose with industrialization, and public solutions were the only ones that seemed to stick. No one chose this direction, it's almost the default situation.

[Vaevictis]

Yeah, what's with all those commercials about people who had "good" health insurance but had to file bankruptcy because of huge medical bills? I haven't read our insurance policy in detail. Should I be worried about something? I'm under the impression that "catastrophic stuff" is generally covered.

It depends on the plan, but it's not unusual for certain transplants or non-standard procedures that would nevertheless be life saving to be excluded.

[Vaevictis]

Econ 101 never gets into how every "fact" taught within that class has about 20 market failures that proves it wrong.

Oh, they do, people just neglect to remember the rules: under these specific assumptions this is how it works.

Economics -- the free market itself -- is based on models that rely on certain assumptions which are true to varying degrees. When these assumptions aren't true, the model goes haywire or breaks completely.

People just never seem to remember the part about assumptions.

[Half a Hundred]

Oh, they do, people just neglect to remember the rules: under these specific assumptions this is how it works.

Economics -- the free market itself -- is based on models that rely on certain assumptions which are true to varying degrees. When these assumptions aren't true, the model goes haywire or breaks completely.

People just never seem to remember the part about assumptions.

Or take Econ 201. Or study any history outside a textbook.

[tommieharris91]

Or take Econ 201. Or study any history outside a textbook.

Nope, but you are kind of talking to a guy who took a few upper-div ECON classes. :rolleyes:

[Stoop Dawg]

Developed countries didn't just decide to have an overarching welfare state. There were distinct problems that arose with industrialization, and public solutions were the only ones that seemed to stick. No one chose this direction, it's almost the default situation.

Of course someone chose it. Short-sighted someones who were seeking re-election for themselves and/or their party.

American politics is nothing if not short-sighted and reactionary. The last few months have proven that.

I suppose it's possible that we've ended up with the best that we could hope for, but somehow I doubt it.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Once again, "fair" is being confused with "arbitrary". A flat tax is only fair if the amount of societal benefit your receive is exactly proportional to your income. Which it isn't. Also, are you so ideologically committed to a flat tax that you'd like to see your own taxes go up so that everyone above you can pay less?

I don't see what's so inherently fair about a consumption tax, either. How does the amount of money you spend correlate to the benefit your receive from society? Once again, it's merely arbitrary.

It's like the whole playoff/BCS debate. A playoff is not more "fair" than the BCS, just different.

All things being equal, and we don't have stupid tax laws with lots of loopholes and exemptions, then what you say could be equitable. Every citizen earning an income pays a certain percentage to pay for services they use from the community and government. I have no problem with that. I do have problems when the tax scheme pays people money in excess of their tax liability. I also have problems with the tax code as it is written. It is a real problem when the tax code has gotten so overburdened that any delay in passage creates delays in processing the next year like it did last year.

The flat or consumption tax is a way to eliminate these crazy deductions. I think more people are alligned with this idea more so than the idea of a national sales tax or VAT. I think most people (including me) wouldn't be opposed to a progressive tax as long as it is relatively low so as not to initiate tax avoidance and a scheme to tax everyone fairly and eliminate deductions. However, when you get people who should be paying taxes being able to avoid them and people who get more money than they paid into the system, people paying tend to not believe in the system and seek to eliminate or radically change it.

[Half a Hundred]

Of course someone chose it. Short-sighted someones who were seeking re-election for themselves and/or their party.

American politics is nothing if not short-sighted and reactionary. The last few months have proven that.

I suppose it's possible that we've ended up with the best that we could hope for, but somehow I doubt it.

I'd be inclined to agree, if it weren't for every other major industrialized nation tending in the same direction. I would argue that the tendency of our government to run up huge deficits is probably more symptomatic of the short-term viewpoint (low taxes yay! new programs yay! both get voters out, neither are compatible).

It's going to take a sea change like the New Deal coalition to decide what direction we prefer as a country. Unfortunately for some, I think that direction is inevitably toward a larger, more expansive welfare state.

This is also why I'm so pro-2nd Amendment :D

[mdklatt]

Let me ask you this. How many Wal-Mart checkers *could* go be a long-haul truck driver but choose not to because they don't want to work the hours and be away from their family?


That's not that point at all. No matter how many Wal-Mart checkers get better jobs, there are always going to be Wal-Mart checkers. And there aren't enough teenagers looking for summer jobs and other people who don't need health insurance to fill all the jobs that don't offer health insurance.

[Stoop Dawg]

That's not that point at all. No matter how many Wal-Mart checkers get better jobs, there are always going to be Wal-Mart checkers. And there aren't enough teenagers looking for summer jobs and other people who don't need health insurance to fill all the jobs that don't offer health insurance.

Clearly there are, or those jobs would have to start offering health insurance in order to attract workers.

The fact that there are better jobs available necessarily means that people are choosing the Wal-Mart checker job - for whatever reason.

Once all the "better" jobs are gone and highly qualified people are forced to be Wal-Mart checkers, then your point will be valid.

[mdklatt]

Trying to make every job provide health insurance (or comparable pay) would devastate our economy.

Why should employers be responsible for health insurance in the first place? They shouldn't. A complaint about government health care is "I don't want the government choosing my doctors", but I guess people are okay with their boss choosing their doctors? Choice is a big myth in health care in general, which is why it's not a "free market" in the first place.

Imagine a single-payer health system, where the US government is the payer. Eliminate the insurance companies (sort of--more on that). Instead of your employer administering your insurance plan--and they would jump for joy if they no longer had to mess with that--the government does. Instead of 2 or 3 plans to choose from, you could potentially have a lot more. There would be no such thing as out-of-network, because virtually every provider in the country would want to be part of the network. You could switch jobs without worrying about losing your health insurance or having to switch doctors. You could still buy into the plan even if you were unemployed altogether.

And this would all be cheaper than what we have now. If you increase the number of insureds in the pool, per capital health costs go down. Per capita administrative costs would go down, too. The government would be able to negotiate much better deals with providers than individual insurance companies. Plus, there would be no profit motive. The decreased costs would allow more people to buy in, and to be subsidized in some cases without being any more expensive than what we have now.

This is not "socialized medicine". The government is not providing health care, just health insurance. There would still be a role for insurance companies, just not as much of one. Nothing would stop you from buying supplemental insurance from private companies above and beyond what the government plans offered.

Obama's plan as I understand it is a watered down version of this. He merely proposes to open up government insurance to anyone, but employer-provided insurance would stay intact.

[mdklatt]

available[/i] necessarily means that people are choosing the Wal-Mart checker job - for whatever reason.

Once all the "better" jobs are gone and highly qualified people are forced to be Wal-Mart checkers, then your point will be valid.

The fact there are people working as Wal-Mart checkers who need health insurance but don't have it would seem to indicate a huge flaw in the system. The job market does not have the degree of freedom that some people think, especially for people at the lower end.

[Stoop Dawg]

Why should employers be responsible for health insurance in the first place? They shouldn't. A complaint about government health care is "I don't want the government choosing my doctors", but I guess people are okay with their boss choosing their doctors? Choice is a big myth in health care in general, which is why it's not a "free market" in the first place.

Oh, I agree 100%. But I go the other way on a solution. Instead of implementing another government program (which, given the history of govt programs, is likely to be inefficient and corrupt) I would like to see health insurance "opened up" to the free market (with govt regulation, of course). Get rid of employer health plans and let (force) people to get health insurance on their own - just like they do with auto/home insurance.

[Scott D]

Absolutely not. But how much are we going to punish someone for having a crappy job? That crappy job benefits Wal-Mart and its customers because Wal-Mart keeps prices low in part by hiring cashiers for 39 hours/week so they're not eligible for benefits.




I can live with that. The problem is that a lot of Wal-Mart employees don't have even basic insurance. And this isn't just a Wal-Mart problem of course.

just wanted to correct this part. companies like Wal-Mart, Target, K-Mart get around the insurance issue by giving only management more than 31.5/hrs a week. Then offer terrible partial benefits packages to the rest of the employees as to not violate the law.

[Stoop Dawg]

The fact there are people working as Wal-Mart checkers who need health insurance but don't have it would seem to indicate a huge flaw in the system. The job market does not have the degree of freedom that some people think, especially for people at the lower end.

I think we both agree that there is a flaw. Where we disagree is on how to fix it.

IMO, just "redistributing wealth" does not fix the underlying problems. To fix the underlying problems we would have to look at all of the different reasons that people who need insurance might be working as a Wal-Mart checker then come up with a solution (or set of solutions) that address those problems. There is no "silver bullet". Simply increasing benefits for menial jobs does not solve the problem.

[mdklatt]

IMO, just "redistributing wealth" does not fix the underlying problems.

How is single-payer health insurance a redistribution of wealth?

[Stoop Dawg]

How is single-payer health insurance a redistribution of wealth?

If the Wal-Mart checker can't afford health insurance today, how will they afford the govt insurance? Unless the govt insurance is given to them, or steeply discounted based on income.

From re-reading your previous post, I get the impression that you believe that a single payer system would drive down costs - and perhaps make insurance more affordable. I disagree.

I simply don't believe that the govt can administer it fairly and effectively. If the last few months have taught us anything it's that large companies and programs with far-reaching impacts on huge numbers of people are bad. They are breeding grounds for corruption and inefficiency and when they fail, they hurt everyone (except maybe the ones who caused the failure). Look at other govt social programs teetering on the brink of failure.

I'd much rather see a large number of smaller insurance companies competing in a fair market. I think that would drive down premiums and make health insurance more affordable for Mr. Wal-Mart checker.

[Widescreen]

And this would all be cheaper than what we have now.
That might be true initially. But the federal government by its very nature turns into a massive inefficient bureaucracy that I believe would end up being far more expensive. And once it starts to fail (similar to social security), what are we going to do? Cancel everyone's healthcare? No, we'd borrow even more to cover the costs. At least if it's distributed in the market, if something bad happens, not everyone is affected and our country isn't pushed further into debt (unless of course the president/congress decide to do a bailout but of course that never happens ;))

[mdklatt]

If the Wal-Mart checker can't afford health insurance today, how will they afford the govt insurance? Unless the govt insurance is given to them, or steeply discounted based on income.


Yes, some people are going to have to be subsidized. This isn't just a moral issue, but a public health and national security issue. Anyway, it's cheaper to pay for somebody's $100 doctor visit than their $1000 ER visit, and nobody is seriously suggesting doing away with emergency care for the indigent. But a lot of people seem perfectly fine with doing it in the most expensive way possible. Gotta give them credit for sticking to their idealogical guns, I guess. I'm more interested in practical solutions.




I simply don't believe that the govt can administer it fairly and effectively. If the last few months have taught us anything it's that large companies and programs with far-reaching impacts on huge numbers of people are bad. They are breeding grounds for corruption and inefficiency and when they fail, they hurt everyone (except maybe the ones who caused the failure).

Private companies was far more responsible for that than Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. That's not a good example to point to if you're tyring to make the case for the private sector.




Look at other govt social programs teetering on the brink of failure.


We continually elect conservative politicians who never met a social program they didn't hate, and then we act all surprised when those social programs fail. Why the hell do we keep putting people in government who believe that government is incompetent??? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy of stupid.




I'd much rather see a large number of smaller insurance companies competing in a fair market. I think that would drive down premiums and make health insurance more affordable for Mr. Wal-Mart checker.

How do you make the market fair? There is very little individual freedom in health insurance. Your employer says, "pick A, B, or C" and that's pretty much it. You have the option of going it alone, but as an individual you have no bargaining power with insurance companies at all. The reason insurance isn't just a normal consumer product is because insurance companies don't want you as a customer if you actually need their product! The ideal customer to an insurance company is somebody who doesn't need insurance at all because they're healthy. The incentive structure is all backwards.

[Stoop Dawg]

Private companies was far more responsible for that than Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. That's not a good example to point to if you're tyring to make the case for the private sector.

I'm not making a case for the private sector. I'm making the case for capitalism and distributed supply.


We continually elect conservative politicians who never met a social program they didn't hate, and then we act all surprised when those social programs fail. Why the hell do we keep putting people in government who believe that government is incompetent??? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy of stupid.

So how will health insurance be different? Why go down a path that you know will fail?


How do you make the market fair?

http://www.voicefortheuninsured.org/resources.html
(from the American Medical Association)

I don't agree 100% with all of that, but it's the best idea I've found so far.

[mdklatt]

So how will health insurance be different? Why go down a path that you know will fail?


It will only fail if we continue to elect dip****s who want it to fail. Which, of course, makes us the bigger dip****s.

[mdklatt]

http://www.voicefortheuninsured.org/resources.html
(from the American Medical Association)

I don't agree 100% with all of that, but it's the best idea I've found so far.

I'll look at this more later, but how is this:



1. helping people buy health insurance through tax credits or vouchers,


not a redistribution of wealth?

[Stoop Dawg]

That's the part I don't agree with 100%. ;)

But seriously, creating a more efficient, competitive health insurance industry with lower premiums would minimize the amount of tax credits/vouchers necessary.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Yes, some people are going to have to be subsidized. This isn't just a moral issue, but a public health and national security issue. Anyway, it's cheaper to pay for somebody's $100 doctor visit than their $1000 ER visit, and nobody is seriously suggesting doing away with emergency care for the indigent. But a lot of people seem perfectly fine with doing it in the most expensive way possible. Gotta give them credit for sticking to their idealogical guns, I guess. I'm more interested in practical solutions.

Kicker is, they're being subsidized now. When Juan Hernandillegal and Joe McUrbanoutdoorsman camp in the emergency room, that is an unfunded liability to the hospital. Amazing increases in this demand and an unnatural cost of equipment and consumable materials BECAUSE of market driven prices (an issue of need) is what made that ER visit a $1000 bucks a pop. That's not ideaology, that's just fact.


We continually elect conservative politicians who never met a social program they didn't hate, and then we act all surprised when those social programs fail. Why the hell do we keep putting people in government who believe that government is incompetent??? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy of stupid.

So the position of leaner government, necessary services-minded, services-based government, and those that work towards such are now stupid? Theoretical case in point, as a City Councilman, I have to decide between 1) maintain city pools, 2) fund an increase in spending for community centers in crime-ridden areas, 3) give the police a raise to meet contract demands and language that establishes wages based on a relatively comparable group of cities, or 4) replace 20 miles of water main to increase flow rates for the fire protection and consumption needs of existing and planned commercial development. What comes first? What is the basic role of government? With limited funding, you have two basic options. Slash expenditures or increase the size of the pot. What's YOUR priority? Is that hating social programs or is that plain and simply prioritizing what's important and what will do the greater good? That is a classic local government example and hits the very core of that argument. But when those pools close and that community center gets some of their budget cut, that's conservatives hating social programs. To me, that's taking care of business.



How do you make the market fair? There is very little individual freedom in health insurance. Your employer says, "pick A, B, or C" and that's pretty much it. You have the option of going it alone, but as an individual you have no bargaining power with insurance companies at all. The reason insurance isn't just a normal consumer product is because insurance companies don't want you as a customer if you actually need their product! The ideal customer to an insurance company is somebody who doesn't need insurance at all because they're healthy. The incentive structure is all backwards.

This isn't the case in every scenario. Employee unions often take the lead in the selection of health insurance programs for their memberships. Companies are often open to discussion in specific providers, especially if a change in provider or a change in benefits packages offered by insurance providers can decrease cost to the employer. But regardless of the scenario, a group of employees are just that. A group that has strength in numbers and with organization and leadership, are NOT restricted to using only employer offered insurance benefits. Yes, that applies to Wal-Mart checker-outers. Landscape workers. Professional banjo pickers. A group is a group. Where employer programs become the standard is even with the group rates gained by entering an insured group, employers often offset some of the cost as a benefit. So insurance is available. Employees (or even non-employees) can have costs defrayed by organization and leadership within their respective trade or group. It's only limited in the fact that employees limit themselves to insurance provided by an existing group and don't take steps to either involve themselves in the process, research available options in the insurance market, or organize themselves with others to search out a better plan.

And to think The Man was oppressing us the entire time. :(

[badger]

Thoughts:

1- I think that much like the bailout, there will be some unintended consequences of laws involving mandatory health coverage and other benefits, as well as giving federal tax money to charity.

2- For those of you that do not wish to donate money to charitable organizations because of increased taxes, I hope you will consider giving something even more valuable: volunteer time. You can shove as much money as you want at these groups, but more often than not they want volunteers.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

To add...

Increased amounts of uncompensated care (read: illegals, homeless people, et cetera) + increased cost of care (materials, equipment, higher pay rates from higher demand for trained personnel) = increased cost of treatment & services.

Increased cost of treatment & services + insurance providers primarily responsible for the cost of services + insurance companies needing to maintain profitability = increased insurance premiums.

Insurance is a business, just like making widgets. If making widgets costs more today than last year, if I have a profit margin I want to maintain, the cost of widgets will be transferred to the consumer, therefore the price of widgets will increase.

[mdklatt]

Kicker is, they're being subsidized now. When Juan Hernandillegal and Joe McUrbanoutdoorsman camp in the emergency room, that is an unfunded liability to the hospital.

I know. We're paying $1000 for somebody to go to the ER, but we're unwilling to give them $100 to see the doctor instead. It's stupid.



So the position of leaner government, necessary services-minded, services-based government, and those that work towards such are now stupid?


No, electing "government is evil and incompetent" right-wing Republicans to serve in government is stupid.



Employees (or even non-employees) can have costs defrayed by organization and leadership within their respective trade or group. It's only limited in the fact that employees limit themselves to insurance provided by an existing group and don't take steps to either involve themselves in the process, research available options in the insurance market, or organize themselves with others to search out a better plan.


Ah yes, Wal-Mart Cashiers Local 304.

If it's so easy and affordable for everyone to have health insurance, than why doesn't everybody have health insurance?