November 10, 200916 yr http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1109/clinton_we_are_winning_c3243bd1-33d6-42a7-ab70-5bae329fdc6e.html Cill Blinton talking about the Health Care bill. He he also had this to say: "The reason the tea-baggers are so inflamed is because we are winning." Yeah. That's exactly why they're mad. Because you and the other felchers are "winning". And here's an economics lesson (probably taken from the same textbook that says the economy needs to grow at "breakneck" speed in order to generate a single new job, and that it's possible to have a "jobless recovery"): ...is not only a moral issue but also “an economic imperative.” Clinton argued that even “the most cold-hearted person” ought to support health care reform simply from an economic standpoint. The economic argument in favor of forcing everyone to buy health insurance at the point of a gun isn't one I've heard yet. I wish he had elaborated on it. The Felchers are out in full force.
November 11, 200916 yr Author Slick Willy still makes me happy. Oh you naughty... Wait, you were talking about Bill Clinton. Nevermind. Anyway Aaron, you're still my favorite Democrat, so I'll withhold my anarchist wrath from you!! ;)
November 11, 200916 yr not happy about this health care plan... got a really bad feeling that this is going to completely screw us over
November 11, 200916 yr Well, the Tea-baggers in MHO are frustrated people being used by a FOX trap. I'm with Stephen Colbert on this one - follow it back, and you can see the process in action. Yes, it's not a good idea to force everyone to pay, but in some ways, we're already all forced to pay for a system that's less than effective at delivering good health care. By far the real answer is preventive care, and that means helping the poor and unemployed so they get better, not worse, and getting people to exercise more & eat less junk foods (a carrot and stick approach). Truthfully, it's the money gumming up politics, and no doubt it's affecting any meaningful an equitable health-care reform measures. I'm all in favor of going the Canadian route, even if that means more back bacon and wearing toques.:P
November 11, 200916 yr Well, the Tea-baggers in MHO are frustrated people being used by a FOX trap. I'm with Stephen Colbert on this one - follow it back, and you can see the process in action. Yes, it's not a good idea to force everyone to pay, but in some ways, we're already all forced to pay for a system that's less than effective at delivering good health care. By far the real answer is preventive care, and that means helping the poor and unemployed so they get better, not worse, and getting people to exercise more & eat less junk foods (a carrot and stick approach). Truthfully, it's the money gumming up politics, and no doubt it's affecting any meaningful an equitable health-care reform measures. I'm all in favor of going the Canadian route, even if that means more back bacon and wearing toques.:P The former head of the Canadian system has been going around talking about it's not the solution. Many Canadians come to America to get treatments they could not get in Canada and would die without. The solution is simple, what worked before. We had affordable health care back in the 40's. Bring down cost, let insurance compete across state lines, buy drugs from other nations for less and tort reform. The health care supporters are being used by lawyers and drug companies to make more profits at the expense of a nation's well being. FYI-insurance companies profit margins aren't that big compared to many others.
November 11, 200916 yr So then you're in favor of campaign finance reform Nick? Hard to get real competition when the health care businesses own the Senators, and not just the team. ;) FYI - insurance companies own the Taj Mahal's I see popping up along the highways.. must be pretty damn profitable to be able to create such lavish digs. I'd rather the buildings be good but not extravagant, the profits more reasonable, and then the savings passed on to the consumers. If half the credit-card bankruptcies are due to medical debts so people can stay alive when catastrophic illnesses occur, it seems like the hard hand of the market is smacking down those in need, even if they have insurance (less than complete coverage, or they get dropped)..
November 11, 200916 yr Author Insurance companies just provide financial instruments, they don't actually have anything to do with health care directly. This is like forcing everyone to buy CDO's and mortgage backed securities to get everyone a free house. It's a proxy for real investment. If I were a statist, I think a more serious approach would be to increase the number of medical schools and enroll more students. Decrease the number of years students have to study to be doctors. Build more hospitals and clinics. Reduce the length of patents on new medicines... The insurance thing will take care of itself if you increase root supply.
November 11, 200916 yr If you don't pass it it will get stuck in your intestines and you'll have mad constipation.
November 11, 200916 yr So then you're in favor of campaign finance reform Nick? Hard to get real competition when the health care businesses own the Senators, and not just the team. ;) FYI - insurance companies own the Taj Mahal's I see popping up along the highways.. must be pretty damn profitable to be able to create such lavish digs. I'd rather the buildings be good but not extravagant, the profits more reasonable, and then the savings passed on to the consumers. If half the credit-card bankruptcies are due to medical debts so people can stay alive when catastrophic illnesses occur, it seems like the hard hand of the market is smacking down those in need, even if they have insurance (less than complete coverage, or they get dropped).. Insurance profits are usually around 6%, that is low compared to a lot of other businesses. Recently they're around 2%, that is far from evil and greedy. I'm pretty sure Coca Cola, Verizon and most major corporations have higher profit margins. More reasonable would be no profit margins, you can't go much lower than where they are now without being negative.
November 11, 200916 yr Insurance profits are usually around 6%, that is low compared to a lot of other businesses. Recently they're around 2%, that is far from evil and greedy. I'm pretty sure Coca Cola, Verizon and most major corporations have higher profit margins. More reasonable would be no profit margins, you can't go much lower than where they are now without being negative. Seems strange - then why are their buildings so extravagant? Perhaps other businesses build even more lavish digs.. I still have to wonder if the 6% or 2% is accurate - seems like many businesses find unique ways to hide their true profitability - offshore headquarters, and ways to look unprofitable for tax purposes.. I trust not those who buy our heads of state. Not to say that taking water, sugar, caramel coloring, and some cola nut extract, then selling the mix for many times the cost isn't more profitable! Is either right, when competition is minimized through back-room campaign deals behind the curtains?
November 11, 200916 yr Seems strange - then why are their buildings so extravagant? Perhaps other businesses build even more lavish digs.. I still have to wonder if the 6% or 2% is accurate - seems like many businesses find unique ways to hide their true profitability - offshore headquarters, and ways to look unprofitable for tax purposes.. I trust not those who buy our heads of state. Not to say that taking water, sugar, caramel coloring, and some cola nut extract, then selling the mix for many times the cost isn't more profitable! Is either right, when competition is minimized through back-room campaign deals behind the curtains? It doesn't mean they don't have money, but compared to many businesses they don't make nearly as much profit. They do make a profit just smaller margins than a lot of other companies. If they ran themselves like most other businesses and had a high profit margin costs would really be up.
November 11, 200916 yr Author The whole "interstate competition is illegal" thing really ticks me off, because no other financial instrument is so heavily regulated as insurance. If I want to invest my money with a fund manager who's based out of New York, I can do that no problem. But why can't I buy insurance there? Today, financial products are all basically the same. Finance is one of those rare fields where it doesn't matter if you're based in New York or a remote island in the Pacific - as long as you can do math and have an internet connection, you're good to go.
November 11, 200916 yr Oh you naughty... Wait, you were talking about Bill Clinton. Nevermind. Anyway Aaron, you're still my favorite Democrat, so I'll withhold my anarchist wrath from you!! ;) :nice: Thanks Jay! You are my favorite classical anarchist:)
November 12, 200916 yr Author YAY GOVERNMENT :nice: Go to bed Josh. Your mother and I were just... wrestling. Now close the door and go back to bed.
November 12, 200916 yr Go to bed Josh. Your mother and I were just... wrestling. Now close the door and go back to bed. Who won?
Create an account or sign in to comment