Limits of State Power
POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Sunday, December 14, 2025 21:53
VIEWED: 37205
PAGE 27 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by JKiddo:
But you seem to always harp on the evils of government, and only when your nose is rubbed in it will you look at the mess corporations have made.
Uh.. well, that's just not the case. Perhaps you're mixing me up with someone else.
SergeantX
"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
It's funny how, whenever anyone complains about government intrusion, big-government fans start harping about the evils of corporate excess - as though that justifies the government doing it too. How's about neither?
What's really funny is how the same folk who are absolutely horrified at the government when it goes to war or tries to maintain national security are the ones who would absolutely trust it to perfectly run national health care or the national economy.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Of course, that cuts both ways - It's really funny how the same folks who are so distrustful of government when it comes to regulation and oversight are the same ones who absolutely trusted it when it came to Iraq, the Global War on Terror, the 9/11 Commission, etc., and insisted that the government was 100% right.
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One thing I notice every time this argument gets going:
Those opposed to universal health care always seem to assume that if you give government MORE control and oversight (not "total" control, but *more* control) over the insurance industry, it ALWAYS gets characterized as letting the government take over the entire insurance industry. And just as often, the argument against national health care goes along the lines of "If the government gets into health care, private practice doctors will be forced out of business."
It's as if people think that having a BASIC MINIMUM STANDARD of healthcare is automatically and immediately jumping us into a 100% socialist system of government.
Having a basic minimum level of care for everybody doesn't preclude ANYBODY from buying supplemental insurance on their own dime, or from upgrading their coverage, lowering their copay, etc. Think of your auto insurance: most states require you to carry a minimum amount of coverage, but none of them limit the MAXIMUM amount of insurance you can buy if you want to. And if nationalized universal health care would drive small private practices out of business, then why do independent paint and body shops still exist?
It seems to me that we should be able, in this country, to have a basic minimum level of health care available to everybody, regardless of their net worth. It doesn't have to be the best health care in the world (apparently our Congresscritters reserve that right for themselves, and bill us for it), but shouldn't it, as a source of national pride if nothing else, be at least better than the system in place in Cuba? We harp on all day long about how much better a nation we are than "those gutless commies", yet they offer the average citizen there a level of health care that we can only dream of.
Does that bother anyone else, or is it just me?
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
One thing I notice every time this argument gets going:
Those opposed to universal health care always seem to assume that if you give government MORE control and oversight (not "total" control, but *more* control) over the insurance industry, it ALWAYS gets characterized as letting the government take over the entire insurance industry.
I was listening to the Diane Rehm Show on single-payer healthcare yesterday (05/18). One of the guests was Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. He was proposing exactly that; letting the government take over the entire health insurance industry. When asked what would happen to the insurance industry, he said it'd go away and the employees would need to be retrained for other jobs.
There's a link to the recorded broadcast here: http://wamu.org/programs/dr/09/05/18.php#26151
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That is EXACTLY what happens. I buy it on credit with the idea that I'll have the money next month. And since people DON'T have the money, a lot of credit cards users go into default.
Try it out, go into a shop and say "I'd like to buy that, I'm betting I'll have the money next week"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JKiddo:Quote:That is EXACTLY what happens. I buy it on credit with the idea that I'll have the money next month. And since people DON'T have the money, a lot of credit cards users go into default.
Try it out, go into a shop and say "I'd like to buy that, I'm betting I'll have the money next week"
But there's no fake money there. YOU don't have the money, but the credit card company DOES. The shop receives real money. If you default on your informal loan, the credit company then takes steps to get back the real money that really exists that they handed over before. The money hasn't been invented.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:My personal opinion on that is: GOOD. These people- particularly the executives who tied up insurance money into venture capital- represent an parasitic drain on the economy which affected every industry paying into the system. They got people in a "Pay or die" stranglehold, and instead of making the insurance industry more efficient, they made it more profitable (big difference) through denial of coverage and denial of service. The move towards single-payer health care is a legitimate reaction to the screwed -up nightmare we have now. If the health insurances hadn't been so overwhelmingly greedy, if the market had functioned properly for the past five decades, nobody would be looking for an alternative.
I was listening to the Diane Rehm Show on single-payer healthcare yesterday (05/18). One of the guests was Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. He was proposing exactly that; letting the government take over the entire health insurance industry. When asked what would happen to the insurance industry, he said it'd go away and the employees would need to be retrained for other jobs.
So. speaking of alternatives... what are yours? You're very clear about what you don't want. but what do YOU suggest as options? Please don't say "more of the same". We've had "more of the same" for 50 years.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Let's extend this to houses, because credit cards are unsecured debt. So, the lender moves to get the money back, which in this case is backed by real estate values. Only now, they are owed more money than the house is "worth". Now what?
But there's no fake money there. YOU don't have the money, but the credit card company DOES. The shop receives real money. If you default on your informal loan, the credit company then takes steps to get back the real money that really exists that they handed over before. The money hasn't been invented.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Those opposed to universal health care always seem to assume that if you give government MORE control and oversight (not "total" control, but *more* control) over the insurance industry, it ALWAYS gets characterized as letting the government take over the entire insurance industry.
From my perspective, it's the "oversight" that's killing us. The most dangerous aspect of our current situation is the trend toward corporatism and national regulatory schemes only fuel that fire. As I've stated in other threads, if we insist on making government responsible for our health care, then we should provide it as a straight up government service and avoid the "partnership" between business and government.
Quote:
... but shouldn't it, as a source of national pride if nothing else, be at least better than the system in place in Cuba?
Well, no? The thing is, I don't want caretaker government. So, if other nations do it better than us, I'm not particularly bothered. I AM bothered that we've allowed a cartel to control health care and essentially hold us hostage - that we've allowed corporations to hijack our government and use it to consolidate their control of our health care.
SergeantX
"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME