Don'tcha love their 'logic'?

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Friday, October 30, 2009 03:04
VIEWED: 11384
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

NIKI2

Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:09 PM

The two recent stories of infants being denied coverage is so absurd it would be hysterical...if it weren't for all those we DON'T hear about.

First the kid that was "too fat" to be covered: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13530098#

Then the little girl who was TOO SKINNY: http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/10/20/two-year-old-colorado-girl-de
nied-health-insurance-for-being-too/

This is getting so insane...and will get insaner if something isn't done. I hope they get rid of the antitrust exemption, and I hope we get a public option--especially if we're going to get mandatory coverage (!), or we are dead meat, folks!

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

STORYMARK

Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:19 PM

Don't worry - the free market will wave it's wand and fix it.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

KWICKO

Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:22 PM

Yup, we'll just do some fast-waving of the "invisible hand" of the market, and it'll be like it never happened!

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

BYTEMITE

Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:57 PM

My friend, in Oklahoma isn't even able to AFFORD insurance. He has serious medical problems, he's slowly going blind even though it would be a relatively simple process to reverse, and just recently, he found out his shortness of breath and chest pains he's had since childhood where the result of a hernia in his diaphragm and barely having one functional lung.

The doctors repaired the hernia because it was causing significant problems, but he just found out the hernia opened up again, AND he's bleeding into his chest cavity, AND he right now has developed pneumonia.

No insurance, no coverage, no even getting on disability, because Oklahoma won't even give disability to a paraplegic. He can't afford his medical bills from before, let alone afford to get the surgery to re-fix the hernia and save his life.

This system FUCKING SUCKS.

NIKI2

Thursday, October 22, 2009 9:31 PM

Oh, gawd, Byte, I'm so sorry. There are so many horror stories, but when it happens to someone you know and care about, it's especially horrific.

I can't BELIEVE Oklahoma won't give disability to parapalegics!!! WHY??? There are few diseases SO disabling, that's monstrous. Makes me shudder to think about it; can't he get on federal disability? Surely...?

My heart goes out to both of you, I can't imagine how I'd deal with such a thing. Certainly want to dig out the trusty old and get to work!

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, October 22, 2009 9:33 PM

We need insurance regulation... not healthcare regulation....not forced insurance either.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, October 22, 2009 9:55 PM

There's federal disability?

Any ideas anyone has I'm all ears, because he's all but given up, he thinks by the time he fills out the forms and actually gets a response it may be too late. He's going to try to reapply for disability, but they've already denied him once. Which is unfathomable to me, his mother is a nurse at a hospital, and you'd think that nurses and doctors would have some sway, but no.

He tells me that everyone is denied the first few times they apply in Oklahoma. The story about the paraplegic guy he also told me, it was someone he met one of the times he was applying, there'd been an industrial accident and the guy was not only paralyzed, but lost both of his legs. To get disability, that guy had to move out of state. My friend does not have that option.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:03 PM

Which is why we need insurance regulation... not heathcare regulation.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:20 PM

Could you elaborate? I didn't quite understand the first time.

I know what insurance regulation is and I agree with your statements, but what do you mean by healthcare regulation?

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:24 PM

I mean:

Insurance has come to the point where it needs to be regulated. Denying a baby cus they are too fat or too skinny is part of the problem.

Its wrong what the insurance companies are doing.

But...

Forcing people to get insurance? Its like forcing people to buy a car. (Hey it will help the economy, right?)

Its wrong. More so, its illegal, and unconstitutional.

KWICKO

Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:33 PM

Wulf, I thought you were a libertarian?

By definition, wouldn't that make you ANTI-regulation?

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

BYTEMITE

Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:45 PM

Ah. Thanks Wulf. I thought that might have been what you meant, but I wasn't entirely sure. Yes, I agree with you.

Kwicko, no offense or nothing, but whether or not Wulf is a Libertarian, or a conservative... He didn't say something you agree with? I thought all of us were a little bit apprehensive about what mandatory insurance could mean. At least there's talk going on about anti-trust now, so maybe insurance companies won't be able to take advantage like I thought.

NIKI2

Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:48 PM

Byte, yes, unfortunately disability is often denied initially...the only good news is that once you GET it, they pay you from the first day you applied.

There are advocates for that sort of thing, and law firms, that help people obtain federal disability. They're fighters. Here in CA it seems to be much easier--I got mine in less than a month (and I'm only bipolar), but given what (probably not all true) things I've heard about Oklahoma...I dunno.

But if you can find a law firm that specializes in disability, it would be MUCH faster and his chances of success much higher...I don't think they charge unless you get it, at least the ones I've seen around here.

At least have him TRY--Federal Disability comes with Medicare, which could be a life saver for him! I cannot conceive he'd be denied, for gawd's sake...one thing for a state to be stupid, but federal guidelines are pretty specific, and a parapalegic? Inconceivable they'd deny him.

GOOD LUCK!!!

And I agree 100% about mandatory--it scares me. I'm already on Medicare so it's a moot point, but for the rest of America... Far as I'm concerned: No public option, no mandatory insurance!!! One without the other would be unconscionable!

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:57 PM

You have to go to your Social Security Office. AND you cannot have more than $2000 to your name (excluding the home you live in, I think). That includes cars, savings and checking, burial plots, saving bonds, and any other assets etc.

It would be helpful if he had a statement from a doctor attesting to the nature, extent, and anticipated length of disability (permanent?) BEFORE he goes to apply. List of doctors, medical records etc should also be taken in. Once he gets on the Social Security disablity roll he is automatically placed on the State's medicare-type list. He can receive disability payments from the Fed, and medical insurance from the state.

Unfortunately this takes a long time.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:25 PM

Get multiple ORIGINAL copies of that statement, they will "accidently" lose at least three, and photocopies won't do, so having extra originals is a smart idea.

Consider originals like bullets, spend them well and wisely - I've fought these suckers tooth and claw a couple rounds myself over cases like the ones mentioned.

Funny you should mention Medicare, since my concept solution to the whole blasted stupidity would be to simply open it to everyone - since we already pay for it, expand and refine is as we go, and cut those insurance pricks right out of the picture.

And coulda done THAT in six weeks, instead of six months to six years, which the folk who need this the most often do not have left.

-F

KWICKO

Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Ah. Thanks Wulf. I thought that might have been what you meant, but I wasn't entirely sure. Yes, I agree with you.

Kwicko, no offense or nothing, but whether or not Wulf is a Libertarian, or a conservative... He didn't say something you agree with? I thought all of us were a little bit apprehensive about what mandatory insurance could mean. At least there's talk going on about anti-trust now, so maybe insurance companies won't be able to take advantage like I thought.

Oh, no offense taken. It's just kinda hard trying to nail Wulf down to any position, because he seems to constantly be shifting the things he finds unacceptable.

Mandatory insurance is a scam, plain and simple. It's a scam when it's auto insurance, and it's an even bigger scam when it's health insurance. Let's face it, you CAN choose not to own or drive a car; you can't really CHOOSE not to be alive. Trust me - Dr. Kavorkian went to prison for helping people make that choice. :)

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

KWICKO

Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Funny you should mention Medicare, since my concept solution to the whole blasted stupidity would be to simply open it to everyone - since we already pay for it, expand and refine is as we go, and cut those insurance pricks right out of the picture.

And coulda done THAT in six weeks, instead of six months to six years, which the folk who need this the most often do not have left.

-F

Yup. And make it non-profit - it's geared toward HEALTH CARE, not profits and bonuses for stockholders.

You don't even have to outlaw insurance companies - you can have supplemental insurance, you can option up at your cost, and it will FORCE the insurance industry to actually be COMPETITIVE.

What's funny is that, by law, Vegas casinos only get to keep 15% of their total take as profits. Insurance companies are keeping over 30%. In other words, you'd be better off going to the casino with your insurance money. You know, the casino, where it's said, "The house ALWAYS wins."

Pretty pathetic, really.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

STORYMARK

Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

And I agree 100% about mandatory--it scares me. I'm already on Medicare so it's a moot point, but for the rest of America... Far as I'm concerned: No public option, no mandatory insurance!!! One without the other would be unconscionable!

Absolutely agreed.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:45 PM

Quote:
Funny you should mention Medicare, since my concept solution to the whole blasted stupidity would be to simply open it to everyone

I have some spare "Medicare for Everyone" bumperstickers (with one of those "ribbon" symbols in RW&B) after handing them out liberally (heh!) to like-minded peeps. Want one????

ANTHONYT

Friday, October 23, 2009 12:08 AM

"Oh, no offense taken. It's just kinda hard trying to nail Wulf down to any position, because he seems to constantly be shifting the things he finds unacceptable."

Hello,

It is inspiring to watch a flower grow in the sun.

Don't stomp on it before it blooms.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

BYTEMITE

Friday, October 23, 2009 1:11 AM

Niki, Sig, Frem, thanks so much. I gave him your suggestions, we'll see what happens.

If all else fails, I offered to help pay, somehow, I don't know how much he owes or how much this new procedure will cost, but just sitting by while he dies, because of something stupid that's easily fixable, I can't do that. I've known him for ten years, he got me into firefly in the first place.

GEEZER

Friday, October 23, 2009 2:23 AM

It's not 'logic'. It's statistics. I'd bet that statistics show that, on the average, children of a certain age that are either a certain amount overweight or underweight have health problems that would cause their health insurance premiums to be higher than most folk in their insurance pool would be willing to pay. I'm pretty certain that the parents of these children can find someone to insure them at a somewhat higher rate.

If you want to chip in to help them, I'm sure you can. If you want to chip in and help everyone in a similar situation, write your congressperson and expect your taxes to go up. Nothing is free.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 23, 2009 2:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
It's not 'logic'. It's statistics. I'd bet that statistics show that, on the average, children of a certain age that are either a certain amount overweight or underweight have health problems that would cause their health insurance premiums to be higher than most folk in their insurance pool would be willing to pay.

See, it's comments like this that make you seem like a *DICK*. If that's your intent, more power to ya. But if you want approval from the community at large, stop defending mindless computerized corporatism.
Just my 2 credits.

The laughing Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Friday, October 23, 2009 3:15 AM

Quote:
I'm pretty certain that the parents of these children can find someone to insure them at a somewhat higher rate.

ahhh... ahhHHH... aaAHHHHHH... AHHHHHH!!!... BULLSHOID!

'Scuse me! That was a sneeze, not a comment!

You should try it sometime Geezer.

Also, you might want to think about WHY I know so much about Social Security and Medicaid. (HINT: It has something to do with a disabled adult daughter who no longer qualifies for my insurance.)

In addition, my MIL came to live with us post-divorce. She had a "pre-existing condition" (migraines) and we simply could not find an insurance company that would insure her at ANY price.

So, your comfortable assumption really doesn't hold up.

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 23, 2009 3:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, your comfortable assumption really doesn't hold up.

...and it's all about comfort.
Let's see if Geeze can admit his particular argumentitive comfort zone, or if he recedes into his defensiveness once again.

The laughing Chrisisall

BYTEMITE

Friday, October 23, 2009 4:34 AM

It looks like things already shifted in the conversation, so I hope you don't mind if I post an update. Turns out I was behind the curve, my friend was already talking to Social Security today, and they told him the same thing about Federal disability and he meets the requirements, plus with the atrophied lung... He's probably going to get it this time, so yeah. :)

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, October 23, 2009 5:57 AM

Tell him not to let the pressure off until he has a formal decision or a judges ruling in his hand.

Very important, that, and make sure to have photocopies of it on hand every time he goes to deal with these berks.

-F

BYTEMITE

Friday, October 23, 2009 6:12 AM

Okay, I will. Thanks again.

GEEZER

Friday, October 23, 2009 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, your comfortable assumption really doesn't hold up.

Well, actually reading the stories rather than jumping to conclusions, the family with the overweight boy did have health insurance which included the child, but their premiums went up 40% when he was born so they were shopping for cheaper. The case of the underweight girl is similar, with the father having company insurance that covered her prior to going self-employed and looking for new coverage. BTW, per the Denver media both children are now insured.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, October 23, 2009 1:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
See, it's comments like this that make you seem like a *DICK*. If that's your intent, more power to ya. But if you want approval from the community at large, stop defending mindless computerized corporatism.
Just my 2 credits.

Yeah. I should just join the rant about the evil insurance monsters who undoubtedly pop the bubbly every time they deny coverage, and demand that the government require that they insure everyone and cut everyone's rates and hire more staff at good wages to provide more personal service to everyone. Then we could all sing Kumbaya. That'd be real nice, but there's not any way it can actually happen. Insurance for everyone is gonna cost everyone more money (except the folks the government gives it to for free, which ain't gonna be you or me).

I got no problem with the price going up a bit to cover the folk who fall outside the actuarial tables, I'm just kind'a bothered by folks who believe that every company with more than a hundred employees is evil or that extra and probably expensive services and coverage don't come at some price.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 23, 2009 1:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I'm just kind'a bothered by folks who believe that every company with more than a hundred employees is evil

I know how ya feel. I'm kind'a bothered by folks who believe that every company with more than a hundred employees is usually full of goodness & light, forsaking cut throat profit-making decisions in favour of the public good.

The laughing Chrisisall

ANTHONYT

Friday, October 23, 2009 2:08 PM

Hello,

Has corporate personhood become such an ingrained part of our psyche that we think corporations are people? That they have souls and independent morality? That they can be either good or evil?

Calling corps good or evil is silly.

Corps are indeed businesses whose only purpose is profit. The only way to make a corp behave in a 'good' way is to ensure that the 'good' way is more profitable than the 'evil' way.

As for popping champagne bottles when they deny coverage... of course they don't do that.

Rather, they pop champagne bottles when they cut costs or eliminate losses... which may come as a result of denying coverage to certain people.

I have no doubt that the Free Market has a solution for people with expensive and unprofitable medical conditions who are looking for insurance. The solution is this: Charge them tons of money.

In a Free Market, the only thing that can save such people is charity. That has never been in question. A Free Market society had better be a charitable one, or every newspaper will be filled with woeful tales.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RIPWASH

Friday, October 23, 2009 2:33 PM

I've been hearing this lately and wanted to do a quick check. Though I'm sure Sig and Rue will claim otherwise - or at least tout how untrustworthy my source is - I found the following graph in a report from the AMA:

This is just a snipet of the entire report which can be found here:

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf

And I'm sure some here will say that the AMA is a right-leaning organization, but I've heard it's the opposite, so I suppose it's one of those "It depends on who you listen to" kind of thing.

My whole point here is that, by the looks of this report, Medicare, the government run health care, denies a larger amount of claims in terms of percentage than any private insurer. I beleive I'm reading that right, but please correct me if I'm wrong. So to blame "big insurance" for turning down coverage for those that need it? It certainly appears as if your government solution is no better and, in fact, might be an even worse offender.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

ANTHONYT

Friday, October 23, 2009 2:57 PM

Hello,

This is fascinating information.

It would seem that governments can't be counted on to have a morality, either.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RIVERLOVE

Friday, October 23, 2009 4:03 PM

This one issue, this one little issue, is driving this country apart, and distracting us from the other issues and dangers we face in this messed-up world. I cannot see what the big problem is with doing the Public Option, or now the Medicare Part Plan. Doctors, nurses, and surgeons are still gonna be all that, and hospitals are still gonna be standing. It's all about who gets to shuffle the damn paperwork. The Govt. 'aint perfect, but they do a lot of things very well. I say the private sector has had too long of an un-challenged profit orgy, and some accountabilty is demanded. A percentage of competition is both healthy and All-American.

ANTHONYT

Friday, October 23, 2009 4:18 PM

Hello,

I do not mind at all if the government wants to enter the field of competition against private insurers. They can float bonds or stocks to pay for startup expenses. They can offer their insurance at whatever rates they feel reasonable. They can run the thing for profit if they like, using earnings from division A to pay for shortfalls in division B. If everything is optional, if everything is voluntary, and if no one is required by law to participate in any extremity, I think it would be gloriously fantastic.

I have yet to see such a proposal.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Friday, October 23, 2009 5:02 PM

Quote:
BTW, per the Denver media both children are now insured.

But only after intense negative publicity. Just bc Sons of Maxwell got a guitar fix, and Ann Mich got her credit card rate un-hijacked by going viral on youtube doesn't mean No problem! For the few individuals who get paid special attention there are hundreds- if not thousands- who never see their problems redressed. And this is one area I KNOW from personal experience, and so do other peeps on the board. You will not be able to convince us that it is as comfortable as you ASSUME, because we know that it isn't.

Quote:
A Free Market society had better be a charitable one, or every newspaper will be filled with woeful tales.

Oh, I see. In other words... the average person has to dig out out their pocket to save insurance company profits, and profits in general? "We" have to make up for their greed by being nice???

Quote:
I'm just kind'a bothered by folks who believe that every company with more than a hundred employees is evil

EVERY company under curent law is driven by the profit motive, and every publicly-traded company has as their uppermost responsibiity fiduciary duty to their stockholders. What this all means is retaining earnings while transfering costs to "everyone else" by any means possible- including counting on "charity" to try to bandage the wreckage they caused. Its inseparably the nature of the beast, having nothing to do with corruption but everything to do with legalized theft as paradigm.

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 23, 2009 5:07 PM

Geezer can be quite vocal about corruption in Darfur, but here at home the corruption inherent in the BUSINESS of insurance seems to elude him.

The laughing Chrisisall

STORYMARK

Friday, October 23, 2009 5:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BTW, per the Denver media both children are now insured.

Yeah, because the insurance companies got bad press. Not because they're not scumbags.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

OPPYH

Friday, October 23, 2009 5:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Insurance for everyone is gonna cost everyone more money (except the folks the government gives it to for free, which ain't gonna be you or me).

Yup, how can it not?
Hold on to your wallets, it's going to be a wild ride.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 23, 2009 5:18 PM

Quote:
It looks like things already shifted in the conversation, so I hope you don't mind if I post an update. Turns out I was behind the curve, my friend was already talking to Social Security today, and they told him the same thing about Federal disability and he meets the requirements, plus with the atrophied lung... He's probably going to get it this time, so yeah. :)

Oh, thank... I was gonna say god, but... Social Security!

BYTEMITE

Friday, October 23, 2009 5:22 PM

Yeah. You'll never hear me say one bad word about safety nets for life-and-death situations; I think that is one of the most important functions any government or community should have.

ANTHONYT

Friday, October 23, 2009 5:27 PM

" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Free Market society had better be a charitable one, or every newspaper will be filled with woeful tales.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, I see. In other words... the average person has to dig out out their pocket to save insurance company profits, and profits in general? "We" have to make up for their greed by being nice???"

Hello Signy,

You don't seem to see at all. The average person does not 'have' to do anything in a free market society. Free is an operative word, and it deals with your freedom of action, not the presence of free products and services.

However, in any truly free market (capitalist) environment, people will only be able to provide for themselves what they can afford to provide. People who can't afford what they need must rely on charity to obtain it. Those who cannot afford what they need, and who cannot obtain charity, will hence be a woeful tale in the newspaper.

The alternative is a system where medicine is provided for by the government. If this medicine is supported by taxes, then it is a very similar situation. Charity, in this case, becomes universally mandatory. No one can choose not to give. Those who cannot afford what they need are provided for by the state (charity) and since charity is mandatory, everyone who needs it gets it.

In either case, you are providing charity to make up for shortfalls in the system. In one case, the charity is at gunpoint.

You must decide what form of charity you are most comfortable with. Voluntary, or Involuntary.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

WULFENSTAR

Friday, October 23, 2009 5:41 PM

"You must decide what form of charity you are most comfortable with. Voluntary, or Involuntary."

Damn, dude. That was perfect.

STORYMARK

Friday, October 23, 2009 6:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Geezer can be quite vocal about corruption in Darfur, but here at home the corruption inherent in the BUSINESS of insurance seems to elude him.

He can be quite vocally against a lot, until those convictions become inconvenient.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

SIGNYM

Friday, October 23, 2009 6:07 PM

Quote:
You must decide what form of charity you are most comfortable with. Voluntary, or Involuntary.

No, you "must" not. That's a false dilemma.

I don't look to charity to ameliorate a situation that shouldn't exist in the first place. We should be wringing corporations.. or better yet, abolishing their current charters... so that people are not MADE poor by their practices.

Do you recall the story of the washerwomen at the river bank, seeing a drowning baby drift past?? They rescue the one, and then another, but soon there are dozens of babies struggling and drifting downriver. So the women form a line, snatching as many babies as they can, handing them over to the next and the next and so on to the river bank, doing their best to save as many as they can and weeping for the ones who're lost.

That's charity.

And then, to the horror of the women in-line one woman gets out of line and starts running upriver.

"Where are you going????" the others cry, aghast. "We need your help!'

"I'm going to find the bastard who's throwing them in!"

That's what I want.

It took me years to figure out the following quote. I hope it doesn't take you as long:

PITY WOULD BE NO MORE IF WE DID NOT MAKE MEN POOR.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, October 23, 2009 6:22 PM

We don't need money. All we need is love. We will all love when millions of current and new illegal border-crossers with illnesses line up to get the best care our tax dollars can provide. Oh that's wrong the Dems say!...no non-citizens allowed in plan they say! You can see it in the bill they say! I see, most impressive... but is there ANY ID or Verification of US citizenship going to be required to enforce that law to help prevent identity fraud in Govt. healthcare? Nah. The Dems struck down that little section. Just come on in, everybody one and all! It's all about the love, baby! Saving everyone on the planet from death from illness is our loving responsibilty. Just work harder and longer. You won't miss what they take.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, October 23, 2009 6:29 PM

Imma hafta side with Siggy on this one.

Why the hell should I have to deal with some middleman to get healthcare when they're the bastards who drove the costs up in order to justify their existence in the first fuckin place ?

And frankly, we ALREADY paid for Medicare.

You look at how much money we blow EVERY day on a pair of stupid, ridiculous and pointless wars, an arsenal so destructive we can't even use it, and a bunch of politicians howling and wailing about legislation so convoluted even the lawyers can barely comprehend it - all of which costs a gargantuan sum of money, mind you...

If we rolled back the clock, took the money ALREADY WASTED ON THIS "DEBATE" ALONE, and sunk it into reinforcing and expanding the Medicare infrastructure - this problem WOULD ALREADY BE SOLVED, and for a comparative pittance.

Fuck the insurance companies, they have no place here - we paid for it, pay for it some more with every check, and cutting those pricks out of the picture would save enough money to pay the entire bloody cost of it for fifty and more years if you could keep the Congressional pork barrel pigs off it, which is a dubious prospect at best - but that problem arises with any other solution as well.

Common sense has not prevailed here.

I want what I already paid for, instead of paying to pay for it again via insurance, and then pay AGAIN via co-pay, fuck that bullshit, admin costs ALONE chew up more than it'd cost to do this right.

And to hell if I think mandatory insurance would ever be a good idea since I have to keep a reserve to cover an accident and damage because I cannot TRUST them to even obey the law, much less keep to the agreement, and nor can I trust those who enforce that law - a lesson that cost me most of a leg and a good bit of my health besides.

You MIGHT do well to remember that my condition was caused more directly by the fucking insurance companies, both automotive and medical, than the accident or medical incompetence - and that I would not be sitting here in a wheelchair, in pain, and dreading the inevitable suffering imma have to face trying to do my job, if not for a dynamic they created to profit only themselves at our cost.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

SIGNYM

Friday, October 23, 2009 6:42 PM

Jongsstraw, we're already paying for illegals' health care. And we're paying for it the expensive way: emergency room medicine. Just like we're paying for indigent health care. In one three-hospital area, five patients... FIVE... accounted for 80% of emergency-room services!

That won't change if we cut out the insurance companies. Illegals and the indigents will STILL show up at county hospital ERs. But what cutting insurances out WILL do is save approximately 30% on the health care we DO provide. You got a problem with that? Do you hate saving money or something? Solving the illegal/ indigent healthcare problems though is a whole 'nother ballgame, not to be confused with the role of insurance companies in health care.

Don't conflate the two issues.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, October 23, 2009 6:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Jongsstraw, we're already paying for illegals' health care. And we're paying for it the expensive way: emergency room medicine. Just like we're paying for indigent health care. In one three-hospital area, five patients... FIVE... accounted for 80% of emergency-room services!

That won't change if we cut out the insurance companies. Illegals and the indigents will STILL show up at county hospital ERs. But what cutting insurances out WILL do is save approximately 30% on the health care we DO provide. You got a problem with that? Do you hate saving money or something? Solving the illegal/ indigent healthcare problems though is a whole 'nother ballgame, not to be confused with the role of insurance companies in health care.

I know that. It will only get worse in terms of general access and costs when you add in millions more seeking regular everyday care. There will always be emergency care. Why can't there be citizenship verification for tax-funded services in the plan? Why did the Dem majority on the panel kill it? I could believe Govt Care if that reasonable control was in place.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 23, 2009 7:03 PM

Quote:
It will only get worse in terms of general access and costs when you add in millions more seeking regular everyday care.

Are you talking about "millions more" illegals, or "millions more" currently uncovered citizens? Because if you're talking about the "millions more" currently uncovered citizens... that's a kind of dog-in-the-manger attitude isn't it? And in any case, I dont' see that as a problem. Since supply goes where money flows, more people will go into doctoring and nursing, and supply will meet demand.

But maybe you can enlighten me: How is this supposed to work? In order to get "everyday" care (except at county ERs) I have to show my insurance card. How would that be any different from a public plan? Wouldn't public plan participants be required to show THEIR insurance cards, since competing systems would be in place? (I'm sure that the public plan does NOT want to pay for procedures already covered by a private plan,so SOME form of ID has to be used!) So then, how does one get a public plan card? Wouldn't one have to show some form of ID?

SIGNYM

Friday, October 23, 2009 7:28 PM

RIPWASH: The report was disputed by the California Nurses' Association:

Quote:
Researchers from the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee analyzed data reported by the insurers to the California Department of Managed Care. From 2002 through June 30, 2009, the six insurers rejected 45.7 million claims -- 22 percent of all claims.

For the first half of 2009, as the national debate over healthcare reform was escalating, the rejection rates are even more striking.
Claims denial rates by leading California insurers, first six months of 2009:
• PacifiCare -- 39.6 percent
• Cigna -- 32.7 percent
• HealthNet -- 30 percent
• Kaiser Permanente -- 28.3 percent
• Blue Cross -- 27.9 percent
• Aetna -- 6.4 percent

This doesn't take into account that Medicare is the insurer of last resort and represents the oldest, sickest and/or poorest. In addition, insurances will simply DROP you if they can, and thus you dont' show up in the "denied service" data.

More here

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/6/05110/6076

RUE

Friday, October 23, 2009 7:29 PM

"The average person does not 'have' to do anything in a free market society."

The average person HAS to breathe, drink, eat, and be sheltered from exposure to extremes.

So, how does that person economically relate (and by that I mean exchange of resources) to the world around her ?

To start out simply, I propose a magic-woman. This woman appears full-grown out of thin air, with all the knowledge requisite for her own survival. In other words, she owes nothing to parents who cared for her when she couldn't care for herself, to an immediate society that supported the parents and her through customs and exchange of goods, or to a historical society that developed language, knowledge, and skills, and husbanded those along through generations, and from which she benefits.

Suppose there is a freely available world to her, and no one around to contest her use of any resources. At that point I would say that though her chances of a long life are poor (because despite her efforts she is one broken bone or infected tooth or poor season or hungry bear away from death), she is free and completely independent.

Now suppose this magic-woman is living among people. These people lay claim to some of the resources for their own use. Her chances of survival have actually gone down, since she must now also contend with others for resources. So while she is still independent, she is less free to maintain her own life.

Suppose, instead, this woman is living in a fully developed free-market economy. All the land is owned. All the water is private. All the places to find shelter are claimed. All the food belongs to someone. She is NOT free to do as she might, since her actions are considerably constrained by her circumstances. Though, she is still independent, but her chances of survival have sunk to zero.

UNLESS

She can come to an economic agreement with those around her.

So - what is her bargaining position ? She NEEDS things to survive. Given that, she cannot refuse too many offers for exchange for too long.

And what is the bargaining position of the society around her ? Well, they do know that she is utterly dependent on them for life. Knowing that, they would be likely to make as advantageous (to them) bargain as they could. And they can wait, since they do have the resources to do it.

That is capitalism.

One is not free when the other side holds power over your survival.

And I haven't even addressed the issue of how much does one 'owe' to society (parents, community, history) for your existence, your skills and your knowledge.

The myth that somehow people are independent actors of equal power is just that - a myth. But that is the assumption on which your logic is based.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, October 23, 2009 7:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

But maybe you can enlighten me: How is this supposed to work? In order to get "everyday" care (except at county ERs) I have to show my insurance card. How would that be any different from a public plan? Wouldn't public plan participants be required to show THEIR insurance cards, since competing systems would be in place? (I'm sure that the public plan does NOT want to pay for procedures already covered by a private plan,so SOME form of ID has to be used!) So then, how does one get a public plan card? Wouldn't one have to show some form of ID?

The point of the matter is HOW you get that important card in the first place. Didn't you have to provide some basic identification providing residency or identity proof? If you have insurance through your job, then they should already have an I-9 on you attesting to citizenship verification. Outside of insurance through work, if you buy it now privately do they just give you a card over the phone? I'm afraid the Govt., without any verification mechanism, will just be an invitation for vast fraud and misuse.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 23, 2009 7:54 PM

Seems to me that you should have to show a Social Security card in order to get a public option card. I know there are a LOT of duplicated SSNs out there- Social Security didn't mind because it meant more $$ coming in... $$$ that some peeps wouldn't claim later on. Now that a dup SSN might cause an outlfow of $$$, I would HOPE that would trigger a much closer look at duplicates. (The online verification system is very easy- as a household employer I do NOT hire illegals, and I have used the system.) Or, if peeps just pay into the system to get the card.. than what the frak do I care if they're illegal or not, as long as they're paying their way? The devil- or god, or something- is in the details.

But if you're telling me there would be no verfication in a tax-funded system... that would be just plain silly. It wouldn't be enough to make me drop the idea of a public plan bc I think much more good than harm would come out of it, but it WOULD make me agitate for reform!

But I don't believe that is what the "You lie!" shout was about. It seems to me that the perceived issue was the peeps would not have to show citizenship AT THE TIME OF SERVICE. And, of course they wouldn't.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, October 23, 2009 8:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Seems to me that you should have to show a Social Security card in order to get a public option card. I know there are a LOT of duplicated SSNs out there- Social Security didn't mind because it meant more $$ coming in... $$$ that some peeps wouldn't claim later on. Now that a dup SSN might cause an outlfow of $$$, I would HOPE that would trigger a much closer look at duplicates. (The online verification system is very easy- as a household employer I do NOT hire illegals, and I have used the system.) Or, if peeps just pay into the system to get the card.. than what the frak do I care if they're illegal or not, as long as they're paying their way? The devil- or god, or something- is in the details.

But if you're telling me there would be no verfication in a tax-funded system... that would be just plain silly. It wouldn't be enough to make me drop the idea of a public plan bc I think much more good than harm would come out of it, but it WOULD make me agitate for reform!

But I don't believe that is what the "You lie!" shout was about. It seems to me that the perceived issue was the peeps would not have to show citizenship AT THE TIME OF SERVICE. And, of course they wouldn't.

Look, the reality I see is:
(1) The record of the current system is hard to defend.
(2) Public Option Healthcare will pass and that's just gonna be how it is. We'll see how it works out. There's a reasonable chance all will work out, and the debt will just mount a bit. So what! I've seen plenty of govt. debt during my life. It's ridiculous to keep fighting against it, although it will forever be a political issue whether it passes now or later. Finger pointers will campaign with their self-requested statistics, hurl hyperbolized accusations of blame or success, and the debate will go on through the next few election years. Yawn...wake me up on Healthcare sometime in the future.

ANTHONYT

Friday, October 23, 2009 9:08 PM

Hello Rue,

You have often proposed this vision of the capitalist system, but in addition to the variables that you freely state in your 'magic woman' scenario, you also make two unstated assumptions. Without these assumptions, your scenarios would fall apart.

The first assumption you make is that there is an infinite supply of labor.
The second assumption you make is that all labor is of equal quality.

Under these assumptions, it is hardly surprising that your magic woman is reduced to subsistance living at the whims of tyrannical entities who can replace her without thought on a whim, and who have no incentive to pay her any more than she absolutely needs in order to survive.

In real world practice, labor supply is limited and of varying quality. There are incentives for companies to pay people more than the minimum required to sustain an employee's life. It is the limited supply and varying quality of available labor that explains why not everyone in America earns minimum wage, even though that is theoretically the only legally required wage.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Friday, October 23, 2009 9:54 PM

Quote:
In real world practice, labor supply is limited and of varying quality. There are incentives for companies to pay people more than the minimum required to sustain an employee's life. It is the limited supply and varying quality of available labor that explains why not everyone in America earns minimum wage, even though that is theoretically the only legally required wage.

At the same time, we have an effective 20% unemployment. DOOD. Why do you suppose peeps around the world are starving? Its certainly not for lack of motivation and not for lack of work that needs to be done! Capitalism works HARD to automate, and to make peeps as replaceable, standarized, and commodified as nuts and bolts. Its to make labor redundant. Even capitalists will tell you that! Do you also believe that health insurances exist to make us healthy? It sounds like you went to capitalism happycamp or something.

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 23, 2009 10:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Do you also believe that health insurances exist to make us healthy?

I believe that Signy; the Tooth Fairy said I should.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 23, 2009 10:03 PM

Gullible double post

ANTHONYT

Friday, October 23, 2009 10:20 PM

Hello,

I am under no illusions about what Capitalism is, nor about what it is not. I also do not label socialist policies as necessarily inherently evil and all bad, as some seem to be willing to say about Free Trade and Free Market principles. I did not go to Capitalism happy camp nor did I attend Socialism villification classes... Well, perhaps I did, given the amount of propaganda fostered on schoolchildren. But no more or less so than you did.

It is interesting to note that even now, in the midst of this economic depression which has generated so much unemployment (20%, you say? Remarkable. One out of every five people? Really?) somehow in this climate, work continues to be offered at wages exceeding the legal minimum. What factors can possibly be impacting that decision? Why on Earth would anyone, anywhere be prepared to pay higher wages when there are unemployed people doubtless willing and able to do the job for less?

In fact, I suspect that the truth of the matter is somewhat different than is represented in such arguments.

Ever since the industrial revolution, a drive to increase efficiency has resulted in machines that can do more and more work. This Steam shovel does the work of 10 men! This other one does the work of 20 men! This berry-picker does the work of 40 farmers! That chicken plucker does the work of 15 feather pullers!

One might naturally assume that there would be fewer jobs in the 21st century than at any point in history. With more efficient machines and processes of all types, with jobs eliminated wholesale by scientific advancement, a thousand people in our world should be able to do the job of a million people from a hundred years ago. Unemployment should be at 95% or higher.

Right?

So what is it that has been forgotten about Capitalism, the Free Market, and similar forces and structures? What has been left out of the dire prognostications, predictions, pronouncements, and proclamations?

Clearly, something important is not being considered.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Friday, October 23, 2009 11:11 PM

"The first assumption you make is that there is an infinite supply of labor.
The second assumption you make is that all labor is of equal quality."

But neither assumption affects the ultimate outcome.

It is to the inevitable interest of capitalism to pay less than the value of labor. Why ? That's where profit is made. It is the very definition of profit. Should the value of labor go up beyond the range that supports a profit, the products will simply not be made. Jobs will vanish. This argument works whether you are talking about an excess of jobs overall; or workers with varying skill levels. At the point where there is no profit to be made, the system shuts itself down and jobs disappear. And suddenly, there are more people than jobs.

"Under these assumptions, it is hardly surprising that your magic woman is reduced to subsistence living at the whims of tyrannical entities who can replace her without thought on a whim ..."

Have you heard of working conditions in South America ? The Philippines ? China ? Southeast Asia ? South Asia ? How about the Mariana Islands ?

As a former world financial power (to a large extent a result of circumstance and not business model) the US was largely spared these effects. That will no longer be true.

"... and who have no incentive to pay her any more than she absolutely needs in order to survive."

And in the real world, sometimes not even that.

50% of the world lives on less than 1.50USD per day.

"In real world practice, labor supply is limited and of varying quality."

Not true, actually. Because of the profit dictate, there will always be more people than jobs. And there will always be more than enough qualified people to go around. Because when the reverse is true, jobs will be made to go away.

"There are incentives for companies to pay people more than the minimum required to sustain an employee's life."

It's often called a union.

"It is the limited supply and varying quality of available labor that explains why not everyone in America earns minimum wage, even though that is theoretically the only legally required wage."

Theoretically, then, you should not be competing against someone in Bangalore. After all, you are fluent in English, close at hand, ready to work, educated and skilled. And with all those advantages, where can you find a job ? Are you working to your level of skill and education ? Are you being paid for it ?

It comes down to the same thing - you will NEVER be paid the full value of your work under a capitalist system. You will ALWAYS be competing against someone who is willing to do it cheaper.

And average wages reflect that - they are on a downward spiral - for the people who are working, that is.

"I also do not label socialist policies as necessarily inherently evil and all bad, as some seem to be willing to say about Free Trade and Free Market principles."

How can I NOT say it's evil ? It's not based on freedom, equality, or a FAIR deal. It's based on greed. It's based on the idea that you can get MORE than your fair share - that's the thing that's called profit. It's based on creating a zero sum society where people are pitted against each other in a struggle for their very lives for the benefit of a few.

I don't know what else you could call it.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Friday, October 23, 2009 11:17 PM

Quote:

I have no doubt that the Free Market has a solution for people with expensive and unprofitable medical conditions who are looking for insurance. The solution is this: Charge them tons of money.

In a Free Market, the only thing that can save such people is charity. That has never been in question. A Free Market society had better be a charitable one, or every newspaper will be filled with woeful tales.

That's great, but this isn't a free market. If it were, the insurance industry wouldn't have an anti-trust exemption. So maybe you should add that in a "free market", not-for-profit insurance companies would be allowed to compete with for-profit ones and go after the same customers. But like I said, this isn't a "free market".

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

KWICKO

Friday, October 23, 2009 11:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
We don't need money. All we need is love. We will all love when millions of current and new illegal border-crossers with illnesses line up to get the best care our tax dollars can provide. Oh that's wrong the Dems say!...no non-citizens allowed in plan they say! You can see it in the bill they say! I see, most impressive... but is there ANY ID or Verification of US citizenship going to be required to enforce that law to help prevent identity fraud in Govt. healthcare? Nah. The Dems struck down that little section. Just come on in, everybody one and all! It's all about the love, baby! Saving everyone on the planet from death from illness is our loving responsibilty. Just work harder and longer. You won't miss what they take.

Is that what you really want? 'Cause we CAN do that. Nobody - NOBODY - gets healthcare until they provide valid ID. How do you make sure it's valid? Easy: DNA, fingerprint, retinal scan. All of these can be taken from you at birth, or at any time, and put into the government database, where they will reside forever. You don't get paid at your job without them, you don't buy a house, you don't open a bank account, get a credit card, driver's license, or get admitted to a hospital or even LOOKED AT by a doctor without providing ironclad proof of who you are - and the ONLY people who can get that kind of ID are those certified US citizens who've submitted to the identification system.

Is that what you REALLY want? 'Cause it seems that every time anyone takes the slightest, tiniest move towards something even remotely related to anything like that, the right starts SCREAMING about "Socialism" and "Big Brother".

But we can definitely do it. We have the technology. We have the expertise and the know-how. When can we expect you to come in for your identification process?

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

ANTHONYT

Friday, October 23, 2009 11:36 PM

Hello Rue,

I just don't understand your assertions. If the world worked the way you describe it, I could not be here right now. I would be picking fruit somewhere for minimum wage. Or perhaps digging a ditch. Or perhaps I'd even be doing the job I'm doing now- for minimum wage. I've yet to hear why it is, under your theories, I can even exist. Or why half the world population continues to live from day to day. And why anyone, anywhere, would ever earn more than the minimum.

This bit is most staggeringly one-sided in its viewpoint:

"It comes down to the same thing - you will NEVER be paid the full value of your work under a capitalist system. You will ALWAYS be competing against someone who is willing to do it cheaper."

What system am I living in where I have not been supplanted? Or am I the magic person willing to do this job the cheapest?

Also, what about the corrollary?

In a socialist system, the best workers will NEVER earn the full value of their work. They will ALWAYS have a portion of their work's value go towards supporting a less industrious or productive member of the community.

The only difference between Capitalism and Socialism then is that people living in a Socialist society are supposed to be content with not getting the full value of their work for themselves, while people in a Capitalist system are supposed to be upset with not getting the full value of their work for themselves.

Or am I missing something critical in my analysis?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Friday, October 23, 2009 11:41 PM

Quote:

But if you're telling me there would be no verfication in a tax-funded system... that would be just plain silly. It wouldn't be enough to make me drop the idea of a public plan bc I think much more good than harm would come out of it, but it WOULD make me agitate for reform!

Seems to me I have to prove I am who I am when I register my car. And I have to show my proof of insurance as well. Also, I have to prove who I am to renew my driver's license.

Jongsie, are you saying that the government-run plan would be incapable of figuring out if you're a citizen or not? 'Cause they seem to be pretty good at it in every other government-run office I encounter. Maybe hospitals are just run really, really poorly if they can't figure that out. You'd think with all the profits the healthcare industry is raking in, they'd be able to invest in training people to do their job better, but it would seem not, from what you're implying.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

ANTHONYT

Friday, October 23, 2009 11:46 PM

Hello,

"not-for-profit insurance companies would be allowed to compete with for-profit ones and go after the same customers"

Are they not, currently? Is it illegal for someone to create an insurance company and be absent a profit motive?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTHONYT

Friday, October 23, 2009 11:50 PM

Hello,

I think Jong believes, and I think he's right to believe it- that while the government *could* figure out if someone was a citizen before giving them medical aid, it seems doubtful that they will expend the resources to do so.

For my own part, I would not desire that illegal immigrants are denied lifesaving healthcare. I do not favor letting someone die on the front steps of a hospital just because they are unable to pay. I'd be happy to donate a portion of my income to help get medical care for people who are unable to obtain it for themselves, and who might die without it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, October 23, 2009 11:52 PM

Don't forget the sham paper and join the club fees - which frankly I have always considered a BS degree to be... BS.

I think this argument is actually more productive in threads specifically devoted to it, but everytime we start getting somewhere personal issues or someone with an agenda fouls the works.

You think on this - I ain't REQUIRED to do anything and boy do I cuss about bein reamed for taxes, especially with a 2400% increase (NOT a type) of tax alone on a product I consume - I mean, not like a secret I bitch about this stuff, do it all the time.

But you ever take into consideration where and when I do *NOT* bitch ?
When we get value for it!

In a fairly recent thread I pointed out the actual beneficient uses that property taxes go to, which, barring the abuse and corruption of local officials I got little problem with.

As such, even in a society where I was not *required* to contribute a single penny of my income to these things, I would still prefer to do so under voluntary collective bargaining to get a better price on goods and services via bulk purchase cause it's simply the most efficient way to go about it.

And yes, that includes medical care for everyone, frankly to my personal belief it's fucking barbaric that we don't - but damn the middle man, especially one who drives prices up simply to justify their own existence and fill their own pockets while providing no USEFUL value for the money.

Call it whatever one likes, imma cut right down to the bone, I'm ok with payin for healthcare for everyone, so long as we can cut the damned insurance companies out completely, cause once we eliminate their useless administrative deadweight (but alas, not the forms-in-triplicate Government admin deadweight, at least not yet..) I bet we'd get off one holy hell of a lot cheaper than we do now.

So that's where I stand there.

As for society and capitalism, they deserve what they get, cept for the fact that the process keeps gettin pushed back by these fucking bailouts, forcing me at gunpoint (which is what tax collection essentially is) to support and patronise businesses who's services and goods I boycotted for a fuckin reason, thankee muchly.

You don't go demanding someone put themselves almost $100,000.00 USD in Debt for a damned job that pays less than $30k a year and then expect to actually get people to work for you - unless you are actively DEPENDING on that bailout, and spending more lobbying for it than trying to preserve your company - if you looked hard enough, you'd have seen me pointing out that GM was setting up for that bailout from the very time I joined this board, ok ?

The so-called "free" market is nothing more than an interlocking set of monopoly-dependancies created by the institutions of corporations, state and federal government, regulatory boards, and educational systems - there's not a damn "free" thing about it - especially not when they can BUY regulations to put their competitors out of the market.

Me, I got lucky - was born with a Slippery Jim Digriz demeanor and I saw the trap early enough to not walk into it, and lemme tell ya this much...

Despite her massive education, her masters degree and apallingly large salary, do you know who is having to back up the Fremgirl financially right now, because of the amount of debt and taxes that kind of "Success" requires ?

As a friend of mine said, *I* ain't never likely to go hungry, cause so long as there's three people left on this rock, end of the day, someone is gonna want someone else's butt kicked.

But yeah, I worry for the rest of ya.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, October 23, 2009 11:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Is it illegal for someone to create an insurance company and be absent a profit motive?

Pretty sure it is, actually.

And if not, give it just long enough for the bastards to call in their congressional markers and it WILL be.

-F

ANTHONYT

Friday, October 23, 2009 11:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Is it illegal for someone to create an insurance company and be absent a profit motive?

Pretty sure it is, actually.

And if not, give it just long enough for the bastards to call in their congressional markers and it WILL be.

-F

Hello,

Well, I protest that just as strongly.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Saturday, October 24, 2009 12:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

"not-for-profit insurance companies would be allowed to compete with for-profit ones and go after the same customers"

Are they not, currently? Is it illegal for someone to create an insurance company and be absent a profit motive?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Hmmm... As I understand it, it IS illegal currently. That's where that anti-trust exemption comes in. A friend of mine works at USAA Insurance, which he says is a non-profit insurance company, but they are ONLY allowed to insure active-duty military, veterans, and their immediate families. In other words, *I* wouldn't qualify, because while my dad was a veteran and I'm immediate family, he's dead, so that's moot. Anyhoo, from what I gather from talking to him about it, they are forbidden from going after the larger pool of the general public as possible customers, because it seems they'd be rather too good at it for the others to compete.

Also, in talking to my boss, she is forbidden (by Texas law, according to her) from banding together with other small business owners to buy into a larger group policy of the kind that government employees get to opt into.

So it would seem that the insurance companies have a pretty sweet little racket going. You HAVE to buy from them if you want insurance, and if they get their way, you'll HAVE TO buy from them even in you don't want it.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

RUE

Saturday, October 24, 2009 12:15 AM

AnthonyT

"I just don't understand your assertions. If the world worked the way you describe it, I could not be here right now."

Why not ? What about the FACT that you are not being paid the full value of your work (and therefore the company is making a profit) makes it impossible for you to be where you are ?

"... am I the magic person willing to do this job the cheapest?"

For now, you are good enough. You may not be tomorrow. I hope you realize that. (And I have to add that labor cost is not just wages, but also distance/ transport/ communication systems and training; as well as the cost of relocating operations. So those too get factored into the decision to keep a particular labor pool or go elsewhere.)

"Or am I missing something critical in my analysis?"

Absolutely.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6211250.stm?lsm

"The richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of all household wealth, according to a new study by a United Nations research institute. The report, from the World Institute for Development Economics Research at the UN University, says that the poorer half of the world's population own barely 1% of global wealth."

In capitalism, your dollars go to increase the personal wealth (and power) of the already ultra-wealthy. In the real world, no, you don't get the trickle-down. If it were the dominant process, the disparities that exist would cease to be. Instead, they are increasing. In socialism, they go back to society at large - and that often means benefits that you may not realize privately but publicly - a well educated society, a clean environment, a healthy poulace. (Amartya Sen) You do not benefit at all from a portion of your work going privately to others in capitalism. But you do benefit, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly, from that portion being redistributed to society at large.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 24, 2009 12:39 AM

Hello Rue,

I'm not actually sure that I *should* be guaranteed to hold this job forever if someone better is available. (Meaning they are able to do the same work more efficiently and/or cheaply.) While I'd love to retire at this job, and while I hope my usefulness is such that it is possible for me to do so, I would not want my employer to be forced to keep me here if they had better options. Even in a not-for-profit system, I would imagine a motivation to create the most efficient labor pool possible.

It is with this essential concept of freedom in which we disagree. While I would be happy to donate some of my income to create a better world, I do not appreciate anyone making such a donation mandatory. I would greatly enjoy a public option which was entirely voluntary (including voluntarily funded.) I would enjoy spending money for a better public education system. I would enjoy spending money to increase the benefits of persons who serve in the military. I think putting some money into the creation of public parks, improved sanitation services, water supply, etc is a great idea. I believe in public progress through public funding, and I further believe in providing parachutes and ladders for people who fall on hard times.

What I do not enjoy is stealing. I don't like to steal from my neighbor to buy something that I want for myself. I don't like to tell companies what they are allowed to pay people, or to tell people what they are allowed to earn. I don't like to force people to do anything, and this kind of force is an intrinsic part of socialist systems. I almost wish that the tax returns every year could have a check box: Enroll Socialist or Enroll Capitalist. If you were Enrolled Socialist you would have the Socialist responsibilities and the Social program benefits. If you enrolled Capitalist, you'd live with the struggles and boons of a Capitalist system. The important thing, to me, is not to FORCE anyone.

When people are no longer free to choose, I get very uncomfortable.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 24, 2009 12:44 PM

TONY- You said

Quote:
It is interesting to note that even now, in the midst of this economic depression which has generated so much unemployment (20%, you say? Remarkable. One out of every five people? Really?)

Yes, really. 10% official unemployment. Anyone who works even one hour a week is considered "employed". The stats do not count discouraged workers or workers who're underemployed. So- yep. 20%. Real stats.

Quote:
somehow in this climate, [SOME] work continues to be offered at wages exceeding the legal minimum.

Are you offering this as proof that jobs are being CREATED? Because that flies in the face of facts. Or are you simply saying even in shitty times, SOME people can be better off than others? And if so- So what? Is that some sort of argument FOR capitalism?

Quote:
What factors can possibly be impacting that decision? Why on Earth would anyone, anywhere be prepared to pay higher wages when there are unemployed people doubtless willing and able to do the job for less?

All you're saying here is what you said before: Even in really shitty times, some peeps will do better than others. That's like pointing to labor camp guards and saying See? Everyone can become a guard we'll all be better off. Or, even more cynically I can become a guard and therefore the system is working towards maximum efficiency, as it should.

Quote:
Ever since the industrial revolution, a drive to increase efficiency has resulted in machines that can do more and more work. This Steam shovel does the work of 10 men! This other one does the work of 20 men! This berry-picker does the work of 40 farmers! That chicken plucker does the work of 15 feather pullers! One might naturally assume that there would be fewer jobs in the 21st century than at any point in history. With more efficient machines and processes of all types, with jobs eliminated wholesale by scientific advancement, a thousand people in our world should be able to do the job of a million people from a hundred years ago. Unemployment should be at 95% or higher.

It should be. I'll get to that in a bit.

Quote:
Right? So what is it that has been forgotten about Capitalism, the Free Market, and similar forces and structures? What has been left out of the dire prognostications, predictions, pronouncements, and proclamations?

Nothing has been forgotten, but YOU have failed to notice many things.

1) You agree that more efficient producers EXPORT UNEMPLOYMENT. But in this globalized market, you can't look just at USA unemployment. For example, our farms- highly efficient and also highly subsidized- have literally forced millions (possibly billions) of farmers out of work worldwide. They concentrate in the favelas and shanty towns of southeast Asia, Africa and Central and South America creating a huge reservoir of unemployed, and literally reducing people from subsistence to starvation. At the same time, the textile workers of China, and the piece-workers of Guatemala, Vietnam and the Marianas have created unemployment in our Southeast.

2) Overall, compared to the number of hours that people used to work a hundred years ago on small farms and in villages, currently "people" as a whole is far less than previously... approximately 70% less.

3) The abject poverty created by unemployment was not= repeat NOT= solved by capitalism. Unrestrained global capitalism looks like Industrial Revolution and Victorian England: abject poverty for many; grinding, desperate unemployment; poorhouses and workhouses; people starving under bridges; widespread prostitution and servitude; a few VERY wealthy people. That hell persisted UNTIL the labor unions. You assume, I think, that concentrated/ accumulated wealth of capitalism "somehow" lifted everyone. I assure you, it did not. The solution came about from labor unions, from widespread social unrest leading to two world wars and- later- by nations which collectively and routinely recycled wealth from the top back down to the bottom.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 24, 2009 1:08 PM

Hello,

Signy, I think we are far, far apart on understanding each other on this issue, because some of the statements you make boggle me to the point that I'm not even sure how to comment on them. I must lack a frame of reference.

Tell me, are you suggesting a system where some central power dictates the jobs available, goods to be produced, and wages to be paid?

Are you suggesting that all businesses decrease their efficiency to the point that everyone on Earth is guaranteed a position?

Should we halt the scientific advancement and implementation of technologies that do anything faster in order to preserve the well being of the labor pool?

What is it that you are suggesting? Maybe if I understand what it is that you're talking about, then I'll be able to have this conversation on equal footing. Right now I feel like I'm speaking to someone who finds my basic concepts ludicrous and whose own basic concepts seem alien.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 24, 2009 1:19 PM

Tony, I feel the same way. I read your writing and I am totally and absolutely boggled. I feel I have responded directly and cogently to your points, and yet... somehow... we're not getting through to each other. How can you not see what I see?

Let me ask you this: OOC, are you a business owner? Because that would explain your frame of reference. (PS, please re-read my post above. I think I clarified some concepts.)

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 24, 2009 1:59 PM

Hello,

I do not own a business.

Let me tell you what I am getting from what you are describing, and you can tell me where my understanding has gone astray.

**********************************

Anthony walks into a multi-goods store in Signyland.

Anthony - *approaches salesman* Hello, I'm looking for a Mega9000 video card for my computer, do you carry those?

Salesman - *chuckles* I'm afraid not, sir.

Anthony - Darn. I can't seem to find those anywhere.

Customer - *takes a purchase to the counter* Hello, I'd like to have this garden trowel, please.

Register Attendant - Of course. Let me just sign it to your household... there you go. One trowel, free of charge.

Customer - Thank you. *walks away*

Anthony - Man, you people must really like garden trowels.

Salesman - *shrugs* They're all right.

Anthony - *points outside* I saw like a thousand people using them on a construction site over there. I couldn't figure it out.

Salesman - Oh, they're just digging the foundation for a new building.

Anthony - Excuse me?

Salesman - Thay're digging a foundation. For a building. For a new trowel factory, in fact. Demand has increased 20% this quarter.

Anthony - Wait. They're digging a foundation... with trowels?

Salesman - Well yes. What else would you use?

Anthony - *laughs* I dunno. A bulldozer?

Salesman - *winces* That's barbaric.

Anthony - Barbaric? You people are using TROWELS!

Salesman - It's the only responsible way. Did you know that a bulldozer would replace one-hundred workers using trowels?

Anthony - Well, duh. That's kind of the point.

Salesman - But what about the unemployment? How would all those people make a living?

Anthony - I dunno. Maybe they could operate Bulldozers, fix Bulldozers, design better Bulldozers?

Salesman - Better Bulldozers? But that would create MORE unemployment.

Anthony - Well, then they'd just do something else.

Salesman - Nonsense. There'd be more workers than jobs.

Anthony - I think there'd just come to be different kinds of jobs.

Salesman - Maybe for a while, but to hear the way you do things, you'd just create so much efficiency that those jobs would soon be gone, too. Barbaric, really.

Anthony - *shakes head* Well, but why trowels? Why not shovels?

Salesman - Hello?! Shovels do the work of like four trowels. It's unconscionable.

Anthony - *looking out the window* I just don't see how anyone could make money investing in a building that had to be built by a thousand laborers with trowels.

Salesman - Invest? What do you mean? And what's this about making money?

Anthony - Well, you know... you invest money in a business enterprise, like your trowel factory there. And you make money selling trowels, and you pay for the construction costs and have something left over to get yourself a nice house, car, pool, the works.

Salesman - How selfish. No, we don't make profits here. That's stealing.

Anthony - Stealing? What do you mean? That's business. Why would anyone invest in a business enterprise if they couldn't make money?

Salesman - *laughs* Well, they wouldn't, of course. We don't have investors, here.

Anthony - *blinks* You don't? Well... who is building the trowel factory?

Salesman - Why, the government.

Anthony - So... they all work for the government?

Salesman - We all work for the government.

Anthony - So there's no private enterprise?

Salesman - Of course not. Private enterprise is full of greedy thieves trying to make a profit. We are a profitless society.

Anthony - Oh... but how do you get the stuff you need?

Salesman - The government supplies it. We work for the government, and the government gives us everything we need.

Anthony - *glances around* Oh. So if you need a ferrarri, the government gives you one?

Salesman - Of course not! Who needs a ferrari?

Anthony - Well... it might be nice. A little treat to work towards, you know?

Salesman - We have everything we need.

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 24, 2009 2:01 PM

Have you re-read my post?

Good.

Okay, here's one point where we grossly misunderstand each other (I think). You seem to think that because SOME jobs are created which pay more, that implies a direction that ALL jobs will- in the future- pay more, as a result of higher productivity. Not the case. That's even inherently understood in the definition of productivity: goods produced with less labor.

Here's an example: In electronics, assume we have a hand-assembly line of 1000 people. But we hire a 10 designers who helps roboticize the system. Those 10 designers are paid well, but we've eliminated 1000 hand-assembly jobs and replaced them with 60 jobs, managing and maintaining the robots, restocking parts inventory and tracking shipping, filling with with some inevitable assembly work. Those 60 peeps are paid well, but 940 people are now not paid at all.

Then we hire a computer expert and a software engineer to computerize the line, track inventory and automatically order parts based on demand. Those two experts are paid very well, but eventually, we wind up with a factory floor which employs 12 people whose oversee the computers and maintain the software; restock the line with parts, and sweep up; and lube, diagnose and repair machines.

Eventually, we hire design experts who create self-maintaining systems. THOSE designers will be paid extremely well, but now the shop floor is managed by three people who telecommute.

Ultimately, we hire design experts who create programs which will design hardware AND software. THOSE meta-designers will be paid extraordinarily well but all the other programmers and software engineers will be out of work.

We have just created a maximally efficient system with nearly zero employment. But all along the way SOME people were paid really, really well.
----------------------

Now, you ask yourself: Why aren't we there? Why don't we have 5 billion people out of work (excluding children under 10) and SOME people really, really well-paid?

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 24, 2009 2:05 PM

Quote:
Well, then they'd just do something else.
Salesman - Nonsense. There'd be more workers than jobs.
Anthony - I think there'd just come to be different kinds of jobs.
Salesman - Maybe for a while, but to hear the way you do things, you'd just create so much efficiency that those jobs would soon be gone, too.

Yes, you have just made my argument very succinctly, and you have no real answer for it, other than to wave your hands and say "something will turn up some day".

And the funny thing is, you've just described what is considered the economic powerhouse of the world: China.

Their policy is towards maximal employment. If you build a factory in China and assume that it can be staffed by 300 people, the government makes you hire 1000- even if it means that some peeps trim the grass around the office with hand-shears. If you go to a store, you will be handled by at least five sales people (one greeter, one to show you the merchandise, one to bring your item from stock, one to ring you up, and one to bag/ box the purchase.) Potholes are filled by groups of people on bicycles, each bringing some cement and/or gravel and water. (But yes, they DO use shovels.)

I shit you not, I know someone who goes to China frequently. China worries... a LOT... about unemployment. By policy, they feel they need at least 10% growth- GROWTH- just to soak up the under- and unemployed.

But I'm not proposing a Chinese-style system.

The real problem is not efficient production. (Well, it could be, in the future. We have a psychological need for productive work, it gives us a sense of meaningful control over our environment. A life of total leisure is unhealthy... all you have to do is look at the ultra-wealthy who barely have to lift a finger on their own behalf... to see the mental disturbances that it causes. There are studies on the topic, which I'm not going to get into here unless you want me to. But I hope we agree that total leisure is a problem.)

The problem is wealth distribution and the power to make decisions and the ability to act collectively.

The only reason WHY "something turns up some day" is because of a large middle class. You can have all of the technology in the world, with the capacity to create a zillion little housekeeper robots and a gazillion electronic assistants, for example, but unless people are able to buy them THOSE jobs will never be created.

Employment is pulled by demand NOT pushed by investment. As long as your system keeps cutting people out of work and reducing their wealth, demand falls.

So, you can ameliorate most of the negative consequences of capitalism as long as you provide a minimum income to everyone whether or not they work... in other words, by redistributing wealth. This is what the EU has done. Thats is one soltuion, but it's not capitalism and it's definitely not Tony-style capitalism!

But there are other solutions, like labor-owned cooperatives for example.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, October 24, 2009 2:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Why don't we have 5 billion people out of work (excluding children under 10) and SOME people really, really well-paid?

Because you need a planet full of borderline-poverty peeps to buy goods. Zero employment = zero sales = economy collapsing in on itself.
Did I get that right?

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Saturday, October 24, 2009 2:21 PM

Where I used to work, they were computerizing every facet or store ops with the ultimate goal of paying everyone there minimum wage (Or not too much above) & cutting staff seeing as the computer would actually be the manager of the place. LOL, six years after initiating it, it still hasn't worked out that way, because the plan was sold to upper management in much the same way as SDI was sold to Reagan; a nice paper fantasy. An expensive fantasy though. So expense has remained constant thanks to staff reduction, but customer service during heavy traffic times is laughable.
I don't miss that mess at all.

The laughing Chrisisall

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 24, 2009 2:28 PM

Hello,

My God... you mean my understanding was correct? My scenario was correct? I am actually properly understanding your point of view?

Wow.

I'd find it odd to live in a world without innovation, where everyone got what the committee thought they needed, and no one could strive to excel and improve their situation beyond their neighbors.

I mean, I'm a pretty lazy guy, and I lack ambition, but I've always felt strongly that the constant drive to improve, innovate, and increase efficiency made America great. In other words, that a nation of people satisfied with less would necessarily be less successful.

Signyland sounds like a stagnant, backwards society. Where people are not slaves to corporations... but rather to 'the system.' And there's no alternative.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 24, 2009 2:31 PM

"provide a minimum income to everyone whether or not they work"

Hello,

But then some people would become professional do-nothings, wouldn't they?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 24, 2009 2:45 PM

Quote:
My God... you mean my understanding was correct? My scenario was correct? I am actually properly understanding your point of view?... Signyland sounds like a stagnant, backwards society. Where people are not slaves to corporations... but rather to 'the system.' And there's no alternative.

No, you understand CHINA's view of things. I said that I don't hold to China's solution to the problem of unemployment.

Quote:
I'd find it odd to live in a world without innovation, where everyone got what the committee thought they needed, and no one could strive to excel and improve their situation beyond their neighbors.

Somehow, Tony, all of the great advances of the world: language, writing, fire, agriculture, science, the theory of relativity... were made WITHOUT capitalism. Innovation, like the desire for survival activity, is an inbuilt motivation. Maybe a few thousand generations hence that is something we'll have to worry about but... we've got bigger problems right now.

Quote:
But then some people would become professional do-nothings, wouldn't they?

There is always that risk. But most people are psychologically-motivated to spend about 20-25 hours a week doing something productive, and anything less than that causes anxiety in most people.

So IMHO the best answer is not to provide make-work (like China does) or to "only" redistribute income (like the EU does) or even worker cooperatives (which distribute decision-making power as well as money). A large part of the solution should be massive public works programs.

Why???

Because we are facing MASSIVE problems - deforestation, soil loss, global warming, trashy oceans, overpopulation, disease, ignorance, water shortages- which capitalism is completely unmotivated to deal with because there is no profit in it. There is all the room in the world for innovation, for cooperation and fellow-feeling mixed with healthy competition, when dealing with problems of such massive scope. All it needs is to be liberally watered with money.

And now, time for ME to be productive. I'm on a tight schedule this weekend and next, so this will be my last post for today - unless something pops up which is really interesting and can be answered in one sentence!

Cheers.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 24, 2009 3:06 PM

Hello Signy,

"No, you understand CHINA's view of things. I said that I don't hold to China's solution to the problem of unemployment."

Well, to be fair, when I started writing my response your post seemed to be a degree or two smaller.

"Somehow, Tony, all of the great advances of the world: language, writing, fire, agriculture, science, the theory of relativity... were made WITHOUT capitalism."

The greatest advances in Agriculture and science have been motivated precisely by capital-acquisition. Hard to argue capitalism played no part. The competition inherent in capital-acquiring endeavors DOES breed innovation, and I think denying that is odd.

Of course, some of our greatest advances in architecture were enabled by despots hoarding 95% of the world's wealth. Kings in Europe, Egypt, and India, for instance.

As for capitalism being unmotivated to solve problems... that seems to be another way of saying people are unmotivated to solve problems. Capitalism will sell you whatever you want to buy. If you want to buy a green Earth, then that's what they'll sell you.

The problem is that people are only now beginning to care. And so you are just now seeing companies beginning to care. (So that they can sell you what you want to buy.) If there had been a big demand for electric cars in the 80's when gas was a buck a gallon, they'd have been selling electrics instead of gas guzzlers.

As for massive public works programs, I'm all for it. So let the government think of something we all need, float bonds, and start building. I'll lend the government some of my money if it's for a good cause.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 24, 2009 3:10 PM

Quote:
The greatest advances in Agriculture and science have been motivated precisely by capital-acquisition.

Capitalism did not exist at the dawn of humanity. What capitalism is is the ability to make money simply by OWNING something. Back then, they didn't have investors and stock options and absentee landlords. And the means of production- land and simple tools- were available everyone.

Quote:
[n]As for capitalism being unmotivated to solve problems... that seems to be another way of saying people are unmotivated to solve problems.

Not true. People care, people innovate, people work, WITHOUT capitalism. Somehow, you equate capitalism with ALL forms of production, with anyone who wants to do things better, wants to make more stuff, or want to trade with others. THAT IS NOT CAPITALISM. Capitalism is the ability to obtain more wealth simply by OWNING something, without putting ANY work into it whatsoever, AND the ability to freely exchange that ownership for another. (That's what differentiates feudalism from capitalism. A nobleman might "own" the grain produced by the peasants on "his" land, but he could not freely sell his ownership to someone else and buy another plot of land elsewhere.)

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 24, 2009 3:20 PM

Hello,

Putting a seed into the ground and making fire was certainly not motivated by Capitalism...

And if no one wanted to acquire wealth, and if there was no competition, I suspect that's where we'd still all be.

The Gods Must be Crazy.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 24, 2009 3:40 PM

Quote:
And if no one wanted to acquire wealth, and if there was no competition, I suspect that's where we'd still all be.

Everyone wants stuff, and most people are capable and motivated to make it. The desire to acquire stuff is not what defines capitalism.

That is part of our survival heritage from time immemorial. Neither do competition and innovation. Neither do loans. Or banks. Or currency. Or trade. They predate capitalism by millenia. There are only so many times I can repeat these concepts. Have they gotten through yet?

You ascribe to "capitalism" all sorts of wonderful things that pre-existed, and that have NOTHING to do with its essential definition. If you could just, please, disentangle all of those lovely thoughts and focus on capitalism ... which is narrowly defined... we would reach common understanding.

Capitalism is the ability to gain greater wealth SIMPLY through ownership of the means of production- without adding any work at all to the equation- and the ability to freely exchange that ownership.

Quote:
The problem is that people are only now beginning to care. And so you are just now seeing companies beginning to care. (So that they can sell you what you want to buy.) If there had been a big demand for electric cars in the 80's when gas was a buck a gallon, they'd have been selling electrics instead of gas guzzlers... If you want to buy a green Earth, then that's what they'll sell you.

You can't "buy" a green earth any more than you can "buy" happiness and love. The problems at-hand cannot be all solved by new products. Some of it- like reforestation- simply requires work, which companies are not about to pay for. We have to MAKE a green earth.

BTW- as my last comment: I do not include grand architecture as innovation. IMHO temples, armories, palaces, pyramids and the like are symptoms of a parasitic hierarchy.

Road-building, irrigation, sewage systems OTOH are innovation.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, October 24, 2009 3:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Capitalism is the ability to gain greater wealth SIMPLY through ownership of the means of production, and the ability to freely exchange that ownership.

It is also the ability to buy govenmental favours and justice.

The laughing Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 24, 2009 3:47 PM

Chris- Indeed!

CHRISISALL

Saturday, October 24, 2009 3:49 PM

*At fair market vaule, of course.

KWICKO

Saturday, October 24, 2009 4:06 PM

Wow. Late getting back to this one, but it looks like it's gone off on a tangent. Again.

Quote:

Anthony - Well, then they'd just do something else.

And sadly, that's about as far as things seem to get thought through, especially when it comes to things like outsourcing jobs from this country. You left out the part where we don't do the work with trowels, we hire browner people from other lands to do the work. Only they have to use their hands, because we sold the trowels to another country.

Oh, and Anthony? We, ummmmm... don't build Ferraris in this country. Those come from a crazy far-off semi-socialist place called "Italy", where Ferrari was long owned and controlled by - get this - FIAT, the GOVERNMENT-owned automaker. They also own Maserati and Alfa Romeo. We really don't build anything like a Ferrari here. We build the Corvette. Or rather, the government-run General Motors builds it.

So it seems the government CAN build some desirable things, after all.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 24, 2009 4:07 PM

Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\
Function: noun
Date: 1877
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Hello,

There's Capitalism.

It has existed ever since people owned things and started trading them to one another. (Although the word itself appears to date only from 1877. I suspect they called it 'trade' before then.)

If I own a smithee, a farm, a saw, or a hammer, then I own the means to production.

If I have a lemon tree and make lemonade for sale. If I make *anything* that belongs to me and trade it to someone else for something I want, I would seem to qualify as a capitalist.

If Bert across the street has a lemon tree and starts selling lemonade, then we have competition in the market.

Sally down the road is selling honey from a beehive in her back yard. I trade some lemonade for her honey and put her honey in my lemonade. Now my lemonade tastes better than Bert's lemonade. I sell more lemonade than Bert. Innovation, sparked by competition. Sweetened lemonade is born.

Bert can't keep up with my lemonade sales, and he's stuck with his lemon tree as a resource. Bert discovers that he can add lemon to soap. Kelly, who lives one block over, sells soap. Bert enters into a partnership with Kelly and makes lemon-fresh scented soap. They split the profits. More innovation, sparked by competition. Lemon-scented soap is born.

There are other forms of competition. Like warfare. I prefer free market competition.

Am I missing something here?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 24, 2009 4:15 PM

Hello,

"You left out the part where we don't do the work with trowels, we hire browner people from other lands to do the work. Only they have to use their hands, because we sold the trowels to another country."

I've seen the bulldozers. I promise, I'm not making it up. They exist. They build things in my city every day.

"So it seems the government CAN build some desirable things, after all."

Well, I have to admit... this completely blows up the argument I never made.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 24, 2009 4:25 PM

Quote:
Capitalism is an economic and social system in which the means of production (also known as capital) are privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in a market; profits are distributed to owners or invested in technologies and industries; and wages are paid to labor. However, since prior economic systems featured all these elements to some degree, capitalism might differentiate itself by the pervasiveness of wage labor in the interdependent social class context of nonlabor income derived from property not intended for the owner's (or employer's) active personal use

One defines by what is unique, differentiated, newly developed, not by what is common and extant.

You made the logical mistake of saying that elephants are mammals, all mammals are elephants. Labor, exchange, competition, and cooperation in the realm of production is called an "economy". If you detect snark, its' bc its there.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 24, 2009 4:30 PM

Hello,

So in your definition, it's only capitalism if I make money without sweating for it? By using something I own, or some asset I've invested in, to provide income for me?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 24, 2009 4:38 PM

Hello Signy,

I seem to make the continual mistake of responding to you right away, when apparently you like to make several edits and additions to your posts. (And occasionally chastise people for not reading your post. Which post? The first, second, or third version?!)

Is there some way you can designate when you've actually finished a post. I'd hate to miss out on the value-added snark, for instance.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 24, 2009 4:42 PM

Exactly. Capitalism is uniquely characterized by wealth uncoupled from labor: ie. interest, stock sales, dividends etc. AND the ability to freely exchange that ownership.

Mercantilism, feudalism, slavery, primitivism... had various features ... sometimes MANY features... of capitalism, including production, savings, trade, competition, innovation, ownership, markets, currency, and banking. Some systems, like slavery and feudalism, enshrined the appropriation of product through land ownership. But until an actual stock market developed it would be hard to say that these were "capitalism" per se.
-------------

Yes, I tend to edit online.
Sorry about that.
I'll end my finished posts with "done".
How's that?
------

Done.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 24, 2009 4:47 PM

Hello,

So if I own a cornfield, let's say...

And I hire ten workers to pick corn, let's say.

And I let each worker keep 5% of corn yield, let's say.

So the workers cumulatively get 50% of the yield, and I get 50% of the yield myself...

That's not capitalism?

But!

If I sell 10 shares of cornfield stock on the market, entitling each share-owner to 1/10 of the 50% yield I own, and those shares can be freely traded...

That's Capitalism?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE