|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States42008 Posts
On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail. On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:42 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:10 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
This is you feeling fatigued and frustrated by the process, not actually thinking bandaid solutions are a net negative compared to a destroyed system. What you're describing would definitely result in more human loss than by limping along. Limping along keeps people alive, even if inefficiently. Burning the whole thing down would result in a net loss of life. That isn't an ethical preference just for the sake of "finally getting this right and moving on". I'm not fatigued by the process. I'm advocating for following the process and accelerating it to where it's going to be anyway. let's pretend that you have a kid with a pre existing condition. with the help of a drug that costs 100k a month, he is able to live a perfectly normal, symptom free life. without the drug, he constantly has seizures and is in extreme pain which opiods are completely useless in mitigating, and the only moments he's free of pain is when he passes out from his condition. your hypothetical kid benefits a lot under the current system, as it was bandaided/ improved by the ACA. the ACA is why there are broad-ish and deep-ish risk pools that enable a funding mechanism for kids like yours. are you still willing to just let it go to shit and more or less be on your own for a couple years while hoping nationalized medicine happens? Healthcare is a scarce commodity and should be treated as such for the entire population. By definition, the case of the individual is irrelevant. We can't provide healthcare for everyone in every circumstance. Some people will necessarily lose out in any system. All that we can decide is how to best to allocate the limited resources that are available. For all of these reasons, your appeal to the hypothetical where I have a kid with a preexisting condition is irrelevant. Rational policymakers don't give a shit about the individual case. Nor should we. Regardless, I don't buy the presumption that Congress will fail to act before things get too bad. I bet they do, because the constituents will demand it. See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked. Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up. You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer? What do you think a "death panel" is? A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes. Definitely not a myth, buddy. Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you?
Unlimited, no.
Death panel is a Republican meme created around the idea of rationing. That if a commodity is not infinite then there must be some mechanism by which it is allocated. They decided to brand that with the absurd name "death panel". We have a rationing body in National Health Service in the UK, it's called NICE. A slightly less hyperbolic name, perhaps they could have gone with that.
What makes the whole argument so silly though is that rationing already exists and has existed forever. When your employer negotiates with a health insurance company they're not willing to put infinite money on the table on your behalf, they haggle over what will and won't be covered, and the extent of the coverage. They say "this is what I am prepared to pay, these are my priorities" and the insurance company calculates their allotted ration of healthcare based upon that.
With that in mind I have no idea why anyone is afraid of the government rationing it based upon statistics, actuarial models, modelling of the efficacy of various treatments, and so forth. If we're going to get rationing then we could at least get it done properly by a centralized body that knows what the fuck they're doing, has their incentives aligned with ours (due to picking up the tab for societal costs), and can operate on a broad scale.
|
On November 17 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:32 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2017 08:29 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:22 Mohdoo wrote:
Sometimes it feels like xdaunt only posts on TL after a few drinks. He discusses politics the same way I do when I'm drunk lol. I just have little patience for people making stupid responses to my posts -- particularly when those responses have a badly misplaced air of condescension about them. There's been no shortage of those posts in the past couple pages. Come on. You condescend with the best of them. And health care is a serious fucking topic. Saying you want to system to fail is basically saying "I strongly hope Plansix and people like him get super fucked over for 3-5 years so we can get a better health care system." The difference between my condescension and the others' is that mine is not misplaced. =p I'm all for people challenging me and taking me on, but they better know what they are doing before jumping in the ring. Half of the people participating in this health care discussion patently have no idea what they're talking about. And some of those people have had the gall to tell me that what I am saying about healthcare economics is wrong. I'm going to give that latter subset of people shit every time.
Lets recap
You made the argument that blowing up the healthcare system by removing the individual mandate was a good thing, because it will lead to Better Healthcare.
I pointed out, first, that it really sucks if you were on the wrong end of the blow up. Certainly, I made an appeal to emotion here.
Here you kind of change the argument to one about how choices must be made with limited resources. However, I point out the these particular shitty choices happen under the blown up system scenario. There is another, where we don't blow up the system.
Nevertheless, he persisted. The system must be rationed! Death panels! In response: well no shit given limited resources you have to do that because math, but you're in effect artificially limiting resources by breaking the system (individual mandate = funding mechanism).
And then you assert (asserting not making it necessarily true) that I don't understand healthcare. Or something. Which is actually funny. The ad homs started quite a bit earlier, actually.
At the end of it all, you didn't really make an argument for why blowing up the system is a good thing either.
|
The FCC continues to fuck over America under Trump.
|
United States42008 Posts
On November 17 2017 08:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:26 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 17 2017 08:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail. On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked. Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up. You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer? What do you think a "death panel" is? A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes. Definitely not a myth, buddy. Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you? No. I just thinking letting the market have such a large role in allocation of healthcare, which is saying we think it's as reasonable for rich people to live longer than poor people as it is for rich people to own better cars, is morally abominable when there are non-market solutions. (I also pray we never give unlimited healthcare to everyone, because that's a horrible thing to do to humans) And you understand that even under "non-market solutions," care is still rationed -- meaning that lots of people will be denied care that they desire or even need to live -- right? It's far fewer people when the equation is 'can we pay $5 million for each year of treatment for 80 year olds that doesn't cure you but lets you live longer' than 'you get care if you have insurance'. 'Death panels' make the best possible judgement calls to save as many people as possible based on the money allocated. I agree that the 'you're fine with letting people die' isn't a viable argument against an insurance based model, because yes, I am also fine with certain small unfortunate subsets of the population not being covered when their treatment is extraordinarly expensive compared to the expected gain. Obviously I'd rather have the 84 year old get treatment that makes him or her live for another 2 years than that not be the case, but I'd also rather have those millions of dollars per person be used on curing a 25 year old. The thing is the idea that 'the market' can do a better job than a panel of experts at distributing these funds is a joke. I mean, I also have the impression that you're actually not that negative towards socialized health care, so all of this comes off as a silly dance.  The one place where I disagree with you is that I don't think that this has to be an either/or proposition. If people want to spend exorbitant sums of money to extend their lifespans, I see no good reason to prohibit them from doing so.
Literally nobody is arguing that the rich should be prohibited from buying medicine. You're arguing with yourself, and somehow still losing.
|
On November 17 2017 08:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:26 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 17 2017 08:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail. On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up. You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer? What do you think a "death panel" is? A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes. Definitely not a myth, buddy. Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you? No. I just thinking letting the market have such a large role in allocation of healthcare, which is saying we think it's as reasonable for rich people to live longer than poor people as it is for rich people to own better cars, is morally abominable when there are non-market solutions. (I also pray we never give unlimited healthcare to everyone, because that's a horrible thing to do to humans) And you understand that even under "non-market solutions," care is still rationed -- meaning that lots of people will be denied care that they desire or even need to live -- right? It's far fewer people when the equation is 'can we pay $5 million for each year of treatment for 80 year olds that doesn't cure you but lets you live longer' than 'you get care if you have insurance'. 'Death panels' make the best possible judgement calls to save as many people as possible based on the money allocated. I agree that the 'you're fine with letting people die' isn't a viable argument against an insurance based model, because yes, I am also fine with certain small unfortunate subsets of the population not being covered when their treatment is extraordinarly expensive compared to the expected gain. Obviously I'd rather have the 84 year old get treatment that makes him or her live for another 2 years than that not be the case, but I'd also rather have those millions of dollars per person be used on curing a 25 year old. The thing is the idea that 'the market' can do a better job than a panel of experts at distributing these funds is a joke. I mean, I also have the impression that you're actually not that negative towards socialized health care, so all of this comes off as a silly dance. The one place where I disagree with you is that I don't think that this has to be an either/or proposition. If people want to spend exorbitant sums of money to extend their lifespans, I see no good reason to prohibit them from doing so. Literally nobody is arguing that the rich should be prohibited from buying medicine. You're arguing with yourself, and somehow still losing.
Well, I wouldn't say literally nobody-I don't think anybody should be buying medicine in general (I don't think people should be able trade goods for lifespan) which is de facto saying the rich shouldn't buy medicine. I just can't see a good way to pick how we decide what's exorbitant and not disadvantaging the poor.
I also accept that I'll never get that system in the U.S., though, and removing the individual mandate through a tax reform bill certainly won't get us any closer.
|
United States42008 Posts
On November 17 2017 08:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:44 Mohdoo wrote:On November 17 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:32 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2017 08:29 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:22 Mohdoo wrote:
Sometimes it feels like xdaunt only posts on TL after a few drinks. He discusses politics the same way I do when I'm drunk lol. I just have little patience for people making stupid responses to my posts -- particularly when those responses have a badly misplaced air of condescension about them. There's been no shortage of those posts in the past couple pages. Come on. You condescend with the best of them. And health care is a serious fucking topic. Saying you want to system to fail is basically saying "I strongly hope Plansix and people like him get super fucked over for 3-5 years so we can get a better health care system." The difference between my condescension and the others' is that mine is not misplaced. =p I'm all for people challenging me and taking me on, but they better know what they are doing before jumping in the ring. Half of the people participating in this health care discussion patently have no idea what they're talking about. And some of those people have had the gall to tell me that what I am saying about healthcare economics is wrong. I'm going to give that latter subset of people shit every time. So why should people believe you know as much as you say you do? You can't just say "I know more than you" and expect people to believe you. You aren't convincing people your word is worth taking seriously. Ah, the great paradox. Is it my burden to give the full explanation of the basics on a given subject or is it the burden of the poster to reasonably inform himself of the subject before jumping in? I don’t know what the right answer is, but I have made it clear that I have no interest in teaching the basics on every subject. You are in Oregon, right? Go read about how your state’s Medicaid system works. You will see the health care principles that I have been espousing in action there.
You've certainly made it clear you have no capacity to teach the basics on, as far as I can tell, any subject.
Nobody doesn't understand that healthcare isn't an infinite commodity and that there must necessarily be rationing. Nobody. The opposition to your screaming of "death panels" wasn't because they think that under universal healthcare we'll all live forever, it's because death panels as presented to the media is a fantasy. Some kind of weird dystopian future where grandma gets a letter in the post telling her to proceed to her nearest FEMA camp for execution and organ harvesting because Obama needs her kidneys.
We don't think death panels is bullshit because we don't know how healthcare works. We think death panels is bullshit because the people who shout death panels aren't talking about the fundamental reality of rationing, they're talking about bullshit. You can't pretend the last 9 years never happened and that no understanding of that phrase has been established. Death panels has a meaning, and they're not talking about these guys when they say it.
And no, your burden is to educate yourself on the subject before you jump in. Your failure to do so has been incredibly obvious to everyone for a while now.
|
United States42008 Posts
On November 17 2017 08:58 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:52 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2017 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:26 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 17 2017 08:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail. On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer?
What do you think a "death panel" is? A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes. Definitely not a myth, buddy. Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you? No. I just thinking letting the market have such a large role in allocation of healthcare, which is saying we think it's as reasonable for rich people to live longer than poor people as it is for rich people to own better cars, is morally abominable when there are non-market solutions. (I also pray we never give unlimited healthcare to everyone, because that's a horrible thing to do to humans) And you understand that even under "non-market solutions," care is still rationed -- meaning that lots of people will be denied care that they desire or even need to live -- right? It's far fewer people when the equation is 'can we pay $5 million for each year of treatment for 80 year olds that doesn't cure you but lets you live longer' than 'you get care if you have insurance'. 'Death panels' make the best possible judgement calls to save as many people as possible based on the money allocated. I agree that the 'you're fine with letting people die' isn't a viable argument against an insurance based model, because yes, I am also fine with certain small unfortunate subsets of the population not being covered when their treatment is extraordinarly expensive compared to the expected gain. Obviously I'd rather have the 84 year old get treatment that makes him or her live for another 2 years than that not be the case, but I'd also rather have those millions of dollars per person be used on curing a 25 year old. The thing is the idea that 'the market' can do a better job than a panel of experts at distributing these funds is a joke. I mean, I also have the impression that you're actually not that negative towards socialized health care, so all of this comes off as a silly dance. The one place where I disagree with you is that I don't think that this has to be an either/or proposition. If people want to spend exorbitant sums of money to extend their lifespans, I see no good reason to prohibit them from doing so. Literally nobody is arguing that the rich should be prohibited from buying medicine. You're arguing with yourself, and somehow still losing. Well, I wouldn't say literally nobody-I don't think anybody should be buying medicine in general (I don't think people should trade goods for lifespan in any form). I also accept that I'll never get that system in the U.S., though, and removing the individual mandate through a tax reform bill certainly won't get us any closer
Let's say that people who can't walk get a government issued rationed wheelchair. You wouldn't forbid a rich man from buying one with a better battery and faster charge times in the name of equality, right? That's the issue at stake here.
|
On November 17 2017 08:29 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2017 08:20 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2017 08:03 Blazinghand wrote:On November 17 2017 08:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
xDaunt is right that the ACA is fucked. They tried to enshrine corporate insurance profits into law and build a healthcare system around that and it was never going to work in the long run. It's better than what we had, but it was never a real solution.
However, xDaunt should probably try to convince his Republican brethren (and Democrats should convince ACA deadenders) that they are wrong about socialized healthcare rather than hope people start dying enough to make the realization that way. It's not even just that. They made it so that healthy people can simply game the system. And there's still nothing to control the underlying problem of a totally FUBAR pricing system. There were a ton of people who pointed out that Obamacare was going to fail before it was even passed for these very reasons, and they were entirely correct. It's only a matter of time. Premiums are already spiraling out of control. The saddest part is that the Public Option got killed. If there was a Public Option, I think things would be different. But the 60th vote in the Senate, Lieberman, was adamantly against it, and there was no way around it. I think it's weird that Ben Nelson led the Democrat opposition to a public option and went on to be the CEO of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, but everyone still blames Lieberman. no, nelson was against abortion funding. Maybe he was, but he was definitely leading the Democrat opposition to a public option too. A handful of conservative Democrats, led by Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, made clear that if there was a public option, they would filibuster the final bill. And so it died. Source nelson eventually caved after some concessions. so did landrieu (she was my senator at the time). lieberman was the one that wouldn't budge, ultimately. Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:29 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2017 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2017 08:23 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2017 08:20 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2017 08:03 Blazinghand wrote:On November 17 2017 08:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
xDaunt is right that the ACA is fucked. They tried to enshrine corporate insurance profits into law and build a healthcare system around that and it was never going to work in the long run. It's better than what we had, but it was never a real solution.
However, xDaunt should probably try to convince his Republican brethren (and Democrats should convince ACA deadenders) that they are wrong about socialized healthcare rather than hope people start dying enough to make the realization that way. It's not even just that. They made it so that healthy people can simply game the system. And there's still nothing to control the underlying problem of a totally FUBAR pricing system. There were a ton of people who pointed out that Obamacare was going to fail before it was even passed for these very reasons, and they were entirely correct. It's only a matter of time. Premiums are already spiraling out of control. The saddest part is that the Public Option got killed. If there was a Public Option, I think things would be different. But the 60th vote in the Senate, Lieberman, was adamantly against it, and there was no way around it. I think it's weird that Ben Nelson led the Democrat opposition to a public option and went on to be the CEO of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, but everyone still blames Lieberman. no, nelson was against abortion funding. And Lieberman said he would block any vote that allowed for a public option out loud to anyone who would listen. That many was not shy about saying "fuck you" to people who wanted it. He was just 1 of several people that made that threat though, and he wasn't even a Democrat by then. Yeah, that was the fault of some very silly people in CT and some silly people in the democratic party that wanted him gone. And welcome to political parties, not everyone believes the same thing. It takes time and work to make huge changes like single payer. Just be happy if we get there in your life time. what's a little bonkers is that nelson was a democratic senator from nebraska. that was a long time ago.
Do you have a source for Nelson changing his mind?
I see that he held a public option hostage in exchange for some unrelated stuff in Nebraska (and the abortion thing), but I wasn't able to find anything saying he ever changed his mind on a public option?
Best I can tell he (helped) killed the hostage and still got his payoff.
|
On November 17 2017 09:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:29 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 08:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2017 08:20 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2017 08:03 Blazinghand wrote:On November 17 2017 08:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
xDaunt is right that the ACA is fucked. They tried to enshrine corporate insurance profits into law and build a healthcare system around that and it was never going to work in the long run. It's better than what we had, but it was never a real solution.
However, xDaunt should probably try to convince his Republican brethren (and Democrats should convince ACA deadenders) that they are wrong about socialized healthcare rather than hope people start dying enough to make the realization that way. It's not even just that. They made it so that healthy people can simply game the system. And there's still nothing to control the underlying problem of a totally FUBAR pricing system. There were a ton of people who pointed out that Obamacare was going to fail before it was even passed for these very reasons, and they were entirely correct. It's only a matter of time. Premiums are already spiraling out of control. The saddest part is that the Public Option got killed. If there was a Public Option, I think things would be different. But the 60th vote in the Senate, Lieberman, was adamantly against it, and there was no way around it. I think it's weird that Ben Nelson led the Democrat opposition to a public option and went on to be the CEO of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, but everyone still blames Lieberman. no, nelson was against abortion funding. Maybe he was, but he was definitely leading the Democrat opposition to a public option too. A handful of conservative Democrats, led by Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, made clear that if there was a public option, they would filibuster the final bill. And so it died. Source nelson eventually caved after some concessions. so did landrieu (she was my senator at the time). lieberman was the one that wouldn't budge, ultimately. On November 17 2017 08:29 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2017 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2017 08:23 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2017 08:20 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2017 08:03 Blazinghand wrote:On November 17 2017 08:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
xDaunt is right that the ACA is fucked. They tried to enshrine corporate insurance profits into law and build a healthcare system around that and it was never going to work in the long run. It's better than what we had, but it was never a real solution.
However, xDaunt should probably try to convince his Republican brethren (and Democrats should convince ACA deadenders) that they are wrong about socialized healthcare rather than hope people start dying enough to make the realization that way. It's not even just that. They made it so that healthy people can simply game the system. And there's still nothing to control the underlying problem of a totally FUBAR pricing system. There were a ton of people who pointed out that Obamacare was going to fail before it was even passed for these very reasons, and they were entirely correct. It's only a matter of time. Premiums are already spiraling out of control. The saddest part is that the Public Option got killed. If there was a Public Option, I think things would be different. But the 60th vote in the Senate, Lieberman, was adamantly against it, and there was no way around it. I think it's weird that Ben Nelson led the Democrat opposition to a public option and went on to be the CEO of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, but everyone still blames Lieberman. no, nelson was against abortion funding. And Lieberman said he would block any vote that allowed for a public option out loud to anyone who would listen. That many was not shy about saying "fuck you" to people who wanted it. He was just 1 of several people that made that threat though, and he wasn't even a Democrat by then. Yeah, that was the fault of some very silly people in CT and some silly people in the democratic party that wanted him gone. And welcome to political parties, not everyone believes the same thing. It takes time and work to make huge changes like single payer. Just be happy if we get there in your life time. what's a little bonkers is that nelson was a democratic senator from nebraska. that was a long time ago. Do you have a source for Nelson changing his mind? I see that he held a public option hostage in exchange for some unrelated stuff in Nebraska (and the abortion thing), but I wasn't able to find anything saying he ever changed his mind on a public option?
When I get home from work I will find the name of the book for you. It's put together from a bunch of interviews with Congressional staffers and other folks involved in the the bill (fun read if you're a giant healthcare nerd like me). But basically Nelson had gotten on board with the public option opt-in concept (along with some other ridiculous concessions), but then the deal with him was scrapped because they still needed Lieberman to get to 60, which meant killing the public option completely.
|
On November 17 2017 09:09 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 09:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2017 08:29 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 08:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2017 08:20 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2017 08:03 Blazinghand wrote:On November 17 2017 08:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
xDaunt is right that the ACA is fucked. They tried to enshrine corporate insurance profits into law and build a healthcare system around that and it was never going to work in the long run. It's better than what we had, but it was never a real solution.
However, xDaunt should probably try to convince his Republican brethren (and Democrats should convince ACA deadenders) that they are wrong about socialized healthcare rather than hope people start dying enough to make the realization that way. It's not even just that. They made it so that healthy people can simply game the system. And there's still nothing to control the underlying problem of a totally FUBAR pricing system. There were a ton of people who pointed out that Obamacare was going to fail before it was even passed for these very reasons, and they were entirely correct. It's only a matter of time. Premiums are already spiraling out of control. The saddest part is that the Public Option got killed. If there was a Public Option, I think things would be different. But the 60th vote in the Senate, Lieberman, was adamantly against it, and there was no way around it. I think it's weird that Ben Nelson led the Democrat opposition to a public option and went on to be the CEO of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, but everyone still blames Lieberman. no, nelson was against abortion funding. Maybe he was, but he was definitely leading the Democrat opposition to a public option too. A handful of conservative Democrats, led by Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, made clear that if there was a public option, they would filibuster the final bill. And so it died. Source nelson eventually caved after some concessions. so did landrieu (she was my senator at the time). lieberman was the one that wouldn't budge, ultimately. On November 17 2017 08:29 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2017 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2017 08:23 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2017 08:20 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2017 08:03 Blazinghand wrote:On November 17 2017 08:01 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
It's not even just that. They made it so that healthy people can simply game the system. And there's still nothing to control the underlying problem of a totally FUBAR pricing system. There were a ton of people who pointed out that Obamacare was going to fail before it was even passed for these very reasons, and they were entirely correct. It's only a matter of time. Premiums are already spiraling out of control. The saddest part is that the Public Option got killed. If there was a Public Option, I think things would be different. But the 60th vote in the Senate, Lieberman, was adamantly against it, and there was no way around it. I think it's weird that Ben Nelson led the Democrat opposition to a public option and went on to be the CEO of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, but everyone still blames Lieberman. no, nelson was against abortion funding. And Lieberman said he would block any vote that allowed for a public option out loud to anyone who would listen. That many was not shy about saying "fuck you" to people who wanted it. He was just 1 of several people that made that threat though, and he wasn't even a Democrat by then. Yeah, that was the fault of some very silly people in CT and some silly people in the democratic party that wanted him gone. And welcome to political parties, not everyone believes the same thing. It takes time and work to make huge changes like single payer. Just be happy if we get there in your life time. what's a little bonkers is that nelson was a democratic senator from nebraska. that was a long time ago. Do you have a source for Nelson changing his mind? I see that he held a public option hostage in exchange for some unrelated stuff in Nebraska (and the abortion thing), but I wasn't able to find anything saying he ever changed his mind on a public option? When I get home from work I will find the name of the book for you. It's put together from a bunch of interviews with Congressional staffers and other folks involved in the the bill (fun read if you're a giant healthcare nerd like me). But basically Nelson had gotten on board with the public option opt-in concept (along with some other ridiculous concessions), but then the deal with him was scrapped because they still needed Lieberman to get to 60, which meant killing the public option completely.
I'm going to respectfully disagree until there is evidence that he changed his mind on the public option. As I read the available reports, Democrats specifically removed the public option (and sweetened the deal for his state), before he got on board.
|
On November 17 2017 09:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:58 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2017 08:52 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2017 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:26 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 17 2017 08:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail. On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
What do you think a "death panel" is? A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes. Definitely not a myth, buddy. Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you? No. I just thinking letting the market have such a large role in allocation of healthcare, which is saying we think it's as reasonable for rich people to live longer than poor people as it is for rich people to own better cars, is morally abominable when there are non-market solutions. (I also pray we never give unlimited healthcare to everyone, because that's a horrible thing to do to humans) And you understand that even under "non-market solutions," care is still rationed -- meaning that lots of people will be denied care that they desire or even need to live -- right? It's far fewer people when the equation is 'can we pay $5 million for each year of treatment for 80 year olds that doesn't cure you but lets you live longer' than 'you get care if you have insurance'. 'Death panels' make the best possible judgement calls to save as many people as possible based on the money allocated. I agree that the 'you're fine with letting people die' isn't a viable argument against an insurance based model, because yes, I am also fine with certain small unfortunate subsets of the population not being covered when their treatment is extraordinarly expensive compared to the expected gain. Obviously I'd rather have the 84 year old get treatment that makes him or her live for another 2 years than that not be the case, but I'd also rather have those millions of dollars per person be used on curing a 25 year old. The thing is the idea that 'the market' can do a better job than a panel of experts at distributing these funds is a joke. I mean, I also have the impression that you're actually not that negative towards socialized health care, so all of this comes off as a silly dance. The one place where I disagree with you is that I don't think that this has to be an either/or proposition. If people want to spend exorbitant sums of money to extend their lifespans, I see no good reason to prohibit them from doing so. Literally nobody is arguing that the rich should be prohibited from buying medicine. You're arguing with yourself, and somehow still losing. Well, I wouldn't say literally nobody-I don't think anybody should be buying medicine in general (I don't think people should trade goods for lifespan in any form). I also accept that I'll never get that system in the U.S., though, and removing the individual mandate through a tax reform bill certainly won't get us any closer Let's say that people who can't walk get a government issued rationed wheelchair. You wouldn't forbid a rich man from buying one with a better battery and faster charge times in the name of equality, right? That's the issue at stake here.
That's how it works in 99% of places. If you've got money or higher quality insurance, which is still cheaper than the trash you get in the USA, you get faster/better access to medical resources. When I listen to Americans talk about socialized medicine, I get headaches because a good number of them act like they've got some form of stockholm syndrome.
The biggest thing with socialized medicine is that its ease of accessibility lets people get treatment well before they actually need excessive scarce resources. If you're sick or think you have a problem, you go straight to the general practitioner so you can get your issue resolved before it becomes a problem that actually burdens society as a whole.
|
|
|
|
|
On November 17 2017 08:43 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
would you guys say the economy in the north eastern USA is booming right now? no, or more precisely that's too large an area to accurately apply that descriptor to. There are some parts of it that are booming, and others that are doing not so well.
Let's narrow it down to New York state.
from Southern Ontario it feels like New York state is booming. i have 2 family members living in NY who say its booming.
how is New York state doing economically?
|
On November 17 2017 09:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:58 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2017 08:52 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2017 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:26 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 17 2017 08:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail. On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
What do you think a "death panel" is? A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes. Definitely not a myth, buddy. Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you? No. I just thinking letting the market have such a large role in allocation of healthcare, which is saying we think it's as reasonable for rich people to live longer than poor people as it is for rich people to own better cars, is morally abominable when there are non-market solutions. (I also pray we never give unlimited healthcare to everyone, because that's a horrible thing to do to humans) And you understand that even under "non-market solutions," care is still rationed -- meaning that lots of people will be denied care that they desire or even need to live -- right? It's far fewer people when the equation is 'can we pay $5 million for each year of treatment for 80 year olds that doesn't cure you but lets you live longer' than 'you get care if you have insurance'. 'Death panels' make the best possible judgement calls to save as many people as possible based on the money allocated. I agree that the 'you're fine with letting people die' isn't a viable argument against an insurance based model, because yes, I am also fine with certain small unfortunate subsets of the population not being covered when their treatment is extraordinarly expensive compared to the expected gain. Obviously I'd rather have the 84 year old get treatment that makes him or her live for another 2 years than that not be the case, but I'd also rather have those millions of dollars per person be used on curing a 25 year old. The thing is the idea that 'the market' can do a better job than a panel of experts at distributing these funds is a joke. I mean, I also have the impression that you're actually not that negative towards socialized health care, so all of this comes off as a silly dance. The one place where I disagree with you is that I don't think that this has to be an either/or proposition. If people want to spend exorbitant sums of money to extend their lifespans, I see no good reason to prohibit them from doing so. Literally nobody is arguing that the rich should be prohibited from buying medicine. You're arguing with yourself, and somehow still losing. Well, I wouldn't say literally nobody-I don't think anybody should be buying medicine in general (I don't think people should trade goods for lifespan in any form). I also accept that I'll never get that system in the U.S., though, and removing the individual mandate through a tax reform bill certainly won't get us any closer Let's say that people who can't walk get a government issued rationed wheelchair. You wouldn't forbid a rich man from buying one with a better battery and faster charge times in the name of equality, right? That's the issue at stake here.
I would, actually; I'd instead implement a lottery system that distributes these "better wheelchairs" through a non-market mechanism. I think the fuzzy line of deciding how much health is "good enough" for everything else to be okay to pay for is impractical (though you end up with an equally fuzzy line about what defines health, I suppose). *cough dental care cough*
But as I said I don't think that system is tenable most places worldwide and especially not the U.S., so I'd settle for people in power just admitting that allowing any market foothold will generate health inequality out loud.
|
luckily wheelchair technology has developed to the point where we feasibly can supply everybody in need with one. In this case the scarcity discussions obviously only exist to activate the primal part of people's brains that scares them away from cooperation
|
On November 17 2017 08:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2017 08:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2017 08:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:
The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail.
[quote]
A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes. Definitely not a myth, buddy. Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you? No. I just thinking letting the market have such a large role in allocation of healthcare, which is saying we think it's as reasonable for rich people to live longer than poor people as it is for rich people to own better cars, is morally abominable when there are non-market solutions. (I also pray we never give unlimited healthcare to everyone, because that's a horrible thing to do to humans) And you understand that even under "non-market solutions," care is still rationed -- meaning that lots of people will be denied care that they desire or even need to live -- right? I don't care about rationing as long as it's not based upon money in your bank account. It's not like food rationing is evil when there are limited food supplies. By having a market, you ration based upon wealth. That's what a market is. So are you opposed to having a system where a basic level of coverage is provided to everyone and then individuals have the right to buy additional coverage if they choose? The first public the second private is what some folks have been saying for a long time. But that also means everyone pays according to their ability. Right, I'm one of the people that has long advocated for this kind of solution. I think that the dumbest thing that republicans have done is refuse to create this kind of system on their own terms before democrats get around to doing it. If they do it right, they can create a system that appropriate limits the public baseline coverage thereby creating something that is fundamentally the type of free market system that they purport to want so badly. But like I have pointed out numerous times, republicans and conservatives are completely ass-backwards on healthcare. Still hoping to hear your other ideas on addressing wealth disparities that typical conservatives don't have besides socializing healthcare. Right now it seems like you accused other conservatives of not having something you also don't have. I've known you supported socialized healthcare for a while, I want to know what else you got. Healthcare is my major heresy. I'm also in favor of the estate tax. As for other big policy ideas, that gets a little tougher. What separates me from many conservatives is that I recognize gross wealth disparity as a problem that should be addressed. I haven't really decided what I would do about it yet, though.
Heretic 
I'll take someone that can identify and prosecute all the major problems with Obamacare, as well as appear sympathetic that its real purpose was to destroy the American insurance system, compared to the blind that move from bad to bad.
Big tent.
|
I believe this has been tried before in the past and was so flooded with lawsuits that it ultimately failed. I can only hope that happens again. This is incredibly bad.
|
On November 17 2017 10:20 crms wrote:I believe this has been tried before in the past and was so flooded with lawsuits that it ultimately failed. I can only hope that happens again. This is incredibly bad.
We can only pray. We already have Merdock trying buy CNN.
|
On November 17 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:35 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2017 08:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2017 08:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Definitely not a myth, buddy.
Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you? No. I just thinking letting the market have such a large role in allocation of healthcare, which is saying we think it's as reasonable for rich people to live longer than poor people as it is for rich people to own better cars, is morally abominable when there are non-market solutions. (I also pray we never give unlimited healthcare to everyone, because that's a horrible thing to do to humans) And you understand that even under "non-market solutions," care is still rationed -- meaning that lots of people will be denied care that they desire or even need to live -- right? I don't care about rationing as long as it's not based upon money in your bank account. It's not like food rationing is evil when there are limited food supplies. By having a market, you ration based upon wealth. That's what a market is. So are you opposed to having a system where a basic level of coverage is provided to everyone and then individuals have the right to buy additional coverage if they choose? The first public the second private is what some folks have been saying for a long time. But that also means everyone pays according to their ability. Right, I'm one of the people that has long advocated for this kind of solution. I think that the dumbest thing that republicans have done is refuse to create this kind of system on their own terms before democrats get around to doing it. If they do it right, they can create a system that appropriate limits the public baseline coverage thereby creating something that is fundamentally the type of free market system that they purport to want so badly. But like I have pointed out numerous times, republicans and conservatives are completely ass-backwards on healthcare. Still hoping to hear your other ideas on addressing wealth disparities that typical conservatives don't have besides socializing healthcare. Right now it seems like you accused other conservatives of not having something you also don't have. I've known you supported socialized healthcare for a while, I want to know what else you got. Healthcare is my major heresy. I'm also in favor of the estate tax. As for other big policy ideas, that gets a little tougher. What separates me from many conservatives is that I recognize gross wealth disparity as a problem that should be addressed. I haven't really decided what I would do about it yet, though. Heretic I'll take someone that can identify and prosecute all the major problems with Obamacare, as well as appear sympathetic that its real purpose was to destroy the American insurance system, compared to the blind that move from bad to bad. Big tent.
I lost the xDaunt quote but this is sort of to both of you anyway.
On November 14 2017 22:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 15:54 IgnE wrote:On November 14 2017 15:50 a_flayer wrote:On November 14 2017 14:23 Kyadytim wrote:On November 14 2017 13:41 mozoku wrote:On November 14 2017 11:38 Kyadytim wrote:On November 14 2017 10:42 Falling wrote:On November 14 2017 07:19 Kyadytim wrote:On November 14 2017 05:17 Falling wrote:On November 13 2017 18:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
What planet is this happening on? Right here, right now. It's called job specialization. I work at a particular job, but I can't be bothered to fix my own car, so I pay someone else to do so. I gain because I don't have time to learn to fix my car (not have I invested in all the tools needed), and so I benefit from his labour. I'm salaried, so my potential earnings is limited unless I hustle on the side. But if that mechanic does well and is able to hire a bunch of journeymen mechanics and/or apprentices and double the income that I make, hell if he makes ten times what I make, I still haven't lost anything. I still get my car fixed, freeing up my time to do something else. And he gets my money, plus a bunch of other customer's money. And the journeymen mechanics are gainfully employed and may well strike out on their own if they are sufficiently enterprising. There's no loss to me, if I get what I want for a reasonable price, and they got rich. I got what I wanted, and I can focus my labour elsewhere. It's all very nice looking at the relationship between two laborers, but how about the relationship between you and your employer? If your employer starts giving you 10 more hours of work a week with no compensation, that's fine because value is still being created? I'd call that your employer generating value at your expense. Well, I teach, so it's not so much that I'm given more hours, so much as I take on more hours. But the public will never want to pay sufficient money to compensate my out of class hours, even if I am (as I am currently) coaching two volleyball teams and am the athletic director on top of full time teaching. But teaching is weird in that it relies upon tax money, in full or in part, so it isn't exactly free market (even our private schools have 50% government funding for the students, though nothing for capital expenses). Salaried work is weird in general, as I suppose it is more open to abuse from an employer. On the other hand, if I didn't like working those extra hours without pay, I could find some other job that paid hourly. I certainly wouldn't have double coached (in the same season) any other sport other than volleyball. But I enjoy it, so I do it- no one else was going to. That was more of a generic "you." I believe technically I should have written "one and one's employer," but that just sounds strange. But yeah, my problem with capitalism isn't the relationship between workers, or between workers and government. It's the relationship between workers and capital, the latter of which is largely represented by large corporations these days. With all the overtime exemptions, salaried work is open to abuse from employers. Of course, hourly work can result in stuff like McDonald's budget advice for its employees that made the rounds a while back. http://www.nasdaq.com/article/mcdonalds-sample-budget-sheet-is-laughable-but-its-implications-are-not-cm261920Basically, the reality is that most people can't change jobs easily, and employers leverage this into things such as squeezing more work out of salaried employees or squeezing hourly wages down. When people are working at minimum wage, wealth is generated, and both the employees and employers get some of it, but the employees are getting so little that they can't actually live on it. My original comment is that capitalism is how the employers (the large corporations and the people who benefit the most from their behavior) morally justify the situation where a significant portion of Americans don't have the option of exchanging their labor for what it's really worth, much less the option of gaining some share of the value their labor creates when they're part of a larger organization. The alternative, that human labor is not actually worth enough for a human to live on, has implications that I'm pretty sure this thread has discussed already in the form of discussing UBI. If your labor is actually worth more than you're being paid for, you really shouldn't have much trouble switching employers or roles... managers hate losing hard-to-replace employees as much as employees hate managers treating them poorly--remember, in most workplace scenarios your manager has their manager is who is expecting them to deliver results. Pushing out underpaid employees means you're probably going to have to hire a properly paid one to replace him (i.e. is not in your manager's interest), and the new hire search plus ramp-up process makes it harder for the manager to meet their own goals. The places that consistently "mistreat" employees (rather than merely have poor managers) usually make up for it with higher pay, and that's true all along the salary scale. At the low end, Amazon works its warehouse employees notoriously hard, but they also pay better than the competition for similarly credentialed employees. My wife went to a very competitive business school for her MBA, and the same dynamic is true there too--even though the pay is much higher for employees in that pool. Investment banks and big name consulting firms pay the best, but make you work/travel for 70+ hours/wk. Corporate management positions generally pay less, but give better work/life balance. I'm simplifying things a bit, but the rule is generally true. You should generally know what you're getting yourself into when you're hired. In cases where a manager suddenly changes hours (or other) expectations without an accompanying pay bump, it's more likely to be a symptom of incompetent management (or unfortunate market conditions maybe) trying to save its ass than something fundamentally wrong with capitalism, and it's not like switching to a communist society fixes either of those problems. In China for example, the non-market sectors are often run by production targets set by the government. When the targets aren't being met, what do you think happens? Often, the managers grind their employees to work more hours. It's really not any different than what happens here. Management errors (e.g. unrealistic targets in this case but there's a million ways to be a poor manager) are more often than not going to get pushed down the hierarchy. It's just human nature unfortunately. At least a market system has a mechanism to punish bad managers (i.e. failure) instead subsidizing it until the government reforms or collapses (which takes much longer and is much less desirable for a government than it is for a private company). I guess I wasn't clear enough. I am stating that either all minimum wage employees are paid less per hour than their labor is actually worth, or the value of basic human labor has fallen below the cost of living. As for places that mistreat their employees, there's a sliding scale from how EA used to treat its software developers to how Google treats its software developers. For salaried positions, basically, if it's easier for the employer to replace the worker than it is for the worker to find a new job, the employer can in some fashion abuse the worker. Someone discussed this a while back (probably thousands of pages now), but in the pressure between what the employer wants and what the employee wants, what is at stake for companies over 100 employees is in no way comparable to what is at stake for the employee. Many companies can afford to have an employee quit and not replace them for six months. Most workers can't afford to spend six months out of work without unemployment insurance, which they usually don't get for quitting. This gives the employer a lot of advantages when it comes to failing to give an employee a raise or dumping some extra work on an employee and basically saying "suck it up, you can't afford to quit right now." This isn't even getting into companies like Uber, which are basically doing an end run around all sorts of employee protections by pushing all of the operating costs and risks on the workers. Income inequality is at Gilded Age levels. Last time this happened, workers literally ended up fighting a small scale war against employers to gain the rights that have since been slowly eroded as large corporations have lobbied for things like the overtime exemptions or found ways to avoid having to treat employees properly. Capitalism these days is used as a moral justification for the way in which worker rights have been eroded and worker pay has been ground down. The tl;dr here is that people are using the idea that unfettered capitalism and the results thereof is a good unto itself to provide moral standing for levels of inequality and the naturally following ill treatment of the lower class which people gave their lives fighting against a hundred and forty years ago. Given that capitalism has now led us to this point in our history for the second time in under 150 years, I'm arguing that capitalism as a concept is how the successful selfish convince the rest of society to accept exploitation. There is absolutely no point in talking to people like mozoku. They will always repeat the same nonsense in response to what you're saying. Market this, market that, etc. They refuse to acknowledge the imbalances and the reality that many people live in. I'd probably have a conversation in person with mozoku. It just takes too much effort in a forum context because he's basically uneducated. The biggest problem that I have with traditional stock conservatives and economic libertarians is their inability to articulate a solution for growing income inequality and uneven wealth distribution. When you push them, their answer is typically that these things aren't problems at all. Such a position is patently untenable due to the obvious social and political implications.
I guess my question to Danglars where are you on this?
@xDaunt I think we're going to need to help move Danglars somewhere along the line of "not a problem" toward embracing an estate tax, supporting socialized medicine, and perhaps some of these other ideas waiting to be fleshed out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
