EPTHealth Care Bill passed the House - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
On November 11 2009 16:11 TanGeng wrote: Out of these "necessities," I can't see an argument for providing education or health care. This is my favorite one. Whenever someone says that the government shouldn't be providing education, I know I can pretty much just discount anything I hear them say. Either you haven't thought on the subject very much, or you're racist, classist, or devoid of all empathy and human emotion. Removing education from the public sphere is effectively going back in time to a much unhappier place. There is no other explanation for wanting such a thing than the belief in some kind of sickening social darwinism. On November 11 2009 16:21 koreasilver wrote: lol obviously you have no idea what neoliberalism is. Yeah, the term really isn't in use in most circles in America, because the government doesn't really like talking to it's people about foreign affairs. They're supposed to be all secretive and beyond the scope of us poor sheep. We're told something is 'protecting America's interests abroad' and the questions end there. It's not like we do things like set up right-wing dictatorships in other countries in place of left-leaning democracies or anything. Oh wait. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
Complete asinine dipshits that have no qualms in destroying an "other" for their own benefit. | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 11 2009 16:37 QibingZero wrote: This is my favorite one. Whenever someone says that the government shouldn't be providing education, I know I can pretty much just discount anything I hear them say. Either you haven't thought on the subject very much, or you're racist, classist, or devoid of all empathy and human emotion. Removing education from the public sphere is effectively going back in time to a much unhappier place. There is no other explanation for wanting such a thing than the belief in some kind of sickening social darwinism. Besides just asserting that, you resort to ad hominems? I'm a racist? You haven't looked at public education much have you? If anything is racist and perpetuating poverty, it's public education system. That said the public system of Europe is far superior to the public system of US. In Europe the schools compete with each other for students, while in the US, the public system are geographical monopolies dominated by teacher's unions. On November 11 2009 16:37 koreasilver wrote: Neoliberalism isn't just an American thing, but it started off in America and I see a looooooooot of conservative Americans using neoliberal stances nowadays. There's enough historical evidence from all the junta counter revolutionists in South America, Poland, post-apartheid South Africa, and several other places that have shown how must of a hilariously bad idea the whole thing is. My attack against neoliberalism in this thread is not tengential when you people are saying that a welfare state is completely unnecessary and going on about how nearly everything should be privatized. That's neoliberalism what are you on about. You are talking about the political neoliberalism. Ok. He was my answer. On November 11 2009 16:31 TanGeng wrote: You might mean neo-liberalism (political school of thought) but that's government regulation towards "free-market policies" usually involving regulations that benefit large business and thereby creating the anti-thesis of the free market. Perhaps you are taking about "privatization" where government doesn't give up control of the market. Instead it bestows its monopoly on some private company. But yeah neo-liberalism is probably BS. It's macroeconomics, and that's mostly BS. | ||
|
vx70GTOJudgexv
United States3161 Posts
I choose not to have health insurance on my own accord. I have a fairly strong immune system at this point in my life, any injuries I sustain are small ones (rolled ankles, sprained wrist) that I can self-care for. I see no point in having health insurance, due to the combination of price and myself finding it unnecessary, at this time in my life, and I probably won't until I have a family of my own (which I have no clue if and when that will happen). Yet the government is deciding that I need to not only help pay for someone else's insurance who can not afford it, but also that I am going to be penalized for making my own decisions about my life. There goes one of my freedoms. And for that reason alone, I hope that this does not pass in the Senate. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
And neoliberal economics has a stronger symbiotic relationship with American neoconservatist politics more than any other American political school of thought. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 11 2009 16:54 vx70GTOJudgexv wrote: Yet the government is deciding that I need to not only help pay for someone else's insurance who can not afford it, but also that I am going to be penalized for making my own decisions about my life. There goes one of my freedoms. And for that reason alone, I hope that this does not pass in the Senate. Not only will you be paying more other people's mistakes, more people will make mistakes that you'll have to pay for. Hell, maybe you'll even decide that it's not worth it be impeccable about maintaining your health. Moral hazard is a bitch. (microeconomics 101: socialism creates moral hazard) | ||
|
vx70GTOJudgexv
United States3161 Posts
On November 11 2009 16:57 TanGeng wrote: Not only will you be paying more other people's mistakes, more people will make mistakes that you'll have to pay for. Hell, maybe you'll even decide that it's not worth it be impeccable about maintaining your health. Moral hazard is a bitch. (microeconomics 101: socialism creates moral hazard) I don't understand the first part of your post... :/ | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 11 2009 16:56 koreasilver wrote: I'm not sure if you're just joking about but there's no way of you going around the fact that you're a neoliberal in all ways when you're advocating the privatization of education and healthcare for god's sake. Besides, neoliberal economics has always had deep roots in politics. Neoliberal economics and your definiton of "neoliberal politics" with the whole movement towards the free-market IS neoliberal economics what are you going on about. I'm not sure how you can't get it into your head that the neo-liberalism political machine has not move the world towards a free-market, but it seems to not get in there. Here the differences in bold. You ready? On November 11 2009 16:31 TanGeng wrote: You might mean neo-liberalism (political school of thought) but that's government regulation towards "free-market policies" usually involving regulations that benefit large business and thereby creating the anti-thesis of the free market. Perhaps you are taking about "privatization" where government doesn't give up control of the market. Instead it bestows its monopoly on some private company. But yeah neo-liberalism (economics) is probably BS. It's macroeconomics, and that's mostly BS. Allow me to clarify that even more. My political stance is of fragmentation. If the US broke into 50 states, that would be wonderful. If the US broken into 5000 separate states, that would be heavenly. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 11 2009 16:59 vx70GTOJudgexv wrote: I don't understand the first part of your post... :/ Since everyone is covered no matter what, people have less incentive to be careful about their own health. Invariably that means more people behaving irresponsibly and more mistakes that everyone has to pay for. Does that make sense now. That's moral hazard. edit: spelling | ||
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On an unrelated note, I'm reading through the actual bill right now. Feel free to ask me questions about it, like what your tax will be if you/your employer chooses not to purchase health insurance. | ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
On November 11 2009 17:00 koreasilver wrote: rofl I know, right? There's really no other apt response. "Libertarians say the darndest things" | ||
|
gchan
United States654 Posts
On November 11 2009 16:54 vx70GTOJudgexv wrote: Honestly, I was fairly indifferent about the bill for a while. I realize the American health-care is fucked up. I don't like this particular solution, but so be it. But the thing that irks me about this is that I'm going to be penalized for my own choices. I choose not to have health insurance on my own accord. I have a fairly strong immune system at this point in my life, any injuries I sustain are small ones (rolled ankles, sprained wrist) that I can self-care for. I see no point in having health insurance, due to the combination of price and myself finding it unnecessary, at this time in my life, and I probably won't until I have a family of my own (which I have no clue if and when that will happen). Yet the government is deciding that I need to not only help pay for someone else's insurance who can not afford it, but also that I am going to be penalized for making my own decisions about my life. There goes one of my freedoms. And for that reason alone, I hope that this does not pass in the Senate. I'd advise you to get health insurance. Even if you are healthy, accidents happen and in those situations, it'd be smart to have insurance. Insurance plans that are basically catastrophe plans (high deductible) usually aren't that expensive. In addition, having continual insurance throughout your life will insure that medical insurance companies won't reject your coverage for "pre-existing conditions." If you pick up insurance some time in your mid life, without any evidence of having insurance before, the insurance companies could always pull the pre-existing condition card and completely screw you over when you need it most. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On November 11 2009 17:02 TanGeng wrote: I'm not sure how you can't get it into your head that the neo-liberalism political machine has not move the world towards a free-market, but it seems to not get in there. Here the differences in bold. You ready? For god's sake, your division of neoliberal "economics" and neoliberal "politics" as a whole is completely flawed because neoliberalist economics has always had a hand in politics. They are inseparable. I have also never said that I personally believe that neoliberalism leads to freedom in the market at all because there have been more than enough historical examples to show they they destroy economic freedom. I merely said that because that's what neoliberals believe that they are doing. It's just funny that you, as a neoliberal, are saying that neoliberalism is bullshit. That's just absurd; I must have stepped into a circus. On November 11 2009 17:05 TanGeng wrote: Since everyone is covered no matter what, people have less incentive to be careful about their own health. Invariable that means more people behaving irresponsibly and more mistakes that everyone has to pay for. Does that make sense now. That's moral hazard. Pray tell, then why do so many countries with public health care have a higher standard of life and higher average lifespans compared to America? | ||
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
If you pick up insurance some time in your mid life, without any evidence of having insurance before, the insurance companies could always pull the pre-existing condition card and completely screw you over when you need it most. Not after this bill passes! :D | ||
|
GreenManalishi
Canada834 Posts
On November 11 2009 16:57 TanGeng wrote: Moral hazard is a bitch. (microeconomics 101: socialism creates moral hazard) I don't know where you took micro 101, but clearly it was some sort of online degree program because that is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. First of all, micro 101 is about individual preferences and PPE curves, aggregate preferences, and basic S-D curves, not this bullshit political science crap you are spouting off. Economics is not political science. There is no such thing as Socialism in economics, just as how there is no such thing as neo-liberalism. Almost everything you have said in regards to economics has been completely wrong. | ||
Liquid`Daaman
Sweden1225 Posts
The rich, otherwise, drive a politic that make them even richer, they're in total control. The low-income takers should get a higher income to begin with to lower the income-gaps. I wouldn't want to live in a society where some of its people can't afford basic needs such as education/healthcare/decent living etc.. Take some damn responsibility for your citizens please! | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On November 11 2009 17:11 koreasilver wrote: Pray tell, then why do so many countries with public health care have a higher standard of life and higher average lifespans compared to America? Through some combination of factors that we couldn't possibly fathom? I hate seeing this argument. There are so many other relevant differences between how society in other countries with socialized medicine functions and the United States that there's no way you can draw that correlation. | ||
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On November 11 2009 17:15 GreenManalishi wrote: I don't know where you took micro 101, but clearly it was some sort of online degree program because that is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. First of all, micro 101 is about individual preferences and PPE curves, aggregate preferences, and basic S-D curves, not this bullshit political science crap you are spouting off. Economics is not political science. There is no such thing as Socialism in economics, just as how there is no such thing as neo-liberalism. Almost everything you have said in regards to economics has been completely wrong. actually I'm an econ major and we just finished up a section on health care in my public policy class which covered moral hazard pretty extensively. So... maybe they teach Economics differently in Canada? | ||
| ||
