|
He isn't correct at all, nor were Lincoln and Wilson true progressives. While they (well, not lincoln) may have come into power during the progressive era, there are marked differences between their actions and the flow of the progressive cause otherwise. The majority of Wilson's pro-progressive content was imported from Taft's presidency.
I cannot think of what to say to this assertion, other than it's wrong. Taft was the conservative candidate of 1912, not the progressive. Wilson and Roosevelt split the progressive vote, which deserted Taft.
As for the draft itself, recall that Wilson never planned to enter the First World War. However both his early abstinence and his later messianic entry into that war were not contrary to the ideals of the progressive movement; indeed they were different evolutions of it.
|
|
|
On March 22 2010 05:16 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +He isn't correct at all, nor were Lincoln and Wilson true progressives. While they (well, not lincoln) may have come into power during the progressive era, there are marked differences between their actions and the flow of the progressive cause otherwise. The majority of Wilson's pro-progressive content was imported from Taft's presidency. I cannot think of what to say to this assertion, other than it's wrong. Taft was the conservative candidate of 1912, not the progressive. Wilson and Roosevelt split the progressive vote, which deserted Taft. As for the draft itself, recall that Wilson never planned to enter the First World War. However both his early abstinence and his later messianic entry into that war were not contrary to the ideals of the progressive movement; indeed they were different evolutions of it.
I cannot think of what to say of your rebuttal other than you have fallen into the egregious trap of believing that the progressive movement was split across party lines, or that a president's policies would be solely determined by how he got voted in. In Taft's case, relying on his voting constituency to frame his actions is so obviously inadmissible that I'd assume you're only making this argument to annoy me. Taft made enemies of everyone, including those who voted him in. That's his defining characteristic.
Regardless, in both cases you should know these assumptions to be false.
You admission regarding the draft is telling; If the philosophical roots of the progressive cause gave Wilson a reason to pause, then the draft itself must have been viewed as an abhorrently evil necessity, not a part of the progressive parcel. That policy produced the result is not an indication of it being a portion of the progressives' purpose, because the result came about despite the philosophical leanings of the movement, not because of them.
You talk about "rational options" but a lot of those are being ignored. Things like: removing taxes on all medical costs (rather than only corporate insurance), allowing more competition in the market (currently insurers cannot subscribe people out-of-state), reforming medical liability laws (currently medical lawsuits typically net huge damages, which most doctors cannot afford: as a result they have to carry malpractice insurance of their own which raises costs). These would all do a lot to alleviate pressure within the system, at which point if it still wasn't working people would be more amenable to government-based changes. Those aren't solutions. In fact they're highly detrimental in most cases (Selling coverage across state lines, for instance is an easy way to allow companies to cherry pick only the healthiest for their coverage pools, which increases premiums for all other insurance pools, which results in more people dropping coverage, which again results in increasing premiums. An Insurance death spiral in short.
The root of the problem is attaching the motive of profit to making and keeping people sick. Period. The result of that is a massive multi-billion dollar industry that gouges consumers at both the health provider and insurance levels.
The CDO's already looked at the options you've suggested and while they're helpful, they don't come even reasonably close to getting the US's expenditures on health care in line with the rest of the first world.
So no, those aren't a solution. They're a band-aid. I don't really give a shit if you're worried about the big bad federal government; its your loss. The difference is approximately 10% of your net worth being siphoned to private insurance moguls. Better in their rich, unaccountable hands than the elected government, obviously.
|
United States889 Posts
On March 22 2010 05:25 L wrote:
Better in their rich, unaccountable hands than the elected government, obviously.
Apparently accountability doesn't sway opinion enough tbh. Most of the representatives voting on this hunk of detritus are shitting on the wills of their districts. Better in the hands of those who have a strong incentive to get your business than a government that can take whatever of yours it wants at gunpoint.
You are correct that the problem is the profit motive, because the insurance industry must deny the service it is supposed to provide in order to profit. The incentive is for the insurance company not to provide the service. But insurance spending is hardly the whole story in terms of health care costs, and indeed isn't even the root of the high costs.
|
I cannot think of what to say of your rebuttal other than you have fallen into the egregious trap of believing that the progressive movement was split across party lines
Never indicated anything of the sort. In 1912 it was Wilson, not Taft, whose platform was the more "progressive."
or that a president's policies would be solely determined by how he got voted in.
Nor this, particularly in Wilson's case. Wilson's ideological conversion about the necessity of the war was merely the expansion of the progressive model on a worldwide scale, the first incarnation of "What's good for America is good for the world." It was the war to rid the world of militarism.
Whatever the imperfections of his beliefs, this line of thought had a historical moral precedent in the early church's position on Christian soldiers and later its just war theory. The logic Wilson's conversion was essentially this: that the necessary measures of war were relative evils which were preferable to more absolute ones.
|
On March 22 2010 05:41 Arrian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2010 05:25 L wrote:
Better in their rich, unaccountable hands than the elected government, obviously. Apparently accountability doesn't sway opinion enough tbh. Most of the representatives voting on this hunk of detritus are shitting on the wills of their districts. Better in the hands of those who have a strong incentive to get your business than a government that can take whatever of yours it wants at gunpoint. You are correct that the problem is the profit motive, because the insurance industry must deny the service it is supposed to provide in order to profit. The incentive is for the insurance company not to provide the service. But insurance spending is hardly the whole story in terms of health care costs, and indeed isn't even the root of the high costs.
Oh, but it is. Insurance administration and hospital administration comprise together approximately 40% of the total costs of your entire system of health care delivery. If you remove that factor, and that factor alone, your system's costs fall rapidly in line with pretty much the rest of the world. Additional savings could be had through the commonly enunciated republican tweaks, but the problem is right there in front of you.
Accountability doesn't mean you don't do things that are unpopular. It means you do things that are right. I don't think the current bill is the proper one, but the majority of people railing against it are doing so on very, very flawed grounds.
Never indicated anything of the sort. In 1912 it was Wilson, not Taft, whose platform was the more "progressive." While the platform was more "progressive" the main centerpieces that the progressive movement advocated were pushed forward by Taft, not Wilson. Wilson was a hanger-on. Taft, by contrast, had to scale back his promises because he had rocked his base so hard in the previous term that he had to swing back to rally his troops.
Thinking that election promises are worth more than the actual actions that the respective parties took is another no-no.
Nor this, particularly in Wilson's case. Wilson's ideological conversion about the necessity of the war was merely the expansion of the progressive model on a worldwide scale, the first incarnation of "What's good for America is good for the world." It was the war to rid the world of militarism.
Whatever the imperfections of his beliefs, this line of thought had a historical moral precedent in the early church's position on Christian soldiers and later its just war theory. The logic Wilson's conversion was essentially this: that the necessary measures of war were relative evils which were preferable to more absolute ones.
That's completely contradictory to your earlier statement that Wilson balked at joining the war at first. If Wilson had a philosophically grounded reason for intense interventionism, his reluctance would not have existed in the slightest. It is the messianic, as you put it, nature of the intervention that prompts a link to the progressive movement, not the intervention itself.
The draft, as an accessory, was necessary, but not a focal aim of the progressive movement, much like the intervention was an accessory, but not an aim of the progressive movement. To attempt to state that the draft was progressive in nature is false; progressives would rally against the cause of the draft, but not for the draft itself.
|
On March 22 2010 05:41 Arrian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2010 05:25 L wrote:
Better in their rich, unaccountable hands than the elected government, obviously. Apparently accountability doesn't sway opinion enough tbh. Most of the representatives voting on this hunk of detritus are shitting on the wills of their districts. Better in the hands of those who have a strong incentive to get your business than a government that can take whatever of yours it wants at gunpoint...
I think that the reality is that accountability has shifted primarily to the party. Most representatives (and all senators) are now "representing" a group of people that can best be summed up by statistics. 61% like pink historically? Great, vote yes for anything involving pink, even a 10% dip gets me re-elected. Over large groups, a couple things are true: first, if forced into a huge group, people tend to gravitate towards a few important symbols (in this case party affiliation). Given that, statistically the chances that a significant percentage of people will shift historical voting patterns (humans being creatures of habit, alarmingly so), even based on an vote creating as much hard feeling like this, in seven months, has to seem fairly small.
Of course, as big as the US is, trying to reasonably represent people on the federal level gets stuck between the rock of having way too many representatives total and the hard place of too many people per representative, and the compromise sort of isn't that great either.
Re: profit motive: I'd be curious to see - this is a thought experiment, I don't think it's remotely practical to carry it out - if insurance companies were banned for paying for regular treatments (i.e. physical exams, mandated vaccinations, standard preventive checks) and restricted to actually insuring against accidents and major ailments like heart attacks or cancer. In otherwords, significantly limit the amount of stuff the insurance companies can try to make money off of. Most people will not be willing to pay some hundreds of dollars a month on the off-chance they might contract HIV, I don't think; insurance premiums would have to come down. Most doctors would have to lower standard visit costs if people knew what they're paying (in some cases, payments covered by insurance are not, by contracted, allowed to have their cost relayed to the patient at the time). So I think it might help, but I don't see how to get it passed.
To me it seems like because the insurance companies now pay for almost everything, we're basically paying someone to pay for our medical bills, thus paying both the insurer and the doctor rather than just the doctor. This is why I distrust "health care reform" that's still trying to maintain the modern US insurance system that pays for everything: instead of paying doctor+insurance salesman, we're just paying doctor+government worker (and government workers tend to make more money, in the US, than private sector equivalents) - costs seem like they'd probably go up.
|
On March 03 2010 14:20 citi.zen wrote:
The point is that making the US "more like Canada" has plenty of trade-offs. A lot of people like to pretend this is not the case.
Well if the prime minister is representative of the average Canadian, then that means that Canada's health care system is so good that their people can afford to come to US for treatment, something that many Americans can't afford to do.
|
On March 22 2010 06:03 Musoeun wrote:
Re: profit motive: I'd be curious to see - this is a thought experiment, I don't think it's remotely practical to carry it out - if insurance companies were banned for paying for regular treatments (i.e. physical exams, mandated vaccinations, standard preventive checks) and restricted to actually insuring against accidents and major ailments like heart attacks or cancer. In otherwords, significantly limit the amount of stuff the insurance companies can try to make money off of. Most people will not be willing to pay some hundreds of dollars a month on the off-chance they might contract HIV, I don't think; insurance premiums would have to come down. Most doctors would have to lower standard visit costs if people knew what they're paying (in some cases, payments covered by insurance are not, by contracted, allowed to have their cost relayed to the patient at the time). So I think it might help, but I don't see how to get it passed.
What happens is that insurance companies end up having to pay out more in the long run when easily (and cheaply) treated problems turn into life threatening and expensive problems, because they were never diagnosed until they were life threatening.
Insurance companies do not pay for routine checkups because that's a good way to make money, or even because consumers demand that vs better catastrophic health insurance. Insurance companies pay for routine checkups because it's SO much cheaper to get a patient prescribed a proton pump blocker like prevacid than to pay for ulcer surgery later, or to get a blood thinner prescribed vs pay for an emergency room visit, bypass surgery, and rehabilitation later on. Plus, all that medical data helps the insurance industry evaluate the actual health risks you face, and to terminate expensive policies or raise rates, vs charging a flat rate that would be too high for the average consumer but highly attractive to those who know they are sick, but have no been diagnosed.
Going to see your doctor out of pocket is actually a trivial cost compared to the costs of not getting that checkup, but if insurance companies only pay for the drastic procedures then they create an incentive for people with insurance to NOT get the routine checkups, and only go see a doctor once things have gone horribly wrong. In other words, it saves the insurance company a dime now and costs them a dollar later, both for the insurance company and the consumer.
|
Republican response happening right now.
|
On March 21 2010 19:56 Perseverance wrote:
I work for the Government and my healthcare is already free, I really wish that this wouldn't go through.
Do you have a government job that pays more than $200k a year? If not, then this isn't going to cost you anything anyway. If we took away your "free" health care (that is paid for by your fellow citizens) would you be in favor? Because why am I being taxed to pay for your health care? It's so easy to afford, so why don't we let you pay for it yourself? Understand where this is going?
I had a decent job that had a decent health plan for which I paid about $100 dollars a month, and the company paid probably 3-4 times that. Then the economy went to crap and I lost my job. I didn't forget how to manage my finances, but suddenly the cost for me to secure health coverage increased tenfold, because I am no longer part of a group plan and I don't a have wage in which the cost of my health care is hidden. I can't afford health care on a part time job while I go back to school and wait for the economy to rebound or an opportunity to arise. If I get sick, your prescription for me is "Suffer and die" because your single mom had a great health plan through her unionized telephone company position?
I am currently living below the poverty line, but I've got a 4 year degree and a 170 IQ. I am a military veteran with an exemplary service record. I can kick ass and be productive doing virtually anything with the right opportunity. Am I not worthy of being able to live because I made the foolish mistake of existing in a country that is and has been run by kleptocrats? Why is it that the real per capita GDP of the USA has grown steadily for the past 30 years but the real wage has stayed the same? Am I a bad person for wondering why wealthy people need to become even more wealthy while the middle class is eradicated? Why should I feel bad if wealthy people have to pay an extra 1% of their income so that all people can have health care, especially since that still puts them well below the tax burden they had under Clinton? Rich people weren't getting richer during the 90s or something?
|
OT: But Bachmann is one crazy lady.
Also Rep. Paul Kanjorski is now a "Yes" vote, Rep. Stephen Lynch still a "No".
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 22 2010 07:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
OT: But Bachmann is one crazy lady.
Also Rep. Paul Kanjorski is now a "Yes" vote, Rep. Stephen Lynch still a "No".
Bachmann is about to be an unemployed lady, thanks to the census and crazy people like Rothbardian.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On March 22 2010 07:26 Wintermute wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2010 19:56 Perseverance wrote:
I work for the Government and my healthcare is already free, I really wish that this wouldn't go through.
Do you have a government job that pays more than $200k a year? If not, then this isn't going to cost you anything anyway. If we took away your "free" health care (that is paid for by your fellow citizens) would you be in favor? Because why am I being taxed to pay for your health care? It's so easy to afford, so why don't we let you pay for it yourself? Understand where this is going? I had a decent job that had a decent health plan for which I paid about $100 dollars a month, and the company paid probably 3-4 times that. Then the economy went to crap and I lost my job. I didn't forget how to manage my finances, but suddenly the cost for me to secure health coverage increased tenfold, because I am no longer part of a group plan and I don't a have wage in which the cost of my health care is hidden. I can't afford health care on a part time job while I go back to school and wait for the economy to rebound or an opportunity to arise. If I get sick, your prescription for me is "Suffer and die" because your single mom had a great health plan through her unionized telephone company position? I am currently living below the poverty line, but I've got a 4 year degree and a 170 IQ. I am a military veteran with an exemplary service record. I can kick ass and be productive doing virtually anything with the right opportunity. Am I not worthy of being able to live because I made the foolish mistake of existing in a country that is and has been run by kleptocrats? Why is it that the real per capita GDP of the USA has grown steadily for the past 30 years but the real wage has stayed the same? Am I a bad person for wondering why wealthy people need to become even more wealthy while the middle class is eradicated? Why should I feel bad if wealthy people have to pay an extra 1% of their income so that all people can have health care, especially since that still puts them well below the tax burden they had under Clinton? Rich people weren't getting richer during the 90s or something?
What is this? Crying that the world is unfair? A post begging for sympathy? Justification for offloading some of your costs onto other individuals?
Anyway you look at it, you're buying into the "vote yourself money" mentality and no different from the kleptocrats that run the system. In fact, the kleptocrats thrive on that kind of mentality because they can throw bread crumbs to the masses and take the most of the pie.
If you want real compassion, if you want real morality, find it amongst your closest neighbors and friends. Politics isn't about "fairness" or "compassion" even if those ideas get invoked all the time. It's about dividing the spoils of war.
|
Wintermute> If you have a 170 IQ you surely realize that, regardless of who pays and how, a hospital cannot refuse you care in the US, so you can't claim that you are "not worthy of being able to live." In addition, your exemplary service record should certainly allow you benefits through the VA, should it not?
|
|
|
United States43188 Posts
On March 22 2010 08:36 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2010 07:26 Wintermute wrote:On March 21 2010 19:56 Perseverance wrote:
I work for the Government and my healthcare is already free, I really wish that this wouldn't go through.
Do you have a government job that pays more than $200k a year? If not, then this isn't going to cost you anything anyway. If we took away your "free" health care (that is paid for by your fellow citizens) would you be in favor? Because why am I being taxed to pay for your health care? It's so easy to afford, so why don't we let you pay for it yourself? Understand where this is going? I had a decent job that had a decent health plan for which I paid about $100 dollars a month, and the company paid probably 3-4 times that. Then the economy went to crap and I lost my job. I didn't forget how to manage my finances, but suddenly the cost for me to secure health coverage increased tenfold, because I am no longer part of a group plan and I don't a have wage in which the cost of my health care is hidden. I can't afford health care on a part time job while I go back to school and wait for the economy to rebound or an opportunity to arise. If I get sick, your prescription for me is "Suffer and die" because your single mom had a great health plan through her unionized telephone company position? I am currently living below the poverty line, but I've got a 4 year degree and a 170 IQ. I am a military veteran with an exemplary service record. I can kick ass and be productive doing virtually anything with the right opportunity. Am I not worthy of being able to live because I made the foolish mistake of existing in a country that is and has been run by kleptocrats? Why is it that the real per capita GDP of the USA has grown steadily for the past 30 years but the real wage has stayed the same? Am I a bad person for wondering why wealthy people need to become even more wealthy while the middle class is eradicated? Why should I feel bad if wealthy people have to pay an extra 1% of their income so that all people can have health care, especially since that still puts them well below the tax burden they had under Clinton? Rich people weren't getting richer during the 90s or something? What is this? Crying that the world is unfair? A post begging for sympathy? Justification for offloading some of your costs onto other individuals? Anyway you look at it, you're buying into the "vote yourself money" mentality and no different from the kleptocrats that run the system. In fact, the kleptocrats thrive on that kind of mentality because they can throw bread crumbs to the masses and take the most of the pie. If you want real compassion, if you want real morality, find it amongst your closest neighbors and friends. Politics isn't about "fairness" or "compassion" even if those ideas get invoked all the time. It's about dividing the spoils of war.
Do you realise a guy earning 100k a year doesn't work 5 times as hard as a guy earning 20k a year? Even if you add in the unpaid work educating themselves it's still nowhere near fair.
It's an inherently unfair system and the only thing keeping it from breaking down is limited socialism. You're right, it is just less well off people voting themselves more. However that doesn't mean they don't deserve more, poverty traps are real as are rich dynasties.
The way I see it the disadvantages of paying the higher rate of tax are nowhere near the advantages of existing within an inherently unfair system. When you insist the poor deserve their plight then you leave them no choice but to take what they feel they are owed by force. When you give them a little money and a lot of hope then they remain subdued.
Marx wasn't wrong about industrial society inevitably leading to revolution, it failed to come to pass because vested interests realised that they needed to adapt an openly unfair and undemocratic society. Socialism only seems unfair if you buy into the idea that it is entirely natural that a person may work all the life in wage slavery due to an accident of birth while another, by a different accident of birth, may be granted education, contacts, capital and a legacy. The moment you shed the idea that capitalism is natural then you'd be amazed how little it is the rich pay for the preservation of the system.
That said, I am a capitalist because it is the system that is most efficient and less, more evenly distributed, would still be less. I am just continually surprised that the beneficiaries of the system have the nerve to refuse to pay for its upkeep, instead claiming with near religious fervour that it is simply the way it must be.
|
On March 22 2010 08:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2010 08:36 TanGeng wrote:On March 22 2010 07:26 Wintermute wrote:On March 21 2010 19:56 Perseverance wrote:
I work for the Government and my healthcare is already free, I really wish that this wouldn't go through.
Do you have a government job that pays more than $200k a year? If not, then this isn't going to cost you anything anyway. If we took away your "free" health care (that is paid for by your fellow citizens) would you be in favor? Because why am I being taxed to pay for your health care? It's so easy to afford, so why don't we let you pay for it yourself? Understand where this is going? I had a decent job that had a decent health plan for which I paid about $100 dollars a month, and the company paid probably 3-4 times that. Then the economy went to crap and I lost my job. I didn't forget how to manage my finances, but suddenly the cost for me to secure health coverage increased tenfold, because I am no longer part of a group plan and I don't a have wage in which the cost of my health care is hidden. I can't afford health care on a part time job while I go back to school and wait for the economy to rebound or an opportunity to arise. If I get sick, your prescription for me is "Suffer and die" because your single mom had a great health plan through her unionized telephone company position? I am currently living below the poverty line, but I've got a 4 year degree and a 170 IQ. I am a military veteran with an exemplary service record. I can kick ass and be productive doing virtually anything with the right opportunity. Am I not worthy of being able to live because I made the foolish mistake of existing in a country that is and has been run by kleptocrats? Why is it that the real per capita GDP of the USA has grown steadily for the past 30 years but the real wage has stayed the same? Am I a bad person for wondering why wealthy people need to become even more wealthy while the middle class is eradicated? Why should I feel bad if wealthy people have to pay an extra 1% of their income so that all people can have health care, especially since that still puts them well below the tax burden they had under Clinton? Rich people weren't getting richer during the 90s or something? What is this? Crying that the world is unfair? A post begging for sympathy? Justification for offloading some of your costs onto other individuals? Anyway you look at it, you're buying into the "vote yourself money" mentality and no different from the kleptocrats that run the system. In fact, the kleptocrats thrive on that kind of mentality because they can throw bread crumbs to the masses and take the most of the pie. If you want real compassion, if you want real morality, find it amongst your closest neighbors and friends. Politics isn't about "fairness" or "compassion" even if those ideas get invoked all the time. It's about dividing the spoils of war. Do you realise a guy earning 100k a year doesn't work 5 times as hard as a guy earning 20k a year? Even if you add in the unpaid work educating themselves it's still nowhere near fair. It's an inherently unfair system and the only thing keeping it from breaking down is limited socialism. You're right, it is just less well off people voting themselves more. However that doesn't mean they don't deserve more, poverty traps are real as are rich dynasties. The way I see it the disadvantages of paying the higher rate of tax are nowhere near the advantages of existing within an inherently unfair system. When you insist the poor deserve their plight then you leave them no choice but to take what they feel they are owed by force. When you give them a little money and a lot of hope then they remain subdued. Marx wasn't wrong about industrial society inevitably leading to revolution, it failed to come to pass because vested interests realised that they needed to adapt an openly unfair and undemocratic society. Socialism only seems unfair if you buy into the idea that it is entirely natural that a person may work all the life in wage slavery due to an accident of birth while another, by a different accident of birth, may be granted education, contacts, capital and a legacy. The moment you shed the idea that capitalism is natural then you'd be amazed how little it is the rich pay for the preservation of the system. That said, I am a capitalist because it is the system that is most efficient and less, more evenly distributed, would still be less. I am just continually surprised that the beneficiaries of the system have the nerve to refuse to pay for its upkeep, instead claiming with near religious fervour that it is simply the way it must be.
agree completely
|
it's really captivating viewing, very interesting (and sometimes quite heated) debate and discussion. :D
|
On March 22 2010 09:03 LuckyFool wrote: it's really captivating viewing, very interesting (and sometimes quite heated) debate and discussion. :D
Its captivating to see two sides speaking at each other and repeating talking points at verbatim?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
