Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 39 of 39
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Your theatrics aside. I'll repeat, you are paying for "other people's tylenol" now. Only, currently there are middle-men scraping off profits. Honestly, from what I can perceive of your political/economic philosophy, the only model that would fit is a fully private one in which the poor and uninsured are locked out of care. Is that a fair assumption?

    You keep bringing up the poor an uninsured and how they are not going to get fair treatment. Maybe the focus should be on the middle class and how we are heading towards other "3rd world nations" where there is no middle class. If the GOV keeps getting bigger you will see more of what you see today, the line between teh rich and poor becoming further defined by the elimination of the middle class.

    If you really want to help the poor (and legal citizens i might add) and uninsured, maybe there should be more ways to educate them on how not to get sick and start adding taxes on unhealthy food while subsidizing better and healthier food.

    Without changing the above another way is to allow people to actually have a choice (including the option to not choose) and let capitalism take its course. Or have gov limited on how much profit they can make (which defeats capitalism, but puts things back in their place) like 10% above manufacturing costs.

    But hey these are just opinions and mine is against big gov. And i also still believe that this country is a REPUBLIC not a democracy.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobdude View Post
    You keep bringing up the poor an uninsured and how they are not going to get fair treatment. Maybe the focus should be on the middle class and how we are heading towards other "3rd world nations" where there is no middle class. If the GOV keeps getting bigger you will see more of what you see today, the line between teh rich and poor becoming further defined by the elimination of the middle class.
    The problem is not "big government" but it is LACK of government. When regulations were enforced, there was more stability and a strong middle class. Now that, over the years, regulations have been lax-ed, we have seen the shrinking of the middle class. the rich have been getting richer out of the middle classes wallet.

    If you really want to help the poor (and legal citizens i might add) and uninsured, maybe there should be more ways to educate them on how not to get sick and start adding taxes on unhealthy food while subsidizing better and healthier food.
    You can't tell people "Don't get cancer!" And, sadly, fast food is the most cost effective option for lower income families, so now you want to tax it? Why are you putting all of the burden on the lower class?

    Without changing the above another way is to allow people to actually have a choice (including the option to not choose) and let capitalism take its course. Or have gov limited on how much profit they can make (which defeats capitalism, but puts things back in their place) like 10% above manufacturing costs.
    Capitalism did take it's course and that is why we are in the position we are in now. While I am not for a government takeover, we do need regulation to protect the lower and middle classes.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  3.    #23  
    Yea gotta agree with Kananator, strong gov't regulation actually strengthens and grows the Middle Class. The last couple of decades of deregulation have really strained the middle class resulting in an hour glass shaped economy.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    The problem is not "big government" but it is LACK of government. When regulations were enforced, there was more stability and a strong middle class. Now that, over the years, regulations have been lax-ed, we have seen the shrinking of the middle class. the rich have been getting richer out of the middle classes wallet.
    You mean like NAFTA?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    You can't tell people "Don't get cancer!" And, sadly, fast food is the most cost effective option for lower income families, so now you want to tax it? Why are you putting all of the burden on the lower class?
    I cook at home 5-7 night a week and am sorry to say its cheaper than going out. However I also have to eat late sometimes because of this. So cheaper, no more time consuming yes. And again its not just fast food

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Capitalism did take it's course and that is why we are in the position we are in now. While I am not for a government takeover, we do need regulation to protect the lower and middle classes.
    No, marketing took its course and that is why people think only a pill can fix their problems.


    Here is another example. We give our kids shots and overload their systems before they are even up and running and not to mention the fact that we BYPASSED the immune system almost all together. Yet we are told that if we do not we cannot put our kids in school or we will be charged with neglect. To me that does not sound like health care but more a vioation of human rights (again the decision to NOT have health care is still a right)
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Yea gotta agree with Kananator, strong gov't regulation actually strengthens and grows the Middle Class. The last couple of decades of deregulation have really strained the middle class resulting in an hour glass shaped economy.
    .... so your goal is a "one class" shaped economy.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Yea gotta agree with Kananator, strong gov't regulation actually strengthens and grows the Middle Class. The last couple of decades of deregulation have really strained the middle class resulting in an hour glass shaped economy.
    Would you be so kind as to provide some more info please?
  7.    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    .... so your goal is a "one class" shaped economy.
    No, however, a strong and consistent middle class is the backbone of a capitalist society.
  8.    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobdude View Post
    Would you be so kind as to provide some more info please?
    I'm afraid that would take me too long but I encourage you to research this on your own.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    I'm afraid that would take me too long but I encourage you to research this on your own.
    how about a link then? Something to support your claim.
  10.    #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobdude View Post
    how about a link then? Something to support your claim.
    Hardly a claim. Shall I link to a source which says the sky is blue?

    If you would like to educate yourself on the subject you can start here:
    Supercapitalism.
  11. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Yea gotta agree with Kananator, strong gov't regulation actually strengthens and grows the Middle Class. The last couple of decades of deregulation have really strained the middle class resulting in an hour glass shaped economy.
    The thing that drives me crazy is that deregulations have been followed by political tampering. There's no way in the world one can possibly construe what happened after the deregulation of the lending industry as the consequence of the "free market".
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobdude View Post
    You mean like NAFTA?
    No, I mean the "Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act." and legislation like it that has led to deregulation.

    I cook at home 5-7 night a week and am sorry to say its cheaper than going out. However I also have to eat late sometimes because of this. So cheaper, no more time consuming yes. And again its not just fast food
    And that works great for you, but sadly this is not the case for everyone. I have friends that are working 2 jobs to make ends meet and they do not have time for a proper meal.

    No, marketing took its course and that is why people think only a pill can fix their problems.
    What about the doctors who are prescribing the pills?

    Here is another example. We give our kids shots and overload their systems before they are even up and running and not to mention the fact that we BYPASSED the immune system almost all together. Yet we are told that if we do not we cannot put our kids in school or we will be charged with neglect. To me that does not sound like health care but more a vioation of human rights (again the decision to NOT have health care is still a right)
    So let me get this straight... You want to "teach" people how not to get sick AND you want abolish immunizations because they violate our human rights?!?!?!?! How do we "teach" our children not to get polio?
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  13. hocndoc's Avatar
    Posts
    71 Posts
    Global Posts
    76 Global Posts
    #33  
    Regulations are strangling medical practice and the other businesses I'm familiar with.

    Nearly 20 years ago, I started having to pay each year (CLIA) just to do urinalyses in my office. I couldn't afford to do blood counts any more, so they are sent out.

    10 years ago it was estimated that it would take over 2500 hours a year to keep up with Medicare changes. The AMA and Thommy Thompson's CMS tested the Medicare advice system and both found that, over half the time, following the advice of CMS and/or the carriers would result in errors punishable by fines and prison time.

    Look up NCQI and Patient-centered Medical Home pilots. Look into the thousands of dollars it costs to enter these "certification" programs.

    Google NPI and delayed payment and see what happened to docs last year with the new identification number was added to our reporting requirements. Some large companies had to upgrade their computers and most had to tweak their forms to adapt to the new number. When it went into effect, not even CMS knew the hassles that would result - or the delays in payment.


    The necessity to document and report the finest details of medical care to Medicare and then the insurance companies costs money. Now, payment is being tied to Electronic Medical Records that cost $40-$50,000 per doctor, even in a big group.

    At one time, Reno and Shalala tried to make it illegal for medicare eligible patients to seek care outside Medicare - it's still nearly impossible to find a doctor who will "opt out" of medicare for the two years required by Statute.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    The thing that drives me crazy is that deregulations have been followed by political tampering. There's no way in the world one can possibly construe what happened after the deregulation of the lending industry as the consequence of the "free market".
    Lenders were opened up to giving out loans to buyers whom they knew could not make the payments. How can you give a person a $2500 a month loan when they only make $3000 a month? The regulations put in place to make buyer qualify, and lenders make sure the buyers qualify, were stripped away, leaving a free for all for lenders.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  15. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Lenders were opened up to giving out loans to buyers whom they knew could not make the payments. How can you give a person a $2500 a month loan when they only make $3000 a month? The regulations put in place to make buyer qualify, and lenders make sure the buyers qualify, were stripped away, leaving a free for all for lenders.
    But instead of "how" ask "why" a lender would do that. Do you think banks want to be in the business of owning real estate?
  16.    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    But instead of "how" ask "why" a lender would do that. Do you think banks want to be in the business of owning real estate?
    No they don't. And again thanks to deregulation in the past decade, banks simply packaged the bad loans with good loans and sold them.
  17. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    No they don't. And again thanks to deregulation in the past decade, banks simply packaged the bad loans with good loans and sold them.
    Who was the major buyer of those bad loans and why did they buy them?
  18.    #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Who was the major buyer of those bad loans and why did they buy them?
    They were packaged with good loans. 20 good loans, one bad loan. Larger financial buy them from smaller ones.
  19. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    They were packaged with good loans. 20 good loans, one bad loan. Larger financial buy them from smaller ones.
    Fannie and Freddie backed over half of the US mortgage market, and over half of those were subprime. They did so because they were given directives by HUD and were provided tax incentives. This means banks always had some place to dump their bad loans and had no incentive to do anything but lend, lend, lend.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions