Sanders: Universal Healthcare and Free College Aren’t Radical Ideas, They Are ‘Human Rights’

[dblack]

Just out of curiosity...

Are any of the countries that are supposedly kicking our asses in the field of education denying college to their poorest children - children who would otherwise benefit from higher education?

Don't care.

Then shut up.

You asked. You shut up. :0)

 

[dblack]

If a basic education should be available to all American kids, regardless of their ability to pay,

why would you disagree with Bernie?

It's the 21st century. College is a basic education.

Amen to that. Or at least a higher skill set for the trades.

Have you ever heard business owners whine about not being able to find qualified employees. Well here is their answer.

Do you think it's a proper function of government to provide business owners with their needs? Is this the same sort of rationale that has Congress providing the insurance industry with mandated customers?

How 'bout you, NY? Is it the job of government to suck up to business and provide for their needs?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Just out of curiosity...

Are any of the countries that are supposedly kicking our asses in the field of education denying college to their poorest children - children who would otherwise benefit from higher education?

Probably not, but neither are we. Nobody is denying anybody of any kind of education in this country.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If a basic education should be available to all American kids, regardless of their ability to pay,

why would you disagree with Bernie?

It's the 21st century. College is a basic education.

College is not basic education, it's advanced education. Advanced education trains you for a job and career. That's not basic.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

 

[Andylusion]

Maybe but labor is supply and demand. Right now we do have more supply than demand so jobs are not paying all that well. I don't know if we will ever see a day when labor is in short supply given the fact we have an administration letting people cross the border like bees going to the honey.

Here is a dated piece by economist Walter E Williams. I just want to paste some of his research on the subject

There are many factors pushing down labour supply :
1) Immigration
2) Job Offshoring
3) Automation

Eventually manufacturing jobs will experience the same process that happened to agricultural jobs.
Agricultural jobs could even disapear completely.
As automation continues even service jobs are being destroyed. How many accountants were needed 50 years ago to run a corporation ? Today I've seen multi billion corporations handled by ten accountants.

Banning immigration and job offshoring is only a short term solution, in the long run we will have to deal with a world where demand for labour is continually decreasing.

True , a similar situation happened 200 years ago , but 200 years ago there were no robots or computers or drones or the internet . This is a completely different creature .

Machines have been replacing humans for a long time now.

The candle maker was replaced by electricity.
The ice man was replaced by refrigerators.
The phone operators were replaced by computers.
The coal man was replaced by the natural gas furnace.
The ditch digger was replaced by the backhoe.
The horse shoe maker was replaced by the automobile.

Speaking of service jobs, some McDonald's restaurants are experimenting with a nearly all automated restaurant. You push the buttons for what you want, and the machines cook and prepare your food for you.

True enough , but the pace seems to be accelerating.

Duh.... yeah dude, it's accelerating.

Why is that a shock?

Robots and automation costs tons of money. I assume you know this.

So, when determining if a business should switch over from human labor, to robotic and automation.... what would be the defining factor?

Obviously, it's the break even point.

Say the cost of automation is $25,000 a year (repair, capital investment, replacement cost, maintenance cost, programming and glitches).

Say the minimum wage is $5.25 an hour in 2006. Do you replace people with kiosks and automated fries and burgers?

Answer... $5.25 is the entry wage, so all your full time employees are going to earn more or less $6/hr, which is $12,000 a year, plus benefits. Answer = No, you do not.

Say the minimum wage is $7.25, and now you have mandatory expensive health care coverage, and other benefits.

Well, it depends, but the numbers are close.

Say the minimum wage is $15 and all the mandatory benefits and insurance and taxes.

Answer, yeah. You can easily replace those people with robotics and automation, and save money in the process.

In the past 7 years, we have drastically jacked up the cost of labor, making automation and robotics far more practical and economical replacements for humans.

There is nothing surprising about the recent developments to anyone who understands the basics of economics in business.

 

[jasonnfree]

So , the NSA can access you e-mail , credit record , phone calls , web content , contact list ... ahh but they don't mess with my waistline. No sir !!!

It's just one example.

After all, what do we do in life that doesn't involve our health?

What we eat, how much television we watch, what kind of exercise we do, what kind of exercise we are not doing, what we drink, what we smoke if we do smoke, what kind of risky activities we involve ourselves in, how many hours we work and so on and so on.

Once government takes over healthcare, they will be able to dictate to us how we live our lives. Hell, they only partially took over healthcare and Moochelle is running around schools trying to dictate what kids eat. See all those calorie listings next to each item of food at your restaurant? Yep, government forced those places to post calorie counts.

I don't want government telling me what to eat or measuring my waistline. I want government as far out of my life as possible.

Just curious if you would have been against warning labels on cigarettes that started appearing on packs of cigarettes about 1959 or 1960? I was just a middle schooler around that time and I remember the tobacco companies screaming bloody murder about government infringing on their right to provide lung cancer and emphysema to millions.

Let me ask: do you think anybody back then started to smoke and say "this is okay for me?"

If you light something up and breathe it in, then cough like you're dying, chances are you know it's not good for you.

Do you need government to tell you everything in life?

Not everything, but some things. The warning label helped convince me to be a non smoker although I smoked on and off during my teen years. When the first labels came out I remember them saying that smoking may be harmful. That was a battle the tobacco companies won, may be harmful instead of is harmful. I think if government can warn us about the harmful effects of certain products, and we become a more healthy society, than goverment has done it's job in promoting the general welfare, which is in the preamble of the constitution.

Well then I guess it's good that I was born into a good family. I didn't need government telling me anything, that's what I had parents for.

I remember back in the 60's as a bored child with nothing to do. My grandfather would call me over to his table and have me roll cigarettes with him. He smoked Bugler.

While rolling cigarettes, he told me never to start. Cigarettes are bad for you. When I asked why he smoked, he explained addiction to me.

Now I have to worry because government (Obama) forced restaurants to spend all kinds of money so they can put calorie count on each item in their menu. Gee, I didn't know McDonald's food was not healthy for me without government!!!!!

I know a lot of kids who didn't smoke too. They were usually the boring ones. If you don't experiment when you're young, you may grow up to be a stuffed shirt. Not saying you're one. I lived around Cleveland area at that time if that's where you're from. By the way, I like the calorie count on the menu. Kind of like truth in advertising. Another program corporations hate. What good's government if it can't do something now and then for the little guy? Government mostly works for the very wealthy and corporations, as is evidenced by the thousands of lobbyists assigned to our politicians by corporate america, and our constant military adventures that's drained our wealth.

 

[Papageorgio]

Because I already did my homework when buying a refrigerator or computer on the internet, just as I could do the same about where I eat. The difference is that I don't care what's in my McDonald's food because I know it's not good for you, but I want it anyway.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intent while conservatives measure success by results.
Rush Limbaugh

Well, it's not just about McDonald's it's about all restaurants. I think such measures can help you decide, even if your decision is to have a high calorie intake. I see no harm there.

You see no harm when your President imposes mandates on businesses for personal reasons and not because the public wants it? Will you say the same thing if we end up with a Republican President that does the same, sort of a fine for people that don't own a firearm?

Economics 101.
Perfect Competition Definition | Investopedia
4) Buyers have complete information about the product being sold and the prices charged by each firm
Learn some economics first, and engage in discussion later.

You need to learn logic. Buyers do not have complete information. Housing is a relatively unregulated market, in terms of the real estate market for private homes. Do you know the maker of every piece of wiring in your home? Do you have figures on the drywall thickness? The material composition of the brick? The history of every owner of the home?
No. So according to you there cannot be perfect competitoon.

Indeed, lacking all that information creates imperfect competition. AND if you live in a seismic zone you should at least know if your house complies with building codes.

Aren't the homes inspected while being built? Then when you sell or buy a house you pay to have the house inspected, also you can talk to the title company and your insurance company on in the home is in a flood plain or a seismic zone. There is also disclosure clauses to make sure all is revealed and if not the buyer has recourse.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Say the cost of automation is $25,000 a year (repair, capital investment, replacement cost, maintenance cost, programming and glitches).

Say the minimum wage is $5.25 an hour in 2006. Do you replace people with kiosks and automated fries and burgers?

Answer... $5.25 is the entry wage, so all your full time employees are going to earn more or less $6/hr, which is $12,000 a year, plus benefits. Answer = No, you do not.

In another post I did the math. In the long run a robot will be no more expensive than a compact car and will probably last for 10 years.
Cost = 10,000
Maintenance , 5,000
Energy = 5,000
Depreciation = 10,000 ( 10 years)
Total = 30,000
That would be abut 3,000 per year, with some clear advantages : robots can work 24/7, don't require medical insurance or vacations. But assuming the business only requires 8 hours of work 6 days per week, you would probably hire a human for 2,500 per year. Try that for a living... it's below the poverty line of $10 per day per person.
This of course is purely speculative: we will not be getting a human level AI in the next 20 years. Then robot population will have to grow enough to have an impact on service jobs which will probably take another 10 or 20 years.

Labour is the main service exchanged between households and businesses. An economy where such exchange is no longer needed will present some very interesting challenges. A welfare state would be one of the solutions, independent housholds would be another (you only need about 40,000 square foot to grow food for a household of 4) , yet anther solution would be to ensure every citizen becomes a shareholder of companies in order to ensure income through dividend payments.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Economics 101.
Perfect Competition Definition | Investopedia
4) Buyers have complete information about the product being sold and the prices charged by each firm
Learn some economics first, and engage in discussion later.

You need to learn logic. Buyers do not have complete information. Housing is a relatively unregulated market, in terms of the real estate market for private homes. Do you know the maker of every piece of wiring in your home? Do you have figures on the drywall thickness? The material composition of the brick? The history of every owner of the home?
No. So according to you there cannot be perfect co
mpetitoon.

Indeed, lacking all that information creates imperfect competition. AND if you live in a seismic zone you should at least know if your house complies with building codes.

OK, so most transactions take place with imperfect competition. Note imperfect competition is not no competition. What is your point?

Markets work better with perfect competition. Arguably the beneffit of knowing what's in a product is higher for the whole economy than the cost of disclosing the product information.

You have not proven that point. Any more than requiring disclosing the mine the copper in your wire came from is relevant.

Rabi,
It's almost too evident to require any proof at all. So, assume you buy a car but none of the car makers put any information about the mpg. If you require long commutes , how would you choose the model ? You would have to test drive every model.
Look at what happened with the SPM crisis. There were tons of assets whose content has completely opaque by design.

Now regarding restaurants menu, I'll have to challeng the 500M figure.
The only thing they have to do is download an app ( see link) enter the menu ingredients and print the results. So the cost for each restaurant is at most two workdays of semi-skiled labour ($200) since there are about 600,000 restaurants, the figure must be closer to 120M.

Calorie Counter - Android Apps on Google Play

 

[Andylusion]

Say the cost of automation is $25,000 a year (repair, capital investment, replacement cost, maintenance cost, programming and glitches).

Say the minimum wage is $5.25 an hour in 2006. Do you replace people with kiosks and automated fries and burgers?

Answer... $5.25 is the entry wage, so all your full time employees are going to earn more or less $6/hr, which is $12,000 a year, plus benefits. Answer = No, you do not.

In another post I did the math. In the long run a robot will be no more expensive than a compact car and will probably last for 10 years.
Cost = 10,000
Maintenance , 5,000
Energy = 5,000
Depreciation = 10,000 ( 10 years)
Total = 30,000
That would be abut 3,000 per year, with some clear advantages : robots can work 24/7, don't require medical insurance or vacations. But assuming the business only requires 8 hours of work 6 days per week, you would probably hire a human for 2,500 per year. Try that for a living... it's below the poverty line of $10 per day per person.
This of course is purely speculative: we will not be getting a human level AI in the next 20 years. Then robot population will have to grow enough to have an impact on service jobs which will probably take another 10 or 20 years.

Labour is the main service exchanged between households and businesses. An economy where such exchange is no longer needed will present some very interesting challenges. A welfare state would be one of the solutions, independent housholds would be another (you only need about 40,000 square foot to grow food for a household of 4) , yet anther solution would be to ensure every citizen becomes a shareholder of companies in order to ensure income through dividend payments.

And of course, you can't possibly hire someone for $2,500 a year, unless you hire people in high school, who live at home, and have no expenses.

That's where my problem is. It's always easy for people like yourself, to claim others shouldn't have employment arrangements that you don't like. And you make up crap like "They can't live off that!", and yet there are people who do. And if a 17 year old girl in high school, wants to say "do you want fries with that?" at a drive through window, who are you to say that's wrong? They most certainly can live off $2,500 a year, when they live at home.

Automation isn't replacing service jobs in 10 years. They started doing that years ago. Down at the Get-N-Go where I work, they used to have a fully staffed grill inside the store. You would go up to a cashier and order your food, and they would get it for you. About a half dozen people.

Now there is ONE. Just one. Everyone else was laid off. Instead there is a kiosk, and a automatic fountain. You punch your order into the kiosk, and the drink machine pops out your drink and fills it. The cook get's a little print out of what you ordered, he makes it, and places it on a serving tray. That's it. No one else there. The job of 4 people, or 5 people, reduced to one single person.

Now of course, there are fewer options now. For example, they don't serve fries or anything. Just burgers and stuff on the grill period. But then, it's a Get-N-Go. The point though is, this idea that employers are not replacing overly priced labor with automation, robots, and kiosks, is crazy. It's already happening right now.

And as I've said many times, you can complain all you want that "no one can live on that wage", and my answer will always be "So ZERO is a better wage?" Because the other 4 or 5 people that used to work at the Get-N-Go grill, are all gone. They are all earning zero.

How is this better?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've been to Mexico. Sure, they can provide quality care . . . to rich foreigners and their own wealthy elite. If you think the vast majority of Mexicans are getting that care, you're delusional. I wouldn't take my dog to the kind of medical care most Mexican citizens get.

Who are you addressing here?

Kinda the room in general. Anyone who goes to Mexico for care, touting its superiority to the American system, is being an elitist and missing the fact that that level of care in Mexico is only available to the rich.

I didn't mean "you" in the specific sense of you, The Rabbi.

His point was that he goes to Mexico for care,, impliying their system is better. I responded he goes to Mexico not because its better but because it's cheaper for an American. Quality for what he's doing is probably about equal. But his point is moot.

Yes, I know. And I agreed with you.

If you want to kneejerk to bunched panties and offense, that's your lookout.

OK we agree. All is good. Carry on.

Sorry I'm cranky. Selling our house, and closing is enough to drive a person to a nervous breakdown.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And you're basing this assertion on what?
Which assertion ? That healthcare in the US is not the best in the world ? Just look at the OCED stats.
That insurance dampens competition ? Well, just tell me how many insured people you know before or after obamacare did medical shopping ?

Hey, if you think another country will provide you with better-quality healthcare, head on over there. None of us will stop you.
I do have one such arrangement. I go south to get medical attention ( which is not very often), just as nearly 90,000 US retirees do.
Mexico's health care lures Americans - USATODAY.com

Most of our northern border hospitals are loaded with Canadian patients. They come here to get help they can't get in Canada. Last I read (which was some time ago) Canada spends over a billion dollars a year in the US to take care of citizens they can't care for.

As a patient at the world famous Cleveland Clinic, I can tell you that when you walk into the place, you're the one that feels like a foreigner. It's like going to the UN.

My sister is a long time employee at the clinic. She can tell you stories of VIP's from all over the world that come here for our outstanding care and technology. They don't go to Mexico and they don't go to Cuba. We have some of the most advanced medical care in the world.

She told us of stories where a middle-east VIP's would rent an entire hospital floor. It's closed off to everybody due to security reasons. Whatever services the clinic provided, they would pay cash daily. They used to have a scheduled Brink's truck come in every day to transfer the funds.

Socialized medical care is great for a broken arm, the flu, X-rays and so forth. But in situations that are life and death, you don't want to be treated in a country with socialized medicine.

You've certainly bought into the Right's arguments.
Why is it that most of Europe has longer life expectancy than in the US. They also have lower infant mortality than we do.

Different countries measure infant mortality rate differently.

In some countries, if the child has a defect and dies in a few weeks, they don't consider that a life. In the US, if a child takes one breath, it's considered a living human being regardless of it's survival ability.

In the US we are a multicultural people. Some of our cultures are more violent than others thus a much higher murder rate. We also have more citizens driving in the US than any other country. I believe we average about 40,000 deaths per year just on the road alone. Many people in Europe use public transportation.

These deaths are frequently younger people which brings our mortality rate down. The statistics would fool some into believing that it must all be because of our healthcare when there are so many other factors involved.

Furthermore, we will make much more of an effort to save the life of an at-risk newborn than will other countries. We have an excellent rate of success in those cases, but the fact that the odds are so against their survival in the first case means that the times when we lose the battle increase our mortality rate.

Not to mention we really don't take care of ourselves.

Many of us spend our time at McDonald's and we have a portion of our younger mothers who were on recreational narcotics, some who continued to use them during their pregnancy. Of course that brings down the infant mortality rate. But you can't blame it on our healthcare system like so many try to do. There are just too many other factors.

Leftists are extremely superficial, simplistic thinkers, so they fall for "correlation equals causation" arguments A LOT. Truth is, in a first-tier country, the healthcare system has very little to do with life expectancy or infant mortality.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's just one example.

After all, what do we do in life that doesn't involve our health?

What we eat, how much television we watch, what kind of exercise we do, what kind of exercise we are not doing, what we drink, what we smoke if we do smoke, what kind of risky activities we involve ourselves in, how many hours we work and so on and so on.

Once government takes over healthcare, they will be able to dictate to us how we live our lives. Hell, they only partially took over healthcare and Moochelle is running around schools trying to dictate what kids eat. See all those calorie listings next to each item of food at your restaurant? Yep, government forced those places to post calorie counts.

I don't want government telling me what to eat or measuring my waistline. I want government as far out of my life as possible.

Just curious if you would have been against warning labels on cigarettes that started appearing on packs of cigarettes about 1959 or 1960? I was just a middle schooler around that time and I remember the tobacco companies screaming bloody murder about government infringing on their right to provide lung cancer and emphysema to millions.

Let me ask: do you think anybody back then started to smoke and say "this is okay for me?"

If you light something up and breathe it in, then cough like you're dying, chances are you know it's not good for you.

Do you need government to tell you everything in life?

Not everything, but some things. The warning label helped convince me to be a non smoker although I smoked on and off during my teen years. When the first labels came out I remember them saying that smoking may be harmful. That was a battle the tobacco companies won, may be harmful instead of is harmful. I think if government can warn us about the harmful effects of certain products, and we become a more healthy society, than goverment has done it's job in promoting the general welfare, which is in the preamble of the constitution.

Well then I guess it's good that I was born into a good family. I didn't need government telling me anything, that's what I had parents for.

I remember back in the 60's as a bored child with nothing to do. My grandfather would call me over to his table and have me roll cigarettes with him. He smoked Bugler.

While rolling cigarettes, he told me never to start. Cigarettes are bad for you. When I asked why he smoked, he explained addiction to me.

Now I have to worry because government (Obama) forced restaurants to spend all kinds of money so they can put calorie count on each item in their menu. Gee, I didn't know McDonald's food was not healthy for me without government!!!!!

I know a lot of kids who didn't smoke too. They were usually the boring ones. If you don't experiment when you're young, you may grow up to be a stuffed shirt. Not saying you're one. I lived around Cleveland area at that time if that's where you're from. By the way, I like the calorie count on the menu. Kind of like truth in advertising. Another program corporations hate. What good's government if it can't do something now and then for the little guy? Government mostly works for the very wealthy and corporations, as is evidenced by the thousands of lobbyists assigned to our politicians by corporate america, and our constant military adventures that's drained our wealth.

Government isn't there to run businesses, government is there to govern and that's all they should be doing. If government wants to do something for me, they can get further out of my life. The farther government is from my life, the better.

I don't care if a restaurant has calorie count, I don't care if they prohibit smoking, I don't care if they have a dress code, but as long as it's the restaurants call and not the governments.

 

[Andylusion]

You need to learn logic. Buyers do not have complete information. Housing is a relatively unregulated market, in terms of the real estate market for private homes. Do you know the maker of every piece of wiring in your home? Do you have figures on the drywall thickness? The material composition of the brick? The history of every owner of the home?
No. So according to you there cannot be perfect co
mpetitoon.

Indeed, lacking all that information creates imperfect competition. AND if you live in a seismic zone you should at least know if your house complies with building codes.

OK, so most transactions take place with imperfect competition. Note imperfect competition is not no competition. What is your point?

Markets work better with perfect competition. Arguably the beneffit of knowing what's in a product is higher for the whole economy than the cost of disclosing the product information.

You have not proven that point. Any more than requiring disclosing the mine the copper in your wire came from is relevant.

Rabi,
It's almost too evident to require any proof at all. So, assume you buy a car but none of the car makers put any information about the mpg. If you require long commutes , how would you choose the model ? You would have to test drive every model.
Look at what happened with the SPM crisis. There were tons of assets whose content has completely opaque by design.

Now regarding restaurants menu, I'll have to challeng the 500M figure.
The only thing they have to do is download an app ( see link) enter the menu ingredients and print the results. So the cost for each restaurant is at most two workdays of semi-skiled labour ($200) since there are about 600,000 restaurants, the figure must be closer to 120M.

Calorie Counter - Android Apps on Google Play

Your example, actually contradicts your claims.

I'm assuming that your claim is that, without regulations requiring MPG on cars, that manufacturers wouldn't have such information.

But that's not true. MPG ratings were not required on the vehicle sticker until the mid 1970s.

http://assets.blog.hemmings.com/wp-content/uploads//2014/12/Packard_MPG_Ad-resize.jpg

The picture that links to, is huge, so I'm not going to repost it here.

But this is an advert for a Packard.... a 1948 Packard. Advertising fuel mileage. I can also show you adverts for Honda's in the 1950s and 1960s, showing 38 mile per gallon. In 2001, I worked for a Cadillac dealership, and they had in their storehouse, old Cadillac advert booklets. Apparently, back in the day, Cadillac printed up entire little booklets as advertising for their cars. In those booklets dated 1959 to 1974, they advertised the MPG of the cars they sold. Granted not all the cars, but their 'more' fuel efficient models.

Most people grasp that someone buying a 500 Cubic Inch Ford Continental, is not worried about gas mileage (I owned one for little while).

My point is, when there is consumer demand for information regarding the product, the manufacturers of those products will provide that information. When it is not wanted by the consumer, then it is not given.

People in the 1950s, for the most part, didn't care about gas mileage. Those that did care, the cars that were in that market, had that information.

The free-market system works. It really does. You act like if 'government didn't mandate this, then no one would do it'.

One of the reasons all the big car companies loved having the EPA, was that they no longer had to spend the money to test their own vehicles. Now the tax payer is paying to have cars tested, so the big companies don't have to. Rich get richer, and poor get poorer... thank you left-wing regulators.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The correct metric has been supplied. If you get sick in America your ability to get seen early is greater and your health outcome is greater. This is a fact.

So the fact that you go to Mexico, like many others, is not proof the US system delivers worse care, which is what you contended. Point refuted.
Your point about communty hospitals is incoherent. If the purpose of them is to reduce medical costs then you've already admitted it wont do that.
Medicare dictates payments, private insurance negotiates payments. Thus the difference. In any case you are citing payments for medical services, not medical insurance premiums. Surely you know the difference.

The correct metric has been supplied. If you get sick in America your ability to get seen early is greater and your health outcome is greater. This is a fact.
Well , post the link.
If you are refering to Andylusion's post , then that is not valid. It's 25 years old.

So the fact that you go to Mexico, like many others, is not proof the US system delivers worse care, which is what you contended. Point refuted.
No point proven or disproven. Cecile stated :
Hey, if you think another country will provide you with better-quality healthcare, head on over there. None of us will stop you.
I simply gave an answer.

Your point about communty hospitals is incoherent. If the purpose of them is to reduce medical costs then you've already admitted it wont do that.
No , it is not. If the hospitals get a profit, you as an owner get a profit.
If the hospital gets no profit you get no profit , but you get healthcare at the lowest price available.

Medicare dictates payments, private insurance negotiates payments. Thus the difference. In any case you are citing payments for medical services, not medical insurance premiums. Surely you know the difference

The post was unrelated to medicare, I was simply giving ideas for the available options. There are many more. For example in Japan the patient covers only 30% of the cost , the government pays the rest. Then you have to do some shopping.

Yes, Japan. And now that they control healthcare, they can also control you:

Japan, Seeking Trim Waists, Measures Millions
By NORIMITSU ONISHI
Published: June 13, 2008

AMAGASAKI, Japan — Japan, a country not known for its overweight people, has undertaken one of the most ambitious campaigns ever by a nation to slim down its citizenry.

Summoned by the city of Amagasaki one recent morning, Minoru Nogiri, 45, a flower shop owner, found himself lining up to have his waistline measured. With no visible paunch, he seemed to run little risk of being classified as overweight, or metabo, the preferred word in Japan these days.

But because the new state-prescribed limit for male waistlines is a strict 33.5 inches, he had anxiously measured himself at home a couple of days earlier. “I’m on the border,” he said.

Under a national law that came into effect two months ago, companies and local governments must now measure the waistlines of Japanese people between the ages of 40 and 74 as part of their annual checkups. That represents more than 56 million waistlines, or about 44 percent of the entire population.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html?_r=0

I don't know if I'd be that thrilled with Mrs. Obama coming out to measure my waist line.

So , the NSA can access you e-mail , credit record , phone calls , web content , contact list ... ahh but they don't mess with my waistline. No sir !!!

It's just one example.

After all, what do we do in life that doesn't involve our health?

What we eat, how much television we watch, what kind of exercise we do, what kind of exercise we are not doing, what we drink, what we smoke if we do smoke, what kind of risky activities we involve ourselves in, how many hours we work and so on and so on.

Once government takes over healthcare, they will be able to dictate to us how we live our lives. Hell, they only partially took over healthcare and Moochelle is running around schools trying to dictate what kids eat. See all those calorie listings next to each item of food at your restaurant? Yep, government forced those places to post calorie counts.

I don't want government telling me what to eat or measuring my waistline. I want government as far out of my life as possible.

Just curious if you would have been against warning labels on cigarettes that started appearing on packs of cigarettes about 1959 or 1960? I was just a middle schooler around that time and I remember the tobacco companies screaming bloody murder about government infringing on their right to provide lung cancer and emphysema to millions.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm kinda lost on the analogy between cigarettes and food, warning labels and bans.

 

[CultureCitizen]

That's where my problem is. It's always easy for people like yourself, to claim others shouldn't have employment arrangements that you don't like. And you make up crap like "They can't live off that!", and yet there are people who do. And if a 17 year old girl in high school, wants to say "do you want fries with that?" at a drive through window, who are you to say that's wrong? They most certainly can live off $2,500 a year, when they live at home.

Automation isn't replacing service jobs in 10 years. They started doing that years ago. Down at the Get-N-Go where I work, they used to have a fully staffed grill inside the store. You would go up to a cashier and order your food, and they would get it for you. About a half dozen people.

What is exactly your point ?
The problem with you people is you think macroeconomy is micro multiplied by N and that such things as externalities are non existent entities.

IF a couple of kids decide to work for 2,500 there-is-no problem. BUT ( and this is a big BUT ), if the only choice for 50 million people is to work for $2,500 then you have a very big problem, specially when salaries are decoupled from productivity.

What exactly do you think triggered the Rusian , French and Mexican revolutions ? Great working conditions for the masses?

And who exactly will purchase all those goods and services produced with ultra low wages if no one has the income to purchase them ? huh? Have you ever taken a look at the cyclical model of economy ?

 

[CultureCitizen]

The free-market system works. It really does. You act like if 'government didn't mandate this, then no one would do it'.

Tell that to the unfortunate owners of SPM packages.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, Japan. And now that they control healthcare, they can also control you:

Japan, Seeking Trim Waists, Measures Millions
By NORIMITSU ONISHI
Published: June 13, 2008

AMAGASAKI, Japan — Japan, a country not known for its overweight people, has undertaken one of the most ambitious campaigns ever by a nation to slim down its citizenry.

Summoned by the city of Amagasaki one recent morning, Minoru Nogiri, 45, a flower shop owner, found himself lining up to have his waistline measured. With no visible paunch, he seemed to run little risk of being classified as overweight, or metabo, the preferred word in Japan these days.

But because the new state-prescribed limit for male waistlines is a strict 33.5 inches, he had anxiously measured himself at home a couple of days earlier. “I’m on the border,” he said.

Under a national law that came into effect two months ago, companies and local governments must now measure the waistlines of Japanese people between the ages of 40 and 74 as part of their annual checkups. That represents more than 56 million waistlines, or about 44 percent of the entire population.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html?_r=0

I don't know if I'd be that thrilled with Mrs. Obama coming out to measure my waist line.

So , the NSA can access you e-mail , credit record , phone calls , web content , contact list ... ahh but they don't mess with my waistline. No sir !!!

It's just one example.

After all, what do we do in life that doesn't involve our health?

What we eat, how much television we watch, what kind of exercise we do, what kind of exercise we are not doing, what we drink, what we smoke if we do smoke, what kind of risky activities we involve ourselves in, how many hours we work and so on and so on.

Once government takes over healthcare, they will be able to dictate to us how we live our lives. Hell, they only partially took over healthcare and Moochelle is running around schools trying to dictate what kids eat. See all those calorie listings next to each item of food at your restaurant? Yep, government forced those places to post calorie counts.

I don't want government telling me what to eat or measuring my waistline. I want government as far out of my life as possible.

Just curious if you would have been against warning labels on cigarettes that started appearing on packs of cigarettes about 1959 or 1960? I was just a middle schooler around that time and I remember the tobacco companies screaming bloody murder about government infringing on their right to provide lung cancer and emphysema to millions.

Let me ask: do you think anybody back then started to smoke and say "this is okay for me?"

If you light something up and breathe it in, then cough like you're dying, chances are you know it's not good for you.

Do you need government to tell you everything in life?

Not everything, but some things. The warning label helped convince me to be a non smoker although I smoked on and off during my teen years. When the first labels came out I remember them saying that smoking may be harmful. That was a battle the tobacco companies won, may be harmful instead of is harmful. I think if government can warn us about the harmful effects of certain products, and we become a more healthy society, than goverment has done it's job in promoting the general welfare, which is in the preamble of the constitution.

Really, Chuckles? You really want us to believe the one big turning point between you believing that inhaling smoke from burning plants into your lungs was healthy and understanding that it's not was that tiny little label on the pack? Without that little label, you would have been unable to common-sense that one out for yourself? Do you also go camping, build a big bonfire, and stand next to it inhaling?

I don't mind the government disseminating information, if they really feel they must, although I may dispute whether they are the most effective means of accomplishing this. I have zero interest in them having any sort of vote in how I live my life, which is what Ray was actually talking about before you started trying to deflect off onto labeling.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You need to learn logic. Buyers do not have complete information. Housing is a relatively unregulated market, in terms of the real estate market for private homes. Do you know the maker of every piece of wiring in your home? Do you have figures on the drywall thickness? The material composition of the brick? The history of every owner of the home?
No. So according to you there cannot be perfect co
mpetitoon.

Indeed, lacking all that information creates imperfect competition. AND if you live in a seismic zone you should at least know if your house complies with building codes.

OK, so most transactions take place with imperfect competition. Note imperfect competition is not no competition. What is your point?

Markets work better with perfect competition. Arguably the beneffit of knowing what's in a product is higher for the whole economy than the cost of disclosing the product information.

You have not proven that point. Any more than requiring disclosing the mine the copper in your wire came from is relevant.

Rabi,
It's almost too evident to require any proof at all. So, assume you buy a car but none of the car makers put any information about the mpg. If you require long commutes , how would you choose the model ? You would have to test drive every model.
Look at what happened with the SPM crisis. There were tons of assets whose content has completely opaque by design.

Now regarding restaurants menu, I'll have to challeng the 500M figure.
The only thing they have to do is download an app ( see link) enter the menu ingredients and print the results. So the cost for each restaurant is at most two workdays of semi-skiled labour ($200) since there are about 600,000 restaurants, the figure must be closer to 120M.

Calorie Counter - Android Apps on Google Play

Well, here's the real question. Does it require a mandate from the government to get companies to provide information the consumers want, or does it just require the consumers demanding it?

You're all orgasmic over restaurants providing menu info, but that doesn't require a government mandate. All it required was consumer interest.

 

[The Rabbi]

You need to learn logic. Buyers do not have complete information. Housing is a relatively unregulated market, in terms of the real estate market for private homes. Do you know the maker of every piece of wiring in your home? Do you have figures on the drywall thickness? The material composition of the brick? The history of every owner of the home?
No. So according to you there cannot be perfect co
mpetitoon.

Indeed, lacking all that information creates imperfect competition. AND if you live in a seismic zone you should at least know if your house complies with building codes.

OK, so most transactions take place with imperfect competition. Note imperfect competition is not no competition. What is your point?

Markets work better with perfect competition. Arguably the beneffit of knowing what's in a product is higher for the whole economy than the cost of disclosing the product information.

You have not proven that point. Any more than requiring disclosing the mine the copper in your wire came from is relevant.

Rabi,
It's almost too evident to require any proof at all. So, assume you buy a car but none of the car makers put any information about the mpg. If you require long commutes , how would you choose the model ? You would have to test drive every model.
Look at what happened with the SPM crisis. There were tons of assets whose content has completely opaque by design.

Now regarding restaurants menu, I'll have to challeng the 500M figure.
The only thing they have to do is download an app ( see link) enter the menu ingredients and print the results. So the cost for each restaurant is at most two workdays of semi-skiled labour ($200) since there are about 600,000 restaurants, the figure must be closer to 120M.

Calorie Counter - Android Apps on Google Play

Car MPG is a selling point often and is relevant information. Who made the steering wheel is not.
To simple minds everything looks simple. I posted the informtion that even FDA estimates $500M the first year in compliance costs. Do you think the FDA is a radical right wing orgnization?