Socialism is Good

[Dr.Traveler]

I've had insurance company bureaucrats making health decisions for me! What recourse do I have?

Pay out of pocket for services and drugs the Insurer will not provide. You always have a choice. The real problem is that the Insurance policies, despite heavy regulation, are written so that a health insurer can weasel out of paying relatively easy. Even with legal council and the law on your side, the insurer can absolutely bury a lawsuit under enough legalese to tie things up until the party in question is dead, killed by the medical condition they bought insurance to help them with in the first place.

I've been fairly lucky in my dealings with insurance, but I've had family members that have had it so much worse. As soon as you introduce a pre-existing or long term condition, your relationship with your insurance provider changes dramatically.

 

[Nosmo King]

Whatever.

a well reasoned response. Is this what passes for Conservative thought these days? "Whatever" and "NO!"

 

[eagleseven]

Compare the expansion of executive power during the Bush 43 regime!

How many CEO's did Bush I fire?

Bush wanted no strings on his financial system bailout! A trillion dollars with no control but Hank Paulson.

Deregulation strikes again! Take the cops off the beat and what happens? Crime! Well, what's true for Main Street is true for Wall Street. Bush never thought of it that way, did he? But then again, Bush and thinking were not compatible in the same sentence.

What crime did the CEO of GM commit? Last I checked, his only sin was crossing Obama.

 

[Nosmo King]

I've had insurance company bureaucrats making health decisions for me! What recourse do I have?

Pay out of pocket for services and drugs the Insurer will not provide. You always have a choice. The real problem is that the Insurance policies, despite heavy regulation, are written so that a health insurer can weasel out of paying relatively easy. Even with legal council and the law on your side, the insurer can absolutely bury a lawsuit under enough legalese to tie things up until the party in question is dead, killed by the medical condition they bought insurance to help them with in the first place.

I've been fairly lucky in my dealings with insurance, but I've had family members that have had it so much worse. As soon as you introduce a pre-existing or long term condition, your relationship with your insurance provider changes dramatically.

Sounds reasonable until you figure the monthly cost at better than $500! I don't know where you live, but $500 a month is a healthy rent around here. Add the ancillary costs of living and any savings is long gone! thanks insurance companies! As long as I make you richer, I can go about in sackcloth!

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Under a free market all the examples you gave would be cheaper than they are now with the government's involvement in healthcare. Health insurance costs would go down because more people would be able to afford to pay for their minor injuries, illnesses, or check ups without needing to tap into their insurance.

How? Be specific.

The health care providers are by law and by oath required to provide services first in the case of a life threatening illness, and inquire about cost second. How do you run a profitable business when you are required to provide your services before you can enquire about cost?

You're holding up Capitalism as some sort of magic cure all totem. Free Markets work for a lot of things, but Health Care is not one of them. The costs associated with maintaining and keeping a sterile environment, the fact services have to be provided even to those who can not pay, and the fact that in a health emergency financial considerations do not enter play until after a patient is stabilized means that a free market system won't work. There's a reason that communities often have to finance local hospitals if they want to have them. Free market systems are fine, but they don't address all the issues here.

 

[Nosmo King]

How many CEO's did Bush I fire?

Bush wanted no strings on his financial system bailout! A trillion dollars with no control but Hank Paulson.

Deregulation strikes again! Take the cops off the beat and what happens? Crime! Well, what's true for Main Street is true for Wall Street. Bush never thought of it that way, did he? But then again, Bush and thinking were not compatible in the same sentence.

What crime did the CEO of GM commit? Last I checked, his only sin was crossing Obama.

In a Capitalist system, would a CEO of a bankrupt company deserve a bonus and further tenure? It seems that the way the modern Conservative sees Capitalism is skewed! Risk without penalty? Reward for failure? Continued exploitation without consequence? Marvelous system if you're really a player. If you happen to be an average work-a-day schlub, take your screwing and don't bitch about it!

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Sounds reasonable until you figure the monthly cost at better than $500! I don't know where you live, but $500 a month is a healthy rent around here. Add the ancillary costs of living and any savings is long gone! thanks insurance companies! As long as I make you richer, I can go about in sackcloth!

I actually know where you're coming from. My father had a life long battle with Epilepsy. Whether the insurance company would cover the Prescription costs or not was a day to day battle and maintaining his needed prescriptions helped keep my family near the poverty level growing up. He was fortunate in that later on in life his doctor was able to help him connect with the programs the prescription drug companies offered to help folks get free or reduced medication.

The insurance providers have done a pretty good job making themselves the bad guys in this debate, and they certainly deserve to have a little trouble come their way.

 

[eagleseven]

In a Capitalist system, would a CEO of a bankrupt company deserve a bonus and further tenure? It seems that the way the modern Conservative sees Capitalism is skewed! Risk without penalty? Reward for failure? Continued exploitation without consequence? Marvelous system if you're really a player. If you happen to be an average work-a-day schlub, take your screwing and don't bitch about it!

In a Capitalist system, the Government cannot legally fire or hire CEOs. The only system which allows the Government to fire and hire CEOs at will is Fascism.

Why do you support Fascism? Why does Obama support Fascism?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

In a Capitalist system, would a CEO of a bankrupt company deserve a bonus and further tenure? It seems that the way the modern Conservative sees Capitalism is skewed! Risk without penalty? Reward for failure? Continued exploitation without consequence? Marvelous system if you're really a player. If you happen to be an average work-a-day schlub, take your screwing and don't bitch about it!

In a Capitalist system, the Government cannot legally fire or hire CEOs. The only system which allows the Government to fire and hire CEOs at will is Fascism.

Why do you support Fascism? Why does Obama support Fascism?

Federal monies always come with strings attached. If GM didn't want the Federal Government to have that kind of power, then GM shouldn't have taken the money. If we're going to hand out tax payer money, I'd rather have accountability than hand it out consequence free.

That's why GM's CEO could find himself on the street at the whim of the government. He opened up the door and invited the Feds in. If the government tried to outright fire the CEO of Walmart, chances are good they'd be told to pound sand.

 

[Nosmo King]

In a Capitalist system, would a CEO of a bankrupt company deserve a bonus and further tenure? It seems that the way the modern Conservative sees Capitalism is skewed! Risk without penalty? Reward for failure? Continued exploitation without consequence? Marvelous system if you're really a player. If you happen to be an average work-a-day schlub, take your screwing and don't bitch about it!

In a Capitalist system, the Government cannot legally fire or hire CEOs. The only system which allows the Government to fire and hire CEOs at will is Fascism.

Why do you support Fascism? Why does Obama support Fascism?

Still beat your wife?

Should the CEOs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be fired? The CEO of AIG? If you take federal money, are you not expected to follow the federal rules? Or are "rules" just arbitrary grabs for power?

Why do you encourage failure by rewarding it?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Under a free market all the examples you gave would be cheaper than they are now with the government's involvement in healthcare. Health insurance costs would go down because more people would be able to afford to pay for their minor injuries, illnesses, or check ups without needing to tap into their insurance.

How? Be specific.

The health care providers are by law and by oath required to provide services first in the case of a life threatening illness, and inquire about cost second. How do you run a profitable business when you are required to provide your services before you can enquire about cost?

You're holding up Capitalism as some sort of magic cure all totem. Free Markets work for a lot of things, but Health Care is not one of them. The costs associated with maintaining and keeping a sterile environment, the fact services have to be provided even to those who can not pay, and the fact that in a health emergency financial considerations do not enter play until after a patient is stabilized means that a free market system won't work. There's a reason that communities often have to finance local hospitals if they want to have them. Free market systems are fine, but they don't address all the issues here.

Well you're only looking at life threatening emergencies without taking into account minor surgeries and the like, where the patient and the doctor are able to discuss the price of a procedure. However, if costs are lowered then more people would be able to pay for the treatment, even if it is a major surgery. It might still be difficult but it wouldn't be completely impossible and wouldn't force as many people into bankruptcy. Then of course most people do have insurance and insurance rates would drop as the price of different procedures and medications drop, and if people were able to pay out of pocket for smaller surgeries and annual check ups the price would drop even further. This means more people would have insurance for emergencies.

 

[eagleseven]

In a Capitalist system, would a CEO of a bankrupt company deserve a bonus and further tenure? It seems that the way the modern Conservative sees Capitalism is skewed! Risk without penalty? Reward for failure? Continued exploitation without consequence? Marvelous system if you're really a player. If you happen to be an average work-a-day schlub, take your screwing and don't bitch about it!

In a Capitalist system, the Government cannot legally fire or hire CEOs. The only system which allows the Government to fire and hire CEOs at will is Fascism.

Why do you support Fascism? Why does Obama support Fascism?

Still beat your wife?

Should the CEOs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be fired? The CEO of AIG? If you take federal money, are you not expected to follow the federal rules? Or are "rules" just arbitrary grabs for power?

Why do you encourage failure by rewarding it?

Obama is giving billions of dollars to failed companies. Perhaps you should ask him?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In a Capitalist system, would a CEO of a bankrupt company deserve a bonus and further tenure? It seems that the way the modern Conservative sees Capitalism is skewed! Risk without penalty? Reward for failure? Continued exploitation without consequence? Marvelous system if you're really a player. If you happen to be an average work-a-day schlub, take your screwing and don't bitch about it!

In a Capitalist system, the Government cannot legally fire or hire CEOs. The only system which allows the Government to fire and hire CEOs at will is Fascism.

Why do you support Fascism? Why does Obama support Fascism?

Still beat your wife?

Should the CEOs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be fired? The CEO of AIG? If you take federal money, are you not expected to follow the federal rules? Or are "rules" just arbitrary grabs for power?

Why do you encourage failure by rewarding it?

Those companies shouldn't have been bailed out in the first place.

 

[Nosmo King]

In a Capitalist system, the Government cannot legally fire or hire CEOs. The only system which allows the Government to fire and hire CEOs at will is Fascism.

Why do you support Fascism? Why does Obama support Fascism?

Still beat your wife?

Should the CEOs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be fired? The CEO of AIG? If you take federal money, are you not expected to follow the federal rules? Or are "rules" just arbitrary grabs for power?

Why do you encourage failure by rewarding it?

Those companies shouldn't have been bailed out in the first place.

You're right. It is probably better to melt down the whole of our economy than save some bits and pieces!

That way, we can go into a full tilt failure, have unemployment hit 1932 type numbers (20%, 25%, 30%) and then you Conservatives can swoop in and save the day! Give CEOs anything they want. Outsource the rest of the service and manufacturing sectors so there will no longer be that pesky middle class. Unfetter Capitalism so Charles Dickens can roll over in his grave! Are there no workhouses? Is the treadmill still in operation?

Unfettered Capitalism. License to steal.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Under a free market all the examples you gave would be cheaper than they are now with the government's involvement in healthcare. Health insurance costs would go down because more people would be able to afford to pay for their minor injuries, illnesses, or check ups without needing to tap into their insurance.

How? Be specific.

The health care providers are by law and by oath required to provide services first in the case of a life threatening illness, and inquire about cost second. How do you run a profitable business when you are required to provide your services before you can enquire about cost?

You're holding up Capitalism as some sort of magic cure all totem. Free Markets work for a lot of things, but Health Care is not one of them. The costs associated with maintaining and keeping a sterile environment, the fact services have to be provided even to those who can not pay, and the fact that in a health emergency financial considerations do not enter play until after a patient is stabilized means that a free market system won't work. There's a reason that communities often have to finance local hospitals if they want to have them. Free market systems are fine, but they don't address all the issues here.

Well you're only looking at life threatening emergencies without taking into account minor surgeries and the like, where the patient and the doctor are able to discuss the price of a procedure. However, if costs are lowered then more people would be able to pay for the treatment, even if it is a major surgery. It might still be difficult but it wouldn't be completely impossible and wouldn't force as many people into bankruptcy. Then of course most people do have insurance and insurance rates would drop as the price of different procedures and medications drop, and if people were able to pay out of pocket for smaller surgeries and annual check ups the price would drop even further. This means more people would have insurance for emergencies.

The problem is *how* are the costs going to be lowered. For non-life threatening situations responsible folks do discuss cost and take that into account.

You still have to explain how a totally free market system for healthcare will even be possible, much less how it will lower costs. Again, in a rural community your selection of doctors and hospitals is extremely limited. IF you're in a larger urban community you may have some freedom to shop around, but even that is questionable. Frequently hospitals specialize quickly even in a metropolitan area due to the cost of maintaining up to date treatment wards.

In the rural community you have *zero* chance of even starting a free market competitiion. How can you even have captialism when services are provided by a single individual. The argument for free market health care falls apart once you get into the life threatening conditions, but even setting it aside there's still problems applying the principles of Capitalism to the "optional" services in the health care field.

I do think Capitalism works in a lot of cases. This isn't one of them.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Still beat your wife?

Should the CEOs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be fired? The CEO of AIG? If you take federal money, are you not expected to follow the federal rules? Or are "rules" just arbitrary grabs for power?

Why do you encourage failure by rewarding it?

Those companies shouldn't have been bailed out in the first place.

You're right. It is probably better to melt down the whole of our economy than save some bits and pieces!

That way, we can go into a full tilt failure, have unemployment hit 1932 type numbers (20%, 25%, 30%) and then you Conservatives can swoop in and save the day! Give CEOs anything they want. Outsource the rest of the service and manufacturing sectors so there will no longer be that pesky middle class. Unfetter Capitalism so Charles Dickens can roll over in his grave! Are there no workhouses? Is the treadmill still in operation?

Unfettered Capitalism. License to steal.

The economy wouldn't have melted down. It would have been bad for a year, maybe two. But we would have gotten through it much quicker than we're doing now.

But I find it strange that you asked why somebody else was rewarding failure, but yet that's exactly what the bailout, stimulus package, cash for clunkers, etc... are. And you obviously support bailing out failed businesses, so I ask why are you for encouraging failure by rewarding it and prolonging our downturn with bailouts and all the other nonsense?

 

[Vast LWC]

You know when the single greatest period of production in the history of this country was?

1941-1946

Now, was there MORE or LESS socialism during those years?

And when that period ended, did we not go back to a more-or-less Capitalist state?

Now, here we are embroiled in two wars, with an economic emergency, and you people complain about 2 car companies getting bailed out?

How come I didn't hear you all complaining about those decades of farm subsidies?

Oh, yeah, it's that "independent" spirit of the American Farmers, right in the "Heartland" of America. Apparently also known as "Socialists".

 

[Contumacious]

explain where obama is being socialist again? non partisan sources please, not just claims and conspiracy theories

Do you know what a statist of the socialist or fascist persuasion is?


.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How? Be specific.

The health care providers are by law and by oath required to provide services first in the case of a life threatening illness, and inquire about cost second. How do you run a profitable business when you are required to provide your services before you can enquire about cost?

You're holding up Capitalism as some sort of magic cure all totem. Free Markets work for a lot of things, but Health Care is not one of them. The costs associated with maintaining and keeping a sterile environment, the fact services have to be provided even to those who can not pay, and the fact that in a health emergency financial considerations do not enter play until after a patient is stabilized means that a free market system won't work. There's a reason that communities often have to finance local hospitals if they want to have them. Free market systems are fine, but they don't address all the issues here.

Well you're only looking at life threatening emergencies without taking into account minor surgeries and the like, where the patient and the doctor are able to discuss the price of a procedure. However, if costs are lowered then more people would be able to pay for the treatment, even if it is a major surgery. It might still be difficult but it wouldn't be completely impossible and wouldn't force as many people into bankruptcy. Then of course most people do have insurance and insurance rates would drop as the price of different procedures and medications drop, and if people were able to pay out of pocket for smaller surgeries and annual check ups the price would drop even further. This means more people would have insurance for emergencies.

The problem is *how* are the costs going to be lowered. For non-life threatening situations responsible folks do discuss cost and take that into account.

You still have to explain how a totally free market system for healthcare will even be possible, much less how it will lower costs. Again, in a rural community your selection of doctors and hospitals is extremely limited. IF you're in a larger urban community you may have some freedom to shop around, but even that is questionable. Frequently hospitals specialize quickly even in a metropolitan area due to the cost of maintaining up to date treatment wards.

In the rural community you have *zero* chance of even starting a free market competitiion. How can you even have captialism when services are provided by a single individual. The argument for free market health care falls apart once you get into the life threatening conditions, but even setting it aside there's still problems applying the principles of Capitalism to the "optional" services in the health care field.

I do think Capitalism works in a lot of cases. This isn't one of them.

If they don't lower costs without the backing of the government then they're probably going out of business. They'll have to lower the costs. They won't be able to charge people an arm and a leg for medical care because, as you have pointed out yourself, there are some people who simply can't pay it. It's the same problem facing higher education today. Without the backing of the government these colleges couldn't charge as much as they do because people simply wouldn't be able to pay it and they'd have to lower costs to remain open.

 

[Nosmo King]

Those companies shouldn't have been bailed out in the first place.

You're right. It is probably better to melt down the whole of our economy than save some bits and pieces!

That way, we can go into a full tilt failure, have unemployment hit 1932 type numbers (20%, 25%, 30%) and then you Conservatives can swoop in and save the day! Give CEOs anything they want. Outsource the rest of the service and manufacturing sectors so there will no longer be that pesky middle class. Unfetter Capitalism so Charles Dickens can roll over in his grave! Are there no workhouses? Is the treadmill still in operation?

Unfettered Capitalism. License to steal.

The economy wouldn't have melted down. It would have been bad for a year, maybe two. But we would have gotten through it much quicker than we're doing now.

But I find it strange that you asked why somebody else was rewarding failure, but yet that's exactly what the bailout, stimulus package, cash for clunkers, etc... are. And you obviously support bailing out failed businesses, so I ask why are you for encouraging failure by rewarding it and prolonging our downturn with bailouts and all the other nonsense?

The workers, those depending on a paycheck were not responsible for the companies failing. Those in the executive suite who made the disastrous decisions are the ones responsible.

Why should I be quick to shutter the shops and factories where the great American middle class earns a living when all it really takes is tossing some incompetent CEO earning 400x what the workers earn out on his well fed ear!