Time to get health care right once and for all

[Boss]

There is no empirical evidence that higher income taxes produce lower revenues unless those tax rates are at extremely high levels, at least here in America. We are not as those levels. In fact, all the empirical evidence concludes that cutting income taxes underneath those levels reduces tax revenues. Greg Mankiw, former chair of the Council of Economic Advisors under Bush, concluded that for every $1 reduction in income taxes, income tax revenue declines by 83 cents. Changes in income tax rates alters the marginal amount of tax revenue on a given unit of income, but it doesn't change the directionality.

However, there is a fair amount of empirical evidence that cutting corporate taxes increases total tax revenue. Same with cutting royalties on natural resources.

I don't know about economic advisers under Bush. I go by the actual Treasury Department data of actual tax revenues received in a given year. You can look this information up online, it's not hard to find. taxpolicy.org is a good resource, all the tables are there going way back. You can look at any year when taxes were lowered and you'll see we increased tax revenues.

I will say this, the Bush tax cuts were not as effective in increasing tax revenues because of two important factors. One, they decreased tax rates across the board and two, they didn't broaden the tax base. They still eventually produced a revenue increase but it took a few years.

 

[JQPublic1]

The very foundation and fundamental principles of America is a repudiation of a class system.

Who told you that lie?
History of Classism - Classism

Throughout the history of the United States there has been a legacy of class distinction and inequitable treatment of citizens.

 

[Flopper]

The rationale behind insurance regulation is to promote beneficial competition and prevent destructive or harmful competition in various areas that would destroy public confidence.

The idea that a company will be so concerned about their reputation, that they would not use all legal means to deny claims and increase profits is a bit silly. If one company finds a way to legally slip out of it's obligations, others will follow. Even companies that tried to maintain fair policies would be pushed into shady business practices by the competition.

If you have any doubt on the need for insurance regulation, you should read about the fraud and scandal in 18th century before insurance regulations.

Again, I have no problem with laws against fraud, exploitation or to protect public safety and consumers at large. The mountain of government regulations which currently exist go WAY beyond that. Most of them are written to satisfy political donors, crony corporatists, special interest groups. They have nothing to do with protecting the free market or ensuring it's functionality.

And you're just flat WRONG about what companies will do in a fair free market governed by free market principles. Free market competition prevents it from happening because someone will capitalize on the shortcomings of other capitalists. That's what makes the system work. It's when you introduce government that things go wonky.

You need only look at the first half of the 18th century financial services in America, a time when banks, insurance companies, and other financial services were free of government meddling. There were certainly laws against fraud but that was about all.

This was the free banking era when banks were not chartered by the government. Anyone could open a bank and they certainly did since the government did not specify reserve requirements and rules on disclosure or how depositors money could be invested. Bank failures became so common that most businessmen lost faith in the banks. The biggest depositors were people that owned an interest in the bank. In the mid-century states began regulating banks and with those regulation, business's faith in the banks grew. By the early part of twentieth century the public trust in banks had increased to a point that they were able to attract vast number working class Americans.

There was practically no regulation of insurance companies in the first half of the 18th century. As a result, most life insurance and health insurance was provide by subscriber owned organization. Customers of companies offering property insurance were almost all businesses. Very few people insured their homes.

In these early years of unregulated financial services, your only legal protection was your understanding of legal contracts and your ability to track changes in the financial environment and health of these companies you had dealings. For most people these were luxuries they could not afford. Although conservatives today see government regulation as a hindrance to economic growth, the fact is government regulations made possible economic growth in this country.

 

[JQPublic1]

All of this "class" talk is the product of Socialists. Yes.... Today it's common parlance and it's used widely by virtually everyone but it's important to understand how it originated and the purpose it serves for promot

Sorry, I must respectfully disagree about the origins of classism. Classism arose in the American Colonies well before Marx was born.White male elitist landowners ,Loyalists to the British crown, employed classism to control the slaves, indentured servants and criminals brought in as labor.Socialism wasn't the cause of classism.On the contrary, socialist ideas evolved as a defense against those who had made class an institution.

 

[JQPublic1]

Oprah Winfrey, the richest woman in America, was raised in a tar paper shack in rural Mississippi. She was a sexually abused female minority... virtually everything socially was against her, yet she persevered and was successful as a free individual able to pursue her ambitions.

Thanks for underscoring my premise. Even a diehard like you would concede that Oprah's phenomenal success could not have been possible without White liberals. Do you see liberalism as a subset of socialism?
I can also see that Oprah's own initiative and intelligence was a key factor, but how many others like her were lost to discrimination (dejure classism)? Oprah is a rare bird.

 

[Boss]

The very foundation and fundamental principles of America is a repudiation of a class system.

Who told you that lie?
History of Classism - Classism

Throughout the history of the United States there has been a legacy of class distinction and inequitable treatment of citizens.

And what has always been the result? The foundation of individual liberty prevails and overcomes these misplaced distinctions. Every. Single. Time.

So not only have you not refuted my point, you've offered evidence of it.

 

[Boss]

All of this "class" talk is the product of Socialists. Yes.... Today it's common parlance and it's used widely by virtually everyone but it's important to understand how it originated and the purpose it serves for promot

Sorry, I must respectfully disagree about the origins of classism. Classism arose in the American Colonies well before Marx was born.White male elitist landowners ,Loyalists to the British crown, employed classism to control the slaves, indentured servants and criminals brought in as labor.Socialism wasn't the cause of classism.On the contrary, socialist ideas evolved as a defense against those who had made class an institution.

Sorry, slavery had nothing to do with class. Slaves were property owned by a property owner. No different than a horse or cow. I'm not saying this out of disrespect to black people or modern sensibilities, that WAS the law upheld by SCOTUS and the prevailing view of virtually everyone at the time.

And it was eventually the understanding that black slaves were humans which deserved individual liberty (our system) which ended slavery.

I agree, classism certainly existed long before Socialism. I didn't mean to imply it was created by socialism. It is created in the American lexicon by Socialists who require it in order to sell Socialism. Our system betrays class as a fundamental principle. All men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights by their Creator.

Again, class certainly existed before Socialism, that was the purpose for the invention of Socialism. Class in some form has probably existed for all of human history. It is the relatively new American ideal that rejects classism.

 

[Boss]

Thanks for underscoring my premise. Even a diehard like you would concede that Oprah's phenomenal success could not have been possible without White liberals. Do you see liberalism as a subset of socialism?
I can also see that Oprah's own initiative and intelligence was a key factor, but how many others like her were lost to discrimination (dejure classism)? Oprah is a rare bird.

Liberalism isn't Socialism. Classical liberals are actually Conservatives. Our nation was founded on classical liberal ideals. Socialists have hijacked the political left including modern liberal progressives. So to answer your question, no, I don't see liberalism as a subset of socialism.

I disagree with your argument for Oprah's success. I think she succeeded because she had the individual perseverance to succeed. I credit her success with her strength as a human being. She overcame the discrimination and class labels because we have a system that allowed her to.

While it might be rare to achieve the level of success Oprah has, her story is not rare at all. Millions upon millions have achieved tremendous success in a classless system that enabled them to achieve their dreams and ambitions. Indeed, it's why so many people want to come to America.

 

[Boss]

You need only look at the first half of the 18th century financial services in America, a time when banks, insurance companies, and other financial services were free of government meddling.

Do we still live in the early part of the 18th century or have we evolved?

Again... (because it seems to be flying over your head) I have not said that we should be completely devoid of any and all governmental regulations. Didn't say it, haven't said it, not my argument. You continue to want to make that my argument then pose a counterargument to that.

Government regulations supported by Article I Sec. 8 and implemented in order to protect public safety and/or property, protect against exploitation of individuals or the environment, and ensure protections against fraud and corruption... are fine. I have no problem with such regulations. These enhance and protect a free market system. My problem is with regulations which subvert and undermine a free market.

 

[ScienceRocks]

 

[JQPublic1]

The very foundation and fundamental principles of America is a repudiation of a class system.

Who told you that lie?
History of Classism - Classism

Throughout the history of the United States there has been a legacy of class distinction and inequitable treatment of citizens.

And what has always been the result? The foundation of individual liberty prevails and overcomes these misplaced distinctions. Every. Single. Time.

So not only have you not refuted my point, you've offered evidence of it.

How have I offered evidence of your point? Every liberal resolution used to address Capitalist abuses emanated from collectivism. Let us not hide the socialist origins of what you call individual liberty.


One person's liberty has to be restricted at some point to prevent infringement on the liberties of his neighbor. So, in the great tribe we call Western civilization, liberty is but an illusion to keep the masses moderately appeased.

 

[Slyhunter]

Who would be so foolish as to buy insurance, that may or may not payoff when needed.

Unlike other products you can not determine the quality of the product you are buying because you have no way of knowing when or if it will ever be needed.

It's really quite simple to understand. If any private sector company is selling a worthless product, the consumer is going to complain. They'll be on TV and reporters will write columns and articles. Lawsuits will be pursued... congressmen will be written.... state attorney generals will be contacted. You're going to know that XYZ Company is screwing it's customers.

So I don't get this "you have no way of knowing" business. I understand you're trying to make an argument, you're just not making a very believable one. A free market is when people and businesses are transacting commerce voluntarily with price determined by supply and demand. Whenever someone is getting screwed over or cheated, that's NOT a free market. Whenever exploitation is taking place, that's NOT a free market. And when a business is protected from it's competition or prices are set by the government, that's NOT free market.

The rationale behind insurance regulation is to promote beneficial competition and prevent destructive or harmful competition in various areas that would destroy public confidence.

The idea that a company will be so concerned about their reputation, that they would not use all legal means to deny claims and increase profits is a bit silly. If one company finds a way to legally slip out of it's obligations, others will follow. Even companies that tried to maintain fair policies would be pushed into shady business practices by the competition.

If you have any doubt on the need for insurance regulation, you should read about the fraud and scandal in 18th century before insurance regulations.

The shady companies will have a hard time finding people willing to be their customers. People will flock to the fairer ones.

 

[Boss]

The very foundation and fundamental principles of America is a repudiation of a class system.

Who told you that lie?
History of Classism - Classism

Throughout the history of the United States there has been a legacy of class distinction and inequitable treatment of citizens.

And what has always been the result? The foundation of individual liberty prevails and overcomes these misplaced distinctions. Every. Single. Time.

So not only have you not refuted my point, you've offered evidence of it.

How have I offered evidence of your point? Every liberal resolution used to address Capitalist abuses emanated from collectivism. Let us not hide the socialist origins of what you call individual liberty.


One person's liberty has to be restricted at some point to prevent infringement on the liberties of his neighbor. So, in the great tribe we call Western civilization, liberty is but an illusion to keep the masses moderately appeased.

Nope. Sorry. Socialism and collectivism is the antithesis of individual liberty.

 

[Boss]

One person's liberty has to be restricted at some point to prevent infringement on the liberties of his neighbor.

Again, you are attempting to make a "purist" argument that is a non sequitur. There is no "pure" anything when dealing with systems applying to masses of people. The very basis for laws are restrictions on liberty. This is simply an intellectually dishonest point that cannot be allowed to stand. You are failing to understand the fundamental principles of individual liberty by applying a false criteria of purism. As if to say, if you don't have absolutely pure individual liberty, you have no individual liberty at all. That's just false.

 

[JQPublic1]

Thanks for underscoring my premise. Even a diehard like you would concede that Oprah's phenomenal success could not have been possible without White liberals. Do you see liberalism as a subset of socialism?
I can also see that Oprah's own initiative and intelligence was a key factor, but how many others like her were lost to discrimination (dejure classism)? Oprah is a rare bird.

Liberalism isn't Socialism. Classical liberals are actually Conservatives. Our nation was founded on classical liberal ideals. Socialists have hijacked the political left including modern liberal progressives. So to answer your question, no, I don't see liberalism as a subset of socialism.

I disagree with your argument for Oprah's success. I think she succeeded because she had the individual perseverance to succeed. I credit her success with her strength as a human being. She overcame the discrimination and class labels because we have a system that allowed her to.

While it might be rare to achieve the level of success Oprah has, her story is not rare at all. Millions upon millions have achieved tremendous success in a classless system that enabled them to achieve their dreams and ambitions. Indeed, it's why so many people want to come to America.

The liberals I was referring too are the same liberals that are excoriated daily on these boards. You seem to think these neo-liberals are "socialists."
The term socialist is thrown around recklessly to describe actions of people fighting for equality, and, when they gain some modicum of it, you point your finger at their successes and say, "see, freedom prevails."Freedom prevailed in each instance because people revolted. Free markets had no part in any of it. Capitalists were the enemies of freedom for workers. Socialist ideals were the catalysts for retribution of wealth so that more people could move into the middle class and upwards. But once many of them got there, they didn't look back. Rather, they supported legislation that restricted access for those coming behind them...except for family and friends! But "socialist: intervention kept the door cracked open.

The system that allowed an Oprah has also been one that has limited the access of others like her. We used to frame that "Oprah" phenomenon as "tokenism." There is a complex of rules explaining the dynamics of tokenism but Oprah stayed truer to her roots than other tokens did!

 

[Boss]

The liberals I was referring too are the same liberals that are excoriated daily on these boards. You seem to think these neo-liberals are "socialists."

Most of them will admit they are! They tack the word "Democratic" in front of it like that makes it something different. You're even here in this thread with a full-throat defense of Socialism. It's mighty disingenuous to be claiming that's not what you are if that's what you're arguing for.

The term socialist is thrown around recklessly to describe actions of people fighting for equality, and, when they gain some modicum of it, you point your finger at their successes and say, "see, freedom prevails."Freedom prevailed in each instance because people revolted.

Freedom prevails because our system is not established on class and ensures individual liberty which is endowed by our Creator and inalienable. Our system routinely rejects the notion of class. It is the Socialist system that relegates people to class and promises to "make things equal" for subservient classes. North Korea is a beautiful example of how this turns out. The peasant class are absolutely equal in every respect. They starve and suffer as the ruling class live in opulence.

Free markets had no part in any of it. Capitalists were the enemies of freedom for workers. Socialist ideals were the catalysts for retribution of wealth so that more people could move into the middle class and upwards.

Again, here you are with your rhetoric about a mythical class that doesn't exist. Capitalism is why Americans enjoy a better lifestyle than any civilization in the history of mankind. Here, workers are not condemned to a life of slavery, they have the liberty to engage in free enterprise. They have the freedom to negotiate and trade their labor for pay. In a Kingdom, that is decided by the ruler... In a Socialist society, that is decided by the State... In OUR system, that is decided by the Individual.

My motto: If you are unhappy being a Worker, be a Boss!

 

[Boss]

The system that allowed an Oprah has also been one that has limited the access of others like her. We used to frame that "Oprah" phenomenon as "tokenism." There is a complex of rules explaining the dynamics of tokenism but Oprah stayed truer to her roots than other tokens did!

I think this is an incredibly racist statement and I reject it entirely. There are no limits to the access of success in this country and Oprah proves it. There can be obstacles... there are always obstacles to success, doesn't matter who you are. But any limits are self-imposed or imaginary.

 

[JQPublic1]

The very foundation and fundamental principles of America is a repudiation of a class system.

Who told you that lie?
History of Classism - Classism

Throughout the history of the United States there has been a legacy of class distinction and inequitable treatment of citizens.

And what has always been the result? The foundation of individual liberty prevails and overcomes these misplaced distinctions. Every. Single. Time.

So not only have you not refuted my point, you've offered evidence of it.

How have I offered evidence of your point? Every liberal resolution used to address Capitalist abuses emanated from collectivism. Let us not hide the socialist origins of what you call individual liberty.


One person's liberty has to be restricted at some point to prevent infringement on the liberties of his neighbor. So, in the great tribe we call Western civilization, liberty is but an illusion to keep the masses moderately appeased.

Nope. Sorry. Socialism and collectivism is the antithesis of individual liberty.

Not when you put them all in historical context. The socialIsm of Europe is identified by public ownership of utilities and other key infrastructure components. But free enterprise abounds as well. This hybrid society model has lasted for as long or longer than our Capitalist model. Some countries like Greece and Italy can be put forth as examples of failed socialist ideals but Germany, Norway, Canada and many others can be used to counter. We must also consider the aggressive decades long US foreign policies aimed at destroying socialism, Marxism and Communism world wide. Some fledgling socialist initiatives never had a chance due to the incessant war on them and we are told that those economics failed due to socialism. BUt if yu think about it, socialism didn't fail, it could have been Capitalism within socialist countries that failed: Here is a parody on that possibility:

 

[Boss]

Not when you put them all in historical context. The socialIsm of Europe is identified by public ownership of utilities and other key infrastructure components. But free enterprise abounds as well. This hybrid society model has lasted for as long or longer than our Capitalist model. Some countries like Greece and Italy can be put forth as examples of failed socialist ideals but Germany, Norway, Canada and many others can be used to counter.

Actually, Germany is a really good comparative example of Socialism vs. Free Market. For decades a wall divided them, on one side was the Socialist policies of the USSR on the other side was the Individual Liberty principles of Western Americanism. In essence, our system won out. It wasn't even close.

All Socialist systems eventually fail. The fact they work in places like Norway are anecdotal. Norway has a small isolated population without much immigration or diversity in citizenry. The places where Socialism has proven successful are all smaller isolated populations with little diversity. For instance, a socialist system may work very well for a large family living on a farm somewhere. Everyone contributes to the collective and works for the "state" (or the home.) But everyone knows and trusts each other, and they are able to hold each other accountable for doing their part. There is little chance of "corruption" in such a system, therefore, the tenets work.

We must also consider the aggressive decades long US foreign policies aimed at destroying socialism, Marxism and Communism world wide. Some fledgling socialist initiatives never had a chance due to the incessant war on them and we are told that those economics failed due to socialism. BUt if yu think about it, socialism didn't fail, it could have been Capitalism within socialist countries that failed: Here is a parody on that possibility:

Well the idea of "possibilities" is not a debatable topic. We have no way of evaluating possibilities had other things transpired. Let's take for example here... Broadband. About 25 years ago, the technology of Broadband hit the market and showed enormous potential. But before it could really take hold in the market, the government came along and applied all kinds of restrictions and regulations. So capitalists who may have advanced the technology exponentially the past two decades, switched over to cellular and pretty much abandoned Broadband. We have no way of knowing what potential Broadband may have held. We might've had products today enabling us to use our Broadband through Wi-fi over hundreds of miles.

What we have to go by is actual history. Look at Venezuela. These people sit on one of the largest oil reserves in the western hemisphere but they are eating pigeons and rats to stay alive because of Socialism. Look at Cuba. Once a vibrant and thriving tropical tourist destination with great potential.... The people there are wiring together 50s era cars with coat-hangers and constructing makeshift boats to escape... Socialism!

 

[American_Jihad]

A HEALTH CARE PLAN SO SIMPLE EVEN A REPUBLICAN CAN UNDERSTAND
How to save American health care in one easy step.
March 30, 2017

Ann Coulter

It's always impossible to repeal laws that require Ann to pay for greedy people, because the greedy run out on the streets wailing that the Republicans are murdering them.

Obamacare is uniquely awful because the free stuff isn't paid for through income taxes: It's paid for through MY health insurance premiums. This is unfortunate because I wanted to buy health insurance.

Perhaps you're not aware -- SINCE YOU EXEMPTED YOURSELVES FROM OBAMACARE, CONGRESS -- but buying or selling health insurance is illegal in America.

Right now, there's no free market because insurance is insanely regulated not only by Obamacare, but also by the most corrupt organizations in America: state insurance commissions. (I'm talking to you, New York!)

Federal and state laws make it illegal to sell health insurance that doesn't cover a laughable array of supposedly vital services based on bureaucrats' medical opinions of which providers have the best lobbyists.

...

A Health Care Plan So Simple Even A Republican Can Understand