Vote(d) 2012 ... can't mediate the Ho Ho's

[bhu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-wKecgadEk

the gold standard is still trust.  Money is worth something because we say it is, same as gold.

[dman11235]

Yeah, but at least gold is useful....

I didn't bring it up, but gold prices fluctuate wildly all the time.  Changing to a standard based on the price of gold would do absolutely nothing to inflation, stability, or economic growth.  It's just a matter of "ooh, shiny".

[RobbyPants]

Also, it's pretty inefficient. Both systems rely on paper and coined money. With gold, on top of all that, you need to mine gold, smelt it into ingots, build a place to store it, store it, feed money into protecting it, and then just sit on it. It doesn't do anything other than sit there, backing the money in circulation.

[darqueseid]

yeah, I think rather than going back to gold, we're gonna move forward to data. 

Plastic is the currency of today, and We're not so far away from just debiting from our cell phones.  Efficiency and utility really drives the currency system nowadays, not its actual worth.  Paper is only good to wipe your ass with, but everyone reveres it when its got $$ printed on it.  Soon it will be data bits that people want... I'm not sure thats good or bad, but its coming.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

Private property is a myth.
...
governments own all the land inside their borders.  Not individuals.

Only so much as control = ownership. This is a criteria of freedom vs corrupt nations.

@Plz: 3: Lack of insurance increases the cost for all medical services, because they service has to happen regardless of whether the person pays or not (in the case of emergencies). 
...
By increasing the number of people who are paying, you decrease the total cost, because the same number of people are taking money out.

Just pointing out these things. You are correct in most of your other points but did not address the effect the sudden increase in forced "demand" will have in insurance prices. If you are trying to make a one-sided persuasive post, you have succeeded. If you are trying to make a balanced analysis, then no. Insurance companies exist for profit and will raise rates if they can. The only way to make sure this doesn't happen is even more government interference, probably necessitating a government takeover of insurance. Then politicians get to decide when x person is "covered" to have a non-emergency but still life-threatening issue resolved. Do you trust politicians and bureaucrats with your life (assuming you are poor enough to not otherwise be able to afford it)? As usual big government helps big business and does unequally makes the non-rich more vulnerable.

Unfortunately I am academic enough that I do question if government intervention in the health insurance industry is necessary. Maybe it is. But I still am going to ask the question.

[dman11235]

Do you really have total control over your property?  No, you don't.  There's a ton of things you can't do on it.  However, this country lets you be as free as it wants you to be.  I do believe that as much as the conservative whine about it, this country is becoming more and more free with each passing decade.  Social policies are still changing to be more free (and the conservatives who shout "FREEDOM!" are typically the ones who oppose it).  But after all that, you will still not be totally free, and your land will still belong to the government.  Because the government will let you be as free as you want as long as that does not infringe on the rights of those around you.

Don't really know how to respond.  See, one of the reasons the prices will go down is because of the public option.  The government sets the price, and you can choose that one or a private option.  Since the government has such a low rate compared to the companies, they have to remain competitive by reducing rates.  The government just has to not lower the rates artificially.  Very doable, unless you think the government in incapable of doing anything right (I'm not one of those people).  Another is the same idea I presented.  More people paying, same people taking, more money in the insurance companies.  It takes one company saying "hey, I'll take smaller profits for more customers!" for the rest to follow suit.  That's how the free market is supposed to keep prices down, you know.  Really, I don't think you know as much as you think you do about this issue.  That's not a bad thing, just do some learning.  And I'd advice not going to the same websites you normally do.  I will admit that I don't know enough about this issue to really get into it as well.  I will say that I believe a public healthcare option is the right thing to do, and the other stipulations of the bill are also improvements on the system.  Also, you tend to fall into a slippery slope way too often.  Be careful about that.

Full disclosure: I don't like the idea of "free market".  It sucks.  It is an extremist pipe dream, and even more of one than true communism.  In a true free market, there is no government interference, right?  So companies are free to lie, cheat, and steal.  Where would we be without the FDA and CPA?  Back with the companies saying "Here's some liquid heroin!  It'll help your baby sleep no problem!".  Again, some control is necessary in this world.  And some freedom is necessary.  The trick is finding the balance.  I err on the side of freedom, but I also err on the side of providing for those who cannot otherwise take care of themselves.  Note that this is "cannot" not "will not".  Most people who don't have a job don't have one for a reason.  Such as the job market.  not because they are lazy.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

Do you really have total control over your property?  No, you don't.  There's a ton of things you can't do on it.  However, this country lets you be as free as it wants you to be.  I do believe that as much as the conservative whine about it, this country is becoming more and more free with each passing decade.  Social policies are still changing to be more free (and the conservatives who shout "FREEDOM!" are typically the ones who oppose it).  But after all that, you will still not be totally free, and your land will still belong to the government.  Because the government will let you be as free as you want as long as that does not infringe on the rights of those around you.

Don't really know how to respond.  See, one of the reasons the prices will go down is because of the public option.  The government sets the price, and you can choose that one or a private option.  Since the government has such a low rate compared to the companies, they have to remain competitive by reducing rates.  The government just has to not lower the rates artificially.  Very doable, unless you think the government in incapable of doing anything right (I'm not one of those people).  Another is the same idea I presented.  More people paying, same people taking, more money in the insurance companies.  It takes one company saying "hey, I'll take smaller profits for more customers!" for the rest to follow suit.  That's how the free market is supposed to keep prices down, you know.  Really, I don't think you know as much as you think you do about this issue.  That's not a bad thing,just do some learning.  And I'd advice not going to the same websites you normally do.  I will admit that I don't know enough about this issue to really get into it as well.  I will say that I believe a public healthcare option is the right thing to do, and the other stipulations of the bill are also improvements on the system.  Also, you tend to fall into a slippery slope way too often.  Be careful about that.

Full disclosure: I don't like the idea of "free market".  It sucks.  It is an extremist pipe dream, and even more of one than true communism.  In a true free market, there is no government interference, right?  So companies are free to lie, cheat, and steal.  Where would we be without the FDA and CPA?  Back with the companies saying "Here's some liquid heroin!  It'll help your baby sleep no problem!".  Again, some control is necessary in this world.  And some freedom is necessary.  The trick is finding the balance.  I err on the side of freedom, but I also err on the side of providing for those who cannot otherwise take care of themselves.  Note that this is "cannot" not "will not".  Most people who don't have a job don't have one for a reason.  Such as the job market.  not because they are lazy.

Oh its you. Hmm.

• Please stop using or referencing straw men. I don't and I find it insulting.
• You are using red herrings. Do you know that Pelosi, Obama, Frank, and other high ranking officials responsible for obamacare have the goal of a single-payer system? Using private options is not part of the big picture.
• Ad hominem attacks do not prove your point. Since I am asking you to consider certain effects on demand, I am clearly beyond the econ 101 point. Please simply follow the dialogue and answer as best you can. I have been. If you really wanted "some learning" to happen, you would give specific things to think about, rather than open-ended condescending statements.
• Please do not make assumptions about me. You are wasting both of our times. I do not "normally" go to any sites but this one and a funny poster website. I have no idea what other slopes you are speaking of me falling into.

If the above is unreasonable you are free to PM me, but do not expect me to answer you here. If you fail to address everything here, I'm out.

[dman11235]

I need to adjust something for clarity.  Bolding is what was missing.

Because the government will let you be as free as you want as long as that does not infringe on the rights of those around you, assuming the government does what the ideal set forth by the constitution says.

I was condescending?  Really?  I've tried to be as polite as I normally am.  I have never made an ad hominem attack in this discussion, ever.  Not once have I attacked your character rather than your argument in an attempt to prove my point.  The closest thing to that is when I observed that you do not have your facts 100%, and suggested that you read up on them in some new areas.  Or if you are the free market, then I called you a horrible system, but I think it is safe to assume that you are not an abstract concept.

As for a specific thing to learn about: how about the health care bill?  Here's the things that it was intended* to do:

provide a government option for health insurance
protect those with pre-existing conditions from price hikes
reduce exploitation of the industry
encourage people to purchase a policy through a tax.

Indirectly, this was intended to lower cost and increase availability and coverage of policies.

*It was not intended to be a government takeover of the system.  It was not intended to make the market less free (in fact, adding a government option kind of increases consumer freedom, so that's not a valid argument).  It also will not accomplish everything it wants to because or adjustments made to nullify most aspects of it by the Republicans, because their platform for the past 4 years has been "make Obama a 1-term president".

Also, can you cite any sources that quote them as saying that the sole goal of the bill was the public option?  And eliminating private options?  That is contrary to every news source out there.  Well, maybe except people like Limbaugh and company.  But they don't care about facts anyways.  One of the biggest talking points on the bill has always been the pre-existing conditions bit.

[skydragonknight]

I don't expect a price increase from increased demand. Hospitals have had plenty of time to anticipate an increase in demand and expand their capacities appropriately. With insurance backing more people, increasing their likelihood to use said services and pay for them, those costs should pay for themselves. On the contrary if it gets shot down by a Republican president or Congress, I expect the prices will increase somewhat to cover the increased overhead.

I'm by no means an authority on this (just a grunt at a hospital). But I do know we've been expanding a lot recently, and without a corresponding increase in demand there would be only one possible consequence. You could call it Appeal To What I've Seen With My Own Eyes if you want though.

[darqueseid]

the rise in healthcare cost rates refutes your argument.  We can debate about the causes, but healtcare rates have gone up over time, that is a fact. 

Conservatives often argue for monetary/fiscal freedom, while restricting personal freedoms
whereas liberals argue for monetary/fiscal restrictions and boost personal freedoms.

which party wants freedom for both? the libertarians maybe, though they tend to be more conservative too in terms of abortion etc.

which ideology is right?  We won't really know until we look back on it in history, but my money's on the liberals ;-)

[skydragonknight]

Lawsuits raise the cost of health care more than anything.

[Libertad]

which party wants freedom for both? the libertarians maybe, though they tend to be more conservative too in terms of abortion etc.

Actually, most Libertarians are pro-choice.  Ron Paul's views on abortion are an exception.

[dman11235]

That's because he's not a Libertarian, he's a Republican in Disguise.  Most Libertarian politicians are Republicans in Disguise, in fact.

[veekie]

Simpler one. Most politicians are scumbags in disguise.

[RobbyPants]

which party wants freedom for both? the libertarians maybe, though they tend to be more conservative too in terms of abortion etc.

Actually, most Libertarians are pro-choice.  Ron Paul's views on abortion are an exception.

From my understanding, a more correct way to put it would be more like "any individual Libertarian might fall on either side, but the overall ideology is that it's not the government's place to make those decisions."

So, Libertarian X might lean more pro choice and Libertarian Y might lean more pro life, but they could both vote pro choice by virtue of feeling that it's not the government's place to regulate it.


I do agree that most of the Libertarian candidates you see really are more Republican. I've heard the term "Republitarian" to describe exactly that. It's how I feel about the Tea Party after it co-opted with the Republican party: they used to be more Libertarian, now, they're pretty much Republican with the dial turned to 11 on most issues.

[dipolartech]

Yeah that effective wolf-in-sheeps clothing thing confused the hell out of me when people started bashing the Tea Party until I realized that everyone was bashing the "televised" Tea Party i.e. the extremist segment that made better news bites than you know organized and respectful moderate party fighting for specifics.

[veekie]

Thats one big problem of how the media treats politics. If its not extreme its not newsworthy. If its not newsworthy, it gets no attention. Politicians breath attention.

[darqueseid]

I think the tea party has been accurately portrayed by the media myself. 

They are conservatarians now, largely because of where they get most of their funding. 

They started as a populist movement just looking to reign in government spending.  Then they got peppered with a vocal minority of racists and ultra-conservatives, partially because of their support of Sarah Palin-and vice versa.  And now, perhaps sadly, they are just the angry lapdogs for the republican party.  A vocal minority that wield no real power.   

As much as I disagree with the tea party, I feel like they should have a place-not under the heel of any other party...  They should be able to speak independently of the republican agenda.  I think having more parties is only good for democracy, as the people have more choices, and it provides opposing viewpoints to issues. 

[dman11235]

I disagree.  If you have a ton of choices but only two are any good, then you only have two choices.  What we need is a ton of GOOD choices, that is what makes a democracy thrive.

[darqueseid]

well, since we're not really a democracy, I guess I should have said having more parties is good for a republic. 

You see in a republic, parties and their representatives are supposed to represent viewpoints, and Ideas.  I feel that all ideas have merit, even the bad ones, because if the "bad" ones didn't exist we might not clearly see the right. 

Also, who's to say what the "good" ideas are?  That's ALOT of power actually, you don't want to let only one party put forward ideas with no-one to oppose them.  That's not democracy or republic, there is no choice.  In truth, only two parties putting forward ideas is still concentrating too much power into the hands of a few.  No, we would be far healthier as a republic if multiple views and ideas were represented not just two.