Politics

[observe]

 

[observe]

 

[markm]

Isn't this the truth

View attachment 333540

 

[cpr0312]

 

[Ray B]

The previous posting is noted as SATIRE- I don't see anything satirical about it. Bloomberg has spent millions in efforts to subvert our gun rights and Sanders' entire platform is eliminating personal wealth no matter how little that wealth may be- and Biden- just listen to him and you'll see.

 

[Hogpatrol]

Almost a hundred million of just the male population age eligible to be POTUS and old Joe is the best there is? We are truly FKD.

 

[Hogpatrol]

 

[cpr0312]

 

[tigris115]

As bad as Biden is, at least we can look forward to the surplus of schadenfreude that will come from Bernie's campaign crashing and burning.

 

[Newboomer]

Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery.

It was ASVAB in 1960 when I went in.

 

[tigris115]

Growth in health care delivery is very clearly tied to growth in health care delivery regulation, as indicated by this graph. There is one, and only one, reason for the growth in health care expense, and that is to cover the cost of the people who deal with the regulations. They add NO value to health care delivery, only cost. If you want to make health care delivery affordable again, get government entirely uninvolved in it. The poor will always struggle to pay for anything. Adding government to this mix in any way only increases the number of people who will struggle to pay for it.

Interesting. So how would one implement this system? More importantly, what would it look like compared to our current system or that of other countries? Also as much as I understand aspects of de-regulation, I have a deep distrust of any private corporations being totally unbridled, for they will often go straight for profit while neglecting things like human welfare as seen with Amazon.

 

[ILCAPO]

View attachment 333540

Got one better. I particularly like this because of the white maltese cross on black tunic. This was worn by the hospitalar knights -- versus the Templars, who wore white tunics with red crosses.

Although Danish, my family lineage is tied back to Germany and all the way back to the hospitalar knights, which eventually, as I understand it, became the Knights of Malta.

My father did some research back in the 70s, and I did more in Europe in 2000 and found the same thing. Taking this to an artist working the Ren Faire in Maryland at the time, the guy kept telling me my description of the family coat-0f-arms was wrong because it violated the rules of heraldry because of the metal on metal--that's not allowed. However, he looked it up in his series of reference books and confirmed I was right; silver shield, with a field of green at the bottom from which are growing seven stalks of rye, surmounted by a gold chevron and over that a gold six point star (silver being represented by white and gold by yellow being they had no metallic paints back then). He then said, "Oh my Gosh! This is an ancient coat-of-arms, created long before the rules of heraldry."

I asked, "Well does this star of David mean we're part Jewish?"

He said no, that this indicated it was earned in the Battle of Jerusalem.

Another interesting thing was the stalks of rye... because my grandfather, the second of ten boys but the only one to immigrate from Denmark, came from a family of rye farmers.

 

[sgt_zim]

Interesting. So how would one implement this system? More importantly, what would it look like compared to our current system or that of other countries? Also as much as I understand aspects of de-regulation, I have a deep distrust of any private corporations being totally unbridled, for they will often go straight for profit while neglecting things like human welfare as seen with Amazon.

Not to sound flippant, but if your house were burning down, what would you replace the fire with? There is no "system" to implement here. Take a red pill and get out of the matrix.

Without the overhead of paying workers to do nothing but satisfy legislators and bureaucrats, prices would fall tremendously. That would further leverage the amount of money charitable organizations have to donate to such causes as well.

If a player in the free market abuses his employees, or if he provides a product or service which isn't worth (in the estimation of the buying public) his asking price, the market will encourage him to correct his defects, or the market will put him out of business. Markets act more swiftly and more decisively to regulate bad actors than any bureaucrat could ever dream of doing.

We vote for politicians every 2 or 4 years. We vote for our employers and our vendors every single day. A free market is more democratic by leaps and bounds than any government could ever hope to be.

But as to trust...I'm inferring that you trust people with badges and guns (sent out by legislators and executives who are elected) who can use force to get you to do things you wouldn't otherwise do, more than "greedy" businessmen who can't put you in jail (or worse) if you refuse to purchase their products/services? Do you believe government doesn't run on greed? Do you believe politicians make their political appointments based on honor, or on political patronage?

 

[Ray B]

there are several different models that apply to economic behaviors and results. The simplest is "What is in it for me". This has a subset: Longterm and Shortterm. Most any action taken either by the government or private sector can be described by the answers to those questions. As to the role of government decisions they can be viewed from the prism of: What does it stop THEM from doing/require done AND What does it give ME? Most any law can be traced back to that answer.

 

[tigris115]

Not to sound flippant, but if your house were burning down, what would you replace the fire with? There is no "system" to implement here. Take a red pill and get out of the matrix.

Without the overhead of paying workers to do nothing but satisfy legislators and bureaucrats, prices would fall tremendously. That would further leverage the amount of money charitable organizations have to donate to such causes as well.

If a player in the free market abuses his employees, or if he provides a product or service which isn't worth (in the estimation of the buying public) his asking price, the market will encourage him to correct his defects, or the market will put him out of business. Markets act more swiftly and more decisively to regulate bad actors than any bureaucrat could ever dream of doing.

We vote for politicians every 2 or 4 years. We vote for our employers and our vendors every single day. A free market is more democratic by leaps and bounds than any government could ever hope to be.

But as to trust...I'm inferring that you trust people with badges and guns (sent out by legislators and executives who are elected) who can use force to get you to do things you wouldn't otherwise do, more than "greedy" businessmen who can't put you in jail (or worse) if you refuse to purchase their products/services? Do you believe government doesn't run on greed? Do you believe politicians make their political appointments based on honor, or on political patronage?

Even if markets do act swiftly, you still need some laws in order to have some form of responsibility. While the sheer bureaucracy of our government regulations has become disgustingly bloated, you still need to say "NO" when the proverbial dog pisses on the carpet. I'm not an economics major so this could be wrong as hell but I'm trying.

Also, IMO, good laws, bills, etc. are self-aware that the government is naturally inclined to corruption and laws like this are necessary to make sure that the government doesn't get bloated and knows its place.

Also, I asked about systems is because I wanted to research an example of a healthcare system with little to no government involvement and without loaded American bureaucracy to see how it compares to the systems of other international big players.

 

[Ray B]

I wanted to research an example of a healthcare system with little to no government involvement and without loaded American bureaucracy to see how it compares to the systems of other international big players.

I experienced the healthcare system in Ecuador about 25 years ago and for health issues within the general level of care Ecuador was the equal of anything available in the US and at about 1/20th the cost. I saw three reasons for the price differences: 1. Third party payment (price never matters if someone else is paying); 2. Administrative costs resulting from needs to justify actions/inactions; & 3. Fear of malpractice claims/exorbitant judgments & resulting insurance costs. To which could be added a fourth: costs/opportunities to enter medical field and resulting reduction of competition.

 

[sgt_zim]

Even if markets do act swiftly, you still need some laws in order to have some form of responsibility. While the sheer bureaucracy of our government regulations has become disgustingly bloated, you still need to say "NO" when the proverbial dog pisses on the carpet. I'm not an economics major so this could be wrong as hell but I'm trying.

Also, IMO, good laws, bills, etc. are self-aware that the government is naturally inclined to corruption and laws like this are necessary to make sure that the government doesn't get bloated and knows its place.

Also, I asked about systems is because I wanted to research an example of a healthcare system with little to no government involvement and without loaded American bureaucracy to see how it compares to the systems of other international big players.

We already have laws on the books to deal with all sorts of torts. You are confusing criminal/civil culpability with regulation.

You keep using the word "system." The free market is not a system in the way I understand you to be using it. The free market is simply people make economic decisions in their own best interest. "System" implies some sort of top-down control, and legislators and bureaucrats throughout all human history always seek more of it. We don't need a "system" to deliver quality health care at affordable prices. "The systems" which exist around the world don't deliver health care at all, the doctors do. Those systems only interfere with the efficient delivery of health care.

The bigger the "system," the lower the quality and the higher the price. When government injects itself into economic transactions, it ***always*** imposes a cost burden which is ultimately paid by the purchaser in that economic transaction. "The poor" can never really afford anything. But the more regulation you add to any market, the more painful you make it for the people just above poverty. Add more regulation, you make it more painful for the people just above that, and so on.

There is no free market in health care delivery anywhere in the world that I am aware of because the legislators and bureaucrats "just know better" and impose their will on those markets.

You REALLY need to read Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" and Frederic Bastiat's "The Law." The former is available for free at fee.org. The latter may also be, but it's for certain you can pick up a copy of it at some online retailer for fewer than 15 USD. Hazlitt and Bastiat are better writers than I am.

To your first assertion that you are not an economics major so you could be wrong. The Marxists and Keynesians have everyone snowed into thinking that all study of economics is mind-numbingly boring and difficult to understand. I've come to the conclusion that people (professors and so forth) who spout that gibberish are really sociologists who are dabbling (very poorly, I might add) in economics.

Do yourself a huge favor and read those books this weekend or next. There are others which are worth your time, eventually, but those two especially are good primers.

 

[tigris115]

When I said system, I meant more something that I could look at on paper. Sry for the misunderstanding

Also, I like to give a disclaimer on my lack of knowledge in a subject so I dont end up making an ass out of myself.

 

[ILCAPO]

We already have laws on the books to deal with all sorts of torts. You are confusing criminal/civil culpability with regulation.

You keep using the word "system." The free market is not a system in the way I understand you to be using it. The free market is simply people make economic decisions in their own best interest. "System" implies some sort of top-down control, and legislators and bureaucrats throughout all human history always seek more of it. We don't need a "system" to deliver quality health care at affordable prices. "The systems" which exist around the world don't deliver health care at all, the doctors do. Those systems only interfere with the efficient delivery of health care.

The bigger the "system," the lower the quality and the higher the price. When government injects itself into economic transactions, it ***always*** imposes a cost burden which is ultimately paid by the purchaser in that economic transaction. "The poor" can never really afford anything. But the more regulation you add to any market, the more painful you make it for the people just above poverty. Add more regulation, you make it more painful for the people just above that, and so on.

There is no free market in health care delivery anywhere in the world that I am aware of because the legislators and bureaucrats "just know better" and impose their will on those markets.

You REALLY need to read Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" and Frederic Bastiat's "The Law." The former is available for free at fee.org. The latter may also be, but it's for certain you can pick up a copy of it at some online retailer for fewer than 15 USD. Hazlitt and Bastiat are better writers than I am.

To your first assertion that you are not an economics major so you could be wrong. The Marxists and Keynesians have everyone snowed into thinking that all study of economics is mind-numbingly boring and difficult to understand. I've come to the conclusion that people (professors and so forth) who spout that gibberish are really sociologists who are dabbling (very poorly, I might add) in economics.

Do yourself a huge favor and read those books this weekend or next. There are others which are worth your time, eventually, but those two especially are good primers.

WELL PUT FRIEND. In the private sector, if you don't like things as they are you change with whom you're dealing. When government is in charge, you have ZERO options. You are TOLD what you're going to get and what you're going to pay for it. And if you don't like it, tough luck.

Our current medical regulations and laws are often quite counter-productive. It's a patchwork of garbage which causes lots of costs which are unnecessary. And having dealt with the VA, I can tell you WE DO NOT WANT GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE.

Think of it this way. Where have you ever seen government screw up royally and someone successfully sues for mismanagement/malpractice? Doesn't happen. Government officials are protected from such nuisances.

Years ago, back in 1992 as I was finishing up my tour of duty in Italy, I saw on the news how a senior French healthcare official was fired and a few others 'given stern warnings.' Why? Well, warnings had been made by some medical personnel in the late 80s of a serious possibility of the blood supply having been tainted with HIV. Some infected people were found to have given blood. Some called for the current blood supply in said areas to be dumped and new blood drives conducted. But government bureaucrats running the French healthcare system looked at the costs, and decided it wasn't worth it and took the risk. No skin of THEIR noses. But it turns out they were wrong. By the time of this news, nearly 2,000 had died of AIDES and thousands more were infected with HIV. All the happened was a few people lost their jobs. Those who suffered family losses, got a "sorry, but those are the breaks" from the French government.

This would NEVER have happened here in the States because any hospital or blood bank would face bankrupting law suits, with personal responsibility in some cases. The cost benefit analysis comes out quite differently when one faces not only law suits but criminal charges for malpractice. No French official was ever prosecuted. They simply got fired.

 

[tigris115]

We already have laws on the books to deal with all sorts of torts. You are confusing criminal/civil culpability with regulation.

You keep using the word "system." The free market is not a system in the way I understand you to be using it. The free market is simply people make economic decisions in their own best interest. "System" implies some sort of top-down control, and legislators and bureaucrats throughout all human history always seek more of it. We don't need a "system" to deliver quality health care at affordable prices. "The systems" which exist around the world don't deliver health care at all, the doctors do. Those systems only interfere with the efficient delivery of health care.

The bigger the "system," the lower the quality and the higher the price. When government injects itself into economic transactions, it ***always*** imposes a cost burden which is ultimately paid by the purchaser in that economic transaction. "The poor" can never really afford anything. But the more regulation you add to any market, the more painful you make it for the people just above poverty. Add more regulation, you make it more painful for the people just above that, and so on.

There is no free market in health care delivery anywhere in the world that I am aware of because the legislators and bureaucrats "just know better" and impose their will on those markets.

You REALLY need to read Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" and Frederic Bastiat's "The Law." The former is available for free at fee.org. The latter may also be, but it's for certain you can pick up a copy of it at some online retailer for fewer than 15 USD. Hazlitt and Bastiat are better writers than I am.

To your first assertion that you are not an economics major so you could be wrong. The Marxists and Keynesians have everyone snowed into thinking that all study of economics is mind-numbingly boring and difficult to understand. I've come to the conclusion that people (professors and so forth) who spout that gibberish are really sociologists who are dabbling (very poorly, I might add) in economics.

Do yourself a huge favor and read those books this weekend or next. There are others which are worth your time, eventually, but those two especially are good primers.

Thanks for the book recommendations. Also, I like to ask questions about what other countries are doing with their healthcare, be it with lots of or little to no government involvement, because I like to look at them all and cross compare. I do agree with you that the government is mainly at fault here, especially with how the ACA turned into an expensive, incompetent mess.

However, I do think that finding solutions for those in poverty is important, because if you can get people out of the threshold of survival, they will become much more productive citizens. Obviously, Bernie's proposals won't work for diddly squat but I think that it's something worth thinking about.