It is currently Wed Jul 23, 2014 2:04 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:26 pm
Posts: 9
Airwarrior wrote:
No question Ann is right again, whether you can stand Romney-vision or not.

Maybe if Mitt makes liberals mad and the Left livid enough, I might take a likin' to the boy.

Go Mitt! Sik em'

:gcheer:


I will try and stay on topic but I could not help noticing your avatar, the good old F-4 Phantom. There were many of days that I would get Phantom bites working up and under door 22, that till it was replaced by the F-15. Talk about going from dark to light! In the world in which I and my family reside, ObamaRomney is considered a massive tool, heck my wife can not even look at that huge head of his. I am with veterans for Ron Paul. You may ask yourself why would veterans support him, well their are several compelling reasons and I have only the time to list a few, 1) Our wonderfull gov. shells out billions of dollars to Pakistan for one and many others, they turn around buy bullets that shoot us and our children down dead!!! Dr. Paul would like to put a stop to that, and guess what, every vet I know is really pissed! The next reason I would hope you would take a look at and get back to me on, I really would like your opinion on this, thank you.

US gripped with offshore economy. Max Keiser Interview with Paul Graig Roberts
Posted by smeddum on July 20, 2010

PressTV

Sun, 18 Jul 2010


Jobs are becoming scarcer and scarcer particularly in the United States. Is it cyclical or is it structural? Is it something that America has completely turned its back on in a way that could potentially be a factor for decades going forward?
Max Keiser discusses this issue with Dr. Paul Craig Roberts who was in the Regan treasury, a former editor at the Wall Street Journal. He was inducted into the French legion honor. He is also an author; his latest book is How the economy was lost.

The following is the transcript of the interview:

Keiser: Andy Grove, the co-founder of Intel has just written an opinion piece for Bloomberg that has totally vindicated your long held argument against outsourcing American jobs, how to make American jobs before its too late, why don’t you start by telling us your history of arguing publicly against outsourcing jobs and what is it that Andy Grove is now saying that supports your argument?

Roberts: The offshoring of jobs started in a big way after 1990. It required the collapse of socialism and the opening of Chinese and Indian labor to the so-called first world corporations. What occurred was that corporations found that workers in China were just as productive as the Americans worked for us if they were working with American capital and technology.

So they began moving the jobs in manufacturing industry and now of course in professional services such as engineering, research, development; and over there, in China for example, the excess supplies of Chinese labor are so large that it holds the wages down far below the productivity of the workers so what was wages paid to Americans is transferred into returns to shareholders and returns to executives in the form of performance bonuses.

So this is one of the reasons for the much worse in the income distribution in America though the income is transferred from labor to shareholders and management. Though as this process got going, more and more was transferred and they kept the idea that somehow we were going to create new jobs to take the place of the old rusty manufacturing jobs that we would have new jobs and that we would have the innovating, with desire and financing.

Well the trouble with all of this is the former chairman of Intel has made clear, you can’t innovate if you don’t make, because you don’t know what’s going on. Innovation is done with things that are produced and new products grow up out of the production process. The unemployment rate is currently 20 percent. There is a myth that still exists that this is due to insufficient consumer spending and they still have the idea that with government deficits and easy money they can provoke the consumer into spending more and if this would revive the economy but the problem is that there are no jobs to call the work force back to.

Keiser: So the way this was sold to the American population, was this phrase: knowledge-economy and was somehow you don’t really need manufacturing jobs anymore, those can be outsourced, those can be shipped overseas and the knowledge of innovation and creating idea stays in the US and these are high paying jobs and this is going to make a robust economy. But what you told people, warned people about and what Andy Grove is talking about is that if you move the manufacturing away from the innovation, the innovation suffers because there is an institutional and cultural value added or the sum of the whole is greater than the parts when you have got all of the innovators and the manufacturers together and when you put those apart, what we are finding is that you lose both the jobs and the innovation because now much of the innovation in new technologies like green technologies, battery technologies, car technologies, are not coming from America but for this very reason, is that correct?

Roberts: That’s correct, and as Andy Grove won’t stop, you use the entire scaling up process. Suppose you do some innovation in Silicon Valley for example, it doesn’t result in any American jobs because when the product is taken to production, it’s taken to production offshore so the whole scaling up process going from the public eye into mass production for large markets that’s where the jobs are; that’s where the economic growth is and all of that has moved offshore, so even if for some limited period the Americans are still able to do a good innovation, all the scaling up is done offshore , so the jobs, are where the scaling up happens.

I thought that Andy Grove made an excellent example pointing that out. So what we are faced with now is, the economy has been moved offshore and American firms are now essentially sales firms, marketing firms and market to Americans that their products are produced in other countries. Now what this does obviously is that it separates the Americans from the income associated with the production of the business services that they consume and therefore they haven’t got the income to be the markets.

Keiser: Right and they replace that with debt, so they go deeper and deeper into debt, to buy in to these manufactured goods that are manufactured overseas and as a result not being able to service the debt and not having a job to service the debt and having wages that are competing now with folks in Asia and around the world, you find this systemic job loss in the US. Let me ask a question here, you have got a recognition of the problem, where Barack Obama, back in 2008 instead of dumping $10 or $15 trillion into the banking system to bail out Geithner and his buddies on Wall Street; what if Obama had put the money to work rebuilding America’s job infrastructure , well, it would still take a long time to see any results because you would have to educate the population, America’s educational infrastructure is not very competitive anymore around the world, you then would need to rebuild a manufacturing base because all the factories are out of date and not competitive with around the world plus America the brand has been tarnished with the Iraq invasion, with Abu Ghraib prison scandal, with Guantanamo Bay, with open torture by the administration, so to rebuild all of this would take decades but they haven’t even started yet. If Barack Obama suddenly woke up and said the banks are not my friends, we need to actually create real jobs for real people in America, how long will it take to rebuild real manufacturing competitive countries?

Roberts They wouldn’t be able to do it unless they change the incentives that the corporations face. Just let me say you touched an important part when you pointed out that when consumer incomes stop growing; they kept their economy going for almost a decade with the expansion of consumer debt, the low interest rate, they created real estate double let people refinance their houses.

The credit cards that they maxed out, any time they maxed out one they moved to another credit card, and it was this debt fuelled consumption that disguised the adverse effects of offshore for almost a decade; that’s one of the reasons why no one paid attention because the economy is looking good; look at all this consumption and they couldn’t comprehend that what was happening was a substitution of debt or what had been growth in real incomes. Well now that that debt has run its course, they’re all so in debt they can’t max out any more credit cards, they can’t refinance any more homes and spend the equity and so now we have this situation where they try to rely on traditional monetary policy to call people back to work when all the jobs have been sent offshore.

So how could they reverse this process? Well one way they can reverse it would be to change the way they tax the corporations. If corporations produce their value added domestically in the US, they can have a very low tax rate; if they produce the value added of the product offshore then they will have a very high tax rate. So with this kind of tax policy you can all set the advantage of the very cheap labor that they can hire in countries with large excess supplies and labor such as China and India and perhaps they are the reversal of the process.

Now one of the real problems with trying to do that is that now so many of the corporations are so heavily invested overseas that they wouldn’t see this in their interests and they may simply say well its better to leave the US entirely and reform as a company somewhere else so we are not subject to this taxation.
So I don’t know that anything much can be done at this point when you consider the enormous power of the business lobby and how this is just now sort of the conventional wisdom which is in people that you have to be a global company, it would be very difficult.

Keiser: You talk about incentives and using the tax rate as an incentive and you’re lowering the tax burden for domestically manufactured goods; for those companies that are hiring people domestically. Now what we will hear from folks over there at the New York Times like Paul Krugman and others is that what you’re talking about is protectionism and this is what happened in the 1930s during the depression; why is this not the case?

Roberts: Well its not the case because the Great Depression was caused by one third shrinkage in the supply of money.

This was one of the great achievements of Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz; they went through all federal reserve, examined the records, the minutes and what they discovered was that we had a great depression because the federal reserve failed in its job and permitted the money supplied to shrink by one third, so with such a shrinkage in the money supply you can not maintain a same level of sales and prices and employment.

Now there’s another myth that was recently expressed in the Wall Street Journal by somebody who says “Andy Grove is my hero, I don’t understand why he is a protectionist; what is he talking about? We have always benefited from free trade!” Well that’s not true, the United States is not based on its success, and it’s not based on free trade. Our industrial development was a result of tax.

Keiser:Does America need an industrial policy to save American jobs?

Roberts:That’s right; we can’t have an economy without jobs.

Keiser:Now why is it so difficult, because even the word “jobs” in America has become a dirty word. People seem to think that only poor people have jobs, as a matter of fact if you have tried to get a job in America today, if you are currently unemployed, they wont even talk to you, so there’s a total disconnect between what makes an economy in terms of fundamental piece, that is to say jobs, how did this happen?

Roberts: Because of the very clever propaganda that economists conduct for the global corporations.

If you say protectionist, it’s a way of turning off debate or shedding up somebody who has some facts and also they have learned that being concerned with some jobs might be dangerous to their profits because at some point Americans will catch that all their jobs are exported . The biggest export is our jobs, so people who keep saying “protectionist”, what are they willing to do? Have a jobless economy so they can say we have free trade in the United States? But you see there’s a huge confusion because offshoring is not a free trade.

David Ricardo, who developed the theory of free trade, made it very clear that absolute advantage is totally different from comparative advantage. Free trade is based on comparative advantage which requires a country’s capital to remain at home, find its best use, employ its own workers and make products its best trade to other countries that are doing the same thing.

Keiser:How do you fight for jobs? What is left in the arsenal to fight for jobs?

Roberts:Nothing, one of the reasons they like offshoring is to destroy the unions so that’s one of the reasons free market economists and corporations are so keen on offshoring, it destroys the unions.

Even if monetary policy works; let’s suppose the banks were heavily indebted and the consumers were not so heavily indebted; and the banks could actually lend and the consumers could actually borrow; it still doesn’t lead to American jobs, maybe to retail clerks, but what the Americans would be buying with their credit would be the goods made offshore, so it doesn’t transfer into American jobs.

If you look at the job reports, the only jobs that have been created in the 21st century in America are domestic service jobs like waiters, bartenders, hospital orderlies, construction workers, real estate, they are continuing to lose manufacture jobs, and not creating jobs for scientists and engineers and this has now been going on for a decade.

There’s so much loss, so many skills, so much infrastructure. When you move the main factory offshore, you destroy all the suppliers all the way down to the foundry levels. What the US is going through is a process of disdevelopment of becoming an undeveloped economy; it’s the opposite of economic development going on in the US. I predicted it through the beginning of this century that if this continued in 20 years the US would be a third world country and we are now taking on attributes of a third world country, such as large scale unemployment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:49 pm
Posts: 128
s martin wrote:
Newt Gingrich is the only candidate who knows how to roller blade through the bureaucratic maze. He knows the politics and policies of each Department and can quickly begin to consolidate, dismantle and re-organize to achieve better efficiency and cost-cutting.

Considering the fact that Newt Gingrich has worked behind the scenes to pass anti second amendment Brady Law, more recently supported amnesty for illegal aliens and joined forces with Nancy Pelosi to promote global warming scheme, he is not only a RINO, but a backstabbing traitor who says one thing and does another. At least one can understand Mitt Romney's less than conservative record, after all he was a governor of the most ultra-liberal state with democrats control of 83% of local legislature. But for Newt Gingrich who came from solidly conservative district of Georgia, to support liberal positions is outright treason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:44 pm
Posts: 5250
Location: Everett, MA
Quote:
"You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me."


Stop right there Mitt- who gets to foist this notion that insurance is something I necessarily need at all? The whole concept of Romneycare stemmed from the liberal idea that I owe someone else their health care. So instead of being like the state of California having tax payers pay for sex change operations - that can be accomplished in MA by mandating insurance providers to cover it then allow them to increase the premiums - as though the taxpayers might be fooled into thinking someone ~else~ was going to pay for it.

Insurance produces absolutely nothing at all but "Mr. Capitalist" tells me that I can't live without 'it'. Romney and Obama are both in the back pocket of the insurance 'industry' that adds at least 40% to the everyday normal cost of everyone's health care to pay a bunch of people to figure out how to screw both doctors AND patients to improve their bottom line. Medicare is mandatory health insurance too, try to find a geriatric doctor these days - good luck. That's what's coming to ALL practices thanks to Romney/Obamacare.

What's next? "Food Insurance"? Oh wait, we already have that; it's called welfare and doesn't need to be administered by a surrogate governmental agency like an insurance company because we already have the IRS to collect the premiums for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:48 am
Posts: 9528
Location: On horseback.
werwolf96 wrote:
s martin wrote:
Newt Gingrich is the only candidate who knows how to roller blade through the bureaucratic maze. He knows the politics and policies of each Department and can quickly begin to consolidate, dismantle and re-organize to achieve better efficiency and cost-cutting.

Considering the fact that Newt Gingrich has worked behind the scenes to pass anti second amendment Brady Law, more recently supported amnesty for illegal aliens and joined forces with Nancy Pelosi to promote global warming scheme, he is not only a RINO, but a backstabbing traitor who says one thing and does another. At least one can understand Mitt Romney's less than conservative record, after all he was a governor of the most ultra-liberal state with democrats control of 83% of local legislature. But for Newt Gingrich who came from solidly conservative district of Georgia, to support liberal positions is outright treason.


:hm2: Very interesting, but I think you may be right on. thanks for the post and some food for thought.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 11187
werwolf96 wrote:
Considering the fact that Newt Gingrich has worked behind the scenes to pass anti second amendment Brady Law, more recently supported amnesty for illegal aliens and joined forces with Nancy Pelosi to promote global warming scheme,
Fact? Gingrich voted no on Brady, he does not support amnesty, and did not promote any scheme with Pelosi or join forces, as he was out of office.

Debate dishonestly much?

And Romney's "less than conservative" record? :ha: Romneycare?
That's like saying Michael Moore is in less than Olympic shape.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:03 pm
Posts: 1070
Location: Eastern Missouri
Machine1 wrote:
Airwarrior wrote:
No question Ann is right again, whether you can stand Romney-vision or not.

Maybe if Mitt makes liberals mad and the Left livid enough, I might take a likin' to the boy.

Go Mitt! Sik em'

:gcheer:


I will try and stay on topic but I could not help noticing your avatar, the good old F-4 Phantom. There were many of days that I would get Phantom bites working up and under door 22, that till it was replaced by the F-15. Talk about going from dark to light!



John Kennedy helped make the Phantom happen on a large scale. He saw it as a force for freedom. Sure, it was a challenge to keep going, but like a sports car, you might scuff a knuckle now and then if your work lacks elegance, planning and the right tool. Don't forget to follow your Technical Order. The F-15 lacks all the bugs the F-4 had. Be glad you were not working on the Demon the USN had in the 50's, although it too was hot stuff for its time.

Machine1 wrote:
In the world in which I and my family reside, ObamaRomney is considered a massive tool, heck my wife can not even look at that huge head of his. I am with veterans for Ron Paul.


Ron Paul was in the USAF, but that did not make him perfect. Nor was Jimmie Carter worth a hoot as President even though he was USN. Too much wishful thinking with the Libertarian point of view. And too many defective ideas.

Machine1 wrote:
You may ask yourself why would veterans support him, well their are several compelling reasons and I have only the time to list a few, 1) Our wonderfull gov. shells out billions of dollars to Pakistan for one and many others, they turn around buy bullets that shoot us and our children down dead!!! Dr. Paul would like to put a stop to that, and guess what, every vet I know is really pissed! The next reason I would hope you would take a look at and get back to me on, I really would like your opinion on this, thank you.

US gripped with offshore economy. Max Keiser Interview with Paul Graig Roberts
Posted by smeddum on July 20, 2010

PressTV

Sun, 18 Jul 2010


Jobs are becoming scarcer and scarcer particularly in the United States. Is it cyclical or is it structural? Is it something that America has completely turned its back on in a way that could potentially be a factor for decades going forward?
Max Keiser discusses this issue with Dr. Paul Craig Roberts who was in the Regan treasury, a former editor at the Wall Street Journal. He was inducted into the French legion honor. He is also an author; his latest book is How the economy was lost.

The following is the transcript of the interview:



No thanks. I'm not an Occupy wart. Union thugs are in it for themselves. Union employees who work for the thugs should know better. Outsourcing is what MUST follow when wages and benefits send costs out of control and make them prohibitively uncompetitive. Blaming the employer is a very short-sighted approach. If its always "their fault" remember the other 4 fingers are pointing back at you.

When you see yourself as part of a team, only then can you approach the level of a corporation or business. If you don't work together, you work for the enemy. You are handing over business to other more competitive nations. YOU are outsourcing!

Bye now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 2:19 pm
Posts: 102
Location: Medford, Massachusetts
mikeishere wrote:
Stop right there Mitt- who gets to foist this notion that insurance is something I necessarily need at all? The whole concept of Romneycare stemmed from the liberal idea that I owe someone else their health care.

I hate to break it to you, but you are already paying for someone else's health care, whether you buy insurance or not. The original Romney bill targeted the 8% who were receiving health care, could afford it, but were not paying for it. Most states have mandated auto insurance for the same reason-- because those who paid for car insurance were tired of picking up the tab for those who did not. True, everyone doesn't drive a car-- but everyone does need healthcare. The Romney bill was a private sector solution for getting deadbeats to pony up. The original bill required basic, limited coverage, and required those who did not want to purchase insurance to put up a bond to show they were financially capable of paying for their own health care. The Democrats in MA over-rode Romney's veto, and added in almost unlimited coverage, as well as a mandate on certain businesses to foot the bill. But there were nothing but conservative principles behind the original bill-- which is why the Heritage Foundation was on hand to support Romney when he signed it.
mikeishere wrote:
Insurance produces absolutely nothing at all but "Mr. Capitalist" tells me that I can't live without 'it'. Romney and Obama are both in the back pocket of the insurance 'industry' that adds at least 40% to the everyday normal cost of everyone's health care to pay a bunch of people to figure out how to screw both doctors AND patients to improve their bottom line. Medicare is mandatory health insurance too, try to find a geriatric doctor these days - good luck. That's what's coming to ALL practices thanks to Romney/Obamacare.

Insurance provides an essential function for our economy. The first insurance policies were called Bottomry. It came about because British ship owners knew that when five ships embarked for the far east to trade, only four would usually return. And the loss of the ship would mean financial ruin for the owner. So they decided that all five ship owners would share in the loss of whatever ship ended up at the bottom of the sea. They put up a board listing the ships, and ship owners would sign their names under the ship they were guaranteeing( the origin of the word, underwriting ). And if a ship was not sea worthy, no one would sign their name under it. Thus, began the beneficial services of underwriting.

Insurance is not gambling. Home owners pay a very small premium to protect their home from catastrophic loss in a fire. By spreading the risk over a large number, with proper underwriting you can calculate how much premium you need to collect to cover expected losses. Insurance underwriting is responsible for advances in workplace safety, fire resistant building materials, electrical wiring improvements, earthquake resistant buildings, safety glass in automobiles-- in short, a whole host of improvements in both the prevention and mitigation of loss.

But don't think for a minute, Social Security and Medicare have anything to do with Insurance! They are entitlement benefits, distributed by the federal government, out of money collected in taxes. And if our socialist friends in the Democratic Party have their way, all healthcare will soon have nothing to do with insurance. With private insurance, the kind contemplated by the original Romneycare, you can choose your own insurance, and maybe get a discount if you don't smoke or drink, if you work out at a gym, or if you are not overweight. This is called underwriting-- and it still happens in the private insurance market. Romneycare's mandate did nothing to change that. It is a lie to say that Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare. Nothing could be further from the truth. The intent of Obamacare is to turn healthcare into an entitlement benefit, paid for with taxes, and controlled by the federal government.

I was a Property-Casualty Underwriter for five years, and a Commercial Insurance Broker for twelve years. Romneycare has been vilified by people who know nothing of the real story. As you can see here, it's not a story that fits easily into a soundbite for the Evening News.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:44 pm
Posts: 5250
Location: Everett, MA
broganjoe wrote:
mikeishere wrote:
Stop right there Mitt- who gets to foist this notion that insurance is something I necessarily need at all? The whole concept of Romneycare stemmed from the liberal idea that I owe someone else their health care.

I hate to break it to you, but you are already paying for someone else's health care, whether you buy insurance or not. The original Romney bill targeted the 8% who were receiving health care, could afford it, but were not paying for it. Most states have mandated auto insurance for the same reason-- because those who paid for car insurance were tired of picking up the tab for those who did not. True, everyone doesn't drive a car-- but everyone does need healthcare. The Romney bill was a private sector solution for getting deadbeats to pony up. The original bill required basic, limited coverage, and required those who did not want to purchase insurance to put up a bond to show they were financially capable of paying for their own health care. The Democrats in MA over-rode Romney's veto, and added in almost unlimited coverage, as well as a mandate on certain businesses to foot the bill. But there were nothing but conservative principles behind the original bill-- which is why the Heritage Foundation was on hand to support Romney when he signed it.
mikeishere wrote:
Insurance produces absolutely nothing at all but "Mr. Capitalist" tells me that I can't live without 'it'. Romney and Obama are both in the back pocket of the insurance 'industry' that adds at least 40% to the everyday normal cost of everyone's health care to pay a bunch of people to figure out how to screw both doctors AND patients to improve their bottom line. Medicare is mandatory health insurance too, try to find a geriatric doctor these days - good luck. That's what's coming to ALL practices thanks to Romney/Obamacare.

Insurance provides an essential function for our economy. The first insurance policies were called Bottomry. It came about because British ship owners knew that when five ships embarked for the far east to trade, only four would usually return. And the loss of the ship would mean financial ruin for the owner. So they decided that all five ship owners would share in the loss of whatever ship ended up at the bottom of the sea. They put up a board listing the ships, and ship owners would sign their names under the ship they were guaranteeing( the origin of the word, underwriting ). And if a ship was not sea worthy, no one would sign their name under it. Thus, began the beneficial services of underwriting.

Insurance is not gambling. Home owners pay a very small premium to protect their home from catastrophic loss in a fire. By spreading the risk over a large number, with proper underwriting you can calculate how much premium you need to collect to cover expected losses. Insurance underwriting is responsible for advances in workplace safety, fire resistant building materials, electrical wiring improvements, earthquake resistant buildings, safety glass in automobiles-- in short, a whole host of improvements in both the prevention and mitigation of loss.

But don't think for a minute, Social Security and Medicare have anything to do with Insurance! They are entitlement benefits, distributed by the federal government, out of money collected in taxes. And if our socialist friends in the Democratic Party have their way, all healthcare will soon have nothing to do with insurance. With private insurance, the kind contemplated by the original Romneycare, you can choose your own insurance, and maybe get a discount if you don't smoke or drink, if you work out at a gym, or if you are not overweight. This is called underwriting-- and it still happens in the private insurance market. Romneycare's mandate did nothing to change that. It is a lie to say that Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare. Nothing could be further from the truth. The intent of Obamacare is to turn healthcare into an entitlement benefit, paid for with taxes, and controlled by the federal government.

I was a Property-Casualty Underwriter for five years, and a Commercial Insurance Broker for twelve years. Romneycare has been vilified by people who know nothing of the real story. As you can see here, it's not a story that fits easily into a soundbite for the Evening News.


Essential for the economy? LAUGHABLE CLAPTRAP! Insurance is a parasite on the economy.

you are already paying for someone else's health care, - So you think that's a good thing and paying even more is better?

If 8% weren't paying for it then WHO GAVE IT TO THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE? Martians?

The lame parallel to auto insurance is TOTALLY FALSE for THREE reasons - 1. Nobody forces you to own a car and drive one on PUBLIC roads; there is no insurance requirement for driving on private property. 2. The compulsory insurance is for LIABILITY to others damaged or injured by the vehicle; you can post a bond in lieu of insurance in many states to cover that liability. 3. The VEHICLE is what is the insurance is written on not a person. There is ZERO requirement that any driver be insured - only the machines being used need cover their potential to cause harm top others on public roads.

Insurance IS gambling! Your premium is a wager that an insurance company takes as a bet that something bad will NOT happen to you that costs more than the premium ... ON AVERAGE. It's the same way a casino makes money. You yourself described underwriting of ships - that is gambling; the practice of risking money on the uncertainty of a future outcome. If I do not pay fire insurance I have more money in my pocket enabling me to hire more workers making REAL stuff instead of it going to people clicking keyboards all day which produces nothing. It's simply a matter of assuming a slightly greater RISK to keep more money in my pocket and THAT should be everybody's right in a free country.

SS and Medicare were launched as a government INSURANCE policy! Genetics dictate that black men die the youngest and few ever get to collect any of the money they were forced to contribute. White women live the longest and collect far more than what they contributed. Explain how that is fair?

What if I do not want health insurance? Answer THAT question? Almost nobody had health insurance 60 years ago and there were more doctors and health care to go around making it competitive in a free market. Life expectency increased MORE between 1950 and 1980 with little health insurance than it did between 1980 and now with a lot of health insurance. Insurance companies do not cure people - THEY JUST TAKE MONEY AWAY! Doctors are now deciding to retire early. Fewer of our best and brightest are deciding to go into medicine because they discovered their student loan is going to take 30 years to pay off instead of 10 and malpractice insurance, (designed to line the pockets of trial lawyers), now costs over a THIRD for some fields liek obstetrics. They're better off as hedge fund managers.


As for Romney blaming MA legislature for taking away a few escape clauses - he can whine like a little girl all he wants but the buck stopped with him - HE SIGNED IT INTO LAW. (Almost as bad as his excuse for 'enacting' queer marriage saying he had no choice - OH YES HE DID!)

It is a lie to say that Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare. No it is not a lie. Anyone can see that the idea of FORCING people to buy insurance against their will, taking away their LIBERTY to decide for themselves what finacial risk they want to take in regard to their OWN health started in MA with Romney and the liberals expanded the idea for federalization to get everybody under the yoke of the insurance rip off artists. In BOTH cases it is government favoring a SINGLE industry by mandating everyone to purchase their 'product' which amounts to nothing more than the comfort of knowing that somebody ELSE will pay for me if I get sick, a VERY elitist liberal kinda feeling wouldn't you say?...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 11187
It might be a good idea to take step back and see how much the socialists have corrupted society and how confused conservatives have become on what is “private” property, like your body.

Quote:
The original Romney bill targeted the 8% who were receiving health care, could afford it, but were not paying for it. Most states have mandated
Targeted” is part of the Utopian rhetoric to make it sound “fair.” The fact is the law targeted everyone. The mandate for individuals to buy approved insurance is universal. The mandate for insurance companies to sell approved policies is universal. The price-fixing is universal. The authority of the ruling health care bureaucracy is universal.

Even on its face - those who could afford, but were not paying – “ is from each according to his abilities” logic. It stemmed from a mandate for a hospital to provide service to those who don’t pay and that gives the hospital no recourse to collect, which is from the “to each according to his needs” logic.

Quote:
The Romney bill was a private sector solution for getting deadbeats to pony up
Taxing the rich to make them pay their fair share? Private “sector” (more Marxist rhetoric) “solutions” (so-called) don’t employ legislation that creates additional bureaucracies and universal mandates for buyers and sellers forcing buyers to buy, forcing sellers to sell, mandating the specifications of the product, the price of the product and forbidding all parties to exercise and liberty or pursuit of happiness by opting out of the transaction. This is far away as one can get from laissez-faire short of putting armed troops on the ground with authority to execute punishment without due process.

This is why I keep saying if Romneyism can pass muster as Conservatism and Republicanism, then it doesn't matter whether Romney is "electable" over Obama. The Right has already lost, by ideological suicide and it doesn't matter who wins the election.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 1333
Now comes news that Bain Capital was Obama's consultant in the takeover of Chrysler and GM, and advised closing down dealerships. Now isn't that special?

12:23 p.m.: CNBC has now retracted the story that Bain Capital consulted with Obama in the GM and Chrysler takeovers. It was some other Bain Company, bane company, whatever.


Last edited by s martin on Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:44 pm
Posts: 5250
Location: Everett, MA
s martin wrote:
Now comes news that Bain Capital was Obama's consultant in the takeover of Chrysler and GM, and advised closing down dealerships. Now isn't that special?


You can color me as not surprised.

So that's TWO direct hits on him as being in the same bed as Obama. Health care and bailouts


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 11187
s martin wrote:
Now comes news that Bain Capital was Obama's consultant in the takeover of Chrysler and GM, and advised closing down dealerships. Now isn't that special?
And then you got the same consultant, Professor What's-his-name, developing R-Care and O-Care.

Anyone starting to see why Ron Paul is not ruling out third party? He can run against the two-headed coin - Obama on one side and Romney on the other. And Obamney care.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:34 am
Posts: 3773
Location: West Virginia USA
Ray Gun wrote:
s martin wrote:
Now comes news that Bain Capital was Obama's consultant in the takeover of Chrysler and GM, and advised closing down dealerships. Now isn't that special?
And then you got the same consultant, Professor What's-his-name, develoing R-Care and O-Care.

Anyone starting to see why Ron Paul is not ruling out third party? He can run agains the two-headed coin - Obama on one side and Romney on the other. And Obamney care.


Starting to sound funny when Romney supporters call Dr. Paul crazy.
:wave:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 11187
CNBC backing off the claim that Bain worked on GM bailout.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45979278


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:34 am
Posts: 3773
Location: West Virginia USA
Ray Gun wrote:
CNBC backing off the claim that Bain worked on GM bailout.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45979278


Sadly, that's good news for Mitt. (yeah, I don't like him)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 11187
But this seems bona fide

“There are some, if you will, classical Republicans, and I don’t want to be political here. The classical Republican approach is to say you know what makes America so great is our great corporations. And if we just clear the decks so that corporations can be more successful and give them more money, and make it easier for them to succeed. Well, then we will do even better on the world stage. I don’t happen to subscribe to that traditional Republican caricature.”
-Mitt Romney, 2003

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/11/mitt_romney_in_2003_denounces_classical_republican_view_on_corporations.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:44 pm
Posts: 5250
Location: Everett, MA
Ray Gun wrote:
.... It stemmed from a mandate for a hospital to provide service to those who don’t pay and that gives the hospital no recourse to collect, which is from the “to each according to his needs” logic.


Exactly correct and in IMO it was the 'original sin' of this whole mess. If the government stepped in and told me I have to provide engineering services for free to people who cannot pay I'd read them the 13th Amendment. Health care professionals didn't do that, they rolled over believing the lying scum socialists that it would only amount to a small 'X' amount of money and the government would help offset it with 'Y'.

But as we all know, once progressives get their foot in the door, the values 'X' and 'Y' suddenly become radically different and the people adversely affected are left crying in their beer wondering how they and their brethren could have been so foolish to have let the camel's nose into the tent.

Incrementalism is the primary tool of the left and the only way to fight it is to stand on principle from the very first increment they attempt usually masked as some sort of 'charitable intention'.

When the government forces us to contribute that which used to flow freely from our own hearts charity becomes nothing other than slavery.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:34 am
Posts: 3773
Location: West Virginia USA
Ray Gun wrote:
But this seems bona fide

“There are some, if you will, classical Republicans, and I don’t want to be political here. The classical Republican approach is to say you know what makes America so great is our great corporations. And if we just clear the decks so that corporations can be more successful and give them more money, and make it easier for them to succeed. Well, then we will do even better on the world stage. I don’t happen to subscribe to that traditional Republican caricature.”
-Mitt Romney, 2003

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/11/mitt_romney_in_2003_denounces_classical_republican_view_on_corporations.html



good find


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 11187
Thans, but I'd call Real Clear Politics in plain sight.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:44 pm
Posts: 5250
Location: Everett, MA
Abysmul wrote:
Ray Gun wrote:
CNBC backing off the claim that Bain worked on GM bailout.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45979278


Sadly, that's good news for Mitt. (yeah, I don't like him)


True but Romney is already on record as favorable toward TARP and the GM & Chrysler bailouts.

(Who knows, maybe Bain & Bain are cousins? :shrug: )


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:44 pm
Posts: 5250
Location: Everett, MA
Ray Gun wrote:
But this seems bona fide

“There are some, if you will, classical Republicans, and I don’t want to be political here. The classical Republican approach is to say you know what makes America so great is our great corporations. And if we just clear the decks so that corporations can be more successful and give them more money, and make it easier for them to succeed. Well, then we will do even better on the world stage. I don’t happen to subscribe to that traditional Republican caricature.”
-Mitt Romney, 2003

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/11/mitt_romney_in_2003_denounces_classical_republican_view_on_corporations.html



"Give them more money" ??? Since when was that ever a traditional republican caricature?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:11 am
Posts: 11748
Location: I've gotta get out of this place....
I've never been fond of Romney and I'm starting to like Newt, or any of the others that play the out of context "Gottcha Game",
a hell of alot less.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 2:19 pm
Posts: 102
Location: Medford, Massachusetts
mikeishere wrote:
Essential for the economy? LAUGHABLE CLAPTRAP! Insurance is a parasite on the economy.you are already paying for someone else's health care, - So you think that's a good thing and paying even more is better?If 8% weren't paying for it then WHO GAVE IT TO THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE? Martians?

No, I do not think it is a good thing. But spewing ignorant invective about insurance does little to solve the problem. Unless you are willing to kick bleeding victims and women in labor out of the hospital if they cannot afford to pay for services, than you and I are going to pay. Hospitals provide the least efficient delivery of healthcare. Insurance is far from perfect, and there are many insurance practices that I deplore. But there is a reason that private insurance companies are far more efficient at delivering healthcare than the government.

I acknowledged that a mandate for healthcare is different than auto insurance. But healthcare is not an option; the need for it is universal. And as long as we do not have the collective will to turn people away at the hospital door, we need to find a more efficient method to deliver healthcare. Romneycare, thanks to the Democrats in my state, has proven not to be the answer. But it is irresponsible to vilify those trying to find a solution, while offering none of your own. It's in the laboratory of the states that we will find the answer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:44 pm
Posts: 5250
Location: Everett, MA
broganjoe wrote:
But spewing ignorant invective about insurance does little to solve the problem. .... But there is a reason that private insurance companies are far more efficient at delivering healthcare than the government.


You obviously don't 'get it'. Insurance IS the problem! They are a parasite, a middle-man who injected himself between doctors and patients. "Delivering healthcare" ?? BULLSH*T!!! Insurance companies DO NOT "deliver healthcare"!! They do not cure anybody, all they do is TAKE MONEY away from patients and doctors - that IS the simple net result of what they do.

broganjoe wrote:
But it is irresponsible to vilify those trying to find a solution, while offering none of your own. It's in the laboratory of the states that we will find the answer.


Insurance companies are not in the business of 'finding solutions', they are in the business of making a profit in the practice of taking money form one group and giving it to another group. That is ALL that they do! In fact, given a profit 'X' as a percentage of gross income, the higher the cost of health care - the more money they rake in thus giving them ZERO incentive to lower costs.

Here are some suggestions I have to lower health costs-
1. Force insurance companies to compete across state lines.
2. Take away the employee premium tax deduction they enjoy at businesses. That will force them to lower their prices as their primary sales attraction - what everyone else has to do but them. (Insurance is one of the largest funded lobbying groups on earth, what part of that is it that you do not understand?)
3. Make it a law that insurance companies CANNOT prevent doctors from charging a lower rate to cash paying customers, (to make up some difference in paperwork cost). Something like almost a THIRD of a doctor's operating cost is to pay people to shuffle insurance forms - NOT afford you better health care.
4. Expand on health savings accounts to allow me to save more tax free and be able to use my account for medical costs of other people without any tax penalty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 11187
broganjoe wrote:
But spewing ignorant invective about insurance does little to solve the problem. Unless you are willing to kick bleeding victims and women in labor out of the hospital if they cannot afford to pay for services,
So, solve the problem. Give the hospitals recourse.

(PS, women in labor have birth for thousands of years before hospitals. Remember President Carter? First Pres born in a hospital).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 11187
mikeishere wrote:
Here are some suggestions I have to lower health costs-
1. Force insurance companies to compete across state lines.
Force? Come on man, don't talk like a liberal. :)

Just take away the restriction that prevents it. That's why every time you put on the TV you see a car insurance commercial. The restriction was removed. Govt got out of the way. They didn't have to "force" people to seek profit. OK?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:44 pm
Posts: 5250
Location: Everett, MA
Ray Gun wrote:
mikeishere wrote:
Here are some suggestions I have to lower health costs-
1. Force insurance companies to compete across state lines.
Force? Come on man, don't talk like a liberal. :)

Just take away the restriction that prevents it. That's why every time you put on the TV you see a car insurance commercial. The restriction was removed. Govt got out of the way. They didn't have to "force" people to seek profit. OK?


Okay, I used the wrong terminology Luke, How about -

REMOVE THE GOVERNMENT PROTECTION that insurance companies enjoy that protects them from having to compete against insurers across state lines.

(As you said, they did exactly that with auto insurance and the rates dropped like a stone.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 2:19 pm
Posts: 102
Location: Medford, Massachusetts
mikeishere wrote:
Here are some suggestions I have to lower health costs-

The problem is that none of your solutions deal with the problem of people going to hospitals for care without money to pay.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:03 pm
Posts: 1070
Location: Eastern Missouri
Ray Gun wrote:
broganjoe wrote:
But spewing ignorant invective about insurance does little to solve the problem. Unless you are willing to kick bleeding victims and women in labor out of the hospital if they cannot afford to pay for services,
So, solve the problem. Give the hospitals recourse.

(PS, women in labor have birth for thousands of years before hospitals. Remember President Carter? First Pres born in a hospital).


WITHOUT a brain.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 2:19 pm
Posts: 102
Location: Medford, Massachusetts
Ray Gun wrote:
(PS, women in labor have birth for thousands of years before hospitals. Remember President Carter? First Pres born in a hospital).

And for thousands of years infant mortality was staggeringly high. Premature birth, Cesarean sections, prolapsed cords... Both of my children would have died had they not been delivered in hospitals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 11187
Airwarrior wrote:
]WITHOUT a brain.
Like arguing with liberals. Every time you logically destroy their argument, they switch to the personal attack.

Just try to explain why giving the hospital recourse isn't the answer to people who don't pay bills? It's common sense and common law.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 11187
broganjoe wrote:
Ray Gun wrote:
(PS, women in labor have birth for thousands of years before hospitals. Remember President Carter? First Pres born in a hospital).

And for thousands of years infant mortality was staggeringly high. Premature birth, Cesarean sections, prolapsed cords... Both of my children would have died had they not been delivered in hospitals.
So, what are you, a bleeding-heart liberal? Upholding socialized medecine? Or just unable to interpret a joke when you see one?

The funniest part for me, was that I was teasing the bleeding-heart example, and now it's been doubled-down. No wonder the conservative movement has been exterminated. To paraphrase Nixon, "We are (almost) all bleeding hearts now."

I got you socialized medecine hospitals right here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209034/The-babies-born-hospital-corridors-Bed-shortage-forces-4-000-mothers-birth-lifts-offices-hospital-toilets.html
Just in case you can't pick it out of the link:
"Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:48 am
Posts: 9528
Location: On horseback.
nobs wrote:
I've never been fond of Romney and I'm starting to like Newt, or any of the others that play the out of context "Gottcha Game",
a hell of alot less.


I feel the same way. I think we have to be careful not to let one issue turn us against the pack and look at all the pluses and minuses in each candidate. With these attacks constantly on the news, which I am getting tired of, I thought that while it may be hurting Romney, or at least Obama might have less ammo, but I am wondering, if this is perceived as an attack on Capitalism, that might also give ammo that Obama might use in attacking the nominee, should it be one of the candidates that are using these attacks. Will it backfire on them later?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 11187
mikeishere wrote:
(As you said, they did exactly that with auto insurance and the rates dropped like a stone.)
:nod:

And remove the requirements for what a policy has to include, so people who are never going to use acupuncture or marriage counseling don't have to those payout risks built into their premiums.

I was looking at this stuff in 09. The Wall Street Journal printed a compilation of "average" health insurance rates. $7,900 in Mass. $1,300 in Wisc. That's Romney-care, policies required everything imaginable and insurers who have to charge the same price to everyone.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:44 pm
Posts: 5250
Location: Everett, MA
broganjoe wrote:
mikeishere wrote:
Here are some suggestions I have to lower health costs-

The problem is that none of your solutions deal with the problem of people going to hospitals for care without money to pay.


NOBODY 'owes' you the cost of your health care so you can stop trying to imply that someone else has to pay for it.

Lowering COST was the basis used to sell the idea of mandatory health insurance to the voters in MA, thank you for confirming that that was a lie.

50 odd years ago before hardly anyone had health insurance, most of the poor, the REAL poor as opposed to some today collecting SSI or welfare while watching premium cable on a bigger TV than I can afford, were receiving fine health care in free clinics staffed by some doctors who worked at them one day a week for free. Many doctors would give some slack to poor patients when they couldn't pay right away or just accept whatever the patient could pay.

If you didn't have a lot of money and needed expensive life saving surgery you were at the mercy of other people's good will and there probably were some who didn't get that good will and died. Well TOO BAD! We ALL are going to die no matter how much money we have or whether Obamacare gets repealed or not - some sooner than others - some regardless of the medical care available to them. Why is it that some people like you can accept the bad luck of someone accidentally killed being run over by a bus but when someone else dies because they couldn't afford liver transplant surgery - it's somehow society's fault? No it's not, they died of liver failure ... period. If there was suddenly a $10 million cure that extended life an extra 50 years - does everyone suddenly have a 'right' to that cure?

Did you ever consider that liver and heart transplant surgery would probably not even exist if we had had socialized medicine instead of free market medicine for the last ~100 years? What would the impetus be to the best and brightest to figure out how to do such surgery if there was no reward in it for them? You socialists are nothing but thieves. The free market created the medical miracles and expensive wonder drugs because a free market created the WEALTH available to entice those people to create those things and much much more. But now that those great thngs exist - here come the socialists to steal them and give them away for votes as though such things are now entitlements 'owed' to people as some sort of 'right'. BS with that.

Incidentally, if liberals were actually so concerned about keeping people alive then why do they condone the murder of millions of new ones in the womb?


Last edited by mikeishere on Sat Jan 14, 2012 8:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group