How would you save the economy?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Pwning, Sep 9, 2011.

  1. Ozzone Lord

    No, the real question will be if the federal government has the right to supercede state's right when it comes to forcing people to purchase health insurance which is in direct conflict with the 10th Amendment.

    Both sides will argue about the Commerce Clause and whether the federal government has the power to force people to buy health insurance (private or public) or be penalized. One side will try to use precedent (which is similar but different) and the other side will insist the federal government exceeded it's authority per the 10th Amendment.

    I will bet that the individual mandate will get revoked by the SCOTUS (5-4) which will basically destroy the entire bill (since the mandate is the core of the bill).
  2. Remec Lord

    Why force people to have health insurance? Health care doesn't need to cost so much. Someone in a previous thread said that 2 years of treatment for skin cancer costs 1.2 million dollars. Do you really think meds, treatments, surgeries, and exams cost that much? All the prices are elevated because doctors/hospitals/etc have to protect themselve from the potential of outrageous mal practice suits.
  3. Sauer Inactive Chapter Member

    We can go around and around on the issue.

    Obamacare has a slim chance at remaining law. It will either be overturned at the Supreme Court(and hopefully generate some precedents for overturning other laws that abuse the commerce clause) or at the ballot box.

    That would be a worse case example. In that case, the taxpayer takes it on the chin. A more realistic example would the 24 year old who blows out a knee and racks up a 50k bill. He should be required to pay a good portion of that back over a number of years. If the system is set up to severely punish bad behavior(not carrying heath insurance), you will get less bad behavior.
  4. Koribundar Inactive Chapter Member

    I wrote up a TL;DR, rather funny, sometimes whimsical counterpoint to this statement.

    Then I just decided to argue with cat.
  5. thorizdin Administrator

    The problem I have with your word choice here is "force". We as American males are forced to register for the draft with the only alternatives (except for some protected exceptions) to face criminal persecution or flee the country. This is a choice between paying for insurance or paying more in taxes and less than the cost (for most people) of insurance premiums (starts at $95 per year and caps at $695 per year in the future).

    Other than your prediction I agree completely. I actually expect a 6-3 upholding with the Roberts being the surprise on the upholding though I do expect the opinion to be a plurality since there are several different reasons the Justices will vote the way they do (the same is true of the dissent).
  6. thorizdin Administrator

    I've worked with doctors and medical associations since the 1980's when HMOs first came on the scene and while doctors would certainly like to have reductions in mal practice costs (mainly insurance) that is NOT why medical professionals make less today (often in non adjusted dollars and nearly universally when adjusted for inflation) than they did in mid the 1980s. Insurance payments (private and public) have decreased significantly for the same procedurs. Mal practice is a factor, but its way down in terms of the impact. The biggest issue is that insurance is currently far more lucrative and powerful in terms of lobbying than the medical profession is and they've been able to drive down what they pay. At the same time medical equipment and supplies have increased in terms of cost.
  7. thorizdin Administrator

    That's the issue though, the worst cases are what kills the current system. 1 in 4 people will get cancer, that's a statistical fact. Not all of those are as serious the skin cancer case I noted, but that is a middle of the road case. My mother is currently in her 5 year of treatment for breast cancer. Her cancer was detected early and she is cancer free (9 months of chemo & radiation) but now she has lymphoma because of the number of lymph nodes that were removed and fluid has to be drained from her left arm periodically. Now, she was covered (Blued Cross & Blue Shield) through my step father's insurance but if she hadn't been they would not only have been completely wiped out, lost their home, and would have been destitute for their remaining years. What's worse from a systematic standpoint is a loan program or some other program would have never recouped the money as both of parents are retired and any leaning on them (under the current system) would have forced them into bankruptcy.

    BTW, total cost to date is in excess of $1.6 million.
  8. Waratah Member

    Fair warning
    I didn't read the entire thread as I find the world of economics and finance tedious.
    Also I am not an economist nor as heavily indoctrinated as some in this thread however I would like to share my thoughts on the subject anyway.

    Capitalism as currently practiced in the west is broken.

    Fundamentally it pits employers against employees and employees against each other.
    It creates a society where unethical practices are tolerated and where full disclosure and transparency is unheard of.

    There is a solution that I believe would mitigate its less desirable aspects of capitalism without destroying incentive.

    Firstly extend democracy to the work place. Every employee gets a say in the companies direction.

    Secondly pay according to contribution. Everyone gets a share of the profits and no more investor/corporate class sucking up all the profits.

    Do those two things and over time the gross excesses and inequality of the current model will work their way out.
    It would take a while to settle down after implementation but I believe it would produce a much more stable economy in the long run.

    I know many of you will think it's a awful idea bordering on blasphemy but it works
  9. thorizdin Administrator

    We have some employee owned companies in this country, but by in large that doesn't work. Companies should have as their primary goal, I firmly believe, to generate value for their owners or shareholders. Capitalism does have its challenges but its far and away the best method for generating wealth among all members of society. In _some_ cases employees can help direct their company but in the majority they lack the skills and desire to do so.
  10. Sauer Inactive Chapter Member

    Capitalism works just fine when its practiced. The problems in the west were caused by CRONY capitalism and plain old fashioned socialism.

    Sub prime mortgage crises was caused by The Community Reinvestment Act(socialism). Don't misunderstand me, Wall Street greed played a huge role. TARP is text book crony capitalism.

    How is this done?

    Isn't that called a paycheck?

    The 60% of Americans invested in the stock market don't deserve a return on their investment.

    Let me see if I follow you. On a promise of a more stable economy, throw out hundreds of years of private property rights and totally destroy the economic system that created the highest standard of living the world has every seen.

    Your ideas are nothing more than re-branded Marxism. Heavy on promises, light on success stories.
  11. Waratah Member

    I agree. Capitalism can work fine. Much better than socialism at any rate.
    The problems, as you say, start with Cronyism but don't end there.
    "Its not what you know it's who you know" makes me sick how often this is proved true is the worst way.
    There are a number of ways for democracy to work.
    Most commonly a proposal or candidate is presented to the group of voters who then cast their vote For or against a proposal or for the candidate they like.
    The votes are then counted and the option that receives the most votes wins (usually).

    For instance.
    A CEO wants a his company car to be upgraded to Ferrari. In order to pay for it he intends to cut the R&D budget in half.
    He would be required to Lay out his case for doing so to his co-workers and hope they view his plan favourably.
    The vote is taken and the result is a "no" vote
    As a result the CEO continues to drive to work in his Holden .

    I'm glad you bring up investment.

    With the static pay check model employees are not really "Invested" in the making the company more money than the year before.

    I'm fully in favour of investors getting their slice of the pie.

    what I'm talking about is a more even division of the profits and if the company does well the workers see that reflected in their pay.
    The system is always going to fail if the people at the top continue to soak up all the profit while squeezing all they can from the rank and file

    You need to ask yourself what business is for. Why do we do it?
    I believe that it most important function is to create wealth in the largest group or people possible and to give your citizens a fulfilling and rewarding existence not to line the pockets of those at the top and investors at any cost.

    Who said anything about Property rights? Are you saying that employees property now?
    If you're not willing to put up with a dictator in government why are you willing to put up with a dictatorship in the workplace?
  12. Soth Administrator

    It is so funny how americans use the word socialism like some kind of fate worse than death.

    In reality, there are no 'true' capalist countries - even the USA has several socialist programs within it. I personally believe capitalism is the most effective way to a wealthy society, but that doesnt mean some things shouldnt be regulated - like health care, imo a basic human right is to be treated when someone is sick.

    But some of these retarded american politicians get their sheep-like citizens all worked up to the point where they actually truly believe a government run health-care system could lead to the end of capitalism in the USA. The ignorance on this issue is so laughable, and seems like people just believe the foolish lies being fed to them by politicians.

    Look at the UK and other countries like it where health care is federally run. If you took federal health care away from that country, they would rise up in revolt - and any politician who ran with the idea of removing it would lose by a landslide.
  13. Waratah Member

    The thing that turns my stomach is how this pavlovian response to the term socialism is now being applied the moment you talk about workers rights and fairness.
    I swear ethical business practice and caring for your fellow man will soon be a mortal sin.
  14. Soth Administrator

    Well... when it comes to your ideas on a democratic workplace - i think that would just create more red-tape for a company, making it too slow to react and hurting business in general. It is idealistic, but not too practical.

    There are companies out there that offer profit sharing - workers are free to seek out those companies if they choose to do so. If it were required for american companies to operate this way, it would put them at a disadvantage compared to business in other countries. The last thing you need during a recession is to put your business at a disadvantage.
  15. Pwning Lord

    In America it is required that all hospitals treat anyone who comes in with a serious problem, however, like any other business they will have to pay for service. If the federal government wants free healthcare for everyone then I suggest they buy the hospitals and doctors and staff and equipment and run it however they want.

    What happens to your business if you let everyone who enters leave with your merchandise and don't get paid for it?
  16. Soth Administrator

    There are some huge financial benefits to government run healthcare. Just one example for you - a year or two ago there was a lot of press about american seniors buying their medication across the border from canadian websites and such. The medication in Canada is a fraction of the cost for the same medicine.

    The reason for that is Canada buys its medication in bulk, for an entire country. They buy for a population of 40+ million people, and pretty much dictate the price. " You will sell us this medication at 2% above cost which will earn you XX million in profit, or we will buy it from your competitor"

    In US you buy many many batches of meds for different hospitals at a much much higher rate. Imagine the discount the US could get if they bought for their entire country in huge batches.

    This would hurt the Pharmaceutical sector, so their government lobbyists would spring into action at the slightest chance this could happen. They'd donate millions to different politicians so that the charismatic politicians they purchase would go out and preach to their population "OHHH NOOOZZZZ SOCIALISM!! COMMUNISM IS NEXT!! OH EMMM GEE WTF WE MUST NOWZ BE WITH OUTRAGES AND DESPAIRZZZ NNOOOooOOO" In reality those politicians have been purchased and are saying what they have to say to get their big fat campaign checks.
  17. Sauer Inactive Chapter Member

    From Wikipedia
    Crony capitalism is a term describing a capitalist economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, and so forth.
    Crony capitalism is believed to arise when political cronyism spills over into the business world; self-serving friendships and family ties between businessmen and the government influence the economy and society to the extent that it corrupts public-serving economic and political ideals.

    The problem with your idea is that it disenfranchises shareholders of their property rights.

    If the employees value their job they should be concerned about making the company more money, year over year. That is why the employee gets a paycheck.

    Making money. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one and most of them stink.

    Should we just ignore that the United States and the system which you despise created the highest standard of living the world has ever seen? You seem to be ignoring that inconvenient fact.

    Your ideology has been tried in many places. The USSR, Cuba, North Korea. They weren't workers paradises. They were/are repressive hell holes.

    Your plan violates property rights by transferring the decisions of how the property is used from the owner of the property to the employee.

    A property right is the exclusive authority to determine how a resource is used, whether that resource is owned by government or by individuals.<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1]</sup> All economic goods have a property rights attribute. This attribute has four broad components<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference">[2]</sup>:

    1. the right to use the good
    2. the right to earn income from the good
    3. the right to transfer the good to others
    4. the right to enforcement of property rights.

    Because I can choose my workplace. If I don't like my wage or treatment, I can quit.

    If I don't like my government its difficult to leave the country. In the workers paradise of East Germany(and most other places your ideology has been tried), it was illegal(on pain of death, imprisonment to any family you left behind) to leave. The Berlin Wall wasn't erected to keep the West Germans out.
  18. Pwning Lord

    I agree. So how do we implement this? Tell all the pill makers that they will have to find a new business that makes money because we've decided to sell their $50 pills for 20 cents and at that rate nobody will ever make a profit for their pill making thus driving down competition for better medicine and forcing many people out of their jobs?

    Everything the government has put their hands on has led to ruin, why does anyone expect the federal government to do something right when they have created so many problems for our country? Fannie and Freddie, Social Security, Medicare, all these programs have taken losses from fraud and nobody has really ever been held accountable for the losses. Instead the losses get taken care of with tax payer money and the programs continue without fixes. People are greedy, politicians are corrupt, citizens are sheep, and only through a revolution or some miracle will anything ever change.

    The truth of the matter is that there are too many government agencies, too many government employees, too many people relying on the government tit, too many taxes, too many tax loopholes, too many politicians, and way too many fucking lawyers!

    A smaller federal government with less influence in matters of state or local laws will lead to more people focusing on their own states, cities, and towns to bother worrying about the federal government losing all their tax money by deciding how to spend it. Losing $500 million to a solar power green initiatives company is just one recent example of the federal government wasting tax money. Without the American people, the federal government wouldn't exist, I think it is time they understand this fact and stop fucking with us.
  19. Soth Administrator

    Well, it sounds like Obama's health care plan is a good first step. These things don't happen overnight.
  20. Sauer Inactive Chapter Member

    Its another loss of liberty. I've seen enough of it over the last 20 years.

    Health care is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the US, before Obamacare

    Name calling and ridicule doesn't exactly help your point. Whatever it was???

    You are right. If look at the last US election, the electorate threw out the people who took their healthcare system away.

Share This Page