Yeah, I think we are still a long ways off, I was just being frank about what they are, and how we should treat them. We don't have to be concerned for their well being or existence, since they are only a means to an end. When we have a better method of getting to that end, we should not hesitate.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, I think we are still a long ways off, I was just being frank about what they are, and how we should treat them. We don't have to be concerned for their well being or existence, since they are only a means to an end. When we have a better method of getting to that end, we should not hesitate.
The Librarian
Banned
Cyan, enough of your nonsense! Harry Reid only has boxer gloves.
Giant Panda
Member
Businesses should be steered to help society when possible, but if you steer to hard you might hurt society inadvertently by hurting businesses too much. I don't see how businesses can be replaced at all or how there is a "better method" even theoretically, now or in the future.
speculawyer
Member
Bernie Sanders clearly has his heart in the right place but methodology is questionable. The conservatives have a point in that our statutory corporate tax rates are currently much higher than the corporate tax rates in Europe. This puts our corporations at a big of a disadvantage.Bernie Sanders disagrees
How is it possible that we have higher tax rates the Europeans who are always mocked for their high tax rates? Well because they have higher taxes in other areas. They have higher gas taxes, the VAT tax, and higher income taxes.
So although Bernie's ultimate goal may be good, aiming at the corporate tax might not be a good idea. Raising personal taxes and gas taxes might be a better method of achieving his goals. But that is not very politically popular. (Although Bernie would probably go along with it.)
Roberts Court War on Precedent.
He's specifically talking about the one of four profitable corporations that pays zero. Raising that somehow would definitely not put corporations at a big disadvantage, nor are they at a disadvantage now... they pay nothing.
I mean I'm not sure how you figure it out, but seriously we shouldn't have corporations paying nothing.
Aren't U.S. corporate profits at record highs? What hogwash.
Oh, and raising the gas tax would be a disaster for low and middle income people who would be the most affected by it. Talk about regressive.
I don't think he's not talking about more raises on rates. He's talking about them not benefit as much from all the handouts they get through tax breaks and subsidies for companies that are turning over record profits (oil, farms) without them contributing anything meaningful back.
Aaron Strife
Banned
It's funny how different voting patterns used to be. Like the phrase "As Maine goes, so does the nation" - Maine was the Ohio of its day, always voting for the winner until FDR's re-election. When FDR won, only losing Maine and Vermont, the phrase become "As Maine goes, so does Vermont."
Now anyone who suggested Maine or Vermont going for Romney would have been labeled as a lunatic. That includes the people who claimed him to have a shot at Maine's 1st district, who were indeed no more sane than the rest of them.
Pretty straightforwardly? Healthcare is a good example of a field in which business is mostly detrimental and many countries have essentially eliminated them. I think we should apply a similar approach to all kinds of infrastructure -- power, water, Internet, cell phones, transportation, food and shelter, etc.
jamesinclair
Banned
Regressive? Not at all. Poor people ride the bus, they don't give a shit about gas
Giant Panda
Member
So they have healthcare government run down to every hospital, specialist, and doctor? I don't know enough about those instances to comment but I completely disgree with expanding a model like that. There is no way the government could run all of those industries effectively. There is a reason why capitalism has been the most effective economic model.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Still not as crazy as the people who were so sure of Romney's victory that they predicted he would even take good ol California.
What insane person thought that?
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
I think that depends on what your measure of efficacy is.
The Librarian
Banned
You mean, most effective at propaganda.
Business is a human invention, it did not always exist, and is a rather recent development in human history. Saying you don't see a better way of doing it, is like a 12th century man saying he doesn't see a better mode of transport than a horse ever being discovered.
There is nothing inherent about government that causes them to be inefficient, or less efficient at providing the service desired. Now we could talk about how they might be less efficient at making money in a particular field such as "health care" but shouldn't we determine the success of such endeavors by a different yard stick than how many dollars they can claim? The government has no problem getting their hands on dollars, in fact they are the most efficient entity at making dollars. They own the printing press.
Giant Panda
Member
Yes there is. No competition. Same reason why monopolies are less efficient than perfectly competitive markets.
Black Mamba
Member
Natural monopolies are more efficient than competitive markets.
Depends on the market up for discussion
Except in the case of something like a utility.
lol at least you admit it
PhoenixDark
Banned
I never said Romney had a shot at California lmao, even at the height of my trolling
Aaron Strife
Banned
I forget who was concern trolling over California going to Romney because of gas prices.
Downward pressure could theoretically come from constituents and the fact that they wouldn't be doing it for a profit at all.
Realistically competition just means there's a greater chance that prices would go down and the industry would be more efficient. It doesn't mean inherently private industry holds an advantage. Inherently because it's a private business have to make a profit, and that means it's being inherently less efficient.
Also, it depends on the market. Government getting a monopoly on the health insurance market would make it more efficient because there's no competition. They would hold all the bargaining chips, because there would be multiple service providers and drug companies all competing for their business. A larger amount of society gains in such a scenario.
jamesinclair
There's plenty of competition (although, I must admit much of that is hindered, and acts as if there is only your native). The world is full of competing governments. In fact, isn't one of the things preached by libertarians the fact that the US has 50 competing governments, where they can "test" what the best form of government/law is?
I'd take a monopoly controlled by the people over a monopoly controlled by money and share holders in regards to things like laws, healthcare and education if it were up to me. *shrug*
Giant Panda
Member
That depends highly on specific market conditions and incentives that the regulations affecting them give them. If you give it the right profit and innovation motivations and get it to produce more quantity than it normally would then that is the case. A non-innovating natural monopoly is less efficient than competitive markets.
For instance, out of industries pigeon originally mentioned only power and water really qualify. I don't think healthcare would, but some might. Internet, cell phones, transportation, food and shelter wouldn't in most cases.
Black Mamba
Member
Health care definitely does not qualify. Some of those used to qualify but tech has changed over time.
Even an inefficient natural monopoly better than competition ball competition does is raise prices in that type of market.
But tech is starting to make those markets few and far between.
I never found those discussion in the abstract all that useful. There are things the government can do well and there are things it can't, I think we should we discuss the pro and cons of suggested programs (e.g. a single payer) instead of trying to decide "government good/bad".
empty vessel
Member
What does capitalism have to do with health care? There are no health care markets. I have never once voluntarily entered a health care market and made a selection for a competing good or service.
Giant Panda
Member
Healthcare is a word commonly used to refer to the many health-related products or services. It seems like you are just playing with semantics, so I don't entirely understand the point.
empty vessel
Member
Well you tell me which health-related products or services you are referring to. I am referring to the ones that I am compelled to seek and directed by a third party specialist to obtain, which is what I think most people refer to when they talk about health care. We're not talking about what you can get over the counter at a drug store. There is no market (notwithstanding Pakistani kidney sellers!). Capitalism has nothing to say about health care.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Is Obama choosing Hagel as secretary of defense just to have the Republicans argue about Israel and Iran? Could be a way to make people tire of hearing about that, and at the same time make the Republicans look like a bunch of whiners, again.
Giant Panda
Member
There are markets for nearly every health-related product or service. I seriously do not understand what you're trying to say here.
empty vessel
Member
When I have obtained health care, it has not been voluntary (I am coerced by circumstances) and the good or service I have obtained has been dictated to me by a third party specialist (I call him Dr. something). Is your experience different? If so, please tell me.
el retorno
Member
Its a troll pick IMO
Giant Panda
Member
You have the option to seek healthcare, other than doctors who refuse to see new patients you have the option to choose where you get your healthcare, and you have a choice in what treatment you get as well.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Translation: "If you don't have enough money for the best, find a less effective option when trying to regain your health, see there is plenty of room for competition".
I think we should strive for the best when it comes to helping our fellow man, allowing people to choose between shitty option one and shitty option two is a poor way to go about things, especially making people do it when they are not feeling well or have control over certain facilities.
Edit: I also obviously think it is also a poor reason to keep it as a "market", it's one of those hindrances to us.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
You don't have the option to not seek treatment at all. And you only get a "market" selection if you're well off enough to afford the specialists and options.
Yes because a person with cancer or a chronic illness is not going to seek healthcare to help them with their ailment. Right.
And even with smaller problems that can be put off, if people do that then these things compound and make for a less healthy person that may eventually get something so bad the problem gets pushed off on society because they can't pay or deal with it in any way.
or they just suck it up because they can't afford, like a lot of people do now. Murica, eagle tear, etc.
Well, this was a pleasant surprise.
So yesterday I made a blog post regarding an article I read on the National Review that argued that Democrats Raise Taxes on Poor to Subsidize Millionaires. (seriously)
Turns out that to my surprise, the writer responded this morning to me. He's actually done this once before, but I thought that was a fluke. Seems he's stalking me now.
In any case, I feel like a baller.
So yesterday I made a blog post regarding an article I read on the National Review that argued that Democrats Raise Taxes on Poor to Subsidize Millionaires. (seriously)
Turns out that to my surprise, the writer responded this morning to me. He's actually done this once before, but I thought that was a fluke. Seems he's stalking me now.
In any case, I feel like a baller.
el retorno
Member
I'm guessing he sits around and googles his name.Well, this was a pleasant surprise.
So yesterday I made a blog post regarding an article I read on the National Review that argued that Democrats Raise Taxes on Poor to Subsidize Millionaires. (seriously)
Turns out that to my surprise, the writer responded this morning to me. He's actually done this once before, but I thought that was a fluke. Seems he's stalking me now.
In any case, I feel like a baller.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Meanwhile in awesome Biden news
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-b...k-murphy-did-country-favor-beating-allen-west
Amazing. Just another reason Biden is the best VP we've had in a while.
speculawyer
Member
Seriously. Just think of the contrast between Dick Cheney and Joe Biden. Biden is great.
- Status