Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 11,082
Looks like the problem is that you have too many corrupt POLITICIANS OF ALL PARTIES.
Allow me to correct that statement for you.
Looks like the problem is that you have too many corrupt POLITICIANS OF ALL PARTIES.
That is an odd declaration. I do not keep up-to-the-minute on polling but haven't republicans been campaigning since the Carter administration on the refrain that government is not part of the solution, but part of the problem? To get elected, GOP candidates have to associate themselves with small government to the voters, no matter what they actually are. I can't imagine the voter base itself abandoning such a central idea.Why do you think so many self-identifying Republicans currently realize that a public option was preferable, but this discussion wasn't in the party ten years ago? Because the wingnuts were in charge, that's why.
The reasoning behind the government problem is simple enough: if you flush consumers with cash, the price goes up.
That is an odd declaration. I do not keep up-to-the-minute on polling but haven't republicans been campaigning since the Carter administration on the refrain that government is not part of the solution, but part of the problem? To get elected, GOP candidates have to associate themselves with small government to the voters, no matter what they actually are. I can't imagine the voter base itself abandoning such a central idea.
The reasoning behind the government problem is simple enough: if you flush consumers with cash, the price goes up. We observe this with student loans, medicaid, and subsidized mortgages, and the resulting bubbles in prices. This is bad for people who do not qualify for the handouts; in healthcare these were the "uninsured" who were indeed targeted by the ACA as next-in-line at the trough.
Inevitably the private sector is blamed for the rise in prices caused by the government infusing people with cash. Attitudes like the one you allude to via "every centrist and their dog knew that a public option was the way to go," are frontloaded by the media as the popular and correct attitude to have, so the government gets empowered deepen its involvement, and these problems continue to worsen.
Allow me to correct that statement for you.
True. But the other party was supposed to be the business aka corrupt party...
Crayola would sue for Copyright infringement. I suppose you could still make the Republicans the Sensible party, but it doesn't fit very well.You could always go for a Sensible Party and a Silly Party...
NO NO NO NO NO Thats not how this works. You are so wrong I can't even. . . A Public option is the best way to properly insure all citizens to some extent for healthcare (which should be considered a right in the 21st bloody century) and benefit from economy of scale and spread of risk.
Crayola would sue for Copyright infringement. I suppose you could still make the Republicans the Sensible party, but it doesn't fit very well.
J
I'll bite. In what ways at all are the Republicans even a tentative, ill-fitting try for the "Sensible" Party?
What jobs in healthcare add value? The whole thing always struck me as a scam. "I'll make you live longer" is the most impossible to prove product claim ever made.
It's basic supply and demand. Adding money from outside drives up demand, and the price tracks demand. There are myriad influences on price, such as the supply-side effects you mention in this quote, and so I'll acknowledge to you that a rise in prices is not inevitable due to any one of hundreds of other issues. But there is no question that subsidies to the demand side exert upward pressure on prices. They always do that. It doesn't matter if you think health care is a human right; someone has to supply it. As I said earlier, all but 5% of the 75% increase in health care jobs over the past three decades has been paper-pushers. They are needed to administer health plans and deal with other administrators. There's an economy of scale for you.
Well I just got a tetanus vaccine. I got quite a bit of value out of that.
Yeah, because without question if you hadn't that tetanus woulda got you tomorrow, right?
Well, no, the value isn't the cost of tetanus, it's the cost of tetanus * the probability of being infected during the duration of the shot. It's the perfect black swan event to guard against, potential downside impact is very high, and cost of prevention is very low.
Conversely, "here's $10 to double your odds of getting tetanus in the next decade" is a pretty bad deal.
That would make for an awesome obituary.I'll take it, and another ten for doubling my odds of being hit by a meteor. And another ten for doubling my odds of being eaten by a shark. And another ten for doubling my odds of being trampled by a zebra. If you are willing to make all these payments I can keep going until you run out of money.
I'll take it, and another ten for doubling my odds of being hit by a meteor. And another ten for doubling my odds of being eaten by a shark. And another ten for doubling my odds of being trampled by a zebra. If you are willing to make all these payments I can keep going until you run out of money.