World Politics

[Anonymous]

Really, I don't. Republican shysters have been spouting the same pablum for 85 years at least.




Your implication is that the economy has slowed because of tax policy. A succesful company is generating as much profit as they can, and then paying taxes on those profits whether it's at a tax rate of 10, 20, 30, or whatever percentage. You're engaging in the nonsense logic that people aren't going to work hard because Uncle Sam is taking all of their increases in profits. Moronic hourly workers used that kind of logic to not work overtime.



Confiscatory tax policies? That's meaningless Republican, bs, commentary. Nothing more.



And specifically Microsoft did just that. Profitable companies are always laying people off to add to the bottom line. Where have you been?



The equities markets have come back tremendously with no brightening of the employment picture at all. Cutting capital gains taxes won't do a damn thing for employment.




You come here with these obscure writers peddling Republican talking points.

Keynes, and Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman say you're talking through your hat. GHWB says so too. Hence

Voodoo Economics.

You have on multiple occasions today mis-read and mis-characterized my positions and fire off comments on stuff I link to you didn't even bother to read before commenting on. Are you in congress?

What I'm saying is NOW THAT THE ECONOMY IS IN THE TANK IT MIGHT BE A GOOD TIME TO NOT ONLY NOT RAISE TAXES ON BUSINESS AND PERSONS BUT LOWER THEM TO ALLOW BUSINESS (AND PEOPLE) TO KEEP MORE OF WHAT THEY MAKE SO AS TO ENCOURAGE REINVESTMENTS IN THEIR ENTERPRISE. I hope you got the point this time because three explainations should be enough.

You comment like someone who has never taken a chance or had to meet a payroll. I'm quite sure you would have a different opinion if people like me constantly were telling people like you that YOU ARE THE PROBLEM because you dare try and run a business for profit.

Microsoft is concerned about their bottom line. They likely did what they felt they needed to do. Are you saying that Microsoft should be where GM is now before they take pro-active action? Again, why does Microsoft exist? Hint: the correct answer is something other than to provide jobs.

Your comments on Capital gains are embarrasing. You don't know what you are talking about here. I'd link you some stuff here but you won't read it.

Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell are hardly obscure. Expand your horizons.

I'll take your Keynes, Stiglitz and Paul Krugman and raise you Nobel winner Milton Friedman, Peter Schiff, Thomas Sowell and all these guys:

http://www.notoriouslyconservative.com/2009/02/list-of-economists-who-dont-concur-with.html

I've tried to be civil to you and engage in a debate. You clearly didn't want that. That's ok, I can handle it. What cracks me up is somehow (in your mind) I'm the close-minded one.

BTW, something other than annecdotal ramblings would be nice to support you positions.

 

[Anonymous]

Your brother, he's pretty sharp then,huh?

Dude, you are ON FORM tonight.

 

[Laszlo]

If I can jump back in here for another 2 cent piece; I want to say that man is a principaled creature, that we do things and well regard things done on principal not greed. greed is prositition- while we marry have children care for our families out of altruistic motives; we stop and help others in need and applaud those who do others good. When someone, takes all the effort and sacrifices others have made and works it solely for their own benefit, to profit greatly- to extract much from others in need- that is greed and that is wrong. This not to say it is wrong to ask for a fair recompense for own ideas and effort- but it is wrong to demand more than others can afford. This would apply to MRI technology- which a compeling arguement was made on behalf of the creators who brought this technolgy- that fact remains that they did not create or develop all the resources and knowledge that others gave that was used to bring it about; so if they took the works of others and then turned it solely for their own gain, then they effectively have stolen those works. Likewise the billionare that sits in his office tower and believes he earned his billions conviently forgeting the sacrifices that others, soldiers in the field that fought and died to give and preserve the freedom the billionare enjoys. The billionare has a responsibility to give back to the nation that sent it's sons to fight for it's freedom and way of life. When billions are thrown to prop up banks and multimillonares, proper healthcare for the poor is the least the United States can do for her citizens.

 

[ChrisE]

Actually, I come from a position where I figure that you cannot pay for what you cannot afford - in this situation you should not buy it. Plus, do you have any idea how this country is going to pay 11.4 trillion dollars? Oh, and we are going to add to the debt (I know what is a trillion anyway when we owe this much already). I did not care much for the Republican cowardice in not facing escalating debt over the past three decades (which is why I voted for Perot a couple of times). It seems they want to get elected just as much as the democrats and have also expanded entitlements along with the Democrats - sometimes it seems that both parties are in a race to see who can bankrupt this country the fastest.

It's pretty funny watching conservatives fret about deficit spending when they had no problem with it the last 8 years. The hypocrisy is why they have no credibility.

BTW, have you ever been to Venezuela? I have, many times. The disparity between the rich and poor in that country is very stark, and there are alot of poor.

Though I don't really condone it, Chavez is what you call a "correction" seen many times throughout history. HJ said it on the previous page....when the haves and have nots begin to grow extreme things like Chavez happen. It will swing back the other way over time. People never learn that the answer is somewhere in the middle.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

If I can jump back in here for another 2 cent piece; I want to say that man is a principaled creature...

I believe you have a romantic view of human nature - don't feel bad, that is why humans romanticize altruism though no one is truly altruistic. If man was principled, communism might have a chance. The problem is that we are first for ourselves, second for our families, third for our friends, fourth for our community, fifth for our country - and that is the "good" people. There are a lot of people out there who actually think being "bad" is rewarding - they generally do not get past thinking about what is good for them. Occasionally someone is rewarded for having principled behavior and continue to behave accordingly to get that same reward again some day. Sometimes a person can see that good behavior will be beneficial to themselves and their families. But everyone's first instinct is to wonder how their action will benefit themselves.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

It's pretty funny watching conservatives fret about deficit spending when they had no problem with it the last 8 years. The hypocrisy is why they have no credibility.

BTW, have you ever been to Venezuela? I have, many times. The disparity between the rich and poor in that country is very stark, and there are alot of poor.

Though I don't really condone it, Chavez is what you call a "correction" seen many times throughout history. HJ said it on the previous page....when the haves and have nots begin to grow extreme things like Chavez happen. It will swing back the other way over time. People never learn that the answer is somewhere in the middle.

My ex-wife is Venezuelan - I still get along fairly well with an ex-brother-in-law who has spent a lot of time explaining exactly how bad life is for those who cannot leave. Chavez is destroying a country that has a natural resource which could make life so much better for his people by attempting to buy the vote of the citizen's in the surrounding area to institute a Pan Bolivia (basically a United States of South America) - he hates the United States and takes property from those who have something to give to the poor. A couple of years ago Chavez took a park in Caracas (similar to Central Park in NYC) that had a golf course and was a safe and enjoyable place to spend the day - he turned it into a slum by "giving" small sections to the local poor. They got to put a "house" on their small bit of land, however, he did not consider it necessary to install electricity, sewers, or any other basic utility that makes for a healthy community.

BTW - Venezuela has had a history of corruption but had a thriving middle class that was getting stronger at the time that Chavez rose to power. The main problem in the country for decades has been the inability to maintain basic civil services (utilities).

Oh, and except for issues of military spending to protect ourselves from outside attacks I have never been in favor of deficit spending (I think if you read back a page or two you might see that I believe both parties are selling entitlements to buy votes).

 

[Bala Verde]

If the right is Universal, then if it cannot be extended to all it should be limited across the board so no one has an unfair level of care that cannot be obtained by another. No European, Australian, Canadian, or "First World" Asian, should get any better health care than what is obtainable in the poorest countries on earth - if you cannot bring their level of health care up, you should at least be willing to lower your health care so it is equal. Since it is highly doubtful that the economy of the US can handle it's own health care cost from a public debt standpoint I guess the remaining "First Worlders" will have to give up their health care so they can match that of the citizens of Albania, Sierra Leone, and Haiti.

This is a 'slight' misrepresentation of reality and the existing laws on the subject. So let's get this straightened out before these ideas start leading their own lives. This is what the ICESC says:

SOURCE
Article 2

1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.

2. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

3. Developing countries, with due regard to human rights and their national economy, may determine to what extent they would guarantee the economic rights recognized in the present Covenant to non-nationals.

Since Party States are the ones that sign and subject themselves to these laws, they are also responsible for their implementation and enforcement. Like any 'individual human right', a state that underwrites it is under no obligation to actively implement it outside its own jurisdiction - over which it has no control due to the principles of sovereignty and self-determination - and certainly not the way you described it. (Equality is not the same as universality, ie every US citizen is taxed, but not necessarily equally)

They are universal in the sense that every human being on the face of the earth, by virtue of being human, has these inalienable rights. Just like every US citizen has inalienable rights enshrined in the Constitution. And the US, nor any developed country, has the obligation to directly implement for example the universal human right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion abroad.

Article 2 then explains how it envisions the realization of the Economic, Social and Cultural rights for all human beings. In this case, states implement to the 'maximum available resources' and urges developed nations to assist the poorer ones.

Now to the relevant provision on health:

Article 12

1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for:

(a) The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child;

(b) The improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene;

(c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases;

(d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.

Health, and the derivative health care under (d) to guarantee an individual's right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, are thus set forth.

Note however that it does not describe in what way that right to health should be implemented. If country A makes health accessible to all through a nationalized health-care system, that's fine. If country B guarantees that everyone has access to health-care through a system of private entities, that's also fine.

The problems the US would have in relation to aforementioned provision:
- infant mortality rates are rather high.
- access to health-care for all (although, granted, everyone can go to the emergency room when it is really required. It only prevents some from reaching the highest attainable standard, ie that diseases can develop until it is too late)

A bigger problem however is that the US is one of the few countries that has signed the ICESC, but never ratified it.

 

[buckwheat]

Thanks!

This is a 'slight' misrepresentation of reality and the existing laws on the subject. So let's get this straightened out before these ideas start leading their own lives. This is what the ICESC says:



Since Party States are the ones that sign and subject themselves to these laws, they are also responsible for their implementation and enforcement. Like any 'individual human right', a state that underwrites it is under no obligation to actively implement it outside its own jurisdiction - over which it has no control due to the principles of sovereignty and self-determination - and certainly not the way you described it. (Equality is not the same as universality, ie every US citizen is taxed, but not necessarily equally)

They are universal in the sense that every human being on the face of the earth, by virtue of being human, has these inalienable rights. Just like every US citizen has inalienable rights enshrined in the Constitution. And the US, nor any developed country, has the obligation to directly implement for example the universal human right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion abroad.

Article 2 then explains how it envisions the realization of the Economic, Social and Cultural rights for all human beings. In this case, states implement to the 'maximum available resources' and urges developed nations to assist the poorer ones.

Now to the relevant provision on health:



Health, and the derivative health care under (d) to guarantee an individual's right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, are thus set forth.

Note however that it does not describe in what way that right to health should be implemented. If country A makes health accessible to all through a nationalized health-care system, that's fine. If country B guarantees that everyone has access to health-care through a system of private entities, that's also fine.

The problems the US would have in relation to aforementioned provision:
- infant mortality rates are rather high.
- access to health-care for all (although, granted, everyone can go to the emergency room when it is really required. It only prevents some from reaching the highest attainable standard, ie that diseases can develop until it is too late)

A bigger problem however is that the US is one of the few countries that has signed the ICESC, but never ratified it.

Thanks for that great post. It's sad that it is necessary to articulate the obvious and reduce the wiggle room for those who choose to be intentionally obtuse.

 

[Anonymous]

It's pretty funny watching conservatives fret about deficit spending when they had no problem with it the last 8 years. The hypocrisy is why they have no credibility.

BTW, have you ever been to Venezuela? I have, many times. The disparity between the rich and poor in that country is very stark, and there are alot of poor.

Though I don't really condone it, Chavez is what you call a "correction" seen many times throughout history. HJ said it on the previous page....when the haves and have nots begin to grow extreme things like Chavez happen. It will swing back the other way over time. People never learn that the answer is somewhere in the middle.

Conservatives were sick at the Bush Administration's lack of fiscal sense and discipline. Yet another federal entitlement with the senior prescription drug program (the legislation was passed with a $400bn estimated price tag and by the time it became law the cost had risen to $700bn) The TARP program was a disaster. Bush did not use his veto pen until late in his second term. The uncontrolled spending during this time was nothing short of breathtaking. The financial sector of this country tanked under his watch. Conservative were not fired up about voting for John McCain because it likely would have meant more of the same (in fairness he probably would have been a little better than W in a fiscal sense). I don't think history will be real kind to GWB.

Having said that, this country is worse off in the 11 months of the Obama Admin if for no other reason than the flat-out unsustainable spending. Obama has in essence wased a trillion dollars in 'stimulus'. He shoved that down legislators throats with a promise that if it passed our unemployment would not rise above 8% and without it our unemployment would rise to 9.5%. It's at 10.4% now and rising with the trillion either spent or being spent. We have not seen the true cost of whatever healtcare legislation passes and I promise you, if cap-and-trade passes, this economy will not recover for at least 25 years, if ever. What is so wrong about cap-and-trade is how is absolutely screws the poor and working poor. If your electric bill goes up by 4X, will it effect you more than a wealthy person? This country is poised to fall into economic malaise for the next few generations, yet the Obama supproters are still buzzing. I guess the appeal of something for nothing is strong.

 

[ruamruam]

it seems to me that people dress up self interest as a principle to deny people basic health care.

How many people on this thread who are against universal health care are without adequate health insurance?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

it seems to me that people dress up self interest as a principle to deny people basic health care.

How many people on this thread who are against universal health care are without adequate health insurance?

I lived most of my life without any health insurance at all.

 

[ruamruam]

I lived most of my life without any health insurance at all.

Do you have it now?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

A bigger problem however is that the US is one of the few countries that has signed the ICESC, but never ratified it.

I guess you are saying that the country provides what it can afford - I tend to believe we cannot afford the entitlements we currently have, which certainly means we cannot afford a much larger one.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Do you have it now?

I do now, but the lowest amount possible - fortunately for me, I get to "opt out" of my government provided health insurance (I work for the government and most of the employees have to buy into what they provide) - this means that I pay about $500 per month to insure my family, while the remaining employees at the county have to pay $2000 per month for the top plan and about $1450 for the lowest (for a family). The only benefit of having health insurance for me is that the doctor bills are less because of the negotiated fee structure with my provider.

 

[Anonymous]

it seems to me that people dress up self interest as a principle to deny people basic health care.

How many people on this thread who are against universal health care are without adequate health insurance?

How many people without adequate healthcare insurance 1.) choose not to buy it because they are young and healthy, 2.) Choose not to buy health insurance because cable tv and cell phones are more important to them?

VERSUS

How many don't have access that need it and truly can't afford it (which is who we as a nation should be concerned about and interested in getting subsidies to).


Chuck Shumer (Dem Senator, NY) came out this week predicting they will get 60 votes in the senate this week bragging about how this legislation will cover 96% of our population. What about the other 4% (13,000,000 people give or take)?

 

[buckwheat]

You have on multiple occasions today mis-read and mis-characterized my positions and fire off comments on stuff I link to you didn't even bother to read before commenting on. Are you in congress?

What I'm saying is NOW THAT THE ECONOMY IS IN THE TANK IT MIGHT BE A GOOD TIME TO NOT ONLY NOT RAISE TAXES ON BUSINESS AND PERSONS BUT LOWER THEM TO ALLOW BUSINESS (AND PEOPLE) TO KEEP MORE OF WHAT THEY MAKE SO AS TO ENCOURAGE REINVESTMENTS IN THEIR ENTERPRISE. I hope you got the point this time because three explainations should be enough.

You comment like someone who has never taken a chance or had to meet a payroll. I'm quite sure you would have a different opinion if people like me constantly were telling people like you that YOU ARE THE PROBLEM because you dare try and run a business for profit.

Microsoft is concerned about their bottom line. They likely did what they felt they needed to do. Are you saying that Microsoft should be where GM is now before they take pro-active action? Again, why does Microsoft exist? Hint: the correct answer is something other than to provide jobs.

Your comments on Capital gains are embarrasing. You don't know what you are talking about here. I'd link you some stuff here but you won't read it.

Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell are hardly obscure. Expand your horizons.

I'll take your Keynes, Stiglitz and Paul Krugman and raise you Nobel winner Milton Friedman, Peter Schiff, Thomas Sowell and all these guys:

http://www.notoriouslyconservative.com/2009/02/list-of-economists-who-dont-concur-with.html

I've tried to be civil to you and engage in a debate. You clearly didn't want that. That's ok, I can handle it. What cracks me up is somehow (in your mind) I'm the close-minded one.

BTW, something other than annecdotal ramblings would be nice to support you positions.

Funny, I never consider lying about life and death issues, whether the lies concern war or health care, to be civil behavoir. Maybe that's where we differ.

Bro, You said that the Enron schemes were not directly related to the rolling blackouts and I provided 2 or more links showing they were. There are scores of links. You clearly have an agenda, are relentless, and will say whatever you have to to get that agenda across. Unfortunately for you, most of 20th century conclusively proves your economic philosophies are entirely off base. Especially the last 8 years preceeding Obama and the huge deficits run up by both Reagan and GWB.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html

But on Thursday, almost three years after stepping down as chairman of the Federal Reserve, a humbled Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending.

“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,” he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.


Greenspan was a disciple of Friedman, No? He acknowledged in the Congressional hearings that the "whole intellectual edifice" collapsed for much of his/your bs in the summer of 2008.

You've been proven wrong by more than 80 years of experience and you won't let the truth be an impediment to your skewed views.

As I said, I quickly read your link and didn't realize that the entire last paragraph was not a quote by Gingrich and I stand corrected and realize that Gingrich was correct in his praise of FDR. You're talking about me mischaracterizing your nonsense arguments!

I then like how your side also gilds the lilly by claiming the moral Christian high ground when in fact the right wing is as un-Christian as possible.. It's just too much.

The whole bs about you running a business and making payroll is just that, bs. If you have the profits, you have the money to pay your taxes, Period. Maybe better tax planning on your part may help. Maybe you shouldn't draw as large a salary as you probably do. Maybe your product or service doesn't offer much value?

 

[Bala Verde]

Actually, when the constitution was written the death penalty by hanging was considered humane and normal, as was the firing squad. The definition of torture has not changed, but the culture has migrated to a point of suggesting there be no consequences for criminal behavior.

When the Constitution was written, the 'founding fathers' were 'liberals' in the eyes of the European conservatives, who stayed in Europe, trying to hedge too drastic changes to society. Edmund Burke for example wrote some interesting things about colonization and empire building. Hence, those in defense of the American way, are in fact liberals.

What I am trying to say, interpretations of actual texts and social 'texts' change over the years, and therewith meaning. Even an "American Conservative's" interpretation of the Constitution is not identical to the prevailing interpretation of those who drafted it, and the American Conservative has no more ownership over the (interpretation) of that text, because he calls himself an "American Conservative".

'Cultures' change, but there is no such thing as a 'fixed' definition that can withstand the tooth of time. A definition refers to other words, and requires interpretation, hence meaning is always deferred, postponed, or liquid.

I guess you are saying that the country provides what it can afford - I tend to believe we cannot afford the entitlements we currently have, which certainly means we cannot afford a much larger one.

Ah common CentralCali... where is that American hubris! American dreams! The idea that 'We can make anything happen!'

I am glad you weren't in charge of the Apollo program, then the Russians would have landed the first man on the moon And I certainly didn't come to the US for a defeatist world view, I should have stayed in Europe ...

I do want to point out that I agreed with you one the post about spending, where you say that you come from a place that if you can't afford it, you don't get it.

 

[buckwheat]

(I work for the government and most of the employees have to buy into what they provide) -

Damn, if we cut the salaries of you and your fellow county employees, we'll be well on the way to cutting taxes of some sort!

 

[Anonymous]

Funny, I never consider lying about life and death issues, whether the lies concern war or health care, to be civil behavoir. Maybe that's where we differ.

Bro, You said that the Enron schemes were not directly related to the rolling blackouts and I provided 2 or more links showing they were. There are scores of links. You clearly have an agenda, are relentless, and will say whatever you have to to get that agenda across. Unfortunately for you, most of 20th century conclusively proves your economic philosophies are entirely off base. Especially the last 8 years preceeding Obama and the huge deficits run up by both Reagan and GWB.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html

But on Thursday, almost three years after stepping down as chairman of the Federal Reserve, a humbled Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending.

“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,” he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.


Greenspan was a disciple of Friedman, No? He acknowledged in the Congressional hearings that the "whole intellectual edifice" collapsed for much of his/your bs in the summer of 2008.

You've been proven wrong by more than 80 years of experience and you won't let the truth be an impediment to your skewed views.

As I said, I quickly read your link and didn't realize that the entire last paragraph was not a quote by Gingrich and I stand corrected and realize that Gingrich was correct in his praise of FDR. You're talking about me mischaracterizing your nonsense arguments!

I then like how your side also gilds the lilly by claiming the moral Christian high ground when in fact the right wing is as un-Christian as possible.. It's just too much.

The whole bs about you running a business and making payroll is just that, bs. If you have the profits, you have the money to pay your taxes, Period. Maybe better tax planning on your part may help. Maybe you shouldn't draw as large a salary as you probably do. Maybe your product or service doesn't offer much value?

Never said Enron was not related, I said they were two different issues. There's no love for corruption on my part and have stated as much over and over. If PG&E and Edison had been allowed to charge market rates they would not have been bankrupted (or nearly so) but they could not for regulatory reasons. The fact that Enron was manipulating rates was criminal.

I have the agenda when you catagorically state the last 80 years have been horrible (I guess that's what you mean). Ok.

I'm not sure what to think of Greenspan. You can lay all of this economic turmoil at his feet if you want, but I'd politely ask you to look at the community development act that essentially forced lenders to loan money to folks who could not pay it back. Is that Greenspan's fault?

I stay out of the religion part, so you can direct those comments elswhere.

After three tries at suggesting tax cuts in a down economy are beneficial in terms of economic expansion and job creation you still try and spin my comments to suggest something other than what is my point... I'll just leave it at that.

Best of luck to you. We just disagree.

 

[Bala Verde]

How many people without adequate healthcare insurance 1.) choose not to buy it because they are young and healthy, 2.) Choose not to buy health insurance because cable tv and cell phones are more important to them?

I think this is also a 'cultural' matter, or something that can/will grow over time due to increased exposure to it. I think I once read (sorry no source) that the dutch are one of the most insured/overinsured people in the world. I mean, even if you lived in a man-size safe, covered in pillows wearing a helmet, you'd still get renters insurance, fire, theft, property insurance, health insurance, flood/calamity insurance and liability insurance.

People, even the young, are raised with the idea that you need to be insured.

The health care insurance regulations require everyone to be insured:
- those with/below minimum income will get subsidized to purchase coverage
- Insurance companies offer different packages, tailored to the customer's needs/wishes.
- All insurance companies must have a basic package that meets the minimum standards for health care set by gvmt (basic med/dental)
- Everyone is a contributor to a pool of insured, so that risks are spread and costs can be kept low.
- Insurers still make profits, especially through up-selling.

It has similar principles as a progressive tax system, in that the healthy support the unhealthy.

I found it generally really easy to use. Once you are insured, go to a doctor or get a prescription (even glasses), you barely see a bill at all (no co-pay fees). And if you see one, you'll be reimbursed quite quickly.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Damn, if we cut the salaries of you and your fellow county employees, we'll be well on the way to cutting taxes of some sort!

They did, although, unlike health care - security is the foundation of civilization (why we decided to have government in the first place). My job is to ensure that you do not have a murderer living next door.

 

[ChrisE]

My ex-wife is Venezuelan - I still get along fairly well with an ex-brother-in-law who has spent a lot of time explaining exactly how bad life is for those who cannot leave. Chavez is destroying a country that has a natural resource which could make life so much better for his people by attempting to buy the vote of the citizen's in the surrounding area to institute a Pan Bolivia (basically a United States of South America) - he hates the United States and takes property from those who have something to give to the poor. A couple of years ago Chavez took a park in Caracas (similar to Central Park in NYC) that had a golf course and was a safe and enjoyable place to spend the day - he turned it into a slum by "giving" small sections to the local poor. They got to put a "house" on their small bit of land, however, he did not consider it necessary to install electricity, sewers, or any other basic utility that makes for a healthy community.

BTW - Venezuela has had a history of corruption but had a thriving middle class that was getting stronger at the time that Chavez rose to power. The main problem in the country for decades has been the inability to maintain basic civil services (utilities).

You have said nothing in response to my post, other than you know some VE's and tell some stories. I won't argue about what Chavez has done or hasn't done; that is irrelevant.

I said Chavez is a response to gross separation of the classes. If you think the middle class was thriving when he came to power then I don't have much to else to say on the subject if you plan to stick by that falsehood.

My driver when I was there used to be VP of accounting of the national oil company, who is blacklisted now because he supported the coup back in the early 2000's. I'm still in contact with him and have offered to help him get to the states but he has a small son there.

Though I have sympathy for his plight, that doesn't erase the issue. I remember the first time coming from the Caracas airport and seeing the millions living in shantys on the side of the mountains on the outskirts of Caracas. It was at night, and I didn't realize what all the lights were on the side of the mountains....

Is that their fault, or a product of the VE society that thwarts upward mobilization? Are they lazy, as probably the Bill Oreilly's of the world would say, or do they not have access to education the rich have/had to pull themselves out of poverty?

Even outside the engineering company in downtown Caracas I was auditing there was shanty towns on the side of Avilla, right outside my window. And, I had friends that lived in the best part of town filthy rich in 2004, and they are still filthy rich today.

There are always exceptions the corporate US media can exploit to build up the boogyman Chavez. We hear about how the rich are getting soaked, etc. And, you would hate the US as well if you were called out all the time (just like the "axis of evil"). Is this the chicken or the egg?

In the end, the rhetoric the US has with Chavez is about oil, driven again by the corporate owned media. If he played our game then he would be a good guy (see Saudi Arabia or other OPEC countries, whose human rights violations dwarf VE's) regardless of how he came to power. If he was sitting on widgets instead of oil we would hear nothing about him either.

I can see thru what drives all this BS because I am in the business and I lived it, and I know what drives US politics in the end (money).

 

[ChrisE]

Never said Enron was not related, I said they were two different issues. There's no love for corruption on my part and have stated as much over and over. If PG&E and Edison had been allowed to charge market rates they would not have been bankrupted (or nearly so) but they could not for regulatory reasons. The fact that Enron was manipulating rates was criminal.

The problem Scott is you believe market forces can check corruption. There is sensible regulation that can be done to not stifle the free market.

Some of us believe that, though agreeing on that politically in the US is nearly impossible.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

You have said nothing in response to my post, other than you know some VE's and tell some stories. I won't argue about what Chavez has done or hasn't done; that is irrelevant.

I said Chavez is a response to gross separation of the classes.

...

Though I have sympathy for his plight, that doesn't erase the issue. I remember the first time coming from the Caracas airport and seeing the millions living in shantys on the side of the mountains on the outskirts of Caracas. It was at night, and I didn't realize what all the lights were on the side of the mountains.

...

Is that their fault, or a product of the VE society that thwarts upward mobilization? Are they lazy, as probably the Bill Oreilly's of the world would say, or do they not have access to education the rich have/had to pull themselves out of poverty?

...

I am completely aware of the shanty towns - that is who moved to the park in the center of the city - they were told they now own land but there situation only changed as far as location.

As for why there are extreme differences - I can give a deductive answer at best. Culturally it is doubtful the families living in the side of the hill place the same value on education - I suspect they are more interested in finding food and not getting robbed (while at times looking for a way to rob the guy in the next shanty). I am not saying it is their fault, just that education is not part of their world for the most part. Obviously you do not believe that a middle class existed pre Chavez, probably because your contacts were with the wealthy and your eyes could see the poor - my contacts on the other hand have primarily been with the middle class, people who did not appreciate the corruption they saw but found Chavez to be far worse for their existence than the corrupt politicians he replaced. Quite frankly Chavez has no real interest in solving the problems of an extremely poor populous since that is his voter base. He continues to focus them on the boogie man in the media he has taken complete control over, the United States.

 

[Laszlo]

I believe you have a romantic view of human nature - don't feel bad, that is why humans romanticize altruism though no one is truly altruistic. If man was principled, communism might have a chance.

I agree with much of your post, but not all.

I will admit that I will use idealizations and absolutes to present a position; I don't care to descend into citing exceptions and causes that will make or break - each person will have a thousand examples from their own life. No one lives an absolute.

I believe Gorbachov said to the effect that mankind is not yet ready for communism.