The KGB Oracle
Serving the online gaming community since 1997
Visit www.the-kgb.com
For additional information

Join KGB DISCORD: http://discord.gg/KGB
 
KGB Information
Untitled 1

Visit KGB HQ
www.the-kgb.com

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 29 guests, and 26 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Today's Birthdays
Devan Omega
Newest Members
Luckystrikes, Shingen, BillNyeCommieSpy, Lamp, AllenGlines
1,477 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums53
Topics13,094
Posts116,355
Members1,477
Most Online276
Aug 3rd, 2023
Top Likes Received (30 Days)
None yet
Top Posters(30 Days)
Popular Topics(Views)
1,987,444 Trump card
1,324,088 Picture Thread
473,917 Romney
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 5 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21 22
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,526
Likes: 1
KGB Supreme Knight
****
Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,526
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Daye

How do you go about paying folks a decent wage so they can actually afford to buy the goods that keeps the economy going without killing your own company in the process ?


Daye, this is huge question that probably deserves its own thread.

It boils down to following - as a democratically elected government, should its priority be protecting corporate interests and profits or protecting citizens and their quality of life?



First off we, the USA, are a Representative Republic not a Democracy. Secondly every argument you make has nothing to do with what this country was founded on.
All of your arguments are based on a Socialist or Communist country, so try and not mix the two.

So now that you know what country we are talking about, the priority of the government it to keep out of the way of corporations and the citizens.
The only protecting they need to do is make sure the Constitution is being upheld and that our shores are protected.
There is no distinction between protecting corporations or citizens as they are all citizens.

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Originally Posted By: Helemoto

There is no distinction between protecting corporations or citizens as they are all citizens.


What other imaginary entities you count under "all citizens" ?


[Linked Image]
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,526
Likes: 1
KGB Supreme Knight
****
Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,526
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Helemoto

There is no distinction between protecting corporations or citizens as they are all citizens.


What other imaginary entities you count under "all citizens" ?


So to you corporations are autonomous machines and no people own or run them, so that
means they do not need the same protection as humans?

Only a progressive would think like this.

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
You are dodging, you explicitly told me that corporations are citizens. Where does it say this in the constitution?


[Linked Image]
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,526
Likes: 1
KGB Supreme Knight
****
Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,526
Likes: 1
Your an idiot, you happy, you got me to say it.

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 3,174
Likes: 1
KGB Supreme Knight
***
Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
***
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 3,174
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
Your an idiot, you happy, you got me to say it.


Actually this is a given, it has been said many times already without being said.

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
I said this:
Originally Posted By: sini
You are dodging, you explicitly told me that corporations are citizens. Where does it say this in the constitution?


And you had nothing to say but this:
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
Your an idiot, you happy, you got me to say it.


I will take your post as admitting to being wrong, only instead of conceding your position as indefensible you decided to gnash teeth and wail.


[Linked Image]
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Originally Posted By: Wolfgang
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
Your an idiot, you happy, you got me to say it.

Actually this is a given, it has been said many times already without being said.


Are you the new chairman of grave-pissing committee?

I know gnashing teeth and wailing is a default conservative response to being wrong, but you do realize that by being sore loser you only add to my amusement?


[Linked Image]
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
“While what you say regarding consumers not being fully informed is true - it does not *need* to be true.”

Can you elaborate on this point? My understanding is if consumer is detached from the price of the treatment, and insurer operates on percentage margins, then by covering new and expensive treatments they are able to push overall costs up and by doing so increase their profit in absolute numbers without increasing efficiency of profit extraction. The only downward pressure is consumers having to pay higher insurance premiums, but with employer paying most of it, pressure is very minimal.

In traditional sense market would operate along the following decision-making lines – Treatment A(expensive) and Treatment B(affordable) are available. If I pay directly and I can’t afford treatment A, then I will go with treatment B. This puts market pressure on Treatment A to lower price to better compete with Treatment B. This is not how the system currently operates – Treatment A is picked every time, insurers pass the cost to employer who absorbs it into labor costs, and individual consumer has very little say in going with Treatment B. In turn, if employer wants to lower coverage costs, they go with an insurance plan that covers fewer conditions, has higher deductible or lower lifetime max; but if this cheaper plan covers a specific condition, they still go with a Treatment A.

This is why I think employer-sponsored insurance-pool health care is a dysfunctional system. Single payer system would be better. So is everyone paying out of pocket (and influencing prices via market forces) with only major conditions requiring insurance.

---

“Also, you have not "demonstrated" that such a system contains cost. You have made that assertion, but have made no inroads in modeling such a scenario where that occurs. Large scale systems where this style of intervention has been implemented have failed without exception.”

This is not a falsifiable argument, as such it is invalid. See: No True Scotsman fallacy.

If I bring up examples of any other First World country, you will claim (and have in the past) that scale is too small. If I bring up other US-based cases, such as VA or Active Military health care, you will claim it is too different.

Formally: ‘US health care’ is not ‘Other health care’ for all healthcare that is not ‘Other health care’ is not falsifiable as defined.

---

I am not denying that R&D will be affected. While I don’t think effects will be as drastic as you propose, I don’t want to focus our debate on this, and will concede that it will be reduced and leave it ‘reduced’ unspecified.

‘Silver lining’ of my plans is that under single payer employers will be largely free from providing health insurance, as such normalizing labor costs over part and full time. It will also lower overall employment costs, assuming that US is not an outlier and health care costs under single-payer drop to around 10%GDP observed in every other single-payer country. Additionally it will allow greater labor mobility, lessening ‘bennies lock-in’ and will afford more business creation, freeing individuals from concerns of finding individual health coverage.


[Linked Image]
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,526
Likes: 1
KGB Supreme Knight
****
Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,526
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Wolfgang
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
Your an idiot, you happy, you got me to say it.

Actually this is a given, it has been said many times already without being said.


Are you the new chairman of grave-pissing committee?

I know gnashing teeth and wailing is a default conservative response to being wrong, but you do realize that by being sore loser you only add to my amusement?


As you wish.

The default progressive response to being wrong, is to keep repeating the wrong till the liberal media repeats it as the truth.

Ignorant can be corrected, stupid not so much.

Page 5 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21 22

Moderated by  Derid 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5