You can't privatize Police or the Fire Department. Why the hell would you want to do it with Healthcare? People's health is not conducive to private industry.

Here is an important story from CBS's 60 minutes about the dark side of this subject:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50136261n

Curious about your take on this.

Police and Fire can be privatized, hell they almost already are being Unionized. BTW Police and Fire are not state or federal programs, Healthcare is being made a federal program.
I can make a news story about the dark side of anything.
Healthcare has been privatized since the beginning of health care.

I take it you did watch. This is about compaines bilking the fed out of money by making demands for admission into hospitals to make more money.

Health care and capitalism don't mix is my point. Imagine if you forgot to pay your fire department bill or could not afford it, and there was a fire? What if you didn't pay your police bill and your got kidnapped? It just doesn't make sense in this context. Almost everything else does, but not this.

Well they can mix if done right. I use private health insurance and it works fine for me. So please tell me what
I am doing wrong.

You are advocating taking a working industry and making it a
federal industry.

The federal system will force people to carry insurance whether they wish to or not.

The federal system will force people who cant afford to pay for it to pay for it or risk a fine that cost as much as the premium.

You example of using fire and police is not even close to what the issues are so please stop.

My local taxes pay for fire and police. My state taxes pay for state police. My federal taxes pay for federal law enforcement.

Now you want me to use more federal tax, its a tax if you are forced to pay it, to pay for health care which one side says it will cost me the same and the other says it will cost me more.

In the words of your hero,we have to pass it to know what's in it, turns into we have to pass it to know how much its gonna cost you to pay for it.

You will be hard pressed to convince me that the Federal Government taking over any industry is a good idea.

On a similar note, just look what happened with airport security post TSA. Now imagine that in the health care system.

Jet you and 60m are right about one thing regarding companies bilking the feds for cash. But what liberals should really consider, is the fact that this happens due to lack of competency and efficiency on the part of the FedGov. FedGov is never responsive to much of anything, its a ponderous monstrosity in all that it does.

Just imagine how much crappier everything will run, once those same bureaucrats have even more power.

You guys amaze me. Medicare is a working federal run insurance program. It is your private companies that are BILKING it. Did any of you watch the 60 minutes piece? How would you address this type of fraud?

If by working, you mean working hard at bankrupting the whole country then yes.

Type of fraud addressed by getting govt out of the business of micromanaging health care.

Federal level Govt is not competent enough to be trusted with anything that is not absolutely required they be trusted with - like military.

Get the Fed out of the business of screwing things up for all of us, and let still imperfect but more accountable and responsive State and local govts deal with things. The States that are successful at finding solutions that work will grow and attract people and capital and the rest will work to emulate what works.

As the FedGov gains ever more power and spends ever more money, and the quality of life and society in this country continues declining in parallel - I never cease to be amazed at people who argue that the solution is even MORE FedGov power and involvement.

Point of diminishing returns of FedGov involvement was reached decades ago, point of negative returns of FedGov involvement was reached in Clinton era. Everything after Clinton has been all to the worse, and downhill.

To be honest, it is really an end of life issue. That is the most expansive part of senior care. I for one am not a fan of hanging old people out to dry after giving them a promise that they were being taken care of. I have been paying into Medicare and Social Security for 31 years and I also have an expectation of getting something back.

I know you guys are not fans of the facts, but the US ranks 36th worldwide in healthcare. All of the top 10 are state run systems with some private options.



But again, I know how you guys are with facts. The answer to me and the other 36 countries is simple and proven. You guys are just WRONG.

By what metrics. Most rankings I have seen regarding healthcare, used amount of govt control as a primary criteria for a rank. The UN one in particular.

Not going to be impressed by a ranking that ranks based on level of govt in health care.

Hey Derid, show me ANY study where the United States is ranked in the top 10 and substantially above Government run healthcare.

Yeah as I suspected. "Fair financial contribution" , "equality" , that report you posted is or is based on the ultra crappy UN report which was basically just a shill report for Govt run health care. Not reflective of actual quality of health care system, we went though this in a previous thread.

Besides, I certainly acknowledge major problems with our countries health system. I just also acknowledge that Govt, as usual, is the problem - not the solution.

Most problems, especially economic and societal problems cannot be solved with violence. Violence is all that Govt is. You do things the way the State tells you, or else they threaten you with imprisonment or death. That is no way to go about making a better society.

Derid reminds me of Baghdad Bob, no matter what facts tell about healthcare, it is always not really comparable, flawed, or entirely different thing.

Thats a flawed worldview you have there.

Try actually thinking things through for once, and consider all the ramifications. You might start seeing things differently if you really start objectively considering how things work.

The truth is, you want an "easy" solution , you want people to tell you that there is a solution, but you dont want to actually think through the solution and put any effort into it. Far easier to cling to empty promises of panacea that sound good while tossing insults at those who see through BS dished out by those who simply want more money and power.

Its pretty sad actually, utilitarianism once stood for liberty - not abdication of personal responsibility or belief in worship of authoritarian violence to impose half baked opinions on others. Nor some vague "greater good" that is defined as something as ridiculous as "most happiness for the most people".

Derid, you are very intelligent and informed person but you let your dogma shape your world view. When you start talking about utilitarianism/pragmatism, you are making mockery of these concepts. You'd be more than happy to see US turn ungovernable and on the way to becoming banana republic as long as it is ideologically pure. Sorry for this being pointed at you, but this is how I see your world views.

No, not exactly. The reverse is actually true.

Try thinking about personal and interpersonal interactions, then fitting that into the scope of group actions and interactions and continue working your way up.

As with the fast food example, often times you even admit you do not really understand how the things discussed work.

Your admitted lack of understanding , and inability to articulate a model of how your proposals would actually play out in the real world proves that you are the one operating entirely from dogma - not I.

The difference between us, seems to be not so much a question of ideology as odd as that might sound at first. Rather, I see and pay attention to the side effects and compounded consequences - something you never seem to give any mind or care about.

You get very vague, snarky, and dodge any questions that would actually put into question the consistency of your stated principles. I think you like the "idea" of the world you think should be created, and the idea alone is good enough for you. Whenever any negative side effects are brought up regarding an implementation of an idea you favor, you simply dissemble or ignore, or simply refocus on the original problem without addressing the side effects.

Forcing societal change at the barrel of a gun, without actually understanding how the details would work is foolhardy and dangerous. Eastern Europe showed us this much. I dont think the Bolsheviks revolted because they actually wanted to live in a decrepit, Govt controlled police state. But thats what they got, because they did not comprehend all the ramifications of what it was they were asking for. The "idea" they were sold was good enough, and as long as anything could be explained in terms of forwarding that "idea" it was accepted.

Thinking through the entirety of an issue, and understanding the complexity is necessary if positive changes are to be made through violence. The devil is in the details. Ignore the details, and you are doomed to failure. In the realm of politics, this also dooms the rest of us along with you.

Also, I would make the case you that you are the one making a mockery of utilitarianism and pragmatism.

But that discussion can go in a different thread should you wish to have it.

Warning: any such thread will include a need to establish philosophical consistency.

Thank you for providing a glimpse into your thinking and highlighting stark contrast with that and what really happened.

In case you are mildly curious - our conversation went along the lines of you going into deeper into denial over inability to reconcile your faith in the open market and the evidence of its complete and utter failure that results in demonstrable harm to society.

Your claim that profitable corporations could not afford paying livable wages was a cherry of insanity on top of whipped zeal of your misguided believes.

Your appeals "you just don't understand!" were nothing but intellectual capitulation.

That was not an appeal, that was an observation based on your admitting that you did not understand - and you claim that looking at an aggregate macro view was sufficient to understand all the dynamics at play.

Your capitulation was when you said that looking at SEC filing was sufficient to make a call based on what a company could or could not do at the micro level and still be successful.

Nice try, but until you demonstrate an ability to absorb more fact and arrive at conclusions not handed directly to you by friendly media your assertions of my supposed "faith" (which is not faith, I actually understand the granular mechanics of why markets work and centralization does not on a micro, not an ideological level) and "capitulation" (which is obviously you trying to misdirect, because you know you got 'nuthin) will continue to ring hollow to everyone but yourself.

Playoffs are the only true way to know who is king.

I underlined transition point between what happened and Derid imaginary world of conservative unicorns and free market lollipops.

In case you missed this first time.

As usual, refusing to address detail and lobbing BS based on misguided generalities. Its a lot easier to lob BS than it is to address complex consequences or make an effort to understand ramifications though, so I sort of dont blame you.

You need to understand how and why a particular company is profitable. Hint: " Because it just is" isnt a valid answer. You should also ask the question "are there some companies that would NOT be profitable any longer if the armed thugs that masquerade as Govt forced everyone to do X"

Your arguments have devolved to lollipops now, you should probably try harder or quit trying.

Very simple - fast food corp is profitable because most of its franchises independently operated or not make money. They make money because labor+fixed costs+materials are less than goods they sell. If you increase labor cost, you also increase cost of goods. Even if you make a suggestion that they cannot pass these costs (because they are competing with burgers from China?) to consumer, you still make one HUGE assumption that extra labor costs are significant enough that it will take it from profitable to unprofitable. There is nothing that supports such assumption - healthcare costs are not going to be significant, worst case scenario is burger going to cost 5c more so employees get coverage. All this teeth gnashing is nothing but FUD. Corps not going to go bankrupt providing health coverage or livable wage, worst case scenario is that they going to get marginally less profitable and taxpayers stop being on the hook subsidizing their labor costs via welfare.

There is plenty of evidence that it would have an effect on profitability - its called a bell curve. Some surely would be able to successfully pass on costs, the problem is you are making sweeping statements assuming all would, which is just another assumption you pulled out of nowhere because it conveniently fits your ideology. The fact is, you have no idea how many would or would not be able to pass on costs and remain competitive.

You have yet to define what a "livable wage" is as well - I have also made the assertion that the current status quo is livable, but you seem to reject that. Not sure what your basis is, you have declined to elaborate so I made an assumption of $15/hr as stated before and you have yet to correct that. Under that level of increase, many jobs would be cut any many more unemployed. I am still not sure how you would count that as a net positive. Perhaps you also do not see how destructive the end of part time and temporary work would be, but I certainly do.Making a few less dependent of govt while creating whole new swaths of people who are wholly dependent on Govt somehow strikes me as extremely bad planning.

The thing you still dont seem to comprehend, is I have lived on food service wages before. No govt, no nothing helping. I knew many many people who did the same. So your entire premise rings hollow. Something you seem to not want to address as well. If people are now living on food service and taking welfare, perhaps that reflects not a problem with wages but rather with govt.

Given the level of inflation created by increasing wages, you have also given no reason as to why relative costs across the board would not rise - putting the retail/food service class of worker right back where it started in terms of wages relative to cost of living. Though having to overpay in terms of wages ma incentivize companies in the short term to devise long term solutions to cutting labor overhead, in the long term if the rent that was $400 doubles to $800 and the loaf of bread that was $2 doubles to $4 - but far fewer people are actually employed, thats just a recipe for disaster not an intelligent scheme for a more egalitarian society.

Mostly I think in the short and medium term, all your scheme would accomplish is put the lower class closer to the middle class in terms of purchasing power as absolute wages rose for the lowest class of workers - which instead of elevating their standard of living would actually just put additional pressure on the middle class, who increasingly had to compete with the lower classes of workers for resources. Eventually wages would start catching up for certain segments of middle class workers, but I think some groups would be left behind.

Creating more "middle class" by artificially inflating wages is not really possible, though it is possible, even likely, that the reverberations of Govt action will cause even more middle class workers to fall into relatively lower tiers.

Increasing standard of living of those on the bottom can only realistically be done by either lowering the relative cost of things they consume, or increasing the relative productivity values of the workers.

In either case, its not the plutocrats who will be harmed. This type of Govt involvement always ends up taking from the middle, productive segments of society. Your advocating Govt involvement here is not in the best interests of the working retail/service classes, the only beneficiary would be chaos.

Both scenarios are obviously hypothetical.

Scenario A: Paying livable wages and healthcare would bankrupt currently profitable corporations.

Scenario B: Paying livable wages and healthcare would result in passing costs to the consumer.

You are saying, with almost certainty, that Scenario A will happen and that these corporations are so dependent on government sponsoring labor costs via welfare that they could not function without it.

In such case, isn't it the argument for getting government out of business of retail and fast food labor costs? After all, you are proponent of free market and advocate 'natural' price (of labor) equilibrium dictated by the market.

Please clarify your position so we can proceed.



I think it is well understood that take home of poverty level + $1 is a working definition of a livable wages. I realize it is not ideal definition and was shown to low-ball it in expensive metropolitan areas, but there are government agencies that calculate it based on regional costs, basket of goods and so on and try to define it as well as possible.



Actually, this is not a 'given' anymore and has been shown to not always be the case.

Have you read Ron Unz's essay discussing this? He isn't exactly bleeding heart liberal.

Scenario A will happen with almost a certainty in some cases, but certainly not all. A and B will both occur. The problem is calculating the level of both A and B is very very difficult.

I look at making these kinds of interventions as the equivalent of playing Minefield. Sometimes you click on a square, and everything is hunky dory. Sometimes you get blown up. Since we are talking about the lives and livelihoods of millions of people, I think thats a piss poor paradigm to follow.

You are correct, increasing wages does not *always equal large inflation. There are many many factors involved. See minefield example.

Outline a path for such outcome. To make it easy - assume entire payroll doubled, not just hourly wages, and nothing was passed to the consumer. Take any retail or fast food industry, assume 20% profit margin and show me them going from profitability to non-profitability.

If you are too lazy to go through this exercise - I will save you the time, you would be hard pressed to make such case.

Have you read Card and Krueger on monopsony power in labor markets?

Plus lots of recent stuff, like Addison, Blackburn, Cotti 2009 paper on US retail or Metcalf's work in UK.

Not that I want to get into discussing this with you, there is less than zero chance that you'd listen to any of it.

Hmm, I typically do a lot more lifting when it comes to supplying detail. Sorry, in this case - you need to be the one to not be so damn lazy and make the case that no one, or a marginal number of companies and people would be unscathed.

The impetus is on you here, as you are the one proposing the drastic changes.

Also, its rather ironic that you would accuse me of not wanting to listen to something - when the reverse is the norm here. Unlike you, I am quite unafraid and even eager to parse and dissect new viewpoints and ideas.

You seem to be projecting your own behavior onto me, which is probably not healthy. Perhaps it is just because you dont want me possibly questioning the conclusions of some of your favorites? Not sure, because if you had been paying attention for the past several months you would have noticed I actually read things by people who do not share my worldview with high regularity.

Feel free to pick a paper or topic, outline how it relates to the case you are trying to make and I will look. It would be a lot more effective than the non sequiturs you have been popping out.

You do realize the company will pay for health care but the workers have to pay also, there is no FREE health care.

My company as with most, pay some of the cost of health care for people who get healthcare from work, but we also have to pay part of the cost.
This cost to the company is calculated into my salary as a benefit and goes to the overall cost of having me as a worker.

You should look up how a company works before making assumptions about how it will all work out.

Derid, as my point being that change will not happen, and your point is that change will have happen, onus is on you.

I am not going to go out of my way to disprove any wacko right-wing conspiracy theory, there is unlimited number of them. If you want to make a point that thing will turn to shit, you need to show your homework, otherwise we will assume that what you blabbering about is nonsense.

Hmmm, sorry just because you can throw insults does not make you right.

Just because you are unable to justify you positions, does not mean I should spend time educating you - I have shown you a few of the principles at play, if you really gave a shit as to whether your ideas were even marginally sane you would want to spend the effort yourself to figure it out.

No matter what you go on about, we both know that you are simply afraid to challenge yourself because it would mean you might be forced to admit to yourself that you are wrong.

I even offer, as always - to read and discuss third party position papers and essays to better understand your point. That you run away from that offer, and simply throw baseless insults and call basic logic and empirical observation "conspiracy theory" and attempt to provoke me into wasting time of a fools errand you would ignore just shows how scared you are of dealing with reality. That you refuse to reciprocate reinforces this point.

I have in the past spent the effort to provide complex expositions, only to have you run dodge, attempt to derail by misusing semantics, did spend the time engaging with you in detailed discussion regarding consistency of logic ( which when it comes to expounding on or discussing your own logical consistency, you run screaming like a little girl whenever I try to draw you into getting in the nitty gritty of your own worldview) - and nonetheless its like water off a ducks back. You do not even care to make an effort to understand opposing viewpoints, you simply duck, run, and toss out Socratic time eating exercises to avoid core issues.

Not going to spend copious amounts of effort disproving every insane , out of touch idea until and unless you show a willingness to actually engage in thought - instead of just randomly trying to lob BS bombs and hope something somehow connects.

I know it is difficult concept and not well understood in your neck of the right-wing fever swamps, but when you preach doom and gloom and the end of the world you have to justify your position. I don't have to explain why CHANGE you are suggesting NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, it is sufficient to point that there is no reason for it to change.

Again, put your remote down, turn FOX off and repeat after me: ACA is not going to bankrupt profitable companies.



At least we agree on something. I find your FUD laughable.

At least read this. Ron Unz's essay.

/facepalm

So now we are talking about Obamacare eh? /me thinks back on people who complain about changing subjects

FYI we are on "livable wages" and "forcing livable wages for every job" , not sure why you carried that over to this thread but you are the one who did.

Quit pretending like I am responding to something I am not, and pretending like it gives you a point. Cmon man, I know you can do better than these kind of lame word games and insults... or I thought I did.

What type of change are you now even talking about? You are the one proposing the drastic changes - and wtf, now you saying I watch Fox? Did you hit your fucking head? No really, did you seriously suffer some cranial injury? You might want to get an MRI.

I find it kind of amusing.

If instead of going off in a frothy bit of insanity, attacking out of nowhere with silly assertions and hyperbole while talking in vague sweeping terms like mandating "all jobs provide X , an end to part time work!" and simply discussed minimum wage and linked this article we could have actually had a rational discussion.