Just like when there isn't a high demand, prices are set so that the entire stock gets purchased, right?
Yes. I already said that. It's not utilization, it's distribution. Most people aren't comfortable with the richest getting treatment at the expense of everyone else. It's the same reason people who charge $10 a bottle for water in the wake of a disaster tend to be unpopular.
The market is good for many things. Other things, not so much. Extremely low price elasticity is usually a good clue that you're looking at the latter.
It's way people get in trouble for charging $10 a bottle for water in the wake of a disaster. For some reason, that tends to bother people.
If you live in an area that's likely to have a disaster, you don't prepare ahead of time? Some of us would call that "common sense."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So my question to you is, why are you using tax-based healthcare systems as supporting evidence as to why we don't need tax-based healthcare?
Not giving someone money is the same as giving someone money?
You're literally saying that we don't need government programs to provide healthcare BECAUSE we have government programs that provide healthcare.
If you live in an area that's likely to have a disaster, you don't prepare ahead of time? Some of us would call that "common sense."
Which, again, has no bearing on the fact that gouging laws exist, or on the price effects of inelastic demand.
Frankly, at this point you aren't being cogent. I think I'll go do something else for a while. You can tell everyone you won. :)
Which, again, has no bearing on the fact that gouging laws exist, or on the effects of price elasticity of demand.
Frankly, you're not even cogent. I think I'll go do something else for a while. You can tell everyone you won. :)
Bugley, I just asked the question.
You're literally saying that we don't need government programs to provide healthcare BECAUSE we have government programs that provide healthcare.
Reviewing my responses, no, I've not "literally" said that.
Bugley, I just asked the question.
Fair enough.
I'll just say that I believe that you and I disagree on the underlying principles of productive conversation, and leave it at that. :)
Yeah okay I'm done feeding the troll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, come on guys. There's got to be another "I hear Somolia is nice this time of year" comment in here somewhere.
Bring out the strawmen!
Besides, we're approaching 6 million sign-ups for O-Care! Counting the 6 million people who were kicked off their non-O-care compliant plans, that leaves . . . what . . .50 million uninsured?
Heck, we started with 50 million uninsured, so we're breaking even! Yay us!
And if you have no money available for disaster prep? Nor to move away?
Cost of water purification tablets: $3.95. Cost of Paizo's core rulebook download? $10. I know which is worth more.
Disaster prep doesn't require lots of money. It requires forethought.
C'mon, do the Somolia comment for me. Please?
Yes, the people I was speaking of can afford neither. What do you expect of them?
But thanks for playing. Tell him what he's won Anklebiter!
A lifetime supply of Rice-a-Roni, Paizo.com Off-Topic Discussions: The Board Game, and the Collected Works of Aleksander Kerensky!!!
[Scans the rest of the thread]
Nope, nothing interesting here. I wonder what's going in The Ukraine Thingy thread...
|
I'm glad you can buy induglences to alleviate your guilt about not helping the poor more. Plus, you get the added benefit of watching the government punish those who don't believe the way you do. That's almost like a win-win situation, right? Win for you, win for power-brokers in government. Lose for other people, but as long as they're not poor, too bad for them, eh?
I still do not understand how we can have so many "compassionate liberals" some with huge amounts of cash and they do not CHOOSE to help the poor themselves. Certainly there are enough of them to make a noticeable dent in the issue should they choose. Instead they push to take money from others to do their "charity"
|
|
He just did, and I like it no better. Do you disagree that it would result in only those who can pay getting treatment?I think you missed the bit where those who can pay don't give a damn about anyone else, who quite obviously deserved to die if they weren't able to afford treatment, not to mention that society is likely better off as a whole without the burden of the sick, the poor, and worst of all the combination of the two. It's almost got a purity to it, cleansing the human race of the undesirables until only those that have proven themselves fit to survive remain.
So you are ok with taking the money that some of us literally bleed to have to pay for others, no small number of which refuse to work. Would you oppose a program to remedy homelessness by us forcing you to allow a random homeless man to live in your home? you might have too much space, just as we have "too much money" and deserve more taxes
|
|
It's way people get in trouble for charging $10 a bottle for water in the wake of a disaster. For some reason, that tends to bother people.If you live in an area that's likely to have a disaster, you don't prepare ahead of time? Some of us would call that "common sense."
Prepare? do for ourselves? blasphemy!!! that is the governments (and other peoples money) responsibility not ours!!!
Actually, on a related note [well, it was a related note when I began typing], I recently did my federal income taxes. Now, I made less than $20,000 last year and I paid $1500 in taxes. Now, I'm getting $900 back, but still, $600? What the f+%@?!? I thought for sure I'd be in Mitt's 47%. What the hell do I have to do to to qualify for the 47%? Maybe I should start breeding...
[Cue DJdD]
|
|
Oh, come on guys. There's got to be another "I hear Somolia is nice this time of year" comment in here somewhere.
Bring out the strawmen!
Besides, we're approaching 6 million sign-ups for O-Care! Counting the 6 million people who were kicked off their non-O-care compliant plans, that leaves . . . what . . .50 million uninsured?
Heck, we started with 50 million uninsured, so we're breaking even! Yay us!
And most still cannot/will not pay deductibles and copays, a dirty detail no one seems to want to address....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And here I was expecting you to tell him he'd won "Worldwide socialist revolution!"But thanks for playing. Tell him what he's won Anklebiter!A lifetime supply of Rice-a-Roni, Paizo.com Off-Topic Discussions: The Board Game, and the Collected Works of Aleksander Kerensky!!!
[Scans the rest of the thread]
Nope, nothing interesting here. I wonder what's going in The Ukraine Thingy thread...
I visited Citizen Doug's webpage when I first ran into him and, IIRC, it had the slogan "Marxism is the Enemy of Humanity" emblazoned across the top. I may only have a Wisdom of 6, but even I know when an argument's futile.
Also, I hate Obamacare, so this really isn't my fight.
|
|
Edit: I really hope the Somalia misspelling is intentional.
Cost of water purification tablets: $3.95. Cost of Paizo's core rulebook download? $10. I know which is worth more.Yes, the people I was speaking of can afford neither. What do you expect of them?
I do not know what part of america you come from but here in MI i see people spend $4 on a single bottle of Fiji Water on the welfare card. How can they NOT afford basic preparation??? Only a few homeless are truely so desperate and many of them know how to get by anyhow.
I visited Citizen Doug's webpage when I first ran into him and, IIRC, it had the slogan "Marxism is the Enemy of Humanity" emblazoned across the top.
I don't recall anything that blatant. But I'm sure the thought was there.
You should go back. Now it says "Life is hard. It's harder when you're stupid."
Unsurprisingly, this reply could be used for more than just the good Comrade's post. But I'll be sure to use the collected works of kerensky.
Which reminds me that I need to do my annual Tax Day post.
|
|
Only a few homeless are truely so desperate and many of them know how to get by anyhow.Then your answer is the problem does not exist. Understood.
The primary issue of disaster relief is that people are putting themseles into areas known to be prone to them and do nothing to prepare themselves for it, knowing the gov will step in. The homeless are often far smarter than the poor and middle class about how to survive as for many every day is about survival. Disaster relief will always be needed but would be MUCH cheaper for the rest of us if the "victims" were not so often intentionally setting themselves up for this.
|
|
I visited Citizen Doug's webpage when I first ran into him and, IIRC, it had the slogan "Marxism is the Enemy of Humanity" emblazoned across the top.I don't recall anything that blatant. But I'm sure the thought was there.
You should go back. Now it says "Life is hard. It's harder when you're stupid."
Which reminds me that I need to do my annual Tax Day post.
good quote, unfortunately the stupid often just steal, frequently with governmental help
Maybe it was "Marxism is the Enemy of Human Progress"?
Something like that, anyway. And maybe that was just the latest post, and not emblazoned across the top. Either way, I've met a lot of stupid people and their lives don't seem that much harder than mine.
Waitaminnit....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you are ok with taking the money that some of us literally bleed to have to pay for others, no small number of which refuse to work.
Absolutely, my taxes go towards funding the UK's national health service, so I don't have to worry about where the money is going to come from when I need treatment.
Would you oppose a program to remedy homelessness by us forcing you to allow a random homeless man to live in your home? you might have too much space, just as we have "too much money" and deserve more taxes
Yes I'd oppose that, but I'd quite happily see some of my taxes go towards providing homeless shelters.
Everyone should be entitled to a certain level of care by society, no matter their own ability to contribute. Policing, emergency rescue, health care, military protection. Generally, anything that constitutes keeping individuals safe. That's not something that should be doled out to people depending on their ability to pay for it. One of the things that is supposed to separate us from savages is that we take care of our sick and injured rather than leaving them behind.
|
|
Maybe it was "Marxism is the Enemy of Human Progress"?
Something like that, anyway. And maybe that was just the latest post, and not emblazoned across the top. Either way, I've met a lot of stupid people and their lives don't seem that much harder than mine.
Waitaminnit....
Made easier by tax dollars i'll bet. No more fleecing the workers and see how easy life is for them
So you are ok with taking the money that some of us literally bleed to have to pay for others, no small number of which refuse to work. Would you oppose a program to remedy homelessness by us forcing you to allow a random homeless man to live in your home? you might have too much space, just as we have "too much money" and deserve more taxes
Nope, knowing a bit about your situation now, progressive taxation would mean you would pay next to nothing, where people who are ludicrously rich would pay more.
Before you say "lololol taxation is theft" just remember that ALL government services are funded through taxation, including roads. The price per capita for roads would be insurmountable and unaffordable if everyone had to pay an even amount numerically. And yet, things like roads and bridges and energy infrastructure and law enforcement and fire/rescue services are a net boon to society. Similarly, if we made people pay up front their portion of these services they would be unaffordable.
But they are public goods, so we subsidize them. Similarly, having vaccinations for everyone against flu or small pox benefits you as much as it does the person being immunized. People who are sick or injured work well below their output capacity, and thus have a drag factor in the output function of the economy on a macro level. Lower output levels mean higher price levels, because producers produce inefficiently.
If, in aggregate, paying for the healthcare for citizens so they can get back to being productive inputs in the economy is CHEAPER for an individual than offsetting the price increase, isn't it a good idea to do so? Purely economically speaking, which is to say nothing of the moral imperative to see the sick healed.
|
|
So you are ok with taking the money that some of us literally bleed to have to pay for others, no small number of which refuse to work.Absolutely, my taxes go towards funding the UK's national health service, so I don't have to worry about where the money is going to come from when I need treatment.
Would you oppose a program to remedy homelessness by us forcing you to allow a random homeless man to live in your home? you might have too much space, just as we have "too much money" and deserve more taxesYes I'd oppose that, but I'd quite happily see some of my taxes go towards providing homeless shelters.
Everyone should be entitled to a certain level of care by society, no matter their own ability to contribute. Policing, emergency rescue, health care, military protection. Generally, anything that constitutes keeping individuals safe. That's not something that should be doled out to people depending on their ability to pay for it. One of the things that is supposed to separate us from savages is that we take care of our sick and injured rather than leaving them behind.
Why oppose it, your house is big enough for one more is it not? Here in the US we have people make the accusation that people have "too much money" i say most of the people saying that have too much space and should be boarding a homeless man like it or not.
I take care of my sick and injured. I have no desire to take care of the will not work, drug abusing and breeding like rodents.
Made easier by tax dollars i'll bet. No more fleecing the workers and see how easy life is for themMaybe it was "Marxism is the Enemy of Human Progress"?
Something like that, anyway. And maybe that was just the latest post, and not emblazoned across the top. Either way, I've met a lot of stupid people and their lives don't seem that much harder than mine.
Waitaminnit....
I'm not sure what you mean, not surprisingly.
I've known stupid criminals and I've known smart ones. I've known smart people who work 70 hours a week and I've known stupid ones.
|
|
So you are ok with taking the money that some of us literally bleed to have to pay for others, no small number of which refuse to work. Would you oppose a program to remedy homelessness by us forcing you to allow a random homeless man to live in your home? you might have too much space, just as we have "too much money" and deserve more taxesNope, knowing a bit about your situation now, progressive taxation would mean you would pay next to nothing, where people who are ludicrously rich would pay more.
Before you say "lololol taxation is theft" just remember that ALL government services are funded through taxation, including roads. The price per capita for roads would be insurmountable and unaffordable if everyone had to pay an even amount numerically. And yet, things like roads and bridges and energy infrastructure and law enforcement and fire/rescue services are a net boon to society. Similarly, if we made people pay up front their portion of these services they would be unaffordable.
But they are public goods, so we subsidize them. Similarly, having vaccinations for everyone against flu or small pox benefits you as much as it does the person being immunized. People who are sick or injured work well below their output capacity, and thus have a drag factor in the output function of the economy on a macro level. Lower output levels mean higher price levels, because producers produce inefficiently.
If, in aggregate, paying for the healthcare for citizens so they can get back to being productive inputs in the economy is CHEAPER for an individual than offsetting the price increase, isn't it a good idea to do so? Purely economically speaking, which is to say nothing of the moral imperative to see the sick healed.
Why do the "compassionate" not pay for it then instead of insisting that others pay? are there not enough liberals, not enough very rich hollywood liberals, to pay for what you want without putting hands in my pockets? Or is it just a matters of crocodile tears for the poor as they take from others for what they want, with the side benefit of me paying so they can tell the poor to vote the "right way" (or is that left way) to keep the money coming....
|
|
Made easier by tax dollars i'll bet. No more fleecing the workers and see how easy life is for themMaybe it was "Marxism is the Enemy of Human Progress"?
Something like that, anyway. And maybe that was just the latest post, and not emblazoned across the top. Either way, I've met a lot of stupid people and their lives don't seem that much harder than mine.
Waitaminnit....
I'm not sure what you mean, not surprisingly.
I've known stupid criminals and I've known smart ones. I've known smart people who work 70 hours a week and I've known stupid ones.
many of the stupid ones (and very few of the smart ones) end up relying on govenment dollars (our dollars) to live, be it welfare or inside a prison. They would be doing much worse if we didn't spend so much on them
|
Why do the "compassionate" not pay for it then instead of insisting that others pay? are there not enough liberals, not enough very rich hollywood liberals, to pay for what you want without putting hands in my pockets?
If there were more liberals, maybe they'd be able to afford all the services that need funding without conservatives pitching in. :)
Why oppose it, your house is big enough for one more is it not?
Because
a) There really isn't any more room, it's a state-run property so they ensure they match the size to the number of people occupying it.b) My own health issues would actually prevent it as a possibility.
c) The level of care required to keep them safe can be provided far more efficiently centrally.
d) While homelessness is certainly an issue in the UK, local authorities have a duty to find accommodation for any homeless people that come forward and ask to be housed.
Oh, and e) Apparently, and I have no idea if this is really true, but if studies are to be believed it would be possible to house a good number of the homeless by using all of the unoccupied properties in the country. Seems to me the buildings that are sitting unused (as long as they're in a safe condition) would be a far better solution than putting the burden on the lower and middle classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
many of the stupid ones (and very few of the smart ones) end up relying on govenment dollars (our dollars) to live, be it welfare or inside a prison. They would be doing much worse if we didn't spend so much on them
How many of the smart ones end up working graveyard shift at the convenience store catering to welfare leeches? Just curious.
I take care of my sick and injured. I have no desire to take care of the will not work, drug abusing and breeding like rodents.
And yes, I'm actually with you on that to a degree. If people are purposely not contributing to society when they have the ability to, they should forfeit any benefits from said society. The issue is when there's a blanket policy that also prevents the legitimately sick and injured getting treatment by having a system that tries its best to re-categorize them into the latter groups.
Categorizing "drug abusers" for instance - they're not all the same. Some really are just idiots shoving various substances into themselves, but others are stuck with addictions due to other circumstances. Any filtering needs to be done fairly to ensure people don't fall through holes and get left behind through no fault of their own.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that I'd be quite happy knowing a convicted mass murderer (provided there really was zero doubt of their guilt due to being caught in the act) was left to die rather than spend public money on treating them. That probably makes me a bit of an a-hole, but I never really claimed to be anything else ;)
Mostly though, it's a case of recognizing that people are people, individuals, and not blanket categories to label them with for the sake of leaving them out of the system. I tend to play it safe and say if someone is willing to be a part of society (even if they're not able), they should be included, but that being a part of society also comes with certain responsibilities if you're fit to fulfill them.
So, I thought this was amusing:
Against my better judgement, I revisited Doug's webpage.
There's a fun post from back in November that I imagine was inspired by visits to our fun OTD, "So ignorant leftists continually spout off about 'anarchnocapitalists'" which is followed by some "Random Quotes by Economists" starting with, yup, you guessed it, Murray "I invented anarchocapitalism" Rothbard.
I mean, you may be right, Doug, maybe ignorant leftists continually spout off about anarchocapitalism, but I am not an ignorant leftist, and, um, Murray Rothbard invented anarchocapitalism. Just so you know.
I still do not understand how we can have so many "compassionate liberals" some with huge amounts of cash and they do not CHOOSE to help the poor themselves. Certainly there are enough of them to make a noticeable dent in the issue should they choose. Instead they push to take money from others to do their "charity"
I'm glad you can buy induglences to alleviate your guilt about not helping the poor more. Plus, you get the added benefit of watching the government punish those who don't believe the way you do. That's almost like a win-win situation, right? Win for you, win for power-brokers in government. Lose for other people, but as long as they're not poor, too bad for them, eh?
Liberals pay taxes too, you know.
Wassup, Mama Kelsey?!?
|
|
many of the stupid ones (and very few of the smart ones) end up relying on govenment dollars (our dollars) to live, be it welfare or inside a prison. They would be doing much worse if we didn't spend so much on themHow many of the smart ones end up working graveyard shift at the convenience store catering to welfare leeches? Just curious.
My choices as well as circumstances i cannot help got me there yet i still take care of myself, pay my bills and all of that. There are always situations we cannot control but how we handle the things we can is what matters most. I ask no one for anything and would rather live homeless than take from others.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Liberals pay taxes too, you know.I still do not understand how we can have so many "compassionate liberals" some with huge amounts of cash and they do not CHOOSE to help the poor themselves. Certainly there are enough of them to make a noticeable dent in the issue should they choose. Instead they push to take money from others to do their "charity"
I'm glad you can buy induglences to alleviate your guilt about not helping the poor more. Plus, you get the added benefit of watching the government punish those who don't believe the way you do. That's almost like a win-win situation, right? Win for you, win for power-brokers in government. Lose for other people, but as long as they're not poor, too bad for them, eh?
If i rob your house to give the money to a sick friend does it matter if i give some of my own money too?
My choices as well as circumstances i cannot help got me there yet i still take care of myself, pay my bills and all of that. There are always situations we cannot control but how we handle the things we can is what matters most. I ask no one for anything and would rather live homeless than take from others.many of the stupid ones (and very few of the smart ones) end up relying on govenment dollars (our dollars) to live, be it welfare or inside a prison. They would be doing much worse if we didn't spend so much on themHow many of the smart ones end up working graveyard shift at the convenience store catering to welfare leeches? Just curious.
You don't even want to guess? Many? A few? Somewhere in between?
Well, that's my cue to go, I guess. But before I do, and for the record, many, many stupid people throw boxes at UPS. Am I one of them? Maybe, but I don't pay shiznit for my health insurance.
U-nion! U-nion! U-nion!
If i rob your house to give the money to a sick friend does it matter if i give some of my own money too?Liberals pay taxes too, you know.I still do not understand how we can have so many "compassionate liberals" some with huge amounts of cash and they do not CHOOSE to help the poor themselves. Certainly there are enough of them to make a noticeable dent in the issue should they choose. Instead they push to take money from others to do their "charity"
I'm glad you can buy induglences to alleviate your guilt about not helping the poor more. Plus, you get the added benefit of watching the government punish those who don't believe the way you do. That's almost like a win-win situation, right? Win for you, win for power-brokers in government. Lose for other people, but as long as they're not poor, too bad for them, eh?
If I continually accuse people of theft and robbery is it true or an overly hostile barb that eliminates the chance for civil debate?
Maybe it was "Marxism is the Enemy of Human Progress"?
Something like that, anyway. And maybe that was just the latest post, and not emblazoned across the top. Either way, I've met a lot of stupid people and their lives don't seem that much harder than mine.
Waitaminnit....
Woops, my bad, "Marxism is the nemesis of human achievement," May 8, 2012.
Man, I've got a good memory for a pothead!