Profiling CEOs and Their Sociopathic Paychecks

[chasteh 0]

>Libertarians see an excessively powerful (and in some senses corrupt) government that is takes from the taxpayers and rewards it's supporters with the money.

Sure.

>Socialists see a corporate lobby that basically dictates policy to the government, to benefit it, at the expense of the common man.

This is false. You confuse the modern democrat with "socialists." Did you ever watch that video I sent you on PM? It would completely negate what you just said. Of course, we have done a major disservice to socialism by confusing it with a beurocratic mess.

You seem to be confusing arguments against authoritarian police states with socialism.

One is used as a means of exploiting man for beurocracy, and the other one holds that there shall never be a situation in which man exploits another man for his own benefit. That is actually far, far closer to libertarianism that most libertarians would care to admit - thus it is much easier to confuse socialism with fascism, and attack it as such.

[chasteh 0]

What do I mean?

I mean: do you think there are only a select few who deserve to have health insurance?

Similiar to: do you think there are only a select few who deserve to have private property?

The key similarity here is that only the person who has employed capital successfully enough would be deserving of those two. Do you think this way? Or do you think that there is, in fact, a way each and every person can realistically afford health care coverage - just that we haven't employed those means yet?

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

What do I mean?

I mean: do you think there are only a select few who deserve to have health insurance?

Similiar to: do you think there are only a select few who deserve to have private property?

No, in both cases.

Anyone who wants to purchase them has a right to own them.

Quote

The key similarity here is that only the person who has employed capital successfully enough would be deserving of those two. Do you think this way?

Well, I suppose if as "capital" you count their own labor, then sure. People who work to earn things are the people who have a right to them. But that's not a "select few." It's more like virtually everyone.

How are you defining the term capital?

Quote

Or do you think that there is, in fact, a way each and every person can realistically afford health care coverage - just that we haven't employed those means yet?

I think there is a way that every person can purchase some amount of health care (that's distinct from health insurance--the two are not interchangeable).

The problems start when you begin to investigate just exactly how much health care each person is entitled to have. The argument is about whether the amount that they purchase is sufficient, or whether additional amount should be given to them.

The issue is further clouded when you realize the price they are paying is actually quite inflated, and that the use of the "health insurance" system is one of the main reasons for that. By bundling together all of your health care into one opaque "health insurance" package, it ensures that you cannot accurately assess the costs of different components, and will never make a well informed, reasonable decision about purchasing health care.

Then when you take the massive bundle that is "health insurance" and further bundle that in with employment, the picture gets really hazy, and people have an even harder time making good decisions.

The key to controlling costs is being able to make rational decisions about care. In our current system, that's virtually impossible because all of the information needed to make those decisions is hidden from people/patients/consumers.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[chasteh 0]

> It's more like virtually everyone

So that means everyone has the means to do so. We'll have to hold you to that when the next beurocratic apocolypse occurs - thus allowing libertarians (another) chance in history to "make it right, the free-market way."

>How are you defining the term capital?

What I mean, entirely, is that: does free-marketism genuinely set the stage so that anyone can buy health insurance? Or does it restrict w ho can buy it in the same way that it only allows the affluent to purchase expensive things? Under your view, can we realistically say that more people would be insured? (Does a simple "yes" here suffice, or do we need examples?)

>I think there is a way that every person can purchase some amount of health care (that's distinct from health insurance--the two are not interchangeable).

So, we should do away with "insurance" unless we can totally be aware of the policy. I would have to look at this option further. I have paid for health care on my own, several times, and I have found the inurance option to be far, far less expensive - considering my broken/dislocated shoulder would have cost exponentially more without the insurance package.

How do you propose the costs of health care be reduced? Hasn't the free-market done everything it can to make that price affordable? I know I can't afford it. I can't even afford health insurance on my own, and I have quite a few qualifications to boot.

>The key to controlling costs is being able to make rational decisions about care. In our current system, that's virtually impossible because all of the information needed to make those decisions is hidden from people/patients/consumers.

So, by eliminating ambiguous insurance policies, we allow free market forces to take hold again? Can we safely say that that is what has inflated costs for us? Is that really it?

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Hasn't the free-market done everything it can to make that price affordable?

Not just no, but hell no?

The healthcare field is so full of bureaucratic over-regulation (both from the government and the insurance companies) that I'd have trouble saying there's much free market influence at all, especially on a macro level.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[chasteh 0]

>Not just no, but hell no?

LoL. Oh man. I guess I wasn't expecting that.

>The healthcare field is so full of bureaucratic over-regulation (both from the government and the insurance companies) that I'd have trouble saying there's much free market influence at all, especially on a macro level.

Ok, so after eliminating the regulations, which we still need to consider each of them to be removable, and then we have to answer for their policies*. The only thing we have outside of market influence is government regulation to get insurance companies to change their policies and prices, is it not?

In other news, I wonder if selling my soul would make it so that I could afford law school, as opposed to just being ready for it.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

In other news, I wonder if selling my soul would make it so that I could afford law school, as opposed to just being ready for it.

Sure it would. The JAG is offering a special--they'll pay for law school and all you have to give them is a few years of your life.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[chasteh 0]

Can't. Don't want to take money from the government. Or does that not count?

Were you in the military?

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Can't. Don't want to take money from the government. Or does that not count?

I thought that was what you meant by selling your soul?

Quote

Were you in the military?

Not really.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[chasteh 0]

>I thought that was what you meant by selling your soul?

Nuh uh. Now that I think about it, what I meant by it kindof didn't make sense.

Quote

Were you in the military?

>Not Really.

So you were in the Air Force. I thought about that for a while. Not for me.

Maybe when one of those justified wars comes along again i'll join.

[rushmc 18]

Tell me. Looking at your registration date leads me to believe you may have been or are one of those paid to support Obama on line. Are you one of those people?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Libertarians see an excessively powerful (and in some senses corrupt) government that is takes from the taxpayers and rewards it's supporters with the money.

Sure.

>Socialists see a corporate lobby that basically dictates policy to the government, to benefit it, at the expense of the common man.

This is false. You confuse the modern democrat with "socialists." Did you ever watch that video I sent you on PM? It would completely negate what you just said. Of course, we have done a major disservice to socialism by confusing it with a beurocratic mess.

You seem to be confusing arguments against authoritarian police states with socialism.

One is used as a means of exploiting man for beurocracy, and the other one holds that there shall never be a situation in which man exploits another man for his own benefit. That is actually far, far closer to libertarianism that most libertarians would care to admit - thus it is much easier to confuse socialism with fascism, and attack it as such.

No, no confusion. Modern Democrate = progresive = solicalists. Nothing confusing about that.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[chasteh 0]

>Tell me. Looking at your registration date leads me to believe you may have been or are one of those paid to support Obama on line. Are you one of those people?

What? First of all, November 30th was 26 days after his landslide victory. He could start doing that now, but it won't be so critical for a couple more years.

You might say: Well you are here to support democratic legislation!

And then I would say: I said I didn't support the democratic congressmembers, or the entirety of thi bill they proposed, either. Assuming I were an Obama supporter, don't you think I would try harder at justifying his policies than that?

No, you wouldn't.

[chasteh 0]

>No, no confusion. Modern Democrate = progresive = solicalists. Nothing confusing about that

edit:
Sorry, I just had to re-do the spelling on your post. Solicalists? I have to say, I like your style. That made me laugh.

>>No, no confusion. Modern Democrats = progressive = socialists. Nothing confusing about that



That is like saying: All humans are male, and all males are white.

Or

All conservatives are Bush supporters, and all Bush supporters are crazy religious people.

Thank you for supplying us with a brilliant display of a hasty generalization.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

No, no confusion. Modern Democrate = progresive = solicalists. Nothing confusing about that.

+1

If you want something, Work for it.

[chasteh 0]

Says the school bus mechanic. Who pays you to work on those school buses, again? As if "working for it" was only a hallmark of conservativism. Brilliant response, again.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>No, no confusion. Modern Democrate = progresive = solicalists. Nothing confusing about that

edit:
Sorry, I just had to re-do the spelling on your post. Solicalists? I have to say, I like your style. That made me laugh.

>>No, no confusion. Modern Democrats = progressive = socialists. Nothing confusing about that



That is like saying: All humans are male, and all males are white.

Or

All conservatives are Bush supporters, and all Bush supporters are crazy religious people.

Thank you for supplying us with a brilliant display of a hasty generalization.

Not hasty at all as you are correct. Not all Dems are but, modern Dems (those that self label) are.

They want us to have light bulbs, but they have to tell us which ones we should/can use. We can have cars but, they have to get the gas milage they aprove of. Health care? first step to telling us which food we can eat cause if we get fat it harms to collective. We also may be too old for a life saving treatment. Or like in OR you cant get life saving drugs but they will pay for the DR and drugs for the Dr assited killing yourself.

No, I got it correct. No generalizations just a fact of those who are in power.

Like the manditory service in Obamas orgs run by ACORN.

Like I said, I am on target here......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[chasteh 0]

"They want us to have light bulbs, but they have to tell us which ones we should/can use. We can have cars but, they have to get the gas milage they aprove of. Health care? first step to telling us which food we can eat cause if we get fat it harms to collective. We also may be too old for a life saving treatment. Or like in OR you cant get life saving drugs but they will pay for the DR and drugs for the Dr assited killing yourself."

Were you going to show us how all democrats are progressives and thus socialists? Or were you, at some point, going to stop leading us on a red herring long enough so that we could get back towards your statement?

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

+1

If you want something, Work for it

+1.

Doctor/Patient relationship. Done. Competition/market forces in the rawest form. Get government the hell out of the way and let me haggle with someone.

My girlfriend had a bad valve stem on her tire and I was on the phone with 3 different tire places within 5 miles. I went with the best price. We weren't desperate and could weigh our options.

The other night I needed bug spray bad and there was only one gas station around. I payed dearly for the bugspray. I was happy to just get it.

Supply and demand. - it applies to every single transaction that takes place on the planet earth.. and it would work with healthcare. Representative Paul Ryan has some good stuff to say on the doctor/patient plan.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

"They want us to have light bulbs, but they have to tell us which ones we should/can use. We can have cars but, they have to get the gas milage they aprove of. Health care? first step to telling us which food we can eat cause if we get fat it harms to collective. We also may be too old for a life saving treatment. Or like in OR you cant get life saving drugs but they will pay for the DR and drugs for the Dr assited killing yourself."

Were you going to show us how all democrats are progressives and thus socialists? Or were you, at some point, going to stop leading us on a red herring long enough so that we could get back towards your statement?

Never said "all". Never in insinuated it. I have shown indications that those in power are however.

It is you assumptions that are getting you into trouble.

Now you can stop making this thread smell like fish, OK?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[chasteh 0]

>Never said "all". Never in insinuated it.

"No, no confusion. Modern Democrate = progresive = solicalists. Nothing confusing about that."

Actually, you did.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Never said "all". Never in insinuated it.

"No, no confusion. Modern Democrate = progresive = solicalists. Nothing confusing about that."

Actually, you did.

Nope. Key in on this. "Modern".

My grandpa was a Dem. He would have hated the party as it is today. Anybody who thinks should.

Edited to add. Can be said for both parties today

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[chasteh 0]

Modern democrats are far more conservative than they used to be. Most of them support earning wealth as opposed to strictly producing for the purpose of producing. So they aren't socialists.

Also, progressives are somewhere inbetween a person who still supports building wealth but at the same time supports higher taxation and laws that work against the wealthy, yet they still aren't socialists. They take it one step further than the modern democrat.

And the socialists that you refer to would have nothing to do with today's democrats in any way shape or form. They are far closer to libertarians in their protests of the conservative and democratic parties. Again, your generalization is plain false.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Modern democrats are far more conservative than they used to be. Most of them support earning wealth as opposed to strictly producing for the purpose of producing. So they aren't socialists.

Also, progressives are somewhere inbetween a person who still supports building wealth but at the same time supports higher taxation and laws that work against the wealthy, yet they still aren't socialists. They take it one step further than the modern democrat.

And the socialists that you refer to would have nothing to do with today's democrats in any way shape or form. They are far closer to libertarians in their protests of the conservative and democratic parties. Again, your generalization is plain false.

I just spit my beer out because of this post!!! You owm me a keyboard!!



But thanks for the laugh. It has been a while since I have laught that hard!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Modern democrats are far more conservative than they used to be. Most of them support earning wealth as opposed to strictly producing for the purpose of producing. So they aren't socialists.

Also, progressives are somewhere inbetween a person who still supports building wealth but at the same time supports higher taxation and laws that work against the wealthy, yet they still aren't socialists. They take it one step further than the modern democrat.

And the socialists that you refer to would have nothing to do with today's democrats in any way shape or form. They are far closer to libertarians in their protests of the conservative and democratic parties. Again, your generalization is plain false.

I just spit my beer out because of this post!!! You owm me a keyboard!!



But thanks for the laugh. It has been a while since I have laught that hard!

Lets see - Is it my mistake or was Kennedy not a democrat? I'm not seeing merit in his argument.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun