THere is something WRONG with the empathy, or lack, of right wingers.

Apparently your delusions are reading into things that just aren't so.

Want to know one of the differences between conservatives and liberals? Liberals dislike conservatives because of the things conservatives say and do. However, conservatives dislike liberals because of what conservatives delude themselves into thinking liberals say and do.

 

Billionaires didn't kill Progressive Radio. It died all on its own, because the "talent" were crazy people and it died due to terrible ratings. And the MSM is mostly progressive, so when you claim there isn't any, I know you're living in some alternate universe. Have a nice day.

 

Again, I'm not being vague. I'm using terms that describe exactly what's going on.

If only two people are involved, you don't get to decide what's fair. That's between them. Your stipulation that no one should be refused on the basis of inability to pay inserts your values in between that of the two people you say should only be involved. The terms I keep using are an attempt to clearly illustrate this point.

Intermediaries don't have any under-compensated slave doctors that I know of. Doctors that aren't compensated enough don't perform the service. It's that simple. If they perform the service, it was worth the effort to them at the time. Once again, if you make a value judgement about their decision to perform, or not perform the service, that's you inserting yourself between the doctor and the patient.

I'm arguing that the doctor and the patient negotiate value on their own. You're the one trying to insert yourself into that negotiation. That makes you someone who thinks they should decide value. You said it quite clearly: The doctor deserves a fair compensation for their work, but not less. A patient should pay a fair amount for their health, but not more.

The bold portions of your statement are your values. They are the values you seek to impose on the transaction between the doctor and the patient. They are the way you attempt to determine who should and who should not receive care. Fair, more, less, are words that you're using to control that transaction and they are entirely based on your own opinion.

You just set conditions, as I outlined above. Beyond that, the two people you think should be involved in the care negotiation set conditions. The limited nature of health care as a resource is a condition. Might want to think your position through a bit.

 

You sure got a handle on things. That is the game. They have made progressives fascists, socialists, commies, murderers, haters, brainless, violent and all things bad, in well poisoning splendor. Then , when we say they are MEAN, which is VERBATIME what Trump called them, they say, YOU FIRST, Hillary killed Foster and many others, Carter is an anti-Semite and Maddow is nutz.

 

Wait. People against fascism run around in masks and create fear and violence against those they disagree with? I thought they stood for Anti First Amendment, since thats all they do...shut down apposing views/speech through violence and intimidation. They're animals.

 

The only ones who live in fear of the Antifa are skinheads, the KKK, and other assorted race hating groups. Racism should be painful.

It sounds more like you are just repeating the party line and not paying attention to the real world. Nine out of ten of the top economically performing states are dominated by Democrats while nine out of the bottom ten economically performing states are dominated by Republicans. Obviously Democrats know how to do things better than Republicans.

Of course the real problem lays in the fact that Republican economic ideology is halfassed backwards silliness that is guaranteed to drive the country to ruin. Look at what happened to Kansas.

 

The other day I saw a bumper sticker that said, "Republicans: why we can never have nice things"

 

I wonder where those jobs are going to come from. Most jobs losses are due to consolidation, mechanization, computerization and automation. We are on the verge of having the technology to make manual labor obsolete.

Are you aware that studies have been shown, that in bad time, unemployment checks and food stamps prevent the wider community from collapsing. Being that money's value is increased the more it is used, and reused, and reused, and reused.... food stamps produce about twice the economic benefit as their face value.

Thing about healthcare, is that if it were universal, it would make things way better for employers, especially for smaller companies.

 

They oughta listen to you, I know you are a product designer. Similar to me. I was a process engineer, automation engineer, moldmaker, cad cam programmer, yadda yadda.

MANY categories of folks will soon be obsolete. And all those that made good money, they will work hardest to OBSOLETE. Soon, we will face EITHER a wage for everyone, no matter working or not, or we will have millions starving and desperate. Which means, crime to survive.

 

True.

Again, the issue is government waste and corruption. You can't tax yourself to prosperity, leftists have tried this all of the world to little effect.[/QUOTE]
And wouldn't the rest of the working class pay more of the tax burden and the top less if the growth in income had been shared fairly with them rather than mostly going to the top? They created their own "problem" of high tax burdens.

But I disagree regarding taxing your way to prosperity. Studies show, for example, that "every dollar spent by the government on benefits for the unemployed produces an overall return of $1.61 for the economy". - See a Study by Moody's Analytics.

So I think we can extrapolate that to another form of payout to the unemployed, only in this case we require they work. This program is called "rebuild infrastructure". And it can be paid for by increasing the taxes in the corporate elite who took all that new income over the last 30 years without sharing it with their workers fairly. And the results of the program will be infrastructure that everyone benefits from including the rich who were taxed for it.

So I think we can tax our way to prosperity. What we CAN'T do is cut our way to prosperity with austerity. That has been proven to be disastrous, but trump wants to do it.

Whoa. Hold it. Are you saying that you think I like waste and corruption?

Republicans have a terrible record of growing government - http://beforeitsnews.com/tea-party/2012/09/government-grows-faster-under-republicans-2456016.html

"When President Bush took office, the government was running a budget surplus and was on its way to paying off the national debt. Tax cuts, war in Iraq, the biggest new health program since the 1960s, a Wall Street bailout and a raft of spending increases wiped away the surpluses, creating a $400 billion deficit by Bush’s last year in office.

Yet Republicans, adopting a Who, me? approach, have managed to convince an increasingly angry populist uprising that it was Democrats who got us here."

https://dailyreckoning.com/big-government-republicans/

Today, socialists don't advocate more government or government controlling the means of production.

Dead Dems? That was a propaganda lie. It didn't happen. Yes dead people's names remain on the voter roles, both Dem and Repub. But there is no record of any number of "dead" people voting on either side. Please correct your false belief on this.

I did not. There is only circumstantial evidence that is easily twisted into a claim of Dems benefiting from immigrant votes. And I didn't defend anything by claiming republican election trickery. I made an offer for a deal for both of us.

I'm not. I just stand for facts and truth.

 

If only racists need to be afraid, why do we need armed cops in SWAT gear to protect people from them?


watch 3:40 on


Seriously, you are a crazy person if you think everyone shouldn't be afraid of these animals. And thats just 3 videos. There are so many more. Are you being paid by someone to support them, because...WOW.

 

Speaking of paying attention to the real world, how exactly does Democrat domination affect the economic performance of a state? How's Detroit doing these days? How about Chicago, St Lois, Philly, Oakland, Baltimore, Newark? They're all dominated by Democrats, aren't they? How are all those progressive values failing the systems that created such prosperity in those cities if they work so well for states?

 

This assertion has been made for more than a century. Tractors made farm labor obsolete, except for all those guys planting obsolete tobacco that Americans won't pick across the street from me right now. Not to mention all the obsolete jobs replaced by robots that are flying overseas to obsolete labor pools willing to work for less than obsolete Americans.

Technological advancement does not replace labor. It displaces it. It frees up the need for labor in specific areas, allowing that labor to be used in others. After all, it's not like everything would be great again if we could just blow up all the tractors so that everyone would have to go back to laboring in a field for food.

Hell, to get back to the topic of the thread, the efficiency of automation actually makes health care MORE accessible to people. If you want health care to be cheaper, that's how you do it.

 

I've gotta say, progressives complaining about automation makes me chuckle.

Progressive: We're for progress! Except if it makes things more efficient. Efficiency is the nemesis of equality and we're more for equality than progress.

Conservative: Isn't that regressive?

Progressive: Racist.

 

With tax breaks to the rich making it possible to move jobs overseas it is no wonder Detroit is a mess. But that is the Republican way. Create a problem and blame it on someone else. "The last one out of Michigan turn out the lights".

 

Yes, and then after those bad economic times, those people tend to stay on unemployment checks and drop out of the labor force. Labor participation in the U.S is the lowest it has been in quite some time, and giving people money for free is not going to stop that trend.

 

I helped develop a machine that performs several tests on blood. Putting lab techs out of work. Nowadays medical checkups are little more than blood tests, done by machines.

Talking about healthcare, if instead of accepting the crap they give you in your right-wing silly talk, you should look into business and medical journals. There you will find that, under the ACA the medical industry has been much improved. So much so that every medical association has been begging the Republicans, in congress, to not go ahead with their destruction.

 

I dropped out of the workforce a long time ago. Not that I worked all that much when I did. However not working has been more profitable while not cutting into my social life.



You get up every morning from your alarm clock warning
Take the 8:15 to the city
There's a whistle up above, people pushing, people shoving
And the girls who try to look pretty
If your train's on time, chances are you'll get to work by nine
Start you're slaving job and get your pay
If you ever get annoyed, look at me, I'm self employed
I love to work at nothing all day


-BachmanTurnerOverdrive

 

What delusion are you living on? What progressive is complaining about automation? Along with, computerization, and mechanization it was invented by liberals. Don't forget the primary goal of liberals is the betterment of the human condition. Progressives are liberals without balls. Liberals lead the world forward, conservatives drag us backwards.

 

They bought one of the only two stations in the area that had any progressive programming. After threatening the owner with a boycott (the guy spoke out not long ago and explained it in detail). They had 6 stations in this area (during the McCain campaign) all with 24 hours right-wingnut politics. And after the elections, they converted it into a religious station. The other one was a College based station that had left-wing radio in the morning, and right-wing radio in the afternoon. They sued it and made it decrease the signal strength to a point where it could only be received if you were just across the street. So they finally closed.

 

It's not right now. It's between the Doctor and the insurance company!

An individual patient has no leverage unless they are millionaires. But I don't completely disagree with this. Taking Insurance Corporations out of the picture, there are many ways this can be solved.

Those values do need to be inserted. But they are not my values. I didn't invent them. They are the human rights and the values embedded in our Constitution and throughout all our history since the Declaration of Independence. Unless you can provide arguments to support that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" or that "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" are dependent on the ability to pay.

The short argument is this: people who don't have money to see a doctor have the same right to live as those who do.

Absolutely. You need well paid doctors. But you don't need insurance companies that add nothing to the healthcare system.

The rest is just your repeating this weird idea that I invented human rights and that I wrote the U.S. Constitution.

 

So you just pay yourself with my tax dollars and contribute what to society? That is not good, it shouldn't be more profitable to do nothing. Why aren't you working?

 

Is there protection against force fraud or coercion? No, there's not.

 

Okay, I put the people's names in quotes, but I still don't have numbers for everyone.

I actually spit in disbelief reading this. That's about the stupidest thing I've read on this website, and I've read dozens and dozens of Kode's posts. He makes my head hurt with his stupidity. But I've never spit before.

This is just retarded. This is why we say you don't understand conservatives. Conservatives are not mean at all, and don't wish harm to anyone. We just have a different view on what helps people. Government-run health care doesn't help people, it hurts people. Private market health care doesn't mean people die, it means people get the health care they can afford. If you can't afford any better than the ER, that's what you get. If you can afford high level health care and are willing to pay for it, you're entitled to it. Opposing government-run health care has nothing to do with Obama or Hillary or Romney, it has to do with what's good for health care, and having it run by the same people who bring you the post office, the VA, and the DMV is NOT IT. And as for "giving the wealthy more tax cuts", you can't GIVE people THEIR OWN MONEY. All you can do is STOP TAKING IT FROM THEM. It's not your ****ing money! Such ****ing arrogance. By the way, have you been to a local free health clinic or the SS office? That's what everyone will have to go through if you nationalize health care... long waits, poor service, and denial of benefits unless you bring in a lawyer.

Corporations are not in business to supply jobs, they are in business to make a profit for their owners. That is why they exist. There are corporations that exist solely on paper, employ no one, and make millions of dollars through investments in other companies. They are successful and fulfilling their purpose for existence. Corporations, like the universe, do not owe you anything just because you exist.

You know, as a first-born, I have a tendency to see politics as a replay of sibling rivalry. I don't see any reason in the world why I should have to share MY stuff and MY food and MY space with later born siblings just because they exist. I didn't ask for them to be here, and I didn't have any older sibling giving me anything, so why should I be deprived of my stuff just because they are here? And I got nothing from my parents unless I worked for it. I wouldn't even get fed until my chores were done. Meanwhile, liberals, like my siblings, demand that rich people give them everything without having to DO anything for it, just because they are here. Well, **** you. I had to work for everything I got, so you can damn well work for everything you get.

Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea. Everywhere capitalism is tried, it succeeds. Everywhere communism is tried, it fails. Why do you think China and India are booming while Europe and the US are struggling? It's because they have been moving toward more free market capitalism and we've been moving toward more socialism.

I've gone atheist now, but I can actually provide Biblical evidence that Jesus himself would be all of those things that you say he wouldn't be. Gun loving? Jesus used a scourge to drive the money-changers from the temple. Sounds like a weapon-lover to me. Anti-immigration? Jesus called a Samaritan woman a dog. Conservative? Jesus said he didn't come to overturn the law but to fulfill it, that not one dot of the law would not be observed. Cut programs that feed millions? Jesus said the poor you have with you always. Health care should only be for those who can afford it? He didn't discriminate between rich and poor in his healing, but nowhere does he call on doctors to provide their services for free. And I think it was Peter who said the workman is worthy of his wages. If a doctor is worthy of his wages, then why should medical care be free? And last but not least, Jesus said, "I come not to bring peace but a sword. Brother shall turn against brother, father against son, mother against daughter for my name's sake." Sounds like a pretty divisive guy if you ask me.

And yet she retired? What a slacker! (Kidding. My first response was, "Wow, am I a slacker!")

Which only goes to prove that you're not a Christian or you would understand. It also goes to prove the pope is not a Christian.

I don't buy that. I read that political beliefs are more determined by the economic circumstances in which you grew up, that if economic circumstances were tough when you were young, you would grow up conservative, while if you grew up in relative wealth and financial stability, you would turn out liberal. That doesn't explain why poor blacks vote Democrat, of course. But it does explain why those who grew up during the Depression turned out very conservative while those who grew up under Eisenhower turned out left of Stalin.

Maybe because some 30-40 million Mexican immigrants had taken all the jobs that would have gone to poor white working class people?

Actually nothing of what he wrote was in the least bit accurate, but it's so far from reality that it isn't even worth countering. It's the ravings of a lunatic and not the rational opinion of a thinking man.

Says the atheist. Amazing how people who aren't Christians get to decide who is and isn't a Christian. You see the same people saying the terrorists aren't Muslims, even as they yell, "Allahu Akbar," as they blow themselves up. Bullshit.

LOL.

You can avoid it, but you're still subject to it. The IRS has gone after companies/individuals who have made a trade of some kind of substantial worth where no money changed hands and collected taxes from both sides on the trade. So the idea that barter exempts you from the income tax is false.

What YOU have to understand is the mean spiritedness of right wingers is all in your own fevered imagination.

Beautiful!

For $20, I'd drop you all off in the Kalahari. What you don't understand is that 20 million people without health INSURANCE is not the same thing as 20 million people without health CARE. Everyone gets health care. Not everyone gets health insurance. Every renter could buy renter's insurance, but not everyone does. That means if there's a fire and your stuff goes up in smoke, you lose. If you don't have health insurance and you get sick, you lose. You can't go to the insurance company and buy insurance on your stuff after it's on fire. Why do you want to change the rules when it's health care? Indulgences. What a load of codswallop.

So then you go to the next priced doctor down the line. That's how a free market works. When it's the government that has a monopoly, who can you go to? The best quality doctors often have long waiting lists of people wanting to see them. The worst quality doctor will see you today. If it's the government providing the health care, there will ONLY be the worst quality doctors, and there will be a long waiting list of people wanting to see them. I saw this not too long ago: In capitalism, the bread waits for the consumer. In communism, the consumer waits for the bread. If we would move toward a free market in health care, we'd have more doctors and more insurance companies waiting for the consumers instead of the mess we have today.

 

Wow, a right-winger AND a do-gooder! Amazing! (Props to you, btw, I'm genuinely impressed.)

See, you're already so far around the bend that it isn't even possible to have a rational discussion with you. Any rational person would know that it's impossible for EVERYONE to get "the best medical care available," just as it's impossible for everyone to get "the best automobile available," "the best housing available," "the best legal services available," "the best accounting services available," simply because there are a limited number of those things available and 300 million people in the US. I wonder if there's a way to sort everyone in the US in such a way that they can get as close to the "best" as they can without rioting in the streets? OH, there IS! We put a high price on the best items, a lower price on the next best, and so on down the line, so that everyone can afford SOMETHING even if it isn't the best! I wonder if that would work with health care...

Funny how "we're in it together" always comes down to "rich people should pay my bills for me".

Yes, the people on the right have a brain and the people on the left have none. Why is hysteria considered a legitimate tool for political debate on the left? Show me one Republican who says, "Die! Die! Everybody die!" (Jack the Ripper from Star Trek)

That's actually false, the Republicans have developed several alternative systems over the years, but speaking as a conservative, I DON'T WANT A ****ING HEALTHCARE SYSTEM! I want the ****ing free market to provide health care, because I know it will do a damn sight better job than any ****ing government system could! Look at the DMV and Walmart. Which one would you rather go into? If Walmart has more than three people in line, they open another register. If the DMV has two windows open for six people, they close one. A veteran after being denied health care at a VA center went out in the parking lot and shot himself. And this is the health care system you want for EVERYONE. **** you.

Well said. And then they decry the evil businessmen for closing plants and putting people out of work, as if they weren't the ones who drove them out of business in the first place. Oh, and let's not forget all the propaganda making all businessmen evil for defiling the environment with their evil factories and offices. I don't know why anyone would WANT to be in business in America, for all the thanks they get. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

LOL. You credit way more power to the Fed than it actually has. And I've taken several economics courses. In none of them was it ever suggested that the Fed acts to increase unemployment when it's too low. Generally speaking, the Fed's major concern is keeping inflation down.

Ummm, all of them? From the darkest depths of Africa to the communist hellholes of North Korea and Cuba to the mighty capitalist powerhouses of South Korea and Hong Kong, the top 1% don't just make a hundred times what the poorest make, they make a thousand to a million times more. And what's this "allow" bullshit? Since when are people "allowed" to keep the money they make instead of being ENTITLED to keep the money they make?

Ha! Funny coming from the same people who can't blame shooters but blame guns, can't blame Islam for 30,000 terrorist attacks but can blame a Confederate flag for one, can't blame criminals but blame society.

That, sir, is the worst kind of bigotry, to ascribe motives to people with zero evidence to support it. Show me ONE conservative commentator who has uttered a kind word for hate. And it isn't the right that has divided people along class and race lines, it's the left. It isn't the right that encourages everyone to vote for people based on their race, sex, sexual preference, and economic status, it's the left. THAT is the real bigotry, to think that someone who is not the same sex, race, sexual preference, or economic status as you can't understand you or where you're coming from. And when you encourage people to identify by their sex, race, sexual preference, and economic status, you encourage them to hate those who are NOT their sex, race, sexual preference, and economic status. So who are the divisive ones, hmmmm???

I can't find the links now, but I have read in the past that only about one third of the homeless are long term problematic, and of those third, one third are mental patients dumped out on the streets, one third are alcoholics or drug abusers, and only the remaining third are involuntary economic sufferers. The other two thirds of the population that are homeless are "passing through" as it were, temporarily homeless while they deal with some financial problem. Some 90% of the homeless are men, the remaining 10% women, and almost zero (statistically speaking) are children. Of the children who are homeless, most of them are victims of sexual abuse who have run away from home and are living on the streets, not the children of an intact family.

Something else I read about long term poverty is that if you divide the population into quintiles, something like 75% of the population will move up two quintiles in their working lifetime, then fall back to their original quintile when they retire. So if you start off at the bottom, you'll move up to the middle class during your working life, then go back to being poor at retirement, whereas if you start off in the middle, you'll move up to the top 20% during your working life, then go back to being middle class at retirement. Only 25% of the bottom quintile won't follow the same pattern, and 50% of those will move up at least one quintile, meaning only about 12.5% of the bottom bunch are there permanently. And that's 12.5% of the bottom 20%, or 2.5% of the total population. Meanwhile, a surprisingly high percentage of those who start off in the top quintile fall out of it during their lifetime, meaning the rich don't always get richer.

Best argument I've heard yet for getting government out of health care. Outlaw health insurance AND Medicaid/Medicare. I like it. Make everyone pay for their own health care and see how quick the prices come down. You see, when a third party, like the government or a health insurance company or your employer, pays for YOUR health care, they have a financial incentive to see to it that you DON'T get treated. When YOU have to pay for your health care, you have a financial incentive to see to it that you get the BEST treatment for your money. That's called the free market.

False. The Founding Fathers didn't believe anyone was "entitled" to anything, but had inherent human rights, that among these were life, liberty, and property. Everything else they expected you to work for. Benjamin Franklin had this to say about welfare: "I am for doing good to the poor, but... I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed... that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

False. This is the fiction that the Obama administration came up with to justify a massive intervention in the marketplace and a gullible Supreme Court went along with. There is absolutely zero justification in the Constitution for a national health insurance scheme. And if the Transportation clause justified taxation, the 16th amendment would never have needed passing, but it did.