American Cultural Revolution

[MWBATL]

No, the baker wasn’t a racist and it wasn’t just congratulations. In a perfect world, if it weren’t crude like dancing penises (LOl, love that illustration), it would be nice if people would just love on each other and served each other. But it is certainly someone’s right to decline that type of thing.

Private businesses can choose to decline service for any number of reasons (“no shoes, no shirts, no service”) so why shouldn’t they be allowed to refuse a custom order that violates their religious beliefs (however odious they may be)? I called it anti-Christian not because I am Christian, but because we do not see similar issues with Muslim or Jewish businesses. It is possible there are no such cases, but I suspect a Muslim bakery might refuse a Zionist cake request.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Private businesses can choose to decline service for any number of reasons (“no shoes, no shirts, no service”) so why shouldn’t they be allowed to refuse a custom order that violates their religious beliefs (however odious they may be)? I called it anti-Christian not because I am Christian, but because we do not see similar issues with Muslim or Jewish businesses. It is possible there are no such cases, but I suspect a Muslim bakery might refuse a Zionist cake request.

Yup. And the “customer” demanding that cake would be labeled a racist oppressive s.o.b. And railed against by the media. Hypocrisy is alive and well on the left.

 

[grandpa jacket]

Well I mean, if I were diagnosed by cancer tomorrow, I would probably be in bad financial shape when it was over. But here is the good news. I am in the country with the best healthcare and best outcomes. I would be willing to pay whatever I could to not die. And I would ask for help, and try to get back to work again when I am done, and if I have to start over at ground zero with nothing...well at least I am still here. At least we have the technology to stand a fighting chance. There is no magic tree that grows millions of dollars for everyone if they have a cancer diagnosis, or a bad car accident or [fill in the blank]. Life is not and cannot be perfectly comfortable for everyone in this country all the time. It doesn't work that way.

Its like (I'm not talking to you LJ, so please don't take this next comment the wrong way) people don't believe in God, they don't believe in charity, they don't believe in the goodness of other people, and the government is their God and should run and operate everything as some omnipotent being. And as long as there is at least 1 rich person, we have someone's money to take to help make it happen. Again, I am not talking to you, I just replied to your post on the debt comment, and then extended my post further in a different direction so please don't take it that way. I was just lazy and didn't want to post a separate comment, LOL.

You are sadly mistaken if you think we have the best healthcare.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

You are sadly mistaken if you think we have the best healthcare.

I didn't say health insurance, I said healthcare. Every time I look at survival rates and other data like that, we are among the best in the world.
https://www.healio.com/hematology-o...-survival-rates-remain-among-highest-in-world

 

[smathis30]

I didn't say health insurance, I said healthcare. Every time I look at survival rates and other data like that, we are among the best in the world.
https://www.healio.com/hematology-oncology/practice-management/news/in-the-journals/{f958e84b-6d0e-48cd-8f46-05911f4d31ec}/us-cancer-survival-rates-remain-among-highest-in-world

We literally have some of the worst infant survival rates of first world countries. We’re better at cancer and next day doctor visits, but worse than most countries in about everything else
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org...ld-have-been-treated-by-a-regular-doctor-2016

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

You are sadly mistaken if you think we have the best healthcare.

Yeah....thousands of foreigners come to the US every year to pay more for worse healthcare than they can get elsewhere. Jimminy Cricket.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

We literally have some of the worst infant survival rates of first world countries. We’re better at cancer and next day doctor visits, but worse than most countries in about everything else
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org...ld-have-been-treated-by-a-regular-doctor-2016

Yea I don’t have to worry about that.

A couple thoughts:
1) Even on bad items, were within 10% of the richest countries on the world.
2) We are so rich, that we are by far the fattest country in the world. That problem alone has a huge drag on mortality statistics and healthcare costs.

35% of our ENTIRE healthcare costs are from obesity. (There are also other large avoidable costs like drinking, smoking, drugs.)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5359159/
(It was 28% all the way back in 2013 and growth rapidly...I can't find the 35%+ latest numbers that I remember reading.)

If we’re talking about healthcare costs and financial burdens, I’m not really as sympathetic to people who do things to themselves as those who get hit with something through no fault of their own. And when they get hit with that, there is no better place to be.

 

[MWBATL]

You are sadly mistaken if you think we have the best healthcare.

Have you lived overseas?

I have.

You are wrong.

 

[smathis30]

Yea I don’t have to worry about that.

A couple thoughts:
1) Even on bad items, were within 10% of the richest countries on the world.
2) We are so rich, that we are by far the fattest country in the world. That problem alone has a huge drag on mortality statistics and healthcare costs.

35% of our ENTIRE healthcare costs are from obesity. (There are also other large avoidable costs like drinking, smoking, drugs.)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5359159/
(It was 28% all the way back in 2013 and growth rapidly...I can't find the 35%+ latest numbers that I remember reading.)

If we’re talking about healthcare costs and financial burdens, I’m not really as sympathetic to people who do things to themselves as those who get hit with something through no fault of their own. And when they get hit with that, there is no better place to be.

yeah but what are the leading causes of obesity

 

[smathis30]

Yea I don’t have to worry about that.

A couple thoughts:
1) Even on bad items, were within 10% of the richest countries on the world.
2) We are so rich, that we are by far the fattest country in the world. That problem alone has a huge drag on mortality statistics and healthcare costs.

35% of our ENTIRE healthcare costs are from obesity. (There are also other large avoidable costs like drinking, smoking, drugs.)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5359159/
(It was 28% all the way back in 2013 and growth rapidly...I can't find the 35%+ latest numbers that I remember reading.)

If we’re talking about healthcare costs and financial burdens, I’m not really as sympathetic to people who do things to themselves as those who get hit with something through no fault of their own. And when they get hit with that, there is no better place to be.

obesity is a high cost, but its short term. Went reading through a book in philosopy of food class at GT that showed that obesity actually is lower overal cost compared to other means of death. Living older has potential to have much higher long term phsychological, cancerous, and nuerological disorders that kill slowly but very, very expensively due to extended and intensive inpatient care.
Being within 10% doesn't matter, and should be unacceptable. There is no reason why a country with the second most resources and more top 200 schools than the rest of the world combined for higher education shouldn't be able to give the second best quality of medicine? Instead, we are much outpaced by countries with much smaller resource pools and education.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

obesity is a high cost, but its short term. Went reading through a book in philosopy of food class at GT that showed that obesity actually is lower overal cost compared to other means of death. Living older has potential to have much higher long term phsychological, cancerous, and nuerological disorders that kill slowly but very, very expensively due to extended and intensive inpatient care.
Being within 10% doesn't matter, and should be unacceptable. There is no reason why a country with the second most resources and more top 200 schools than the rest of the world combined for higher education shouldn't be able to give the second best quality of medicine? Instead, we are much outpaced by countries with much smaller resource pools and education.

Not that I’ve read in areas like cancer. But we are too fat we can’t help ourselves.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

yeah but what are the leading causes of obesity

Eating.

 

[Technut1990]

We literally have some of the worst infant survival rates of first world countries. We’re better at cancer and next day doctor visits, but worse than most countries in about everything else
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org...ld-have-been-treated-by-a-regular-doctor-2016

Your post says two different things, You initially say we have some of the worst infant survival rates "OF FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES" Then you change to "most countries" . WHO has us at # 32 overall out of 190. That means we are better than 158 other countries.

BTW there are 25 First World Countries, so saying we have the worst of the first world infant mortality rates still says we have infant survival rates better than 70% of the world.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Your post says two different things, You initially say we have some of the worst infant survival rates "OF FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES" Then you change to "most countries" . WHO has us at # 32 overall out of 190. That means we are better than 158 other countries.

The most important thing is that infant mortality rate differences inside the US have almost nothing to do with quality of doctor or technology. We have tons of places in the US with world class low rates.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I’m doubling back to the economic argument. What if Joe made $50/hr instead of $25/hr because we only spent on items enumerated in our Constitution?

What if the cost of cancer treatment was $10k instead of $100k if we eliminated frivolous lawsuits, eradicated useless government regulation during up R&D costs, etc? Maybe smaller entrepreneurial companies would sprout across the land because they’d be able to compete in the medical research business and more and cheaper options would become available?

What if Joe was able to decide between a $10k/yr family policy to provided reasonable healthcare and he decides he’ll take that risk of not being covered or a $25k/yr platinum policy that covers everything because he had the financial means to do so?

Maybe healthcare costs could decrease by 15-20% if we get government out of the way and allow efficient market forces to determine supply and demand?

@Lotta Juice Why is it wrong to want Joe to have and make his own choices? Why does the nanny state need to prevent Joe from having choices then dictate to him what he has to choose from the limited options left over?

Maybe Joe making $50/hr donates to charity and can help the poor souls in need because he actually has money to do so instead of the government taking all his money and he’s continually screwed? Just think how much good the do-gooders could do if we just focused on helping them do good instead of taking that opportunity away from them?

Just think of how much greater this great nation could be if we didn’t have so few telling so many what they can and cannot do?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I’m doubling back to the economic argument. What if Joe made $50/hr instead of $25/hr because we only spent on items enumerated in our Constitution?

What if the cost of cancer treatment was $10k instead of $100k if we eliminated frivolous lawsuits, eradicated useless government regulation during up R&D costs, etc? Maybe smaller entrepreneurial companies would sprout across the land because they’d be able to compete in the medical research business and more and cheaper options would become available?

What if Joe was able to decide between a $10k/yr family policy to provided reasonable healthcare and he decides he’ll take that risk of not being covered or a $25k/yr platinum policy that covers everything because he had the financial means to do so?

Maybe healthcare costs could decrease by 15-20% if we get government out of the way and allow efficient market forces to determine supply and demand?

@Lotta Juice Why is it wrong to want Joe to have and make his own choices? Why does the nanny state need to prevent Joe from having choices then dictate to him what he has to choose from the limited options left over?

Maybe Joe making $50/hr donates to charity and can help the poor souls in need because he actually has money to do so instead of the government taking all his money and he’s continually screwed? Just think how much good the do-gooders could do if we just focused on helping them do good instead of taking that opportunity away from them?

Just think of how much greater this great nation could be if we didn’t have so few telling so many what they can and cannot do?

This reminds me of a news story I saw last night, that San Francisco spends $300 million a year on helping the homeless - $40,000 per year PER HOMELESS PERSON. But they have one of the worst homeless problems in the country. How?

I mean, a homeless family of 4 could get a $160,000 every year and never be homeless again. How is this possible?

There is a network of several dozen NGOs/NonProfits that the city funnels money through. The executive directors make $250,000/year and regular employees are paid big bucks. At the end of the pipe the water is a trickle.

All these people proposing large government programs have noble intents, but it never works out. They’re spending someone else’s money and there is no pressure to perform and no accountability.

 

[Lotta Booze]

I’m doubling back to the economic argument. What if Joe made $50/hr instead of $25/hr because we only spent on items enumerated in our Constitution?

What if the cost of cancer treatment was $10k instead of $100k if we eliminated frivolous lawsuits, eradicated useless government regulation during up R&D costs, etc? Maybe smaller entrepreneurial companies would sprout across the land because they’d be able to compete in the medical research business and more and cheaper options would become available?

What if Joe was able to decide between a $10k/yr family policy to provided reasonable healthcare and he decides he’ll take that risk of not being covered or a $25k/yr platinum policy that covers everything because he had the financial means to do so?

Maybe healthcare costs could decrease by 15-20% if we get government out of the way and allow efficient market forces to determine supply and demand?

@Lotta Juice Why is it wrong to want Joe to have and make his own choices? Why does the nanny state need to prevent Joe from having choices then dictate to him what he has to choose from the limited options left over?

Maybe Joe making $50/hr donates to charity and can help the poor souls in need because he actually has money to do so instead of the government taking all his money and he’s continually screwed? Just think how much good the do-gooders could do if we just focused on helping them do good instead of taking that opportunity away from them?

Just think of how much greater this great nation could be if we didn’t have so few telling so many what they can and cannot do?

We’re dealing with a lot of assumptions that I don’t necessarily agree with but I’ll play.

$25 to $50 wages - this would be great but I don’t know what you do to get there. Nobody making $50 an hour is paying 50% in taxes. And even then that would assume eliminating taxes completely but even in this hypothetical we still pay taxes for at least defense I assume. This also doesn’t really apply to the poor at all as they don’t sniff anywhere close to $50/hr and while they’d benefit from a reduction in payroll taxes it wouldn’t double their take home.

$100k to $10k cancer treatment - this would also be great but I don’t know how you get here either. I wish public policy could be as simple as “No stupid lawsuits” and just label it rule #127 but I’ve found that law tends to get more complicated than that. You need truly objective ways to measure that while also preserving legitimate lawsuits. I’d hope the ability to counter sue for court costs would discourage frivolous lawsuits but it doesn’t always. And I don’t think that reduces cancer treatment cost almost ten fold. Or even by a tenth. Overbearing regulation is bad, smart regulation is needed. Especially with healthcare related items. Look at that company Theranos. They fleeced lots of smart people and fortunately they didn’t cost lives but if you loosen regulation too much more fraud can happen. And people will do anything for a buck.

I don’t think it’s wrong for Joe to have options and make choices. I also don’t think that his options go away just because there is Medicare for all. Obviously the market would have to adjust significantly but that’s what the market does, have some faith in the market. There are public schools for everyone and plenty of people still opt for private schools. Same thing could happen with healthcare, and that could be a perk of a job package: premium healthcare.

It’s also interesting you’re talking about saving 15% on healthcare costs. That’s similar to what many consider savings from administration of the current healthcare system if we switched to single payer. All of those employees in those huge health insurance companies’ buildings are being paid by your premiums. All the ads. All the shmoozing and boozing and lobbying these companies do to win business. That’s not efficient either.

And I view more freedom coming with this infrastructure of healthcare than without it. There’s instant freedom for all small businesses that don’t have to worry about providing that to their employees anymore. For someone who wants to quit their job and start a company, they need to keep their costs low and don’t have to worry about the risk of getting sick destroying them. Lower class citizens can get more care. That’s something that will help them grasp opportunity and take advantage of it. My brother is a doctor and deals with people who don’t have insurance so they can’t afford their regular medicine and in turn only come in when it’s an emergency. They get admitted and treated and sent back out into the world knowing that they’ll be back at the next emergency. That’s much more costly than providing them the right medicine in the first place. And what could that person be doing if they were treated well.

As long as we have the capitalist system we have and people we’ll have inequality. That’s not a bad thing inherently. Some people work their a$$ off and totally deserve more than others who don’t. But we’ll have it and when inequality is pushed to the extreme it can lead to revolutions. And amongst the lower class there’s a whole swath of types of people there. There are people who are lazy as fu(k and won’t work. There are also lots of people who work their a$$es off as well and are stuck in it because it is hard being poor. Everything is more expensive. And even with those people who won’t work...what do you do with them? Starve them out and let them die? Now it’s costing money to clean their bodies up and do we reserve a forest somewhere for poor people to die? Push them to crime and lock them up? Now it’s really more expensive because now you’re paying to feed them, board them, AND guard them now. As much as I don’t like just giving handouts to someone who won’t work if that’s the best ROI I can get for the money then so be it.

Milton Friedman, who no one would call a leftist, was a proponent of a negative income tax because he knew you had to do something with the poor. And he argued giving money directly to poor people would be better than paying for the administration of welfare. Any democratic candidate proposing a similar plan today would be harangued by Republicans for socialism.



This got a bit longer than I intended. But...oh well.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

We’re dealing with a lot of assumptions that I don’t necessarily agree with but I’ll play.

$25 to $50 wages - this would be great but I don’t know what you do to get there. Nobody making $50 an hour is paying 50% in taxes. And even then that would assume eliminating taxes completely but even in this hypothetical we still pay taxes for at least defense I assume. This also doesn’t really apply to the poor at all as they don’t sniff anywhere close to $50/hr and while they’d benefit from a reduction in payroll taxes it wouldn’t double their take home.

$100k to $10k cancer treatment - this would also be great but I don’t know how you get here either. I wish public policy could be as simple as “No stupid lawsuits” and just label it rule #127 but I’ve found that law tends to get more complicated than that. You need truly objective ways to measure that while also preserving legitimate lawsuits. I’d hope the ability to counter sue for court costs would discourage frivolous lawsuits but it doesn’t always. And I don’t think that reduces cancer treatment cost almost ten fold. Or even by a tenth. Overbearing regulation is bad, smart regulation is needed. Especially with healthcare related items. Look at that company Theranos. They fleeced lots of smart people and fortunately they didn’t cost lives but if you loosen regulation too much more fraud can happen. And people will do anything for a buck.

I don’t think it’s wrong for Joe to have options and make choices. I also don’t think that his options go away just because there is Medicare for all. Obviously the market would have to adjust significantly but that’s what the market does, have some faith in the market. There are public schools for everyone and plenty of people still opt for private schools. Same thing could happen with healthcare, and that could be a perk of a job package: premium healthcare.

It’s also interesting you’re talking about saving 15% on healthcare costs. That’s similar to what many consider savings from administration of the current healthcare system if we switched to single payer. All of those employees in those huge health insurance companies’ buildings are being paid by your premiums. All the ads. All the shmoozing and boozing and lobbying these companies do to win business. That’s not efficient either.

And I view more freedom coming with this infrastructure of healthcare than without it. There’s instant freedom for all small businesses that don’t have to worry about providing that to their employees anymore. For someone who wants to quit their job and start a company, they need to keep their costs low and don’t have to worry about the risk of getting sick destroying them. Lower class citizens can get more care. That’s something that will help them grasp opportunity and take advantage of it. My brother is a doctor and deals with people who don’t have insurance so they can’t afford their regular medicine and in turn only come in when it’s an emergency. They get admitted and treated and sent back out into the world knowing that they’ll be back at the next emergency. That’s much more costly than providing them the right medicine in the first place. And what could that person be doing if they were treated well.

As long as we have the capitalist system we have and people we’ll have inequality. That’s not a bad thing inherently. Some people work their a$$ off and totally deserve more than others who don’t. But we’ll have it and when inequality is pushed to the extreme it can lead to revolutions. And amongst the lower class there’s a whole swath of types of people there. There are people who are lazy as fu(k and won’t work. There are also lots of people who work their a$$es off as well and are stuck in it because it is hard being poor. Everything is more expensive. And even with those people who won’t work...what do you do with them? Starve them out and let them die? Now it’s costing money to clean their bodies up and do we reserve a forest somewhere for poor people to die? Push them to crime and lock them up? Now it’s really more expensive because now you’re paying to feed them, board them, AND guard them now. As much as I don’t like just giving handouts to someone who won’t work if that’s the best ROI I can get for the money then so be it.

Milton Friedman, who no one would call a leftist, was a proponent of a negative income tax because he knew you had to do something with the poor. And he argued giving money directly to poor people would be better than paying for the administration of welfare. Any democratic candidate proposing a similar plan today would be harangued by Republicans for socialism.



This got a bit longer than I intended. But...oh well.

See. This type of well thought out respectful dialogue is why you get kudos on the board.

 

[LibertyTurns]

@Lotta Juice I obviously used hypothetical numbers, however the essence of the philosophy remains the same.

Lower the corporate tax burden, business costs go down, wages go up. Couple this with a lower personal tax burden, you have more money in your pocket to decide, then if you lower “soft taxes” things like (sneaky fees, consumption taxes, etc) you keep even more hence you have additional control and decision-making ability than under a more regressive tax policy like we have now. Lower the corporate tax burden, business costs go down, prices on goods & services are able to be reduced, you now have a high number of force multipliers in effect magnifying your income providing enhanced control & decision-making. On top of all this you enact regulatory reform driving business costs down again, another economic force multiplier.

It’s this type of economic stimulus that would eliminate the government stranglehold on our country’s economic engine and allow growth and prosperity not seen in this nation in decades. Government stifles innovation, government destroys entrepreneurship, government destroys people’s initiative and the list goes on. There is nothing government does better than a free market enterprise except create chaos & discontent among the people it’s chartered with serving.

If I could think of 1 government element that was better being run by socialist bureaucrats rather than free market capitalists, I might understand your position. Can you think of any?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

We’re dealing with a lot of assumptions that I don’t necessarily agree with but I’ll play.

$25 to $50 wages - this would be great but I don’t know what you do to get there. Nobody making $50 an hour is paying 50% in taxes. And even then that would assume eliminating taxes completely but even in this hypothetical we still pay taxes for at least defense I assume. This also doesn’t really apply to the poor at all as they don’t sniff anywhere close to $50/hr and while they’d benefit from a reduction in payroll taxes it wouldn’t double their take home.

$100k to $10k cancer treatment - this would also be great but I don’t know how you get here either. I wish public policy could be as simple as “No stupid lawsuits” and just label it rule #127 but I’ve found that law tends to get more complicated than that. You need truly objective ways to measure that while also preserving legitimate lawsuits. I’d hope the ability to counter sue for court costs would discourage frivolous lawsuits but it doesn’t always. And I don’t think that reduces cancer treatment cost almost ten fold. Or even by a tenth. Overbearing regulation is bad, smart regulation is needed. Especially with healthcare related items. Look at that company Theranos. They fleeced lots of smart people and fortunately they didn’t cost lives but if you loosen regulation too much more fraud can happen. And people will do anything for a buck.

I don’t think it’s wrong for Joe to have options and make choices. I also don’t think that his options go away just because there is Medicare for all. Obviously the market would have to adjust significantly but that’s what the market does, have some faith in the market. There are public schools for everyone and plenty of people still opt for private schools. Same thing could happen with healthcare, and that could be a perk of a job package: premium healthcare.

It’s also interesting you’re talking about saving 15% on healthcare costs. That’s similar to what many consider savings from administration of the current healthcare system if we switched to single payer. All of those employees in those huge health insurance companies’ buildings are being paid by your premiums. All the ads. All the shmoozing and boozing and lobbying these companies do to win business. That’s not efficient either.

And I view more freedom coming with this infrastructure of healthcare than without it. There’s instant freedom for all small businesses that don’t have to worry about providing that to their employees anymore. For someone who wants to quit their job and start a company, they need to keep their costs low and don’t have to worry about the risk of getting sick destroying them. Lower class citizens can get more care. That’s something that will help them grasp opportunity and take advantage of it. My brother is a doctor and deals with people who don’t have insurance so they can’t afford their regular medicine and in turn only come in when it’s an emergency. They get admitted and treated and sent back out into the world knowing that they’ll be back at the next emergency. That’s much more costly than providing them the right medicine in the first place. And what could that person be doing if they were treated well.

As long as we have the capitalist system we have and people we’ll have inequality. That’s not a bad thing inherently. Some people work their a$$ off and totally deserve more than others who don’t. But we’ll have it and when inequality is pushed to the extreme it can lead to revolutions. And amongst the lower class there’s a whole swath of types of people there. There are people who are lazy as fu(k and won’t work. There are also lots of people who work their a$$es off as well and are stuck in it because it is hard being poor. Everything is more expensive. And even with those people who won’t work...what do you do with them? Starve them out and let them die? Now it’s costing money to clean their bodies up and do we reserve a forest somewhere for poor people to die? Push them to crime and lock them up? Now it’s really more expensive because now you’re paying to feed them, board them, AND guard them now. As much as I don’t like just giving handouts to someone who won’t work if that’s the best ROI I can get for the money then so be it.

Milton Friedman, who no one would call a leftist, was a proponent of a negative income tax because he knew you had to do something with the poor. And he argued giving money directly to poor people would be better than paying for the administration of welfare. Any democratic candidate proposing a similar plan today would be harangued by Republicans for socialism.



This got a bit longer than I intended. But...oh well.

On a side note, Milton Friedman “argued giving money directly to poor people would be better than paying for the administration of welfare.”. He wouldn’t get yelled or laughed out of town today, because we already have that through tax credits. But remember, he said INSTEAD of. But we have both welfare and negative tax rates. AND people are proposing more payments for non-work or a minimum guaranteed income. I mean, at what point do we stop and think maybe we’re doing it wrong? We spend trillions and trillions and don’t move the needle on poverty.