Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
American Cultural Revolution
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lotta Booze" data-source="post: 565191" data-attributes="member: 4471"><p>We’re dealing with a lot of assumptions that I don’t necessarily agree with but I’ll play.</p><p></p><p>$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.</p><p></p><p>$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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>[MEDIA=youtube]xtpgkX588nM[/MEDIA]</p><p></p><p>This got a bit longer than I intended. But...oh well.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lotta Booze, post: 565191, member: 4471"] 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. [MEDIA=youtube]xtpgkX588nM[/MEDIA] This got a bit longer than I intended. But...oh well. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What is the name of Georgia Tech's mascot?
Post reply
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
American Cultural Revolution
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top