How can billionaires be so stoopid?
terp said:
I am trying to show you(and others) a different perspective. However, it seems it is often dismissed without consideration.
Sorry. I don't know how I could have ever concluded that you were condescending to me.
ml1 said:
terp said:Sorry. I don't know how I could have ever concluded that you were condescending to me.
I am trying to show you(and others) a different perspective. However, it seems it is often dismissed without consideration.
Ha. You are sensitive. In an apologetic post, that's what you take away.
If you're going to get your feelings hurt regardless, here's what I really think of you. And note, I don't know you personally. So, this is just from the way you carry yourself here on MOL.
You are a smart guy. You want to be liked. You want to be among the smartest in your circles.
The reason you find me so insulting is that I have a response. I will call out the flaws in your argument. I don't just go along and my replies have merit. That is what you really don't like. And that is really why you are so sensitive about my posts.
Look at the title of this thread. Yet, I'm the condescending one. Sure.
I missed the apology.
And I'm not sensitive. If I was I wouldn't have engaged in nearly 20 years of give and take on this board. And I don't find you insulting because you point out flaws in my arguments. I find you insulting because you often are insulting.
Na. You are definitely sensitive. Tom has been condescending to me on this thread and has even questioned my reading ability. IIRC, he gave me a D. And this thread is pretty tame. Anyhoo, I am interested in understanding his argument. I don't really care that much, if he hurls an insult or 2 my way. I probably had it coming anyway.
Much of the give and take you describe on this board is from posting with people who agree with you on 90+% of things. You wouldn't last a day being treated like me or paul on this board.
terp said:
I would say that a better question is why are we only idealists within the borders of this nation? After all, these borders are artificial. They are lines on a map. Completely conceptual and man made.
Why don't we try to cure poverty at the global level? Many of us live lives that the global poor couldn't even dream of. In fact, the global top 1% earns about $32,400. Earlier, someone posted that the average income in our 2 towns was $116,000. That is almost 4 times over this top 1% threshold. I would propose that instead of focusing on your half measures, we should tax all income over $32,400 at 70%. Perhaps we can all cure global poverty together. Who's with me?
My idealism, if you want to call it that, is not confined to this country. If taxing all income over $32,400.00 at 70% and redistributing the revenue equally would guaranty that no child would ever be hungry or homeless I would support it without reservation.
terp,
we're still waiting for an example of a successful free market health care system.
Well, I'm waiting at least.
terp said:
I would point out that many here live in houses that people in extreme poverty would need to work over 1000 years to afford. And that doesn't include living costs.
This is true. For most of us here it averages around 30 years, and as we saw after the 2008 crash and the amount of sheriff foreclosures in the area, many really couldn’t even afford that. Many of us are one or two municipal tax raises or another crappy reval away from losing their homes. We’re not just living on borrowed money but borrowed time.
terp said:
Na. You are definitely sensitive. Tom has been condescending to me on this thread and has even questioned my reading ability. IIRC, he gave me a D. And this thread is pretty tame. Anyhoo, I am interested in understanding his argument. I don't really care that much, if he hurls an insult or 2 my way. I probably had it coming anyway.
Much of the give and take you describe on this board is from posting with people who agree with you on 90+% of things. You wouldn't last a day being treated like me or paul on this board.
how tom or anyone else responds to you should be irrelevant to how you respond to me. My complaint is that I think I generally treat your arguments with respect but you don't return that in kind. I'm probably not being clear but what's really grating is your tendency to create straw men from my responses to make me look foolish. Any sentence that starts with "you think X" or "people like you think Y" is almost certain to be wrong. And often belittling.
And you probably weren't here in the post 9/11 and pre Iraq war days. The insults those of us who opposed W got were way worse than anything lobbed at you. People were scared and they quite literally thought people like me wanted the evil doers to murder us in cold blood. The stuff they called us was pretty extreme.
But you don't have to pay attention to me. Maybe my interpretations are way off base. But do you ever wonder why you are generally arguing with the same couple of people here?
ridski said:
terp said:This is true. For most of us here it averages around 30 years, and as we saw after the 2008 crash and the amount of sheriff foreclosures in the area, many really couldn’t even afford that. Many of us are one or two municipal tax raises or another crappy reval away from losing their homes. We’re not just living on borrowed money but borrowed time.
I would point out that many here live in houses that people in extreme poverty would need to work over 1000 years to afford. And that doesn't include living costs.
I don't think anyone here is unaware of this sort of thing. Personally I think there are good arguments for higher taxes on a lot more incomes than the super wealthy. Like LOST, I'd be OK paying more if I knew it was going to social services and not the military.
LOST said:
terp said:
I would say that a better question is why are we only idealists within the borders of this nation? After all, these borders are artificial. They are lines on a map. Completely conceptual and man made.
Why don't we try to cure poverty at the global level? Many of us live lives that the global poor couldn't even dream of. In fact, the global top 1% earns about $32,400. Earlier, someone posted that the average income in our 2 towns was $116,000. That is almost 4 times over this top 1% threshold. I would propose that instead of focusing on your half measures, we should tax all income over $32,400 at 70%. Perhaps we can all cure global poverty together. Who's with me?
My idealism, if you want to call it that, is not confined to this country. If taxing all income over $32,400.00 at 70% and redistributing the revenue equally would guaranty that no child would ever be hungry or homeless I would support it without reservation.
You are the man! And I'm being presumptuous here. I have no doubt that you are sincere.
drummerboy said:
terp,
we're still waiting for an example of a successful free market health care system.
Well, I'm waiting at least.
The absence of a fully free market national healthcare system is not evidence that one would not work very well. In fact, there is ample evidence that the fewer intermediaries you put between the patient and their healthcare, the better the outcome.
Fee for service works very well. I have experienced this first hand when I had eye surgery. It was quick, straightforward, and cheap. And it was a simple transaction. Very little paperwork was involved. In addition, as I've posted on this thread previously, fee for service hospitals are able to provide services at a fraction of the cost of traditional hospitals. These hospitals take no federal $$.
In addition, if you read this lancet study regarding healthcare access and quality, the systems that do keep market oriented aspects perform better(Singapore, Switzerland, the Netherlands) than ones that go the single payer route(Canada, UK). The US doesn't fare especially well either, but as has been pointed out, the federal government is heavily involved in healthcare here, and most of our access is managed through intermediaries(either the government or private insurance).
ml1 said:
terp said:how tom or anyone else responds to you should be irrelevant to how you respond to me. My complaint is that I think I generally treat your arguments with respect but you don't return that in kind. I'm probably not being clear but what's really grating is your tendency to create straw men from my responses to make me look foolish. Any sentence that starts with "you think X" or "people like you think Y" is almost certain to be wrong. And often belittling.
Na. You are definitely sensitive. Tom has been condescending to me on this thread and has even questioned my reading ability. IIRC, he gave me a D. And this thread is pretty tame. Anyhoo, I am interested in understanding his argument. I don't really care that much, if he hurls an insult or 2 my way. I probably had it coming anyway.
Much of the give and take you describe on this board is from posting with people who agree with you on 90+% of things. You wouldn't last a day being treated like me or paul on this board.
And you probably weren't here in the post 9/11 and pre Iraq war days. The insults those of us who opposed W got were way worse than anything lobbed at you. People were scared and they quite literally thought people like me wanted the evil doers to murder us in cold blood. The stuff they called us was pretty extreme.
But you don't have to pay attention to me. Maybe my interpretations are way off base. But do you ever wonder why you are generally arguing with the same couple of people here?
I am definitely guilty of reacting when various posters are simultaneously coming at me. Some with more logical arguments and others with personal attacks, and a lot in between. There have been many times where I step away for a while and someone perceives(or often mis-perceives) part of my argument as funny. And they'll be a back and forth joking about it, and this is very often belittling. And I know that you are not above partaking in those exchanges.
Now, when I read those things, my reaction is not to be gentle with these people. These exchanges are quite often wishful thinking assuming there is some superficiality around my argument. When I return and clarify, these tangents usually subside. And there is no question, I come back w/ sharp elbows quite often.
But here's the thing. I don't ever hear you ever jumping in and saying: well maybe we shouldn't assume this is his argument. You are much more prone to joining in.
But every time you engage me you preface it with "I don't like exchanging with you". This provides a convenient out for you. If you don't like what you read, it is license to exit the conversation.
I was not here shortly after 9/11. I lived in Brooklyn at the time. I commend you for standing your ground at that time. I only ask: What happened to that guy?
And I should add, it is commendable that there are some that would pay more taxes to help the poor. Alas, these funds are fungible, and you never know where they are going to go.
In that spirit I hope those that feel this way find a good charity that makes good use of your $$ and doesn't spend it all on administrative costs. Either that or find somewhere you and your family can devote some time.
There are some good ways you can devote time locally in NJ and in the City. There are a lot of good programs run by Churches and Synagogues.
If you're interested in helping the poor have access to water, this is a great cause.
terp said:
I commend you for standing your ground at that time. I only ask: What happened to that guy?
he's still here. And when it comes to foreign policy, I'm generally standing up to the same group of liberals who love invasions of small countries.
at the risk of boring everyone else, I'll just repeat this -- your tendency to make assumptions that are almost always negative is disrespectful. Even your insistence that I'm "sensitive" is an wrong assumption that's insulting. These are just words on a screen. Take them at face value. You can't see me, but I can assure you I'm not sitting here with a sad because of anything you've written. I'm just pointing out that your tone and your tendency to create straw men out of my posts is disrespectful. Not because I'm a delicate flower. But because such arguments are in fact disrespectful. Sometimes I'm in the mood to participate anyway. But sometimes I don't feel like going down that rabbit hole chasing the straw man (how's that for a weird mixed metaphor).
again, if you are frustrated that the same two or three people are responding to you, there may be a reason that you hadn't thought of before.
I can only judge you by the words you write here. Judging by your posts, you are extremely sensitive. Strawmen are erected here all the time. If I've done that to you, I sincerely apologize. But, it would be better if you would point out specifics than repeatedly make generalizations.
I could never give a pep talk like Al Swearengen. But I think you need a pep talk.
It's actually pretty funny that you really think I'm "sensitive." but whatever.
But I did point out a straw man assumption in this very thread. I'm pretty sure I usually do point out when you're putting words in my mouth. It doesn't seem to stop you from doing it again however.
terp said:
drummerboy said:The absence of a fully free market national healthcare system is not evidence that one would not work very well. In fact, there is ample evidence that the fewer intermediaries you put between the patient and their healthcare, the better the outcome.
terp,
we're still waiting for an example of a successful free market health care system.
Well, I'm waiting at least.
Fee for service works very well. I have experienced this first hand when I had eye surgery. It was quick, straightforward, and cheap. And it was a simple transaction. Very little paperwork was involved. In addition, as I've posted on this thread previously, fee for service hospitals are able to provide services at a fraction of the cost of traditional hospitals. These hospitals take no federal $$.
In addition, if you read this lancet study regarding healthcare access and quality, the systems that do keep market oriented aspects perform better(Singapore, Switzerland, the Netherlands) than ones that go the single payer route(Canada, UK). The US doesn't fare especially well either, but as has been pointed out, the federal government is heavily involved in healthcare here, and most of our access is managed through intermediaries(either the government or private insurance).
"Honey, I'm gonna go out this morning and shop around to see who can fix my broken arm for the best rate. See ya later!"
"OK dear. Just make sure that gangrene doesn't set in first!"
Thanks for the lancet study link, but I don't have time to skim through a 260 page paper this morning. Just wondering how a study that shows market orientation is a plus can do so without using the word "market"?
Anyway, I'm guessing that these are not conclusions you came to yourself by poring through the paper. So where's the link to that analysis?
ETA: Oh, what part of "market orientation" does Swiss's compulsory health insurance requirement fit into?
ETA2: hmmm, Singapore seems to mandate individual insurance too. What would Milton Friedman think?
ETA3: should I even bother to look at The Netherlands?
drummerboy said:
terp said:"Honey, I'm gonna go out this morning and shop around to see who can fix my broken arm for the best rate. See ya later!"
drummerboy said:The absence of a fully free market national healthcare system is not evidence that one would not work very well. In fact, there is ample evidence that the fewer intermediaries you put between the patient and their healthcare, the better the outcome.
terp,
we're still waiting for an example of a successful free market health care system.
Well, I'm waiting at least.
Fee for service works very well. I have experienced this first hand when I had eye surgery. It was quick, straightforward, and cheap. And it was a simple transaction. Very little paperwork was involved. In addition, as I've posted on this thread previously, fee for service hospitals are able to provide services at a fraction of the cost of traditional hospitals. These hospitals take no federal $$.
In addition, if you read this lancet study regarding healthcare access and quality, the systems that do keep market oriented aspects perform better(Singapore, Switzerland, the Netherlands) than ones that go the single payer route(Canada, UK). The US doesn't fare especially well either, but as has been pointed out, the federal government is heavily involved in healthcare here, and most of our access is managed through intermediaries(either the government or private insurance).
"OK dear. Just make sure that gangrene doesn't set in first!"
Thanks for the lancet study link, but I don't have time to skim through a 260 page paper this morning. Just wondering how a study that shows market orientation is a plus can do so without using the word "market"?
Anyway, I'm guessing that these are not conclusions you came to yourself by poring through the paper. So where's the link to that analysis?
ETA: Oh, what part of "market orientation" does Swiss's compulsory health insurance requirement fit into?
ETA2: hmmm, Singapore seems to mandate individual insurance too. What would Milton Friedman think?
ETA3: should I even bother to look at The Netherlands?
You're mean. This is why I don't like to discuss things with you!
terp said:
And I should add, it is commendable that there are some that would pay more taxes to help the poor. Alas, these funds are fungible, and you never know where they are going to go.
In that spirit I hope those that feel this way find a good charity that makes good use of your $$ and doesn't spend it all on administrative costs. Either that or find somewhere you and your family can devote some time.
Individual donations to charity are inefficient. The tremendous variations in funding from one year to the next can make planning and implementation processes seat-of-the pants. I've seen the squeaky wheels get the benefits in lean years, and in years where more money came in, the financial benefits were spread to more questionable areas. And the staff serve at the whims of how much the charity brought in - will they have a job with the charity if they don't get a generous donor again next year? This puts their own families at financial risk.
Taxes supporting child welfare programs tends to provide more predictable amounts, more predictable and trained staff, and these programs are also often evaluated for efficiencies and outcomes.
I'm sorry you don't believe in the tax version, but to me, picking your own charities is like picking your own stock to invest in. Inefficient and rife with risk in terms of whether the neediest in different contexts are served. Charities tend to pinpoint their specialty, and funding goes in waves, subject to the whims of social media popularity.
Taxes seem more like diversifying our human needs services portfolio. It lowers the risk of catastrophe for more people.
term, I’m confused by your reference to your eye surgery. (I’m pleased for you that all has gone well!)
Here, my bulkbilling family doctor refers me to an ophthalmologist who may or may not be at the local hospital (one of the largest teaching campuses of its kind in the Southern Hemisphere, apparently). I might wait a couple of weeks to visit that specialist depending on urgency; if I pay, up to 85% is going to be rebated on the spot. Assuming I’m referred for surgery (not day surgery in the practice), the hospital will admit me according to urgency, and again I’m unlikely to be changed, just signing one form on admission. (In the unlikely event I need an ambulance, i can even claim the cost of that transport back, either through my Seniors card, my Health Care card or my car’s insurance depending on circumstances.)
Most cataract removals are done as day surgeries in rooms, not hospital. I assumed it was the same there.
I really don’t understand why you say the cost of unwieldy paperwork burdens the system. It’s quite streamlined.
Further, WHO have been advocating for universal health care for decades, as a means to more efficient lowering of chronic health conditions.
sprout said:
Charities tend to pinpoint their specialty, and funding goes in waves, subject to the whims of social media popularity.
Taxes seem more like diversifying our human needs services portfolio. It lowers the risk of catastrophe for more people.
That’s an interesting persepective; I hadn’t thought of it that way. Though I’m also thinking the political whims that set public funding priorities are subject to change, too. Just not as erratically?
Can you point me to a fee for service hospital here in NJ? If someone in my family has a severe asthma attack again and can't breathe, it would be nice to direct the ambulance there instead of the nearest one where they charge $5k and keep you there for 8 hours.
tom said:I do not accept that someone has a moral right to something if it was gained by gaming the system.
There, I tightened up that sentence a little.
terp said:
drummerboy said:You're mean. This is why I don't like to discuss things with you!
terp said:"Honey, I'm gonna go out this morning and shop around to see who can fix my broken arm for the best rate. See ya later!"
drummerboy said:The absence of a fully free market national healthcare system is not evidence that one would not work very well. In fact, there is ample evidence that the fewer intermediaries you put between the patient and their healthcare, the better the outcome.
terp,
we're still waiting for an example of a successful free market health care system.
Well, I'm waiting at least.
Fee for service works very well. I have experienced this first hand when I had eye surgery. It was quick, straightforward, and cheap. And it was a simple transaction. Very little paperwork was involved. In addition, as I've posted on this thread previously, fee for service hospitals are able to provide services at a fraction of the cost of traditional hospitals. These hospitals take no federal $$.
In addition, if you read this lancet study regarding healthcare access and quality, the systems that do keep market oriented aspects perform better(Singapore, Switzerland, the Netherlands) than ones that go the single payer route(Canada, UK). The US doesn't fare especially well either, but as has been pointed out, the federal government is heavily involved in healthcare here, and most of our access is managed through intermediaries(either the government or private insurance).
"OK dear. Just make sure that gangrene doesn't set in first!"
Thanks for the lancet study link, but I don't have time to skim through a 260 page paper this morning. Just wondering how a study that shows market orientation is a plus can do so without using the word "market"?
Anyway, I'm guessing that these are not conclusions you came to yourself by poring through the paper. So where's the link to that analysis?
ETA: Oh, what part of "market orientation" does Swiss's compulsory health insurance requirement fit into?
ETA2: hmmm, Singapore seems to mandate individual insurance too. What would Milton Friedman think?
ETA3: should I even bother to look at The Netherlands?
such a snowflake! 
ridski said:
terp said:This is true. For most of us here it averages around 30 years, and as we saw after the 2008 crash and the amount of sheriff foreclosures in the area, many really couldn’t even afford that. Many of us are one or two municipal tax raises or another crappy reval away from losing their homes. We’re not just living on borrowed money but borrowed time.
I would point out that many here live in houses that people in extreme poverty would need to work over 1000 years to afford. And that doesn't include living costs.
is this why so many people put their recyclables out sans bin?
terp said:
drummerboy said:You're mean. This is why I don't like to discuss things with you!
terp said:"Honey, I'm gonna go out this morning and shop around to see who can fix my broken arm for the best rate. See ya later!"
drummerboy said:The absence of a fully free market national healthcare system is not evidence that one would not work very well. In fact, there is ample evidence that the fewer intermediaries you put between the patient and their healthcare, the better the outcome.
terp,
we're still waiting for an example of a successful free market health care system.
Well, I'm waiting at least.
Fee for service works very well. I have experienced this first hand when I had eye surgery. It was quick, straightforward, and cheap. And it was a simple transaction. Very little paperwork was involved. In addition, as I've posted on this thread previously, fee for service hospitals are able to provide services at a fraction of the cost of traditional hospitals. These hospitals take no federal $$.
In addition, if you read this lancet study regarding healthcare access and quality, the systems that do keep market oriented aspects perform better(Singapore, Switzerland, the Netherlands) than ones that go the single payer route(Canada, UK). The US doesn't fare especially well either, but as has been pointed out, the federal government is heavily involved in healthcare here, and most of our access is managed through intermediaries(either the government or private insurance).
"OK dear. Just make sure that gangrene doesn't set in first!"
Thanks for the lancet study link, but I don't have time to skim through a 260 page paper this morning. Just wondering how a study that shows market orientation is a plus can do so without using the word "market"?
Anyway, I'm guessing that these are not conclusions you came to yourself by poring through the paper. So where's the link to that analysis?
ETA: Oh, what part of "market orientation" does Swiss's compulsory health insurance requirement fit into?
ETA2: hmmm, Singapore seems to mandate individual insurance too. What would Milton Friedman think?
ETA3: should I even bother to look at The Netherlands?
Well, according to your friend Al, you’ve got more punishment coming.
drummerboy said:
terp said:such a snowflake!
You're mean. This is why I don't like to discuss things with you!
I would point out that many here live in houses that people in extreme poverty would need to work over 1000 years to afford. And that doesn't include living costs.