I recently came across

">Bill O'Reilly's explanation of why Canadians live longer than Americans. The man is a genius.

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Changes that are blatantly intent on transferring wealth have a tendency to evoke such responses, yeah.

It's funny, I rarely hear anyone complain about "Redistribution of Wealth" from the non-wealthy to the wealthy. In fact, that much armored philosophy is part and parcel with Reagan's pure "Trickle-down" economics. Wealth does not automatically trickle down. Just because a major shareholder is making X% more than the last quarter, does not mean that he will automatically increase his employee's salaries or benefits. He will only do so if he feels in any way threatened in the Consumer or Job market. And even then, we are assuming he will make a wise, and sound decision. When in fact, a lot of Entrepreneurs have shown themselves to be utterly self destructive, and insanely kleptocratic.

You don't exactly have to go to Bizarro world to find an example. Just look at the bitter history of industry in Europe before consumer, and worker, protection came into play. Look at the way workers, and consumers, are treated in Third World Countries. Look at the recent financial crises, who caused it, and how we ended up rewarding them.

If support for UHC is support for "redistribution of wealth", does that mean that lack of support for UHC is support for keeping poor people "in their place"?

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Really, insurance companies are in it to make money? Who would have guessed, im shocked.

Umm, yeah, that's kind of the point. And it's demonstrably killing the system (and people, indirectly) in the US.

And yet you're apparently somehow against the idea of doing it any other way? WTF?

Quote: Original post by WazzatMan
Wealth does not automatically trickle down.

Indeed. If this were even remotely close to natural human behaviour, communism would have never been invented. No. Humans are fundamentally greedy by nature - animal instinct - and the whole reason there is such a thing as communism (or socialism for that matter; understanding that the two are different, and not simply different degrees of the same thing) is because of a perceived need to do something about that.

Quote: Original post by Zahlman

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Really, insurance companies are in it to make money? Who would have guessed, im shocked.

Umm, yeah, that's kind of the point. And it's demonstrably killing the system (and people, indirectly) in the US.

Its 'killing people' if you consider 'staying alive under all circumstances' a positive right. I dont.

Quote:
And yet you're apparently somehow against the idea of doing it any other way? WTF?

You are apparently against reading.

Quote: Original post by HelplessFool
I know psychologically you have to be contrarian to everything everyone else is going to say in this thread, but its getting a bit ridiculous. Comparing an industry centered on goods that are both consumable and perishable, which requires they be sold in a timely manner so as not to become losses, to a service based industry? You yourself used the phrase "Im comparing apples with apples:" earlier in this discussion.

And further, there are so many players in the food-industry that I can barely begin to list them all here (farmers, farmers markets, chain-grocers, specialty food retailers, wholesalers, fishermen, etc. etc., all of whom have an impact on the final price of goods), but with insurance there are only a handful of major players.

Thanks for the condecension.

Either way, so you agree 'OMFG PROFITEERING' is hollow agitprop? That the problem is not the profit notive, but the (alleged) monopolization of the healthcare business?

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Putting the burden of proof on them removes the incentive towards obscurantism in contracts.

Uhhh.... as it stands, the contract IS where the burden of proof is determined. Feel free to elaborate.

I thought it was fairly obvious 'them' referred to the insurance companies, not to contracts.

Quote: Original post by WazzatMan

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Changes that are blatantly intent on transferring wealth have a tendency to evoke such responses, yeah.

It's funny, I rarely hear anyone complain about "Redistribution of Wealth" from the non-wealthy to the wealthy.

Then you havnt been listning to me. Living on half minimum wage, i hope you can imagine me not being fond of that.

Quote:
In fact, that much armored philosophy is part and parcel with Reagan's pure "Trickle-down" economics. Wealth does not automatically trickle down. Just because a major shareholder is making X% more than the last quarter, does not mean that he will automatically increase his employee's salaries or benefits. He will only do so if he feels in any way threatened in the Consumer or Job market. And even then, we are assuming he will make a wise, and sound decision. When in fact, a lot of Entrepreneurs have shown themselves to be utterly self destructive, and insanely kleptocratic.

Enterpreneurs are bound by the realities of supply and demand. It applies to labor just like anythign else. I couldnt care less how much profit they make: good for them.

Quote:
You don't exactly have to go to Bizarro world to find an example. Just look at the bitter history of industry in Europe before consumer, and worker, protection came into play. Look at the way workers, and consumers, are treated in Third World Countries. Look at the recent financial crises, who caused it, and how we ended up rewarding them.

You mean the bitter history of europe before it became wealthy by capitalism, and had do-gooders take the credit for it?

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Putting the burden of proof on them removes the incentive towards obscurantism in contracts.

Uhhh.... as it stands, the contract IS where the burden of proof is determined. Feel free to elaborate.

I thought it was fairly obvious 'them' referred to the insurance companies, not to contracts.

And your plan to "put the burden of proof on them" .... works how?

Quote: Original post by Eelco
You mean the bitter history of europe before it became wealthy by capitalism, and had do-gooders take the credit for it?

I'm guessing he's probably talking about the days when people, including children, were forced to work long hours in mills or down mines for incredibly low wages, under extremely dangerous working conditions.

But yeah, capitalism, woo.