- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
- Messages
- 8,706
- Reaction score
- 1,400
- Location
- Ventura California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Is that what I said?
Bush was the Republican President and pushed for a bailout. Now you are up in arms because Democrats want to raise the deficit?
How about you cut the partisan nonsense and realize that it's not just Democrats making stupid decisions in government?
Jackolope,
Good find!
Still, as I posted earlier to this thread (see post #16), I think H.R. 3200 will get scaled down. This memo from Sen. Max Baucus, Chairman, Senate Finance Committe, pretty much confirms that. It merely summarizes what the SFC have previously proposed in the "Policy Option". I wouldn't be surprised if aspects of the "Policy Option" and H.R. 3200 are combined to make up the final health care reform bill.
Jackolope,
Good find!
Still, as I posted earlier to this thread (see post #16), I think H.R. 3200 will get scaled down. This memo from Sen. Max Baucus, Chairman, Senate Finance Committe, pretty much confirms that. It merely summarizes what the SFC have previously proposed in the "Policy Option". I wouldn't be surprised if aspects of the "Policy Option" and H.R. 3200 are combined to make up the final health care reform bill.
That's what I think too. I refuse to get invested n any bill or plan until the conference committee meets. I'm hoping Dean is right, and the public option will be put in during conference. Ahthough .... wouldn't it have to be in the house bill to make it into the committee report? Can they just put stuff in a conference report that wasn't in either the house or senate bills?
I think it would just have to be in one, and the senate is easier. I am betting there will not be a public option in the bill Obama signs though, I think it would just be too much politically.
I don't think Obama would veto the public option if the liberals in Congress are triumphant and manage to incorporate it into the bill. He just isn't personally committed to its being there or not.
No, we aren't.If we don't pass a public option or single payer, we are all screwed.
I'm tired of paying your bills and those of all the others that cannot meet their responsibilities.I'm tired of being governed by the big corporations.
1: Appeal to popularity, a logical fallacyThe majority of Americans want this and those who are against it are against their own best interests.
How do they NOT function like a legitimate business?If health insurance industry operated like a legitimate business, I might give them a sympathetic ear, but it is because they don't function like a legitimate business we have even come to this point to begin with.
How do they NOT function like a legitimate business?
Wow. If THAT'S not a purpose-built definition.[/INDENT]
A legitimate business provides a good service for a reasonable price.
Another false premise.In order for something to be 'good' in this sense, it doesn't have to be essential, that is, something which is necessary for leading a prosperous existence, but certainly it has to be useful or desirable toward that end,
Another false premise:In order for a price to be reasonable, it has to not grossly exceed the rarity and rate of acquisition of the materials used and time and labor invested into production
Of course you do, given that you purposely created your definitions to allow you to reach that conclusion.I find insurance in general to be the anti-thesis of that practice...
Welcome to capitalism, where people are free to provide goods/services at a profit, and then use that profit as they see fit.Anyway, health insurance companies in particular tend to be integrated into larger conglomerates; the profits made from premiums are not sat on, but get invested into what the company believes to be promising stocks and bonds or in development projects for any number of potentially profitable industries.
See: "resonable price", above.In itself, not surprising, but when there are economic downturns or when they just f-cking feeling like it (or like they can get away with it), health insurance companies will begin upping their premiums at an explosive rate, because it is their most secure, reliable, useful, and easily manipulated source of income, for which to keep themselves afloat and pay off the bad capital from their failed business initiatives.
...you just dont like it.Of course, there is nothing technically illegal about any of this...
Choice - it a wonderful thing.In reality, however, the motivations behind acquiring health insurance are so compelling that people will not abandon it no matter how high the company pushes the rates, not until the costs are truly beyond their ability to pay.
Knowing the consumer is basic business principle.The companies are well aware of this aspect of the public psychology, naturally, and anticipate it when they are drafting their policies. They don't need to ring you in with contracts because they can ring you in with your own circumstances.
As noted, your conclusion here is unsound because the premises/arguments upon which it is based are false.A health insurance company for these reasons is essentially never 'reasonably priced' -- and therefore they do not qualify as a legitimate business. Fees always grossly exceed the value of services rendered.
Wow. If THAT'S not a purpose-built definition.
Your premise, above, is flawed, as your definition is, at best, incomplete.
Another false premise.
A 'legitimate' business may exist to do nothing other than supply goods and services that fill people's desires.
Of course you do, given that you purposely created your definitions to allow you to reach that conclusion.
Welcome to capitalism, where people are free to provide goods/services at a profit, and then use that profit as they see fit.
"Reasonable price" is that which the market will bear, the costs of the prodic/service doesnt in any affect that price.
...you just dont like it.
You do know that a business that you do not like can be legitimate, right?
Choice - it a wonderful thing.
That you might not like the choices doesnt negate th efact that you sill have one.
See also "resonable price".
As noted, your conclusion here is unsound because the premises/arguments upon which it is based are false.
The "very ideal" of capitalism is to provide goods/services that people want to buy at a price that creates profit. Your "good" and "reasonable price" condition, as noted, does not in any way necessarily apply.Not really. That's the very ideal of capitalism.
Supply and demand. Basic capitalism.When blu-ray players and high-definition televisions were coming out, it cost less than a dollar to finance the material-acquisition and production of HDMI-cables (machines did the work), which were necessary to enjoy the true blu-ray experience. However, since the technology was new and because everything associated with them was so expensive, distributors decided to sell them for $100. By your logic, that is a fair business practice.
All of these things lead to what I just said:But intuition, pragmatism, and common sense (the pillars of social ethics in practice) run contrary to the position.
Captialism very certainly should be the accepted means of distribution -- but you're confusing basic tenets with moral arguments; that businesses should not be 'unscroupulous' is a warning against behavior that will bring the demise of the business rather than some moral imperative that the business should act 'fairly'; because 'it is the morally right thing to do'.My definition may be new...and is considered one of several major moral justifications for capitalism; because businesses which are unscroupulous will not be able to maintain their existence, and because of all the other benefits of capitalism, capitalism should be the accepted means of distributing resources throughout the community.
They provide goods and services at a market price.Insurance companies are not comparable to other capitalist entities...
They provide goods and services at a market price....they combine qualities of several relatively good industires where fairness and accountability matter to create a bulls-hit industry...
"Fairness", in legitimate business, is acting in accordance to the obligations specified in the contract that created the commercial activity in question. if there is a specific instance where this does not happen then there is recourse available to the agrieved party.where people are rarely held accountable and fairness is not a common practice.
I reference back to your original unsond definition - that there must be some compoent of "good" for business to be legitimate.I'm not against profit, but I'm not in favor of it at the expense of others good that are supposed to be present in a capitalist society;
So... what?...for example, insurance companies can't even provide service for most of their consumers at any one time, which is why during disasters or epidemics they have to be extra-subsidized by the government; that's because their use of premiums makes it impossible to cover their clients.
No... when the market does not bear the prices, the prices are too high; "reasonable" has no bearing on the issue. YOU may thing $5.99 for a pen is "unreasonable", but if the company is selling them amd making money at it, the market disagrees with you.But when the prices are unreasonable, the market does not bear them...
Sound slike a good plan, if you can make it work....but the price-setters usually can, leading to downturns in which the insurance company is safe (or at least, in a better position than anybody else) and everybody else suffers on their behalf.
Simple:Such a system has a high capacity for indulging immoralism and harm to society, which begs the question, why should society accept it?
See above.Anyway, you are wrong; in business ethics that is called price gouging and there are both moral principles and laws which forbid it.
Evryone acts in their own best interest, as is human nature. It all falls back to the the fact that companies cannot charge more than what the market will bear.However, businessmen generally disregard the morals, their interest groups can pass bad laws, and their lawyers can find loopholes in said laws.
Your definition of "legitimate", as noted before, is self-serving and unsound.Not just businesses I don't like; businesses I hate can be legitimate. I hate the industrialized food industry, but it is at least mostly legitimate, or at least, legitimate enough to left it pass by.
I see that by this addition to your original definition, you agree the original definiton was weak.Businesses that occupy a market niche which makes them unaccountable (to the point that even taxpayer money can become yet another source of income in exchange for failure) are by their nature illegitimate; something unaccoutable can never be legitimate, no more than an absolute monarch or tyrant who is subect to no one can be legimate; unaccountability creates illegitimacy.
Your definition of "legitimate", as noted before, is self-serving and unsound.Whether or not I like or dislike insurnace does not relate to its legitimacy; it is illegitimate by its own existence. I could be a beneficiary (and love) the insurance industry as it is, and its illegitimacy would not change; the only thing that would change is me, in that I would be a crappier person.
Thereby negating your complaint. No one is forced to buy anything, they do so voluntarily.That something is a choice always confers a certain amount of freedom to it...
Non-sequitur.The guy who just ignored the prohibition on price gouging and every other business ethic and law is correct, the guy who is going along with what everybody (including the thinkers who developed capitalist theory) said should be the case is wrong.
The "very ideal" of capitalism is to provide goods/services that people want to buy at a price that creates profit. Your "good" and "reasonable price" condition, as noted, does not in any way necessarily apply.
So, again, you base your argument on an incomplete and self-serving definition.
Supply and demand. Basic capitalism.
I have something you want, and the price of that someting depends on what you are willing to pay to get it; there's no "good" or "reasonable" component at all.
Thus, no issue with it whatsoever.
They provide goods and services at a market price.
How are not not comparable?
Thereby negating your complaint. No one is forced to buy anything, they do so voluntarily.
Your definition of "legitimate", as noted before, is self-serving and unsound.
I see that by this addition to your original definition, you agree the original definiton was weak.
But anyway...
Unaccountable to whom?
What business is unsccoutable?
How can it -be- unaccountable?
Evryone acts in their own best interest, as is human nature. It all falls back to the the fact that companies cannot charge more than what the market will bear.
Society wants the goods/services that the business provides.
If it do not, the business fails.
There is, after all, nothing "immoral" in charging someone what they are willing to pay, as both the buyer and th eseller are acting voluintarily in what they believe are their own bests interests.
And then, the business fails.It does if the system is to be maintained; any thing which moves outside the parameter is a catalyst for discontent.
Um... no....wouldn't any definition ever used by anybody be self-serving if humans are self-serving?
Fallacy: Appeal to authority.And the authority for your definiton is . . . which capitalist theorist...? I've staked out Adam Smith.
You can say that all you want, but the market, having bought the expensive HDMI cables, apparently disagreed. The market, the ultimate determiner of a fair price, found the price 'reasonable', negating your arguments to that effect.That's not supply on demand; there is no shortage of supply to accomodate the spike in demand, which would justify raising the fee.
People pay what they feel someting is worth; if they feel the price is too high, they dont pay it. You can set your price at whatever level you want, but that, in and of it self, means nothing, and so, so long as you are actually selling your goods/services, you are selling at what the market will bear.There is shadow puppetry inflating the price of what is demanded by feigning, or in a word, price gouging.
I see that by this addition to your original definition, you agree the original definiton was weak.There is no accountability.
False premise.They are investors who receive money not from professional financiers but from customers who are after an essential service. Because the service is essential, that is, it is necessary to lead a prosperous life in the modern age,
Incorrect, as they can only raise premiums to the point that the market will bear.No matter how much they fail, they can compensate for the failure by raising premiums;
Aside form this being untrue, you are making my point in that association with an insurer - any insurer - IS voluntary and as such, people always have a choice.people can't withdraw from the contract without putting their health and that of their family in perpetual, mortal danger.
Just curious: What -health- insureance companies have been bailed out?In the worst case scenarios, including situations where they themselves cause the downturn, insurance companies can look forward to government bail-outs; because representatives of various constituencies know it is in their interest not to allow their constituents to lose their health care providers.
Exactly the same thing can be said for the health insurance companies:In contrast, a related industry, investment firms, is always held accountable; if their investments fail, their financiers will find some other business and they will go under. If they are shady and pull fast ones on their recipients, then the government will retalitate with much more strength, because it makes them appear just and because the business targeted does not provide an essential service to their constituents.
Forgetting for the moment that my response, above, negates this, you'll need to address the questions I've put to you twice now before you have any chance of making that stick.Health insurance companies do not incur such penalties; therefore, they are not comparable.
And it is entirely accurate. No straw here.Strawman. That's a reduced interpretation of my argument.
As noted before:All definitions are self-serving though.
People pay what they feel someting is worth; if they feel the price is too high, they dont pay it. You can set your price at whatever level you want, but that, in and of it self, means nothing, and so, so long as you are actually selling your goods/services, you are selling at what the market will bear.
If you are selling at what the market will bear, you are, by definition, not gouging.
That is exactly what you are implying with your nonsensical answer to my comments.
What makes you PRESUME I wasn't up in arms about the Financial Bailout? Again, it begs the question, WTF does Bush have to do with Democrats spending us into a $1.8 trillion deficit with $12 trillion in debt?
How about you cut out the nonsensical "partisan" rhetoric and deal with the facts? Please explain to me what is NOT “partisan” about politics; I will laughingly wait for your response.
Now back to the FACTS: Democrats are in charge and are the ones spending us into a massive hole. What parts of this do you continue to NOT get and, once again, what part of this has ANYTHING to do with Bush, who is no longer President by the way, or Republicans, who are no longer in charge by the way?
:doh
I guess I'll never learn. I'm not sure why I even attempt to engage in any sort of discussion with you. Silly me.
No. I came in and made a point that was very easily understood. You then went into your usual partisan babble and completely missed the point(hardly surprising). The irony here is that you think I'm the troll. :lol:I guess I still have to learn that you are not here to engage in honest debate but rather to troll with your typical nonsense.
:2wave:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?