"Obamacare"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-12-2013, 10:11 AM
RE: "Obamacare"
BnW,

I just thought of a simpler way to rebut your claim that it was government force that ended racial discrimination.

Today, gays are the new blacks. For decades they've been tirelessly promoting the 'gay agenda' to convince people that they're not child molesters, they're not deviants doing this on purpose to shock others moral values, they're not a threat, and that if society would please include them, they can be valuable, productive members of society. In both the 2008 and 2012 elections, Obama was still officially opposed to gay marriage, and he (not so coincidentally) "changed his mind" in precisely the same year when opinion polls showed gays had won over a majority of the country and it was politically advantageous to do so. Only then, after gays already won the war of hearts and minds, did the government step in and provide recognition. I imagine in 50 years the history books will read that back in 2013 the government valiantly stepped in to liberate gays from an oppressive society. But this is absurd, a slap in the face of the gay people who fought hard to gain acceptance. Government's laws don't shape society, it's the other way around. Back 30 years ago when society considered being gay the same thing as being a pedophile, NO politician was willing to stick his neck out and argue for gay rights. Government didn't change people's minds--it reflected the change that was already occurring.

I imagine the same thing has happened with the black civil rights movement. To me the heros are the people like Rosa Parks, MLK, and all the other civil rights leaders who tirelessly promoted their agenda at great personal cost, and won over the hearts and minds of the people. It's an insult to them, imo, to say that the government freed blacks when it finally stepped in and repealed the Jim Crow laws and ended segregation. To the contrary, the black community had freed itself, and the governments laws just reflected the change in society. Therefore, even IF the government hadn't passed any civil rights laws, imo, blacks would still enjoy the same freedoms they do today. In fact, in many ways I think the civil rights laws actually WERE counterproductive because (a) people credit the government instead of the civil rights leaders as you did, and (b) blacks can never prove that they got here on their own merit, so it perpetuates racism. Racists will still insist that Obama, a C-student at Occidental college, could never have gotten into Harvard and gone on to be President were it not for affirmative action, and since he won't release his college transcripts, nobody will ever know. However, if the government hadn't stepped in and passed laws favoring blacks, then nobody could deny that they earned their accomplishments on their own, and people wouldn't be stealing the credit from the black community by claiming the government ended racism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
30-12-2013, 11:34 AM
RE: "Obamacare"
(30-12-2013 10:11 AM)frankksj Wrote:  BnW,

I just thought of a simpler way to rebut your claim that it was government force that ended racial discrimination.

Today, gays are the new blacks. For decades they've been tirelessly promoting the 'gay agenda' to convince people that they're not child molesters, they're not deviants doing this on purpose to shock others moral values, they're not a threat, and that if society would please include them, they can be valuable, productive members of society. In both the 2008 and 2012 elections, Obama was still officially opposed to gay marriage, and he (not so coincidentally) "changed his mind" in precisely the same year when opinion polls showed gays had won over a majority of the country and it was politically advantageous to do so. Only then, after gays already won the war of hearts and minds, did the government step in and provide recognition. I imagine in 50 years the history books will read that back in 2013 the government valiantly stepped in to liberate gays from an oppressive society. But this is absurd, a slap in the face of the gay people who fought hard to gain acceptance. Government's laws don't shape society, it's the other way around. Back 30 years ago when society considered being gay the same thing as being a pedophile, NO politician was willing to stick his neck out and argue for gay rights. Government didn't change people's minds--it reflected the change that was already occurring.

I imagine the same thing has happened with the black civil rights movement. To me the heros are the people like Rosa Parks, MLK, and all the other civil rights leaders who tirelessly promoted their agenda at great personal cost, and won over the hearts and minds of the people. It's an insult to them, imo, to say that the government freed blacks when it finally stepped in and repealed the Jim Crow laws and ended segregation. To the contrary, the black community had freed itself, and the governments laws just reflected the change in society. Therefore, even IF the government hadn't passed any civil rights laws, imo, blacks would still enjoy the same freedoms they do today. In fact, in many ways I think the civil rights laws actually WERE counterproductive because (a) people credit the government instead of the civil rights leaders as you did, and (b) blacks can never prove that they got here on their own merit, so it perpetuates racism. Racists will still insist that Obama, a C-student at Occidental college, could never have gotten into Harvard and gone on to be President were it not for affirmative action, and since he won't release his college transcripts, nobody will ever know. However, if the government hadn't stepped in and passed laws favoring blacks, then nobody could deny that they earned their accomplishments on their own, and people wouldn't be stealing the credit from the black community by claiming the government ended racism.

I was there, and you are only partially correct.

It required federal law, troops, and law enforcement in the South. They were unable to free themselves from the repressive governments and laws there.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
30-12-2013, 03:36 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
frankksj, Chas, I think you are both partially correct. If southern african-americans had not demonstrated their dislike of the obvious prejudicial treatment in southern states (for reasons of simplicity I will ignore elsewhere) and those states responding in such a violent manner the national state would not have responded. The national state did respond and passed laws and enforced them. Without the interference of the national state years of conflict, possibly violent, would have occurred between african-americans and southern states.

I would also point out that without federal interference the de facto suppression of and economic subjugation of african-americans would have continued throughout the rest of the country.

What has any of this got to do with the ACA.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2013, 07:43 AM
RE: "Obamacare"
This tangent doesn't have anything to specific to do witht he ACA but in general frankksj's position on any political or economic discussion, including the ACA, is that any government interference is force at the end of a gun and the market can take care of all of societies woes all by itself, a theory which is blatantly not true. But, I do agree this tangent has gone way off the rails of the original topic. Not sure why it matters, though.

Anyway, regarding the last argument about how civil rights and then later gay rights activists created an environment for legislative change, I think there is no doubt that is true. If people in those communities did not get involved nothing would have ever improved. That does not in any way alter the fact that it took an acts of government to ensure equal rights, end employment discrimination, protect the vote, and create marriage equality. Those are the facts and there is no getting around them.




Checkmate.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
31-12-2013, 09:07 AM
RE: "Obamacare"
(30-12-2013 03:36 PM)JAH Wrote:  frankksj, Chas, I think you are both partially correct. If southern african-americans had not demonstrated their dislike of the obvious prejudicial treatment in southern states (for reasons of simplicity I will ignore elsewhere) and those states responding in such a violent manner the national state would not have responded. The national state did respond and passed laws and enforced them. Without the interference of the national state years of conflict, possibly violent, would have occurred between african-americans and southern states.

I would also point out that without federal interference the de facto suppression of and economic subjugation of african-americans would have continued throughout the rest of the country.

What has any of this got to do with the ACA.

No, I'm not partially correct.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2013, 09:29 AM
RE: "Obamacare"
(31-12-2013 07:43 AM)BnW Wrote:  Checkmate.

BnW, sorry you need to read your chess manual again. Checkmate is when your opponent cannot move. When I ask you a question you cannot answer without admitting you're wrong or looking stupid, that's checkmate. If you state an opinion I can easily rebut, that's just moving a pawn. Here, I'll show you how it's done. Since this is so off-topic, I put my question to you in a new thread. Check. Let's see how you answer it. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2014, 04:36 AM
RE: "Obamacare"
Obamacare have so many glitch when it comes to the people. If people want the federal government to cover stuff, that cash has to come from someplace. That means taxes, and the tax required to cover people with preexisting conditions to get insurance under the Affordable Care Act will cost any person with insurance $63 per year.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2014, 02:45 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(31-12-2013 07:43 AM)BnW Wrote:  This tangent doesn't have anything to specific to do witht he ACA but in general frankksj's position on any political or economic discussion, including the ACA, is that any government interference is force at the end of a gun and the market can take care of all of societies woes all by itself, a theory which is blatantly not true.


Ya know what, Frankkj, I don't know what is it with you and your idea that any government interference is a bad thing.

Perhaps you should remember the stock market crash and the depression? The Free market wasn't all it was cracked up to be, eh? It took an act of government, in the securities act of 1933 and 1934 to get investors to trust the market again. With no regulation, Fraud is rampant.

Now we have too much regulation and it once again affecting the confidence of investors. Soon the pendulum will swing back the other way, with deregulation.

Same with the Wiley Act and the creation of the FDA due to the amount of insecticide with farming. People were being poisoned to death. So in order to ensure that your food was safe, your drugs weren't poison or sugar pills, etc., the act created the regulatory body to oversee these areas.

While I agree that the regulation needs to be dialed back, your notion that having no regulation at all as the better alternative is the dumbest thing you can suggest, Frank. Why don't we get rid of all the police on the streets while we are at it since people can be trusted to behave themselves?

Now, as far as your solution to "healthcare", we've been over this so many times I'm going to start stabbing you out of frustration. Great. You go to Mexico for your medical treatments. THIS IS NOT AN EVEN REMOTELY VIABLE SOLUTION FOR THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS. Further, as we discussed before, the United State of America is the leading country in terms of medical advancements and medical innovations. Not Canada, Not Mexico, Not Peru, Not Spain. The USA. Followed closely by Great Britain and the UK, and China.

If you want the most cutting edge medical advancement, the USA has it.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2014, 03:04 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2014 03:12 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-12-2013 09:33 AM)frankksj Wrote:  I'm glad we agree on most issues now. However I need to point out that if you read my post #5 you'll see I didn't change anything on my statement on pre-existing conditions. I was ALWAYS clear that insurance companies would ONLY like to cover them if ALL insurance companies were required to do so.

And you're claim that Sanjay Gupta is an idiot for writing about the moral hazard of insurance, he links to a report published by the National Bureau of Economic Research and it DOES include empirical data to support it, and controls for economic and cultural factors by looking at the behavior of the same people both before and after obtaining insurance. The correlation isn't strong, so I'm not making a big point of this. But it's absurd for you to insist there is absolutely zero evidence that insurance results in a moral hazard. If it was so absurd, government agencies and economists wouldn't be researching it, pouring through economic data looking for trends.

Did you actually read this or you just thought it supported what you said, Frank? In some instances, insurance does increase moral hazards (no one is refuting this), but it also - viola - points to the fact that, "We find evidence that physician counseling is successful in changing health behaviors."

It is interesting to note that the same rationale for why ex ante moral hazard may not be important in the health insurance contexts. The consequences of reduced prevention in driving (automobile insurance) and at work (workers’ compensation insurance) result in immediate and sometimes quite severe adverse health events. In comparison, a poor diet and smoking will not adversely affect health for many years, which lowers the cost of these behaviors (i.e., lowers the benefit of prevention). Furthermore, the costs of future adverse health events are low because all elderly persons are covered by Medicare.2

In sum, there are theoretical reasons to believe that health insurance coverage may cause a reduction in prevention activities, but empirical studies have yet to provide sufficient evidence to support this prediction

And to completely discredit everything you said, the study could only conclude that there was a moral hazard with one age group (65 and older) and only MALES. fantastic research, buddy. You've forgotten half the population and that women, in general, live longer than men.

Way to think that one through, Frank.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2014, 03:19 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
Seriously, Cathym112, picking fantasy strawman arguments just shows that you're in over your head. Just like if I were to say "Cathy, I strongly disagree with your suggestion that everybody drive without seatbelts."

I was very clear that, in every libertarian system I've ever seen, one of the roles of government is to prosecute fraud and enforce voluntary contracts. The goal of libertarianism is to allow people to exercise their free will. So, your argument that I'm an idiot for condoning fraud is absurd. So is your ludicrous statement: "Why don't we get rid of all the police on the streets while we are at it since people can be trusted to behave themselves?" I've never said that. I've always been very pro-government and pro-law enforcement. I just see the role of government and the police as to prevent violence, whereas you're arguing the role is to create it, since threatening to haul people away at gunpoint for not doing what you want them to IS unquestionably violence.

So, if consumers were properly educated to NEVER buy medicine that didn't come with a guarantee from the manufacturer that it had been thoroughly tested and that they provided a comprehensive disclosure of side-effects, and then if a drug company defrauds consumers by making false claims about their testing, or what the tests uncovered, that's fraud. Whoever did that should go to jail. But, there's a HUGE difference between that vs. the current system which you seem to think is better where the drug companies hand-pick who heads the FDA so that the FDA approves their drugs and gives them immunity for failing to disclose known issues, while blocking their competitors' products from getting on the market. ie: what happened with aspartame and stevia, when Searle picked the FDA chief, who approved aspartame and gave them immunity from disclosing the findings of their studies, and then 1 year later the FDA chief leaves and goes back to work for a Searle-controlled company with a multi-million dollar signing bonus, while the FDA bans natural, healthy low calorie sweeteners). I firmly believe that educating consumers to make smart decisions and forcing everyone to play fair is a MUCH better solution than letting politicians picks winners and losers, since the winners will always be the politicians and their friends.

Quote:Perhaps you should remember the stock market crash and the depression?

That's hilarious. You do understand that even the chairman of the Federal Reserve admitted that the Fed caused the depression? And isn't an amazing coincidence that as soon as the Fed was created, following a secret meeting of the biggest names in banking operating under aliases, and the Fed started pumping in all this money, there was a huge bubble with the roaring 20's, followed by the biggest bust in the nation's history?

Quote:Now, as far as your solution to "healthcare"....

You have your health care system that you like. I have mine that I like. Naturally I think mine is superior just as you think yours is superior. The difference between us is that I present a detailed explanation WHY I think my system is superior, but I ultimately leave it it up to you decide if you want to follow it or not, humbly accepting that it may not work for everyone, so everyone should be allowed free choice. You, however, are so arrogant that you advocate passing laws that force people to do it your way at gunpoint, and never accept that maybe your solution doesn't work for everyone.

Get to the bottom line... You presented yourself as an expert in economics. So I asked you some VERY basic, rudimentary questions, like: "Why is it that the growth of the poor and middle class reversed course in 1971, precisely when Nixon switched to a fiat currency?" I asked you what effect the current QE has had. Really basic, obvious stuff. And you went on and on that you're too busy, too smart, too whatever to answer such basic questions, and that you won't waste your time on me. That's all shot down when you go on and type this long response, filled with inaccuracies and strawmen. If you really had the answers you could have put me in my place much better by typing a concise response. But when you run from my questions with your tail between your legs, insisting you know the answer but are too busy to share them, and then waste your time writing this nonsense, that speaks volumes to the quality of the education you received in economics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: