climbing_vine
Well-known
I suggest we should have single payer auto insurance, term life insurance, property insurance, and car insurance.
We don't need all these insurance companies, they are all evil greed mongers. They don't care about fixing my car, or Aunt Bee's thyroid. All they want is profit!
Therefore, we should have a takeover of all insurance by the government.
I'm officially changing my opinion, thanks to everyone in this thread who has managed to sway me.
Again, you prove incapable of seeing differences where they are obvious. Are you actually a computer program designed for satire? The only possible alternative is that you are a fine product of those highly-vaunted private schools...
Hey, if it is good enough for health insurance, explain to me why it wouldn't be good for the rest?
Of course, we won't need property insurance very much longer, due to Kelo vs New London.
Of course, we won't need property insurance very much longer, due to Kelo vs New London.
climbing_vine
Well-known
If paying cash is good enough for a treehouse, why isn't it good enough for a mansion?
I again assert that you are, in fact, a satirical computer program.
Brad Bireley
Well-known
I suggest we should have single payer auto insurance, term life insurance, property insurance, and car insurance.
We don't need all these insurance companies, they are all evil greed mongers. They don't care about fixing my car, or Aunt Bee's thyroid. All they want is profit!
Therefore, we should have a takeover of all insurance by the government.
I'm officially changing my opinion, thanks to everyone in this thread who has managed to sway me.
Hey, maybe we could add a house, food, & a job all provided by the government. I also would expect 8 weeks paid vacation...what the heck how about a new camera
antiquark
Derek Ross
Yes, read a history book sometime, you'll find it to be a real knee-slapper.
dfoo
Well-known
In reality it doesn't work that way, as you well know. Its like no-fault insurance. Sure it seems on the face of it to be unfair. However, in actual fact it is the cheapest insurance option.
Yes, because insurance companies are free. As are claims departments. As are ... well I could go on, but what would be the point.
... and finally I will add that not only are my taxes less than California and probably many other states, but I get _free_ health coverage. How does that make you feel? Ripped off I bet! What is your government dollar getting you?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Derek,
Good point. As I said in an earlier post, a good Marxist would encourage the loony right, the better to be able to say 'I told you so' when things blow up in their faces. But then, those who fail to understand that probably don't have much grasp of dialectics, either.
Actually, you don't even need to be a Marxist: The Black Swan (Taleb, 2007) clearly stated one of the fundamental flaws in global capitalism, viz. that people (especially economists) aren't as clever or omniscient as they think, and that without some government regulation, they'll screw up big time with someone else's money.
Governments, after all, seldom have the luxury of one-way bets. There are always elections. Bankers don't work the same way. Bonuses last year, a bail-out this. Anyone who thinks this is 'socialism' could not be more wrong. It's trying to stop the entire overblown capitalist system imploding. Capitalism has done a brilliant job of lifting millions of people out of poverty. That doesn't mean that capitalist self-interest is the ideal basis for a financial system. Or even that unbridled capitalism is the only way forward in the future. It is almost certainly a good idea to stop businesses becoming 'too big to fail'. Who is likely to ensure this? Certainly not the businesses themselves.
Those of us who would probably not weep for long if we saw certain bankers and economists humanely disposed of -- it's better than watching your mother die of cancer -- may however predisposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the sick and poor. No doubt some of them are greedy arseholes. But there's equally little doubt that there's probably about the same percentage of greedy arseholes among the rich. And probably about the same proportion of decent, hard-working people in both classes, too.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
What I know is that when I go to the doctor, I write a check. And when I buy insurance, I write a check. Seems to work.
Yes, I have health insurance, it costs me $164 per month. I don't have it cover doctor visits, I pay for those myself. My coverage is for catastrophic events, not fender-benders.
Well, it's not really free, is it, if you are taxed for it.
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, this and it's ok for union thugs to beat people up as long as they are 'fruitcakes.'
And I thought the left was full of tolerance and compassion...
John Rountree
Nothing is what I want
"If I spend $1 in taxes for health care, how much of that is going into the government sink-hole bureaucracy, and how much will actually go directly to health care?"
Good question, but why only ask it of the government? Bob Greczyn is the President/CEO of Blue Cross/Blue Shield in North Carolina. BC/BS is a non-profit company. Last year Mr. Greczyn was paid $22 million dollars in salary. Remember, he is only one employee of this non-profit company. So, why don't you ask Mr. Greczyn how much of your insurance dollar actually goes to health care?
Good question, but why only ask it of the government? Bob Greczyn is the President/CEO of Blue Cross/Blue Shield in North Carolina. BC/BS is a non-profit company. Last year Mr. Greczyn was paid $22 million dollars in salary. Remember, he is only one employee of this non-profit company. So, why don't you ask Mr. Greczyn how much of your insurance dollar actually goes to health care?
climbing_vine
Well-known
OK, this and it's ok for union thugs to beat people up as long as they are 'fruitcakes.'
And I thought the left was full of tolerance and compassion...
Yes, because a company thug has never beaten up or killed a worker. No way. It definitely hasn't happened tens of thousands of times.
What in the world is your point? Oh yes, you don't have a point. You're a satirical computer program. I forgot for a moment!
See the part about the left supposedly being all about compassion and tolerance?
Where did this myth originate, anyone know?
I would, if I used Blue Cross/Blue Shield of North Carolina. Unfortunately, I can't, it's AGAINST THE LAW for me to buy insurance from him, since I live in Texas.
This is unconstitutional per the Commerce Clause, by the way. The same Commerce Clause the left is trying to use to force people to buy insurance...as if removing tonsils constitutes interstate commerce...
Last edited by a moderator:
climbing_vine
Well-known
Satirical computer programs do not understand the nuance that a person going about their business deserves compassion and tolerance, while satirical computer programs taking refuge in scurrilous nonsense do not. It is, in fact, sort of libertarian (if libertarians were to descend from the ivory tower with the communists and dwell down here in the real world).
John Rountree
Nothing is what I want
Roger Hicks
Veteran
OK, this and it's ok for union thugs to beat people up as long as they are 'fruitcakes.'
And I thought the left was full of tolerance and compassion...
Oh, come on. Do not words like 'not weep for long' suggest a certain rhetorical exaggeration? Or maybe you would shoot people. Both the far right and the far left will have you up in front of a wall (or in front of a ditch they've forced you to dig yourself) and machine-gun you as soon as look at you. Just be grateful you've never encountered the real far left.
Of course, it's easier to address a straw man like that, rather than the substantive point that perhaps the proportion of underserving (or deserving) poor is about the same as the proportion of undeserving (or deserving) rich. Maybe Brian is right and you are a computer program.
Cheers,
R.
dfoo
Well-known
And ignores the bigger picture.
Sure, my taxes go towards health care (among other government services). What you should be wondering though is why my taxes, which include free health care, are about the same as those in California, which does not. BTW, I keep using California because my colleague works there, and is payed about the same as me, so I know my effective tax rate, and his effective tax rate and so therefore they are directly comparable.
This is a good point. California is bankrupt, and is now taking additional funds out of people's paycheck's as a free loan. Will they have the money to pay this back?
At what point are the feds going to need to do this? Oh, that's right, higher taxes are next...and probably higher withholdings too.
wgerrard
Veteran
You go first in that line, ok?