Affordable Health Care Law under review by SCOTUS

[Redbirds Fan]

It is certainly telling that this board, a relatively homogeneous group, can reach no consensus regarding national health care issues. How can we expect any type of Congressional compromise, much less nation-wide acceptance?

We all couch the issues in different terms. Personal liberty. Concern for fellow man. Economic realism. Social contract.

The right thinks the left are socialist stooges, the left thinks the right are fascist greedheads. Both sides think the libertarians have their heads up their asses. (Just kidding, sheep.)

The single point I can't reconcile is that we seem to be paying more money for less health care than any other comparable country. One of the fundamental tenets of capitalism is that the market will burn away inefficiencies. But there are huge inefficiencies in the way our insurer/provider system have worked over the last fifty years at least.

So what do we do? I don't know. I do know that a lot of people thought Obamacare was a total POS until they lost their insurance for one reason or another and had to sign up for it. I was on it for a while.

I know BG is not a bad guy. I just don't think all of his arguments reflect the milk of human kindness. I don't know what he thinks of me, except I'm pretty sure he doesn't think my arguments reflect any common sense. Such makes for horse races.

[Hornsby]

What standard is being held? Like I said, I would love to see the poor provided opportunities to learn a trade and better their lot in life by having better jobs available, so they can better themselves.

I stated I would like the rich kids to be interested in working also. In the ever continuing saga of life not being fair - we dont all start at the same spot - it is just a fact of life. As long as people have equal opportunities for growth then I am good.

I dont look for the equality of outcome - I want the equality of opportunity.

So poor folks should go learn a trade and "better" their lot in life. And wealthy kids should be interested in working. And then you say you think that people should have equal opportunities for growth...do you see the contradiction here? Why should poor people have to go and be plumbers and electricians (fine jobs that we have no shortage of people doing, BTW) instead of Doctors and Lawyers? Isn't that what this country was always SUPPOSED to be about, opportunity? Make the system fairer, PROVIDE health care so maybe people can use the little spare money they have to make life better for their children, and their children's children. Stop the widening gap between the haves and the have nots.

If that sounds socialist, so be it...the top 1% of this country have far too much of the wealth, and it's not because they work harder, it's because the board is always tilted in their favor. Nobody works harder than a single parent trying to educate themselves and care for their children at the same time, nobody. The welfare queen trope is mainly garbage. The rich get richer because money breeds money, nothing more and nothing less.

And, BTW, one of the most successful states economically in the last decade is right here, Minnesota. With a Democratic Governor and what was a Democratic legislature until this year. And it was largely because they made the wealthy pay a little more, and invested it wisely.

[baldgriff]

So poor folks should go learn a trade and "better" their lot in life. And wealthy kids should be interested in working. And then you say you think that people should have equal opportunities for growth...do you see the contradiction here? Why should poor people have to go and be plumbers and electricians (fine jobs that we have no shortage of people doing, BTW) instead of Doctors and Lawyers? Isn't that what this country was always SUPPOSED to be about, opportunity? Make the system fairer, PROVIDE health care so maybe people can use the little spare money they have to make life better for their children, and their children's children. Stop the widening gap between the haves and the have nots.

Horns – you are changing the topic we are arguing. Originally we were discussing the poor and how to make it better for them. You have now shifted this to why is it fair that “rich” people can choose to do what they want vs. the poor person working a trade (or whatever they want to do). I do not believe in the idea of wealth redistribution.


If that sounds socialist, so be it...the top 1% of this country have far too much of the wealth, and it's not because they work harder, it's because the board is always tilted in their favor. Nobody works harder than a single parent trying to educate themselves and care for their children at the same time, nobody. The welfare queen trope is mainly garbage. The rich get richer because money breeds money, nothing more and nothing less.

Ultimately, everyone wants more than they currently have. Assuming that the top 1% made their wealth fairly and legally, because they were able to provide a service or skill more effectively and frequently than others - why should they have to give up their fairly and legally gained wealth.

And, BTW, one of the most successful states economically in the last decade is right here, Minnesota. With a Democratic Governor and what was a Democratic legislature until this year. And it was largely because they made the wealthy pay a little more, and invested it wisely.

This is what some would call a statistical anomaly.

[DMT]

Yea California is really suffering under Democrats as well.

[baldgriff]

Yea California is really suffering under Democrats as well.

Yeah they are almost bankrupt.

[DMT]

To hold the position of zero wealth distribution is an extreme position that even most Republicans would not support, just to be clear where you're coming from.

[DMT]

...because it is preposterous in assuming that people attain success without assistance and therefore deserve to give nothing back to those less fortunate.

[baldgriff]

The single point I can't reconcile is that we seem to be paying more money for less health care than any other comparable country. One of the fundamental tenets of capitalism is that the market will burn away inefficiencies. But there are huge inefficiencies in the way our insurer/provider system have worked over the last fifty years at least.

I posted this before, maybe you didnt see it or watch it. I dont agree with Shapiro on everything, but I like his explanation.

[TranaGreg]

Horns – you are changing the topic we are arguing. Originally we were discussing the poor and how to make it better for them. You have now shifted this to why is it fair that “rich” people can choose to do what they want vs. the poor person working a trade (or whatever they want to do). I do not believe in the idea of wealth redistribution.

The fact is that kids born in central Detroit, or rural West Virginia, or east LA, have the odds stacked against them. Sure there are rare success stories but the reality is that 999 of 1000 will not be able to significantly improve their situation with things staying the way they are. If you are okay with that, then continue to advocate against wealth redistribution.

[Moonlight J]

Obama ruined the best health care system in the world...which was health care for the wealthy and middle class of America

This new #wealthcare program puts us back down the track of higher escalated rates and more dollars in the pockets of the executives.

Profiting off suffering is one of this country's ugliest facets.

[Hornsby]

So poor folks should go learn a trade and "better" their lot in life. And wealthy kids should be interested in working. And then you say you think that people should have equal opportunities for growth...do you see the contradiction here? Why should poor people have to go and be plumbers and electricians (fine jobs that we have no shortage of people doing, BTW) instead of Doctors and Lawyers? Isn't that what this country was always SUPPOSED to be about, opportunity? Make the system fairer, PROVIDE health care so maybe people can use the little spare money they have to make life better for their children, and their children's children. Stop the widening gap between the haves and the have nots.

Horns – you are changing the topic we are arguing. Originally we were discussing the poor and how to make it better for them. You have now shifted this to why is it fair that “rich” people can choose to do what they want vs. the poor person working a trade (or whatever they want to do). I do not believe in the idea of wealth redistribution.


If that sounds socialist, so be it...the top 1% of this country have far too much of the wealth, and it's not because they work harder, it's because the board is always tilted in their favor. Nobody works harder than a single parent trying to educate themselves and care for their children at the same time, nobody. The welfare queen trope is mainly garbage. The rich get richer because money breeds money, nothing more and nothing less.

Ultimately, everyone wants more than they currently have. Assuming that the top 1% made their wealth fairly and legally, because they were able to provide a service or skill more effectively and frequently than others - why should they have to give up their fairly and legally gained wealth.

And, BTW, one of the most successful states economically in the last decade is right here, Minnesota. With a Democratic Governor and what was a Democratic legislature until this year. And it was largely because they made the wealthy pay a little more, and invested it wisely.

This is what some would call a statistical anomaly.

No, I haven't changed the topic at all...you've essentially been arguing in post after post, that classism is OK, the rich are rich, and they deserve it. And the poor should strive for no more than tradesman jobs. And unfortunately, wealth distribution may be the only way to even the playing board. I'm certainly not talking about taking 50% of all the wealthy have away from them, I'm talking more about making them pay their fair share, which they most certainly do not at the moment. The distribution in wealth was far more equitable in the 50's than it is now. JFK said "A rising tide lifts all boats", sadly, that idea has become a thing of the past.

As to your 2nd point, some indeed made their wealth by hard work, some by luck and timing (the digital rich), and some by inheritance. The poor have little chance for either of the last two scenarios to happen for them, so why not give them the OPPORTUNITY to make hard work a way out, past a trade school education? Why not provide all kids with computers and internet, so that becomes a more level playing field. Why not, like some schools in California, provide free 4 year college educations if your family's income is below a certain level? These are just a few ways that we can level the platying foeld just a little bit, and start making this country what it once was.

And nice try on the Minnesota success story, but economists are pretty well in accord that it worked like it was intended to do, not because it was a "statistical anomaly".

[baldgriff]

As to your 2nd point, some indeed made their wealth by hard work, some by luck and timing (the digital rich), and some by inheritance. The poor have little chance for either of the last two scenarios to happen for them, so why not give them the OPPORTUNITY to make hard work a way out, past a trade school education? Why not provide all kids with computers and internet, so that becomes a more level playing field. Why not, like some schools in California, provide free 4 year college educations if your family's income is below a certain level? These are just a few ways that we can level the platying foeld just a little bit, and start making this country what it once was.

I am not advocating "classism" and I am all for providing education to provide opportunities. My comment about "trade schools" is that there are options for education other than 4 year college, which when completed provide anyone (including the poor) better chances to stop being poor. If you take my trade school suggestion as the only option that should be afforded - then you are being dense. I would advocate for good education for ALL people.

By the way - your apparent thought that "trade jobs" are bad jobs or less important jobs is a damned fallacy - and one that has been taught to us by those who own the education programs. Starting in the late 70's early 80's there was a change in focus on how higher education was approached. We were to "work smarter not harder". This thought process has marginalized the hard working jobs as a 2nd class job or worse.

820347b9a1c9dc3c6103888e7116a84d.jpg

Trade jobs would be ONE OPTION available to people as a way of getting out of there poor economic situation.

[chancellor]

Baldgriff - great points on trade school education. Anyone who has worked in manufacturing at all sees the vast gulf that exists today in skilled trades - and is slated to severely worsen in the next ten years. Great opportunities exist today; even greater in the near future.

It's not the only answer, but it certainly needs to be a part of the solution.

[Moonlight J]

Baldgriff - great points on trade school education. Anyone who has worked in manufacturing at all sees the vast gulf that exists today in skilled trades - and is slated to severely worsen in the next ten years. Great opportunities exist today; even greater in the near future.

It's not the only answer, but it certainly needs to be a part of the solution.

I'm not sure why trade school education fell by the wayside. Simply put, college is not for everyone. When I was in HS in Texas, our parents could choose the vocational track for us in HS and allow us to build our elective programs around a trade such as auto mechanics, wood working, electronics, and HVAC. Now, if you ended up maturing in your core studies and wanted to go to college, you could still do that AND have a trade. Or, you could enter the workforce early, start making some good money with a trade, and perhaps slowly pursue additional education.

In hindsight, I should have done this rather than taking electives such as lifeguarding, art, PE, family living, cooking, and the other electives I had in HS. My typing class was the only elective that truly stuck with me at that 75wpm rate has come in handy.

Given the absurd costs of college these days, I'd rather give people the option of a more realistic future than one burdened with insane debt where only a handful of careers allow you the opportunity to pay it back while living with a modicum of comfort. I had $20K of college debt as I had to borrow to complete my final year of my undergrad and my grad program and paying that back on a beginning teacher salary was a joke.

[nots]

No, I haven't changed the topic at all...you've essentially been arguing in post after post, that classism is OK, the rich are rich, and they deserve it. And the poor should strive for no more than tradesman jobs. And unfortunately, wealth distribution may be the only way to even the playing board. I'm certainly not talking about taking 50% of all the wealthy have away from them, I'm talking more about making them pay their fair share, which they most certainly do not at the moment. The distribution in wealth was far more equitable in the 50's than it is now. JFK said "A rising tide lifts all boats", sadly, that idea has become a thing of the past.

As to your 2nd point, some indeed made their wealth by hard work, some by luck and timing (the digital rich), and some by inheritance. The poor have little chance for either of the last two scenarios to happen for them, so why not give them the OPPORTUNITY to make hard work a way out, past a trade school education? Why not provide all kids with computers and internet, so that becomes a more level playing field. Why not, like some schools in California, provide free 4 year college educations if your family's income is below a certain level? These are just a few ways that we can level the platying foeld just a little bit, and start making this country what it once was.

And nice try on the Minnesota success story, but economists are pretty well in accord that it worked like it was intended to do, not because it was a "statistical anomaly".

Define 'fair share' and quantify it please.