Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Don't be fooled. This is all about the Unions being payed back. I'll bet you anything 90% of the big contracts for "stimulating the economy" go to union outfits (big business owned by their buddies). Think of the union dues (and full employement for their members...hey want a job, join a union). This is massively going to inflate the cost of labor (as unskilled workers are going to make skilled labor wages); and Imagine whats going on behind closed doors to get these very $$$ contracts (for those not already in the gravy train gov. project business) "you back off making a fuss with the secret ballot initiative and we'll keep the gravy train coming for years and years and years to come".

There's actually a huge portion of the private sector very much pro-socialist policy (ie. spending tax payer dollars to build stuff and buy stuff that isn't needed). Think about how much office supplies the govt. buys, fleets of vehicles, computer, etc. If you are lucky enough to hold the contracts with the govt. you can pretty much always out compete any future competitor in the "free" market (as you can always fall back on the govt. accounts you hold in price wars etc.). Not to mention, we'll see many of these companies forced to accept unionization to keep these contracts....you wait and see.

The ones getting screwed by this bill is everyone in small business and those that work for them. Sadly, that amount isn't going to be enough to unseat the Dems any time soon. And with the Rhino's up there, they already have a super-majority to do what they want.

I too would consider moving to another country accept there isn't another semi-stable country that hasn't already gone socialist (that I can think of) with pro-gun rights.

PS Also worth mentioning, what are all these newly trained workers going to do when the money runs out, afterall their training is going to be in professions no longer needed. So you can bet in 2 years they'll all need employment. And they'll expect good employment for low skilled labor (future Democrates in the making).
The American free market economy is strong, but I don't think its resiliant enough to overcome what the Democrats are about to do. This may well be the stake in the heart of the free market (something akin to what happened in many European nations).

Stone Giant and Joe B, talked to an x med. insurance guy today . Told me the insurance industry is not opposed to this nat. healthcare database program. The req. for doctors to notify a federal agency about tests and medication will lower their costs (with the assumption that standardization will drive down expensive tests and medications). They also will generate a more predictable profit margin and limit the competition between companies. So, basically socializing the system will result in lowering of competition between companies. Not exactly the most free market move.

Interesting anyhow.

It seems a fairly common problem with stimulus packages that they're not enough to get "over the hump," so the economy slides back when the push is removed. I can still see value in them if they are enough to keep the price of a "correction" from being paid in lives. Those of the previous administration, though, seemed to me just to make matters worse by racking up debt -- and the latest go is not very encouraging.

AxeMental wrote:Stone Giant and Joe B, talked to an x med. insurance guy today . Told me the insurance industry is not opposed to this nat. healthcare database program. The req. for doctors to notify a federal agency about tests and medication will lower their costs (with the assumption that standardization will drive down expensive tests and medications). They also will generate a more predictable profit margin and limit the competition between companies. So, basically socializing the system will result in lowering of competition between companies. Not exactly the most free market move.

Interesting anyhow.

There's a lot of redundancy and complexity in the system on the hospital/care provider side that's the result of dealing with multiple independent insurance providers. Standardization could save hundreds of man-hours of work.

joe b.

Joe, just to get your opinion strait, you are for the national system register, but are opposed (like me) to government administrators dictating what a doctor can and can't order (for instance, if a patient's doctor wishes to order an MRI every 6 months for someone who is showing signs of MS he should not have to clear this with some gov. administrator, even though the standard suggested testing is done every 12 months).

Or do you support the idea that the doctor wishing to order the MRI (in the above example) every 6 months must obey the orders of the administrator who says "no, that is too expensive and out of the norm".

The reason I ask is that in most cases, each doctors experiance (after seeing 1000s of patients) guides them in a slightly different manner. If a doctor has a hunch (based on his unique training, and experiances) that a patient is in need of out of the ordinary care (that the govt. is going to deem to expensive), shouldn't he be allowed to do his best to take care of the patient? Yes, some insurance agencies will scoff at this, but at least you have legal recourse (as well as the doctor being able to go to bat for you). While in the case of the state, the final word will be theirs.

AxeMental wrote:Joe, just to get your opinion strait

I'm for a national health care system of some sort as found in the UK or France or any of the other 1st world European nations. I think the benefits outweigh the negatives.

joe b.

AxeMental wrote:I too would consider moving to another country accept there isn't another semi-stable country that hasn't already gone socialist (that I can think of) with pro-gun rights.

I've been considering Switzerland. Their constitution is modeled on the U. S. Constitution (with this difference: the Swiss still take their constitution seriously), and they are probably the most heavily-armed people on earth.

I've always been bugged by their nuetral stance on things. They were happy with letting Germany take over and enslave the world. Not that the rest of Europe was much better.

"Yes, some insurance agencies will scoff at this, but at least you have legal recourse (as well as the doctor being able to go to bat for you). While in the case of the state, the final word will be theirs."

We are (last I checked) still able to sue the state, except when officials invoke "national security."

Dwayanu wrote:"Yes, some insurance agencies will scoff at this, but at least you have legal recourse (as well as the doctor being able to go to bat for you). While in the case of the state, the final word will be theirs."

We are (last I checked) still able to sue the state, except when officials invoke "national security."

When you sue The State, it's a rigged deck. The defendant and the judge play for the same team.

TheRedPriest wrote:When you sue The State, it's a rigged deck. The defendant and the judge play for the same team.

For those who sue, the situation may be worse (than again, maybe not), but for the vast majority of people it is better to have access to a health care system that is affordable, but harder to sue within if something goes wrong, than it is to have a health care system that is unaffordable, but easier to sue within. This becomes more true once one considers suits as negative externalities that tend to increase total heath care costs for everyone accessing the health care system. This is not just true in suits and malpractice insurance directly, it is also true through defensive medicines, the costs associated with extra testing and procedures performed to reduce potential liabilities.

joe b.

Dy, most if not all states have caps on awards (so not worth a good attornys time).
As far as sueing the Federal government (which is what you'd have to do) forget it. I don't think you'd have a chance in hell. And even if you won no attorney in their right mind would take your case, there'd be no payout. I suspect with socialized medicine a normal lawsuite won't even be an option.

Joe B: "This is not just true in suits and malpractice insurance directly, it is also true through defensive medicines, the costs associated with extra testing and procedures performed to reduce potential liabilities."

Exactly right. And why the legal system needs to be revamped to drop costs. As I said earlier do this (a few other things) and see what happens. Suddenly it will be affordable.

Geoffrey wrote:

I've been considering Switzerland. Their constitution is modeled on the U. S. Constitution

Actually, its the other way around, our constitution was modelled after Calvin's political model in Geneva.

Philotomy wrote:

The interventionist and Keynesian approach they're following will result in the destruction of the value of the dollar.

No, like the last 28 years other presidential adherents of supply-side economics they are relying on the assets of China to underpin all of the borrowed money and sustain the value of the dollar. This unfortunately is the policy of both parties as the democrats have swung more towards the neo-liberal end aligning them with most but not all republicans.

Axe wrote:

I think its the private sector (ie. stock holders) that should be capping these guys salaries

Axe the largest share-holders who hold positions on the boards of these companies often are C.E.Os and have an incentive to provide such bonuses - the salary bonuses are a percentage of the corporations earnings. The earnings were all 'real' (as far as money having anything to do with a currency based on debt and not asset) until the consumer could no longer bear the burden of the debt and its attendant interest. We have been on our way back to this point since the end of WWII if you look at the number of people working in the family, mortgages, and the credit explosion - all of just to secure a 'living wage'.

its not within the tradition of our nation to allow the govt. dictate to the private sector, espl. not salaries.

Garbage, who do you think began licensing corporate charters? What do you think anti-trust regulation is about? Who do you think tariffs benefit?In the past 30 some years we have seen a reversal of these policies as barely-educated pundits and think tanks have pushed a vision of a government that does not speak for the people and that only the private sector, the voice of 'me' and 'mine', can truly measure the needs of a nation.

This is all about the Unions...massively going to inflate the cost of labor...(ie. spending tax payer dollars to build stuff and buy stuff that isn't needed)...The ones getting screwed by this bill is everyone in small business...Sadly, that amount isn't going to be enough to unseat the Dems any time soon.

Axe, I'm a little confused unions per se have very little to do with small businesses. They are a way to give the worker a voice in the hegemonic system of the private sector, specifically corporate industry. Seems it should be big business that you are concerned about. It is big business that prices out the competition of smaller businesses. Democrats may be at fault for addressing big businesses by supporting unions, but republicans are absolutely criminal in equating the needs of big business with those of small businesses. Seems what you find objectionable is the nature of capitalism, which is corporate and multi-national.

Sep, when the major shareholder is the CEO or his family you can be more certain he'll do everything in his power to keep the company healthy (not just in make believe lala land either).

Oh, and if you want to see the reason for America's decline, look no further then unions (which literally drove American Manufacturing out of the United States) and the decline of the American education system (when the ranks of teachers and education administrators became overrun with post-vietam era socialists who started pushing liberal arts rather then math and science. When you go to a college these days and see who make up the bulk of the engineering students, and medical students, hard science students etc. they aren't American. Most are Asian of some sort or another. And thank GOD for that, otherwise we'd have been in the tank much sooner. Today, more then ever, our country depends on imigrants looking for better lives and freedom.

In any event, if America parishes, it will be because of its government and the cancerous systems it imposes, not because of the traditions held in our Bill of Rights, or our long standing attachment to Adam Smith economics (and heavy dependence of the free market system) and our traditions of individualism, hard work and innovation.

The most recent pandemic is the behavior of the USPTO and European patent system, where patents for literally anything and everything (ex. methods of twirling signs in front of businesses...I kid you not) are being handed out at warp speed strangling private enterprise and innovation in its tracks threw lawsuites (as big business writes 1000s of patents just to gobble up huge areas of potential development (even the human genetic code is for sale, stifeling innovation in medicine). Once again the United States govt (working on behalf of the multinational corporations we all seem to hate). is doing everything it possibly can to kill free market forces (ie competition, innovation).

So, the question is: now that the leadership of the Democratic party (aka the new name for the American socialist/communist party) and the Republican party (what we used to think of as the old liberal democrat party, thankyou Mr. Bush) are entrenched (and we are a two party system) what are those of us who believe in concervative economics to do? The libertarian party would be an option, but its too tainted (but the obvious choice). Plus it has no marketing savy.

I suppose a new Reagan could come out of the blue, someone to unite t he conservative Democrats and economic Republicans. Here's to dreaming.

I think the Free State Project is promising:
http://www.freestateproject.org/

http://www.freestateproject.org/files/1 ... -to-NH.pdf

If even one of the 50 states could secede and establish a libertarian social order, I'd be ecstatic. I'd also be moving there just as soon as I could sell my house.

I honestly think that the chance of fixing the federal government is pretty close to nil. I think that secession (even if a long shot) has a greater chance of success. After all, if even the freaking Soviet Union could break apart, I have hope for the same thing in the U. S.