"We Will Not Comply": Obamacare Upheld By Supreme Court

  • Thread starter Thread starter ACCT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheRealJuliane said:
Duh. Anyone who can think can understand the data. But some are so blinded by ideology that they cannot actually examine results.

🤷
Click to expand...
Well, Seeker1961 said,
Seeker1961 said:
…Look up income growth since the 1970’s and see for yourself.
Click to expand...
So I did, and the graph is what I found.
“By now, the obvious should be axiom: A state cannot run an economy, and a state-run economy cannot sustain its state. The more of its economy a government consumes, the less productive its economy becomes. And the more dependent its subpar economy then becomes on its government.” spectator.org/archives/2012/06/14/its-about-reality-not-austerit
 
Back to the original subject. Obamacare and the whole health care scenario is doomed to failure because the problem has been handled from the wrong perspective.
The main problem is that American medicine has evolved into an economic monopoly controlled by the Doctors and their co-professionals.
Entrance into the medical schools is controled by “medical professionals” who limit the number of people admitted and the number graduated. In addition, the Universities are partly to blame because the cost of a medical education exceeds that of any other profession, except possibly lawyers…and there is no excuse for this except for the inflated wages of the professors in medical schools (yes, on average, they do earn more than faculty in other disciplines!)
In addition, over the years, the Medical Societies have convinced politicians to enact restrictive medical licensing legislation.
I would think, that if Universities were forced to adopt open admissions to their medical schools, and the cost of a medical education be controlled - including faculty wage caps- and the licensing of MD’s were more fairlly and realistically administered, then we would have more doctors and the cost of their services would be reduced.
Unfortunately, the American public has been fed a diet of “Doctor Kildare” propaganda by Hollywood and the mass media for the for the past 75 years or so, so that the public actually believes that all doctors are altruistic and are walking saints. This propaganda and the traditional public antipathy for government regulations and control is what prevents true reform of the medical system.
The United States is the only country in the world that almost guarentees that an individual who gets a medical degree will be in debt up to his/her eyeballs, but ultimately can retire early and will die wealthy…
 
George_Stegmeir said:
The main problem is that American medicine has evolved into an economic monopoly controlled by the Doctors and their co-professionals.
Entrance into the medical schools is controled by “medical professionals” who limit the number of people admitted and the number graduated. In addition, the Universities are partly to blame because the cost of a medical education exceeds that of any other profession, except possibly lawyers…and there is no excuse for this except for the inflated wages of the professors in medical schools (yes, on average, they do earn more than faculty in other disciplines!)
In addition, over the years, the Medical Societies have convinced politicians to enact restrictive medical licensing legislation.
I would think, that if Universities were forced to adopt open admissions to their medical schools, and the cost of a medical education be controlled - including faculty wage caps- and the licensing of MD’s were more fairlly and realistically administered, then we would have more doctors and the cost of their services would be reduced.
Unfortunately, the American public has been fed a diet of “Doctor Kildare” propaganda by Hollywood and the mass media for the for the past 75 years or so, so that the public actually believes that all doctors are altruistic and are walking saints. This propaganda and the traditional public antipathy for government regulations and control is what prevents true reform of the medical system.
The United States is the only country in the world that almost guarentees that an individual who gets a medical degree will be in debt up to his/her eyeballs, but ultimately can retire early and will die wealthy…
Click to expand...
👍👍

One hears so much talk about government regulation, but very little talk about professional (self) regulation and its effect of that on how things are done in the health system and how much doctors must earn to meet their responsibilities.

Thanks also for using the word ‘monopoly’ - it could bear repeating. All I ever hear about is a ‘free’ health care market capable of solving all its own problems…
 
sedonaman said:
Are you going to respond to my post: ?
“Class-warfare politics is bad enough when it is for real. But it is as phony as a three-dollar bill, when the same politicians pass high tax rates on ‘the rich’ to win votes – and then get financial support from ‘the rich’ to create loopholes that enable them to avoid paying those high tax rates.” – Thomas Sowell
Click to expand...
I’m sorry-I’ve been working 16 hour days this week and haven’t had time to do a lot of research or posting.

Here’s what I found quickly from the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3629

the data in the charts on this page is taken from IRS and Census numbers-sources for those numbers are listed at the bottom of the page.
 
sedonaman said:
There is a negative correlation between government spending and real growth in GDP:

americanthinker.com/2012/07/how_statists_are_getting_away_with_it.html
Click to expand...
We’re actually talking about two different things.

Here’s where I’m coming from: We have a consumer based economy-I don’t think that’s in question. Over the last 30 years the spending power of the largest number of consumers in our economy-the working and middle classes-has not grown at the same rate it did from the 1940’s to the 1970’s-when we saw prosperity in the country. It hasn’t even been close-the growth has been primarily concentrated in the top 1%. There’s nothing wrong with some people making more money than others, that’s not in dispute either. It’s the difference between a more balanced growth from 1940-1970 and a more lopsided growth since then. If you continue to lose spending power with your largest number of consumers, a consumer based economy is not going to do well over time. If people aren’t going out to dinner, buying furniture, taking vacations…in other words-consuming-fewer people are going to have jobs because their services simply aren’t needed.

Get more money in the pockets of the people who really do invest in the economy by purchasing goods and services and you’ll see the economy rebound.
 
sedonaman said:
Liberals do, for they have captured the language. If you listen to their rhetoric, you would conclude that all conservatives are rich, while there are no rich liberals, for if there were and they were to be consistent, they would voluntarily give at least their excess wealth to the U.S. treasury. To be 100% consistent, a true liberal would give ***all ***his wealth to the government and go on welfare.
“To fund liberal programs, confiscate liberal wealth.”
Click to expand...
I’ve never heard a liberal say anything like this. Just what liberals do you have in mind?

What liberals believe is that the rich should “pay their fair share,” not impoverish themselves.

This is one of the more ridiculous straw men I’ve heard on this forum, and that’s saying something.

Edwin
 
Seeker1961 said:
…Get more money in the pockets of the people who really do invest in the economy by purchasing goods and services and you’ll see the economy rebound.
Click to expand...
That’s only half the story.

First, spending is not an “investment”; it is consumption.

Second, you have to have a real investment that produces those goods and services. Who knew he wanted a VCR until they appeared on the market? There was no demand. All the money in the world in the pockets of consumers was not going to put a single VCR in the stores until someone provided capital to manufacture them. But you would have the government tax away the capital that provides that investment.

Third, how does taxing away the capital put money in consumers’ hands? 🤷
 
Contarini said:
I’ve never heard a liberal say anything like this. Just what liberals do you have in mind?

What liberals believe is that the rich should “pay their fair share,” not impoverish themselves.

This is one of the more ridiculous straw men I’ve heard on this forum, and that’s saying something.

Edwin
Click to expand...
:confused:

How can anyone be “rich” and be impoverishing himself? Eh?

What is anyone’s “fair share” and who gets to determine that? I challenge you to actually think about that concept, but I highly doubt that you have the capacity to do so.
 
Contarini said:
…
What liberals believe is that the rich should “pay their fair share,” not impoverish themselves.
Click to expand...
Talk about “straw men” arguments, this one takes the cake. Who constitutes “the rich” and what is “their fair share”? Liberals have bounced this around their echo chamber for so long, I don’t think they can hear anything else. They are obviously afflicted with the “Loser-Take-All” syndrome twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=65679 .
“Liberals never accuse you of ‘greed’ for wanting other people’s money – only for wanting to keep your own money.” – Joe Sobran
 
TheRealJuliane said:
:confused:

How can anyone be “rich” and be impoverishing himself? Eh?
Click to expand...
Precisely. If they impoverished themselves they wouldn’t be rich anymore. Sedonaman claimed that liberal ideology requires them to impoverish themselves and cease to be rich. But he’s just making that up.
What is anyone’s “fair share” and who gets to determine that? I challenge you to actually think about that concept, but I highly doubt that you have the capacity to do so.
Click to expand...
You don’t need to be insulting.

Of course it’s difficult, but there are plenty of resources. Law, custom, the Christian moral tradition (and those of other religions with adherents in the country, but the United States is predominantly Christian), and the prudential decisions of those to whom the common good has been entrusted.

I agree that “fair share” is a bit of a cliche, but the point is that it’s the cliche liberals actually use. What it signals is that they do not want to impoverish the rich–the argument is simply that since the rich are more fortunate and have more resources, it is only proper that they bear a disproportionate degree of the burden of caring for the common good.

Everyone agrees on this, really. But “conservatives” claim that the rich should do this on a purely voluntary basis. In this, these “conservatives” are not really conservative, at least in a Western Christian sense–they seem to have forgotten their Augustine, or (worse) to be applying Augustine only to the poor.

Edwin
 
sedonaman said:
Talk about “straw men” arguments, this one takes the cake.
Click to expand...
It’s vague, but hardly a straw man.
Who constitutes “the rich”
Click to expand...
Well, there are various ways of defining it, but basically anyone who has significantly more wealth than the national average.
and what is “their fair share”?
Click to expand...
There is no specific amount. I agree that “fair share” is a vague cliche. I think I agree with what liberals mean by it, but I can see why its vagueness is annoying.

I brought it up simply to point out the absurdity of your claim that liberals want the rich to impoverish themselves.

Whatever “fair share” means, it does not mean that you give up all your possessions and live on welfare. I think it’s pretty clear that it doesn’t even mean that you reduce yourself to the financial level of a middle-income American.

So it’s vague, but it has limits. It definitely doesn’t have the radical implications you and others allege.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
It’s vague, but hardly a straw man.

Well, there are various ways of defining it, but basically anyone who has significantly more wealth than the national average.

There is no specific amount. I agree that “fair share” is a vague cliche. I think I agree with what liberals mean by it, but I can see why its vagueness is annoying.
Click to expand...
It’s more than annoying; it’s downright revolting because of its insincerity. “I’m for you against the rich and powerful,” declared Al Gore during election 2000. This is from one of the richest, most powerful men in America. Don’t you see the insincerity in that statement? How about Noam Chomsky? “Whereas readers of The Prospect found the top public intellectual in Chomsky, I found a poster child for modern-day capitalism and, because of his anti-capitalist views, a complete hypocrite.” ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2005/10/the-branding-of-the-worlds-top-intellectual-noam-chomsky.html
I brought it up simply to point out the absurdity of your claim that liberals want the rich to impoverish themselves.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say they wanted to impoverish themselves. What I did say is that if there were any rich liberals and they were to be consistent, they would voluntarily give at least their excess wealth to the U.S. treasury, excess being defined as that above national average. To be 100% consistent, a true liberal would give all his wealth to the government and go on welfare. I make this statement because to a liberal, the bigger the government, the better; and what bigger government could there be than communism [which liberalism is closer to than conservatism]? So, a true liberal would completely embrace “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need,” donate his entire income and wealth to the government, and let the government decide how much he needs by going on welfare.
Whatever “fair share” means, it does not mean that you give up all your possessions and live on welfare. I think it’s pretty clear that it doesn’t even mean that you reduce yourself to the financial level of a middle-income American.
Click to expand...
So it’s vague, but it has limits. It definitely doesn’t have the radical implications you and others allege.
Click to expand...
Like “Hope and Change” it means anything you want, and therefore it means nothing … NO THING.
“To fund liberal programs, confiscate liberal wealth.”
 
I wonder if all these unthinking liberals would agree to a conservative administration being able to determine what their “fair share” might be?

Who gets to decide what anyone’s “fair share” is? The government you think is on your side today, may be your worst nightmare tomorrow.

This nation was built upon each person’s ability to make his or her own way in the world, not a concept such as “fair share.”
 
TheRealJuliane said:
This nation was built upon each person’s ability to make his or her own way in the world, not a concept such as “fair share.”
Click to expand...
Ah, an individualistic heritage. Where does the concept of working together fit in? Or does it? In that case why have a country at all? Why not opt to be a group of individuals occupying the same geographic space which they pay a private security firm to protect?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top