Jump to content
merrill

Voters should know by now after 70 years politicians have never provided health insurance for the people. Too many on both sides of the aisle take money from the insurance industry, from health care providers and are investors. 

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Nighthawk said:

Then it should be extremely easy for you to prove me wrong and put me in my place.  You would be the very first idiot lib on this forum to ever do so.  So what the fuck are you waiting for, dumbass?  Give me some of your supposed "history" on the need for moronic anti-trust laws that were more appropriate than what simply having a free market would have achieved instead.

 

Good luck.

 

What?!?!   You mean that you did not make this statement in the post above?

 

If not, then apparently someone has stolen your password and is posting under your username.  Either that or you are a fucking lunatic.  I am betting on the latter...

 

Now, can you answer my simple question from above or are you just another sniveling liberal coward?  Here it is again for you-

 

If evil employers really have some magical power that lets them pay their workers whatever the fuck they feel like paying without the help of government or unions to put a stop to their dastardly deeds, as in your ignorant little fantasies, then why in the holy hell do any non-union workers make more than the MW?  Why do these supposedly greedy companies pay their non-union accountants, engineers, computer programmers, managers, etc.. one single penny more than they are required to pay them by law?

 

Good luck.

 

And as I have repeatedly explained to your ignorant ass, this is completely irrelevant as there is absolutely no need to have that information.

 

Again- this is completely irrelevant as there is absolutely no need to have that information.

 

If you still don't get it, please tell me which word is confusing you, dimwit.

 

What the hell are you babbling about?  If some company inflates their stock price, how the hell does that hurt you?

 

You seriously cannot be this fucking retarded.  Have you really never heard of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which is an agency of your precious, beloved government, you damn moron?

 

Which just goes to show how pitifully inept your precious government is at one of the very few legitimate functions it has.  And you damn idiot libs want to give even more responsibilities to them???

 

 

Inflated stock prices - what do I care?

The Bush Depression was triggered by a stock market crash.

Granted,

the market gambling machine should have no real effect on the economy.

It does, of course, because practically none of the non-1% understands that a drop in the market shouldn't cause anyone to lose their job.

 

Granted,

the Bush Depression was caused by bankers attempting to create money through the lie of "derivative equity",

which was pretend to be value that was lent out to fuel a housing bubble.

Of course, a FED that was under orders to flood the world with dollars, didn't help.

 

And no,

Obama should have sent people to jail,

instead of QE 1, 2, and 3.

 

But soon,

we will discover that Trump has screwed us so bad,

that it JUST MIGHT NOT COME BACK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, peter45 said:

Anti-trust history

Are you sure that you even know what a trust/monopoly is?

Do you understand that rather than compete, the companies CHOSE to fix prices at NON-COMPETITIVE rates?

That is what happened.

No amount of "conservative" lying can change history.

Then let's see you post a link to where some monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel successfully fixed the prices of their goods or services significantly above fair market value for a long term without any use of government FORCE or other forms of FORCE to prevent competition, dunce.  I have certainly never heard of any such example in all of recorded human history.  I have issued this same challenge to idiot libs numerous times and none of you fucking retards have ever been able to come up with even one single example.

 

Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nighthawk said:

Then let's see you post a link to where some monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel successfully fixed the prices of their goods or services significantly above fair market value for a long term without any use of government FORCE or other forms of FORCE to prevent competition, dunce.  I have certainly never heard of any such example in all of recorded human history.  I have issued this same challenge to idiot libs numerous times and none of you fucking retards have ever been able to come up with even one single example.

 

Good luck.

Standard Oil

 

The Standard Oil Trust was formed in 1863 by John D. Rockefeller. He built up the company through 1868 to become the largest oil refinery firm in the world. In 1870, the company was renamed Standard Oil Company, after which Rockefeller decided to buy up all the other competition and form them into one large company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, peter45 said:

Your "simple" question about employers

Do you acknowledge, or are you even aware that there are different categories of businesses?

You talk about companies paying skilled professionals at higher rates.

Do you understand that the pay scales for larger companies differ substantially for those of smaller companies? 

And that many of those pay scales are antiquated?

As the "conservative" movement has pushed many of those previously good paying jobs offshore,

the older workers often have maintained their salaries,

because they have the knowledge of the history of the business.

What the hell does any of that have to do with my simple question, twit?  You seem to just be dodging and stalling.  Can you answer the damn question or not?

 

Good luck.

 

Quote

 

I remember hiring some young degreed people, in the years before I retired,

for salaries that surprised the heck out of me.

These were people with degrees from NAME universities, that were being paid in the realm of $30,000 per year.

I remember one guy was living with his mother.

He was actually very good at what he did, and happy to have the job.

These were jobs that the data says should start at $60,000 - $80,000 per year.

 

So why was he even making $30k/yr, numbskull?  Why wasn't he just making the MW and no more?  What, was the employer just feeling generous and paid him more than the MW out of the goodness of their hearts?  Lol...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Critics accused Rockefeller of engaging in unethical practices, such as predatory pricing and colluding with railroads to eliminate his competitors, in order to gain a monopoly in the industry. In 1911, the U.S. Supreme Court found Standard Oil in violation of anti-trust laws and ordered it to dissolve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nighthawk said:

What the hell does any of that have to do with my simple question, twit?  You seem to just be dodging and stalling.  Can you answer the damn question or not?

 

Good luck.

 

So why was he even making $30k/yr, numbskull?  Why wasn't he just making the MW and no more?  What, was the employer just feeling generous and paid him more than the MW out of the goodness of their hearts?  Lol...

 

What the hell was your simple question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, peter45 said:

What the hell was your simple question?

It seems doubtful that you can phrase your "simple question" in non-insulting,

actually understandable terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, peter45 said:

Standard Oil

Good grief.  Your masters have done one hell of a job brainwashing the everliving fuck out of you, haven't they, you poor little schmuck? 

 

Are you really so damn stupid that you think you can win this debate by citing Standard Oil, like some kind of brainless retard, and that I would not be able to easily humiliate you for doing so?  You really think that if this was truly a valid example, that some other lib would not have used it on me by now, chump?   Lol...

 

I very, very, very clearly challenged you to find an example of a monopoly that charged HIGH prices, you illiterate asshat.  This was clearly not the case with Standard Oil- Link.

Monopoly pricing

The argument that Standard Oil extorted high prices from the public is simply unsupported by evidence. Indeed, the opposite appears to be true: Refined oil prices "fell from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869, to 10 cents in 1874, to 8 cents in 1885, and to 5.9 cents in 1897." [19] Being a large market power, but a market power nonetheless, Standard Oil could not create monopoly prices for fear of competitors springing up to win over dissatisfied customers.

 

The argument of monopoly pricing further fails when considering substitute goods - alternative goods that customers may buy to achieve the same ends with different means. For example,

"Coal continued to be a cheaper generator of heat and energy than petroleum. Vegetable and animal oils were used as illuminants and lubricants by the very large segments of the world's population living in relatively unindustrialized countries. ... Tallow and stearine candles constituted strong rivals to those made form paraffin was in some markets. In Europe, especially, artificial gas and later electricity gained on kerosene as a source of light ..." [20]

Thus, monopoly prices in kerosene and other products made by Standard Oil would have simply been replaced with substitute goods which Standard Oil did not control.

Controlling the price of oil

Standard Oil did not control the oil extraction business [21]. At the end of its years as a trust it attempted to enter the market but was never a large force on the extraction market. Indeed, it bought its raw material from thousands of producers of crude oil [22]. The prices of crude oil were determined on the stock exchange [23] and Standard Oil did not speculate on the exchanges [24]

 

 

 

Oops, there goes your dumb little ignorant theory.  You want to try your hand at my simple challenge again, perhaps without showing everyone how unbelievably fucking stupid you are this time around?

 

Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, peter45 said:

What the hell was your simple question?

For Pete's sake man.  Why don't you learn how to Bad wording read?  Here it is for the THIRD time-

 

If evil employers really have some magical power that lets them pay their workers whatever the fuck they feel like paying without the help of government or unions to put a stop to their dastardly deeds, as in your ignorant little fantasies, then why in the holy hell do any non-union workers make more than the MW?  Why do these supposedly greedy companies pay their non-union accountants, engineers, computer programmers, managers, etc.. one single penny more than they are required to pay them by law?

 

Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nighthawk said:

Good grief.  Your masters have done one hell of a job brainwashing the everliving fuck out of you, haven't they, you poor little schmuck? 

 

Are you really so damn stupid that you think you can win this debate by citing Standard Oil, like some kind of brainless retard, and that I would not be able to easily humiliate you for doing so?  You really think that if this was truly a valid example, that some other lib would not have used it on me by now, chump?   Lol...

 

I very, very, very clearly challenged you to find an example of a monopoly that charged HIGH prices, you illiterate asshat.  This was clearly not the case with Standard Oil- Link.

Monopoly pricing

The argument that Standard Oil extorted high prices from the public is simply unsupported by evidence. Indeed, the opposite appears to be true: Refined oil prices "fell from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869, to 10 cents in 1874, to 8 cents in 1885, and to 5.9 cents in 1897." [19] Being a large market power, but a market power nonetheless, Standard Oil could not create monopoly prices for fear of competitors springing up to win over dissatisfied customers.

 

The argument of monopoly pricing further fails when considering substitute goods - alternative goods that customers may buy to achieve the same ends with different means. For example,

"Coal continued to be a cheaper generator of heat and energy than petroleum. Vegetable and animal oils were used as illuminants and lubricants by the very large segments of the world's population living in relatively unindustrialized countries. ... Tallow and stearine candles constituted strong rivals to those made form paraffin was in some markets. In Europe, especially, artificial gas and later electricity gained on kerosene as a source of light ..." [20]

Thus, monopoly prices in kerosene and other products made by Standard Oil would have simply been replaced with substitute goods which Standard Oil did not control.

Controlling the price of oil

Standard Oil did not control the oil extraction business [21]. At the end of its years as a trust it attempted to enter the market but was never a large force on the extraction market. Indeed, it bought its raw material from thousands of producers of crude oil [22]. The prices of crude oil were determined on the stock exchange [23] and Standard Oil did not speculate on the exchanges [24]

 

 

 

Oops, there goes your dumb little ignorant theory.  You want to try your hand at my simple challenge again, perhaps without showing everyone how unbelievably fucking stupid you are this time around?

 

Good luck.

Do you have a source?

Something other than some right wing crapola?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nighthawk said:

For Pete's sake man.  Why don't you learn how to Bad wording read?  Here it is for the THIRD time-

 

If evil employers really have some magical power that lets them pay their workers whatever the fuck they feel like paying without the help of government or unions to put a stop to their dastardly deeds, as in your ignorant little fantasies, then why in the holy hell do any non-union workers make more than the MW?  Why do these supposedly greedy companies pay their non-union accountants, engineers, computer programmers, managers, etc.. one single penny more than they are required to pay them by law?

 

Good luck.

What the hell are you asking?

Try polite phrasing.

Are you asking for an explanation of the law of supply and demand?

Are you asking for an explanation of the changing salary structures due to outsourcing of jobs by "conservatism"?

Are you asking why skilled labor is being imported to lower the wages of Americans with the same skills?

What the hell are you supposed to be asking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Nighthawk said:

Good grief.  Your masters have done one hell of a job brainwashing the everliving fuck out of you, haven't they, you poor little schmuck? 

 

Are you really so damn stupid that you think you can win this debate by citing Standard Oil, like some kind of brainless retard, and that I would not be able to easily humiliate you for doing so?  You really think that if this was truly a valid example, that some other lib would not have used it on me by now, chump?   Lol...

 

I very, very, very clearly challenged you to find an example of a monopoly that charged HIGH prices, you illiterate asshat.  This was clearly not the case with Standard Oil- Link.

Monopoly pricing

The argument that Standard Oil extorted high prices from the public is simply unsupported by evidence. Indeed, the opposite appears to be true: Refined oil prices "fell from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869, to 10 cents in 1874, to 8 cents in 1885, and to 5.9 cents in 1897." [19] Being a large market power, but a market power nonetheless, Standard Oil could not create monopoly prices for fear of competitors springing up to win over dissatisfied customers.

 

The argument of monopoly pricing further fails when considering substitute goods - alternative goods that customers may buy to achieve the same ends with different means. For example,

"Coal continued to be a cheaper generator of heat and energy than petroleum. Vegetable and animal oils were used as illuminants and lubricants by the very large segments of the world's population living in relatively unindustrialized countries. ... Tallow and stearine candles constituted strong rivals to those made form paraffin was in some markets. In Europe, especially, artificial gas and later electricity gained on kerosene as a source of light ..." [20]

Thus, monopoly prices in kerosene and other products made by Standard Oil would have simply been replaced with substitute goods which Standard Oil did not control.

Controlling the price of oil

Standard Oil did not control the oil extraction business [21]. At the end of its years as a trust it attempted to enter the market but was never a large force on the extraction market. Indeed, it bought its raw material from thousands of producers of crude oil [22]. The prices of crude oil were determined on the stock exchange [23] and Standard Oil did not speculate on the exchanges [24]

 

 

 

Oops, there goes your dumb little ignorant theory.  You want to try your hand at my simple challenge again, perhaps without showing everyone how unbelievably fucking stupid you are this time around?

 

Good luck.

So,

if you don't like Standard Oil,

how about AT&T?

 

AT&T was a REGULATED UTILITY.

A regulated utility that probably brought the price of universal telephone service down to the lowest that it could be,

before the evil of "conservatism" took it over.

 

Management salaries were determined by the size of the budget that the manager controlled, and the number of employees that reported to him.

 

Now, the manager figured out that hiring too many people made HIS salary larger.

And, since there was no competition,

there was no way to judge that the place was being overstaffed.

 

So,

the government broke up AT&T.

But,

the government decided that there should be competition.

Unfortunately,

AT&T had been integrated so completely, nobody was going to go into competition with it.

We attempted to cultivate suppliers, but no one could compete for less than 125% of the cost to make the equipment ourselves.

 

The advent of cell phone technology has muddied up that experiment, unfortunately.

And,

the inefficiencies of competitive technologies has shown itself in excess equipment serving non-compatible operating systems.

Leading to cell phone bills about twice as high as the European equivalent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, peter45 said:

Do you have a source?

Something other than some right wing crapola?

No,

I will grant you that Standard Oil was probably not a good example, as I have no personal experience with them.

I do, however, with AT&T.

 

The experience with AT&T was a very good right wing/left wing example.

AT&T was so large, that it was silly for any other entity to attempt to compete with them.

We had one specially constructed machine that performed 8 operations on one part, in one loading.

It supplied the ENTIRE COUNTRY with the piece parts.

In order to compete, 8 vendors, and 8 trips across the country would have been needed.

Which, was ridiculous.

Of course,

once you build one machine to supply the entire country,

what do you do with the staff that built it?

It required years of development for the staff to obtain the expertise to build the machine.

If you lay them off,

what happens if you need another similar machine,

and they are all gone?

 

So, you wound up with an overstaffed organization, and a manufacturing facility that absolutely no competitor could touch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Nighthawk said:

Good grief.  Your masters have done one hell of a job brainwashing the everliving fuck out of you, haven't they, you poor little schmuck? 

 

Are you really so damn stupid that you think you can win this debate by citing Standard Oil, like some kind of brainless retard, and that I would not be able to easily humiliate you for doing so?  You really think that if this was truly a valid example, that some other lib would not have used it on me by now, chump?   Lol...

 

I very, very, very clearly challenged you to find an example of a monopoly that charged HIGH prices, you illiterate asshat.  This was clearly not the case with Standard Oil- Link.

Monopoly pricing

The argument that Standard Oil extorted high prices from the public is simply unsupported by evidence. Indeed, the opposite appears to be true: Refined oil prices "fell from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869, to 10 cents in 1874, to 8 cents in 1885, and to 5.9 cents in 1897." [19] Being a large market power, but a market power nonetheless, Standard Oil could not create monopoly prices for fear of competitors springing up to win over dissatisfied customers.

 

The argument of monopoly pricing further fails when considering substitute goods - alternative goods that customers may buy to achieve the same ends with different means. For example,

"Coal continued to be a cheaper generator of heat and energy than petroleum. Vegetable and animal oils were used as illuminants and lubricants by the very large segments of the world's population living in relatively unindustrialized countries. ... Tallow and stearine candles constituted strong rivals to those made form paraffin was in some markets. In Europe, especially, artificial gas and later electricity gained on kerosene as a source of light ..." [20]

Thus, monopoly prices in kerosene and other products made by Standard Oil would have simply been replaced with substitute goods which Standard Oil did not control.

Controlling the price of oil

Standard Oil did not control the oil extraction business [21]. At the end of its years as a trust it attempted to enter the market but was never a large force on the extraction market. Indeed, it bought its raw material from thousands of producers of crude oil [22]. The prices of crude oil were determined on the stock exchange [23] and Standard Oil did not speculate on the exchanges [24]

 

 

 

Oops, there goes your dumb little ignorant theory.  You want to try your hand at my simple challenge again, perhaps without showing everyone how unbelievably fucking stupid you are this time around?

 

Good luck.

Of course,

in analyzing this right wing propaganda,

it discusses what Standard Oil's competitors MIGHT HAVE DONE.

NOT,

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

 

Since Standard Oil had the advantage of a monopoly,

it had the advantage of introducing new technology,

which would reduce the cost of production,

which would explain the reduction of cost.

 

However, since Standard Oil was broken up in 1911,

the mention of alternative fuels is deceptive.

Yes,

Diesel was injured attempting to develop a coal powered vehicle,

but gasoline was probably the big seller for automobiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2018 at 9:57 PM, merrill said:

 

I am for IMPROVED Medicare Single Payer Insurance for ALL absolutely!!! 

 

http://www.healthcare-now.org/docs/spreport.pdf

 

Universal Single Payer Health Care would not only provide 24/7 care no matter what but would also create new jobs throughout the USA.

 

Universal Single Payer Health Care would in effect reduce the cost of vets care significantly in additionto improving a disabled vets and their families quality of life significantly. 

 

Universal Single Payer Health Care would in effect reduce the cost of government across the board significantly.

 

Universal Single Payer Health Care would in effect reduce the cost of public education significantly.

 

Universal Single Payer Health Care would in effect reduce the cost of higher education significantly.

 

Universal Single Payer Health Care would in effect reduce the cost of groceries significantly.

 

Universal V Health Care would in effect reduce the cost of local government significantly.

 

Universal Health Care would in effect reduce the cost of cars significantly.

 

Universal Single Payer Health Care SHOULD in effect reduce the cost of just about all consumer products significantly.

 

Consider that the federal government spends more than $1.4 trillion tax dollars annually on healthcare which in reality would likely cover most all in the USA under a Universal Single Payer Health Care program. 

 

http://www.healthcare-now.org/docs/spreport.pdf

 

--- For about 250 tax dollars a month for a family of four  Universal Single Payer Insurance for ALL would cover every person for all necessary medical care 24/7 to include:

     

Wellness /prescription drugs / hospital / surgical / outpatient services /  primary and

preventive care / emergency services / dental / mental health / home health / physical therapy / rehabilitation (including for substance abuse) / vision care /  hearing services including hearing aids / chiropractic / medical equipment / palliative care / long term care  

 

No deductibles / No Co-pays

 

The above is not free medical care just merely using our tax dollars more efficiently and effectively. We dictate to the government that our tax dollars be directed

to health care for all instead of raising taxes.

 

 

 

the smart coverage  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2018 at 3:49 AM, merrill said:

WE know that using the existing medicare template to service Medicare for All Single payer saves lots and lots of dollars over reinventing the wheel. http://www.healthcare-now.org/docs/spreport.pdf

 

 The U.S. health insurance system is typically characterized as a largely private-sector system, so it may come as a surprise that more than 60% of the $4 trillion or more annual U.S. health care bill is paid through taxes. Therefore 60% of $4 trillion tax dollars or more is the source which could cover the cost of a single payer system. At least a sizeable portion. WHY NOT COVER ALL IN AMERICA FOR ABOUT THE SAME COST AS 60%?

 

Voters should know by now after 70 years politicians have never provided health insurance for the people. Too many on both sides of the aisle take money from the insurance industry, from health care providers and are investors. 

 

The nations republicans have no answer. Of course donations/kicbacks to political campaigns cost money aka health care dollars so who gets billed for that? People buying insurance. 

 

WE voters need the last word aka WE voters need a ballot even a special election if necessary. The money that consumers and the cost of government will save would easily justify a special election.

 

Support Single Payer in the USA!

https://credoaction.com/storystream/support-medicare-for-all/

 

WE NEED MEDICARE FOR ALL

https://act.credoaction.com/sign/sanders_medicare

 

Health care refers to services provided by medical professionals aimed at promoting physical and mental welfare, through the prevention, treatment, and management of illness. This includes care by the medical and allied health professionals, curative care for acute conditions, management of chronic disease, rehabilitation, and palliative care.

 

Although the aim of health care is to promote individual and public health, health care is a distinct concept from “health.” Factors outside of the provision of health care (e.g., diet, genetics) play an important role in determining individual health, and the provision of health care is only one aspect of the governance of health.

 

Equally though, governing health care extends beyond promoting health. Health care is a major industrial sector, a growing component of many developed countries’ national economies, and an important component of their labor force. 

https://search.credoreference.com/content/topic/health_care

 

 

 Put choices on the table! And show veterans and business a little more respect in the process.

 

LET THE VOTERS DECIDE ON A 2018 BALLOT NATION WIDE = allowing consumers 3 options for the rest of their lives. Which one works best for YOU


=== ObamaCare which retains the health insurance industry. Sooner or later much of this group will enroll in single payer.

 

=== Single Payer Medicare for ALL = excellent coverage for those who wish to enroll. The absolute best choice on planet earth. https://www.healthcare-now.org/docs/spreport.pdf

 

=== Self financed health care for those able to do so aka opt out. 

 

 

=== ALL Disabled vets should receive Medicare with a 100% benefit so they and their families can receive medical care immediately upon discharge. Make it retroactive.

 

=== Business should not be forced to provide health insurance.

 

Again WE know that using the existing medicare template to service Medicare for All Single payer saves lots and lots of dollars over reinventing the wheel. http://www.healthcare-now.org/docs/spreport.pdf

 

 

 

 

bump we go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This, among other similar issues of regulatory capture and corruption, is why during an election, if all other things are equal, I'm voting for the candidate who just doesn't take the money.  Beto did it.  Sanders did it.  Lots of candidates have done it and not had any trouble being heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2018 at 1:55 AM, DeepBreath said:

Jesus.....save money when its projected to cost an additional 31 trillion plus dollars over 10 years. To put that in perspective, the federal government spends a little over 4 trillion a year now. That's almost doubling the size of federal government spending but the retard in the OP is claiming it'll save money lol...

 

It'll save money for entitlement monkeys like the OP that contribute nothing to this country. In other words, the freeloaders. 

 

Quit being a mooch and pay for your healthcare like everyone else. 

You are either part of the cure or part of the problem. And it looks like you are the PROBLEM!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, anyway you slice it or dice it, HC costs are skyrocketing! THIS is the real problem that they don't want to fix!

BIG MED, BIG PHARMA is the biggest racket ever foisted on the people!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why this makes sense:

 

Put choices on the table! And show veterans and business a little more respect in the process.

 

LET THE VOTERS DECIDE ON A 2018 BALLOT NATION WIDE = allowing consumers 3 options for the rest of their lives. Which one works best for YOU


=== ObamaCare which retains the health insurance industry. Sooner or later much of this group will enroll in single payer.

 

=== Single Payer Medicare for ALL = excellent coverage for those who wish to enroll. The absolute best choice on planet earth. https://www.healthcare-now.org/docs/spreport.pdf

 

=== Self financed health care for those able to do so aka opt out. 

 

 

=== ALL Disabled vets should receive Medicare with a 100% benefit so they and their families can receive medical care immediately upon discharge. Make it retroactive.

 

=== Business should not be forced to provide health insurance.

 

Again WE know that using the existing medicare template to service Medicare for All Single payer saves lots and lots of dollars over reinventing the wheel. http://www.healthcare-now.org/docs/spreport.pdf

 

The nation needs to get organized and demand that voters play significant roles as the last word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, nuckin futz said:

You are either part of the cure or part of the problem. And it looks like you are the PROBLEM!

Government getting involved in healthcare is our problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2018 at 10:22 PM, peter45 said:

Do you have a source?

Something other than some right wing crapola?

Come on, get real.  It is common knowledge among people who have not been brainwashed by the liberal media that the price of refined oil plummeted during Standard Oil's supposed evil monopoly.  Just because your liberal masters haven't informed you of something does not mean it is "crapola", moron.

 

If you think the authors of the article I linked are outright lying, then let's see you prove it.  Go to Google and search to your heart's content.  I assure you that you will just be wasting your time, twit.

 

Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2018 at 10:29 PM, peter45 said:

What the hell are you asking?

Try polite phrasing.

Are you asking for an explanation of the law of supply and demand?

Are you asking for an explanation of the changing salary structures due to outsourcing of jobs by "conservatism"?

Are you asking why skilled labor is being imported to lower the wages of Americans with the same skills?

What the hell are you supposed to be asking?

I don't know how to dumb it down much further for you.  If no one is using force to make an employer pay their workers more than the MW, then why the hell are they doing it for the overwhelming majority of workers in the US?  For example, why do employers pay their entry-level accountants an average of $51k (Link) instead of just paying them MW and no more?

 

The correct answer to this question can be given in as little as one single word.  But the problem for you is that you have shown your utter stupidity by saying this one word does not exist because it is a "fantasy."  Thus, there is no way for you to answer this question rationally without refuting your own moronic statement.

 

Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2018 at 10:46 PM, peter45 said:

So,

if you don't like Standard Oil,

how about AT&T?

 

AT&T was a REGULATED UTILITY.

A regulated utility that probably brought the price of universal telephone service down to the lowest that it could be,

before the evil of "conservatism" took it over.

 

Management salaries were determined by the size of the budget that the manager controlled, and the number of employees that reported to him.

 

Now, the manager figured out that hiring too many people made HIS salary larger.

And, since there was no competition,

there was no way to judge that the place was being overstaffed.

 

So,

the government broke up AT&T.

But,

the government decided that there should be competition.

Unfortunately,

AT&T had been integrated so completely, nobody was going to go into competition with it.

We attempted to cultivate suppliers, but no one could compete for less than 125% of the cost to make the equipment ourselves.

 

The advent of cell phone technology has muddied up that experiment, unfortunately.

And,

the inefficiencies of competitive technologies has shown itself in excess equipment serving non-compatible operating systems.

Leading to cell phone bills about twice as high as the European equivalent.

You are never going to get anywhere if you don't finally learn how to fucking read.  How the hell did you get past elementary school without grasping the simple concept of basic reading?  Here is my question again, please read over the part in red over and over and over until it sinks through your incredibly thick skull-

 

Then let's see you post a link to where some monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel successfully fixed the prices of their goods or services significantly above fair market value for a long term without any use of government FORCE or other forms of FORCE to prevent competition, dunce.

 

 

Now, why the hell are you answering my challenge with an example of a company that had a monopoly that was PROTECTED BY GOVERNMENT FORCE, you dumb sack of shit???  Link.

 

But as Adam D. Thierer recently proved, there is nothing at all “natural” about the telephone monopoly enjoyed by AT&T for so many decades; it was purely a creation of government intervention.”54

 

Once AT&T’s initial patents expired in 1893, dozens of competitors sprung up. “By the end of 1894 over 80 new independent competitors had already grabbed 5 percent of total market share … after the turn of the century, over 3,000 competitors existed.55 In some states there were over 200 telephone companies operating simultaneously. By 1907, AT&T’s competitors had captured 51 percent of the telephone market and prices were being driven sharply down by the competition. Moreover, there was no evidence of economies of scale, and entry barriers were obviously almost nonexistent, contrary to the standard account of the theory of natural monopoly as applied to the telephone industry.56

 

The eventual creation of the telephone monopoly was the result of a conspiracy between AT&T and politicians who wanted to offer “universal telephone service” as a pork-barrel entitlement to their constituents. Politicians began denouncing competition as “duplicative,” “destructive,” and “wasteful,” and various economists were paid to attend congressional hearings in which they somberly declared telephony a natural monopoly. “There is nothing to be gained by competition in the local telephone business,” one congressional hearing concluded.57

 

The crusade to create a monopolistic telephone industry by government fiat finally succeeded when the federal government used World War I as an excuse to nationalize the industry in 1918.

 

 

 

Do you really not see that you are NEVER going to find an example that answers my challenge, dumbass?  If your dumb little ignorant fantasy of evil monopolies that need to be curtailed by your precious government was true, then you should easily be able to find hundreds and hundreds of examples, but neither you or any other idiot lib has ever been able to find one single, solitary example.  This is because the existence of such an evil monopoly fixing high prices without using FORCE is completely illogical and irrational, and thus it is impossible for it to actually exist.   But feel free to keep being humiliated by serving up moronic attempts to answer my challenge that I can very easily disprove, idiot.

 

Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...