The "WAr On Women??"

Looks up. Well well said Sir leo!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Punish_her

and if they can't charge higher premiums for the sick, they must charge higher premiums for all, which means me, which means they're discriminating against the healthy because i almost never use medical services

---

And I'd guess you rarely need to call the police, so why should you have to pay taxes to support the police force? And you haven't had a house fire, so you shouldn't be expected to contribute to the fire brigade either. And foreign enemies haven't recently threatened you personally, so what are the government doing expecting you to contribute to the defence budget...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo9

Then why are healthcare costs in the US twice or three times as much as they are in all those "inefficient" government run systems in other countries? (For poorer health outcomes, in many areas.) Could it have something to do with the need for corporations to keep paying their shareholders? Or is it - as our recent economic disasters suggest - that the whole idea that capitalism automatically means efficiency is a myth?

---

No it is so Pharmcutial Comaspnies can send Billions upon Billions on R&D and pay thier CEO's etc $25,000,000 a year in slalry plus bonuses it is all about the money noting more,Pharmacitical Companies could care less about the average American Joe, they do it for the Money
They jsut said on the new tonight that the CIO of Chase, although she resigned do to the scandal, that she was paid $23 mill, in salary last years and got a "Serverence Check" today for $15 Million and she ovewr saw the issue and did noting so it cost Chase $2-4 Milioni n comapny money, they did mention money last was NOT customer money but their own money, yet she recieive as $15 miloin dolar bomus as service pay for costing her company to loos $2-4 Billion,?? No wonder our Costs and bank feesare so high, if i cost my company that kind of money I would not only be out a job but possibly facing criminal charges

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo9

And I'd guess you rarely need to call the police, so why should you have to pay taxes to support the police force? And you haven't had a house fire, so you shouldn't be expected to contribute to the fire brigade either. And foreign enemies haven't recently threatened you personally, so what are the government doing expecting you to contribute to the defence budget...?

---

once again, you dontseem to know what the word "insurance" means, or "risk averse" or "hedge"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo9

And I'd guess you rarely need to call the police, so why should you have to pay taxes to support the police force?

---

You pay more in higher-risk circumstances, yes: high risk events generally seem to pay for it, and of course more valuable properties pay higher taxes too. Just as smokers pay considerably more toward the NHS than non-smokers.

Quote:

---

And you haven't had a house fire, so you shouldn't be expected to contribute to the fire brigade either.

---

My building's high risk - big gas-powered generators in the basement - and we do indeed pay a substantial amount extra to the fire brigade each year because of it. Bigger properties also tend to pay higher taxes generally, to fund such services, as well as being held to higher standards regarding fire alarms, extinguishers etc.

As for price: yes, the NHS is cheap. It's also very nearly killed me once due to inadequate staffing (or rather, politically skewed staffing: instead of a proper hospital, they were fighting to keep a "cottage hospital" open with no actual doctors in, hence no properly trained staff when complications occurred). I'd rather have an expensive system that doesn't kill me, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StrictMasterD

No it is so Pharmcutial Comaspnies can send Billions upon Billions on R&D and pay thier CEO's etc $25,000,000 a year in slalry plus bonuses it is all about the money noting more,Pharmacitical Companies could care less about the average American Joe, they do it for the Money
They jsut said on the new tonight that the CIO of Chase, although she resigned do to the scandal, that she was paid $23 mill, in salary last years and got a "Serverence Check" today for $15 Million and she ovewr saw the issue and did noting so it cost Chase $2-4 Milioni n comapny money, they did mention money last was NOT customer money but their own money, yet she recieive as $15 miloin dolar bomus as service pay for costing her company to loos $2-4 Billion,?? No wonder our Costs and bank feesare so high, if i cost my company that kind of money I would not only be out a job but possibly facing criminal charges

---

Like I said: the claim that capitalism leads to efficiency is a myth. Corporations waste money on a scale that no government outside China could get away with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo9

Like I said: the claim that capitalism leads to efficiency is a myth. Corporations waste money on a scale that no government outside China could get away with.

---

if chase is wasting its own money, who cares? the government wastes FAR more money, and its my money that they're wasting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Punish_her

if chase is wasting its own money, who cares? the government wastes FAR more money, and its my money that they're wasting

---

If you think a bank's losses are nobody else's problem, you really haven't been paying attention. Banks don't make money out of thin air, though they often talk as if they did, to cover up the fact that their money comes from the same place as everyone else's, the hard work of ordinary folk.

These losses will come out of the pockets of their customers, in poorer interest rates and higher charges, and out of the general economy, in less loans to business, depressing trade. Even if they never have to apply for a government bailout, they are sustained on the market by the certainty that the government will catch them if they fall: and the government's credit rating is the poorer because the markets know it could be exposed to that kind of unplanned cost. Which means that when the banks look shaky, government borrowing costs the government more, which comes out of your taxes. "No free lunch" applies to bad stuff as well as good.

It's all of a piece with what I've been trying to explain about social welfare issues like health and policing and emergency services. Society is all interconnected, that's what "society" means, and anyone who thinks they can live as a heroically independent individual within it is dreaming. Unfortunately, it's a dream that a lot of politicians and business leaders like to encourage, since people don't act collectively if they think their neighbours' troubles are nothing to do with them. Divide and rule at the personal level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo9

If you think a bank's losses are nobody else's problem, you really haven't been paying attention. Banks don't make money out of thin air, though they often talk as if they did, to cover up the fact that their money comes from the same place as everyone else's, the hard work of ordinary folk.

These losses will come out of the pockets of their customers, in poorer interest rates and higher charges, and out of the general economy, in less loans to business, depressing trade. Even if they never have to apply for a government bailout, they are sustained on the market by the certainty that the government will catch them if they fall: and the government's credit rating is the poorer because the markets know it could be exposed to that kind of unplanned cost. Which means that when the banks look shaky, government borrowing costs the government more, which comes out of your taxes. "No free lunch" applies to bad stuff as well as good.

It's all of a piece with what I've been trying to explain about social welfare issues like health and policing and emergency services. Society is all interconnected, that's what "society" means, and anyone who thinks they can live as a heroically independent individual within it is dreaming. Unfortunately, it's a dream that a lot of politicians and business leaders like to encourage, since people don't act collectively if they think their neighbours' troubles are nothing to do with them. Divide and rule at the personal level.

---

ah yes, i do love getting lectures on the banking system, its not as if im about to complete a masters degree in the field or anything.
1) you're absolutely right, their money does come from the hard work of ordinary folk . . . which will grow with interest if they give it to a bank.
2) if you're literally losing money by having it in a bank, you wont leave it in the bank. thats just stupid
3) bailout and fdic insurance is not the same. at all really
4) a 500 billion dollar bailout would only make up 13% of the federal budget. considering the deficit is already projected to be 2.5 times that, i got a feeling its not that big of a deal
5) seems that you really just want free shit from other people. you said yourself "no such thing as a free lunch" but then you find it unbelievable that people should pay out of their pocket for fire protection, health services, or police.
and finally, in the wake of serious losses, the cio steps down, and this is inefficient? usps loses about 3 billion every quarter, and they close only a few offices. right, super efficient

Which has what exactly to do with a supposed war on women?

nothing . . . everything

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Which has what exactly to do with a supposed war on women?

---

That's the spin the other side wanted to put on it, that somehow expecting a woman to pay her own $9 for pills or collect it free with federal funding from a place like Planned Parenthood rather than making it a compulsory part of her health insurance was some sort of evil misogynist plot. Bit of a stretch, of course, but some have run with it anyway.

I agree denuseri,
the post above you have NOTHING to do with this thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo9

If you think a bank's losses are nobody else's problem, you really haven't been paying attention. Banks don't make money out of thin air, though they often talk as if they did, to cover up the fact that their money comes from the same place as everyone else's, the hard work of ordinary folk.

These losses will come out of the pockets of their customers, in poorer interest rates and higher charges, and out of the general economy, in less loans to business, depressing trade. Even if they never have to apply for a government bailout, they are sustained on the market by the certainty that the government will catch them if they fall: and the government's credit rating is the poorer because the markets know it could be exposed to that kind of unplanned cost. Which means that when the banks look shaky, government borrowing costs the government more, which comes out of your taxes. "No free lunch" applies to bad stuff as well as good.

It's all of a piece with what I've been trying to explain about social welfare issues like health and policing and emergency services. Society is all interconnected, that's what "society" means, and anyone who thinks they can live as a heroically independent individual within it is dreaming. Unfortunately, it's a dream that a lot of politicians and business leaders like to encourage, since people don't act collectively if they think their neighbours' troubles are nothing to do with them. Divide and rule at the personal level.

---

and this is? . . . hookay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Punish_her

It seems like no agreement was reached in the thread "Male Discrimination" so someone changed the name and here we are again.
Thorne thinks women are repressed
I think society royally shafts men
not getting involved in this one again

---

It is up to you to involve yourself in what you want, no need to get into something that distresses you (generic you)

But just for clarity, the two topics were started by two different people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by js207

In practice, that tends not to work; the small profit margin tends to help improve efficiency, which isn't generally something government bodies are known for.

---

Each system has its pro and cons..commercial health care is there to make money, and so it does what makes the most money with smallest cost, which is often not something that benefits the customers. We have this discussion here in UK right now, with our goverment wanting to sell out public health care.

It is also true that public hospitals can be very expensive and need overseeing, but at least their first priority is people's health, and we are many who share in paying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Punish_her

simple: niskanen's bureaucratic budget optimization in public choice theory.
every agency that just covers costs via federal handout seems to have rapidly inflating costs with decrasing efficiency. tell me the dmv is a well-oiled machine

---

Federal 'handouts'? You mean, like the banks got and the car firms quite recently? Or are you talking about the military, maybe?

Here we call it taxes, and we pay them happily (no, honestly, at least in Denmark surveys show that Danes do not mind paying taxes if they get value for money) and yes, you have to keep a rein on expenses, that is true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

Federal 'handouts'? You mean, like the banks got and the car firms quite recently? Or are you talking about the military, maybe?

---

Which of those do you think are examples of fiscal probity and efficiency?

Quote:

---

Here we call it taxes, and we pay them happily (no, honestly, at least in Denmark surveys show that Danes do not mind paying taxes if they get value for money) and yes, you have to keep a rein on expenses, that is true.

---

Paying some taxes for necessary services, properly delivered, is one thing - but would you not object to vast sums of your money being handed to failed businesses so they can keep on failing at your expense? I know I do.

Which is better? I can keep some of my wealth by subsiding failed businesses with the rest of it, or I can lose it all while watching those businesses go down the pan?

What pisses me off is that many of the people who ran those businesses into bankruptcy are still there getting fatter and richer than me, or have been paid off with amounts that make mortal men weep.

So maybe, after thinking about it a bit more, I do object.

Editorial from New York Times, 19th of May:

The Campaign Against Women

Despite the persistent gender gap in opinion polls and mounting criticism of their hostility to women’s rights, Republicans are not backing off their assault on women’s equality and well-being. New laws in some states could mean a death sentence for a pregnant woman who suffers a life-threatening condition. But the attack goes well beyond abortion, into birth control, access to health care, equal pay and domestic violence.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/op...nion&seid=auto

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Federal 'handouts'? You mean, like the banks got and the car firms quite recently? Or are you talking about the military, maybe?

---

Quote:

---

Which of those do you think are examples of fiscal probity and efficiency?

---

---

None. Which are federal handouts?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Here we call it taxes, and we pay them happily (no, honestly, at least in Denmark surveys show that Danes do not mind paying taxes if they get value for money) and yes, you have to keep a rein on expenses, that is true.

---

Quote:

---

Paying some taxes for necessary services, properly delivered, is one thing - but would you not object to vast sums of your money being handed to failed businesses so they can keep on failing at your expense? I know I do.

---

---

And so do I!
This mix up of private and public responsibilites are a pestilence, but I guess that is another topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

None. Which are federal handouts?

---

The support given to GM and Chrysler in particular, as well as the literal bankrolling of many large banks.

Quote:

---

This mix up of private and public responsibilites are a pestilence, but I guess that is another topic.

---

Actually, I think it's this same topic: the federal government has strayed into far too many areas it has no business entering. It's supposed to provide a military, immigration/customs ... prop up failed car manufacturers? Not in my book - particularly when others like Ford were viable - and yes, that was a federal handout, at least partly aimed at enriching the powerful car manufacturing unions, who just happen to be politically connected...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by js207

The support given to GM and Chrysler in particular, as well as the literal bankrolling of many large banks.

---

Then I agree, absolutely. The biggest welfare clients in history, and a spike through the myth of 'a free market.'

Quote:

---

Actually, I think it's this same topic: the federal government has strayed into far too many areas it has no business entering. It's supposed to provide a military, immigration/customs ... prop up failed car manufacturers? Not in my book - particularly when others like Ford were viable - and yes, that was a federal handout, at least partly aimed at enriching the powerful car manufacturing unions, who just happen to be politically connected...

---

I agree. I just meant it was probaly starying from the topic of war on women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

Then I agree, absolutely. The biggest welfare clients in history, and a spike through the myth of 'a free market.'

---

Well, a major deviation from that ideal - though not the first (Britain made the same stupid mistake with poor quality car manufacturers and a few other failed businesses a few decades ago) and sadly I doubt it will be the last either.

Quote:

---

I agree. I just meant it was probaly starying from the topic of war on women.

---

Not really: the "war on women" is the label the pro-handout side is applying to their opposition, as if expecting all but the poor to pay $9 a month themselves (the poor get it free under a government program already) is some form of attack. They'd probably have branded anti-bailout sentiment a "war on cars" if there had been a fight over it.