Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later[^][v]#451,358
Please explain Obamacare to me.
Is it similar to Romneycare?
Meta joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 43 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^][v]#451,359
@previous (B)
Obamacare is Romneycare writ large. They are, for all meaningful purposes , the same thing which made Romney's criticism of Obamacare during the 2012 elections comical to say the least.
decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^][v]#451,360
Obamacare is basically a compromise.
I'm waiting for the US government to not be fucking cowards and just forcibly nationalise the whole health insurance industry, thus saving numerous lives from the ruthless nature of the beast called the free market.
Meta replied with this 13 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#451,362
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj)
What free market? Healthcare hasn't been a free market in America for over 100 years.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#451,366
@previous (Meta)
I'll make you into a free market in a minute.
Syntax replied with this 13 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#451,367
decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj replied with this 13 years ago, 29 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,371
@451,362 (Meta)
It's sufficiently privatised that people refuse emergency healthcare for financial reasons. That's something that happens in capitalist hellscapes, not working civilisations.
Meta replied with this 13 years ago, 23 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,373
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj)
Paying a private company for something≠free market.
decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,374
@previous (Meta)
Well, at the very least, the current situation is an inevitable offshoot of any deregulated market economy.
A purely free market cannot exist. It's impossible. You either have regulation or you have the impenetrable dominance of a few players.
squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 16 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,376
yup. Voter fraud is so small that it cannot sway an election. so let's make it impossible for hundreds of thousands of people to vote to stop the less than 1000 instances of voter fraud that occur in each election.
it just isn't a problem that can be fixed without making a much larger problem.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 18 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,379
@451,362 (Meta)
How would say it isn't a free market? It's obviously not completely free, but exactly how are you defining "free market" here?
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 19 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,382
OP sounds butthurt
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 13 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,384
@451,376 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Do we really need the votes of those that cannot even produce a photo ID? No. Do the Democrats? Yes.
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 29 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,385
OTISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Triptych !IupsXZPnnU joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 55 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,389
@451,384 (A)
IDs usually cost money. It disenfranchises the poor, who are less likely to have an ID. You're also now saying that the lower-class vote is worthless. I'm sure you're a great person.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,392
@previous (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
It really is worthless. Thanks.
Meta replied with this 13 years ago, 26 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,394
@451,374 (decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj) > Well, at the very least, the current situation is an inevitable offshoot of any deregulated market economy.
How is health care "deregulated"? Can I just declare myself a doctor and open a clinic in my garage? Healthcare, and health insurance are more heavily regulated than pretty much any other industry. > A purely free market cannot exist. It's impossible. You either have regulation or you have the impenetrable dominance of a few players.
The only way to ensure dominance for a few big players is for the government to create barriers to entry and burdensome regulation in an industry. Without force, companies will only prosper to the extent they satisfy consumer needs and wants.
Meta double-posted this 13 years ago, 13 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,395
@451,379 (G) > How would say it isn't a free market? It's obviously not completely free, but exactly how are you defining "free market" here?
I would define "free market" as an economy where everything except fraud and force are permitted. As long as there's no fraud or use of force, anyone can do, buy, make, or sell anything they like.
Let's step away from the healthcare thing for a second since everyone gets all emotional and it's a heavily politicized thing. Instead, let's see if there's a free market in alcohol in the US? Why of course! You can buy beer and wine at the store and Coors and Budweiser and Jack Daniels and all the rest are raking in the $$$$.
Let's say I'm getting good at microbrewing and I want to sell my beer commercially. Can I just bottle it up and sell it? No. I have to get registered as a business and get a liquor license and register with the BATF for alcohol excise taxes (and the state alcohol authority too) and get a sales and use tax permit and god knows what else. Not to mention there are laws about what kind of alcohol can be sold in what stores at what times and in which counties. In many states you, as a manufacturer can't even sell directly to retailers, you have to sell it through a distributor first, which bumps up the cost.
All of this drives up cost, and leads to less choice in the consumer market. To someone not looking at the whole picture, it can look like a "free market" because money is being paid to private companies by consumers, but it's not really free. Health care has got to be 100 times worse than alcohol, in terms of regulation.
Meta triple-posted this 13 years ago, 21 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,396
@451,366 (E)
Syntax claims to have invented the free market while he was advising a young Adam Smith on economic policy.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,400
@451,395 (Meta)
I have generally heard people refer to our health care (and brewing) industries as free market or capitalistic because private individuals or businesses compete to provide consumers with a product or service. You can choose which beer to buy, choose a medical provider, choose which doctor you want to treat you for cirrhosis of the liver, etc.
> I would define "free market" as an economy where everything except fraud and force are permitted. As long as there's no fraud or use of force, anyone can do, buy, make, or sell anything they like.
How is this definition even useful then? Is there a business or industry in the US which this even applies to?
Meta replied with this 13 years ago, 44 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,404
@previous (G)
Sadly no, but we should strive to get as close to the ideal as possible. Regulations about what you can sell, where and when you can sell it, and all the taxes and licenses required distort the market and drive prices up.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 59 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,410
@previous (Meta) > Sadly no, but we should strive to get as close to the ideal as possible.
The going criticism is that "the ideal" of unregulated markets often leads to monopolistic business practices rather than anything resembling consumer control. In practice this seems to play out. (see: Early American history, Trust busting, etc.) The masses of consumers, as consumers, don't unite to act in their best interest. They just do what costs them the least. (see: Walmart) They don't "do all the research and buy accordingly". They don't "vote with their dollar".(see: US trade deficit: China) If so-and-so can offer them a deal now, they'll take it. (see: Housing market circa 2008) If they did organize somehow into "buying blocs" to negotiate and lobby for prices to be reduced, then you'd probably be outraged and label it socialism. (see: How American health care plans work) The reality is that the consumers try to change monopolistic practices via democratic government.
That is, a democratically elected government (as the voice of the people) should not be construed as some evil "state" to be dismissed in your fantasies about how the wild west was a paragon of economic idealism. Really, grow up.
> Regulations about what you can sell, where and when you can sell it, and all the taxes and licenses required distort the market and drive prices up.
Well, that's usually the idea of regulation. Can I sell these dangerous weapons to children? No? Why? Oh, because everyone in my area got together and decided that was a bad idea. Super. Can I sell alcohol to these kids? No? Why not? How did that law get enacted? Oh yeah, by vote of the fucking people.
Same with taxation. If you can afford to enjoy a beer, then you can afford to pay for police services to keep the homeless from sleeping on your lawn. If you can afford a home, then you can afford to pay for access to your place of employment via public roads. If you can afford a yacht, then you can generally rely on people to come put it out if it's on fire rather then hire someone to sit and watch it all the time for you and have people sue you for damages because your yacht caught theirs on fire.
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 5 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,433
@451,360 (decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj)
Free markets aren't lorded over by giant insurance and pharmaceutical companies with politicians and doctors in their pockets.
Anonymous K double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,454
> That is, a democratically elected government (as the voice of the people) should not be construed as some evil "state" to be dismissed in your fantasies about how the wild west was a paragon of economic idealism. Really, grow up.
The state IS evil though. It's an evil built on involuntary obligations without prior agreement. The sovereign owe no obligation without agreement, which is precisely why the successful state is nothing more than coercive. So I ask you, is coercion wrong?
If no, then why do you have a problem when corporations do it, but not when 51% of the retards in any given country give their blessing?
If yes, then kindly shut the hell up as you're intellectually dishonest and inconsistent.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,456
shut the fuck up mountainman
decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj replied with this 13 years ago, 30 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,467
@451,454 (K)
All power imbalance is wrong, even if achieved through your fantasy of a free market. Hierarchy is oppression.
Anonymous K replied with this 13 years ago, 15 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,471
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj)
And here we have another retard.
If a person voluntarily submits to some other person or authority, your insistence that hierarchy is "oppression" actually becomes a vector of oppression. You are now depriving willing persons of the joys of true voluntary informed submission, simply because their choices conflict with your personal agenda. You're the oppressor in that instance, not the hierarchy.
And another thing. I doubt you really mean to say "ALL power imbalance is wrong." Really. You may as well commit yourself to the loony bin right now if you actually believe this. I mean, what about the power humans have over animals? What are we going to do about the fucking SUN!
(Edited 1 minute later.)
decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj replied with this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,476
@previous (K)
Any sociological power imbalance within the realm of sentient, sapient, self-aware beings, yes.
Also, you don't really get "voluntary, informed submission" in our society, outside of very small interpersonal contexts. It's most often something born in to whether you like it or not.
Anonymous K replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,489
> Any sociological power imbalance within the realm of sentient, sapient, self-aware beings, yes.
Even if it's agreed to? I've already made it clear I'm speaking on non-coercive situations only.
> Also, you don't really get "voluntary, informed submission" in our society, outside of very small interpersonal contexts. It's most often something born in to whether you like it or not.
Oh I get it, to justify your oppressive ways you're just going to pretend the instances where you're wrong doesn't even exist. Smooth.
I guess in your mind, since we're born into oppressive coercive systems it's fine for the state to create them at will while hiding behind the curtain of democracy.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,490
Just make ids mandatory already for everyone. Problem solved.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,491
this is why in most EUROPEAN countries if you can not afford an ID you get one for free, tee-hee!
Meta replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,510
> All power imbalance is wrong, even if achieved through your fantasy of a free market. Hierarchy is oppression.
But not government power or government hierarchy?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#451,511
shut the fuck up mountainman
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#451,526
@451,396 (Meta)
Oh Meta, you always know just what to say to me. :3
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 7 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#451,570
@451,454 (K)
I might believe this if I were a crazy hermit living on a desert island. But I'm not, and I don't.
Meta replied with this 13 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#451,572
@451,410 (G) > > Sadly no, but we should strive to get as close to the ideal as possible. > The going criticism is that "the ideal" of unregulated markets often leads to monopolistic business practices rather than anything resembling consumer control. In practice this seems to play out. (see: Early American history, Trust busting, etc.) The masses of consumers, as consumers, don't unite to act in their best interest. They just do what costs them the least. (see: Walmart) They don't "do all the research and buy accordingly". They don't "vote with their dollar".(see: US trade deficit: China) If so-and-so can offer them a deal now, they'll take it. (see: Housing market circa 2008) If they did organize somehow into "buying blocs" to negotiate and lobby for prices to be reduced, then you'd probably be outraged and label it socialism. (see: How American health care plans work) The reality is that the consumers try to change monopolistic practices via democratic government.
What's more monopolistic than the government running everything? Yeah you're right, the housing bubble had NOTHING to do with the federal government interfering with the housing market (Fannie and Freddie? Who are they??) it was evil robber baron capitalists chomping cigars in shady backroom deals. Also the federal government had NOTHING to do with the current healthcare mess. It's not like they encouraged employers to offer health insurance (and thus tie it to employment) by fixing wages or anything. > That is, a democratically elected government (as the voice of the people) should not be construed as some evil "state" to be dismissed in your fantasies about how the wild west was a paragon of economic idealism. Really, grow up.
So people can be trusted to vote wisely and elect a fair and just government, but can't be trusted to spend their dollars wisely? Are you fucking serious? > Well, that's usually the idea of regulation. Can I sell these dangerous weapons to children? No? Why? Oh, because everyone in my area got together and decided that was a bad idea. Super. Can I sell alcohol to these kids? No? Why not? How did that law get enacted? Oh yeah, by vote of the fucking people.
You're right. We as a community got together and decided fags can't get married and you should do a few years in jail for having a joint. > Same with taxation. If you can afford to enjoy a beer, then you can afford to pay for police services to keep the homeless from sleeping on your lawn. If you can afford a home, then you can afford to pay for access to your place of employment via public roads. If you can afford a yacht, then you can generally rely on people to come put it out if it's on fire rather then hire someone to sit and watch it all the time for you and have people sue you for damages because your yacht caught theirs on fire.
Democrat values: we love the poor but for god's sake keep them away from our homes.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 41 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#451,576
@previous (Meta) > What's more monopolistic than the government running everything?
The government doesn't run everything. Calm down. I'm just annoyed that you seem to only be able to argue along a spectrum that runs from completely free markets to state controlled everything with nothing in between.
> it was evil robber baron capitalists chomping cigars in shady backroom deals.
I never said anything like this. If you have to resort to this using this sort of caricature to straw man your way to making a point, then take a few deep breaths.
If you want to think that democratically elected governments are evil coercion like anon K, then we probably don't have anything to discuss, honestly. Please go your way thinking of the rest of society as a burden on your freedoms, and we'll agree to disagree. Democratically elected governments aren't perfect -as you point out- but they seem to be the closest thing we can get to giving everyone who gives enough of a shit to vote some say in the process. I'm not happy about drug laws or the weird interest in stopping gay marriage either, but I'm willing to realize that everyone doesn't actually see things my way and, as a member of society, should probably get some say in the process too. (Even if I don't approve) I may not like it, but I'll try not to whine like a child when I'm in the minority.
> Democrat values
Really? Party politics? Not biting here, sorry. I ain't even a democrat.
Anonymous K replied with this 13 years ago, 2 days later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#451,934
@451,570 (G)
So you're choosing beliefs based on whether or not they'll support your institutionally programmed identity as opposed to thoughtful rational analysis? Classy.
Ayn Rand would be so disappoint.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 5 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#451,958
@previous (K)
Come up with political theory that doesn't ignore reality when it becomes inconvenient. Thanks.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 48 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#451,965
It'll also disenfranchise women who've had name changes due to marriage.
Meta replied with this 13 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#451,966
@previous (squeegee)
It's a quiet way to undo female suffrage.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Triptych !IupsXZPnnU replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#451,968
IDs are surprisingly expensive. A passport is $120. A non-drivers ID is $35 and requires a birth certificate, also $35.
Anonymous K replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#452,021
@451,958 (G)
I'm not the one ignoring reality here. The state requires a monopoly on information and the legitimate use of violence as a means to coerce people into waiving their right to non-participation. It is the political reality at the moment, as predicted by Orwell and other astute political observers, not simply a theory.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 10 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#452,060
@previous (K) > I'm not the one ignoring reality here.
Ummm... yep. You are. I'm not the one writing off the rest of society because I haven't signed a contract with them. (BTW, Who would enforce that contract? The extra-dimensional government who appears only to enforce contracts when you cry about it? The full-time volunteer lawyers who think taxes are theft but sit up nights "on-call" to respond to contract disputes when you want them to show up? I seriously think you would perish a world that didn't offer you services.)