• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Walmart workers demand better wages

What is a democratic economy?

An economy where those who have to live with the results of a decision ahve a say in the decision ... For example, changing corporate law so that the executives and board are responsible to not only shareholders but also stakeholders would be democratizing the economy, taking important industries that people rely on and making them public institutions subject to democratic accountability is another thing, cooperatives are democratic and so on and so forth.
 
And the US has been runnign deficits too ... the problem came from.

1. Goldman Sachs basically using Greece as a toxic asset dumping ground.
2. joining the EU, which it had no buisiness doing.
3. Failing to collect taxes.

Greece's public debt is nearly double the U.S.'s when you consider the debt to GDP ratio. And we never covered it up.

Greece paid Goldman to cover up their debt that they had be running for 30 years, because they knew if anyone knew what their debt actually was, no one would lend them any money and their economy would go through the tank. And when we found out in 2010, that is EXACTLY what happened.
 
An economy where those who have to live with the results of a decision ahve a say in the decision ... For example, changing corporate law so that the executives and board are responsible to not only shareholders but also stakeholders would be democratizing the economy, taking important industries that people rely on and making them public institutions subject to democratic accountability is another thing, cooperatives are democratic and so on and so forth.

I have a definite say in who I buy from and who I'll work for. That's about all the power I am entitled to and should be entitled to.
 
Greece's public debt is nearly double the U.S.'s when you consider the debt to GDP ratio. And we never covered it up.

Greece paid Goldman to cover up their debt that they had be running for 30 years, because they knew if anyone knew what their debt actually was, no one would lend them any money and their economy would go through the tank. And when we found out in 2010, that is EXACTLY what happened.

It is now, but that was after Goldman sachs basically raided the country and the EU kept giving them loans.

You're right Goldman covered up their debt, but they also took hold of their finances and used the country as a dumbing ground for toxic assets.

I have a definite say in who I buy from and who I'll work for. That's about all the power I am entitled to and should be entitled to.

That's your opinion, I say if you have to live with the decisions a CEO makes that you work for, and who's salery partially comes from your work, you should have a say in those decisions ... but I suppose your cool beinb a subject.
 
Good luck with that, I'm suggesting a single payer system.

Also how could you eliminate health insurance without government intervention? Btw ... you have that option now, just don't buy health insurance.

Actually, the number of doctors this year who practice without accepting health insurance is up 30%, many doctors can charge like $50-65 a month for unlimited visits and at least 30 minutes of care a visit. The patients get better care at a much lower cost, and far less likely to be admitted to the emergency room. It costs over $80,000 a year per doctor to deal with health insurance companies. Health insurance companies are just a middle man that is just asking to be cut out of the picture.

And we had that option, except the Democrats over here are in bed with the insurance companies, and made it a law that everyone has to have health insurance if they can afford it, which has got to be the biggest gift of corporate welfare I have ever seen.

The other thing I'd like to see changed, is that civil suit cases involving medical "malpractice" HAS to have a jury of experts in medical malpractice. Its ridiculous that medical malpractice insurance in Florida can run up to $56,000. If a doctor is drunk on the job, I understand, but just because there is an unforeseen complication doesn't mean that the doctor owes you a payday. This whole jury of your peers thing isn't working for civil court cases, too often our civil courts are huge mediums for claims fraud.
 
Actually, the number of doctors this year who practice without accepting health insurance is up 30%, many doctors can charge like $50-65 a month for unlimited visits and at least 30 minutes of care a visit. The patients get better care at a much lower cost, and far less likely to be admitted to the emergency room. It costs over $80,000 a year per doctor to deal with health insurance companies. Health insurance companies are just a middle man that is just asking to be cut out of the picture.

And we had that option, except the Democrats over here are in bed with the insurance companies, and made it a law that everyone has to have health insurance if they can afford it, which has got to be the biggest gift of corporate welfare I have ever seen.

The other thing I'd like to see changed, is that civil suit cases involving medical "malpractice" HAS to have a jury of experts in medical malpractice. Its ridiculous that medical malpractice insurance in Florida can run up to $56,000. If a doctor is drunk on the job, I understand, but just because there is an unforeseen complication doesn't mean that the doctor owes you a payday. This whole jury of your peers thing isn't working for civil court cases, too often our civil courts are huge mediums for claims fraud.

I agree about the Democrats... Also Obamacare was a republican idea, pushed by the heratige foundation and Gingrich early on. Anyway, Before obamacare you still had a problem with cost ... also some doctars just charging wihtout using insurance doesn't take care of more costly procedures, like cancer treatment and so on.

But either way ... Single payer is PROVEN to work, no country with single payer ever even has people thinking of going back to a private for profit system ... But many of them also have private providers ... and I have no problem with that, but the insurance should be a public not for profit service.
 
The US does not like the idea of a single payer system for 2 reasons IMHO. First, it pulls the blanket off the idea that we are a totally capitalist system, which we are far from being but like to deny; and Second, single-payer works because the government contains wage costs and medical unions and professional groups will never be willing supporters of that.
 
The US does not like the idea of a single payer system for 2 reasons IMHO. First, it pulls the blanket off the idea that we are a totally capitalist system, which we are far from being but like to deny; and Second, single-payer works because the government contains wage costs and medical unions and professional groups will never be willing supporters of that.

In a two tiered system, those who could afford more would be able to buy more (both insurance and service). But yes, we like to pretend, both that we're a capitalist system and that without help we could all get whatever we want.
 
It is now, but that was after Goldman sachs basically raided the country and the EU kept giving them loans.

You're right Goldman covered up their debt, but they also took hold of their finances and used the country as a dumbing ground for toxic assets.

Thats what happens when you play with fire.


That's your opinion, I say if you have to live with the decisions a CEO makes that you work for, and who's salery partially comes from your work, you should have a say in those decisions ... but I suppose your cool beinb a subject.

I do have a say in those decisions. I can say, "my value is more than that, so I will find other work." If I choose to continue to work there, then that is defined as a choice to go along with the decisions being made. And if they choose not to listen to what I have to say, then either I have not made myself valuable enough to have a say or it is up to me to hold myself to a higher standard and seek employment elsewhere.

I do not have to literally vote on my own salary to have a say in how I am paid.
 
In a two tiered system, those who could afford more would be able to buy more (both insurance and service). But yes, we like to pretend, both that we're a capitalist system and that without help we could all get whatever we want.

Capitalism wouldn't be protecting insurance agencies, which we seem so eager to do. Capitalism would recognize them as wasteful, and get rid of them. The current healthcare system is not the product of free markets or perfect competition by any means.
 
I agree about the Democrats... Also Obamacare was a republican idea, pushed by the heratige foundation and Gingrich early on. Anyway, Before obamacare you still had a problem with cost ... also some doctars just charging wihtout using insurance doesn't take care of more costly procedures, like cancer treatment and so on.
It was also rejected by the Republican Party as a whole. And I agree with them, it is corporate welfare to insurance companies, something Democrats are supposed to be "against."

Those procedures would be less costly without the wasteful spending on insurance companies and malpractice insurance. Plus, because primary care and pharmaceuticals can be provided at a cheaper rate without the insurance companies, those costly procedures would be a lot less neccesary.

But either way ... Single payer is PROVEN to work, no country with single payer ever even has people thinking of going back to a private for profit system ... But many of them also have private providers ... and I have no problem with that, but the insurance should be a public not for profit service.

It isn't the service that is costly, it is the excessive regulations, fraud, and expensive malpractice costs of the service that is driving up costs. Single payer isn't an awful idea in my opinion, its just not as good as having the doctors running the show.
 
The US does not like the idea of a single payer system for 2 reasons IMHO. First, it pulls the blanket off the idea that we are a totally capitalist system, which we are far from being but like to deny; and Second, single-payer works because the government contains wage costs and medical unions and professional groups will never be willing supporters of that.

Lets imagine are a recently graduated doctor. You spent 8 years of your life locked in a closet studying 5-8 hours a day, to get into and through medical school, had to work 36 hour shifts for 2 years during your residency program, you have $250,000 in student debt, you see 20-30 patients a day and generally spend 3 times as much time filling out insurance forms as you do with face to face patient time, routinely are forced to deny your patents care because insurance companies don't want to pay up, and your medical malpractice insurance is over $30,000 a year. How would you feel about being labeled the problem in the system?
 
Well thats the definition ...


No, not really, you are way too vague to have any relevance with that sort of snarky answer...I am asking because when the argument is at its hight, those like you that think they know what they are talking about, tend to arrogantly tell those of us arguing against you that we don't understand what socialism is....So I asked. Not surprising that you gave an answer that in any philosophy class would earn you an "F" for uttering such a simplistic, and wrong answer.

Webster defines Socialism as:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
See socialism defined for English-language learners »
See socialism defined for kids »

Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

wiki says this....

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2]

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the Oxford dictionary defines it as:

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

1. Policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.

2. (in Marxist theory) A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

Definition of socialism - political doctrine, politics and political system (British & World English)

Now, in any of those three definitions that I laid out for you, do you see anything in there that is the movement of the hard leftists in the democrat party, and or Obama are aspiring for? I sure do if not all of it.
 
Lets imagine are a recently graduated doctor. You spent 8 years of your life locked in a closet studying 5-8 hours a day, to get into and through medical school, had to work 36 hour shifts for 2 years during your residency program, you have $250,000 in student debt, you see 20-30 patients a day and generally spend 3 times as much time filling out insurance forms as you do with face to face patient time, routinely are forced to deny your patents care because insurance companies don't want to pay up, and your medical malpractice insurance is over $30,000 a year. How would you feel about being labeled the problem in the system?

Perhaps you cannot imagine a single-payer system in which much of that out of pocket expense is shouldered by the system, therefore making your cost to get there and remain there significantly less. I can.
 
Perhaps you cannot imagine a single-payer system in which much of that out of pocket expense is shouldered by the system, therefore making your cost to get there and remain there significantly less. I can.

Its not a matter of imagination, its a matter of who you are scapegoating.
 
Its not a matter of imagination, its a matter of who you are scapegoating.

Free college tuition and a living stipend could be magnets for those willing to go to medical school but do not want to be stridled down with debt. Just because you are not one of them, does not mean it would not work with others. Tuition reimbursements are a big tool in getting people to do public jobs already like law and education. Not everyone is in it just for a fat paycheck.
 
Capitalism wouldn't be protecting insurance agencies, which we seem so eager to do. Capitalism would recognize them as wasteful, and get rid of them. The current healthcare system is not the product of free markets or perfect competition by any means.

Insurance companies came abut in response to a problem. Without them, many would not be able to afford a lot of healthcare. The myth that everything would become affordable with them is just that, a myth.
 
Insurance companies came abut in response to a problem. Without them, many would not be able to afford a lot of healthcare. The myth that everything would become affordable with them is just that, a myth.

"The claim that HMO's are more 'efficient' than the fee-for-service (FFS) plans they replaced is typically based on one of two research errors," said Sullivan. "Either the study didn't take into account higher HMO administrative costs, and only looked at cuts in hospital or doctor care, or it didn't take into account factors like cherry-picking healthier patients or cost-shifting to other payers as an explanation for lower premiums."

Claim That HMO's Save Money Is Little More Than "Folklore," Health Affairs Study Finds | Physicians for a National Health Program
 
Free college tuition and a living stipend could be magnets for those willing to go to medical school but do not want to be stridled down with debt. Just because you are not one of them, does not mean it would not work with others. Tuition reimbursements are a big tool in getting people to do public jobs already like law and education. Not everyone is in it just for a fat paycheck.

I think you are also assuming that individuals who do not want to work government jobs are just being greedy.
 
I think you are also assuming that individuals who do not want to work government jobs are just being greedy.

No. I don't work for the government anymore because I am too lazy to do 8:30-5:30 5 days a week. :) If labor costs are not controlled, then healthcare prices are not going to be controlled. That is just the reality.
 
Free college tuition and a living stipend could be magnets for those willing to go to medical school but do not want to be stridled down with debt. Just because you are not one of them, does not mean it would not work with others. Tuition reimbursements are a big tool in getting people to do public jobs already like law and education. Not everyone is in it just for a fat paycheck.

But let me ask you a question. If you were being told that your pay check should be cut by 30% to control costs of whatever, would you just go with it?
 
No. I don't work for the government anymore because I am too lazy to do 8:30-5:30 5 days a week. :) If labor costs are not controlled, then healthcare prices are not going to be controlled. That is just the reality.

Regulation, fraud, overconsumption and malpractice costs are a far bigger and more immediate problem.
 
But let me ask you a question. If you were being told that your pay check should be cut by 30% to control costs of whatever, would you just go with it?

It depends on how much I was making. I am self-employed these days via a few different enterprises. In my worldview, labor is the most significant cost that is malleable. I would prefer doctors make less rather than we start running needles through the dishwasher, because that has not worked out so well for places like China. It is not always a matter of cutting what someone today makes. It is a matter of time--having pay scales and not allowing the next generation to shoulder as much of the burden in exchange for lower wages over their career.
 
Regulation, fraud, overconsumption and malpractice costs are a far bigger and more immediate problem.

How are you going to control the latter three without more of the first one?
 
Back
Top Bottom