taks
-
Posts
1960 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by taks
-
-
This is a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black.
excuse me? explain in words that even a simpleton can understand how my statement would be hypocritical?
CEOs are worth what the market will pay. no more, no less. seriously, awesomeness, look up the law of supply and demand*. there is ONE way to satisfy demand in the face of limited supply.
taks
*i understand you aren't old enough to have had any real experience with economics, either in schoolwork or real life, but if you are going to debate adult topics, you should be expected to have the minimum understanding of the basics these topics require. the law of supply and demand is fundamental to why things cost what they cost and why salaries are what they are.
-
So you don't think that freeing up 7% of your GDP would be kind of handy?
you're joking, right? do you actually think that going to a public health care system will cut our health care costs (7% is nearly half)? ah, walsh... i am saddened.
taks
-
My main point as a paraphrased earlier is to balance liberty and equality.
when it's all said and done, this is the fundamental problem with your argument. you believe in equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. there is no "balance between libery and equality." the equality of opportunity is liberty, the equality of outcome is tyranny.
taks
-
Yet more money is being printed and no more is being paid out.
...
The democrats had to scramble to get minimum wage up a measly little bit. My name is Theseus Tak. Lets keep this civil please. I know you feel big behind your keyboard, but please come down from your tower when speaking to me if you ever want me, or anyone for that matter to listen to what you are saying.
really? i think you need to take some courses in economics. you clearly do not understand how it works. the current method of simply printing money when necessary does not work, but it is socialist, not capitalist. all printing money does is devalue the existing money. simple concept. increasing the minimum wage did the same thing and resulted in fewer jobs. yeah, the people that had minimum wage jobs got a raise, if they didn't lose their job. but all those out of a job... what about them?
sorry, but socialists are wrong, period. basic, fundamental ideas escape believers. your first few points are ample evidence supporting my hypothesis. if you at least understood the basic concepts i'd be forgiving, but you do not.
Yes i do believe health care is expensive when it is the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States.that was a question you obviously did not understand. the best hint I could offer is that places with universal health care may not pay out of pocket, but they pay.
I Do not believe CEO's are worth millions of dollars a year.oh, you are now the arbiter of demand. such arrogance. bet you think YOU can do their job, too. d'ya think you can do my job, too?
People are getting cheated when an excessive amount of money is being siphoned to one person at the top of the ladder.CEOs make only a very tiny percentage of a company's total income. even if all CEOs' salaries were reduced to zero, that would be a gain of only a few dollars per year for each employee. sigh... math aint your strong suit, either, is it?
Nobody is worth 40X more in monetary value to a common working man. If this trend occurs where the rich keep getting richer our way of life as we know it will be destroyed.if you get your way and the state gets to decide what value a person's labor is, yes, life as we know it will be destroyed. hint: the LAW of supply and demand.
health care for all as i said is a way to disperse that money.ah, there's the meat of your argument. you socialists think that there's only so much pie to go around and it should be spread out. you don't seem to understand the very real concept of the creation of wealth. socialism destroys wealth. if everyone becomes more wealthy, who cares if some are richer than others? i know who: those that are jealous of those that produce more and have more - that would be you. that's what it is all about: YOUR GREED!
My main point as a paraphrased earlier is to balance liberty and equality.yeah, you believe in liberty: i make too much therefore i have to give to you.
Sure things get messy when we let a government run public schools but much goodness has come from it. And it helps us maintain a higher level of living then otherwise. I believe A national public health care option would also help the united states also.what evidence do you have of that? hint: none.
a national public health care option will destroy our economy, period.
taks
-
if there was no "system," there'd be nothing to game - we'd all get paid what the market would bear. too obvious, i guess.
taks
-
no, i simply misspelled it, too. hoard is the word - given the statement that followed, i can't understand how anybody could think i confused its meaning.
taks
-
"Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides,"
stranger? methinks their work is cut out for them.
taks
-
yeah, i agree, though i watched it anyway for... not sure why. bored that night, i guess.
taks
-
Money is rapidly finding its way quicker to the rich then ever before. There needs to be a balance of equality in the united states if the rich are going to keep hording all the monopoly money.
they are the ones that pay people, einstein.
people are getting screwed fatally from private insurance companies, and health insurance is double the price then many other countries, where people live longer healthier lives.sigh... the same old tired correlation equals causation argument. do yourself a favor and study up on some basic statistics. longevity has nothing to do with our "health insurance." perhaps if the government would get out of the game and allow competition among insurance companies, we'd have cheaper rates (as well as cheaper overall healthcare). i mean, it works in every other sector. sheesh. also, given that the US is also the closest thing to a free market, there's a fair amount of support coming from our pockets for the rest of the world.
and, for the record, do you really think our healthcare is more expensive? silly web idiot.
sigh i feel like everyone knows this information and we just are set in our ideas.because mental lightweights such as you still have a vote.
The selfish will remain so and the others will struggle.is it selfish to want to keep what you earn? maybe you're just jealous. so, tell me again, who is being greedy?
taks
edit: for the record, the word is hoarde. and nobody is hoarding anything - they simply keep what they earn because it is their right to do so. the practice is called individual rights. look up the phrase and try your best to understand what exactly it means.
-
that's why there is alcohol.
taks
-
...And why is it evil for one person to make more than another?
because it pisses off those that aren't as smart or as athletic or as good looking as those that make money. envy, jealousy, same thing.
taks
-
smart people would understand that such a thing is not possible - utopia is an ideal that cannot be met in reality. i spelled it out and you still didn't get it.
is your ignorance willful (intellectual dishonesty) are are you really that dumb?
taks
-
he's talking about a utopia in which every demand is equally met with supply. where everyone naturally has everything they want, which also coincides exactly with what they need. i want a leer jet. why can't i have one?
i was right, you aren't that bright.
taks
-
You don't expect your health insurance to pay for your blood transfusions?
hehe... no, silly.
an oil change is part of normal maintenance for vehicle upkeep. so is replacing your windshield wipers, buying new tires when they wear out, etc. insurance is for the catastrophic things, like the kinds of things that result large damages that people don't want to pay out of pocket. insurance is betting against catastrophy, not an expectation of every expense being taken care of. yet, for some reason, everyone thinks we have "health insurance." sure, we expect to be guarded against the big expenses, but somehow that's transitioned into day to day maintenance, e.g., an annual checkup (an oil change). we don't have "health insurance," we have third party payers for our medical bills.
taks
edit: i should add, that's what we had years ago. people paid out of pocket for things that they could afford. insurance was only for the big ticket whammies. now that third parties pay the bill for just about everything, nobody shops around for the best buy, best doctor, or best anything. and somehow those that wear nice shoes think we have free market health care. hehe...
-
if government did not interfere with business... those lobbies, and the money they spend, would have no reason to exist. everybody is always willing to ignore the obvious it would seem, and oddly enough, that's exactly what those in power want. why? because it gives them more power over our lives.
taks
edit: i should add, btw, that auto insurance is true insurance, e.g., we don't expect them to pay for our oil changes.
-
i'm looking at a used jetta (diesel version). my daily commute might soon jump to just under 100 miles (roundtrip), and an xterra ain't the sort of vehicle you want to do that in. the diesel jetta gets 45+ mpg on the highway. insanity!
taks
-
i'm guessing *oink* that i don't need it.
taks
-
I know it's used in many other places and it works fine.
depends upon what you call "fine." any and all socialized health care systems require that care be rationed, hence waiting lines. plus, when the incentive to become a doctor no longer includes high pay, the quality of care will be reduced. yeah, argue about doctors that do it simply because they want to help people all you (rhetorical use here) want, but when i'm lying on the operating table with a brain tumor, i don't want a compassionate doctor, i want the brilliant doctor that's the best in the world and didn't go into international banking because brain surgeons don't make a fortune anymore. the incentive of high pay attracts the best and the brightest.
taks
-
btw, i should add the european literature apparently discusses a "post viral cough" that is known to linger after a flu/cold but there's no real supportive evidence (only anecdotal) i guess. supposedly it simply goes away with time. yay.
taks
-
oink.
IF i had it three weeks ago, it wasn't that bad but it wasn't good, either. i'm still suffering the lingering cough as a result. actually, i've had a lingering cough since march from my last flu bout (probably the worst i've had in 20 years). i can tell it's still the illness and not just the original lingering cough, however, since it feels a bit different than it did prior to catching whatever it was 3 weeks ago (it is very slowly getting better).
one of my pool teammates has the same lingering cough which he caught around the end of february. his doc is treating him the same was as mine is treating me (more than one has looked at my case, btw). in other words, they have no idea what's wrong so they're running us both through all the same treatments hoping one of them hits paydirt. one of the treatmens is simply suppression through the use of codeine, but i don't like codeine, and most other cough medicines don't really work (dextromethorphan sort of works, but it hurts my stomach so i can't use it daily).
oh well... i don't want to go back to the doctor until i'm sure this latest flu/cold thingy is gone so it'll be another week or two before they try a different approach. not sure what's next.
taks
-
saw the last half of breach tonight. it's the story of robert hanssen, the FBI spy busted in 2001. good acting, and obviously the story followed actual events rather closely so i can't dig it for that. it was a little slow, but more to the story than i had originally known. turns out that eric o'neill, the guy responsible for bringing hanssen down, was a theta xi from auburn.
taks
-
oh... wait. i forgot. krezack saw a couple of michael moore films. that and he stayed in a holiday in express somewere once. therefore he clearly should be recognized on all things US.
taks
-
does that mean they're already circling the corrall waiting for your dead corpse to drop and sit still for a minute or two?
taks
-
obviously... because you've spent so much time here.
taks
Americans set to get standardised/universal healthcare
in Way Off-Topic
Posted · Edited by taks
a) my nick is taks, get it right.
b) um, yes, it is tyrannical especially if it is through consent of the people. tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. that's why we are a republic because pure democracy is tyrannical.
suit yourself. basic disproved ideas is what they are. such concepts can only work in an ideal society in which people don't have free will (or very tiny societies in which there is more to do than people to do it).
yet you propose sacrificing my liberty for the sake of your happiness.
yeah, you have a right to steal from me? how does that square with liberty in any definition of the word?
also, as i have already noted, what we have is not "insurance" by any stretch, nor is it free market. we have a situation in which the insurance companies are propped up, regulated, and forced into partnerships with and by the government. there is no competition due to government interference. insurance companies lobby the government with massive amounts of money. yet here you are proposing that the very same government that is in bed with these so-called thieves be given total control over 17% of our economy. how insane are you? THE GOVERNMENT IS THE REASON THE SYSTEM SUCKS yet you and those like you are arguing they should be completely in charge! unbelievable.
sigh... you don't get it. this does not support your claim that our healthcare is more expensive here, it only supports the truth that we spend more on health care. we do - i did not argue this, so your graphic is a strawman. we also do nearly all of the research in the medical industry (particularly for drugs) which results in us paying the costs for everyone else.
socialist systems cannot afford the "true cost" of health care - socialized systems ration care to satisfy the law of supply and demand, period. hence, the total expenditures may go down, but by no means are they getting the same amount of care for their dollar. once the last bastion of even remotely free market health care goes under, we will see the effects throughout the world, and more importantly, here in the US.
taks