Should people without health insurance, etc. be allowed to die?

[HeyYou]

Nope, not doing a damn thing, as I don't expect to survive it in any event. My sole source of income is SS Disability. (I have MS, with the job market as it is right now, I could be the most qualified individual on the planet, but, my health issues, and concerns, would require any potential employer to be bat guano crazy to hire me. :D I am unemployable, even in the best of conditions.) Back before bush, I had a good job, health insurance, a retirement plan, savings, the whole nine yards. All of that was wiped out by illness, and the company going belly up...... (I DO have veterans benefits though, so, at this point, health care isn't a concern, aside from dental....) You can not plan for every contingency. There will always be a surprise lurking out there for ya.

 

See, my whole issue is, its the government, and the free trade agreements, and tax breaks, that put us in such an untenable economic situation to begin with. (not to mention wall streets contribution to the fray). It is government policy that has a pretty heavy influence on employers willingness to hire, and where it hires them. In the free market economy, employers have zero motivation to hire folks in an area where there are actually worker protection laws in place, and folks actually care about the environment. (some are a bit overzealous on that score.....)

[Quetzlsacatanango]

Employers will hire people when it helps them make money to do so.

 

In the free market economy, employers have zero motivation to hire folks in an area where there are actually worker protection laws in place, and folks actually care about the environment. (some are a bit overzealous on that score.....)

If you're a business owner, would you jump through a bunch of hoops, pay more for labor, etc, just for the altruistic motive of bringing down the unemployment rate in an area that has gone out of their way to make it harder to do business there?

[HeyYou]

My point is, the government policy is such that employers are motivated to create jobs ANYWHERE ELSE BUT here. THAT is what the Free Market Economy has done for the US. I assign no altruistic motives to corporate america, as they most certainly do not have any.

 

Are you suggesting that we should do away with minimum wage? The Environmental Protection Agency? Remove all regulations on business? So that we can compete with the likes of China, and India? (and end up with the same environmental problems, and high mortality rates for workers......)

 

To put it more succinctly: America simply cannot compete in a free market economy. Not and maintain the standard of living we have been enjoying since the 50's....

Edited September 14, 2011 by HeyYou

[Quetzlsacatanango]

My point is, the government policy is such that employers are motivated to create jobs ANYWHERE ELSE BUT here. THAT is what the Free Market Economy has done for the US. I assign no altruistic motives to corporate america, as they most certainly do not have any.

 

Are you suggesting that we should do away with minimum wage? The Environmental Protection Agency? Remove all regulations on business? So that we can compete with the likes of China, and India? (and end up with the same environmental problems, and high mortality rates for workers......)

 

To put it more succinctly: America simply cannot compete in a free market economy. Not and maintain the standard of living we have been enjoying since the 50's....

If they can get the same or better product (human labor) elsewhere for a fraction of the cost, or course they're going to go elsewhere. You have to offer something that China can't offer. Is China so much greater than the US that we can't do that?

The answer may well be yes if all we have to offer is repetetive, low skill labor. I would like to think that the US is still innovative enough to where we can come up with more sophisticated jobs here and that offloading that mindless stuff to other countries is a good thing. But you may well be right if competing with China means we are trying to beat them at their own game. We should be playing our own game and let them have those dinosaur jobs.

 

 

To answer your questions:

I think the minimum wage drives up all prices. It pretty much doesn't matter whether it exists or not.

I think the EPA is pointless bureaucracy. The states can handle it themselves.

I think business is highly overregulated but I wouldn't remove them all. Monopolies and trusts should still be illegal, for example.

[marharth]

Not going to comment much, but is this seriously already a economic debate?

[HeyYou]

My point is, the government policy is such that employers are motivated to create jobs ANYWHERE ELSE BUT here. THAT is what the Free Market Economy has done for the US. I assign no altruistic motives to corporate america, as they most certainly do not have any.

 

Are you suggesting that we should do away with minimum wage? The Environmental Protection Agency? Remove all regulations on business? So that we can compete with the likes of China, and India? (and end up with the same environmental problems, and high mortality rates for workers......)

 

To put it more succinctly: America simply cannot compete in a free market economy. Not and maintain the standard of living we have been enjoying since the 50's....

If they can get the same or better product (human labor) elsewhere for a fraction of the cost, or course they're going to go elsewhere. You have to offer something that China can't offer. Is China so much greater than the US that we can't do that?

The answer may well be yes if all we have to offer is repetetive, low skill labor. I would like to think that the US is still innovative enough to where we can come up with more sophisticated jobs here and that offloading that mindless stuff to other countries is a good thing. But you may well be right if competing with China means we are trying to beat them at their own game. We should be playing our own game and let them have those dinosaur jobs.

 

 

To answer your questions:

I think the minimum wage drives up all prices. It pretty much doesn't matter whether it exists or not.

I think the EPA is pointless bureaucracy. The states can handle it themselves.

I think business is highly overregulated but I wouldn't remove them all. Monopolies and trusts should still be illegal, for example.

 

Bolded Part.

 

That's just is. The products are cheaper because labor is certainly cheaper, and materials are cheaper as well.

 

I have here in my home two pots. Both are Revereware. Both are the exact same style, same model, etc. One was made in the US, the other was made in china. The US made pot, is almost as old as I am, it is still in excellent condition, and is still in use. The china made version however...... which might be two years old..... the handles were cheap, and have broken off. The metal is cheap, not nearly as heavy or durable as the US made version, and over the course of time that is has been here, under normal use.... is now unuseable. It costs MORE than what the (inflation adjusted) US made version did, but, isn't nearly (anywhere in the ball park, or, even the city the ball park is in....) the quality of the US made pot.

 

And that is just one example. I could list dozens just from my own experience.

 

What? Off-topic? Oh... ooops. There I go again.

 

Maybe we should start another topic on Free market economy: Good or bad? :D

[Utyran]

For a moment though, let's forget about politics and whose money it is.

No GD because it would be my money.

 

What what kind of guileful question is "be allowed to die". Same kind of question like "does your mom still have sex with dogs". Doesn't matter if you say yes or no, its a catch question.

 

First, they wouldn't starve. First because there are food banks, because the western market throws 40% of its food directly into the dumpster( I don't support food banks because it cements a system of dependence.). Secoundly there are charitable Doctors which treat people for free, because the have the time and money which they made with their private patients. And if you such a angel who cares about the poor, help them by yourself. But don't just sit on your butt and support more taxation just because it makes you feel like a better person. There is no need for more socialism and goverment running redistribution. Healthcare is no right, healthcare is a service which someone must work for.

 

And my two cents about the public healthcare. I don't want that low standart "medicare" medikill services, because the doctors are way to much in stress, make more misteaks and treat you like crap. I want to be treatet like a customer! And wouldn't pay for people wich smoke, eating fast food crap every day and don't give a smile about their healthcare. And it would also mean, that i must pay two times for healthcare. First for the public with my taxmoney, which services i don't want. Secoundly for my private healthcare. So i have to pay twice which reduce my wealth and brings me nearer to the poore line.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Utyran

[marharth]

This is seriously ridiculous now.

 

"What do you mean people don't have food? There are dumpsters everywhere!"

 

There are seriously people who think that now days, and some people posting seem like they have the same view.

Edited September 14, 2011 by marharth

[draconix]

My point is, the government policy is such that employers are motivated to create jobs ANYWHERE ELSE BUT here. THAT is what the Free Market Economy has done for the US.

I think your definition of a free market economy is quite different than mine. The free market is a market free from government intervention, such as things like a minimum wage. I agree that our government's policies are what sends jobs overseas, but in a truly free market, there would be no incentive to send that money overseas. We haven't really had a free market in quite a long, long time.

[marharth]

My point is, the government policy is such that employers are motivated to create jobs ANYWHERE ELSE BUT here. THAT is what the Free Market Economy has done for the US.

I think your definition of a free market economy is quite different than mine. The free market is a market free from government intervention, such as things like a minimum wage. I agree that our government's policies are what sends jobs overseas, but in a truly free market, there would be no incentive to send that money overseas. We haven't really had a free market in quite a long, long time.

When we had a completely free market the country was nearly destroyed due to too much corporate power.