Here you go vision, Sorry your computer (or you) does not have search capacity
http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.ho ... e_plan.pdf
Lore, since you seem to lack the simplest economic skills
"all people in the world's wealthiest country have a right to health."
Well, we're no longer the wealthiest country in so many ways,
and repeatedly its been shown here people have no "right" to health. Their country (or an individual) may chose to utilize resources in a variety of ways to purchase health care. Until physicians, hospitals, pharm companies etc chose to work for nothing, health care will never be a "right". You suffer from little more than magical thinking.
Back to the title of the thread
PeakOil is You
Liberals flunk Econ 101
Re: Liberals flunk Econ 101
by Fishman » Fri 25 Oct 2013, 16:30:16
Last edited by Fishman on Fri 25 Oct 2013, 16:33:48, edited 1 time in total.
Obama, the FUBAR presidency gets scraped off the boot
-
Fishman - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2137
- Joined: Thu 11 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Carolina de Norte
Re: Liberals flunk Econ 101
by vision-master » Fri 25 Oct 2013, 16:33:13
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Fishman', 'H')ere you go vision, Sorry your computer (or you) does not have search capacity
http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.ho ... e_plan.pdf
Lore, since you seem to lack the simplest economic skills
"all people in the world's wealthiest country have a right to health."
Well, we're no longer the wealthiest country in so many ways,
and repeatedly its been shown here people have no "right" to health. Their country (or an individual) may chose to utilize resources in a variety of ways to purchase health care. Until physicians, hospitals, pharm companies etc chose to work for nothing, health care will never be a "right". You suffer from little more than magical thinking.
http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.ho ... e_plan.pdf
Lore, since you seem to lack the simplest economic skills
"all people in the world's wealthiest country have a right to health."
Well, we're no longer the wealthiest country in so many ways,
and repeatedly its been shown here people have no "right" to health. Their country (or an individual) may chose to utilize resources in a variety of ways to purchase health care. Until physicians, hospitals, pharm companies etc chose to work for nothing, health care will never be a "right". You suffer from little more than magical thinking.
But they already do fish head, thanks to Ronnie (R) - 1986 - EMTALA
- vision-master
Re: Liberals flunk Econ 101
by Fishman » Fri 25 Oct 2013, 16:40:06
"In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay"
Access does not equal right. It still has to be paid for, resources are still used, and hospitals still close due to this bill. If a "right" closes a hospital is your purpose served? Do you have no math skills at all?
http://projects.latimes.com/hospitals/emergency-rooms/
Access does not equal right. It still has to be paid for, resources are still used, and hospitals still close due to this bill. If a "right" closes a hospital is your purpose served? Do you have no math skills at all?
http://projects.latimes.com/hospitals/emergency-rooms/
Obama, the FUBAR presidency gets scraped off the boot
-
Fishman - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2137
- Joined: Thu 11 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Carolina de Norte
Re: Liberals flunk Econ 101
by vision-master » Fri 25 Oct 2013, 16:58:28
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Fishman', '&')quot;In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay"
Access does not equal right. It still has to be paid for, resources are still used, and hospitals still close due to this bill. If a "right" closes a hospital is your purpose served? Do you have no math skills at all?
http://projects.latimes.com/hospitals/emergency-rooms/
Access does not equal right. It still has to be paid for, resources are still used, and hospitals still close due to this bill. If a "right" closes a hospital is your purpose served? Do you have no math skills at all?
http://projects.latimes.com/hospitals/emergency-rooms/
So, instead of people taking personal responsibility, they go without insurance and just visit the ER if needed and let taxpayers foot the bill?
- vision-master
Re: Liberals flunk Econ 101
by SeaGypsy » Fri 25 Oct 2013, 17:16:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Fishman', 'H')ere you go vision, Sorry your computer (or you) does not have search capacity
http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.ho ... e_plan.pdf
Lore, since you seem to lack the simplest economic skills
"all people in the world's wealthiest country have a right to health."
Well, we're no longer the wealthiest country in so many ways,
and repeatedly its been shown here people have no "right" to health. Their country (or an individual) may chose to utilize resources in a variety of ways to purchase health care. Until physicians, hospitals, pharm companies etc chose to work for nothing, health care will never be a "right". You suffer from little more than magical thinking.
Back to the title of the thread
http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.ho ... e_plan.pdf
Lore, since you seem to lack the simplest economic skills
"all people in the world's wealthiest country have a right to health."
Well, we're no longer the wealthiest country in so many ways,
and repeatedly its been shown here people have no "right" to health. Their country (or an individual) may chose to utilize resources in a variety of ways to purchase health care. Until physicians, hospitals, pharm companies etc chose to work for nothing, health care will never be a "right". You suffer from little more than magical thinking.
Back to the title of the thread
It's as close to a 'right' here as we get, not having a 'bill of rights'. For those who can afford to it's an obligation- a 1.5% tax, up to the mandatory cap amount requiring private cover which goes from $2000-$5000 (average ball park). Mandatory workplace injury insurance. Nobody campaigned to get rid of Medicare in Australia for over 30 years. Contrary to popular US opinions- medicine mostly not rocket science.
- SeaGypsy
- Master Prognosticator
- Posts: 9285
- Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00
Re: Liberals flunk Econ 101
by Lore » Sat 26 Oct 2013, 16:20:39
Fishman, that is not very enlightened of you? Being a good North Carolinian, you should believe in the inalienable rights of mankind.
Oh, and by the way, we're still ranked around seventh wealthiest country on the planet.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-te ... s-map.html
You're right about one thing though.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]The U.S. Has The Worst Income Inequality In The Developed World, Thanks To Wall Street: Study
Hey, who says America is in decline? The U.S. is still more awesome than the rest of the world at making at least one thing. And that thing is income inequality.
A new paper by economists Facundo Alvaredo, Anthony B. Atkinson, Thomas Piketty, and Emmanuel Saez lays out just how much better at making inequality the U.S. is than everybody else and tries to explain how it got that way.
Since the 1970s, the top 1 percent of earners in the U.S. has roughly doubled its share of the total American income pie to nearly 20 percent from about 10 percent, according to the paper. This gain is easily the biggest among other developed countries, the researchers note.
So how did America get so darn great at ratcheting open the chasm between the haves and have-nots? Thank the dynamic duo of Wall Street and Washington, which have been working so well together for the past few decades to make laws that favor banks. Turns out this Axis Of Making It Rain has also been making laws that favor the exorbitantly wealthy. Win-win. Unless you are poor, in which case: Sorry, be born to richer parents next time, maybe?
One thing you'll notice in this chart is that, typically, the bigger the tax cuts given to the 1 percent (the horizontal scale on the chart), the bigger the income inequality. This is consistent with other studies that have shown the tax code has a big effect on income distribution. That's one way Washington has boosted inequality: By slashing taxes on the rich, for freedom and growth and trickling down on the poor. Unfortunately, the paper points out, contrary to what you will hear from conservatives, lower tax rates on the wealthy offer no obvious benefits to growth, or to the poor.
One other thing you'll notice from the chart is that the United Kingdom has slashed taxes on the top 1 percent almost as aggressively the U.S. has, and yet the share of income going to the top 1 percent is not nearly as big. So there's something else going on here besides just tax breaks.
That something is Wall Street, more or less, as Matthew O'Brien of The Atlantic points out. The same politicians that have busily been slashing taxes on the wealthy have also been loosening fetters on banking, allowing the financial sector to swell to bloated size and mop up ever-more income while contributing ever-less back to the economy. Again, this is consistent with other studies that have attributed much of the rise in in inequality to the pay being sucked up by bankers and overpaid CEOs.
At the same time, U.S. lawmakers have also made it easier and more tax-friendly for the wealthy to pile up more capital gains on their investments. As O'Brien puts it, "The top 1 percent leveraged itself to the market, and haven't looked back."
One nifty benefit to having nine metric craptons of money is that you can use it to buy politicians to help you craft the laws you like, particularly those that will help you end up with 10 metric craptons of money. The poor and middle class, meanwhile, just get ever more discouraged about the political system and stop bothering to fight it, increasingly turning the whole process over to the wealthy and the politicians they own, according to a recent paper by Frederick Solt at Southern Illinois University. Sound familiar?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/1 ... 62422.html
Oh, and by the way, we're still ranked around seventh wealthiest country on the planet.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-te ... s-map.html
You're right about one thing though.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]The U.S. Has The Worst Income Inequality In The Developed World, Thanks To Wall Street: Study
Hey, who says America is in decline? The U.S. is still more awesome than the rest of the world at making at least one thing. And that thing is income inequality.
A new paper by economists Facundo Alvaredo, Anthony B. Atkinson, Thomas Piketty, and Emmanuel Saez lays out just how much better at making inequality the U.S. is than everybody else and tries to explain how it got that way.
Since the 1970s, the top 1 percent of earners in the U.S. has roughly doubled its share of the total American income pie to nearly 20 percent from about 10 percent, according to the paper. This gain is easily the biggest among other developed countries, the researchers note.
So how did America get so darn great at ratcheting open the chasm between the haves and have-nots? Thank the dynamic duo of Wall Street and Washington, which have been working so well together for the past few decades to make laws that favor banks. Turns out this Axis Of Making It Rain has also been making laws that favor the exorbitantly wealthy. Win-win. Unless you are poor, in which case: Sorry, be born to richer parents next time, maybe?
One thing you'll notice in this chart is that, typically, the bigger the tax cuts given to the 1 percent (the horizontal scale on the chart), the bigger the income inequality. This is consistent with other studies that have shown the tax code has a big effect on income distribution. That's one way Washington has boosted inequality: By slashing taxes on the rich, for freedom and growth and trickling down on the poor. Unfortunately, the paper points out, contrary to what you will hear from conservatives, lower tax rates on the wealthy offer no obvious benefits to growth, or to the poor.
One other thing you'll notice from the chart is that the United Kingdom has slashed taxes on the top 1 percent almost as aggressively the U.S. has, and yet the share of income going to the top 1 percent is not nearly as big. So there's something else going on here besides just tax breaks.
That something is Wall Street, more or less, as Matthew O'Brien of The Atlantic points out. The same politicians that have busily been slashing taxes on the wealthy have also been loosening fetters on banking, allowing the financial sector to swell to bloated size and mop up ever-more income while contributing ever-less back to the economy. Again, this is consistent with other studies that have attributed much of the rise in in inequality to the pay being sucked up by bankers and overpaid CEOs.
At the same time, U.S. lawmakers have also made it easier and more tax-friendly for the wealthy to pile up more capital gains on their investments. As O'Brien puts it, "The top 1 percent leveraged itself to the market, and haven't looked back."
One nifty benefit to having nine metric craptons of money is that you can use it to buy politicians to help you craft the laws you like, particularly those that will help you end up with 10 metric craptons of money. The poor and middle class, meanwhile, just get ever more discouraged about the political system and stop bothering to fight it, increasingly turning the whole process over to the wealthy and the politicians they own, according to a recent paper by Frederick Solt at Southern Illinois University. Sound familiar?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/1 ... 62422.html
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
... Theodore Roosevelt
-
Lore - Fission
- Posts: 9021
- Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet
