Flat Earthers and other regressions

[Annoyed]

How about you learn how to manage it through single payer government, like every other advanced nation?

How about you figure a way to have government run it without screwing it up? Just look at the VA healthcare system if you want an example of what the govt. will do to it.

[jelgate]

How about you take off your rose colored glasses about the 70s

[aretood2]

How about you figure a way to have government run it without screwing it up? Just look at the VA healthcare system if you want an example of what the govt. will do to it.

Why not get rid of the VA?

[magi877]

Why not get rid of the VA?

putting media hype and frenzy aside, the VA works pretty well. Not as well as the Military medical system when I was active duty, but they do ok.

the biggest problems i have seen over the last 15 yrs, is when the bureaucrats in the VA do a 'knee jerk' reaction to bad press

like "veterans are dying in line". actually, you cant just go to the VA when you get sick, you need to apply and get in the system before hand. there is no go to the head of the line because you were stupid and didn't listen to your SGT's before you got out and get signed up with the VA as soon as you got out. then wait till you are sick and say it's 'broken"?

and the opioid issue. first the va tended to overprescribe when the media was reporting on how so many vets were living without their pain needs addressed

so they got more liberal with the rx's

then it was 'vets are dying of narcotic overdoes. so then the va cranked back the levels of rx's.

they will now send people to acupuncture outside of the va, massage therapy (legit one's that is) and yoga

other than that, i have had no issues with the va. i also can use my insurance from my army retirement as well, so i got it pretty well covered.

[magi877]

the US has a employer based health insurance because of the issues of employment during ww2

the govt froze worker wages and companies had to come up with bennies- including health ins, to attract workers

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/u...insurance.html

the nations with govt pay/single payer are mostly those nations based on euro socialism

(not communism)

where the euro socialist govt's of today are in part, in existence, descend from the ancient feudalistic set up where the 'lord (government)' was responsible for the welfare and safety of his tenants

another way in which the seemingly progressive euro socialists are actually classically conservative. they are based around and grown up from, the people being dependent on the govt.

[Annoyed]

the US has a employer based health insurance because of the issues of employment during ww2

the govt froze worker wages and companies had to come up with bennies- including health ins, to attract workers

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/u...insurance.html

the nations with govt pay/single payer are mostly those nations based on euro socialism

(not communism)

where the euro socialist govt's of today are in part, in existence, descend from the ancient feudalistic set up where the 'lord (government)' was responsible for the welfare and safety of his tenants

another way in which the seemingly progressive euro socialists are actually classically conservative. they are based around and grown up from, the people being dependent on the govt.

The Employer based system worked quite well for many years, till about the mid to late eighties.

Insurance rates were determined by area averages, and as a result was affordable.
The the govt. "fixed things". They mandated so much crap that the insurance carriers in this area had to change to another much more expensive rate structure.

And I want the govt. to stick its nose in further? Umm.. No.

Since when have the "progressives" NOT been trying to progress in the wrong direction?

The US was created when the 13 colonies told England to go stuff itself and broke away to avoid that kind of thing in general.

People want to go back to it?

[DigiFluid]

where the euro socialist govt's of today are in part, in existence, descend from the ancient feudalistic set up where the 'lord (government)' was responsible for the welfare and safety of his tenants

That is really not the case. You could go region to region pointing out all the ways this is wrong, but a lot of it simply boils down to the fact that feudalism/serfdom was in every practical sense slavery, where illness and high mortality rates were expected, and compensated for (on a capital level) by the bottom classes having an extremely high birth rate to maintain the labour pool. What's that? You don't have enough surviving sons to keep working my land? Get off my land and get out of my sight, before I have my knights run you through with a spear.

Landed aristocracy had (and has) no interest in the welfare and safety of their subjects at all. Which is exactly why labour movements got rolling in the first place--to protect the working classes from the wealthy.

Unfortunately, for the last few decades, the wealthy have been winning the messaging war against unions and labour movements; those precious tools that people literally died for, in order to ensure the end of child labour, a 40 hour work week, paid time off, sick days, safe working conditions etc. Some of that ire is undoubtedly earned (I'm looking at you, auto unions), but as a society (particularly in North America) we seem to have collectively forgotten the importance of banding together to protect ourselves from the excesses of the rich.

[jelgate]

Our revolt against our British oppressors was a progressive action. So you contradicted yourself again. Bacon me Chaka

[Annoyed]

Our revolt against our British oppressors was a progressive action. So you contradicted yourself again. Bacon me Chaka

How many times do I have to tell you, child, you need to earn the bacon.

Yes, the revolution was progress in the right direction; towards more freedom. But most of the bilgewater the left is putting out such as their push to socialism, the stuff that is going on nowadays is definitely going the wrong way; towards less freedom.

I am not contradicting myself at all, the circumstances in each case are different.

PUT THAT BACON BACK!!

[Chaka-Z0]

What's that? You don't have enough surviving sons to keep working my land? Get off my land and get out of my sight, before I have my knights run you through with a spear.

Scenario two was all the men getting call to arms and getting slaughtered by the thousands equipped with pitchfork and leather cap against armored knights and men-at-arms.

So it's a gamble, could always go for scenario 2. Tough choice.

[Annoyed]

Unfortunately, for the last few decades, the wealthy have been winning the messaging war against unions and labour movements; those precious tools that people literally died for, in order to ensure the end of child labour, a 40 hour work week, paid time off, sick days, safe working conditions etc. Some of that ire is undoubtedly earned (I'm looking at you, auto unions), but as a society (particularly in North America) we seem to have collectively forgotten the importance of banding together to protect ourselves from the excesses of the rich.

I actually have nothing against unions IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, as long as the government doesn't bail them out. My opposition to unions is for public sector unions, because there is no competition for their product; you can't go elsewhere to buy it if their union is too greedy.

And yes, the UAW is the perfect poster child for excess union greed.

The UAW strangled their employers with outrageous contract demands, and management was stupid enough to sign off on them. This resulted in GM, Chrysler being unable to compete in the marketplace; their products were too expensive and of too low quality.

So here is where I have the problem. GM & Chrysler should not have been bailed out by the government. (in fact, Chrysler was bailed out twice, once in 1979, too.) They should have been allowed to fail. Someone would have bought the smoking remains, threw out the union contracts that were in place and re-started the plants with more reasonable wage / benefit structures that would allow them to compete in the marketplace.

THAT is the "control" for union greed; if they get too greedy, they kill the golden goose and lose their jobs. By providing the bailout, the government short-circuited that control mechanism.

As far as public sector goes, they shouldn't be unionized at all; should not be allowed to do so. If GM's unions drive the cost of a Chevy too high, folks can always go buy a Ford or a Toyota. That is the brake on union demands I spoke of earlier.

Since their is no alternative company I can buy govt. from, that control or brake on union greed doesn't exist.

[Chaka-Z0]

Specifically which demand(s) from the unions did you find outrageous or excessive and why?

[Annoyed]

Specifically which demand(s) from the unions did you find outrageous or excessive and why?

The cost of their wage & benefit packages was crippling to the company. Hell, the guy pushing the broom on the shop floor was making 85 bucks an hour in wages and benefits. That's absurd. GM was spending so much on employee compensation that they couldn't afford to build quality products.

If you recall, during the debates and negotiation to get Obamacare passed, they had to carve out special exemptions for the auto unions because their benefits were so generous they qualified for a surcharge of some sort as a "cadillac health plan" tax that Obamacare levied on workers with good employer provided benefits. The big unions wouldn't sign on to Obamacare unless they were specifically exempted from that surcharge.

And I actually had no problem with their deals specifically. It is the union's job to get the best deal it can.
But there has to be a check on their greed.

If the union made demands that would drive the company bankrupt, that's none of my business. The company would have declared bankruptcy and re-organized, divesting itself of those absurd contracts or gone out of business, closing down all those plants, tossing the entire lot of the unionized workers out of work. That would have been the union's fault, along with the management who signed off on those deals. But it's a business, and people who run businesses have the right to be stupid. But in the end, it would have been a self-correcting problem; either new management who imposes new labor contracts, or GM goes the way of the dinosaur. I can still go buy another brand car or truck.

But in bailing out GM & Chrysler, the govt. nullified that self-correction mechanism, absolving both the unions and management of paying the cost for their greed and stupidity. That is just wrong.

Be it business or personal, if you make stupid choices, you should expect to pay the consequences, not have the taxpayers pick up the tab for you.

[Chaka-Z0]

GM's downfall was much more than union problems. The management of the company itself is what caused GM to fail.

1- they didn't respond when the Japanese invaded the market in the 80s

2- big corps like GM usually do more money from finance than actual sales, they sat on their ass while the market evolved and changed a lot in the 90s

3- and last two critical mistake, they rushed in the pickup/SUV "goldrush" of the 90s and neglected cars and expended into Europe prematurely when GM acquired Saab

[jelgate]

You got proof to back that up?