Our government is BY the people and FOR the people and OF the people.
Hmmm that sounds suspiciously like some type of democracy.
So are Republicans now openly terrorists?
by Simon 369 Replies latest social current
-
-
Farkel
: Hmmm that sounds suspiciously like some type of democracy.
Your idiocy has no bounds. If you don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic, you are a lot more stupid than just stupid.
Read the United States Constitution (you've heard of that, right?) and tell us where in that document the word "democracy" appears. Or try Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence and tell us where that word appears there.
Better yet, (although you are not very literate and certainly don't want to be) read the "Federalist (Papers)" and you will clearly see why our Founding Fathers unanimously REJECTED the idea of having our Government be a democracy.
Why I give pearls to your swine is beyond me, beks. You are certainly unworthy of them and certainly unworthy of learning anything that might benefit you. In otherwords, you are just, simply stupid and and lost. Mostly stupid, though.
Farkel
-
Berengaria
Farkel, realize that Simon said "democracy", not "Democracy". There is a difference. We practice democracy.
In the late 70's and 80's, the GOP talking heads began the campaign of scrubbing the notion that we were a democracy because it sounded too much like Democratic. Focus groups and messaging etc. Since then, we have endured the continual parroting of the "America is not a Democracy it's a Republic" talking point, as though it were the Holy Grail of enlightenment. That is ignorance as surely as is going from door to door as a JW.
Stick to JWism, it's really your only strong point.
-
Band on the Run
Farkel,
For someone noted for their WT expertise, you show little knowledge of the United States Constitution. Contrary to the Tea Party statements, the Const'n of the United States expressly provides for a representative democracy in a repuboican form of government. There is no conflict between the terms republic and democracy. It is posssible to have republics that are dictatorships. All manners of combination exist around the world.
The wackos believe that republic and democracy are inconsistent. Indeed, the Const'n expressly provides for elections for an executive and legislatiors. Supreme Court justices are nominated and confirmed. There is no direct dwmocracy as in a small town gathering for town hall meetings and residents casting one vote each for proposoals. We elect representatives. The Founders were suspicious of direct democracies and uneducated rabbles.
I am currently auditing a comparative politics class. It gets tired repeatiing the exact terms and language of the Const'n here. There is no debate concerning these provisions. I don't blame anyone for not knowing what is in our most basic document. We are not taught what is in the Const'n in primary school. Yet it is important for Americans to know their basic government and their rights and liberties against government tyranny.
Another myth is that we are a Christian nation. The Founders went out of their way to bar such a result. A republic is not a magic form of government. So much depends on an educated citizenry, aware of their government. Great Britain does well wtih a const'l monarchy. The United States was not the forerunner we were taught in school. 1776 happened a while ago. Most Western countries have democracies that function.
The best form of government for a country depends on the present circumstances. A parliamentary system would function well. Countries need stability, however. We can't choose which system fits today's needs. Overall, there should be a balance.
The GOP needs to stand up to the Tea Party. Our democracy is threatened far more by the tyranny of a minority than a lawfully enacted legislation program. The ballot is a certain way to delete legislation that you do not favor. Obamacare is no longer the central issue. A democracy needs respect from its players. It cannot function when members are not bound by its rules. Anarchy is the result when laws are not obeyed.
-
BizzyBee
Thank you, Berengaria and BOTR. Well done, ladies. It's about time someone schooled government country land people idea fantasy he claims to love so much.
-
Fernando
Oh don't we just love Grand Old Politics...
-
DogGone
Thanks BOTR. The difference is between a direct democracy and an indirect democracy, as you illustrate. Maybe it is easier for those of us in a constitutional monarchy to understand what a republic is?? That strange yarn that the US is a republic not a democracy is oft repeated. President Bartlett even said it on "The West Wing" once, so it is not just a notion of the Tea Party.
As an aside, the US does practice direct democracy with referendums/propositions on the state level from time to time. Does the US ever hold national referendums? They are very rare in Canada.
-
GLTirebiter
Excellent points.
As long as ACA simply focuses on paying the bill, no matter how steep the price, insurers, hospitals and medical suppliers have absolutely no reason to lower their charges.
The ACA (and the British NHS, etc.) are based on two premises:
(a) That society as a whole receives less than the optimal amount of health care services, thus causing unecessary suffering and premature death.
(b) That this should be changed by subsidizing health care. ACA is intended to increase consumption of medical services, which must be paid for.
One side denies the reality of premise (a), the other of premise (b). Both sides need a dose of reality--a commodity in short supply on the banks of the Potomac River!
-
LisaRose
Thank you BOTR, you have injected a needed dose of wisdom, just what the doctor ordered.
-
MeanMrMustard
DogGone,
Let me start out my addressing the very last part of your post. You said:
(Take all the time you need. My wife is expecting in the spring, so I’ll be in your boat shortly, if everything goes well!)
Congratulations! We just had a baby girl. I suppose it’s too early for you to know what you might be having? I do know you’ll be having some sleep depravation . Now, back to health care:
Always welcome a respectful discussion! I'm not trained in economics, just an armchair thinker. I'm fully prepared to be embarrassed by anything I write! In fact, I look forward to it.
Same here. I don’t feel it’s hard to understand the principles of economics – unless you are a Keynesian. Then for some reason, the world is upside down.
You are absolutely correct, I erred in comparing one component of "food", the tomatoes, with the entire category of "health care". Excellent catch and appreciate your pointing it out.
Ha, I think you caught yourself there. I don’t think I pointed that out, and if I did, it was by accident. What I was going for in reference to your comment: “Food DOES normally conform to law of demand.” It left me thinking what you thought “normally” meant? And why “normally” doesn’t apply to healthcare? Let me try to illustrate. Normally my illustrations don’t work out very well, but here goes:
Imagine a town in the desert. A man walking through the desert stumbles upon this town, thirsty. The town has water. One of the townsfolk explains that all he has to do to get water is go to the saloon and buy some. He goes there and finds a man with a lot of water, selling it to everyone in the town for a lot of money. It costs more to get water on a monthly basis than it does to own a house in this town. The man is dazed, but continues to pay to get his water. The man with water can raise his price all he wants (price does come into inelastic demand calculations, see below). The townsfolk need the water, and demand will stay the same. Now – the question: Should he ask why is it this man has a monopoly on water, which produces the high price? Or should he accept that water is intrinsically a unique market because of inelastic demand? Would he think it is yet unique if he learned that nobody else could drill a well in this town because the current well owner lobbied the town legislature and secured for himself exclusive well-drilling rights?
That leads me back to the original question: why is the price of healthcare so high? Is it really the case that it is a special market, or does it just look that way if you ignore the government’s involvement?
You are also correct that it is important to clarify what portion of "health care" we are talking about. For the purposes of this discussion, I suggest we start with "essential medical services" - ER, scheduled surgery, prescriptions, primary physicians, etc. That may be too broad, but do you think it is useful start?
I'll wait for your larger reply to fully comment. To help inform your reply consider that the issue of inelastic demand is related not to the quantity and availability of choices and competitors but to the flexibility of the demand. That is, it is not about the ability to make decisions on price (name brand drug or generic drug) but on the ability to reduce the quantity of the demand (drug, less drug, no drug).
Let me make sure I understand what you mean by inelastic demand. It was my understanding that elasticity is a measure of how demand for a good would change in relation to its price. The Wiki definition is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand.
What I gather from that definition is that if demand is “elastic”, it means that the quantity demanded of a good or service changes more than the price does. For example, if the price for a good or service drops 10%, but the demand rises 80%, then it’s an “elastic” demand. A “unit” demand would be a 1-to-1 scenario: If the price fell 10%, the demand would go up 10%. “Inelastic” demand would reference something where the demand doesn’t change so much in relation to price. For example, the price of a good falls 10%, but demand only rises 1%. Or if the price increases 50%, but the demand only decreases 1%. When demand doesn’t change AT ALL in relation to price, it’s perfectly inelastic.
The only situation I can think of where demand is highly inelastic (not even perfectly, just highly) is where there is a monopoly on a good or service. Like my previous illustration: the well owner has the monopoly. But should it be that way? If we see a seemingly inelastic demand scenario, like cancer treatments, do we assume it MUST be that way, or perhaps does that drug company have special privileges?
The money spent on healthcare in America, I think, does have a positive supply side effect for profitable elective surgeries. Wouldn't it be interesting to see two hospitals side by side compete for ER patients! Now, that might produce some interesting outcomes!
Yes it would indeed.
I'm very interested in having you expand on this: "Why is the cost so high now? If you say it is because of inelastic demand, I would say you are right only because government subsidies necessarily discourage people from the activities that would make it elastic." I think there may be some gread discussion behind that statement because it gets at incentives, i.e. economics, which I love talking about.
Ha, then you might already know what I was going for. If you separate the consumer from the cost for decades, it might very well look like the demand is inelastic (prices are going crazy, but people keep going to the doctor). But if you attach the user to the cost, well, then it changes. Here is a good example, a personal one. My wife just had a baby. When the pregnancy progressed into the third trimester, my wife started experiencing issues with her back. We have a high deductible plan, bascically a catastrophic plan. Our doctor referred us to a chiropractor that specializes in pregnant women. Now, most insurance companies view anything during pregnancy as essential medical. So we went there for the initial meeting/consult and found out a) that the meeting itself was $200, and b) we were getting signed up for 3 appointments per week for 8 weeks, at a cost of $100 per appointment. I objected on the cost, and the chiro looked at me with the strangest look. She mentioned that the insurance company would pick it up and the cost would be minimal. When I told her we were on a high deductible plan, she said that we would have to pick up the cost. So, we left. We found a chiro that wasn't a specialist in pregnant women, so he was expecting it to all be elective (out of pocket) anway. He had the special table and know-how needed to fix my wife's back. It cost us a total of $20 a visit, and the initial meeting was free. Yet! The first chiro had a room packed full or pregnant women. All of them *needed* the care, all of them were going to a doctor with massive prices, but it didn't change their behavior. Why? They weren't paying for it. The price difference was huge, and it shows how much removing people from the cost will screw up the pricing system.
Now, I've been on the defensive for this post. In summary, I do not think the "inelastic demand" argument works against the free market. BUT, I would say it could work against our current chrony capitalists system, of which the medical industry is a big part. I can see why people might think that healthcare *NEEDS* to be socialzied, but that is not so. If it is the socialization of an industry over the long term that caused the undesirable effects, why go for more of it? Is that not like trying to cure a poisoned patient with more poison?
In fact, the more socialized you get, the more the price from the providers will rise - UNLESS you price fix by law and ration care.
In a previous post you said:
"I don't argue with anyone's criticism of the ACA. After following this thread, I'm not informed enough to say it is the answer for my American cousins. However, although I'm free enterprise in many ways, I'll argue till I'm blue for universal healthcare (single payer, private delivery, public delivery, insurance exchanges, and single insurer... whatever gets it done)."
My question is why? You can see the cause and effect, and you can see it will cause a glut in services and an increase in price. The last thing we want then is price fixing, which will mean shortages. When that occurs, as I stated in the first post, everyone will be covered, but not cared for. Where is the moral thrust in that?
MMM