...but my company is global. We're currently the largest supplier of cleaning products in the U.S. We're one of the largest in the world as well.JohnG@lt wrote:
You live in the boondocks. It would be much different if you lived in a more competitive environment like NYC.
Quite socialistic is not a correct term to use regarding Japanese economy ... they take care of their workers yes but that's not socialism, in Japan they look at their workforce as an asset and it's correct that their sense of honor leaves much more responsibility on the CEO that what's normal in other countries where CEOs gets a golden parachute when they fail ...Cybargs wrote:
Japan is actually quite socialist in terms of healthcare and other benefits. But their citizens are hardworking as shit, and any form of laziness is associated with dishonor (And we all know how the japs feel about having no honor left...) Fuck their CEO's would commit suicide if they fuck over a lot of people.Varegg wrote:
Depends on what models you reckon as socialistic FEOS ...
If you look at the chart you provided you have Japan that practiced the most like the US at top, then you have "communist" China 2nd and "die hard capitalism" US third ... then you have Germany, UK and Italy that runs more or less the same model as Norway with a more socialistic style economy or a hybrid socialistic/capitalistic system not based on profit for profits sake but as a part of a system that wants the whole country to do its best and not only the managment ... society in general benefits greater with a very needed regulations ... or atleast it doesn't crash that hard when it crash ...
China is far from communist at all... It's more like state capitalism (if you can call it as such). The source of China's economic prosperity is directly in correlation with Western corporate investments.
They probably will. They don't care too much about communism or "Mao Zedong Thought" any more, the only thing that matters now is a little number on a page with the words "GDP growth" before it. If that number gets below 7 percent or so I guarantee they'll do almost anything to put it back up again.Varegg wrote:
Quite socialistic is not a correct term to use regarding Japanese economy ... they take care of their workers yes but that's not socialism, in Japan they look at their workforce as an asset and it's correct that their sense of honor leaves much more responsibility on the CEO that what's normal in other countries where CEOs gets a golden parachute when they fail ...Cybargs wrote:
Japan is actually quite socialist in terms of healthcare and other benefits. But their citizens are hardworking as shit, and any form of laziness is associated with dishonor (And we all know how the japs feel about having no honor left...) Fuck their CEO's would commit suicide if they fuck over a lot of people.Varegg wrote:
Depends on what models you reckon as socialistic FEOS ...
If you look at the chart you provided you have Japan that practiced the most like the US at top, then you have "communist" China 2nd and "die hard capitalism" US third ... then you have Germany, UK and Italy that runs more or less the same model as Norway with a more socialistic style economy or a hybrid socialistic/capitalistic system not based on profit for profits sake but as a part of a system that wants the whole country to do its best and not only the managment ... society in general benefits greater with a very needed regulations ... or atleast it doesn't crash that hard when it crash ...
China is far from communist at all... It's more like state capitalism (if you can call it as such). The source of China's economic prosperity is directly in correlation with Western corporate investments.
China is still very communistic although they have a special twist of capitalism incorporated into they economy, it's successful this far but from several economic articles I've read they will crash into a wall and stagnate if they don't open up for private businesses in a larger scale than whats present pr date ...
Norway isn't a socialist country. True, they have a strong socialized health care system (just like many other European countries), but, just like nearly every other Western country, their overall economy is mixed--just like ours. My argument is that we can continue to have the biggest economy in the world without handing over 1/6 of it to an intentionally inefficient bureaucracy that cannot--by design--manage something of that magnitude. The Founders built our government the way they did for a reason, Turq. And they weren't idiots. Minimal government involvement in the lives of Americans has gotten us where we are--the bad has come in when the government has inserted themselves. Less government = more prosperity. That was the Founders' vision. That is the framework of the Constitution and our government.Turquoise wrote:
You're looking at total GDP, not GDP per capita. Total GDP is less reflective of economic policy and more reflective of the size of a country.FEOS wrote:
So instead of moving capitalism (a model that has worked exceedingly well) back to what it could/should be, we should keep trying socialism (one that has not worked so well)?
http://freemarketmojo.files.wordpress.c … &h=406
This is what capitalism gives you: one sector of our economy ties for fourth (behind the US, Japan, and China) if it were a separate economy in comparison to all those other "better" models. We don't need a new economic model. We need better governance and stewardship of what that economic model provides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … per_capita
It is true that we are near the top of the list for GDP per capita, but one very socialized country is ahead of us -- Norway. They pretty much defy your assumption about socialism. So do a lot of other socialized countries that are near us in GDP per capita.
Socialism has not held us back, but Social Darwinism certainly would.
Because the quicker, easier solution to reach essentially the same end game would be to simply eliminate the artificial restriction on interstate competition (repeal a single law from 1945) and let the market take care of it rather than create a massive new socialization of 1/6 of the economy.Turquoise wrote:
Why not do both? In most national healthcare systems, there aren't barriers between provinces for coverage, and there is usually a flourishing private market for more advanced care.FEOS wrote:
And you would essentially have that if you removed the regulations that block interstate health plans and let the market handle the majority of the coverage, with the government handling those who are unable to cover themselves--as is its function. With reduced overall costs and more selection due to increased competition in the market, the government's costs would be reduced, as well.
And which permanent installations are we putting into place, Turq? Obama already said we're going to start drawing down in 18 months, so there's no "staying for the long term...with over 100,000". Where are you getting your information?Turquoise wrote:
Considering the permanent installations we're putting into place, I'm not surprised. What I'm most concerned about is how long we're going to maintain massive levels of troops there. Staying for the long term with 30,000 troops is one thing. Staying with over 100,000 is quite another.FEOS wrote:
That's the problem with your thinking: that you must establish a timetable now. The timetable is circumstantial, not temporal. You establish thresholds--when those thresholds are met, you withdraw certain types/numbers of forces commensurate to the ANA/ANP's capabilities. Rinse and repeat. Regardless of what happens, our AF and Navy (to a far lesser extent) will be there for a very, very long time in a supporting and training capacity.
Less government = more prosperity for the wealthiest, not necessarily more prosperity for the average person....FEOS wrote:
Norway isn't a socialist country. True, they have a strong socialized health care system (just like many other European countries), but, just like nearly every other Western country, their overall economy is mixed--just like ours. My argument is that we can continue to have the biggest economy in the world without handing over 1/6 of it to an intentionally inefficient bureaucracy that cannot--by design--manage something of that magnitude. The Founders built our government the way they did for a reason, Turq. And they weren't idiots. Minimal government involvement in the lives of Americans has gotten us where we are--the bad has come in when the government has inserted themselves. Less government = more prosperity. That was the Founders' vision. That is the framework of the Constitution and our government.
There's one problem with that. States have different standards. If a healthcare provider decides to base itself out of a state with lower requirements, then that allows them to skirt higher requirements in other states. Essentially, what this amounts to is a dependency on local and state governments to be more active in protecting the rights of consumers and labor. Given the inequality of standards and vigilance among the states, this invites a huge disparity in quality of care and coverage.FEOS wrote:
Because the quicker, easier solution to reach essentially the same end game would be to simply eliminate the artificial restriction on interstate competition (repeal a single law from 1945) and let the market take care of it rather than create a massive new socialization of 1/6 of the economy.
Ask me again in 18 months. Mark my words... He's going to backtrack on that statement. I don't see how it's possible for us to draw down troop levels with the current goals in mind.FEOS wrote:
And which permanent installations are we putting into place, Turq? Obama already said we're going to start drawing down in 18 months, so there's no "staying for the long term...with over 100,000". Where are you getting your information?
Not necessarily. That's just the socialist mantra.Turquoise wrote:
Less government = more prosperity for the wealthiest, not necessarily more prosperity for the average person....FEOS wrote:
Norway isn't a socialist country. True, they have a strong socialized health care system (just like many other European countries), but, just like nearly every other Western country, their overall economy is mixed--just like ours. My argument is that we can continue to have the biggest economy in the world without handing over 1/6 of it to an intentionally inefficient bureaucracy that cannot--by design--manage something of that magnitude. The Founders built our government the way they did for a reason, Turq. And they weren't idiots. Minimal government involvement in the lives of Americans has gotten us where we are--the bad has come in when the government has inserted themselves. Less government = more prosperity. That was the Founders' vision. That is the framework of the Constitution and our government.
What standards do you speak of here? If you eliminate the limitations on where one can go for insurance, then that becomes a non-issue. The person who is looking for coverage knows what they need, they have a large (much larger now) pool of plans from which to choose, they pick the one they want that meets their needs (and it may be from out of state), and presto...they're covered.Turquoise wrote:
There's one problem with that. States have different standards. If a healthcare provider decides to base itself out of a state with lower requirements, then that allows them to skirt higher requirements in other states. Essentially, what this amounts to is a dependency on local and state governments to be more active in protecting the rights of consumers and labor. Given the inequality of standards and vigilance among the states, this invites a huge disparity in quality of care and coverage.FEOS wrote:
Because the quicker, easier solution to reach essentially the same end game would be to simply eliminate the artificial restriction on interstate competition (repeal a single law from 1945) and let the market take care of it rather than create a massive new socialization of 1/6 of the economy.
Now you're talking about a different issue WRT pricing. There are multiple strategies to address that, as well...which the pork-laden deficit building monstrosity that Pelosi and Reid are pushing does nothing to address.Turquoise wrote:
Granted, this also resembles the problems we already face with local oligopolies formed by hospital networks. Even if we get rid of this law you speak of, it doesn't change the oligopolistic markets we have throughout the country.
It doesn't matter if you have access to a wider variety of insurance providers if the local hospital networks decide to charge ridiculous amounts.
In effect, part of why a national healthcare system is needed is for healthcare prices to become more normalized across the country.
So you don't have anything to back up either of those statements, basically. Neither party (us or the Afghans) have the will or resources for a long-term relationship like you're implying...and that's what it takes for that to happen. Probably the only ones who might be there for an extended period would be the Air Force simply because it takes a lot longer to build that capability than it does to build up the Army.Turquoise wrote:
Ask me again in 18 months. Mark my words... He's going to backtrack on that statement. I don't see how it's possible for us to draw down troop levels with the current goals in mind.FEOS wrote:
And which permanent installations are we putting into place, Turq? Obama already said we're going to start drawing down in 18 months, so there's no "staying for the long term...with over 100,000". Where are you getting your information?
It is not historically true that less government always equals more prosperity for the average person. Look at Somalia, for example.FEOS wrote:
Not necessarily. That's just the socialist mantra.
There are 2 issues here. First, you're assuming that most out-of-state providers would choose to serve you. That may or may not be the case. Second, even if they do choose to serve you, the local hospitals may not choose to work with said providers. Even if they do choose to, the pricing issues I mentioned may arise when your out-of-state insurance may choose to not pay the full copay that applies.FEOS wrote:
What standards do you speak of here? If you eliminate the limitations on where one can go for insurance, then that becomes a non-issue. The person who is looking for coverage knows what they need, they have a large (much larger now) pool of plans from which to choose, they pick the one they want that meets their needs (and it may be from out of state), and presto...they're covered.
True, which is why I'm starting to feel less supportive of this bill than before. Because the public option has been gutted, that mostly removes this bill's relevance.FEOS wrote:
Now you're talking about a different issue WRT pricing. There are multiple strategies to address that, as well...which the pork-laden deficit building monstrosity that Pelosi and Reid are pushing does nothing to address.
FEOS, let me ask you something. What has the current trend been? When Obama campaigned for president, he said he'd withdraw the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan within 18 months of entering office. So far, I haven't read about any commitment to withdrawing from Iraq, and he only recently committed to a drawdown in Afghanistan nearly a year into his first term. I would think that Obama is currently facing a lot of pressure to stay in Afghanistan for a longer haul because of 2 reasons.FEOS wrote:
So you don't have anything to back up either of those statements, basically. Neither party (us or the Afghans) have the will or resources for a long-term relationship like you're implying...and that's what it takes for that to happen. Probably the only ones who might be there for an extended period would be the Air Force simply because it takes a lot longer to build that capability than it does to build up the Army.
I never said no government equals more prosperity for the average person, did I (Somalia)? That's not what the Founders had in mind, either. Their view was the least amount of government necessary. Clearly Somalia is less than that (none) and clearly I view your position as more than that.Turquoise wrote:
It is not historically true that less government always equals more prosperity for the average person. Look at Somalia, for example.FEOS wrote:
Not necessarily. That's just the socialist mantra.
To assume that less government always equals more wealth for the average person is a dogma unto itself. I'm not suggesting more government always equals more prosperity for the average person either.
You're missing the basic premise of business: If you don't provide the goods/services that the customer wants, they go elsewhere and you go out of business. If the provider isn't "serving you", you go to a different provider who is. It's that simple. Under current rules, that pool of providers is limited to those within your state.Turquoise wrote:
There are 2 issues here. First, you're assuming that most out-of-state providers would choose to serve you. That may or may not be the case. Second, even if they do choose to serve you, the local hospitals may not choose to work with said providers. Even if they do choose to, the pricing issues I mentioned may arise when your out-of-state insurance may choose to not pay the full copay that applies.FEOS wrote:
What standards do you speak of here? If you eliminate the limitations on where one can go for insurance, then that becomes a non-issue. The person who is looking for coverage knows what they need, they have a large (much larger now) pool of plans from which to choose, they pick the one they want that meets their needs (and it may be from out of state), and presto...they're covered.
Again, I'm generally in favor of removing interstate barriers, but there are still caveats involved.
There are so many bad things about this bill that removed its relevance, it's hard to pick just one thing.Turquoise wrote:
True, which is why I'm starting to feel less supportive of this bill than before. Because the public option has been gutted, that mostly removes this bill's relevance.FEOS wrote:
Now you're talking about a different issue WRT pricing. There are multiple strategies to address that, as well...which the pork-laden deficit building monstrosity that Pelosi and Reid are pushing does nothing to address.
You're wrong. During the campaign, he promised to withdraw troops from Iraq. Just Iraq. And our combat troops will be out of Iraq by 2011. He's sticking to that promise, Turq. The "record level of instability" you seem to be seeing in Afghanistan and Pakistan is just because the media is starting to pay attention. It's always been there, but the media's been focused on Iraq because the war there has been bloodier in comparison.Turquoise wrote:
FEOS, let me ask you something. What has the current trend been? When Obama campaigned for president, he said he'd withdraw the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan within 18 months of entering office. So far, I haven't read about any commitment to withdrawing from Iraq, and he only recently committed to a drawdown in Afghanistan nearly a year into his first term. I would think that Obama is currently facing a lot of pressure to stay in Afghanistan for a longer haul because of 2 reasons.FEOS wrote:
So you don't have anything to back up either of those statements, basically. Neither party (us or the Afghans) have the will or resources for a long-term relationship like you're implying...and that's what it takes for that to happen. Probably the only ones who might be there for an extended period would be the Air Force simply because it takes a lot longer to build that capability than it does to build up the Army.
1) fears of what happens if we lower troop levels
2) the political implications of lowering troop levels
Now, admittedly, I understand why some people want us to stay longer. The fears are legitimate.
I guess my question is this.... What makes you think we actually will stick with the plan of a troop drawdown, when the current situation is one that appears to be a resurgence of Taliban influence? Right now, both Afghanistan and Pakistan seem to be experiencing a record level of instability.
I'll agree that competition normally results in better service overall, but you're still ignoring the fact that many hospital networks already strike deals with insurance. Some literally will not accept certain insurance companies because of prior arrangements made at the corporate level. While some of this has to do with the "runaround" that some companies implement, there are other cases where it's just a way for networks to simplify their bureaucracy. In cases of the latter, this is a limitation on what a consumer can select as an insurance provider that would be unaffected by a change in interstate barriers.FEOS wrote:
You're missing the basic premise of business: If you don't provide the goods/services that the customer wants, they go elsewhere and you go out of business. If the provider isn't "serving you", you go to a different provider who is. It's that simple. Under current rules, that pool of providers is limited to those within your state.
Copay is your part of the payment, not the providers. When the medical provider accepts your insurance, they accept the terms and conditions under which that insurer operates. Thus, if your insurer generally pays a lower rate, but pays guickly with no hassles, they may be more likely to accept that insurer than one who pays a higher rate but gives them the run around for months.
I thought for sure that he mentioned something about Afghanistan as well. Well, assuming you're correct, I guess we'll see if the Iraq decision remains the same in 2011.FEOS wrote:
You're wrong. During the campaign, he promised to withdraw troops from Iraq. Just Iraq. And our combat troops will be out of Iraq by 2011. He's sticking to that promise, Turq. The "record level of instability" you seem to be seeing in Afghanistan and Pakistan is just because the media is starting to pay attention. It's always been there, but the media's been focused on Iraq because the war there has been bloodier in comparison.
How would it not be affected by providing a larger pool of potential payers to the hospital networks (which, btw, are interstate)? It absolutely would affect things. It would simplify things immensely, as national insurers currently have to segregate themselves into state subsidiaries instead of operating at the national level, increasing administrative overhead.Turquoise wrote:
I'll agree that competition normally results in better service overall, but you're still ignoring the fact that many hospital networks already strike deals with insurance. Some literally will not accept certain insurance companies because of prior arrangements made at the corporate level. While some of this has to do with the "runaround" that some companies implement, there are other cases where it's just a way for networks to simplify their bureaucracy. In cases of the latter, this is a limitation on what a consumer can select as an insurance provider that would be unaffected by a change in interstate barriers.FEOS wrote:
You're missing the basic premise of business: If you don't provide the goods/services that the customer wants, they go elsewhere and you go out of business. If the provider isn't "serving you", you go to a different provider who is. It's that simple. Under current rules, that pool of providers is limited to those within your state.
Copay is your part of the payment, not the providers. When the medical provider accepts your insurance, they accept the terms and conditions under which that insurer operates. Thus, if your insurer generally pays a lower rate, but pays guickly with no hassles, they may be more likely to accept that insurer than one who pays a higher rate but gives them the run around for months.
In short, most of the power is still within the hands of hospitals themselves, unless you're willing to go a long distance to another hospital network.
Remember the sound bite "war of choice"? He was referring to Iraq, not Afghanistan. He never mentioned Afghanistan, except when he said Iraq pulled our attention away from Afghanistan. 2011 is going to happen, unless something huge changes the calculus.Turquoise wrote:
I thought for sure that he mentioned something about Afghanistan as well. Well, assuming you're correct, I guess we'll see if the Iraq decision remains the same in 2011.FEOS wrote:
You're wrong. During the campaign, he promised to withdraw troops from Iraq. Just Iraq. And our combat troops will be out of Iraq by 2011. He's sticking to that promise, Turq. The "record level of instability" you seem to be seeing in Afghanistan and Pakistan is just because the media is starting to pay attention. It's always been there, but the media's been focused on Iraq because the war there has been bloodier in comparison.
I'll agree with you on tort reform. As for hospital networks, I can tell you that my own hospital networks are not interstate. The NC triad area is dominated by only 2 hospital networks. Neither of them are interstate. I'm sure there are plenty of others that are, and I agree that these interstate laws increase bureaucratic costs, but I don't see how they'd change things as much as you're suggesting when it comes to customer choice in many of the more oligopolistic markets.FEOS wrote:
How would it not be affected by providing a larger pool of potential payers to the hospital networks (which, btw, are interstate)? It absolutely would affect things. It would simplify things immensely, as national insurers currently have to segregate themselves into state subsidiaries instead of operating at the national level, increasing administrative overhead.
And again, any insurance reform has to be coupled with tort reform and other reforms to bring pricing down. It is a multi-faceted problem, but the Obama administration and Congress are not approaching it as such.
I hope you're right.FEOS wrote:
Remember the sound bite "war of choice"? He was referring to Iraq, not Afghanistan. He never mentioned Afghanistan, except when he said Iraq pulled our attention away from Afghanistan. 2011 is going to happen, unless something huge changes the calculus.
You're approaching it from your NC triad view. While that is probably a more informed view than some others here, it is not necessarily a view that gives you a nation-wide perspective. Opening up currently restricted markets could certainly impact your currently restricted market greatly.Turquoise wrote:
I'll agree with you on tort reform. As for hospital networks, I can tell you that my own hospital networks are not interstate. The NC triad area is dominated by only 2 hospital networks. Neither of them are interstate. I'm sure there are plenty of others that are, and I agree that these interstate laws increase bureaucratic costs, but I don't see how they'd change things as much as you're suggesting when it comes to customer choice in many of the more oligopolistic markets.FEOS wrote:
How would it not be affected by providing a larger pool of potential payers to the hospital networks (which, btw, are interstate)? It absolutely would affect things. It would simplify things immensely, as national insurers currently have to segregate themselves into state subsidiaries instead of operating at the national level, increasing administrative overhead.
And again, any insurance reform has to be coupled with tort reform and other reforms to bring pricing down. It is a multi-faceted problem, but the Obama administration and Congress are not approaching it as such.
Assuming that removing interstate barriers is the answer, wouldn't you still say that state governments would fight removing this particular law? It seems like that law was specifically put into place to give state governments more control over the market.FEOS wrote:
You're approaching it from your NC triad view. While that is probably a more informed view than some others here, it is not necessarily a view that gives you a nation-wide perspective. Opening up currently restricted markets could certainly impact your currently restricted market greatly.Turquoise wrote:
I'll agree with you on tort reform. As for hospital networks, I can tell you that my own hospital networks are not interstate. The NC triad area is dominated by only 2 hospital networks. Neither of them are interstate. I'm sure there are plenty of others that are, and I agree that these interstate laws increase bureaucratic costs, but I don't see how they'd change things as much as you're suggesting when it comes to customer choice in many of the more oligopolistic markets.FEOS wrote:
How would it not be affected by providing a larger pool of potential payers to the hospital networks (which, btw, are interstate)? It absolutely would affect things. It would simplify things immensely, as national insurers currently have to segregate themselves into state subsidiaries instead of operating at the national level, increasing administrative overhead.
And again, any insurance reform has to be coupled with tort reform and other reforms to bring pricing down. It is a multi-faceted problem, but the Obama administration and Congress are not approaching it as such.
I don't think that was why. Who knows? It was passed in 1945.Turquoise wrote:
Assuming that removing interstate barriers is the answer, wouldn't you still say that state governments would fight removing this particular law? It seems like that law was specifically put into place to give state governments more control over the market.FEOS wrote:
You're approaching it from your NC triad view. While that is probably a more informed view than some others here, it is not necessarily a view that gives you a nation-wide perspective. Opening up currently restricted markets could certainly impact your currently restricted market greatly.Turquoise wrote:
I'll agree with you on tort reform. As for hospital networks, I can tell you that my own hospital networks are not interstate. The NC triad area is dominated by only 2 hospital networks. Neither of them are interstate. I'm sure there are plenty of others that are, and I agree that these interstate laws increase bureaucratic costs, but I don't see how they'd change things as much as you're suggesting when it comes to customer choice in many of the more oligopolistic markets.
I think it's also why every state has different auto insurance policy requirements, as well.The McCarran–Ferguson Act does not itself regulate insurance, nor does it mandate that states regulate insurance. However, it does empower Congress to pass laws in the future that will have the effect of regulating the "business of insurance." However, federal acts that do not expressly purport to regulate the "business of insurance" will not preempt state laws or regulations that regulate the "business of insurance."
The Act also provides that federal anti-trust laws will not apply to the "business of insurance" as long as the state regulates in that area, but federal anti-trust laws will apply in cases of boycott, coercion, and intimidation.
Last edited by FEOS (2010-01-10 12:51:24)
Even if it means making the number up.Spark wrote:
They probably will. They don't care too much about communism or "Mao Zedong Thought" any more, the only thing that matters now is a little number on a page with the words "GDP growth" before it. If that number gets below 7 percent or so I guarantee they'll do almost anything to put it back up again.
