Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6851|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

There's plenty of competition. You don't have to use cable company service, use satellite or 3G. Use FiOS. Hell, use a fucking dialup modem for all I care. Unlimited bandwidth was a silly idea in the first place. They should've kept AOLs old model of charging by the minute or some arbitrary MB number. Charging a person that uses the internet a handful of times a month the same as someone that acts as a torrent hub all day is just silly.
FiOS is very limited in where it is actually provided.  Currently, there are only 4 major markets in the U.S.

DSL tends to be pretty crappy unless you live close to a switching station.  So, for most people, broadband is the only real choice -- and in a given city (like mine) there are usually only one or two choices.  Time Warner is really the only choice here, since Clearwire is terrible.

Charging by the minute is ridiculous.  Charging by speed makes more sense.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-09-22 13:03:47)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6851|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

I don't agree with property tax at all. Property tax means that the person who 'owns' the land is nothing more than a tenant of the state. The Founders did us a terrible disservice when they substituted 'pursuit of happiness' for property rights.
Well, we are tenants of the state essentially.  It's kind of a basic part of living in a society.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7162

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

sorry, missing your point...
If we're gonna go after profits because they lead inevitably to 'overpaid executives' then why fuck around? Let's put a salary cap on each job and each position in society. Can't have unfairness now can we?

You're missing the point anyway. A company that doesn't profit does not generate interest from investors. Without investors backing it, no company has the ability to expand nor take risks. The system over there as designed just puts a free market face on what is in reality a government company. The government controls the back end and charges rent. Any competition on the front end just means further cuts to their profitability since they don't have the option of streamlining that which they do not own.

I can see why a situation like this would appeal to people in this country and why it would work. Instead of paying government union wages to people to do the job efficiently (i.e. one company controlling sales, infrastructure etc) they could just front it, avoid the unions and outsource the sales jobs or hire people for minimum wage to do them. Brilliant.

Anyway, the entire system as designed is built on inefficiency after inefficiency. Why force taxpayers to pay for infrastructure upgrades? All that does is force people who aren't using the system to pay for its upgrades anyway. Sure, it spreads the cost around but the people that benefit the most from it aren't paying nearly as much as they would if the charges showed up on their monthly statement.
I'm not 'going after' profits.  I'm pointing out that you have a romanticised view of profits, that's all.  Reading comprehension goes a long way.  I didn't say profits inevitably lead to overpaid execs, I specifically used the word 'maybe'.  As in, capitalism and/or any other ideology works in different ways in practice then they do in theory.

You're missing the point my friend.

How do you know it's (Korean case) inefficient?  Just a cursory reading of the last few pages, you haven't really demonstrated a great grasp on the way their economy/government is run, you're just responding to other people.  Demonstrate that you understand their (S. Korea) private/public economic system and make your case.

PS - Cyborg don't be ignorant.  If you think Starcraft is what their technology industry is reliant on then you need to do a research, noob.  Certain factors that are unique to South Korea's geography and society allow their systems to work the way they do.  Probably not as efficient as it could be, certainly.  That doesn't mean that it doesn't work though.
Star craft is the basis of the korean economy. It is a fact kayz.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5804|London, England
Ok, well let's compare apples with apples here. What the South Koreans have with their internet providers is very similar to what passed in Congress late last year, the health care bill. What passed was a 'soft nationalization'. The middlemen survive to fight another day and they provide cover to what is in reality a government system. Instead of creating an overt NHS funded via taxes, we have a system where everyone is forced to pay health insurance premiums. The premium is simply a replacement for direct taxation in this regard.

Instead of creating anything but superficial competition, what they've done is commoditize health insurance to the nth degree so that they will eventually all look identical. Couple this with price controls and there really is no competition at all. Like the South Koreans, our insurance companies do not control the back end and therefor any competition in price simply comes out of profits.

If they had been honest with both themselves and the public, they would've just gotten rid of the insurance companies all together and hit us with direct taxation to pay for it all. That's the end result anyway. This form just allows rent seekers to sit between the tax payer and the government and take their cut off the top.

But that would've been inconvenient to the politicians in charge. Instead of directing their rage at poor customer service etc at the insurance companies, it would've been heaped on the politicians instead. That 4% or whatever cut the insurance companies get provides political cover and a convenient fall guy in the future.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-22 14:12:20)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6851|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ok, well let's compare apples with apples here. What the South Koreans have with their internet providers is very similar to what passed in Congress late last year, the health care bill. What passed was a 'soft nationalization'. The middlemen survive to fight another day and they provide cover to what is in reality a government system. Instead of creating an overt NHS funded via taxes, we have a system where everyone is forced to pay health insurance premiums. The premium is simply a replacement for direct taxation in this regard.
Yeah, except for the fact that the insurance is still private under Obamacare.  The only way this analogy would work is if the insurance was state provided.  Because it's not, the "infrastructure" isn't apples to apples with South Korea's telecom infrastructure.

By the way, if in fact, insurance had been socialized while hospitals were still private, that would actually be a working system.  Instead, the Blue Dogs watered the bill down to a mere mandated private insurance scam.

So we agree that Obamacare was a serious mistake, but I think you're missing why it's a bad thing and why South Korea's telecom infrastructure is an entirely different system in nature.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Instead of creating anything but superficial competition, what they've done is commoditize health insurance to the nth degree so that they will eventually all look identical. Couple this with price controls and there really is no competition at all. Like the South Koreans, our insurance companies do not control the back end and therefor any competition in price simply comes out of profits.
Nope, Obamacare simply forces people to buy private insurance, which is very different from forcing people to pay taxes for public services.

JohnG@lt wrote:

If they had been honest with both themselves and the public, they would've just gotten rid of the insurance companies all together and hit us with direct taxation to pay for it all. That's the end result anyway. This form just allows rent seekers to sit between the tax payer and the government and take their cut off the top.
Again, this halfway system only works when the infrastructure or insurance is socialized, while the providers (ISPs and Hospitals) are private.

Obamacare only socializes health insurance for the poorest of the poor.  The rest of us without employer plans get fucked into buying private insurance.  That is totally different from fully socialized infrastructure.

JohnG@lt wrote:

But that would've been inconvenient to the politicians in charge. Instead of directing their rage at poor customer service etc at the insurance companies, it would've been heaped on the politicians instead. That 4% or whatever cut the insurance companies get provides political cover and a convenient fall guy in the future.
Perhaps, but the biggest reason why the public option died is because insurance companies have bought most of Congress.  Socializing insurance in America will never happen to the degree that it would foster a working system covering all Americans.

Instead, we're getting fucked by lobbyism.

Then again, telecom infrastructure will probably never be socialized either, because telecoms spend more money on lobbyism than any other industry.

So essentially, our system has been bought by corporate interests.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5804|London, England
Turq, you're missing a very basic point. Insurance coverage is now so heavily regulated, and things like cherry picking have been so utterly destroyed, that the end result is insurance policies written by the government but peddled by the 'insurance companies'. Everything from actuary work (which was essentially abolished, companies must now take all comers) to end user prices is controlled by the government or has been abolished. Health insurance as it once existed no longer does. They are now all selling the exact same product. They might as well be selling copper based on the price listed on the Mercantile Exchange, it has become that commoditized.

The fact that insurance companies exist anymore is an utter joke. They are now the single payer system with multiple identical portals to entry. Nothing more.

And yes, forcing people to buy health insurance is the same as taxation. No choice is given in either case. In this case it just happens to be a 'regressive' tax system since it evades normal taxation and thus the tiered income tax system.

Take the politics and whatever preconceptions you have out of it. Look at it objectively and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-22 17:48:27)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6851|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turq, you're missing a very basic point. Insurance coverage is now so heavily regulated, and things like cherry picking have been so utterly destroyed, that the end result is insurance policies written by the government but peddled by the 'insurance companies'. Everything from actuary work (which was essentially abolished, companies must now take all comers) to end user prices is controlled by the government or has been abolished. Health insurance as it once existed no longer does. They are now all selling the exact same product. They might as well be selling copper based on the price listed on the Mercantile Exchange, it has become that commoditized.

The fact that insurance companies exist anymore is an utter joke. They are now the single payer system with multiple identical portals to entry. Nothing more.
Then we need to socialize insurance to cut out the middle man.

JohnG@lt wrote:

And yes, forcing people to buy health insurance is the same as taxation. No choice is given in either case. In this case it just happens to be a 'regressive' tax system since it evades normal taxation and thus the tiered income tax system.
Fair enough, but actual socialization works.  This particular mandate of private insurance does not.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Take the politics and whatever preconceptions you have out of it. Look at it objectively and you'll see what I'm talking about.
I have.  I look at the effectiveness of other healthcare systems and much greater affordability of them, and thus, I support an NHS.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5804|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

Then we need to socialize insurance to cut out the middle man.
Might as well at this point. What we have now is nothing more than a masked single payer with the mask in place only to thwart those who would cry socialism. Getting back to the original point. This is the exact setup that your SK telecom companies exist under. It's simply masked nationalization selling a commoditized product. Not real competition.

JohnG@lt wrote:

And yes, forcing people to buy health insurance is the same as taxation. No choice is given in either case. In this case it just happens to be a 'regressive' tax system since it evades normal taxation and thus the tiered income tax system.
Fair enough, but actual socialization works.  This particular mandate of private insurance does not.
It's the same thing, just a different name heads the checks.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Take the politics and whatever preconceptions you have out of it. Look at it objectively and you'll see what I'm talking about.
I have.  I look at the effectiveness of other healthcare systems and much greater affordability of them, and thus, I support an NHS.
Sure, at the cost of quality. Unless you feel that medicine has reached its apex and there is nothing more to learn then adopting intellectual stagnation is never a benefit to society. All of those NHS' are dependent on our research and product development which will not exist without a profit motive. Who are we going to wait on to develop drugs? China? How long until we can bring these Chinese drugs to our market in generic form?

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-22 18:40:14)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6851|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

This is the exact setup that your SK telecom companies exist under. It's simply masked nationalization selling a commoditized product. Not real competition.
No, it really isn't.  Taxing people for publicly provided insurance would be.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Sure, at the cost of quality. Unless you feel that medicine has reached its apex and there is nothing more to learn then adopting intellectual stagnation is never a benefit to society. All of those NHS' are dependent on our research and product development which will not exist without a profit motive. Who are we going to wait on to develop drugs? China? How long until we can bring these Chinese drugs to our market in generic form?
And if we had an NHS, then the burden of research would be more evenhanded throughout the world, as would prices for healthcare and drugs.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6995|San Diego, CA, USA

Turquoise wrote:

And if we had an NHS...
I don't want a new government agency responsible for our healthcare that has the efficiency of the Post Office and the care of the IRS.
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6800

Harmor wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

And if we had an NHS...
I don't want a new government agency responsible for our healthcare that has the efficiency of the Post Office and the care of the IRS.
The worlds smartest boy was blathering on about how he was so much smarter than he's teachers at school and how poorly public schools are run. Some how he never made a connection. I guess it saps his intellect to type Moron at the end of every post.

with a few exceptions Private school will out preform a public school any guesses why ?
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6995|San Diego, CA, USA
Probably a significant factor is that the parents and teachers at Private schools care.  Not saying there aren't public school teachers who don't, but those are in the minority whereas its the opposite at Private schools.

We could have a whole thread on the advantages of private school over public school.  The same for home school over public school.

Basically public school is a glorified baby sitter for non-caring, low wage earning, parents.
jord
Member
+2,382|7124|The North, beyond the wall.

Harmor wrote:

Probably a significant factor is that the parents and teachers at Private schools care.  Not saying there aren't public school teachers who don't, but those are in the minority whereas its the opposite at Private schools.

We could have a whole thread on the advantages of private school over public school.  The same for home school over public school.

Basically public school is a glorified baby sitter for non-caring, low wage earning, parents.
That's a bit of a sweeping generalization, especially considering you aren't in a position to know everything about every school. Unless you're secretely a real academic scholar that has been through and worked at many public schools all over America...
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6995|San Diego, CA, USA
Generalizations are more often right or else they wouldn't be generalizations.
jord
Member
+2,382|7124|The North, beyond the wall.
You're thinking of how stereotypes have a little truth to them.

So did you attend a public school and are unhappy with the education level or what?
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7162

jord wrote:

You're thinking of how stereotypes have a little truth to them.

So did you attend a public school and are unhappy with the education level or what?
in the US depends where the public school is... rich neighborhoods is fine but if its in the ghetto... youre more worried about not getting shot than getting good grades
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5705|foggy bottom
harmors childhood was paid for by the gov't via the DOD
Tu Stultus Es
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6995|San Diego, CA, USA

jord wrote:

You're thinking of how stereotypes have a little truth to them.

So did you attend a public school and are unhappy with the education level or what?
For the record I did attend public school and it sucked.  There were only a handful of notable teachers.  But most importantly my parent's cared, which I can say I'm lucky to have compared to many.
jord
Member
+2,382|7124|The North, beyond the wall.

Harmor wrote:

jord wrote:

You're thinking of how stereotypes have a little truth to them.

So did you attend a public school and are unhappy with the education level or what?
For the record I did attend public school and it sucked.  There were only a handful of notable teachers.  But most importantly my parent's cared, which I can say I'm lucky to have compared to many.
I don't really see how you can compare it to private schools then. If someone had been to both then they might be able to have an informed insight on the subject...
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5705|foggy bottom
I went to both and public schools suck for the most part
Tu Stultus Es
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7162

jord wrote:

Harmor wrote:

jord wrote:

You're thinking of how stereotypes have a little truth to them.

So did you attend a public school and are unhappy with the education level or what?
For the record I did attend public school and it sucked.  There were only a handful of notable teachers.  But most importantly my parent's cared, which I can say I'm lucky to have compared to many.
I don't really see how you can compare it to private schools then. If someone had been to both then they might be able to have an informed insight on the subject...
ive been to both when i was in australia. public school was utter shit for me and teachers didnt care at all. private school was better but it was ran by crazy christians
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5705|foggy bottom
the public school i went to for the 4th through 8th grades was differnt though.  it was a small campus with hippy teachers.  I think those years there paid off well.  by the time i went to high school in a real public school, i noticed the difference in attitude from parents, teachers and students.
Tu Stultus Es
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6995|San Diego, CA, USA

jord wrote:

Harmor wrote:

jord wrote:

You're thinking of how stereotypes have a little truth to them.

So did you attend a public school and are unhappy with the education level or what?
For the record I did attend public school and it sucked.  There were only a handful of notable teachers.  But most importantly my parent's cared, which I can say I'm lucky to have compared to many.
I don't really see how you can compare it to private schools then. If someone had been to both then they might be able to have an informed insight on the subject...
I had friends who went to private school while I went to public school, I was envyous.  Also when I was in college my lab partner in one of my classes was home schooled - I saw the difference.

Just because you don't personally experience something doesn't mean you can't comment on it.  We often talk about politics and I doubt we've been a politician.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6995|San Diego, CA, USA

eleven bravo wrote:

harmors childhood was paid for by the gov't via the DOD
It could had been from an Indonesian madrassa for all you know :-P
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5705|foggy bottom
homeschooled people are weirdos.  99% of the ones Ive met anyways
Tu Stultus Es

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard