Time to get health care right once and for all

[dblack]

It is very dangerous to believe that government is the source of all rent seeking. Yes, it is true, the government can be used to seek rents. In fact, in the current environment, it is the number one way to seek rents. The danger comes in refusing to understand the critical role government plays in maintaining a market free from rent seeking activities.

Take banking. You must be operating under the assumption that regulations on banking have increased. That is not the case. I am old enough to remember attending a town meeting in regards to rather the community would approve a new bank. Sure, I was a kid tagging along with my father. But it happened. The town had one bank, and another bank could not locate there without government approval. It was not regulation, but deregulation that spurred the rent seeking among the banks.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Wouldn't protectionist regulation be the example of rent-seeking?

Look, a market free from regulation can only be free from rent seeking if it meets certain criteria. Barriers to entry, lack of substitution, inelastic demand, collusion, market segmentation, vertical integration---all those "problems" can spring up in a market free from regulation and all of them can be used to extort "rents".

Those problems thrive on *regulation. It's their bread and butter.

I can make this easy. A market is free when everyone seeks additional profits by producing more pie. But as soon as some yahoos start figuring out ways to expand profits by getting more of the pie that is already there, by taking it from someone else without improving quality or lowering costs, then the market is no longer "free".

Nonsense. By your reasoning, anyone who convinces someone to give them their money for something you don't believe 'produces more pie', is guilty of making the market unfree. (Is the purchaser also guilty?). It sounds like maybe you're leaning on the old saw that capitalists don't produce anything. But you sound smarter than that.

*For clarity's sake, and before you go there, let me define what I mean by regulation: laws that don't explicitly protect individual rights - laws that mandate conformity in the name of the social good. On the other hand, laws that do protect our rights, that ban theft, fraud and coercion, are fundamental to a free society, and market.

 

[Winston]

It is very dangerous to believe that government is the source of all rent seeking. Yes, it is true, the government can be used to seek rents. In fact, in the current environment, it is the number one way to seek rents. The danger comes in refusing to understand the critical role government plays in maintaining a market free from rent seeking activities.

Take banking. You must be operating under the assumption that regulations on banking have increased. That is not the case. I am old enough to remember attending a town meeting in regards to rather the community would approve a new bank. Sure, I was a kid tagging along with my father. But it happened. The town had one bank, and another bank could not locate there without government approval. It was not regulation, but deregulation that spurred the rent seeking among the banks.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Wouldn't protectionist regulation be the example of rent-seeking?

Look, a market free from regulation can only be free from rent seeking if it meets certain criteria. Barriers to entry, lack of substitution, inelastic demand, collusion, market segmentation, vertical integration---all those "problems" can spring up in a market free from regulation and all of them can be used to extort "rents".

Those problems thrive on *regulation. It's their bread and butter.

I can make this easy. A market is free when everyone seeks additional profits by producing more pie. But as soon as some yahoos start figuring out ways to expand profits by getting more of the pie that is already there, by taking it from someone else without improving quality or lowering costs, then the market is no longer "free".

Nonsense. By your reasoning, anyone who convinces someone to give them their money for something you don't believe 'produces more pie', is guilty of making the market unfree. (Is the purchaser also guilty?). It sounds like maybe you're leaning on the old saw that capitalists don't produce anything. But you sound smarter than that.

*For clarity's sake, and before you go there, let me define what I mean by regulation: laws that don't explicitly protect individual rights - laws that mandate conformity in the name of the social good. On the other hand, laws that do protect our rights, that ban theft, fraud and coercion, are fundamental to a free society, and market.

Inelastic demand has nothing to do with government intervention. Collusion depends upon a lack of government involvement.. Both market segmentation and vertical integration are strategies to avoid competition and have little if anything to do with government intervention. The point is there are plenty of areas that the government should be involved in to produce a free market that do not involve property rights, fraud, or coercion.

But let's talk about the pie. It is not a matter of opinion as to rather a company is producing more pie and seeking to get more of the pie that is already there WITHOUT improvements in the product. Most of the time it is pretty easy to figure out.

 

[Boss]

've always thought this was curious how some people equate Jesus teachings with Socialism. Especially after reading Karl Marx who explicitly details how all religion and belief in God needs to be quelled in order for the masses to rest faith in the state. Do you think Jesus would have endorsed Marx's ideas?

No, Jesus did not teach people to go out there and lobby to take wealth from the rich and give it to the poor... that was Robin Hood. Jesus was big on self-responsibility. Not relying on Caesar and power of state but getting up off your ass and helping your neighbor in need.

I think you've got it Bass Ackwards. Jesus was here almost 2000 years before Karl Marx was. If one influenced the other in any way, Marx would have been influenced by Jesus. But religiosity wasn't part of the dynamic I was referring too in the comparison between socialism and Jesus' teachings. My focus was on the intrinsic similarities involving human compassion and altruism. Besides Marx is credited as being the founder of Communism, not the quasi capitalist hybrid system we know as Socialism. The difference is startling. Christianity is deeply entrenched in all of the Socialist countries I can think of. It would seem your premise falls short in sight of the teeming masses of Europe. The same Europe where magnificent cathedrals and ancient artifacts speak to the marriage of Socialism and Christianity. AMEN!

I'm pretty sure Karl Marx was the founder of modern Socialism, or one of the early purveyors of how to make it work. Since he was an Atheist, I doubt he was influenced by Jesus.

If you believe in "human compassion" why would you pick an economic philosophy responsible for more than 150 million deaths? Why wouldn't you endorse a philosophy that created more millionaires and billionaires than anything man ever devised? Capitalism has lifted people out of poverty, made the poorest of the poor into the richest of the rich. It has successfully advanced civilization worldwide. Socialism has consistently destroyed everything it touches. The altruism is, it doesn't work.

What happens is, people who are illiterate of history and don't have the intellectual capacity to study it, will buy into propaganda churned out by the Socialists. These don't have to be stupid people, they can be college kids who just don't care about history. But we now have several generations who have been essentially brainwashed by Socialists and they believe that slapping "Democratic" in front of it makes it all great and wonderful. It's a failed ideology that hasn't ever worked and it has caused massive deaths. It's not humane or compassionate, it's hideous and brutal.

Government doesn't act as a buffer between corporate power and average Joe. What happens is, government becomes an accomplice with corporations who have enough money to buy influence. "Regulation" is very often their tricky little way of fooling you into thinking they are doing something great and wonderful when what they actually are doing is tilting tables in favor of their corporate partners in crime. Not always, we have to be careful with generalities because some regulation is good. And subsequently, some deregulation would be bad. This isn't a black or white argument... lots of grey area.

You started off on the wrong foot but you didn't fall. You recovered nicely. I agree with the latter part of your narrative because it validates the "buffer" I was speaking about. Yes, Corporations can buy political influence but the informed voter can make a difference there too. That is why the free press may be the most important factor in brining the average Joe into the political arena in significant enough numbers to act as a unit.

But the "informed voter" is out there attacking Capitalism and pushing this stupid nonsense about "Democratic Socialism" as preached by Bernie Sanders. Expanding government and government power is adding fuel to the fire... it's making the problems worse. You HAVE to get government out of the way of Capitalism and let free market forces prevail. When you do that, there may be some rocky roads, businesses will go under and fail, people will lose jobs... but at the end of the day, the market corrects itself and things rebound even stronger than before.

Where I personally come down on this is the Constitutional obligations in Article I Sec. 8. Anything that ventures beyond that is excess government power and that's usually a bad thing over time because it becomes corrupted and exploited. Our system was established on the idea of free enterprise, free market economics, constitutional protections and individual liberty. When those things are encouraged, enabled, empowered and allowed to flourish, we have tremendous success and our record shows that.

But Art 1. Sec. 8 Does not address that pesky Bill of Rights which is cited elsewhere in the Constitution, somewhere in that thar Amendment Section. I am especially fond of the 9th and 10th Amendments, aren't you? Looking past the popular mention of state's rights contained therein, I want to highlight the fact that both Amendments mention the undefined or obscure rights of We the People not enumerated in the Constitution. How can those obscure rights be identified, accessed and applied without government intervention?

If our system was founded on the idea of free enterprise, free market economics, constitutional protections and individual liberty, that model failed miserably. The stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression is the starkest example and the Economic Recession of 2009 was the another. Free market systems produced Billy Sol Estes, Charles Keating and Bernie Madoff. Yes, they flourished at the expense of Average Joe!
The record shows that too!

There's nothing pesky about the Bill of Rights. They don't have a thing to do with the structure of government outlined in the Articles.

The 1929 crash and Great Depression is a direct result of government meddling in the affairs of free market capitalism. Government CAUSED the problem.... not Capitalism. The people you are citing as examples produced by the free market are crony corporatists who were colluding with government or exploiting government regulations to their advantage. Again... the problem is GOVERNMENT!

 

[American_Jihad]

The left has always wanted Cradle to Grave...

No I think that is conservatives, do you even have insurance?

That's your problem " I think" but as always you think wrong the left is cradle to grave and have the craziest idea that they can make a UTOPIA... rolmao

 

[Penelope]

Socialism is our tax dollars going to subsidize large corps who do not pay taxes. Not only do Americans pay for their jobs , we also make those at the top richer.

Socialism is taxpayers money going to subsidize congressmen's health insurance, state employees, police , fireman's and US military wages and healthcare and retirement, etc.

Socialism is taking tax payers dollars and paying for school vouchers , we also pay for the public schools.

I think the poorer and median income should get a little bit of taxpayers money as well, and well at least Democrats give lifesavers when in need, the GOP does not believe in life savers.

Jesus told Peter to pay the tax, and yet Trump says its smart not to pay taxes, in his pea size brain and those of the GOP who hate taxes , they also use our highways, our air, and drink our water. I'm quite sure they use the sewage systems as well. Their shit is what stinks so much.

 

[dblack]

Socialism is our tax dollars going to subsidize large corps who do not pay taxes.

I tend to agree, but I never thought I'd hear a Democrat admit it.

Socialism is taxpayers money going to subsidize congressmen's health insurance, state employees, police , fireman's and US military wages and healthcare and retirement, etc.

Nah... that' s just compensating employees. Has nothing to do with government controlling the means of production and distribution[*].

Socialism is taking tax payers dollars and paying for school vouchers , we also pay for the public schools.

I'm not sure public education qualifies as socialism, but it's definitely in line with the authoritarian, statist mode that most socialists adopt.

 

[Boss]

Socialism is our tax dollars going to subsidize large corps who do not pay taxes. Not only do Americans pay for their jobs , we also make those at the top richer.

Socialism is taxpayers money going to subsidize congressmen's health insurance, state employees, police , fireman's and US military wages and healthcare and retirement, etc.

Socialism is taking tax payers dollars and paying for school vouchers , we also pay for the public schools.

I think the poorer and median income should get a little bit of taxpayers money as well, and well at least Democrats give lifesavers when in need, the GOP does not believe in life savers.

Jesus told Peter to pay the tax, and yet Trump says its smart not to pay taxes, in his pea size brain and those of the GOP who hate taxes , they also use our highways, our air, and drink our water. I'm quite sure they use the sewage systems as well. Their shit is what stinks so much.

And yet, the people who worship Jesus overwhelmingly supported Trump. Awww... sorry about that, maybe your proselytizing would be more effective if you didn't advocate killing babies in the womb?

Here's how government works... Your thoughts on where taxes should go doesn't mean anything because your party doesn't control any political power. You see, we recently went to the polls and voted on things like the military, jobs, school vouchers, taxes, etc. Your side lost badly. Let me seeeee.... it seems like I recall a quote from a somewhat lackluster president.... "Elections have consequences!"

 

[JQPublic1]

've always thought this was curious how some people equate Jesus teachings with Socialism. Especially after reading Karl Marx who explicitly details how all religion and belief in God needs to be quelled in order for the masses to rest faith in the state. Do you think Jesus would have endorsed Marx's ideas?


No, Jesus did not teach people to go out there and lobby to take wealth from the rich and give it to the poor... that was Robin Hood. Jesus was big on self-responsibility. Not relying on Caesar and power of state but getting up off your ass and helping your neighbor in need.

I think you've got it Bass Ackwards. Jesus was here almost 2000 years before Karl Marx was. If one influenced the other in any way, Marx would have been influenced by Jesus. But religiosity wasn't part of the dynamic I was referring too in the comparison between socialism and Jesus' teachings. My focus was on the intrinsic similarities involving human compassion and altruism. Besides Marx is credited as being the founder of Communism, not the quasi capitalist hybrid system we know as Socialism. The difference is startling. Christianity is deeply entrenched in all of the Socialist countries I can think of. It would seem your premise falls short in sight of the teeming masses of Europe. The same Europe where magnificent cathedrals and ancient artifacts speak to the marriage of Socialism and Christianity. AMEN!

I'm pretty sure Karl Marx was the founder of modern Socialism, or one of the early purveyors of how to make it work. Since he was an Atheist, I doubt he was influenced by Jesus.

The myriad sources I reviewed are eerily silent on that aspect of Karl Marx's life but thanks to my dogged persistence I found this:


In his book entitled Marx & Satan, Richard Wurmbrand refers to a quote from Marx's first book entitled " The Union of the faithful with Christ." Indeed, at 17, when Marx penned his pious devotional commentary, he was

reflecting upon the 15th Chapter of John's Gospel. Is it not safe to say the man whose name became, euphemistically, an eponym for Communism...i.e Marxism was influenced by Christianity? Deny it if you will, but Marx's own words will mock you.

If you believe in "human compassion" why would you pick an economic philosophy responsible for more than 150 million deaths? Why wouldn't you endorse a philosophy that created more millionaires and billionaires than anything man ever devised? Capitalism has lifted people out of poverty, made the poorest of the poor into the richest of the rich. It has successfully advanced civilization worldwide. Socialism has consistently destroyed everything it touches. The altruism is, it doesn't work.

"Pick" is the wrong word if you are referring to my choice of economic ideology. I am just a student of history who sees that a balanced mixture of both Capitalism and Socialism is necessary for long term economic success. That is the hybrid system that we have been living under ever since FDR. And in case you forgot, prior to that, the Great Depression enriched the wealthy and economically destroyed the wealth of the working classes. It is as if a cycle of economic upheaval is a built in tenet of Capitalism designed for the sole purpose of wealth distribution from the lower classes to the wealthy.


But the 150 million deaths you attribute to Socialism is a disingenuous ploy. Socialism had nothing to do with it any more than Capitalism is responsible for the mass decimation of the American Indians or millions of Africans during the Middle Passage. Tribes, and, subsequently, nations have been killing each other since man appeared on earth. It is the pathology of demagogs that know how to manipulate their masses that is key to large scale atrocities and war. Yep, behind it all are the oligarch's and plutocrats sitting in their ivory towers while they start international conflicts and send their poorer brethren off to fight , conquer and die for them.

What happens is, people who are illiterate of history and don't have the intellectual capacity to study it, will buy into propaganda churned out by the Socialists. These don't have to be stupid people, they can be college kids who just don't care about history. But we now have several generations who have been essentially brainwashed by Socialists and they believe that slapping "Democratic" in front of it makes it all great and wonderful. It's a failed ideology that hasn't ever worked and it has caused massive deaths. It's not humane or compassionate, it's hideous and brutal.

So if socialism was "responsible for so many deaths," as you erroneously put it, why did the very countries where those deaths occurred embrace socialism even more tightly? I'll tell ya. The citizens of those countries know that socialism wasn't to blame...it was the populist tyrants who their parents and grandparents supported.


Your opinion lacks one key fact. Some very bright people become socialists because they just see it as a more humane system for the poor weak and old.. With most of the industrialized nations of the world leaning more towards the socialist side of the spectrum than we do, your premise falls flat.

Capitalism embodies the law of the jungle: "the survival of the fittest." Christian Socialism embodies the notion that we are our brother's keeper. Some would call the former Mammon and the latter religious altruism.



The brainwashing here occurs when people are enticed by social identity to vote against their own interests. Many so called "lower tiered "konservatives" think they are part of a grand hegemonic system and are liked to it by race. But, the top 0.01% who own as much wealth as the bottom 90%

don't give a damn.They want it all and they don't want competition from YOU.


BTW, I have heard that everyday more millionaires or billionaires are created by the free market system in this country; but, I am skeptical because that 0.01% figure hasn't changed in a decade.

Government doesn't act as a buffer between corporate power and average Joe. What happens is, government becomes an accomplice with corporations who have enough money to buy influence. "Regulation" is very often their tricky little way of fooling you into thinking they are doing something great and wonderful when what they actually are doing is tilting tables in favor of their corporate partners in crime. Not always, we have to be careful with generalities because some regulation is good. And subsequently, some deregulation would be bad. This isn't a black or white argument... lots of grey area.

You started off on the wrong foot but you didn't fall. You recovered nicely. I agree with the latter part of your narrative because it validates the "buffer" I was speaking about. Yes, Corporations can buy political influence but the informed voter can make a difference there too. That is why the free press may be the most important factor in brining the average Joe into the political arena in significant enough numbers to act as a unit.

But the "informed voter" is out there attacking Capitalism and pushing this stupid nonsense about "Democratic Socialism" as preached by Bernie Sanders. Expanding government and government power is adding fuel to the fire... it's making the problems worse. You HAVE to get government out of the way of Capitalism and let free market forces prevail. When you do that, there may be some rocky roads, businesses will go under and fail, people will lose jobs... but at the end of the day, the market corrects itself and things rebound even stronger than before.

The "free Market system is prone to corruption. I don't believe the "rocky roads, failing businesses

and job losses are random occurrences. I believe those economic upheavals are strategies to keep the redistribution of wealth going one way...from the poor to the rich.

Where I personally come down on this is the Constitutional obligations in Article I Sec. 8. Anything that ventures beyond that is excess government power and that's usually a bad thing over time because it becomes corrupted and exploited. Our system was established on the idea of free enterprise, free market economics, constitutional protections and individual liberty. When those things are encouraged, enabled, empowered and allowed to flourish, we have tremendous success and our record shows that.

But Art 1. Sec. 8 Does not address that pesky Bill of Rights which is cited elsewhere in the Constitution, somewhere in that thar Amendment Section. I am especially fond of the 9th and 10th Amendments, aren't you? Looking past the popular mention of state's rights contained therein, I want to highlight the fact that both Amendments mention the undefined or obscure rights of We the People not enumerated in the Constitution. How can those obscure rights be identified, accessed and applied without government intervention?


If our system was founded on the idea of free enterprise, free market economics, constitutional protections and individual liberty, that model failed miserably. The stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression is the starkest example and the Economic Recession of 2009 was the another. Free market systems produced Billy Sol Estes, Charles Keating and Bernie Madoff. Yes, they flourished at the expense of Average Joe!

The record shows that too!

There's nothing pesky about the Bill of Rights. They don't have a thing to do with the structure of government outlined in the Articles.


The 1929 crash and Great Depression is a direct result of government meddling in the affairs of free market capitalism. Government CAUSED the problem.... not Capitalism. The people you are citing as examples produced by the free market are crony corporatists who were colluding with government or exploiting government regulations to their advantage. Again... the problem is GOVERNMENT!

I used the term "pesky" to illuminate my disagreement with the Constitutional limits you embrace in Art 1. Sec.8. For your information Constitutional Amendments do just the opposite by providing the tools for expanding or restricting the Articles with the blessings of the Supreme Court of course.


One question: Are you admitting the corruption inherent in Capitalism? That scenario you described certainly doesn't reflect the actions of a Christian Socialists! Avarice is more of a Capitalist's thing.

 

[Boss]

The myriad sources I reviewed are eerily silent on that aspect of Karl Marx's life but thanks to my dogged persistence I found this:


In his book entitled Marx & Satan, Richard Wurmbrand refers to a quote from Marx's first book entitled " The Union of the faithful with Christ." Indeed, at 17, when Marx penned his pious devotional commentary, he was

reflecting upon the 15th Chapter of John's Gospel. Is it not safe to say the man whose name became, euphemistically, an eponym for Communism...i.e Marxism was influenced by Christianity? Deny it if you will, but Marx's own words will mock you.

Sorry you went to such great lengths for nothing. All you had to do was read Das Kapital. He spells it out very clearly that the primary objective in establishing a Socialist society is to silence religion. You can't have people devoting their faith to religion if they are supposed to be devoted to the state. What he did at 17, I have no idea and it's not important.

"Pick" is the wrong word if you are referring to my choice of economic ideology. I am just a student of history who sees that a balanced mixture of both Capitalism and Socialism is necessary for long term economic success.

Well no... You can't have a mixture of both, it doesn't work. Free market capitalism is the antithesis of Socialism. Socialists utilize Capitalism, almost all systems must utilize Capitalism in some form. The Socialist manifestation is cronyism and it becomes very corrupted by those who control it... nothing resembling free market capitalism. I don't know what history you studied but all Socialist empires have failed.

But the 150 million deaths you attribute to Socialism is a disingenuous ploy. Socialism had nothing to do with it any more than Capitalism is responsible for the mass decimation of the American Indians or millions of Africans during the Middle Passage.

Socialism has everything to do with it, that was the system installed. It happened under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. As the Socialist system failed under Stalin, people revolted and were executed. Mao went ahead and executed them ahead of time to get them out of the way. Pol Pot began executing when his people began starving and he couldn't feed them anymore. This is what happens in a Socialist State, when the wheels come off, people suffer and die. It's not disingenuous, it's written all through history.

The "free Market system is prone to corruption.

Nope. The FREE MARKET system isn't prone to corruption and can't be corrupted. As long as there is competition and free markets, there is no corrupting force. It's when GOVERNMENTS get involved that you have corruption.

I used the term "pesky" to illuminate my disagreement with the Constitutional limits you embrace in Art 1. Sec.8. For your information Constitutional Amendments do just the opposite by providing the tools for expanding or restricting the Articles with the blessings of the Supreme Court of course.

No they don't. The Articles (I,II, and III) outline the structure of government. They have nothing to do with rights of the people. Amendments do change the Constitution but they don't change the structure of government. And it's certainly not up to the Supreme Court to "bless" anything. They are the least influential of the coequal branches and their power is limited by Congress. They are not supposed to CHANGE the Constitution. Only The People can do that through the Amendment process. Their job is supposed to be deciding on specific cases and whether the word of the Constitution has been met.

One question: Are you admitting the corruption inherent in Capitalism? That scenario you described certainly doesn't reflect the actions of a Christian Socialists! Avarice is more of a Capitalist's thing.

Capitalism can certainly be corrupted. That is why "FREE MARKET" capitalism is so important. Whenever Capitalists collude with governments, Capitalism is corrupted and the people suffer. Every single problem you can name with Capitalism over the past 240 years is the direct result of collusion with government in some way. It is the GOVERNMENT that is the problem. Free Market Capitalism works flawlessly and cannot be corrupted. If it's Capitalism and it's corrupted, it's NOT free market.

 

[JQPublic1]

The myriad sources I reviewed are eerily silent on that aspect of Karl Marx's life but thanks to my dogged persistence I found this:


In his book entitled Marx & Satan, Richard Wurmbrand refers to a quote from Marx's first book entitled " The Union of the faithful with Christ." Indeed, at 17, when Marx penned his pious devotional commentary, he was

reflecting upon the 15th Chapter of John's Gospel. Is it not safe to say the man whose name became, euphemistically, an eponym for Communism...i.e Marxism was influenced by Christianity? Deny it if you will, but Marx's own words will mock you.

Sorry you went to such great lengths for nothing. All you had to do was read Das Kapital. He spells it out very clearly that the primary objective in establishing a Socialist society is to silence religion. You can't have people devoting their faith to religion if they are supposed to be devoted to the state. What he did at 17, I have no idea and it's not important.

I never do anything for :nothing." If you can't appreciate my work, others will... despite your hard defense of raw Capitalism at my expense.
In an earlier post I recognized some crucial altruistic similarities between Socialism and Christianity. You disagreed and punctuated that disagreement with reference to Marx's atheism. I showed you the connection with links to a book Marx wrote ," The Union of the faithful with Christ.", which provides a nexus between the altruistic fundamentals of Marxism and Christianity. Socialism, as practiced throughout Europe, is neither Communism or Marxism; but, let's just say Socialism is a brother from a different mother with Capitalism as one parent and Marxism as the other. Marx's subsequent abandonment of Christianity and seduction into atheism does not erase core values indoctrinated during his Jewish/Christian upbringing. Devotion to a deity was ,apparently, supplanted by Humanism although many pro capitalist writers have demonized his agenda as being apocalyptic.

Christian Socialists would be just as socialist as they are today if Marx had never been born. I doubt if many of them have ever read Das Kapital. Christian Socialism, by any other name, precedes Communism, Marxism and traditional secular Socialism by, perhaps thousands of years.

"Pick" is the wrong word if you are referring to my choice of economic ideology. I am just a student of history who sees that a balanced mixture of both Capitalism and Socialism is necessary for long term economic success.

Well no... You can't have a mixture of both, it doesn't work. Free market capitalism is the antithesis of Socialism. Socialists utilize Capitalism, almost all systems must utilize Capitalism in some form. The Socialist manifestation is cronyism and it becomes very corrupted by those who control it... nothing resembling free market capitalism. I don't know what history you studied but all Socialist empires have failed.

And what example or free Market Capitalism are you referring to? Give me an era to work with. I ask that knowing that in my lifetime the USA has never been a totally free Market economy. Be careful of the era you choose because any damning Capitalist baggage comes with it. If we ever had free market capitalism, it too failed. Of course you attribute that failure to government intervention (usually consumer/labor/ environmental/ protections).
Well, I attribute any failure of Socialism not to any intrinsic fault, but to the dogged world wide assault upon it by the United States of America:
When remembering Kissinger, the war against Socialism comes first, his career second - American Herald Tribune

Spoiler: USA GLOBAL ASSAULT ON SOCIALISM

The US war on socialism didn't stop with the Soviet Union. Rather, US foreign policy became shaped by the world capitalist system's need to isolate the Soviet Union and later the Peoples Republic of China. After World War II, the US became the imperial superpower of the world. The US capitalist economy made up fifty percent of world gross domestic product (GDP). The US concluded its involvement in World War II by utilizing the first nuclear bomb against Japan. Government sources now confirm that Washington used this weapon of mass destruction to send a clear signal to the Soviet Union of its military capabilities.

The atom bomb devastated millions of Japanese civilians in the cities of Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and beyond. Cancer and birth defects continue to plague the people of Japan. It was through indirect military maneuvers such as the atomic bombing of Japan that the Cold War received its "Cold" label. However, the Cold War only became more intense and deadly after World War II as the global struggle for socialism expanded. Korea, Vietnam, and numerous countries all over the world were all targeted for US intervention to keep them from establishing socialist societies.

But the 150 million deaths you attribute to Socialism is a disingenuous ploy. Socialism had nothing to do with it any more than Capitalism is responsible for the mass decimation of the American Indians or millions of Africans during the Middle Passage.

Socialism has everything to do with it, that was the system installed. It happened under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. As the Socialist system failed under Stalin, people revolted and were executed. Mao went ahead and executed them ahead of time to get them out of the way. Pol Pot began executing when his people began starving and he couldn't feed them anymore. This is what happens in a Socialist State, when the wheels come off, people suffer and die. It's not disingenuous, it's written all through history.

US Capitalist's hands are just as bloody as all the red dictators you just mentioned. Sometimes the capitalists worked behind the scenes to support dictators who could be used as puppets to exlpoit various populations. Again you have failed to show how socialism specifically had anything to do with the bloody purges you mentioned. I am not looking for intangibles here. Put some meat on the table and tell me how the Christian Socialism practiced in Europe today would give rise to a murderous tyrant as deadly as those you mentioned. Do that and I will show you how the same thing could happen in the USA!

The "free Market system is prone to corruption.

Nope. The FREE MARKET system isn't prone to corruption and can't be corrupted. As long as there is competition and free markets, there is no corrupting force. It's when GOVERNMENTS get involved that you have corruption.

Just because you say so?? If you really believe that, I have a bridge to sell you...literally.

I used the term "pesky" to illuminate my disagreement with the Constitutional limits you embrace in Art 1. Sec.8. For your information Constitutional Amendments do just the opposite by providing the tools for expanding or restricting the Articles with the blessings of the Supreme Court of course.

No they don't. The Articles (I,II, and III) outline the structure of government. They have nothing to do with rights of the people. Amendments do change the Constitution but they don't change the structure of government. And it's certainly not up to the Supreme Court to "bless" anything. They are the least influential of the coequal branches and their power is limited by Congress. They are not supposed to CHANGE the Constitution. Only The People can do that through the Amendment process. Their job is supposed to be deciding on specific cases and whether the word of the Constitution has been met.

You were wrong about about Marx's early Christian leanings having an effect on Socialism or Marxism and you are wrong again.

One question: Are you admitting the corruption inherent in Capitalism? That scenario you described certainly doesn't reflect the actions of a Christian Socialists! Avarice is more of a Capitalist's thing.

Capitalism can certainly be corrupted. That is why "FREE MARKET" capitalism is so important. Whenever Capitalists collude with governments, Capitalism is corrupted and the people suffer. Every single problem you can name with Capitalism over the past 240 years is the direct result of collusion with government in some way. It is the GOVERNMENT that is the problem. Free Market Capitalism works flawlessly and cannot be corrupted. If it's Capitalism and it's corrupted, it's NOT free market.

Free market Capitalism has often occurred in the after math of disasters. Unscrupulous vendors sold bottled water and other goods up to 1000% profit. The Free Market doesn't deviate much from that rudimentary example. And, if you know your history, depending on the product, the competition is often eliminated by any means necessary to include violence. If you get right down to it, gang violence,White or Black,is often a by product of a Free Market system.

 

[dblack]

The free Market system is prone to corruption...

In sharp contrast to the benign oversight of a regulatory regime.

 

[Flopper]

Obongo-aid only works for a few and the rest of us has to pay for them and all leftist that control it - they are ticks...
'Repeal and Replace' Obamacare -- With the Free Market
Time to get health care right once and for all.
January 5, 2017
Larry Elder

One of President-elect Donald Trump's major campaign promises is to "repeal and replace" Obamacare.

Vice President Joe Biden recently dared him to do so. Biden knows that 20 million Americans have health insurance that didn't before Obamacare, and they represent 20 million stories on CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times — in the entire "health care is a right" crowd — when and if Trump follows through.

Sure, despite President Barack Obama's promises to the contrary, some people lost their health care coverage and some people lost their doctors. And no, the average family did not save $2,500 per year as Obama insisted would be the case. And yes, health insurance premiums, copays and deductibles are going up even though Obama promised that his plan would "bend the cost curve" down.

All that matters to the anti-Trump media is that there is now an entire class of people to exert pressure against the repeal of Obamacare. Many Republicans say they want to keep "the good parts of Obamacare," specifically the prohibition against denying insurance based on a pre-existing condition and forcing insurance carriers to keep a "child" on his or her parents' policy until the child is 26. Republicans promised to not only repeal but to "replace" Obamacare. How can they do this — and replace it with what?

Republicans, despite their unanimous opposition against Obamacare, bought into at least two premises that its proponents argued. The first is that health care is a right — or, if not a right, at least something whose costs the federal government should reduce. The second is that, having made the decision to intervene in health care, the federal government possesses the knowledge, wisdom and judgment to reduce its costs to make it "affordable." The feds, promised Obamacare advocates, can even make health care affordable without reducing quality.

For Obamacare to "work," it is particularly important for young people to "buy in," because while they are forced to spend on health care insurance they are unlikely to consume health care services. Obamacare transfers money from the pockets of young people (with a net worth smaller than that of seniors, by the way) into the pockets of older, health care consuming Americans.

If the goal were truly to make health care more affordable, Obamacare would be as laughably wrongheaded as other Obama boondoggles like "cash for caulkers" or "cash for clunkers." No, the real goal is taxpayer-paid health care. Both ex-DNC chair Howard Dean and ex-Senate leader Harry Reid said so.

To reduce costs in health care, or, for that matter, in any commodity, is to unleash the free market. Health care is particularly shackled by restrictions and regulations too numerous to mention. Here is just one example.

In the biographical movie "Hacksaw Ridge," a World War II medic, Private Desmond Doss, a pacifist, refused to carry a rifle. In the midst of the carnage, during the Battle of Okinawa, Doss carried wounded soldiers and rappelled them down a cliff face to safety then treated them alongside the medics. He was awarded a Medal of Honor for saving scores of lives.

...

If Congressional Republicans were serious about making health care affordable, they should sell the voters on the free market. Where's the slogan for that?

'Repeal and Replace' Obamacare -- With the Free Market

RELIEF FROM OBAMACARE FINALLY ON THE WAY?
Messy legislative process ahead before a real cure to Obamacare can reach President Trump.
March 8, 2017
Joseph Klein

House Republicans have finally released their legislative blueprint for repealing and replacing Obamacare. President Trump has indicated his support of the proposed legislation, while leaving the door open for negotiations.

Key changes involving repeal of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion and the Obamacare subsidies will not take full effect until 2020. However, the proposed replacement for Obamacare provides a path to real reform, while at the same time not throwing out the baby with the bath water. The proposed legislation would preserve the prohibition on denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions or charging them more for such coverage, and it would preserve the prohibition on capping lifetime coverage. It would also continue allowing young adults up to the age of 26 to remain covered under their parents’ health plans. However, the new American Health Care Act would eliminate some of the most unpopular features of Obamacare. For example, it would repeal the individual mandate to purchase health insurance and the penalties that go with it. And it would eliminate various Obamacare taxes by 2018. Previous proposals to begin taxing employees on a portion of the value of expensive employer-provided health insurance have been dropped from the released version of the proposed legislation.

The proposed legislation would eliminate Obamacare’s federal top-down standards for baseline coverage that must be provided in all policies. This means that insurance companies can offer a variety of plans, including polices covering only catastrophic expenses, which people can use tax credits to purchase. This fundamental change, along with including a provision to permit competition among insurance providers across state lines, can be expected to drive down coverage costs and increase choices for consumers.

Although the individual mandate would go away, there is a provision allowing insurance companies to add a surcharge for those with a gap of 63 days or more without health plan coverage, in order to discourage people from gaming the system.

The proposed legislation would also replace direct subsidies to lower income persons purchasing health insurance from the Obamacare exchanges with refundable tax credits to help people without employer-provided or government-provided coverage to purchase health insurance. These tax credits would rise with age, ranging from $2,000 per year for people younger than 30 to $4,000 per year for people over 60. However, there is also an income-based component. The full credits are reduced for individuals and married couples with annual incomes exceeding $75,000 and $150,000 respectively.

The proposed legislation would freeze Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid, with some protections grandfathered for current enrollees. Federal payments to states for Medicaid would be based on a fixed per-person allotment.

“Obamacare is a sinking ship,” said House Majority Leader Representative Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), “and the legislation introduced today will rescue people from the mistakes of the past.”

Not surprisingly, Democrats are vehemently opposed. The Democratic National Committee wasted no time putting a petition online, which they even sent to me, entitled “STOP THE GOP HEALTH CARE BILL.” Needless to say, I am not signing.


Relief From Obamacare Finally On The Way?

American Health Care Act neither repeals nor replaces Obamacare. It amends it. It amends it in 52 places. In effect it nullifies or changes the parts of the law which effect the federal budget. Since the bulk of law is insurance company regulations, insurance companies will have to offer almost the same coverage as Obamacare, accepting anyone with pre-existing but without any mandate to buy insurance or employers to offer it. This means insurers will lose premiums from young healthy subscribes and smaller companies so the cost will increase.

To completely replace Obamacare, Republicans will need Democrat support because it will require 60 votes in the Senate.

 

[JQPublic1]

The free Market system is prone to corruption...

In sharp contrast to the benign oversight of a regulatory regime.

The benign oversight of a regulatory regime kept the wolves at bay,

 

[Boss]

And what example or free Market Capitalism are you referring to? Give me an era to work with. I ask that knowing that in my lifetime the USA has never been a totally free Market economy.

Again, I've already touched on this... it's a common argument tossed out by Socialists criticizing Free Market Capitalism. There is no such thing as an absolutely pure system of ANY kind. The very nature of having a population of human beings prohibits this. So any era I give you, there will be some examples you can cite which preclude our system from being an absolutely PURE free market.

Our foundation, the very principles on which our nation was founded, was individual liberty. With that comes freedom of enterprise and free market capitalism. That means the market is free to voluntarily interact with capitalists who provide goods and services with price based on market demand and relative supply and without interference from outside sources.

It's the system we've always had, we founded this system and it has been wildly successful. In fact, nothing else has ever even come close to producing as much economic prosperity for mankind, as well as technological, medical and industrial advancement for all of humanity. Historically, we enjoy a higher standard of living than any civilization that has ever existed.

You were wrong about about Marx's early Christian leanings having an effect on Socialism or Marxism and you are wrong again.

Karl Marx was an Atheist.

Free market Capitalism has often occurred in the after math of disasters. Unscrupulous vendors sold bottled water and other goods up to 1000% profit.

No sir! That is NOT free market capitalism. That is EXPLOITATION and it's wrong. We've instituted laws regarding exploitation. It's intellectually and factually dishonest to make such an absurd claim.

...depending on the product, the competition is often eliminated by any means necessary to include violence.

Again... this is NOT free market capitalism or how it works.

You have repeatedly shown you don't understand what Free Market Capitalism is or how it works. Your fundamental ignorance on this makes it impossible for me to have a rational conversation with you. Apparently, you want to cling to a failed 19th century idea that has resulted in millions of deaths and destroyed countless lives.

 

[JQPublic1]

Karl Marx was an Atheist.

But Karl lMarx was a Jewish convert to Christianity BEFORE he became an atheist. You can't seem to grasp that.
Your denial of the evidence put before you casts a shadow over your entire world view. Frankly,I am weighing the wisdom of continuing this exchange with someone who so blatantly disregards facts.

 

[Boss]

But Karl lMarx was a Jewish convert to Christianity BEFORE he became an atheist. You can't seem to grasp that.
Your denial of the evidence put before you casts a shadow over your entire world view. Frankly,I am weighing the wisdom of continuing this exchange with someone who so blatantly disregards facts.

Denial of evidence? I can give you direct quotes from Marx where he unequivocally says that religion is a hindrance in establishment of Socialism and you want to talk about his early childhood. I make the strong and indisputable case for the success of free market capitalism and you want to talk about exploitation and cronyism. You are the one denying evidence and disregarding facts.

 

[dblack]

The free Market system is prone to corruption...

In sharp contrast to the benign oversight of a regulatory regime.

The benign oversight of a regulatory regime kept the wolves at bay,

Dragons at the gate!!!

 

[Flopper]

And what example or free Market Capitalism are you referring to? Give me an era to work with. I ask that knowing that in my lifetime the USA has never been a totally free Market economy.

Again, I've already touched on this... it's a common argument tossed out by Socialists criticizing Free Market Capitalism. There is no such thing as an absolutely pure system of ANY kind. The very nature of having a population of human beings prohibits this. So any era I give you, there will be some examples you can cite which preclude our system from being an absolutely PURE free market.

Our foundation, the very principles on which our nation was founded, was individual liberty. With that comes freedom of enterprise and free market capitalism. That means the market is free to voluntarily interact with capitalists who provide goods and services with price based on market demand and relative supply and without interference from outside sources.

It's the system we've always had, we founded this system and it has been wildly successful. In fact, nothing else has ever even come close to producing as much economic prosperity for mankind, as well as technological, medical and industrial advancement for all of humanity. Historically, we enjoy a higher standard of living than any civilization that has ever existed.

You were wrong about about Marx's early Christian leanings having an effect on Socialism or Marxism and you are wrong again.

Karl Marx was an Atheist.

Free market Capitalism has often occurred in the after math of disasters. Unscrupulous vendors sold bottled water and other goods up to 1000% profit.

No sir! That is NOT free market capitalism. That is EXPLOITATION and it's wrong. We've instituted laws regarding exploitation. It's intellectually and factually dishonest to make such an absurd claim.

...depending on the product, the competition is often eliminated by any means necessary to include violence.

Again... this is NOT free market capitalism or how it works.

You have repeatedly shown you don't understand what Free Market Capitalism is or how it works. Your fundamental ignorance on this makes it impossible for me to have a rational conversation with you. Apparently, you want to cling to a failed 19th century idea that has resulted in millions of deaths and destroyed countless lives.

Free market capitalism has only existed in Fairyland but was quickly smashed by a workers revolution so no, it has never really existed anywhere. The "Free Market" is really a contradiction in terms; one cannot have a market which is "free" and still have a functioning market for any amount of time, much less a functioning society.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, the market for healthcare insurance has never been anything even close to a free market. From the earliest days of the health insurance, state and federal laws have increasingly regulated the market. Today 60% of healthcare is paid for by the government and most of the remaining private insurance is offered by nonprofits or co-ops. Thinking the free market is going have any real impact on American healthcare is a fantasy.

 

[dblack]

Getting back to the topic of this thread, the market for healthcare insurance has never been anything even close to a free market. From the earliest days of the health insurance, state and federal laws have increasingly regulated the market. Today 60% of healthcare is paid for by the government and most of the remaining private insurance is offered by nonprofits or co-ops. Thinking the free market is going have any real impact on American healthcare is a fantasy.

Sounds like a free market would be a radical departure from past policy. How could that not have any real impact?

 

[Flopper]

Getting back to the topic of this thread, the market for healthcare insurance has never been anything even close to a free market. From the earliest days of the health insurance, state and federal laws have increasingly regulated the market. Today 60% of healthcare is paid for by the government and most of the remaining private insurance is offered by nonprofits or co-ops. Thinking the free market is going have any real impact on American healthcare is a fantasy.

Sounds like a free market would be a radical departure from past policy. How could that not have any real impact?

The point is it can't happen because neither side would support it. No sensible person would support giving health insurance companies cart Blanche freedoms. Policies and premiums would be constructed to minimize claims and maximize premiums excluding coverage and subscribers that would jeopardize that goal.