You Must Be A Liberal If...

[Bern80]

no. the situation is: I know what the definition of emotional is, and I know what the definition of compassionate is... and I know that they are two different words with two different meanings.... and anyone who says, (emotional, compassionate, whatever you want to call it) uses words in an imprecise way.

Again it is your assumption that I was using the words as synonyms. I wasn't.

It is not a "problem", it is just a fact. I have no "problem" with it... I just know that "having a conversation" with someone who uses words with such callous and apparently deliberate imprecision is nothing I really care to engage in. I am sorry if you think that is "rude and condescending".... it is not meant to be either.

Again your assumption. Don't give me this it's not what you meant shit either. You aren't interested in what anyone 'meant' to say. Your interested in pointing out perceived errors and makeing people feel inferior to you. it is rude and you know it. You said as much to make yourself look smart and elite just like Larkin does.

It is further evidence that all you are interested in is demeaning when you refused to reply to the conversation worthy parts of the post all together and pick out the ones that you can most easily use to denegrate someone.

 

[Larkinn]

I never said all liberals are emotional. I have said it is a trait of the ideology. So basically you and I do the same thing. I am well aware that an entire group of people are unlikely to hold a characteristic in common among all of them.

It is neither a trait of liberals, nor is it a trait of their ideology.

That you think me saying that is somehow a slur or insult says a lot. the idea is that the liberal ideology prides itself on makeing decisons from the heart (emotional, compassionate, whatever you want to call it) rather than the mind (objective, reasoned, etc.) so to speak. If your a liberal your suppossed to take pride in that trait when compared to the 'cold, unfeeling' decision made by a conservate

Incorrect. Liberal ideology does not "pride itself on making decisions from the heart". As I believe I said before you are confusing morals with emotions. If I say that it is wrong to murder people, that is a moral, not an emotion. If I say (which by the way, I never did, but for arguments sake) is just the morally right thing to do, I am talking about morals, not emotions.

Actually re-reading what you've said in response to Maineman and how you have equated Emotions and Compassion as the same thing, I submit that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about and instead really your definition is closer to this vague "ideas from the heart" bullshit which doesn't really have a definition, but instead just sort of fits a bunch of ideas you don't like.

 

[Bern80]

It is neither a trait of liberals, nor is it a trait of their ideology.



Incorrect. Liberal ideology does not "pride itself on making decisions from the heart". As I believe I said before you are confusing morals with emotions. If I say that it is wrong to murder people, that is a moral, not an emotion. If I say (which by the way, I never did, but for arguments sake) is just the morally right thing to do, I am talking about morals, not emotions.

Actually re-reading what you've said in response to Maineman and how you have equated Emotions and Compassion as the same thing, I submit that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about and instead really your definition is closer to this vague "ideas from the heart" bullshit which doesn't really have a definition, but instead just sort of fits a bunch of ideas you don't like.

If you re-read my post to MM you will see that it is he who assummed I am using the terms emotion and compassion synonomously. I am not. But again neither of you seem interesed in what I mean. Only in pointing out my 'inferior' aptitude for communication.

To actually talk about the subject for a second though, I do believe there are some on the left that come at issues from an overly emotional perspective. Emotional in that it completely blinds there ability to reason about anything. yes i do know people like this in real life. the most appropriate word I have heard to describe this group is euphorian. Because to watch them talk about something it really is like looking at someone that is in a state of euphoria.

In terms of the couple policies I pointed out earlier (min. wage and universal healthcare). The best way I can describe them in an attempt to not be perceived as mis-using words, the best way I can describe them well intentioned but poorly thought out or not reasoned or not objectively examining the consequences.

The push to raise the min. wage for example. Sure it sounds great to legislate that a group of people have to be paid more money for their work. But what is the min wage suppossed to accomplish really? is it meant to be the minimum of what one person can survive on? Is it meant to be the minimum of what a single mother with two kids can survive on? I could be wrong but I think that's what the left thinks the purpose of the minimum wage is and is why many in congress from the left are so adamant about raising it. If they don't believe that then their really is no reason to raise it. If survivability is the goal of the minimum wage than it will obviously need to be a lot more then current propossed raise. What is it now? Somewhere between $7-8/hr? that's anywhere from 1k to 1.3k per month, gross mind you. that's barely enough for most to pay rent or the mortgage assuming no other expenses at all. What is sad is that those that advocate this can do math as well as I can and should be able to see to reach the goal of survivability would take at least a 50% increase in the minimum wage to even be worth while. They also have to know to actually do that would have some pretty serious economic consequneces. So to me it really seems like duping people when they raise the minimum wage by a quarter here and fifty cents there and expect us to beleive they did something great. to me it looks like pandering, 'hey look at the really nice thing we did for you?' All the while hopeing no one examines too closely how irrelelvant what they just did is.

Universal healthcare? well you basically know where I stand on that. I'd be all for that one too if I didn't think the qaulity of our facilities and technology as well as actual access to it wouldn't suffer. I think the only thing you're gonna change through free health care is the gorup of people that won't get healthcare.

You claim to know your econ so you should be able to draw a simple supply and demand curve to illustrate what will happen when you reduce the price of something. For reference on a supply and demand curve quantity is on the x axis and price is on teh y axis. the supply curve starts low and goes high from left ro right. the demand curve starts high and goes low from left to right. Where they cross is equilibrium. Drawing a horizontal line from equilibrium to th y axis gives you your price and a vertical line to the x axis gives you your quantity demanded and supplied. Now reduce your price. that shifts the demand curve left the new equilibrium point is now lower on the supply curve then it was before. Don't believe me, check out the link below. the only difference in teh first graph is they increase the price of the product instead of reducing it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

 

[Larkinn]

To actually talk about the subject for a second though, I do believe there are some on the left that come at issues from an overly emotional perspective. Emotional in that it completely blinds there ability to reason about anything. yes i do know people like this in real life. the most appropriate word I have heard to describe this group is euphorian. Because to watch them talk about something it really is like looking at someone that is in a state of euphoria.

As do some on the right. It is an individual problem, not an ideological problem.

In terms of the couple policies I pointed out earlier (min. wage and universal healthcare). The best way I can describe them in an attempt to not be perceived as mis-using words, the best way I can describe them well intentioned but poorly thought out or not reasoned or not objectively examining the consequences.

And THIS is my main problem with you. My thoughts about socialized healthcare and the minimum wage are NOT poorly thought our or not reasoned. Merely because you disagree with them does not make them so. You have provided no evidence that it is the case.

The push to raise the min. wage for example. Sure it sounds great to legislate that a group of people have to be paid more money for their work. But what is the min wage suppossed to accomplish really? is it meant to be the minimum of what one person can survive on? Is it meant to be the minimum of what a single mother with two kids can survive on? I could be wrong but I think that's what the left thinks the purpose of the minimum wage is and is why many in congress from the left are so adamant about raising it. If they don't believe that then their really is no reason to raise it. If survivability is the goal of the minimum wage than it will obviously need to be a lot more then current propossed raise. What is it now? Somewhere between $7-8/hr? that's anywhere from 1k to 1.3k per month, gross mind you. that's barely enough for most to pay rent or the mortgage assuming no other expenses at all. What is sad is that those that advocate this can do math as well as I can and should be able to see to reach the goal of survivability would take at least a 50% increase in the minimum wage to even be worth while.

Most proponents of the minimum wage would like to raise it much higher. Are you under the impression that Liberals control all of government and can raise the minimum wage with the snap of their fingers? I would love to raise the minimum wage, but hey, unfortunately its just not in my power.

They also have to know to actually do that would have some pretty serious economic consequneces. So to me it really seems like duping people when they raise the minimum wage by a quarter here and fifty cents there and expect us to beleive they did something great. to me it looks like pandering, 'hey look at the really nice thing we did for you?' All the while hopeing no one examines too closely how irrelelvant what they just did is.

Ever made that little? Its relevant to those who make minimum wage. And no, its not something great, but it is something.

Universal healthcare? well you basically know where I stand on that. I'd be all for that one too if I didn't think the qaulity of our facilities and technology as well as actual access to it wouldn't suffer. I think the only thing you're gonna change through free health care is the gorup of people that won't get healthcare.

Yes we've discussed this ad nauseum. I know, very well, where you stand on this.

You claim to know your econ so you should be able to draw a simple supply and demand curve to illustrate what will happen when you reduce the price of something. For reference on a supply and demand curve quantity is on the x axis and price is on teh y axis. the supply curve starts low and goes high from left ro right. the demand curve starts high and goes low from left to right. Where they cross is equilibrium. Drawing a horizontal line from equilibrium to th y axis gives you your price and a vertical line to the x axis gives you your quantity demanded and supplied. Now reduce your price. that shifts the demand curve left the new equilibrium point is now lower on the supply curve then it was before. Don't believe me, check out the link below. the only difference in teh first graph is they increase the price of the product instead of reducing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

You don't seem to understand that the price is not what the person pays for it, but rather what the supplier recieves. Merely because I won't be paying for healthcare does not mean it is free, it merely means the government will be paying for it. Hence your demand and supply graph is irrelevant to the conversation.

 

[Bern80]

As do some on the right. It is an individual problem, not an ideological problem.

true, on the right I call it being an old white guy.

Most proponents of the minimum wage would like to raise it much higher. Are you under the impression that Liberals control all of government and can raise the minimum wage with the snap of their fingers? I would love to raise the minimum wage, but hey, unfortunately its just not in my power.

And to me the purpose of raising it is the point. Do you beleive the purpose of the minimum wage is provide some level of survivability?

If so you need to answer what the consequences of that will be on our economy.

Ever made that little? Its relevant to those who make minimum wage. And no, its not something great, but it is something.

Sure, in high school.

You don't seem to understand that the price is not what the person pays for it, but rather what the supplier recieves. Merely because I won't be paying for healthcare does not mean it is free, it merely means the government will be paying for it. Hence your demand and supply graph is irrelevant to the conversation.

Supply and demand is irrelevent to healthcare access? You wont' be selling that to an econ prof i don't think. What is irrelevant as far as ecomomic laws go is who pays. Those curves don't reflect in anyway who pays. All it relefects is the amount paid which to you has gone down which can be shown by moving down teh x axis. The cost to you went down thus you have moved down on teh x axis. there called the laws of supply and demand because they work for anything that has a price regardless of where the money comes from.

 

[Larkinn]

true, on the right I call it being an old white guy.

What?

And to me the purpose of raising it is the point. Do you beleive the purpose of the minimum wage is provide some level of survivability?

If so you need to answer what the consequences of that will be on our economy.

Yes, I do. And it would have a negative effect on our economy, which I and many others are willing to live with.

Sure, in high school.

I know adults who make minimum wage. An increase would help them dramatically.

What is irrelevant as far as ecomomic laws go is who pays. Those curves don't reflect in anyway who pays. All it relefects is the amount paid which to you has gone down which can be shown by moving down teh x axis. The cost to you went down thus you have moved down on teh x axis. there called the laws of supply and demand because they work for anything that has a price regardless of where the money comes from.

Yeah, thats pretty much what I said. Hence saying that healthcare supply will decrease because the government pays instead of the individual, is incorrect.

 

[Bern80]

Yes, I do. And it would have a negative effect on our economy, which I and many others are willing to live with.

But one of those negative effects would be that even more jobs will be outsourced. That is another economic truism. When minimum wage goes up unemployment also goes up. While it may secure higher wages for some it will also eliminate jobs all together for others. Is that one of the consequences you're prepared to live with.

Yeah, thats pretty much what I said. Hence saying that healthcare supply will decrease because the government pays instead of the individual, is incorrect.

I would suggest you go read the wiki because this simply is incorrect. How can the supply of something not decrease if more people are consuming it? Tehre is only one way that can happen: that is if quanitity supplied increases. You said yourself in an earlier post that consumption will increase if price goes down. What does increased consumption do to supply? This one is not a matter of opinion. I have studied plenty of econ and I know what I'm talking about.

Please just draw yourself a supply and demand curve showing what happens when the price to you goes down. Price has gone down to you the consumer, which compells you to consume more. that is economic law. If you think I'm wrong find yourself an econ prof to explain it to you.

 

[Larkinn]

But one of those negative effects would be that even more jobs will be outsourced. That is another economic truism. When minimum wage goes up unemployment also goes up. While it may secure higher wages for some it will also eliminate jobs all together for others. Is that one of the consequences you're prepared to live with.

Umm most minimum wage jobs are crappy service jobs. I really don't think they are going to manage to outsource your local mcdonalds server.

I would suggest you go read the wiki because this simply is incorrect. How can the supply of something not decrease if more people are consuming it? Tehre is only one way that can happen: that is if quanitity supplied increases. You said yourself in an earlier post that consumption will increase if price goes down. What does increased consumption do to supply? This one is not a matter of opinion. I have studied plenty of econ and I know what I'm talking about.

Increased consumption does not effect supply, unless you are defining supply as average supply per person, not total supply.

 

[Bern80]

Umm most minimum wage jobs are crappy service jobs. I really don't think they are going to manage to outsource your local mcdonalds server.



Increased consumption does not effect supply, unless you are defining supply as average supply per person, not total supply.

How the hell can that be? Listen to yourself for a second. what you basically just said is that if you take a drink of water out of glass teh water level in the glass isn't going to go down. Again I ask how can the supply of something that is being consumed not go down. If I put 10 hamburgers in front of your face and your consuming them is the supply of the hamburgers still gonna be 10 forever?

Let's put this to rest. I'll make you a bet and you don't even have to pay me if you're wrong. You find and econ prof who will state that it is true that when supply is consumed the supply of that something doesn't go down and i will send you a check for $200.

 

[Larkinn]

How the hell can that be? Again I ask how can the supply of something that is being consumed not go down. If I put 10 hamburgers in front of your face and your consuming them is the supply of the hamburgers still gonna be 10 forever?

Healthcare isn't like food. The doctors don't die or retire once they treat me.

 

[Bern80]

Healthcare isn't like food. The doctors don't die or retire once they treat me.

So that would be no on the bet?

and a no on verifying any of your claims with someone with expertise in economics I suppose too.

The resources are still finite. A doctor can only see so many people per hour, per day, per week, per month or per year. If price goes down more of that doctors time is going to be consumed. If you are seeing the doctor someone else that may need to see him isn't because you are consuming the supply Again these are the laws of supply and demand and the healtcare industry is not immune to them. Anything that is consumed and has a finite supply falls under those laws.

Let's get to the point shall we. you are trying to avoid no matter what haveing to admit that free healthcare will reduce access to healthcare.

 

[Larkinn]

So that would be no on the bet?

and a no on verifying any of your claims with someone with expertise in economics I suppose too.

Sure, let me go and ask my handy dandy pocket economist who I conveniently have in my back pocket.

The resources are still finite. A doctor can only see so many people per hour, per day, per week, per month or per year. If price goes down more of that doctors time is going to be consumed.

Yes, but they are not gone once they are "consumed". That is the difference.

If you are seeing the doctor someone else that may need to see him isn't because you are consuming the supply.

Yes, and unless you believe that the amount supplied currently is at its maximum point, increasing demand will increase access. Regardless, it will definitely not decrease access.

Again these are the laws of supply and demand and the healtcare industry is not immune to them. Anything that is consumed and has a finite supply falls under those laws.

Geh...the laws of supply and demand do NOT say that increased consumption will lead to decrease supply in anything that has a finite supply.

Law of Supply and Demand:

Strictly considered, the model applies to a type of market called perfect competition in which no single buyer or seller has much effect on prices and prices are known. The quantity of a product supplied by the producer and the quantity demanded by the consumer are dependent on the market price of the product. The law of supply states that quantity supplied is related to price. It is often depicted as directly proportional to price: the higher the price of the product, the more the producer will supply, ceteris paribus. The law of demand is normally depicted as an inverse relation of quantity demanded and price: the higher the price of the product, the less the consumer will demand, cet. par. "Cet. par." is added to isolate the effect of price. Everything else that could affect supply or demand except price is held constant. The respective relations are called the 'supply curve' and 'demand curve', or 'supply' and 'demand' for short.

The laws of supply and demand state that the equilibrium market price and quantity of a commodity is at the intersection of consumer demand and producer supply. Here quantity supplied equals quantity demanded (as in the enlargeable Figure), that is, equilibrium. Equilibrium implies that price and quantity will remain there if it begins there. If the price for a good is below equilibrium, consumers demand more of the good than producers are prepared to supply. This defines a shortage of the good. A shortage results in the price being bid up. Producers will increase the price until it reaches equilibrium. Conversely, if the price for a good is above equilibrium, there is a surplus of the good. Producers are motivated to eliminate the surplus by lowering the price. The price falls until it reaches equilibrium.

Let's get to the point shall we. you are trying to avoid no matter what haveing to admit that free healthcare will reduce access to healthcare.

If you define access to healthcare as the number of people who can get treated, this is absolutely NOT the case. And I am not "trying to avoid having to admit it" because it is false.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Medical supplies ARE consumed. New Drugs have to be researched, which costs a HELL of a lot of money. Training for Doctors costs a HELL of a lot of money. Turn it all over to the Government and your going to lose insentive for new drug research, new doctors and the production and sale of drugs in the US.

Government control means no profit of any real amount for drug companies, drug sales and no large income for Doctors, in other words, no insentive for those industries and those people in this Country.

 

[Bern80]

Sure, let me go and ask my handy dandy pocket economist who I conveniently have in my back pocket.

If someone were betting me $200 that I didn't have to pay if i lost I think I'd make the effort to find one.

Yes, but they are not gone once they are "consumed". That is the difference.

The doctor isn't no, but the time he had is. Which could be make a big difference to someone that needs to see a doctor.

Yes, and unless you believe that the amount supplied currently is at its maximum point, increasing demand will increase access. Regardless, it will definitely not decrease access.

It is at it's maximum for that point in time. Use whatever span of time you want. It doesn't matter if the doctor is there forever. He can only treat so many people within a given period of time. My assertion is that if price goes down, more people per day or going to want the doctors time.

Geh...the laws of supply and demand do NOT say that increased consumption will lead to decrease supply in anything that has a finite supply.

Read the paragrpah again. How can the supply of anything "cet par" not decrease when it is consumed let alone if consumption increases? If you reply to nothing else please answer this.

It does actually or in the paragraph here it technically goes without saying.

The law of demand is normally depicted as an inverse relation of quantity demanded and price: the higher the price of the product, the less the consumer will demand, cet. par. "Cet. par." is added to isolate the effect of price. Everything else that could affect supply or demand except price is held constant.

So this part explains teh demand curve only. the demand goes from high to low from left to right reflecting that when price increases/decreases quantity demanded (or consumed) decreases/increases respectively. Can you agree on that?

Lets say the y axis goes from 0 - 100 in increments of 10. Plots points on the demand curve at 90 and 10 and draw supply curves across those points and tell me quantity supplied didn't go down when you decreased the price from 90 to 10

If you define access to healthcare as the number of people who can get treated, this is absolutely NOT the case. And I am not "trying to avoid having to admit it" because it is false.

How else would there be to define it? if someone doesn't have access they aren't being treated. More people under free health care will be vieing for the same amount of time that was available when they had to pay for it. And you and I from our personal experiences are keenly aware that in the healthcare industry time can be a very critical factor. It can mean the difference in getting better sooner or later. In getting and infection or not and in life or death.

 

[maineman]

Bernie sez:

Again it is your assumption that I was using the words as synonyms. I wasn't.

Bernie earlier said:

(emotional, compassionate, whatever you want to call it)

It is my assumption that you need to make up your fucking mind, or have the balls to admit that you most certainly WERE suggesting that they were synonymous.

I am not nitpicking here, I am looking for a common agreement that we use words the way they were intended. If you don't really care to apply that level of precision, just say so.... But realize, I try really hard to use words the same way that artists use colors. I try to paint a picture of my thoughts and my ideas with words. I have absolutely no desire to converse about anything with a guy with no more precision than a house painter. Clear?

 

[Bern80]

Bernie sez:

Again it is your assumption that I was using the words as synonyms. I wasn't.

Bernie earlier said:

(emotional, compassionate, whatever you want to call it)

It is my assumption that you need to make up your fucking mind, or have the balls to admit that you most certainly WERE suggesting that they were synonymous.

I am not nitpicking here, I am looking for a common agreement that we use words the way they were intended. If you don't really care to apply that level of precision, just say so.... But realize, I try really hard to use words the same way that artists use colors. I try to paint a picture of my thoughts and my ideas with words. I have absolutely no desire to converse about anything with a guy with no more precision than a house painter. Clear?

okay van goh here's a quick lesson. When someone uses two words next to each other it doesn't inherenlty mean he means them to be considered the same. So you can go ahead and grow some balls and admit you made a poor assumption. But hey you keep nitpicking and avoid the actual topic all you want. You aren't interested in the meaning of shit. Your interested in makeing things easier for yourself if that means assuming intent and sidetracking a thread to say so, so be it. You choose to define words in whatever way is most conveneint for your argument.

I have even restated what I meant by emotional and you ignored that too. You could take the time add something worthwhile like maybe back me up on this supply and demand thing Larkin and I are going in circles about.

 

[maineman]

I agree that increasing affordability, and therefore access to healthcare, without a concurrent increase in the supply of healthcare providers, will definitely reduce the amount of healthcare available per patient/consumer.

That may be the greatest challenge - to find ways to increase the supply of healthcare in the years ahead. Do you do that by limiting malpractice exposure? Do you do that by forgiving student loans for doctors who agree to serve at least five years in a low income clinic somewhere? I have some ideas... and I am confident there are thousands of foiks smarter than me working on solving that problem.

I think it is a bit disingenuous to assume that government would devise a plan which increased the demand on healthcare providers without also devising a plan which increased the supply.

 

[maineman]

and, for what it's worth, it's "Van Gogh", Mr. Housepainter.

 

[Bern80]

I agree that increasing affordability, and therefore access to healthcare, without a concurrent increase in the supply of healthcare providers, will definitely reduce the amount of healthcare available per patient/consumer.

thank you. To me that makes it a supply and demand issue. You can just as easily show what you stated above on one as well. We can get back to a point of equilibrium if the demand curve shifts as long as the supply curve shifts as well.

That may be the greatest challenge - to find ways to increase the supply of healthcare in the years ahead. Do you do that by limiting malpractice exposure? Do you do that by forgiving student loans for doctors who agree to serve at least five years in a low income clinic somewhere? I have some ideas... and I am confident there are thousands of foiks smarter than me working on solving that problem.

I think it is a bit disingenuous to assume that government would devise a plan which increased the demand on healthcare providers without also devising a plan which increased the supply.

I wouldn't mind any of those ideas I guess. I don't know how effective they would be in raising supply of doctors. The first thing that popped into my head about forgiving student loans is that most people, I don't think, factor very heavily the loans they will need to pay when deciding the career they want to pursue. The candidates in the dem party all of some type of 'plan' for universal healthcare, which again woudl be fine if the quality and access we have now could be maintained. But in not one of those plans have I heard what the dems plan is for increasing the supply to meet the new demand. It woudl seem to me you would want the supply in place first (especially for medicine) before you take the step that increases demand.

 

[JeffWartman]

I agree that increasing affordability, and therefore access to healthcare, without a concurrent increase in the supply of healthcare providers, will definitely reduce the amount of healthcare available per patient/consumer.

Of course. That's a standard economic fact. But I do not think that argument should be in place for people who want to make healthcare more affordable.

I think it is a bit disingenuous to assume that government would devise a plan which increased the demand on healthcare providers without also devising a plan which increased the supply.

I don't think so. Government's track record of having lack of foresight is well documented. I don't believe at all that one could say "Well, if government creates a policy which would increase demand for healthcare, they are probably devising a similar plan to increase supply". I guess I just don't have the faith in the bloated government bureaucracy and criminals in Washington currently.

Now, you're not going to find many people on this board who believe that socialized medicine is a mistake more than me. However, I do think there are ways to decrease the costs of healthcare without the government sticking it's hand deeper in my pocket.

1) A change in the current malpractice industry. Doctors pay premiums on malpractice insurance which are through the roof -- I personally know doctors who pay well over 100k a year in malpractice insurance. Lessen that expense, and prices will decrease.

2) Lessen government regulation on healthcare. There are so many local, state and federal regulations on the healthcare industry that the costs of compliance are through the roof. Lessen that expense, and prices will decrease.

3) These decreases in prices have a snowball effect -- once you decrease prices slightly, a few more people will be able to afford health insurance. This will cause non-insured patients to default on healthcare debt less and less, which will in turn cause a further decrease in prices, and so on and so on.

There are many, many more ways to decrease costs. I have barely scratched the surface. But, as one can plainly see, there are solutions outside of socialized medicine.