Ever see the movie Demolition Man? Where Sly Stallone is frozen for like 40 or 50 years, gets unfrozen and the world has outlawed cigarettes, tobacco, swearing, salt, firearms......i dont know why that movie just popped into my head.
Ever see the movie Demolition Man? Where Sly Stallone is frozen for like 40 or 50 years, gets unfrozen and the world has outlawed cigarettes, tobacco, swearing, salt, firearms......i dont know why that movie just popped into my head.
what happened to personal responsibility? there isnt a single person out there that doesn't know that cigarettes are bad for you. if they choose to smoke them anyway its not the governments fault or problem. and it shouldnt be.
I agree, I wish they would stop meddling in this. There comes a point, my GOD, we are told time and time again that smoking will cause cancer, how many f'ing times!!!!! I am not happy with this, I am so not into this tobacco fetish.
On to healthcare....
i found it interesting that you changed the subject FROM anti-tobacco legislation TO health care. why? because the reason they want to cut down on tobacco is to get the cost of health care down.
Ive been thinking about this quite a bit as of late: If i was a politician that was trying to get as much power as i could, there would be two things that i would try to regulate the use of and run. 1) Health care 2) Carbon Emissions
why those two things? because if you controll those two things EVERYTHING else in the country i was running can be regulated on the basis of how it impacts that. there isnt a single thing that we as people do that isnt part of those two things. New taxes could be/will be imposed because it will "bring down the cost of health care" or "help control carbon emissions" once those two things are government run, our entire lives are run.
phobicsquirrel:
Okay so this is just so stupid. There needs to be another option in this country
there are 1,300 entities offering healthcare plans in this country. we have many options. If the government takes over we are likely to lose many of those options. this will give less choice because many of the options wont be able to compete with the government.
phobicsquirrel:
and the insurance companies need to be put down.
by whom? the government? isnt an oppressive government controlling everything that can take over any company at a whim what we dont want? isnt that what the US Constitution was designed to PREVENT?
phobicsquirrel:
Apprx 30 percent of the costs we pay go to the insurance companies for bonus's for exec's, ads, and what-have-you. As our premiums go up, so do the salaries of the CEO's.
i would like to see a link that shows these stats you just listed. I would also like to put it in perspective of advertising cost of companies in the non-health care related fields. i have a feeling that this would be the same for just about any product out there.
that does not make health care evil. it makes them a business.
phobicsquirrel:
When you go to the hospital for something, oh say abdominal pains (like my wife did a few months ago), what do they do, well they do every F-ing test known to man!!!! and what does it do, ah ***! The f'ing bill was in the thousands of dollars, yes the insurance covered a good portion of it, but still it was spendy.
they do every test known to man because doctors fear malpractice. they have to be 100% sure they know what it is before they do anything so they dont lose their ability to practice medicine if they are even slightly wrong.
so to you it might not do anything, but to a doctor, it is saving their livelihood.
it also seems to me that insurance made this doctor visit affordable to you. it wasnt cheap, or easy, but you did it. now think about how much it would cost if you opted to not have insurance. could you afford that?
phobicsquirrel:
And why, well after many tests that were hundreds of dollars and several hours of our night, and many drugs later, nothing was fixed and we still had to pay even though I said I didn't want her taking all these tests. No, no-one listened. No-one knew ***, just keep doing tests. I talked to our family doctor and he was telling us that a simple blood test and ultra sound would have nailed down most of the common issues. That's exactly what I told the damn ER doctor. Our family doctor is a D.O. and after he did some more aligning on her the pain went away, well it was a rib or ribs that were out of adjustment and pushing on her lower organs. Wow!
you own your body. you have every right to turn down medical tests. the problem here is not the insurance. its the people at the emergency room. ...and the malpractice suits forcing their hands.
phobicsquirrel:
The point I'm trying to make is that the insurance companies have us by the balls.
my balls are currently not latched on to. i pay about as much for health insurance as I do for my cars. thats not too much. ... and my insurance company knows i smoke cigars that hardly sounds like "by the balls" ...and we just discussed how in a medical emergency you were able to get your wife in and pay for it with out losing your house. I doubt you ( or I ) could do that without insurance.
phobicsquirrel:
They tell us where we can go, if we go out of network we get royally screwed, they keep raising costs, they make hospitals and doctors go through many hoops and accountants, the fees for this admin is in the millions, yeah we can choose certain plans and if you go through your work then you choose what your work has, so you really don't get choices, just pick and do what they want.
... and you think the GOVERNMENT is going to be any different? the government is going to be WORSE. Politics will determine what treatments you can get and how much you can get. The government cost effectiveness will eliminate options. it will get BAD. you cant choose where you go under medicare what makes you think you will be able to chose where you go under any other government program ?
the only person that should chose what kind of medicine you should be able to get is YOU. you own your body.
with private health insurance they tell me where to go and what i can take. If i dont like those options, i switch providers, or i do my best to pay out of pocket. that isnt "by the balls" at all.
phobicsquirrel:
If health care was really as costly as what we pay then maybe but they take so much off the top and make the rates soar by greed and continual wast of manpower, I mean it doesn't need to take multiple people and companies to file a claim.
the government takes close to 30% of my income and greedily wants to run my life with regulations. they waste manpower at an exponential rate. they waste money at an amazing rate. somehow this is ok? actually, according to you, its preferred to RAISE TAXES to waste even more money.
phobicsquirrel:
The single payer was a great idea and if there hadn't been so many damn amendments to medicare it would be a much better system. Medicare part D was f'd over by the Bush administration and now thanks to them the govt lost the power to negotiate pricings and they even wanted to privatize it!!!!!
so you are saying that socialism that has always in the past failed, will work this time?
and the bush administration didnt "f" it over. it was hemorrhaging money almost since its inception.
this article written in 2000, before the part D plan was passed (or even thought of), talks says "Career physicians are quitting—as they have in Britain, Canada, and every Western country which has socialized its health care system—in frustration with the health care bureaucracy and the impossible financial conditions to which they are subjected. As one physician said, “When Medicare pays you 45% of your charges and your overhead comes to 65% what are you going to do?”"
and
that article also alludes to government cutting costs by cutting quality.
this article talks more of the costs of medicare and how it is out of control
phobicsquirrel:
The public option which seems to be the new idea is still better but for some reason these damn f'ing representatives are mucking it up.
its interesting that if the average American were asked his opinion of congressmen, among the more polite terms you'll hear are thieves and crooks, liars and manipulators, hustlers and quacks. But what do the same people say when our nation faces a major problem? "Government ought to do something!" this is exactly how we lose out rights over time.
phobicsquirrel:
It will cost money, but for GOD's sake we are spending more money on health care than any other nation,
we ARE spending more on health care than any other nation. we also have more doctors, more equipment, more advancements, more locations, more choices, and more people than any other nation. not to mention our doctors are more productive because they dont have a set number of appointments/hours-to-be-worked dictated by government regulation.
Briton is cost cutting so much (because their health care is failing) that the doctors' morale is "terrible" "The result of this survey shows how demoralized so many doctors are feeling and how they believe constant government reforms and targets are taking them further away from their initial vocation -- to treat patients."
phobicsquirrel:
and we have millions of people uninsured, people actually loose their assests, their homes, their lives to medical costs.
but giving it to them for "free" is just going to raise the cost for the rest of us and is unsustainable.
phobicsquirrel:
Oh it does get a little funnier, Right Wing leader rush seems to want to make things easier for people, no need for health care, let's have doggie-care. yes, we can handle our health-care like we do our dogs, when they get sick, we pay for it, and if it's too much, well bye fido, we'll put you down. yup, very easy, and very humane. rush is full of great ideas
if you were listening to the show you would know better than to print this. this is taken so far out of context that im not even going to try to tell you how wrong it is. you missed the point.
phobicsquirrel:
I would be too if I made 40 million a year and could look from a pedestal and leave my humanity at the door.
classic class envy
phobicsquirrel:
BTW it should be noted that many of the people who are all worried about the amount of money health care reform will cost, I bet most of them voted for the war in Iraq, and the bail-outs. Well let me see, if the false war in Iraq was not carried out, I'm sure we could have afforded health care... hell with a portion of that money we could of have done it, but I guess it's better to have a war, because wars help the population. Now we are stuck with two wars, so that is nice. I'd rather the trillion plus dollars used in Iraq and Afgahnistan (I'm putting this in there because the US has been there for 7 years not doing a god-damn thing, albit the first 6 months after 9-11- yeah I was there) on health care and improving the manufacturing and roads and other things in this country. Wow what a concept.
not quite... the cost of the war when i typed this was just shy of $870 billion. over the last 8 or so years. that is a lot of spending. the new taxes being proposed will be about $600 billion in new taxes and about $1.6 TRILLION over the next 10 years. that is more than double the cost of the war. ... and this is if only a third of the nation is covered.
and when was the last time you heard of any government proposal coming in UNDER budget? ...link me if you find one.
come to think of it, the government turns no profit on any of its ventures. they just run in a deficit.
Okay so it seems as though don't know what you are talking about on how the insurance companies work and what they have been doing the last several years. As premiums go up the salaires go up for ceo's while care doesn't get any better, but that's just the beginning. Here are some links that outline some things, such as (the first) the amount insurance ceo's get out of every dollar for their pay, and other uses, none of which make life better for the person who is paying.
I'm sure your still going to argue and just say it's just business.... eh well when you loose your coverage, house, and are bankrupt or even denied coverage you might get it. I personally haven't had too many issues with my insurance other than I hate having only to select a certain number of doctors to get my 90 percent, rather than seeing anyone I want (like the Oregon Health plan). I also know that my company pays millions of dollars to cover us every year and every year they pay more and more and our prices go up as well. I know that a co-worker has had cancer for a few years and finally got denied for therapy and now is F*cked! They deemed him to expensive or a liability. It is outrageous. They do have people by the balls, but if you eat up words from say rush, that goes on rants saying there is no healthcare crisis and that our health insurance is the best then I'm just wasting my time. I really don't see why people defend these companies that practice this way and continue to screw people over and over. Here's another example..... http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-03-16-healthcost_x.htm
BTW, the reason why when you go to the hospital and they test you up the ass is not for malpractice insurance it is because they get money for those tests. Also a good doctor if allowed would not need to run every test to diagnose you, unless it was necessary. Also when you check into the hospital you really can't deny a test as the doctor or doctor's will run them regardless as I ran into with my wife. When you admit you are their responsibility. I have a few relatives that are doctor's and nurses and they tell me the same thing. Now if you go to say a clinic then maybe but once your admitted to the ER you really have no choice.
I do not have "class" envy of rush, in fact if I ever became him I would like to be executed. The man is a pig, and what makes him a pig is that he's a bigget, hypocrite, and a liar that does no research only spews out the inconvenient thing to say to appease his mindless crowed. 40 million a year, and this guy is telling people, many who are in the category of unemployment, no health coverage, or just making it by that everything is fine, government is the bad guy, businesses are being bogged down by govt control. That's funny since the last 8 years they have had the least restrictions in years, maybe the most ever.
Okay so it seems as though don't know what you are talking about on how the insurance companies work and what they have been doing the last several years.
uh... my wife and father in law both worked and work (respectively) in the insurance industry. we discuss this at length, often.
yes those examples suck. and if the rights of t hose people were violated then im all about going to court over it and making sure things get cleared up. Im also not saying that our system right now is PERFECT. im just saying there has to be a better way than turning our rights and life over to an all powerful government and raising taxes to fund it all. there has to be a better way than to force everyone to submit to the governments way of doing things.
phobicsquirrel:
Also a good doctor if allowed would not need to run every test to diagnose you, unless it was necessary.
so either you didnt go to a good doctor or it was necessary.
or their hand was forced because they dont want to lose their lively hood.
phobicsquirrel:
Also when you check into the hospital you really can't deny a test as the doctor or doctor's will run them regardless as I ran into with my wife. When you admit you are their responsibility. I have a few relatives that are doctor's and nurses and they tell me the same thing. Now if you go to say a clinic then maybe but once your admitted to the ER you really have no choice.
bullshit. if you can speak you can deny yourself medicine or tests.
phobicsquirrel:
I do not have "class" envy of rush, in fact if I ever became him I would like to be executed. The man is a pig, and what makes him a pig is that he's a bigget, hypocrite, and a liar that does no research only spews out the inconvenient thing to say to appease his mindless crowed.
the more you talk about Rush, the more you show how little you know about him. i dont agree with him on many things. but im not making opinions when i have not tuned in myself. he is making opinions on the news. you disagree with him. thats your business. I listen to him every day i can. some days i agree. some days i dont. im am part of his "crowd" as you put it. ( over 20 million daily i might add. larger than any other daily media outlet around today)
are you calling me mindless? please leave name calling out of this. it solves nothing.
phobicsquirrel:
40 million a year, and this guy is telling people, many who are in the category of unemployment, no health coverage, or just making it by....
please link this demographic. whats funny is that i thought republicans were "old rich white guys"
phobicsquirrel:
....that everything is fine, government is the bad guy, businesses are being bogged down by govt control. That's funny since the last 8 years they have had the least restrictions in years, maybe the most ever.
this is not true. Bush GREW the government more than almost any president in the last 50 years.
its interesting that you are all for a $1.6 trillion dollar program that they are gunna have to borrow all kinds of money for (health care) but are scared that we are going bankrupt. wanna know where all that cash goes? over 50% goes to social programs
posted earlier in this thread i had this to say about what is and is not a right. please feel free to argue against it.
we join mid discussion:
kuzi16:
.... by claiming that a government program (health care) is a right. it is not. it is a luxury good or service. we have the right to pursue that good or service but not the right to simply have it.
If we have a right to a thing, an object, then we have a right to coerce another human being to provide it, thus depriving him of liberty.
it’s a recipe for violation of all rights because to have a right to something means you have a right to initiate the use of physical force or deceit to get it.
The initiation of physical force, or the use of its intellectual equivalent, deceit or fraud, is the only way to violate rights. In each instance, you have deprived the individual of his freedom to make choices about how to support and enjoy his life
...the life that he alone owns.
there are goods and services that are highly desirable, even necessary for life, but these things cannot be rights, and this is demonstrable through a simple exercise in logic:
Let us say your house is on fire, and you live in isolation, with no government around. If we post a “right to fire service” then your rights have apparently been violated, but by who? If you have a “right” to food, water, and clothing, who has violated your rights by not providing them, in the absence of government? God? The Universe itself? It’s easy to see how this is a nonsensical formulation.
Rights refer to action, not objects. We have a right to seek food, but not to food itself; we have a right to seek an education, but not to education itself; we have a right to seek shelter, but not to shelter itself. A right does not ensure that someone will acquire something, it just ensures he may seek to do so.
I claim that a necessary property of a true right is that it is cost-free. For example, equal rights is cost free because there is no cost to saying that everyone should be treated equally. You can treat everyone equally even when you have no money left. Free speech can be a valid right because it costs nothing to let people speak.
I have heard a lot about this Oregon Health Plan and how freakin great it is, but I don't think I want a lottery to decide if I get coverage or not... Here is short history of the program.
In 1994, the plan's first year of operation, nearly 120,000 new members signed up, and bad debts at Portland hospitals dropped 16%.
The plan's costs increased from $1.33 billion in 1993-1995 to $2.36 billion in 1999-2001. Significant cuts were made to the Oregon Health Plan's budget in 2003. That is a 77.4% increase in the cost of the program. Now imagine that on a MUCH larger scale. If we are looking at $1.6 Trillion over 10 years... That would put the cost at around $2.88 Trillion.
New enrollments in the program were closed from mid-2004 until early 2008, when a lottery-based system was introduced. Tens of thousands of Oregonians signed up, competing for 3,000 new spots in the plan. The plan is just not sustainable in the long term.
The woman has cancer and wants to fight it but NOPE... How about we rent you a gun and buy you a bullet instead? Yea that is the health coverage I want!
the other interesting thing about this article is that they say 60 million people dont have access to medicine in the first paragraph. the second paragraph they say there is $2.4 trillion spent on health care every year. then it goes on to say that health care is a right and everyone should get it.
lets say that happens. the $2.4 trillion cost of health care every year does not include 60 million people. the US population is about 304,059,724. this means that there are now going to be 20% more people in the new health care program. whats 20% more of %2.4 TRILLION? about as much money as we have spend on Iraq. how is that sustainable? its not
...and this is ON TOP of the $1.6 TRILLION deficit we already have under the Obama plan.
another quote from the artice is this: "The reality is that CEO compensation for the top seven health insurance companies now averages $14.2 million." there are 1300 health care entities out there. they chose to only look at the top seven. the ones that more people have freely chosen to buy insurance from. (often because they get the best coverage for the best price) of course the CEOs make a ton of money. those businesses are HUGE. why dont we average out those 1300 and see if they are skewed a bit less? and while we are at it, compare those numbers to the top seven CEOs of other industries. that article is more slanted than a used car salesman named "fast eddie"
We may not like it but freedom of speech allows the media to report what they want. We know that all media have there own agenda. The good thing is you can just change the channel..
You mean it's not in law that the media has to be fair and unbiased? lol I guess those channels just claim that to boost their integrity....maybe that's why I don't watch many of them. They have no integrity in my eyes.
the other interesting thing about this article is that they say 60 million people dont have access to medicine in the first paragraph. the second paragraph they say there is $2.4 trillion spent on health care every year. then it goes on to say that health care is a right and everyone should get it.
lets say that happens. the $2.4 trillion cost of health care every year does not include 60 million people. the US population is about 304,059,724. this means that there are now going to be 20% more people in the new health care program. whats 20% more of %2.4 TRILLION? about as much money as we have spend on Iraq. how is that sustainable? its not
...and this is ON TOP of the $1.6 TRILLION deficit we already have under the Obama plan.
another quote from the artice is this: "The reality is that CEO compensation for the top seven health insurance companies now averages $14.2 million." there are 1300 health care entities out there. they chose to only look at the top seven. the ones that more people have freely chosen to buy insurance from. (often because they get the best coverage for the best price) of course the CEOs make a ton of money. those businesses are HUGE. why dont we average out those 1300 and see if they are skewed a bit less? and while we are at it, compare those numbers to the top seven CEOs of other industries. that article is more slanted than a used car salesman named "fast eddie"
the cost is high due to all of the administration pass-over's the current plan has in place. Ask any doctor who own's a clinic or small office. It's amazing what has to be done to process claims. The costs will go down if the single payer or public option goes through as it will separate itself from the private sector which is consistently raising the costs.
Puro, the oregon health plan is fantastic. My only problem is that you have to be at a certain income, which is in my opinion ridiculous. Of course some people will have issues, but you can still get into the program now, in fact it's been increased just this last week. My insurance is pretty damn good but the health plan is much better, by far.
the other interesting thing about this article is that they say 60 million people dont have access to medicine in the first paragraph. the second paragraph they say there is $2.4 trillion spent on health care every year. then it goes on to say that health care is a right and everyone should get it.
lets say that happens. the $2.4 trillion cost of health care every year does not include 60 million people. the US population is about 304,059,724. this means that there are now going to be 20% more people in the new health care program. whats 20% more of %2.4 TRILLION? about as much money as we have spend on Iraq. how is that sustainable? its not
...and this is ON TOP of the $1.6 TRILLION deficit we already have under the Obama plan.
another quote from the artice is this: "The reality is that CEO compensation for the top seven health insurance companies now averages $14.2 million." there are 1300 health care entities out there. they chose to only look at the top seven. the ones that more people have freely chosen to buy insurance from. (often because they get the best coverage for the best price) of course the CEOs make a ton of money. those businesses are HUGE. why dont we average out those 1300 and see if they are skewed a bit less? and while we are at it, compare those numbers to the top seven CEOs of other industries. that article is more slanted than a used car salesman named "fast eddie"
the cost is high due to all of the administration pass-over's the current plan has in place. Ask any doctor who own's a clinic or small office. It's amazing what has to be done to process claims. The costs will go down if the single payer or public option goes through as it will separate itself from the private sector which is consistently raising the costs.
Puro, the oregon health plan is fantastic. My only problem is that you have to be at a certain income, which is in my opinion ridiculous. Of course some people will have issues, but you can still get into the program now, in fact it's been increased just this last week. My insurance is pretty damn good but the health plan is much better, by far.
The coverage might be good as far as how many Dr's accept it, but it's a matter of IF you can get lucky enough to win a spot under the plan, plus it is not cost effective at all. They will not be able to sustain a program like this for the state of Oregon, there s no chance of a plan like this nationally. It just doesn't work.
Also if you think government funded healthcare will be cheaper and more efficient then you obiously have never been through a public school system, been to the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, dealt with the IRS, or used the U.S. Postal Services. Because we all know how freakin great those Government Agencies work and how cost effective they are.
You mean it's not in law that the media has to be fair and unbiased? lol I guess those channels just claim that to boost their integrity....maybe that's why I don't watch many of them. They have no integrity in my eyes.
SlickRS:
We may not like it but freedom of speech allows the media to report what they want. We know that all media have there own agenda. The good thing is you can just change the channel..
amen to both of these. my point with that article being skewed is that previously Phobic disregarded an article because fox is biased to the right. according to those criteria his article is just as worthless because it leans very far to the left.
of course, everyone has the right to speak their minds and all stations/articles/new sources have bits of validity and bits of BS.
the other interesting thing about this article is that they say 60 million people dont have access to medicine in the first paragraph. the second paragraph they say there is $2.4 trillion spent on health care every year. then it goes on to say that health care is a right and everyone should get it.
lets say that happens. the $2.4 trillion cost of health care every year does not include 60 million people. the US population is about 304,059,724. this means that there are now going to be 20% more people in the new health care program. whats 20% more of %2.4 TRILLION? about as much money as we have spend on Iraq. how is that sustainable? its not
...and this is ON TOP of the $1.6 TRILLION deficit we already have under the Obama plan.
another quote from the artice is this: "The reality is that CEO compensation for the top seven health insurance companies now averages $14.2 million." there are 1300 health care entities out there. they chose to only look at the top seven. the ones that more people have freely chosen to buy insurance from. (often because they get the best coverage for the best price) of course the CEOs make a ton of money. those businesses are HUGE. why dont we average out those 1300 and see if they are skewed a bit less? and while we are at it, compare those numbers to the top seven CEOs of other industries. that article is more slanted than a used car salesman named "fast eddie"
the cost is high due to all of the administration pass-over's the current plan has in place. Ask any doctor who own's a clinic or small office. It's amazing what has to be done to process claims. The costs will go down if the single payer or public option goes through as it will separate itself from the private sector which is consistently raising the costs.
Puro, the oregon health plan is fantastic. My only problem is that you have to be at a certain income, which is in my opinion ridiculous. Of course some people will have issues, but you can still get into the program now, in fact it's been increased just this last week. My insurance is pretty damn good but the health plan is much better, by far.
The coverage might be good as far as how many Dr's accept it, but it's a matter of IF you can get lucky enough to win a spot under the plan, plus it is not cost effective at all. They will not be able to sustain a program like this for the state of Oregon, there s no chance of a plan like this nationally. It just doesn't work.
Also if you think government funded healthcare will be cheaper and more efficient then you obiously have never been through a public school system, been to the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, dealt with the IRS, or used the U.S. Postal Services. Because we all know how freakin great those Government Agencies work and how cost effective they are.
again you don't know what your talking about. if the plan wasn't working then they wouldn't be expanding the program. In fact state taxes pay for a lot of as well. I haven't heard of doctor's not taking the program, in fact my niece was born in the best hospital in portland on the plan. So what would be thousand's of dollars for me was free for her mother. The problem is, and it's been said before is that they way these programs should get funded are by exporting goods, which is lacking. You don't "win" a spot in the program, you apply and it is based off your income level, though it might have been changed a bit since this last bill went through. Also the damn tax system in this country needs to be fixed, especially Oregon since there is a corporate min. tax. I do believe it is being raised but not enough. Public schools, at least in Oregon always get cut first, and it's freaking pathetic. In fact right now our governer has threatened to veto a bill that has been passed giving the schools like 5 billion. I remember hearing about raising taxes decades ago to help pay for schools and you always hear it but seems as though schools are always being cut. It's not the program, it's how it is channeled down the bottom of the pole. There's not a lot of benefits for having a flourishing school system for elected officials since they don't get much money from them. Now if there was a huge lobbying committe for public schools like the insurance companies then you'd see things change.
one more interesting thing about this article is that the title says that health care is a right yet the article does not go on to define a right or to explain why it is a right. it just assumes that the premise is true.
...and it isnt true. what this entire argument comes down to is if health care is a right or not.
a “right” is something that is an integral part of us, innate, and thus “unalienable,” and NOT something that is devised, given, or granted. Because it is innate, it can’t be given to us. Rights have nothing to do with altruism or how it makes you feel.
here was my train of though today:
the claim that health care is a right is based partly on the "fact" that it is necessary to life. if that is the criteria for a "right" then we all have a right for food as well. the government should supply us all with food. but what food is necessary? should we all get kobi beef? or should the government only supply staples like Flour, eggs, milk?
nobody would think it is reasonable that the government should supply the Kobi beef. lets throw that out because of the absurdity of the product.
If the government claimed that the staples of flour, eggs and milk are a right then everyone would not be able to be punished for stealing it. (they have a right to it! the government says so) the only choice would to be to make it free. how do you make it free? you cant. nothing is free. those farmers need to get paid. they arent gunna grow the wheat, milk the cows, produce those eggs out of the kindness of their hearts. they need to live too.
this leaves a few options:
1) Raise taxes to cover the cost.
2) make laws to make wheat milk and eggs free
3) Take over the farms and make them government run
4) all of the above
if you raise the taxes then it still isnt free. people are paying for it. the tax increases are not producing any more wheat, milk or eggs than was in the market before but the people have less money in their pocket. higher taxes. same level of production. (or less production; because when was the last time that ANY federal program made a profit ?)
if the government takes over and regulates the cost of wheat, milk and eggs to free (because remember its your RIGHT to have it in this plan) then farmers will make no money whatsoever. there is no incentive to continue. there will be a wheat, milk, and egg shortage. People will not get the food they have a right to.
if the government takes over farms then taxes will go up to cover the cost regulating/running farms on a national level (raising the cost of production) and farmers will not make as much profit as they used to because the government has to have their cut (less productivity). this is not sustainable.
if the government does all three we will have the problems of all three.
...and this doesnt even take into account the law of economics where as the price falls the demand goes up. so we would have a rising demand, higher taxes, less productivity, less profit. this is an unsustainable prospect.
yet this is pretty much exactly what the government is trying to do with health care.
they are trying to regulate the market with no regard to the outcome based on a claim that a good or service is a "right" because it "feels wrong" to make people work for it, pay for it.
Buying a controlling or even minimal share in any private entity by the government, for the purpose of steering its purpose to serve “social” or government ends, is fascism. This is usually called a “government-business partnership.” Also, it is known as “national socialism.” It means working as a slave or a serf for the government, and the government determining one’s rewards and compensation.
Fascist politicians can intervene whenever they feel like it and then, when their interventions turn out badly, summon executives from the private sector before Congress and denounce them on nationwide television.
this is exactly what is going on right now in the financial system and in the auto industry, and will happen more and more than it already does in the medical and medical insurance field if the government takes over.
again you don't know what your talking about. if the plan wasn't working then they wouldn't be expanding the program.
according to you the war in Iraq wasnt working but they expanded that. when it comes to government, what works means nothing. what gets you reelected means all.
phobicsquirrel:
You don't "win" a spot in the program, you apply and it is based off your income level,
but if health care is a "right" then shouldnt we all get it for free? (you are being biased based on class. (class envy?) )
i mean, every other "right" is free? Free speech. the right to be alive. the right try and make yourself happy, equal rights based on race, religion, creed, sexual orientation...
phobicsquirrel:
though it might have been changed a bit since this last bill went through. Also the damn tax system in this country needs to be fixed, especially Oregon since there is a corporate min. tax. I do believe it is being raised but not enough.
what would be enough? why dont we just raise it to 90%? then "evil corporations" wont exist anymore.
and neither will jobs.
if you raise the taxes on a corporation there is no way that it will create jobs. if they have more taxes to pay they will have to cut costs to keep their doors open. its layoff time. who is getting laid off? not the CEOs. someone has to run the business. The average person who needs the job to survive will lose their job. yeah, thats fair.
phobicsquirrel:
Public schools, at least in Oregon always get cut first, and it's freaking pathetic. In fact right now our governer has threatened to veto a bill that has been passed giving the schools like 5 billion.
ive given up on public schools. my kids will go to private schools even if i have to be in debt for the rest of my life.
...some claimed that the SCHIP tax wouldnt close smaller factories...
Yea, and they also claim the new government health care program Obama is pitching won't raise health care costs and cost hundreds and possibly thousands of jobs in the health care and insurance industries as well as costing this country probably in the neighborhood of 3 times the projected $1.6 trillion...
jobs done in Tampa will now be done in Puerto Rico .....nice job of growing the American economy .....495 jobs gone ...operating since 1902 ....Well clearly they have been in business LONG ENOUGH ...its about time some good hardworking forigners(sp) get a brake and get their piece of the American Dream , I mean Damn why should just Americans get to pursue the American Dream !?!? Those Tampaians will find something to do ...maybe envelope stuffing or tele marketing I'm sure something exciting is just around the corner for them ..........MY BIG "OL A$$ !!!!!!!! The next election can't get here soon enough for me !!!
House passes climate-change bill from the article: “I’m in a tough spot. I really am,” Rep. John Salazar (D-Colo.), one of the Democrats who opposed the bill, said before the vote, citing his fears the legislation could raise energy costs and hurt the coal industry in his low-income, rural district.
reductions that will be accomplished by putting a price on carbon dioxide through a cap-and-trade system
“This is the biggest job killing bill that’s ever been on the floor of the House of Representatives. Right here, this bill,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner. “And I don’t think that’s what the American people want.”
it still has to pass the senate. Next article Obama implores Senate to pass climate bill from the article: Opponents complain about the costs and say some industries will simply move their operations and jobs out of the U.S. to countries that don't control greenhouse-gas emissions.
Supporters and opponents agreed the legislation would lead to higher energy costs
This "amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change," declared Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.
In the Republicans' weekly radio and Internet address, House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio said, "By imposing a tax on every American who drives a car or flips on a light switch, this plan will drive up the prices for food, gasoline and electricity."
i just wish that the democrats could attempt to fix just one problem EVER without imposing a tax. there are other ways to cut down on greenhouse emissions. ways that will help this already sluggish economy instead of making day to day life more expensive. this carbon tax very regressive. the rich people will not be hurt by this as much as the poorer people who have to give up a larger percentage of their income just to keep the lights on in their house, food on the table, gas in the car, and heat on in the winter. thanks for looking out for the little guy there Obama!
I'm all for the goals this legislation is trying to accomplish, but why the hell do we need legislation to accomplish this? Is T. Boone Pickens already doing this kinda stuff with $ from his own piggy bank.
All of Washington, R and D alike, is misspending my money so ridiculously, I can't take it anymore. They eff it all up, and there solution is to just take more of it. These clowns need to go.
I'm all for the goals this legislation is trying to accomplish, but why the hell do we need legislation to accomplish this? Is T. Boone Pickens already doing this kinda stuff with $ from his own piggy bank.
All of Washington, R and D alike, is misspending my money so ridiculously, I can't take it anymore. They eff it all up, and there solution is to just take more of it. These clowns need to go.
i agree.
who doesnt want clean air and water and a good environment generally speaking? we all want that. I just feel that there are better ways that require less government regulation, taxation, and otherwise control.
Mr. Pickens is a good example.
another way would be to create incentives to make the switch to an alternative fuel through tax breaks. make it so that everyone from the Oil companies, to the auto makers, to the people buying said autos would get a very nice tax break for developing, selling, using, and buying a clean renewable source.
this way people would be motivated to create something new and to use it while creating jobs and generally helping the economy, instead of taxing the system we use now until it is so messed up and expensive that very few people can afford it and we are forced to look for an alternative.
My biggest problem with this piece of legislation is that it will not only NOT help the environment, but it will cost our country jobs, raises energy prices across the board, and raises taxes on EVERYONE. The EPA even admitted that this bill could force companies to move their factories over seas where there is no regulation on how much pollution they put out. This will cost us jobs and do more damage to the environment... Seriously who honestly thinks this is a good thing?
I agree with ya Kuzi. I would be very impressed if the democrats could come up with one single solution to a problem that didn't involve raising taxes or more government control... I don't see that happening under our current administration however.
Once again another example of what was mentioned. I disagreed with this when McCain mentioned it and Obama went ape sh*t when it was mentioned but now it looks pretty good to him... I guess he was running out of ways to f**k the American people...
the last link is a short essay by James M. Taylor titled Carbon Dioxide Restrictions are Costly, Pointless, Symbolic Gestures a few lines from this: "If you enjoyed last summer’s exploding gasoline prices, you’re really going to love the rise in gasoline prices, electricity prices, and unemployment, as well as the reduction in annual household income, that carbon dioxide restrictions will impose on the economy."
I keep hearing a statement from the left. this statement is:
Cap and trade is a market based solution to the carbon emissions problem
for arguments sake, lets disregard the fact that carbon emissions are debatable on if they are the cause of global warming, which itself is debatable over if it is happening or not.
the concept behind cap and trade is that there is a limited amount of carbon emissions annually. this number from what i can tell is being pulled out of thin air. (if someone has a link on what the number is and how they determined why that is the right number please link me) this limited amount of carbon will be regulated by the government, and it will shrink every year to lower output every year. to be able to emit carbon a company will have to purchase a license for a set amount. if you want/need to emit more, then you need to buy more permits from either the government or from another company that is not using theirs.
this is the point that is being called a "market." this is not a market. this is a regulation. it is a regulation on energy. it is saying:
we are trying to lower the use of energy as we know it by raising the price. the more something costs, the less people can afford it.
the economic inelastic nature of energy means that the demand for energy will not go down but the price will go up.
A true market is when a person/people (group A) want or need a good or service so another person/people (group provide that good or service for a price. both group A and group B benefit from this transaction. Group A gets the good or service. Group B gets money or a good or service that is agreed on. in this case group A has to pay the government to do what it has already been doing. this "market" is created out of thin air, not out of a need of the people.
A market economy is, strictly speaking, an economy in which prices of things are freely set based on the laws of supply and demand, unfettered by interference from a government or other outside body. A market economy is, at its most basic, an economy run entirely by the market itself.
have a definition: market economy: A system of allocating resources based only on the interaction of market forces, such as supply and demand. A true market economy is free of governmental influence, collusion and other external interference.
Cap and trade does not sound like the definition of a market at all.
Carbon emissions have no market. nobody has any use for carbon emissions. the market in this arena is energy. Carbon emissions are a negative externality. they happen and exist because another market exists. there is no market for them on their own.
Cap and trade is a regulation, not a market, because there are a limited amount of emissions set up by a government, not set up by free trade. it is not even a regulation on carbon emissions. it is a regulation on energy. you need to buy permission from the government to create a product that everyone needs to use. the government profits here by doing nothing at all.
...and people think that the oil companies are greedy. at least they provide a service in this particular market
... and that is if global warming even is a problem at all.
edit: the more i think on this the more i see that it cam be summed up in one statement: this is a complex way to regulate a market while getting the people involved with the market to pay for the regulation.
I'm just happy to say that all the reps from Louisiana voted against crap and trade whether they were democrat or republican. I can only hope that the senators do the same. If anything good has come of the Obama administration, it's that I have become polictically active and also call and write my reps and sens.
I'm glad to see all these spendulous bills and bailouts are working so freaking well... Just wait, if Cap and Tax gets passed, then the Healthcare Bill, these numbers are going to sky rocket. I guess it's a race to see how much damage can be done in 4 years...
Comments
another words Obama was still President ???
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/09-10
another great read on how our health insurance helps people...
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-insure9nov09,0,4409342.story?coll=la-home-center
This goes over how they really are the best and strive to make people healthy and do what they are suppose to do,... yeah.
http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2007/11/insurance-company-employees-got.html
Here's a great one on a ceo of blue cross...
http://www.knoxviews.com/node/11418
I'm sure your still going to argue and just say it's just business.... eh well when you loose your coverage, house, and are bankrupt or even denied coverage you might get it. I personally haven't had too many issues with my insurance other than I hate having only to select a certain number of doctors to get my 90 percent, rather than seeing anyone I want (like the Oregon Health plan). I also know that my company pays millions of dollars to cover us every year and every year they pay more and more and our prices go up as well. I know that a co-worker has had cancer for a few years and finally got denied for therapy and now is F*cked! They deemed him to expensive or a liability. It is outrageous. They do have people by the balls, but if you eat up words from say rush, that goes on rants saying there is no healthcare crisis and that our health insurance is the best then I'm just wasting my time. I really don't see why people defend these companies that practice this way and continue to screw people over and over.
Here's another example..... http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-03-16-healthcost_x.htm
BTW, the reason why when you go to the hospital and they test you up the ass is not for malpractice insurance it is because they get money for those tests. Also a good doctor if allowed would not need to run every test to diagnose you, unless it was necessary. Also when you check into the hospital you really can't deny a test as the doctor or doctor's will run them regardless as I ran into with my wife. When you admit you are their responsibility. I have a few relatives that are doctor's and nurses and they tell me the same thing. Now if you go to say a clinic then maybe but once your admitted to the ER you really have no choice.
I do not have "class" envy of rush, in fact if I ever became him I would like to be executed. The man is a pig, and what makes him a pig is that he's a bigget, hypocrite, and a liar that does no research only spews out the inconvenient thing to say to appease his mindless crowed. 40 million a year, and this guy is telling people, many who are in the category of unemployment, no health coverage, or just making it by that everything is fine, government is the bad guy, businesses are being bogged down by govt control. That's funny since the last 8 years they have had the least restrictions in years, maybe the most ever.
now off of health care, this is what is going on with the federal reserve and I am shocked that it isn't making the front page...
http://www.savethegop.com/2009/06/10/audit-the-fed/
http://www.naturalnews.com/019659.html
http://www.examiner.com/x-6495-National-Intelligence-Examiner~y2009m5d22-Federal-Reserve-Inspector-General-hedges-on-trillions-missing-in-Congressional-hearing
This one is really scary and goes somewhat with the one above....
http://seekingalpha.com/article/127030-u-s-government-move-will-push-russia-and-china-toward-economic-matrimony
to answer that article: rights dont cost anything. health care CANNOT BE A RIGHT because it costs someone something. forcing anyone to pay for anything for someone else and calling it a right is flat out bull ***. its would be better classified as theft.
what is a right? A right must be exercised through your own initiative and action. It is not a claim on others. A right is not actualized and implemented by the actions of others
yes those examples suck. and if the rights of t hose people were violated then im all about going to court over it and making sure things get cleared up. Im also not saying that our system right now is PERFECT. im just saying there has to be a better way than turning our rights and life over to an all powerful government and raising taxes to fund it all. there has to be a better way than to force everyone to submit to the governments way of doing things. so either you didnt go to a good doctor or it was necessary.
or their hand was forced because they dont want to lose their lively hood. bullshit. if you can speak you can deny yourself medicine or tests.
the more you talk about Rush, the more you show how little you know about him. i dont agree with him on many things. but im not making opinions when i have not tuned in myself. he is making opinions on the news. you disagree with him. thats your business. I listen to him every day i can. some days i agree. some days i dont. im am part of his "crowd" as you put it. ( over 20 million daily i might add. larger than any other daily media outlet around today)
are you calling me mindless?
please leave name calling out of this. it solves nothing. please link this demographic. whats funny is that i thought republicans were "old rich white guys" this is not true. Bush GREW the government more than almost any president in the last 50 years.
its interesting that you are all for a $1.6 trillion dollar program that they are gunna have to borrow all kinds of money for (health care) but are scared that we are going bankrupt. wanna know where all that cash goes? over 50% goes to social programs
....and thats not even fox news.
we join mid discussion:
In 1994, the plan's first year of operation, nearly 120,000 new members signed up, and bad debts at Portland hospitals dropped 16%.
The plan's costs increased from $1.33 billion in 1993-1995 to $2.36 billion in 1999-2001. Significant cuts were made to the Oregon Health Plan's budget in 2003. That is a 77.4% increase in the cost of the program. Now imagine that on a MUCH larger scale. If we are looking at $1.6 Trillion over 10 years... That would put the cost at around $2.88 Trillion.
New enrollments in the program were closed from mid-2004 until early 2008, when a lottery-based system was introduced. Tens of thousands of Oregonians signed up, competing for 3,000 new spots in the plan. The plan is just not sustainable in the long term.
Another problem with this plan is outlined here.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12857
The woman has cancer and wants to fight it but NOPE... How about we rent you a gun and buy you a bullet instead? Yea that is the health coverage I want!
lets say that happens.
the $2.4 trillion cost of health care every year does not include 60 million people. the US population is about 304,059,724. this means that there are now going to be 20% more people in the new health care program. whats 20% more of %2.4 TRILLION?
about as much money as we have spend on Iraq.
how is that sustainable? its not
...and this is ON TOP of the $1.6 TRILLION deficit we already have under the Obama plan.
another quote from the artice is this:
"The reality is that CEO compensation for the top seven health insurance companies now averages $14.2 million."
there are 1300 health care entities out there. they chose to only look at the top seven. the ones that more people have freely chosen to buy insurance from. (often because they get the best coverage for the best price) of course the CEOs make a ton of money. those businesses are HUGE. why dont we average out those 1300 and see if they are skewed a bit less? and while we are at it, compare those numbers to the top seven CEOs of other industries. that article is more slanted than a used car salesman named "fast eddie"
Puro, the oregon health plan is fantastic. My only problem is that you have to be at a certain income, which is in my opinion ridiculous. Of course some people will have issues, but you can still get into the program now, in fact it's been increased just this last week. My insurance is pretty damn good but the health plan is much better, by far.
Also if you think government funded healthcare will be cheaper and more efficient then you obiously have never been through a public school system, been to the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, dealt with the IRS, or used the U.S. Postal Services. Because we all know how freakin great those Government Agencies work and how cost effective they are.
of course, everyone has the right to speak their minds and all stations/articles/new sources have bits of validity and bits of BS.
...and it isnt true.
what this entire argument comes down to is if health care is a right or not.
a “right” is something that is an integral part of us, innate, and thus “unalienable,” and NOT something that is devised, given, or granted. Because it is innate, it can’t be given to us.
Rights have nothing to do with altruism or how it makes you feel.
here was my train of though today:
the claim that health care is a right is based partly on the "fact" that it is necessary to life. if that is the criteria for a "right" then we all have a right for food as well. the government should supply us all with food. but what food is necessary? should we all get kobi beef? or should the government only supply staples like Flour, eggs, milk?
nobody would think it is reasonable that the government should supply the Kobi beef. lets throw that out because of the absurdity of the product.
If the government claimed that the staples of flour, eggs and milk are a right then everyone would not be able to be punished for stealing it. (they have a right to it! the government says so) the only choice would to be to make it free. how do you make it free? you cant. nothing is free. those farmers need to get paid. they arent gunna grow the wheat, milk the cows, produce those eggs out of the kindness of their hearts. they need to live too.
this leaves a few options:
1) Raise taxes to cover the cost.
2) make laws to make wheat milk and eggs free
3) Take over the farms and make them government run
4) all of the above
if you raise the taxes then it still isnt free. people are paying for it. the tax increases are not producing any more wheat, milk or eggs than was in the market before but the people have less money in their pocket. higher taxes. same level of production. (or less production; because when was the last time that ANY federal program made a profit ?)
if the government takes over and regulates the cost of wheat, milk and eggs to free (because remember its your RIGHT to have it in this plan) then farmers will make no money whatsoever. there is no incentive to continue. there will be a wheat, milk, and egg shortage. People will not get the food they have a right to.
if the government takes over farms then taxes will go up to cover the cost regulating/running farms on a national level (raising the cost of production) and farmers will not make as much profit as they used to because the government has to have their cut (less productivity). this is not sustainable.
if the government does all three we will have the problems of all three.
...and this doesnt even take into account the law of economics where as the price falls the demand goes up. so we would have a rising demand, higher taxes, less productivity, less profit. this is an unsustainable prospect.
yet this is pretty much exactly what the government is trying to do with health care.
they are trying to regulate the market with no regard to the outcome based on a claim that a good or service is a "right" because it "feels wrong" to make people work for it, pay for it.
Buying a controlling or even minimal share in any private entity by the government, for the purpose of steering its purpose to serve “social” or government ends, is fascism. This is usually called a “government-business partnership.” Also, it is known as “national socialism.” It means working as a slave or a serf for the government, and the government determining one’s rewards and compensation.
Fascist politicians can intervene whenever they feel like it and then, when their interventions turn out badly, summon executives from the private sector before Congress and denounce them on nationwide television.
this is exactly what is going on right now in the financial system and in the auto industry, and will happen more and more than it already does in the medical and medical insurance field if the government takes over.
and neither will jobs.
if you raise the taxes on a corporation there is no way that it will create jobs. if they have more taxes to pay they will have to cut costs to keep their doors open. its layoff time.
who is getting laid off? not the CEOs. someone has to run the business. The average person who needs the job to survive will lose their job. yeah, thats fair. ive given up on public schools. my kids will go to private schools even if i have to be in debt for the rest of my life.
Hav-a-Tampa cigars closing Tampa plant
...some claimed that the SCHIP tax wouldnt close smaller factories...
from the article:
“I’m in a tough spot. I really am,” Rep. John Salazar (D-Colo.), one of the Democrats who opposed the bill, said before the vote, citing his fears the legislation could raise energy costs and hurt the coal industry in his low-income, rural district.
reductions that will be accomplished by putting a price on carbon dioxide through a cap-and-trade system
“This is the biggest job killing bill that’s ever been on the floor of the House of Representatives. Right here, this bill,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner. “And I don’t think that’s what the American people want.”
it still has to pass the senate.
Next article
Obama implores Senate to pass climate bill
from the article:
Opponents complain about the costs and say some industries will simply move their operations and jobs out of the U.S. to countries that don't control greenhouse-gas emissions.
Supporters and opponents agreed the legislation would lead to higher energy costs
This "amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change," declared Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.
In the Republicans' weekly radio and Internet address, House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio said, "By imposing a tax on every American who drives a car or flips on a light switch, this plan will drive up the prices for food, gasoline and electricity."
i just wish that the democrats could attempt to fix just one problem EVER without imposing a tax. there are other ways to cut down on greenhouse emissions. ways that will help this already sluggish economy instead of making day to day life more expensive.
this carbon tax very regressive. the rich people will not be hurt by this as much as the poorer people who have to give up a larger percentage of their income just to keep the lights on in their house, food on the table, gas in the car, and heat on in the winter.
thanks for looking out for the little guy there Obama!
All of Washington, R and D alike, is misspending my money so ridiculously, I can't take it anymore. They eff it all up, and there solution is to just take more of it. These clowns need to go.
who doesnt want clean air and water and a good environment generally speaking?
we all want that. I just feel that there are better ways that require less government regulation, taxation, and otherwise control.
Mr. Pickens is a good example.
another way would be to create incentives to make the switch to an alternative fuel through tax breaks. make it so that everyone from the Oil companies, to the auto makers, to the people buying said autos would get a very nice tax break for developing, selling, using, and buying a clean renewable source.
this way people would be motivated to create something new and to use it while creating jobs and generally helping the economy, instead of taxing the system we use now until it is so messed up and expensive that very few people can afford it and we are forced to look for an alternative.
I agree with ya Kuzi. I would be very impressed if the democrats could come up with one single solution to a problem that didn't involve raising taxes or more government control... I don't see that happening under our current administration however.
Once again another example of what was mentioned. I disagreed with this when McCain mentioned it and Obama went ape sh*t when it was mentioned but now it looks pretty good to him... I guess he was running out of ways to f**k the American people...
first one is a video Cap and Trade: Will It Save the Earth?
next link is a PDF file showing How the Waxman–Markey Climate Change Bill Would Affect the States, by Congressional District
the last link is a short essay by James M. Taylor titled
Carbon Dioxide Restrictions are Costly, Pointless, Symbolic Gestures
a few lines from this:
"If you enjoyed last summer’s exploding gasoline prices, you’re really going to love the rise in gasoline prices, electricity prices, and unemployment, as well as the reduction in annual household income, that carbon dioxide restrictions will impose on the economy."
E-mails indicate EPA suppressed report skeptical of global warming
and
at least this one is funny Boehner: Climate bill a 'pile of s--t'
... funny in a sad kind of way.
Cap and trade is a market based solution to the carbon emissions problem
for arguments sake, lets disregard the fact that carbon emissions are debatable on if they are the cause of global warming, which itself is debatable over if it is happening or not.
the concept behind cap and trade is that there is a limited amount of carbon emissions annually. this number from what i can tell is being pulled out of thin air. (if someone has a link on what the number is and how they determined why that is the right number please link me) this limited amount of carbon will be regulated by the government, and it will shrink every year to lower output every year. to be able to emit carbon a company will have to purchase a license for a set amount. if you want/need to emit more, then you need to buy more permits from either the government or from another company that is not using theirs.
this is the point that is being called a "market."
this is not a market. this is a regulation. it is a regulation on energy. it is saying:
we are trying to lower the use of energy as we know it by raising the price. the more something costs, the less people can afford it.
the economic inelastic nature of energy means that the demand for energy will not go down but the price will go up.
A true market is when a person/people (group A) want or need a good or service so another person/people (group
in this case group A has to pay the government to do what it has already been doing. this "market" is created out of thin air, not out of a need of the people.
A market economy is, strictly speaking, an economy in which prices of things are freely set based on the laws of supply and demand, unfettered by interference from a government or other outside body. A market economy is, at its most basic, an economy run entirely by the market itself.
have a definition:
market economy:
A system of allocating resources based only on the interaction of market forces, such as supply and demand. A true market economy is free of governmental influence, collusion and other external interference.
Cap and trade does not sound like the definition of a market at all.
Carbon emissions have no market. nobody has any use for carbon emissions. the market in this arena is energy. Carbon emissions are a negative externality. they happen and exist because another market exists. there is no market for them on their own.
Cap and trade is a regulation, not a market, because there are a limited amount of emissions set up by a government, not set up by free trade. it is not even a regulation on carbon emissions. it is a regulation on energy. you need to buy permission from the government to create a product that everyone needs to use. the government profits here by doing nothing at all.
...and people think that the oil companies are greedy. at least they provide a service in this particular market
like i said before. there are better ways to achieve the goals of a cleaner environment. ways that do not Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation; Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 58 percent; Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent; Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,241; there are ways to fix problems without raising taxes and regulating businesses out of business.
... and that is if global warming even is a problem at all.
edit: the more i think on this the more i see that it cam be summed up in one statement:
this is a complex way to regulate a market while getting the people involved with the market to pay for the regulation.
I'm glad to see all these spendulous bills and bailouts are working so freaking well... Just wait, if Cap and Tax gets passed, then the Healthcare Bill, these numbers are going to sky rocket. I guess it's a race to see how much damage can be done in 4 years...