What drugs is Eugene Robinson taking?

[MillCreek]

The idea that the big corporations do not benefit from the modern state, have not lobbied for it, asked for it, begged for it, whimpered for it - flies in the face of everything we know.

And to paraphrase Keyser Soze: the greatest trick the corporations ever pulled was convince America that if they only got ever-increasing tax breaks, bailouts and sweetheart deals, everyone would benefit.

[De Selby]

And to paraphrase Keyser Soze: the greatest trick the corporations ever pulled was convince America that if they only got ever-increasing tax breaks, bailouts and sweetheart deals, everyone would benefit.

But we have!   Now that unions are mostly busted in the private sector, working conditions are better than ever, and everyone is making more money.  We're also not worried about bankruptcy from one illness, because our efficient market based health and income insurance schemes protect us.

[makattak]

But we have!   Now that unions are mostly busted in the private sector, working conditions are better than ever, and everyone is making more money.  We're also not worried about bankruptcy from one illness, because our efficient market based health and income insurance schemes protect us.

Our healthcare is so skewed by government control and influence that calling it "market based" is a laugh. Our working conditions ARE better than ever, except for maybe a short 10 year period. (Recessions/depressions tend to do that.)

And I'm completely opposed to bailouts and targeted tax breaks and subsidies. Further, I don't trust corporations; I just trust the government even less.

[De Selby]

Our healthcare is so skewed by government control and influence that calling it "market based" is a laugh. Our working conditions ARE better than ever, except for maybe a short 10 year period. (Recessions/depressions tend to do that.)

And I'm completely opposed to bailouts and targeted tax breaks and subsidies. Further, I don't trust corporations; I just trust the government even less.

By what measure are working conditions better than ever?

[TommyGunn]

By what measure are working conditions better than ever?

Do we use the English system or metric?
Working conditions in America are better in America now than they were in England when Dickens wrote Hard Times.
They're better now than in Feudal times.
Awhile ago I read a book about the history of Winchester Firearms.  Back in the mid 19th century when that company was getting started, workers worked atleast 12 hour days  7 days a week.  Oh, wait, not, that's not exactly right.  They got Sunday mornings off for church.
The average workweek now is maybe @ 40 hours per week.  Plus we have lunch hours and other breaks as well as overtime.
Or, by "better than ever," did you mean Nov. 27th, 2011?
I think it's pretty evident that working conditions have improved, however, expecting any real degree of "improvement" in a short time range (like November 27th 2011) is a bit unrealistic.

[MicroBalrog]

By what measure are working conditions better than ever?

By what measure are they not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek_and_weekend#United_States

Currently economists are actually suggesting a slightly shorter workweek might improve productivity, but that isn't the point.

Let's see. Workers generally work less hours.

They are also paid much more in inflation-adjusted terms. In 1820, when Monroe was President, GDP per capita was approaching $1257 in inflation-adjusted dollars - in 1990, the poverty level was 12 times that high.

So workers are paid more for far less work. Since I am not a Calvinist, I regard this a farging awesome thing.

Not only that, but more and more people are working in far less physically taxing work. I do not think that the impact of automation, mechanization, etc. on the economy of Western (and even many non-Western) countries needs to be restated.

[De Selby]

Yeah Micro I thought we were comparing this to the incomes and working conditions when trade unionism and socialist programs were prevalent (FDR to LBJ) to how they've gone since Reagan dismantled them. 

If you look at working conditions and wages over the past 50 years, the picture is not nearly so rosy.  We are indeed better off than the days of Oliver twist, but that doesn't mean our current policies are improving conditions.

[Ron]

Yeah Micro I thought we were comparing this to the incomes and working conditions when trade unionism and socialist programs were prevalent (FDR to LBJ) to how they've gone since Reagan dismantled them. 

If you look at working conditions and wages over the past 50 years, the picture is not nearly so rosy.  We are indeed better off than the days of Oliver twist, but that doesn't mean our current policies are improving conditions.

You think the working conditions, wages (and I guess standard of living) were better in 1962? 

[AmbulanceDriver]

De Selby, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt here and guess that you didn't see my post on page 1 there.   Mind answering that post?  I'll even make it easy and quote it here:

It's more complicated than that because the money pays for things - the medical industry receives enormous sums of money from Medicare, and no doubt a significant amount of the consumer products business comes from those social security checks. 

Ok. First off,  I'd like to see some proof of your second statement there.  Because I'm calling BS on that one.

Now,  to address your first statement.  It's true that the medical industry receives millions in Medicare payments. But other than a small minority, most healthcare providers actually LOSE MONEY on Medicare patients.  Because the government sets the reimbursement rate for the services provided, completely ignoring what it actually costs to provide said services.  The vast majority of providers that I have spoken to would stop taking Medicare patients in a heartbeat if they could.  And those that can already have.  Let's take my industry as an example.  The reimbursement rate for a 911 ambulance transport from Medicare is at best $300 - $400, and usually less in urban areas.  Ours is closer to $200. Oh,  and we are prohibited by law from charging the balance to the patient. Medicaid is actually even worse.  If we ran only Medicare or Medicaid patients, we'd be out of business.  Instead, to stay in business, we have to charge a higher rate to patients with other insurance, or even no insurance in order to subsidize Medicare and Medicaid patients.  Except, whoopsie, our rates are capped by the contracts we sign with the municipalities in which we operate as the 911 service provider.  I work for one of, if not the, largest private ambulance services in the country.  And we are laying people off because we are losing so much money on Medicare and Medicaid patients. 

So don't give me that bushwa that healthcare is making money on Medicare.

[De Selby]

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt AD - I did forget you had posted there.

Medicare services do cause a loss for some providers, but not for all, and whether one individual shop loses money doesn't change its outflow of cash - the Medicare budget was $485 billion this year and Social security was $778 billion.   Those dollars end up in people's hands, who then use them to buy other things.  It's not like the docs who do profit from Medicare smoke the bills.   Cutting $485 billion out of the sector would destroy it.  Cutting $778 billion out of the consumer economy will do the same.  That's why individual stories about these programs are misleading; yeah, one persons costs and spending might not matter much, but multiplied by a hundred mil there's an economic impact.

[De Selby]

You think the working conditions, wages (and I guess standard of living) were better in 1962? 

In many ways, yes - what a dollar bought you (and how long it took you to earn it) were relatively much more favourable.   Given the advances in productivity, we should be able to earn an equivalent standard of living with much less work today, but that is far from the case.   

[dogmush]

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt AD - I did forget you had posted there.

Medicare services do cause a loss for some providers, but not for all, and whether one individual shop loses money doesn't change its outflow of cash - the Medicare budget was $485 billion this year and Social security was $778 billion.   Those dollars end up in people's hands, who then use them to buy other things. 

Where do you think those dollars came from in the first place, if not people's hands?  Why not cut the fed.gov's over head out and just leave that money in the economy?

[De Selby]

Where do you think those dollars came from in the first place, if not people's hands?  Why not cut the fed.gov's over head out and just leave that money in the economy?

Because leaving them in people's hands doesn't mean you'll get healthcare or consumer dollars - hence the point that cutting those programs would undoubtedly ruin many consumer and medical businesses.   It's not as simple as "money out!"

[Monkeyleg]

Because leaving them in people's hands doesn't mean you'll get healthcare or consumer dollars - hence the point that cutting those programs would undoubtedly ruin many consumer and medical businesses.   It's not as simple as "money out!"

So, let me see if I understand you correctly. If Person A has money in his hand, .gov should take it. If Person B doesn't have money, .gov should give him some of person A's money. If, sometime down the road, Person B has some money in his hand, .gov should take that plus maybe a little more. If Person B never gets any money in his hands, he still gets some of person A's money.

All the while this money is changing hands, it's moving through the government, which employs millions of people and thus, to cover its costs, must take a percentage of the money that's moving from one person's hands to another. So, perhaps 50% of the money taken from Person A actually gets to Person B. And this is the solution?

Is that about right?

[De Selby]

So, let me see if I understand you correctly. If Person A has money in his hand, .gov should take it. If Person B doesn't have money, .gov should give him some of person A's money. If, sometime down the road, Person B has some money in his hand, .gov should take that plus maybe a little more. If Person B never gets any money in his hands, he still gets some of person A's money.

All the while this money is changing hands, it's moving through the government, which employs millions of people and thus, to cover its costs, must take a percentage of the money that's moving from one person's hands to another. So, perhaps 50% of the money taken from Person A actually gets to Person B. And this is the solution?

Is that about right?

Seriously, how is that in any way related to what I said here??   Considering that "I blame welfare" is a quote from my posts?

  I'm saying we shouldn't be doing that to give corporations welfare, and observing at the same time that social welfare is actually a significant part of the consumer economy, and hence it isn't a simple "cut and we will save!" proposition.  I'd rather spend my energy stopping welfare for billionaires, and creating an economy that will let individuals choose how they want to live.   Simply cutting social welfare would make people more, not less, dependent on the corporate welfare queens.

[AmbulanceDriver]

I don't think you quite get the point I was trying to make.  I know that there is a lot of money moving through the system.   The problem is the system.   The system itself is broken.  It doesn't matter how much money the government is shoveling through the system in the form of Medicare/Medicaid.   The fact is because these programs DO NOT PAY what the services cost, it RAISES THE COST for the rest of us.  Right there, that is part of what causes healthcare costs to GO UP.  

My employer is just one example.   Medicare only pays $200-300 for a transport.  Medicaid pays even less.  You know what the average transport is billed at?   Between $900-$1000.  That means we LOSE $600-$800 for EVERY TRANSPORT that is billed to Medicare.  Believe me, if we could avoid accepting Medicare/Medicaid, we'd do it in half a heartbeat.   And between all the capital costs of the ambulances, medications, equipment, the cost of fuel, insurance on the vehicle, and the wages paid to two paramedics, our profit margins are actually pretty thin.  

So yes.  There's a lot of money moving through there.  But all it does is raise the costs for everyone else.

[makattak]

In many ways, yes - what a dollar bought you (and how long it took you to earn it) were relatively much more favourable.   Given the advances in productivity, we should be able to earn an equivalent standard of living with much less work today, but that is far from precisely the case.

Fixed that for you. If I want the same standard of living as the average person in the 1970s, I could probably work 20 hours a week or less. One car, no airbags, no computer control, and no hugely costly EPA requirements; no air conditioning; no computer; no Internet; one Color tube Tv with an antenna; very little eating out; most meals cooked from scratch; no exotic foods. Oh and the finest 1970s healthcare would be very cheap.

The problem is you just assume health care and all other goods today are the same as it was before. We cure and save and prolong life much better than ever before. Yes, it is costly but better goods and services tend to cost more.

[AmbulanceDriver]

Seriously, how is that in any way related to what I said here??   Considering that "I blame welfare" is a quote from my posts?

  I'm saying we shouldn't be doing that to give corporations welfare, and observing at the same time that social welfare is actually a significant part of the consumer economy, and hence it isn't a simple "cut and we will save!" proposition.  I'd rather spend my energy stopping welfare for billionaires, and creating an economy that will let individuals choose how they want to live.   Simply cutting social welfare would make people more, not less, dependent on the corporate welfare queens.

Ok.  Again.  At least with Medicare/Medicaid, MOST providers would drop those patients if they were able to/allowed to.   And yes.  I don't think there's a single person on this board that thought any of the bailouts we've had so far were a good idea.  So "welfare for billionaires" is just plain stupid.  

The problem is that the welfare system in this country is BROKEN.  I know that the plural of anecdote is not data, but I can give *SEVERAL* examples of abuse of the welfare system.  Are there people that genuinely need help?  Absolutely.  But that's maybe 5% of the population that is on welfare.  There are entirely too many people for whom welfare is a generational way of life.  Why should I be forced to subsidize the life of someone who is too lazy to work for themselves, but rather have figured out how to game the system?

[lupinus]

Ok.  Again.  At least with Medicare/Medicaid, MOST providers would drop those patients if they were able to/allowed to.   And yes.  I don't think there's a single person on this board that thought any of the bailouts we've had so far were a good idea.  So "welfare for billionaires" is just plain stupid. 

The problem is that the welfare system in this country is BROKEN.  I know that the plural of anecdote is not data, but I can give *SEVERAL* examples of abuse of the welfare system.  Are there people that genuinely need help?  Absolutely.  But that's maybe 5% of the population that is on welfare.  There are entirely too many people for whom welfare is a generational way of life.  Why should I be forced to subsidize the life of someone who is too lazy to work for themselves, but rather have figured out how to game the system?

This.

The sad part is, with as much effort as some of these people spend gaming the system, they could actually have just gotten a frickin job and been productive. And people who actually legitimately need the benefits get *expletive deleted*it.

[BridgeRunner]

The problem is that the welfare system in this country is BROKEN.  I know that the plural of anecdote is not data, but I can give *SEVERAL* examples of abuse of the welfare system.  Are there people that genuinely need help?  Absolutely.  But that's maybe 5% of the population that is on welfare.  There are entirely too many people for whom welfare is a generational way of life.  Why should I be forced to subsidize the life of someone who is too lazy to work for themselves, but rather have figured out how to game the system?

I'm really curious where you are getting this "maybe 5%" figure from.  Because you're right, a plural of anecdotes is NOT data.  It certainly doesn't lend itself to calculating percentages. 

[AmbulanceDriver]

BR, I'm sorry.  I was using hyperbole to make my point.  I don't know that it's only 5%.  But my personal experience has been that the percentage of people who really actually need help is markedly the minority.

[sumpnz]

Because leaving them in people's hands doesn't mean you'll get healthcare or consumer dollars - hence the point that cutting those programs would undoubtedly ruin many consumer and medical businesses.   It's not as simple as "money out!"

So, what can people do with money?

I'll make it easy for you.  Save, invest, give or spend.  Taxes get filed under spending.  So if people were taxed less, would that money the .gov is no longer taking just disappear?

[De Selby]

So, what can people do with money?

I'll make it easy for you.  Save, invest, give or spend.  Taxes get filed under spending.  So if people were taxed less, would that money the .gov is no longer taking just disappear?

Uh, no, but it doesn't disappear from taxes either - and that was the point.  Do you honestly believe that cutting 485 billion dollars that currently goes, via government welfare, into the health industry would have no significant impact on medical providers!?  Or that cutting 700 odd billion from monthly payments to seniors wouldn't impact basic goods providers?

[MicroBalrog]

If you think private corporations do not rent-seek, makattak, I have a bridge.

[sumpnz]

Those medical providers, as in AD's case, could probably charge less to their non-Medicare/Medicaid patients and make a larger total profit at the same time.  Some would loose out, sure.  But there's lots more loosing out now under the current system.

And none of us are argueing for cutting of seniors all of a sudden.  But a gradual phase out would not severely impact basic goods providers.  People would still buy those goods and services, just with money that hasn't been previously laundered through the .gov.