(Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

[Woodsman]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

Everywhere I go I see work that needs doing: Roadwork and other infrastructure maintenance, new roads, sewers and water works, to buildings needing painting and trash being picked up. Some restaurant is always looking for a dishwasher or someone to mop floors. There will always be more work than can be done. Should we just let some work go undone because it's below our station?

And how do we get it done, photon, without the aggregate demand necessary to get people in restaurants or the infrastructure investment by government to build and maintain new roads, sewers, etc if as always

"More government is not the answer."

That seems to be the general consensus here among the two dozen or so frequent posters that dominate the discussion, as is the idea that government - even though law and statute empower it to do so - can not legitimately employ surplus labor in times of crisis. Nor it seems can it even legitimately provide relief to the poor and unemployed for fear of encouraging

"dependency fueled by easy access to entitlements...

Even food aid is considered a "threat to the soul", it seems, given the recent cuts to SNAP. But where no combination of private and church effort could possibly address the numbers involved, what precisely are we as the

"truly responsible adult members of a society [who] step up and accept responsibility for problems ..."

to do about it, photon?

Yes, we can pray that our butts are miracled out of the problem. We can say it's god's will and judgement that the evil and prodigal get washed away in the flood for their idolatry. And we can take solace that we are among his elect. But I would think that both the clean and unclean have an interest in the ark surviving.

Except that in our present crisis, potential solutions are ignored because of a heady mixture of right wing political and social ideology, Calvinist and Dominionist theology, and discredited neocon economic theories whipped up on the back of napkins. This bounded way of thinking is precisely the way we got to where we are. What you fail to account for is that this point of view is very much part of the problem.

You seem to have some grasp of the big picture when you say

There is a smaller but much more powerful number of individuals who see the problem described above not as a great social tragedy, a dagger aimed at the heart of a free and civil society, but, as a (existential) crisis which presents an opportunity for self enrichment, self advancement, and self empowerment, all at the expense of that society and culture that nurtured and supposedly civilized them. But if a society idolizes sociopaths as heroes instead of shunning them and prosecuting them as criminals, does that society deserve to survive.

But what you can't seem to grasp is that these powerful individuals you identify are the very men promulgating the neocon, right wing claptrap that brought us here in the first place. And surely they do have the idolization and rapt attention of a group of people who consider themselves entitled indeed; entitled, that is, to dictate their religious and political theologies to the nation. The right wing has advanced the most retrograde social and economic policies and helped turn back the clock on 50 years of advances. And for what, to bring us back to some mythical golden age before society removed god from public life. How's that project going? The tragic part is that they got played by the neocons, who used them in their grab for authority and now the whole of the world is the worst for it.

If there is indeed "a quarter of the US population [who] are children in adult bodies" look to the acolytes of right wing ideologies and messianic religious cults. Like children, they demand that the nation make their faith based community into reality no matter the damage to the polity, civil society and our economy.

[LorenS]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

I made no judgement, photon. I just took a ride on your train of thought.

How about some serious education and reasonable boundaries on the benefits? My kids only get perks when they behave. Our society seems to reward bad behavior. Then we wonder why we get more of it.

[LorenS]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

But what you can't seem to grasp is that these powerful individuals you identify are the very men promulgating the neocon, right wing claptrap that brought us here in the first place. And surely they do have the idolization and rapt attention of a group of people who consider themselves entitled indeed; entitled, that is, to dictate their religious and political theologies to the nation. The right wing has advanced the most retrograde social and economic policies and helped turn back the clock on 50 years of advances. And for what, to bring us back to some mythical golden age before society removed god from public life. How's that project going? The tragic part is that they got played by the neocons, who used them in their grab for authority and now the whole of the world is the worst for it.

It's stuff like this that gives me cause to think you're some kind of left wing nut. If you can't see the corruption from both sides you'll never achieve even a 50% solution because both sides share heavily. In many ways the neoCONS are behaving the way I've been accustomed to seeing from urban Democrats.

[Woodsman]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

It's stuff like this that gives me cause to think you're some kind of left wing nut. If you can't see the corruption from both sides you'll never achieve even a 50% solution because both sides share heavily. In many ways the neoCONS are behaving the way I've been accustomed to seeing from urban Democrats.

I do see the problem from both sides and you only need to go back through nearly 300 posts to confirm that in aggregate. Your name calling hurts, Loren, but it also tells me everything I need to know about how much time you've spent thinking about what left and right actually means and how ideology manifests in practical policy in this country. Read the Powell Memorandum and you can see the script.

Newsflash: the right wing has almost total power and except for a brief interregnum has been calling the shots since before the first Nixon administration. We are here because they brought us here. This is a fact of history. The sooner you give up this spurious notion that there is some "left wing" in power the better you'll able to see how things actually have been corrupted.

A wise man recently said something you need to read again:

The democratically controlled legislature true to form is acting as an agent of the opposition by pursuing the opposite of the policy dictated by the reputation that the Democratic party has been granted by its opposition. Should the GOP win a majority in 2014 a wise investor will plan accordingly for a major increase in federal government spending and wider budget deficits.

[vinoveri]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

And how do we get it done, photon, without the aggregate demand necessary to get people in restaurants or the infrastructure investment by government to build and maintain new roads, sewers, etc if as always
....
....

But what you can't seem to grasp is that these powerful individuals you identify are the very men promulgating the neocon, right wing claptrap that brought us here in the first place. And surely they do have the idolization and rapt attention of a group of people who consider themselves entitled indeed; entitled, that is, to dictate their religious and political theologies to the nation. The right wing has advanced the most retrograde social and economic policies and helped turn back the clock on 50 years of advances. And for what, to bring us back to some mythical golden age before society removed god from public life. How's that project going? The tragic part is that they got played by the neocons, who used them in their grab for authority and now the whole of the world is the worst for it.

Hey Woods, I'm right with you on detesting the NeoCons and quite frankly anyone who wants to enforce of compel other to their wills or ideas, but am somewhat perplexed that you don't call out both "rule the world" types including the "left" in your diatribes who wish to and have generally succeeded in foisting their views on the wider society (and whether one agrees with those or not, one should at least acknowledge dogma for what it is, right and left). As for retrograde right wing policies, frankly I must say that if policies directed toward supporting the family, the basic unit of society and culture, protecting innocent life and limiting the power of the state generally over the lives of citizens are what you're talking about, we are in diametric disagreement (maybe not too surprising!).

Would you be so kind as to expand on your concept of positive liberty an how it applies (or should apply) in our cultural according to how you see things? In my conception of positive liberty, individuals should be afforded equal opportunity and justice, and personal responsibility and accountability for actions must be inherent in any such system.

And there's a lot more to life and existence to "aggregate demand" - once a culture is dependent on it, game over for the soul of men

[photon555]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

I made no judgement, photon. I just took a ride on your train of thought.

I believe your train has derailed.

[Woodsman]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

I believe your train has derailed.

It was your train, remember? And no pal, I jumped off when I saw where it was going.

[Woodsman]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

Hey Woods, I'm right with you on detesting the NeoCons and quite frankly anyone who wants to enforce of compel other to their wills or ideas, but am somewhat perplexed that you don't call out both "rule the world" types including the "left" in your diatribes

Because, friend, as I have said before,

As far as I can tell from about two years of near daily reading, there are plenty of vocal critics here for the problems of the left. Seeming endless streams of criticism (and plenty of vitriol, too) can be found, and among it you'll see where I've talked about bad ideas from the left in specific and general terms. I've been a vocal and plain spoken critic of the liberal class here, so I'm not exactly sure what the heck some people are so exercised about.

The money quote is here:

Me, I resent being compelled to live up to what self-described GOP partisans and ideological conservatives define as fair and balanced. To achieve such balance and thus credibility I'm expected to dedicate most of my energy to matching the sins of left and right in perfect tu quoque symmetry. Well, I'm not going to do that and if it makes some people irritated or dismissive [ I can deal with it].

Does that relieve you of your perplexity?

I must say that if policies directed toward supporting the family, the basic unit of society and culture, protecting innocent life and limiting the power of the state generally over the lives of citizens are what you're talking about, we are in diametric disagreement (maybe not too surprising!).

I'm glad we can agree on something. But if you mean supporting families by enacting policies that help wage earners share in the productivity increases of the past 40 years; is it the right wing who is know for this? Unemployment and underemployment is the largest and most significant stress on family life and harmony, but is it the right wing who is known for policies that support families? Does the right wing have a reputation as defenders of the weak and innocent? Is it the right wing who is known for their consistent supporter of civil rights and free expression?

Whose family? Whose culture? Whose life, vino? These are the questions we need to ask when evaluating an ideology and the policies it manifests.

I'm heading out for a lunch meeting so I'll pass on the invitation to debate. Anyway, Isaiah Berlin wrote more than I could ever say about the matter and I refer you to him. I'll leave you with another important idea from Berlin I think is particularly relevant in the context of the "single party" right wing ideology that dominates our politics. It's the notion of "value pluralism" where there are several values which may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict with each other. In that respect, the successful polity exhibits a sort of polytheism where various ideological factions struggle for their interests, and in doing so produce better outcomes for all that - ideally - take the best from each faction. Since the early 1960s and certainly by the mid 80s, we've seen then end of any meaningful struggle among factions. The right won decisively by virtue of masterful propaganda, a lack of scruples, and the ruthless employment of violence. And so we've had to do without the benefits of "value pluralism" since then and continue to suffer under the rule of right wing ideologies.

Where I and others differ with Berlin is his seeming belief that this state "value pluralism" is an end and final good. I think the judgement about one set of values over another is commensurable by their contributions towards the greatest human good for the greatest human number. Liberty, freedom, equality, efficiency, and all other values are not ends in themselves but are promoted for their positive consequences for the mass of men. And these values and the words used to describe them have vastly differing meaning among those factions.

[lektrode]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

jeeeeze woody - the fountain of knowledge and philosophy that you so effortlessly gusher forth is impressive - but i've got a question for you as it pertains to an earlier one of your rhetorical points:

how does The US increase or rev up DEMAND ?

my question is a simple one and all of us 'rightwingers' are just itchin to hear your answer to:

given that our lust for energy supplies and the left's politix of anti-anything-not-"sustainable" - is mostly responsible for our current problems (endless wars for oil, since cant drill in CA or FL, no pipelines, no frak'g, no coalburning, no-nuthin-carbon without another gazillion dollar scam that gore,kleiner,perkins are pushin) - and needing the next quantum leap in technology to propel us forward - can/will you share with us your thoughts on something like... oh.... i dunno...

how about a krash-course, moonshot-mission-critical ALL-IN 'manhattan project' to develop the next gen nuke power system?

yes or no, woody?

[photon555]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

Woodsman, please go back and reread my posts above. I said nothing about Neo Con or even right wing beliefs. Anyone still stuck on the left/right sideshow is missing the man behind the curtain. Ultra right wing (fascism) and Ultra left wing (communism) sit comfortably cheek by jowl on the circle of political beliefs. (say 12:00, straight up) They are both statist ideologies which seek total control over society. On the other side of the circle is Anarchy, 180 degrees away. (say 6:00, straight down) I would put myself about 30 degrees out from the anarchist position, but I often find myself flipping between the right and the left side of the circle, but within about 30 to 40 degrees away from anarchy. (say 5:00 or 7:00) I find little practical difference between these two positions. For me, these positions describe a Constitutional limited Federal Government which is strong enough to restrain evil behavior and maintain a level playing field in economic terms but goes no further.

I don't know why you bring up various theological positions. Someone might employ them as an excuse for their evil behavior, but it's mainly human greed at the top and mainly human envy at the bottom that drives a lot of the destructive behavior that we're seeing today. People will rationalize what they do with elaborate formulas, but it's the lust for wealth, power, sex, or adulation that comes first. It seems that human intelligence is most often employed to create grand sounding rationalizations rather than seek to actually solve a problem.

[Penguin]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

...how does The US increase or rev up DEMAND ?

Write off the toxic debt in the system and write down the value of housing to honest appraisal values.

Of course that would men admitting that practically every major bank is ~still~ insolvent years after the crash. And even the mention of nationalizing the banks temporarily brought on waves of hysteria about "government takin' over the banks!" It would have been funny as hell if it hadn't been so detached from reality and so harmful.

You can't rev up demand in a debt saturated environment with more private debt. You can fake the symptoms of growth by injecting public debt. For how long I don't pretend to know.

Will

[photon555]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

Write off the toxic debt in the system and write down the value of housing to honest appraisal values.

Of course that would men admitting that practically every major bank is ~still~ insolvent years after the crash. And even the mention of nationalizing the banks temporarily brought on waves of hysteria about "government takin' over the banks!" It would have been funny as hell if it hadn't been so detached from reality and so harmful.

You can't rev up demand in a debt saturated environment with more private debt. You can fake the symptoms of growth by injecting public debt. For how long I don't pretend to know.

Will

How do you decide what is toxic debt and what isn't? If RE prices are written down more mortgages will be submerged and thus more toxic debt created. Perhaps a Grand Reset or Debt Jubilee would work, but how would that be negotiated between nations? It's not realistic anyway to expect whoever holds the 100 trillion USD or more in combined global debt to forego it out of the goodness of their heart.

The TBTF Banks should have been broken up and liquidated. The shareholders and bondholders should have paid the price of incompetence. By this time we should have had a resurgence of local and regional banks. All of the TBTF corporations should have been liquidated. The moral hazard created by bail-outs has poisoned the entire economy. It's like leaving a dead whale in an aquarium because it still draws in the crowds. It won't be long before all the smaller fish die off and the stink becomes unbearable.

The Fed can keep printing until the world decides it's not going to use the USD as a reserve currency anymore. Then it can keep printing until you need a wheelbarrow to buy a loaf of bread. Hint: keep your eye on the wheelbarrow. Right now all the new currency is bottle-necked from the real economy, which is why inflation is still reasonable, but a lot more than the official figures. What the Fed is doing now is like building a dam out of marbles. It leaks some but it works OK... right up until the moment it doesn't. Then everyone gets to take a bath... except for those guys who already hold the high ground.

How long can you tread water?

[photon555]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

Back to ObamaCare. It seems that Obama did not lie all those times when he said people could keep their own insurance plan. It was TOTUS!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...d_766427.html#

[vinoveri]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

How do you decide what is toxic debt and what isn't? If RE prices are written down more mortgages will be submerged and thus more toxic debt created. Perhaps a Grand Reset or Debt Jubilee would work, but how would that be negotiated between nations? It's not realistic anyway to expect whoever holds the 100 trillion USD or more in combined global debt to forego it out of the goodness of their heart.

The TBTF Banks should have been broken up and liquidated. The shareholders and bondholders should have paid the price of incompetence. By this time we should have had a resurgence of local and regional banks. All of the TBTF corporations should have been liquidated. The moral hazard created by bail-outs has poisoned the entire economy. It's like leaving a dead whale in an aquarium because it still draws in the crowds. It won't be long before all the smaller fish die off and the stink becomes unbearable.

The Fed can keep printing until the world decides it's not going to use the USD as a reserve currency anymore. Then it can keep printing until you need a wheelbarrow to buy a loaf of bread. Hint: keep your eye on the wheelbarrow. Right now all the new currency is bottle-necked from the real economy, which is why inflation is still reasonable, but a lot more than the official figures. What the Fed is doing now is like building a dam out of marbles. It leaks some but it works OK... right up until the moment it doesn't. Then everyone gets to take a bath... except for those guys who already hold the high ground.

How long can you tread water?

Good summary of what should have happened but now it is academic.

Before we get to that final point however, bail-ins and/or wealth taxes will be implemented to stave off the collapse and shore up the system.

Or the system can "work out" by spurring economic growth via another leveraged bubble where everyone is flush with cash and the Fed's a hero until another collapse ensues and we get the same old "we didnt' know" excuse from policy makers. I must say, the masses seem to have a short memory.

[Woodsman]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

how about a krash-course, moonshot-mission-critical ALL-IN 'manhattan project' to develop the next gen nuke power system?

yes or no, woody?

Yes, of course, and I wish we would get on with it already. I'd like to see a system of distributed and decentralized power generation modeled on the TVA, managed as non-profit public utilities, and operated with a mix of public and private staff sourced locally (and not so tongue in cheek, "downwind" so safety is a personal matter). I'd like a model design that can be used across all sites, with safety and reliability the first priorities, and issues of waste disposal, security, community relations, emergency preparedness, and others addressed as part of the overall approach. I'd also like as much of the money as is practical and possible to be financed and spent locally.

Is that too much to ask?