It Isn't 'Free'

a reply to: worldstarcountry

I agree that health care should be affordable, but I have always paid for my health care through my work or if not me my wife has had health care through her work.

The real issue is that we are getting screwed by drug companies and the entire health care system.

Government should be working to lower health care costs not providing it for us.

a reply to: Metallicus

IMO the only reason health care is so expensive is because of insurance companies and government subsidies. Instead of subsidizing the people (who actually foot the bill), were allocating those funds to insurance companies and in turn the healthcare industry.

However, that's not the point of your post so I'll go back on topic.


The system we are currently working under is a sham. From the currency to the insurance safety net. I always tell folks to look to any bigger city skyline and label the buildings. Banks and insurance companies are generally what you see. Hotels too but eh.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: buster2010

How does one teach oneself?

In my case I worked minimum wage internships to get the skills and experience I needed to succeed. My first internship was for Chase bank in Manhattan. I made 3.35 an hour.

So you didn't teach yourself jack #. Internship means someone else taught you the job. You taught yourself LOL how pathetic.

I WORKED to learn from someone else. It's called taking personal responsibility.

You wouldn't understand.

No one paid me.

So you are a liar then or didn't you say this?

My first internship was for Chase bank in Manhattan. I made 3.35 an hour.

Now you are saying no one paid you?

a reply to: worldstarcountry

I know you're a busy reader of decent books. Have you read the Freakonomics book or heard the shows?

There's a chapter in the book about the US life insurance industry. They lost a $billion when price comparison sites came out near the turn of the century. One billion dollars.

The reason I mention it is because it shows how people can boost their profits by underinforming their markets. It's evidence that costs can be cut too. With healthcare, the costs of resources are different throughout the world. This in itself isn't unusual. However, there's an argument that some countries are more beholden to the pharmacorps and insurance industries than others. The USA is one place where economists have argued that prices are inflated and skew the costs of healthcare. Not just universal healthcare, private too.

If it was possible to get a more accurate picture of healthcare costs, the debate could become more honest. It might indeed turn out that Americans still see it as too much. The point is it's allegedly way, way too much right now and obfuscates the debate.

a reply to: Metallicus
They would just be paying it with our taxes and fine tuning it with regulations. If you support your local fire department, and police department, why not a Hospital funded with tax payer money?? Or a doctor you have known for years. Maybe they could even do tort reform and fix the mal-practice exploitation.

If I had to choose on how to allocate the $300,000,000,000 savings from cutting, I would divert the majority to health care. Then education, maybe a small chunk for housing assistance and the rest towards infrastructure. SO I guess my budget allocation would be:
$200,000,000,000 = Towards national health care, the real kind, not that fake ACA stuff.
$50,000,000,000 = divided to the states for their education budgets, with a clause that 2/3 towards grade schools and 1/3 towards colleges, universities, trade schools etc..
$30,000,000,000 = Towards various infrastructure upgrades like transmission lines, pipelines, bridges and sewer/storm-water upgrades to be divided among the states.
$20,000,000,000 = I guess towards whatever else an appointed committee can come up with. Or perhaps pay down our debt maybe???

I think the primary reason that us costs are staggering compared to much of the rest of Earth is because we have a for profit system, and not in spite of it.

Which one of these sentences is more true?
We have the most expensive medical costs on Earth, in spite of having a for profit medical industry.
We have the most expensive medical costs on Earth, because of a for profit medical industry.

Could both of them be true?? I think its the second one honestly. Just remember, without regulations, we would all be working 16 hour days for much less, right there alongside our own kids in the most dangerous jobs one can think of. If government regulations made workplaces significantly safer and reduced child labor exploitation, why could it not reduce costs in healthcare??

My God, I am defending regulations?? Well I suppose the bright side of being centrist is the ability to be open to compromises and not deal in absolutes.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

I would take the money and cut taxes.

Then people could be free to spend it on what was important to THEM...not what the Government decides is best for you.

a reply to: buster2010

Now you are saying no one paid you?

I wasn't working for the minimum wage of 3.35 an hour. I was working for the experience. I would have done the same work for free.

I think you are missing the point or being deliberately obtuse.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: buster2010

How does one teach oneself?

In my case I worked minimum wage internships to get the skills and experience I needed to succeed. My first internship was for Chase bank in Manhattan. I made 3.35 an hour.

So you didn't teach yourself jack #. Internship means someone else taught you the job. You taught yourself LOL how pathetic.

I think the point is he made an effort to go out and learn, instead of expecting someone to come around and offer to teach him.

It's called initiative.

I know that he's just sooo easy to troll.

So you're only here to troll?

How productive.

originally posted by: buster2010
It's funny to see the Trumpettes whine about "free things" when those "free things" are the best way to make this nation great again. Investing in the education and health of the general populace should be priorities of any nation.

Are you being willfully ignorant here or are you simply ignorant of facts? So you think if we were to send everyone to a school of higher education please tell me exactly how that benefits both them and the rest of the populace? I will answer it for you because I already know what you will say.

Your response: "Because free education will allow everyone the opportunity to a pathway to a higher paying job, etc, drivel, drivel, drivel.

Right? I mean that's the ONLY reason you liberals give every single time. So guess what happens when you have an entire populace of equally "educated" people entering the workforce? You will have a whole lot of really pissed off people who are unemployed because somewhere along the way none of them stopped to think if perhaps the area of education they were pursuing was inundated with an over saturation of "educated" applicants.

Where do you draw the line with what level of education a person wants to attain? What if everyone wanted to study law and pursue a career in law? You really think it benefits the general populace to have an over abundance of attorneys by 1,000%? Or engineers. How many pissed off engineers do you think you would have when they graduated and went to apply for a job and found they were one of 900 other equally educated engineers who applied for that same job?

Or nursing, doctors, etc, etc, etc. Bottom line is there are only so many jobs in any given industry. Simply ensuring an entire populace has an advanced education degree does not in any way provide or guarantee them anything. This is why higher education should cost money. Those people who want to genuinely pursue a degree in a specialized field will find a way. If they REALLY want it...they will find a way. And those people who REALLY want it tend to become successful people in life. And I don't just mean monetarily.

The other thing liberals will never understand is simply having a degree in no way makes you qualified for anything. It just means a person took the requisite education in a particular field. Even today how many college graduates do you hear about bitching and moaning about "not being able to get a job" and "my student loans are too high" and "I'll never be able to pay them off". Guess what? No one held a gun to their head and made them go into debt for a degree more than 70% will never even pursue a career in. They had all the available resources prior to making their decision in their elected course of study to know that within 4-5 years the career path they were choosing was going to be inundated with applicants.

How about educating the current incoming class of college students on critical thinking and how to make an informed decision? Do you know how easy it is to know where the jobs of the future are going to be? That is readily available and easily attainable public information. Yet you still have students choosing career paths like communications or business management. Good luck getting a job with those choices! I'll see you in Starbucks working as a local barista!

So keep on preaching your ridiculously unthoughtful parroting of the liberal media that EVERYONE should have free higher education. Yeah...that's going to work out real well.

a reply to: Metallicus

Yea that math returns $937.50 give or take to each person in our population. I guess that could cover a months worth of insurance under today's private company premiums for many people. Maybe two or three months on average. What about the other 9-11 months??

I feel like maybe you are more open to reform and universal care, but you need to see the details first, and I totally respect and agree with that.

a reply to: Outlier13
You seem to be under the assumption everyone who graduates is seeking to work in a firm or business for others. Why did you forget that many, if not most, would likely pursue the creation of their own businesses to compete with the overpriced monopolized corporations that currently provide goods and services to our population??

a reply to: worldstarcountry

I am open to a lot of discussion, however, I think ultimately I want to return the money to the people not give it to the Government. Each household knows what is best for their situation not some bureaucrat in DC.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Metallicus


a reply to: Outlier13
You seem to be under the assumption everyone who graduates is seeking to work in a firm or business for others. Why did you forget that many, if not most, would likely pursue the creation of their own businesses to compete with the overpriced monopolized corporations that currently provide goods and services to our population??

Nope. I am not under that assumption. I was responding to the narrow minded statement from that liberal. What you are referring to is entirely different and has absolutely nothing to do with education let alone free education. The vast majority of entrepreneurs never attended any level of higher education. In fact you are validating my earlier point regarding those people who genuinely and REALLY want to attain something will do so regardless of the obstacles they may face.

However, with that being said the very same logic applies. You can't simply encourage or make it easy for just anyone to go into business for themselves. Most small businesses fail within the first year because of poor planning and even poorer execution. Owning and running a successful business is substantially more difficult than attaining an advance degree. And 99% of what you need to know to own and operate a successful business you will never learn in a school.

And just out of curiosity would you please tell me which monopolized corporations you are referring to that are providing overpriced goods and services to our population?

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: buster2010
It's funny to see the Trumpettes whine about "free things" when those "free things" are the best way to make this nation great again. Investing in the education and health of the general populace should be priorities of any nation.

You are completely wrong as usual.

The way to make America great again it to invest in yourself.

Not have others do it for you.

How does one teach oneself to read? How to do math? These things are taught with the help of outside sources. Like this sentence of yours.

The way to make America great again it to invest in yourself.

For this to be correct shouldn't it be "is to invest in yourself" not "it to invest in yourself"? Looks like you need to reteach yourself grammar.

But education still won't teach anyone about how the world works no matter how much money you throw into it.

a reply to: Kandinsky
I have not read that book, but I think I may have seen a show. Thats interesting to hear for certain. I will discuss it with our insurance guy, because we can both talk for hours on the subject of finance and economics. Its interesting you mention it too, because while those comparison sites clearly dropped prices and forced better competition, they also tended to put some industries out of business. For instance travel agencies are all but gone from most places outside of a handful of larger cities which usually targeted towards niche demographics now. I am a big fan of whole life insurance after I learned more about it. Mutual insurance companies are probably the most stable companies out there just due to the way their business model is. Everything goes towards the client, and not shareholders.

We are currently in the process of getting life insurance policies for every member of the family. As you may know, the payout from a policy has a significantly reduced tax burden as opposed to simply allocating our assets to our heirs through inheritance. It will have a guaranteed death benefit, as well as building cash value separately. Passing on our wealth through a will will give a good chunk of it to various tax collectors. I am of course referring to whole policies, and not term. But I have been looking at policies with term riders that can be rolled over into a separate policy before expiration.
a reply to: Metallicus
You know the government and the people are the same. We are our government. If it aint doing well it is because we are not participating enough.

Investing it in better services for our population is still giving it back to the people. You already know what many or most people will do with a one time annual refund of $937.50 on average. Burn it on beer, cigs, dope and electronics. Funny, the very things sending us to the medical industry.

I find it appalling how many parents spend their EIC tax refund money on trivial things, when they could be putting it into CD's, saving it for house, buying bullion for their kids future, putting into a 529 for their kids future, making sure the families Whole Life Insurance policies are paid for the year. Stuff like that. Some do, others just buy the newest biggest TV or expensive mobile phone.

a reply to: Outlier13
That would require a whole other thread and some time to dig. But for starters, Cities tend to award contracts to larger corps outside of their own jurisdiction, an typically even from out of state. If you keep up with your own local matters like I do with city council meetings and public works projects, you have probably had a few of those aha moments when a new project or just an assessment for a new project is awarded to out of state contractors. Im like WTF? Don't we have companies that can handle that here??? Sometimes, but not usually.


I apologize to everyone if I am stressing anyone with walls of text. I just happen to type pretty fast so I like to add as much as possible.

a reply to: Metallicus

In a very near future there will be robots and computers doing 90% of the available work, while the global population is growing, thanks to commerce and taxes only companies and gouvernments will "earn" money.
While you are obviously from a generation which will be retired by then you might want to consider the starving masses, we already have and the growing numbers of people without opportunities to work for their income as you did we will face in just a few years.

a reply to: Peeple

thanks to commerce and taxes only companies and gouvernments will "earn" money.

Governments produce nothing and earn nothing. They can only steal it from the people and then occasionally ration a small portion of it back them as 'services'.

originally posted by: Metallicus

I retired at 50 after working hard my whole life.

I still earn residual income from my investments and businesses.

Once your passive income exceeds expenses you win at life.

IMO no such thing as a free lunch ..... It comes down to.....

Live now - pay later or Pay now - live later

a reply to: Metallicus

I suggest that you research how money is created because you will learn that its created out of thin air and there is no reason the govt can't create money for their own uses, using the exact came method the banks use to create it. Remember Quantitative Easing? that was a fancy word for printing money (out of thin air.)

Secondly, as the federal govt injects 12 economic stimulus packages into the economy each year, each of which is xyz millions, by bouncing it through the bank accounts of the sick, the old and the unemployed, then perhaps even your job or that of your a member of your family or friends, is secured.

Take your local shopping centre. For how long do you think all the shops in it would remain open if that stimulus package did not arrive for say, 3 months in a row. Would your job be at risk, if not directly, what about the flow on effect on your job?

a reply to: Metallicus

So there's a 99.9 percent chance of failing at life? That's how many people seem to be able to live off passive income..

Those odds suck.

You can believe the system can afford to let everyone do that.. But that's not how economics works.

If everyone has excess, no one would. Therefore things would just sky rocket in price - if more people could afford those prices.

Capitalism and the free market is beautiful. Profitocracy is not.

We live in a society where profit is all that matters - no one cares if they help fulfill or deny others the American dream.