Spread the wealth or Spread the risk ?

[Hawk]

I believe that man should care for / about his fellow man.


We the people, united, have the ability to help each other.

Man did just that for thousands of years without the help of the US Federal government. Do you think that there was no charity before the government set up welfare and medicare?

Look up Andrew Carnegie.

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

Used his fortune to help thousands and thousands of people, without the government telling him to do it.

Look at Altoona Hospital. Do you know its history? It was not built with any government money. It was built by the railroad for the benefit of its employees and families. They also built the YMCA and Cricket Field for the benefit of its employees. No government involvement.

Bill, we can care for our fellow man without having our money taken at gunpoint by this over bloated government.

The costs of health care has NEVER in history been what it is today. Back in the day one might pay a doctor with a chicken. But everyone had access who happened to be near a doctor.

During the civil war many doctors were volunteers. "Yeah I'll be a doctor, what do you need"? They were handed a saw and some chisels and some whisky and a few other minor tools. Education was limited.

You are naive if you think through history people took care of everyone all of the time. Tribes took care of their own, families took care of their own but help between tribes and city states was limited.

Lisa. you have brought up your story of the family coming up with $8,000 to help a family member. That is great. What do you tell someone with no family, or a family with two or three tomes that debt because their insurance won't cover it ?

Why aren't you complaining that Medicare paid for anything ? You ARE against government run (paid with your taxes) Medicare aren't you. Wouldn't you be much happier if she didn't have any government run Medicare, leaving families to pay for EVERYTHING ? After all, you would pay less taxes.

Please tell us what that bill would have been without government run Medicare ?

I'm sorry if your business doesn't do well enough to make tax paying easier for you. Truly, I mean that. But that's how capitalism works, it's dog eat dog and if the restaurants up and down the road do better, you look for something better to do. It a bitter pill to swallow, but that's how the system works.

A reminder again. The items and services charge watever the market will bear. Unless there is a monopoly (or groups who form monopolies - such as big oil or the insurance industry).

if you paid NO taxes inflation would go up simply because have more money, and you would have no more buying power than you do now. The difference is, you would also have no government to protect you in any form. No Military, No Food and Drug administration, No public roads. Etc..

Are there any Andrew Carnegie's today to cover Ten million people without insurance? Is there anyone out there today who can pick up the costs that insurance companies refuse to cover ?

Joe, "Man did that for thousands of years" Show me Joe, where a man would give another man a year or two years worth of salary (or what ever a man would live on for two years) to his neighbor to cover a medical debt ? Ludacris naivety to believe or make up such foolishness.

You guys do realize that your insurance premiums go up to cover ALL of the debt owed to them, but will never be paid because those people have NO money to pay it ? So you prefer higher premiums and putting people into bankruptcy who can't cover their medical bills ?

[shredder138]

Bill, good lord man, do you really think that modren man would have nothing or accomplish anything without government??Roads?Fighting fires?Protecting our homes and neighbors?I'll admit government run schools are outstanding .Do you live in this constant fear of a life without government telling you every move to make??Jesus did you have training wheels on your bike till you were 15?

+1

Tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber

[slackin@dabass]

The old line, "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" is a good story.

so giving a man welfare and free health insurance is teaching him to do what? all your doing is handing out free fish. limit welfare to one year. don't provide health care. make people learn to fish.


i won't mention the slacker comment

[Hawk]

The old line, "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" is a good story.

so giving a man welfare and free health insurance is teaching him to do what? all your doing is handing out free fish. limit welfare to one year. don't provide health care. make people learn to fish.


i won't mention the slacker comment

I am against welfare fraud. I am for the truly needy. I am for educating them and seeing to it that they are healthy in order that they can be productive to our society. i am for taking care of those who truly can't take care of themselves. Now explain to me your fault with that ?

[Hawk]

The old line, "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" is a good story.

so giving a man welfare and free health insurance is teaching him to do what? all your doing is handing out free fish. limit welfare to one year. don't provide health care. make people learn to fish.


i won't mention the slacker comment

Come on, don't take things out of context, You're better than that. In the "fish" line I posted it was relative to my belief of free education. ( I know, it's not free, society pays for it). Which makes for a stronger and better society.

[lonewolf]

if you paid NO taxes inflation would go up simply because have more money, and you would have no more buying power than you do now. The difference is, you would also have no government to protect you in any form. No Military, No Food and Drug administration, No public roads. Etc..

Where do you get this stuff? If you gross $100, there is still $100 put into the economy, whether you pay taxes or not. The difference is that the government is not so particular about spending our tax money as the working taxpayer who has to make ends meet.

The money is spent much more efficiently by the latter and results in downward pressure on prices. By contrast, the government is not good at finding bargains and will generally pay whatever is asked of them. By conceding to a high asking price, they put upward pressure on prices.

[Hawk]

if you paid NO taxes inflation would go up simply because have more money, and you would have no more buying power than you do now. The difference is, you would also have no government to protect you in any form. No Military, No Food and Drug administration, No public roads. Etc..

Where do you get this stuff? If you gross $100, there is still $100 put into the economy, whether you pay taxes or not. The difference is that the government is not so particular about spending our tax money as the working taxpayer who has to make ends meet.

The money is spent much more efficiently by the latter and results in downward pressure on prices. By contrast, the government is not good at finding bargains and will generally pay whatever is asked of them. By conceding to a high asking price, they put upward pressure on prices.

If everyone had more money in their pocket. Every business could raise their prices. Common sense.

Wherever there is more money, the cost of living is higher. If I lived in some of the big rich cities my price would be double what it is now. I know that because I know people in my business in those cities.

[lonewolf]

if you paid NO taxes inflation would go up simply because have more money, and you would have no more buying power than you do now. The difference is, you would also have no government to protect you in any form. No Military, No Food and Drug administration, No public roads. Etc..

Where do you get this stuff? If you gross $100, there is still $100 put into the economy, whether you pay taxes or not. The difference is that the government is not so particular about spending our tax money as the working taxpayer who has to make ends meet.

The money is spent much more efficiently by the latter and results in downward pressure on prices. By contrast, the government is not good at finding bargains and will generally pay whatever is asked of them. By conceding to a high asking price, they put upward pressure on prices.

If everyone had more money in their pocket. Every business could raise their prices. Common sense.

Wherever there is more money, the cost of living is higher. If I lived in some of the big rich cities my price would be double what it is now. I know that because I know people in my business in those cities.

There is no "more money." $100 is $100 whether it gets taxed or not!

This sounds like Timothy Leary economics.

Edit: The only way that lower taxes can lead to inflation is if the economy is running at full steam. Of course, just about anything can cause inflation then. When was the last time we were running at 95% of capacity?

[Hawk]

Where do you get this stuff? If you gross $100, there is still $100 put into the economy, whether you pay taxes or not. The difference is that the government is not so particular about spending our tax money as the working taxpayer who has to make ends meet.

The money is spent much more efficiently by the latter and results in downward pressure on prices. By contrast, the government is not good at finding bargains and will generally pay whatever is asked of them. By conceding to a high asking price, they put upward pressure on prices.

If everyone had more money in their pocket. Every business could raise their prices. Common sense.

Wherever there is more money, the cost of living is higher. If I lived in some of the big rich cities my price would be double what it is now. I know that because I know people in my business in those cities.

There is no "more money." $100 is $100 whether it gets taxed or not!

This sounds like Timothy Leary economics.

If you gross $100 and pay $10 in taxes you have $90 to spend on yourself. The market sets prices at what the market will bear. If EVERYONE suddenly had an extra $10 to spend on themselves, the market prices would rise accordingly. And your $100 would go no further than your $90 use to.

[lonewolf]

If you gross $100 and pay $10 in taxes you have $90 to spend on yourself. The market sets prices at what the market will bear. If EVERYONE suddenly had an extra $10 to spend on themselves, the market prices would rise accordingly. And your $100 would go no further than your $90 use to.

Only if the consumer chooses to pay the higher price. The price the market will bear is based on supply and demand, not price fixing.

Price fixing only works on a monopoly, like piano tunings in Blair County.

[Hawk]

If you gross $100 and pay $10 in taxes you have $90 to spend on yourself. The market sets prices at what the market will bear. If EVERYONE suddenly had an extra $10 to spend on themselves, the market prices would rise accordingly. And your $100 would go no further than your $90 use to.

Only if the consumer chooses to pay the higher price. The price the market will bear is based on supply and demand, not price fixing.

Price fixing only works on a monopoly, like piano tunings in Blair County.

You are so wrong. I have taken business classes taught by people who run big businesses. Here is what they taught us.

Build your business to the point where you can sell 100 widgets. Then, if you sell 100 widgets at $5 each and it cost $1 to make, you make $400 net.

Now it's time to raise your price. You charge $6 . Sales go down 10%. And you sell 90 instead of 100. You gross is 540 and cost of production is down to $90. You end up with a net profit of $450. You can make more money by doing less. THATS how it works and that is what they teach. I doubt they would teach that in college, but in a place where they are hired to teach the real ways of business, this is what they professed as the way of business.

Now work your butt of to get sales up to 100 again and raise your price again.

After I was taught that, I recognise it everywhere. It's A LOT more than simple supply and demand. It's called, "what the market will bear".

[lonewolf]

If you gross $100 and pay $10 in taxes you have $90 to spend on yourself. The market sets prices at what the market will bear. If EVERYONE suddenly had an extra $10 to spend on themselves, the market prices would rise accordingly. And your $100 would go no further than your $90 use to.

Only if the consumer chooses to pay the higher price. The price the market will bear is based on supply and demand, not price fixing.

Price fixing only works on a monopoly, like piano tunings in Blair County.

You are so wrong. I have taken business classes taught by people who run big businesses. Here is what they taught us.

Build your business to the point where you can sell 100 widgets. Then, if you sell 100 widgets at $5 each and it cost $1 to make, you make $400 net.

Now it's time to raise your price. You charge $6 . Sales go down 10%. And you sell 90 instead of 100. You gross is 540 and cost of production is down to $90. You end up with a net profit of $450. You can make more money by doing less. THATS how it works and that is what they teach. I doubt they would teach that in college, but in a place where they are hired to teach the real ways of business, this is what they professed as the way of business.

Now work your butt of to get sales up to 100 again and raise your price again.

After I was taught that, I recognise it everywhere. It's A LOT more than simple supply and demand. It's called, "what the market will bear".

That only works in a vacuum...

What does this company do when company B decides to make 1000 widgets, cuts production cost in half thru mass production techniques and sells them at $4 each?

[whitedevilone]

Bill, good lord man, do you really think that modren man would have nothing or accomplish anything without government??Roads?Fighting fires?Protecting our homes and neighbors?I'll admit government run schools are outstanding .Do you live in this constant fear of a life without government telling you every move to make??Jesus did you have training wheels on your bike till you were 15?

+1

Tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber

Please,untill you have the slightest idea about the debate at hand, take a seat.

Did you plug my tire today?

[Hawk]

Only if the consumer chooses to pay the higher price. The price the market will bear is based on supply and demand, not price fixing.

Price fixing only works on a monopoly, like piano tunings in Blair County.

You are so wrong. I have taken business classes taught by people who run big businesses. Here is what they taught us.

Build your business to the point where you can sell 100 widgets. Then, if you sell 100 widgets at $5 each and it cost $1 to make, you make $400 net.

Now it's time to raise your price. You charge $6 . Sales go down 10%. And you sell 90 instead of 100. You gross is 540 and cost of production is down to $90. You end up with a net profit of $450. You can make more money by doing less. THATS how it works and that is what they teach. I doubt they would teach that in college, but in a place where they are hired to teach the real ways of business, this is what they professed as the way of business.

Now work your butt of to get sales up to 100 again and raise your price again.

After I was taught that, I recognise it everywhere. It's A LOT more than simple supply and demand. It's called, "what the market will bear".

That only works in a vacuum...

What does this company do when company B decides to make 1000 widgets, cuts production cost in half thru mass production techniques and sells them at $4 each?

Nope, in the real world. Company says to themselves, Hey company A is getting $6 now for their widgets. Let's raise our prices too. Let's go from $5 to $5.50. Company A carries the ball for company B and C and D all of whom have raised their prices.

I know PERSONALLY drum companies who LOVE the DW drum company. Because as long as they limit production and keep their price high, other "Boutique" drum companies can ride their coat tails.

Steinway Piano Company Limits their production as well, this way they keep their price high, Very high. They recently moved in to the middle and low end market by having a Japanese company build a piano they refer to as "Boston, a Steinway designed piano & Essex a Chinese or Korean company built piano as "Steinway designed. All Bull crap.

Yamaha builds great pianos as well. Subsidised by the Japanese government, they have managed to put many American made pianos out of business by their subsidised mass production. Now that they have control, I suspect they too will now be in the position to slow production and raise prices.

[lonewolf]

You are so wrong. I have taken business classes taught by people who run big businesses. Here is what they taught us.

Build your business to the point where you can sell 100 widgets. Then, if you sell 100 widgets at $5 each and it cost $1 to make, you make $400 net.

Now it's time to raise your price. You charge $6 . Sales go down 10%. And you sell 90 instead of 100. You gross is 540 and cost of production is down to $90. You end up with a net profit of $450. You can make more money by doing less. THATS how it works and that is what they teach. I doubt they would teach that in college, but in a place where they are hired to teach the real ways of business, this is what they professed as the way of business.

Now work your butt of to get sales up to 100 again and raise your price again.

After I was taught that, I recognise it everywhere. It's A LOT more than simple supply and demand. It's called, "what the market will bear".

That only works in a vacuum...

What does this company do when company B decides to make 1000 widgets, cuts production cost in half thru mass production techniques and sells them at $4 each?

Nope, in the real world. Company says to themselves, Hey company A is getting $6 now for their widgets. Let's raise our prices too. Let's go from $5 to $5.50. Company A carries the ball for company B and C and D all of whom have raised their prices.

I know PERSONALLY drum companies who LOVE the DW drum company. Because as long as they limit production and keep their price high, other "Boutique" drum companies can ride their coat tails.

Steinway Piano Company Limits their production as well, this way they keep their price high, Very high. They recently moved in to the middle and low end market by having a Japanese company build a piano they refer to as "Boston, a Steinway designed piano & Essex a Chinese or Korean company built piano as "Steinway designed. All Bull crap.

Yamaha builds great pianos as well. Subsidised by the Japanese government, they have managed to put many American made pianos out of business by their subsidised mass production. Now that they have control, I suspect they too will now be in the position to slow production and raise prices.

This may be the case for a very, very few luxury priced "boutique" items (and always will be), but what about the other 99,000 items people buy every day?

You know, the other 99.99% of our $14 trillion economy that makes the real difference? What about that little yellow "RollBack" guy? He's still around, isn't he?

No, in the real world, Company A better ramp up production, become competitive or close its doors.

In the context of macro price inflation in a $14 trillion economy, pianos and drums and yes, even overpriced guitars, are virtually irrelevant. Most products are sold outside the vacuum.

[shredder138]

+1

Tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber

Please,untill you have the slightest idea about the debate at hand, take a seat.

Did you plug my tire today?

Plug your tire that's a good one

[Hawk]

That only works in a vacuum...

What does this company do when company B decides to make 1000 widgets, cuts production cost in half thru mass production techniques and sells them at $4 each?

Nope, in the real world. Company says to themselves, Hey company A is getting $6 now for their widgets. Let's raise our prices too. Let's go from $5 to $5.50. Company A carries the ball for company B and C and D all of whom have raised their prices.

I know PERSONALLY drum companies who LOVE the DW drum company. Because as long as they limit production and keep their price high, other "Boutique" drum companies can ride their coat tails.

Steinway Piano Company Limits their production as well, this way they keep their price high, Very high. They recently moved in to the middle and low end market by having a Japanese company build a piano they refer to as "Boston, a Steinway designed piano & Essex a Chinese or Korean company built piano as "Steinway designed. All Bull crap.

Yamaha builds great pianos as well. Subsidised by the Japanese government, they have managed to put many American made pianos out of business by their subsidised mass production. Now that they have control, I suspect they too will now be in the position to slow production and raise prices.

This may be the case for a very, very few luxury priced "boutique" items (and always will be), but what about the other 99,000 items people buy every day?

You know, the other 99.99% of our $14 trillion economy that makes the real difference? What about that little yellow "RollBack" guy? He's still around, isn't he?

No, in the real world, Company A better ramp up production, become competitive or close its doors.

In the context of macro price inflation in a $14 trillion economy, pianos and drums and yes, even overpriced guitars, are virtually irrelevant. Most products are sold outside the vacuum.

It is the way some companies work, not all companies. It would take forever for us to separate them.

IT IS how the health insurance industry works. Raise premiums, raise co-pays, cut services, increase profits. There is essentially no compitition among them. Company A raises profits, Company B raises profits, etc..

I believe if our taxes were cut and we had more money to spend, these health insurance companies would have $ in their collective eyes. And they WOULD increase their profits again. Taking your formerly extra money.

[lonewolf]

It is the way some companies work, not all companies. It would take forever for us to separate them.

IT IS how the health insurance industry works. Raise premiums, raise co-pays, cut services, increase profits. There is essentially no compitition among them. Company A raises profits, Company B raises profits, etc..

I believe if our taxes were cut and we had more money to spend, these health insurance companies would have $ in their collective eyes. And they WOULD increase their profits again. Taking your formerly extra money.

Bill, I would say that it is the way most companies work...when they are in a semi or non-competitive market. Boutique and luxury items fall in that category...as well as health insurance. How many options does an individual have when looking for health insurance? Not many. That's because its still regulated and licensed by the states. This prevents most out of state insurance companies from competing in a given state. This destroys competition.

That is why the very 1st thing that Congress should do with health insurance is invoke the interstate commerce clause and put health insurance companies under federal regulation. That would free them up to operate in any state and provide more competition.

As a condition of opening these new markets, they would need to compromise with rules for pre-existing conditions and no-drop guarantees, among any other issues that have been a problem.

Instead of the most dreaded "public option", I would add in the creation of a federal registry that would act as a "group" for individuals who don't have access to group insurance plans. Since this would be a very large "group", all insurance companies would have the opportunity to compete for their business. This group would have access to several insurance companies and several plans from each company at reduced group rates.

It might even be cost effective for this group to eventually absorb the members of Medicaid and reorganize/expand Medicaid's scope to cover the 5-10 million legal residents left that can't afford health insurance.

[bassist_25]

That is why the very 1st thing that Congress should do with health insurance is invoke the interstate commerce clause and put health insurance companies under federal regulation. That would free them up to operate in any state and provide more competition.

Whoa, Jeff!!!! Am I reading that correctly? Did you just say to take states' power away and give it to the feds?!?! Have you been hitting the sauce before noon or something?

[lonewolf]

That is why the very 1st thing that Congress should do with health insurance is invoke the interstate commerce clause and put health insurance companies under federal regulation. That would free them up to operate in any state and provide more competition.

Whoa, Jeff!!!! Am I reading that correctly? Did you just say to take states' power away and give it to the feds?!?! Have you been hitting the sauce before noon or something?

Yep Paul, you read that right. Most insurance companies fall under the category of national and international companies. That translates to interstate commerce.

The problem with the feds is that they spend way too much time sticking their nose where it shouldn't be and not nearly enough time handling the things that are constitutionally their responsibility.

For example:

Education versus border security.
Encouraging sub-prime mortgages versus regulating securities.

[f.sciarrillo]

The way it is is like this; Big company send their production processes to third world countries because it is cheaper for them. The less they have to pay the more profit they make.

But can you blame them? With the taxes our government charges businesses is ridiculous. I would probably do the same thing if it was me ...

The main reason for having a business is to make a profit. You do what ever you can to make a profit. If the profit margin gets below a certain point, you change the way the business is ran, which includes sending the operation out of the country for cheaper labor, changing vendors, laying people off, reducing production, etc. That is one of things that business school taught me - In fact, it was Steve Sheetz who explained it. Of course he did a lot better than I just did ...

[Hawk]

It is the way some companies work, not all companies. It would take forever for us to separate them.

IT IS how the health insurance industry works. Raise premiums, raise co-pays, cut services, increase profits. There is essentially no compitition among them. Company A raises profits, Company B raises profits, etc..

I believe if our taxes were cut and we had more money to spend, these health insurance companies would have $ in their collective eyes. And they WOULD increase their profits again. Taking your formerly extra money.

Bill, I would say that it is the way most companies work...when they are in a semi or non-competitive market. Boutique and luxury items fall in that category...as well as health insurance. How many options does an individual have when looking for health insurance? Not many. That's because its still regulated and licensed by the states. This prevents most out of state insurance companies from competing in a given state. This destroys competition.

That is why the very 1st thing that Congress should do with health insurance is invoke the interstate commerce clause and put health insurance companies under federal regulation. That would free them up to operate in any state and provide more competition.

As a condition of opening these new markets, they would need to compromise with rules for pre-existing conditions and no-drop guarantees, among any other issues that have been a problem.

Instead of the most dreaded "public option", I would add in the creation of a federal registry that would act as a "group" for individuals who don't have access to group insurance plans. Since this would be a very large "group", all insurance companies would have the opportunity to compete for their business. This group would have access to several insurance companies and several plans from each company at reduced group rates.

It might even be cost effective for this group to eventually absorb the members of Medicaid and reorganize/expand Medicaid's scope to cover the 5-10 million legal residents left that can't afford health insurance.

Interesting. That was pretty much Democratic candidate John Edward's (who I was initially backing ) idea.

If you were to go way back into Rockpage history, I was trying to explain his idea on here. I don';t remember you supporting it though.

[lonewolf]

Interesting. That was pretty much Democratic candidate John Edward's (who I was initially backing ) idea.

If you were to go way back into Rockpage history, I was trying to explain his idea on here. I don';t remember you supporting it though.

From June, 2004:

http://rockpage.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.ph ... ance#12426

It may be a little less detailed and has evolved a bit, but its something I've had in mind for some time...along with that killing all the lawyers idea.

[songsmith]

The way it is is like this; Big company send their production processes to third world countries because it is cheaper for them. The less they have to pay the more profit they make.

But can you blame them? With the taxes our government charges businesses is ridiculous. I would probably do the same thing if it was me ...

So, you feel that if business would suddenly be tax-free, that companies would all would close their offshore factories and bring manufacturing back to the US? Why, out of patriotism?--->JMS

[f.sciarrillo]

The way it is is like this; Big company send their production processes to third world countries because it is cheaper for them. The less they have to pay the more profit they make.

But can you blame them? With the taxes our government charges businesses is ridiculous. I would probably do the same thing if it was me ...

So, you feel that if business would suddenly be tax-free, that companies would all would close their offshore factories and bring manufacturing back to the US? Why, out of patriotism?--->JMS

Paying taxes with the business is fine, but when you pay too much it gets ridiculous ...