Increase in lung function

[Kent C]

TL;DW

bookmarked for later....

P.S. ok just visited. Aaah Ayn Rand.... isn't it funny that in some respects she actually agrees with Upton Sinclair or the other way round

P.P.S. Kent, can you visualize this... In the search of the perfect system... Ayn Rand heading right... Upton Sinclair heading left.... except they're on a sphere.....

I don't see it. Rand says socialism is the more honest of the systems between socialism and fascism, even though they have the same goals - control through coercion, and sacrificing individuals to the state. Upton showed this here:

"The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to 'End Poverty in California' I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them."

The 'out-flanking' is fascism (but is called by the out-flankers as a 'mixed economy'). IOW, it isn't the enemies of socialism that spread the 'Big Lie' but the socialists themselves by using this out-flanking maneuver. The End Poverty in California was a socialist ploy. The 'end poverty as we know it' - LBJ and the Democrat congress at the time, was a Democratic ploy. Same goal, under a different name. Rand exposed that.

 

[caramel]

Well my understanding of Upton is that he's saying that Americans would gladly take some social policies but have a strong distaste for the word "Socialism".

Universal education and healthcare - those are not necessarily "socialist" values, they've been succesfully implemented in strongly capitalistic economies, and with benefits. It's just that their oponents would use the word "socialist" to describe them - knowing that the american public is allergic to it.

Similar to the "think of the children" strategy.

It's all a combination of appeal to emotion and strawman. And people fell for it, every single time.

 

[Kent C]

Well my understanding of Upton is that he's saying that Americans would gladly take some social policies but have a strong distaste for the word "Socialism".

Universal education and healthcare - those are not necessarily "socialist" values, they've been succesfully implemented in strongly capitalistic economies, and with benefits. It's just that their oponents would use the word "socialist" to describe them - knowing that the american public is allergic to it.

Similar to the "think of the children" strategy.

It's all a combination of appeal to emotion and strawman. And people fell for it, every single time.

I understand... and your description is how some might describe it. I find using 'capitalist' in any association with social/socialism is an oxymoron and a contradiction in terms, much like 'crony capitalism'. Capitalism is the free market. Crony means using "friends" instead of free competition to advance one's company - ie. not capitalism nor the free market. And you can't 'implement a socialist policy' into a capitalistic system without destroying the concept of capitalism. So in fact, when it isn't straight ownership but control of a market, it's fascism. But the goal is to transfer control from private hands into gov't hands.

And again - per the linked audio - ownership IS control, and control IS ownership, so the end result is the same - just different in how one speaks of it. If you grasp that, then it makes much more sense.

Going back to what you said to Cromwell: "They're doing nothing more than running a mandatory insurance scheme. Socialist would mean them running the whole healthcare as a non-profit at-cost system."

Made mandatory by whom? Gov't. And even a socialistic system run "at-cost" - at cost to whom? Taxpayers. And like other so called 'non-profits' - there are salaries that have to be paid - paid by whom? Taxpayers paying what are basically gov't doctors and healthcare workers when healthcare is mandated by the gov't. And hence, I believe, why Cromwell may have seen doctors moving to the 'right'. My own personal care physician quit medicine and became an electrician because of it. Others have refused Medicaid and Medicare, and that will come to an end if it hasn't already - they as so-called 'private practices' will be 'mandated' by the gov't to offer their services to all.

 

[caramel]

Maybe I'm using the wrong words - capitalism and socialism. They've been beaten to death and made to mean anything and nothing.

Let's talk about ownership - public vs private. And profit (or lack thereof).

So most countries are running their healthcare system as a public owned, tax paid, non profit endeavour. Wages are wages, they reflect a number of hours spent performing a certain work. Some systems will cap or control those wages, some will not. Anyway they are proportional to the time, complexity and responsibility of the work of those paid through "wages". There's a huge difference vs "profit" - the markup one adds in virtue of just "ownership". The "ownership" is public (via govt) and there's no "profit" added to the bill.

US is running a very weird system, especially after ACA. I'm not aware of all its subtleties in ownership, payment and profits, I'll let you comment on that, however what we can all see is that it costs twice as much for similar or poorer results than Western Europe. A simplistic approach would be to explain the difference as being the "profit".

Coming back to smoking / vaping and the "savings" that could be realised by screwing us - they are completely minor compared to the "savings" that could be achievied by changing the system. So if anyone comes and tells me that the purpose of the healthcare system is "savings" and I should thus quit smoking / vaping / whatever, I'll point him to changing the system first.

 

[Kent C]

Yes, capitalism has been redefined (by socialists and fascists). Socialism is pretty clear though. And substituting public and private can be just as confusing for some. For one thing capitalism and socialism are economic systems - not political systems and 'public' has more to do with gov't than the economy.

That said - I disagree with your assessment of the 'no profit' aspect of socialized systems and that the added profit is somehow a skewing of the process - it allows and encourages innovation. I also doubt the 'economics/savings' of the Western Europe's healthcare. That's part of the PR.... Same when Obamacare was going to 'save' so much per person and everyone except those who are getting subsidies, is paying more in both premiums and deductibles. And it is likely to get worse once companies are forced into the situation - where it is likely many will opt to pay the fine and force their workforce into obamacare on their own. Some smaller companies will 'exit the marketplace' and their owners will just retire to some islands

As far as "I should thus quit smoking / vaping / whatever, I'll point him to changing the system first." goes. Once the gov't healthcare is changed where it is totally in place, they will point to certain behaviors that is 'costing everyone' (because the healthcare is socialized) where individual behavior can be 'policed' - ie either mandated - if it suits their health views, or prohibited - when it doesn't. And those views will be backed by the junk science with which they are currently attacking ecigarettes.

Suggest any more on the politics and economics go to PM. Stuff on ecigs ... continue

 

[caramel]

Suggest any more on the politics and economics go to PM. Stuff on ecigs ... continue

Well that would be pretty crippling for my argument, since the debate on ecigs these days is political in nature ("savings" and "think of the children").

 

[Kent C]

Well that would be pretty crippling for my argument, since the debate on ecigs these days is political in nature ("savings" and "think of the children").

lol.... you're right about that. I meant just the finer points that go away from ecigs - although it IS part of that as well, in both our opinions - not everyone's though

 

[caramel]

Let's reduce it to the constitutional framework, I don't see any "pursuit of savings" there.

 

[Maiar]

I don't get winded going up the ....ing stairs anymore. And I don't hork up gross yellow .... anymore. I've also not gotten bronchitis once since switching and that used to be a 3-4 times a year thing. Personally, that's all the proof I need. But it would be nice to see some peer reviewed studies of these things, mostly so that people will accept it as a healthier alternative and won't interfere with people trying to quit smoking. Plus if there's any long term danger that we might run into it would be nice to know what, so we can weigh that against the long term risks of smoking and maybe alter our plans for how long we want to vape. For example, should we be looking at only doing it for a few years to quit because long term it can screw you up? Or is the safety level high enough that this could be a super long term hobby for most of us? Personally I don't see how a few years of this could have much ill effect. But here's hoping.