So why should I not be ticked off with the GOP right now?

[uke2se]

Sorry. That was "Tricky" (the post before Cleon's), not "Cleon".

You are arguing that "Why do we care more about money than about people" is false?

 

[DavidJames]

Back to the topic of government schools and the production of adults who think like Earl.

That is not the topic, please take this conversation to the Education forum.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You are arguing that "Why do we care more about money than about people" is false?

Yes. I don't see how one separates concern for people from concern for the things they value. Do you imagine that you can, for example, burn someone's house and pacify them with "it's just material stuff"? I suspect that this attitude, "you shouldn't care about money" really means "you should surrender whatever control you have over resources to me and my friends".
Which is why expressed disdain for "profit" is so common among the State-worshipful people who moderate internet forums like JREF.

 

[uke2se]

Yes. I don't see how one separates concern for people from concern for the things they value. Do you imagine that you can, for example, burn someone's house and pacify them with "it's just material stuff"? I suspect that this attitude, "you shouldn't care about money" really means "you should surrender whatever control you have over resources to me and my friends".
Which is why expressed disdain for "profit" is so common among the State-worshipful people who moderate internet forums like JREF.

But you're tilting at windmills again. Nobody said "you shouldn't care about money". The point was, money should not be worth more than human lives.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I suppose this has been posted but there are a dozen threads and dozens of pages so here it is again in case it hasn't been:


Paul discusses how the messages are playing in terms of marketing value and McConnell laments that Obama actually said the same thing in the private conference as his public message. Imagine that, Obama actually meant what he said rather than going around spouting a focus group tested marketing slogan. What a fool.

 

[Mister Earl]

Oh noes! The Dems appear to have found a way around the Republican blockade.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...o-force-republicans-to-reopen-the-government/

 

[DavidJames]

But you're tilting at windmills again. Nobody said "you shouldn't care about money". The point was, money should not be worth more than human lives.

Read the link in the last line of my sig for his thoughts on the value of human life, it's basically supply and demand.

 

[davefoc]

Oh noes! The Dems appear to have found a way around the Republican blockade.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...o-force-republicans-to-reopen-the-government/

Up to now, I have seen this situation as an unmitigated disaster which has significantly harmed some and inconvenienced millions of others completely without any useful purpose. Now I see a little ray of benefit, this looks like an interesting situation and I will enjoy watching it play out, albeit there will be an escalating rise in the level of misery as it goes on, but at least I will be entertained a bit.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

But you're tilting at windmills again. Nobody said "you shouldn't care about money". The point was, money should not be worth more than human lives.

I think you meant to say that other people's money should not be worth more than human lives.

With your own money, you put costs on other peoples' lives all the time. We all do, but only some of us realize it.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... money should not be worth more than human lives.

Dunno what you mean by "should". Some amount of resources is worth some amount of human life. People go to war over food. People burglarize houses (risking an encounter with an armed homeowner) for salable stuff. Chinese warships and Philippines warships play chicken over uninhabited rocks that might sit over oil fields. "Money" stands for resources in general. Clearly, people care enough about resources that they will risk their lives (or, in the case of politicians, other people's lives) for resources.

 

[Biscuit]

I think you meant to say that other people's money should not be worth more than human lives.

With your own money, you put costs on other peoples' lives all the time. We all do, but only some of us realize it.

What part of "The ACA allows me to pay for my own health insurance instead of you paying for my health care at the emergency room" don't people get? This method is cheaper, more efficient, and lowers all costs.

 

[uke2se]

Dunno what you mean by "should". Some amount of resources is worth some amount of human life. People go to war over food. People burglarize houses (risking an encounter with an armed homeowner) for salable stuff. Chinese warships and Philippines warships play chicken over uninhabited rocks that might sit over oil fields. "Money" stands for resources in general. Clearly, people care enough about resources that they will risk their lives (or, in the case of politicians, other people's lives) for resources.

If you don't understand what Tricky meant, ask what he meant instead of going into a long spiel about what the word "money" means. Tricky felt - as would any sane human being - that putting money above humans is wrong, both morally and practically.

 

[Kestrel]

Just some financial planning advice.
To really be safe from bankruptcy because of accident or illness you also need protection from lost income. Which from my experience is usually the main cause of a medical bankruptcy.

It's a lot harder to deal with lost income when a medical crisis has drained your savings and credit reserves.

 

[Peephole]

Using Oregon as an example,

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...le-from-obamacares-higher-insurance-premiums/

Thousands of people will pay higher rates as a result of Obamacare despite subsidies.

You've linked to the Manhattan Institute study again.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

If you don't understand what Tricky meant, ask what he meant instead of going into a long spiel about what the word "money" means. Tricky felt - as would any sane human being - that putting money above humans is wrong, both morally and practically.

And I think that's stupid, unless it's highly qualified. Some amount of money (i.e., control over resources) is worth some amount of human life.
Sir-Drinks-a-Lot said it best.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

What part of "The ACA allows me to pay for my own health insurance instead of you paying for my health care at the emergency room" don't people get? This method is cheaper, more efficient, and lowers all costs.

I don't get why people believe the "cheaper, more efficient" hype. ACA is another inter-generational wealth transfer from the young and healthy to the old and feeble.

 

[eeyore1954]

It's a lot harder to deal with lost income when a medical crisis has drained your savings and credit reserves.

There is no question that having insurance to cover the expenses will help soften the blow.

 

[elbe]

I don't get why people believe the "cheaper, more efficient" hype. ACA is another inter-generational wealth transfer from the young and healthy to the old and feeble.

That does seem like a strange thing for the Heritage Foundation to propose...

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

If you don't understand what Tricky meant, ask what he meant instead of going into a long spiel about what the word "money" means. Tricky felt - as would any sane human being - that putting money above humans is wrong, both morally and practically.

Only that's just a naive and not well thought out view that is primarily used as rhetoric to argue for spending on social 'welfare' programs or for people to help them make themselves feel better.

"You don't want to pay for plan X to help the poor and less fortunate? Well, I do because I value people more than money. And why are you such a racist?" Rinse and repeat.

 

[Bob001]

I don't get why people believe the "cheaper, more efficient" hype. ACA is another inter-generational wealth transfer from the young and healthy to the old and feeble.

But the young aren't always healthy, and the elderly aren't always feeble, and if they are lucky the young will always get old. The large majority of people get their health insurance from their employers, and the group rates they pay are based on the concept of shared risk: In any one month or year, we can't predict who will get sick or hurt, but we know that a certain percentage will get cancer, a certain percentage will have heart attacks, a certain percentage will get hit by buses or shot by thugs, and the rates everyone pays are based on those actuarial certainties. Obamacare makes it possible for people who don't/can't get insurance from their employers to obtain individual policies at rates calculated by the same principles of shared risk as group policies. And if you look at the actual ACA rates, an older person pays considerably more than a younger person, which isn't the case with group employer policies. So what's the problem?