Obamacare Explained in One Sentence

[zoocrewphoto]

Thank Gd for the ACA or Obamacare or whatever you want to call it! Because of it, those employees will finally regain their coverage.


For the millions and millions of Americans who will now finally be able to have health insurance, this new law will be a life saver and finally give them the ability to tell bosses like the one at that body shop that goodbye, they are going to go and find themselves a better job! -- And perhaps that's why some employers don't like it and are now bitching about it. Because they know it will finally unshackle their workers from their desks.

I do not understand this. How do these employees "regain" their coverage? Their employer isn't going to give it to them. They are going to have to buy it on the exchange. They will have the option of paying for a plan or paying the fine. Both cost money. They will not automatically get free coverage.

Also, how does this help people find a better job. Many employers are cutting hours or laying off people to get below the level required. That way, they don't have to do the big plans. I don't see how this helps a person get a better job than the one they have currently.

I work in a union job with good health coverage. I have already seen many changes that are making it cost more, do less, and become more difficult. We are having to jump through more hoops each year. If we miss a hoop, we lose the "donation" to our health account AND our deductible goes up. In other words, skip your physical, don't do the health survey, etc; then you lose $500 AND have to pay $750 deductible instead of $250. That's a loss of $1000, and a lot of people lost it. Each year, there are more things we have to do to keep the money. Many people give it up voluntarily as they fear that the survey information will be used against us. I suspect that eventually it will be. I have done the survey every year and answered honestly. I am a bit creeped out that I am now receiving notices reminding me to take my medication as I don't pick up the one prescription as often as I should. I confess that I don't take my water pill every day as I travel a lot and I go hiking for long days sometimes. I do not like taking it when bathrooms are not available. But I fear I better pick up the prescription every 30 days or it may be used against me later.

Also, my contract expired 3 months ago. No news on the contract yet. Neither side is talking much. The union has said that our employer wants to eliminate holiday pay and sunday pay. Sunday pay was reduced a couple contracts ago, and that also meant that we could no longer work 6 days in a week, since 6 days would now be considered overtime. We used to be able to work up to 48 hours without overtime since Sunday was time and a half. But at time and one third, it doesn't qualify. So, lots of people lost hours. We have also been told that they might reduce everybody to less than 30 hours. That doesn't make sense to me since we currently get health inusrance if we work 60 hours per month (average 15 per week) and full family coverage at 80 hours per month (average 20 per week). So, going below 30 is a problem with income, but shouldn't cut our insurance unless the whole insurance coverage is changed in the contract. I would think they would be ramping up for a strike if that were within the works. So, that one I doubt right now.


I did receive a notice a month ago that my health plan has a new administrator. I now need to find out if my doctors and DME are still considered in-network. I could be doctor shopping, and I have to get my physical done by the end of October or I lose $1000. Most doctors schedule those a couple months out at least. Mine has been in October for years, and I didn't know my doctor may be changing. This is also a bit more complicated as my doctor sent a notice last month that she was leaving her private practice and joining a large group. My mom has already been to her at the new location. Her nurse and receptionist are no longer employed with her (they were there for at least 15 years). She is in a large building with lots of little cubicles. My mom said it was more like a vet's office than a doctor's office. And the doctor admitted it was because she didn't want to do all the new paperwork and computer stuff that would be required.

I am anxious to see what the new contract brings.

[NateS]

Amazing in a forum filled with the sick and the crippled, someone, well one person, loves to just keep rehashing the same old dog of a story over and over even though the argument was lost months and months ago. That's called an abnormal obsession.

Today I was at the auto body shop. It's a relatively big shop and has been in business since the 1920s or something. It's one of Nationwide's 'certified' repair shops. While sitting there an insurance agent comes in and starts talking to the receptionist about retirement accounts for the business and work comp coverage. She tells him they have a retirement plan but the owner doesn't match the contributions. She then said he stopped offering health insurance a long time ago. Boss was out ...playing golf.

Well you know how much an auto body shop pulls in? A sh-tload of money, that's how much. One of the best rackets in town to be in. The scratches and miniscule ding on my door are going to set my insurance company back +$2,500, and me another $500. Every thing, down to the last millimeter of work, is billed. Even removing and replacing door handles is billed out.

And not a dime does the jerk owner spend to insure his workers! He's too busy on the golf course apparently!

Thank Gd for the ACA or Obamacare or whatever you want to call it! Because of it, those employees will finally regain their coverage.

Millions and millions of Americans work for employers like this one, who won't invest in the health of their workers who may even do backbreaking labor for them day in and day out. Or the other countless millions of Americans who are stuck in horrible, dead end jobs they hate, that crush the very spirit from their bodies, just because they so desperately need the health insurance that job gives them and their families.

Want to whine and cry because you may have to endure, gasp, a slightly longer wait at the doctor, or some other non-life threatening inconvenience? Well you get no pity from me.

For the millions and millions of Americans who will now finally be able to have health insurance, this new law will be a life saver and finally give them the ability to tell bosses like the one at that body shop that goodbye, they are going to go and find themselves a better job! -- And perhaps that's why some employers don't like it and are now bitching about it. Because they know it will finally unshackle their workers from their desks.

+1 !

To those who claim that businesses cutting workers' hours and blaming it on Obamacare is "proof" of the "evils" of the Act, are you totally unaware and oblivious to the fact that the Chambers of Commerce and other Republican/Right-wing groups are urging and encouraging their business members to take these actions and make these public announcements as part of their campaign to gain public support for repealing the PPACA? These employers are standing on the backs of their workers to persuade them to vote against their own interests, as usual. Not a new tactic, folks.

Regards, Nate

[djhall]

Despite the risk of getting drug into this "debate", there were two things I just couldn't resist responding to:

>Or ... Unconstitutional.
>
Which part? The Supreme Court said the Individual Mandate was a constitutional exercise of the tax power. They also said that the requirements on the States to accept new Medicaid enrollees were unconstitutional. Try again after two of the current Court retire.

True, and I realize saying the Supreme Court isn't the ultimate authority on constitutionality creates an impossible scenario, but does anyone really think the Court has been firmly committed to following constitutional principles over the last 100 years??? I absolutely refuse to accept that anyone truly believes growing wheat in your own garden to make your own bread is "interstate commerce" as the constitution intended that term and therefore was intended to be subject to federal regulation. Or that any water, any where, could someday find its way to or from a river, and that river may be navigable, and navigation effects commerce, some of which may be interstate, and even though water quality doesn't really affect navigability, that still gives the congress power to regulate water quality of all water, anywhere in the country, based on the justification of " interstate commerce". Or that emails are not "papers" in the spirit of the 4th amendment and therefore not subject to the same warrant requirements as postal mail.

For better or worse, I don't think anyone can seriously ague that the Supreme Court follows the constitutional principles and framework of a republic consisting of powerful independent states with a limited federal government restricted to a handful of specifically listed functions consisting primarily of foreign policy, war, money, and facilitating trade and resolving disputes between states. That leaves a huge disparity between what is "constitutional" in the sense of how the framers intended it to be interpreted and what is "constitutional" in the sense of how the Supreme Court actually interprets it.

>Or ... Socialism!
>
What kind? If you've ever had any form if insurance, you've participated in a form of socialism.

Well, two things. First, here is a huge difference between an activity voluntarily chosen and one coerced by the government. If citizens voluntarily chose to live in communistically run communes, who cares? If the government penalizes you for not "choosing" to live communistically then that is a completely different scenario.

Second, insurance isn't "socialist" in the way you are using the term. (Socialism technically refers to collective ownership of production or the means of production such as countries with government owned oil companies or hospitals. You appear to be using it in a common mistake to refer to any system that is redistributive in nature.) Insurance is nothing more than risk mitigation through the law of large numbers. We may know that statistically you and people like you have a 1 in 1000 chance of having your house destroyed by fire in any given year. However, Individually each person will suffer either a 0% or 100% loss. The law of large numbers tells us that the larger the pool of individuals the further we will get from the 0% / 100% individual loss ratio extremes and the close we will get to the 0.1% statistical loss ratio. When each insured pays 0.1% of the value of their house each year in premium, the other members aren't subsidizing their risk in a "socialist" manner. Each pays the full cost of their risk, but the pooling allows them to convert an unknown loss (will I lose nothing or everything?) to a smaller known loss (I know I'll lose 0.1%, but at least I won't risk losing 100%).

However, the subsidies provided under the Affordable Care Act add a redistributive ("socialist") component to an otherwise non-redistributionist system. Each individual doesn't pay the full cost of their risk. Some pay less than their full cost due to subsidies and others pay their full cost plus more in taxes to fund the subsidies for others.

The ACA I both compulsory and redistributive in ways that normal insurance is not.

[djhall]

Well you know how much an auto body shop pulls in? A sh-tload of money, that's how much. One of the best rackets in town to be in. The scratches and miniscule ding on my door are going to set my insurance company back +$2,500, and me another $500. Every thing, down to the last millimeter of work, is billed. Even removing and replacing door handles is billed out. And not a dime does the jerk owner spend to insure his workers!

... this new law will be a life saver and finally give them the ability to tell bosses like the one at that body shop that goodbye, they are going to go and find themselves a better job!

As someone of a very different political bent, I agree with the problem but not the solution. I don't think the answer is for the government to leave the workers at the mercy of powerful employers and then trying to micro regulate those employers and businesses into behaving the way they want them to. In my opinion, the better solution is to remove as many barriers to entry as possible. The best check on that body shop is the employees saying, "screw you, we pooled a little cash, rented a garage bay across town, and stole that customer. We're doing the job for $2250 + $250, saving them money, and still making more money after paying the rent by not giving you a cut. All the regulations, licenses, insurances, inspections, permits, employment law, payroll accounting, sexual harassment training rules, sales tax reporting requirements, etc that are intended to protect the customers and employees eventually end up leaving them at the mercy of giant corporations because the alternatives are impossible. How can he employees possibly do anything other than exchange one big powerful employer for another? It's not like the minimum wage gardener can just go buy a lawn mower and tell the boss what he can go do to himself.

[hyperlexis]

Well you know how much an auto body shop pulls in? A sh-tload of money, that's how much. One of the best rackets in town to be in. The scratches and miniscule ding on my door are going to set my insurance company back +$2,500, and me another $500. Every thing, down to the last millimeter of work, is billed. Even removing and replacing door handles is billed out. And not a dime does the jerk owner spend to insure his workers!

... this new law will be a life saver and finally give them the ability to tell bosses like the one at that body shop that goodbye, they are going to go and find themselves a better job!

As someone of a very different political bent, I agree with the problem but not the solution. I don't think the answer is for the government to leave the workers at the mercy of powerful employers and then trying to micro regulate those employers and businesses into behaving the way they want them to. In my opinion, the better solution is to remove as many barriers to entry as possible. The best check on that body shop is the employees saying, "screw you, we pooled a little cash, rented a garage bay across town, and stole that customer. We're doing the job for $2250 + $250, saving them money, and still making more money after paying the rent by not giving you a cut. All the regulations, licenses, insurances, inspections, permits, employment law, payroll accounting, sexual harassment training rules, sales tax reporting requirements, etc that are intended to protect the customers and employees eventually end up leaving them at the mercy of giant corporations because the alternatives are impossible. How can he employees possibly do anything other than exchange one big powerful employer for another? It's not like the minimum wage gardener can just go buy a lawn mower and tell the boss what he can go do to himself.

HUH?

The ACA will help millions in this scenario, because, no matter their health or age, they can take their health insurance with them -- it's not tied to their employer. So they wont be tied to working a horrible job just so they can get affordable health coverage under a group plan, covering a pre-existing condition. They can find a better job that makes them happy, or even better, be entreprenurial and start their OWN business. Be their own boss, and do something they enjoy. I know a woman who took a job at Starbucks, not because she loves opening a coffee shop at 5 a.m. every day.... but because her husband's insurance wouldn't cover her and their son for under $800+ a month. So she works at Starbucks simply to get insurance, and a small paycheck. Under the ACA she could work where she wants, or stay home to raise her child.

[hyperlexis]

Despite the risk of getting drug into this "debate", there were two things I just couldn't resist responding to:

>Or ... Unconstitutional.
>
Which part? The Supreme Court said the Individual Mandate was a constitutional exercise of the tax power. They also said that the requirements on the States to accept new Medicaid enrollees were unconstitutional. Try again after two of the current Court retire.

True, and I realize saying the Supreme Court isn't the ultimate authority on constitutionality creates an impossible scenario, but does anyone really think the Court has been firmly committed to following constitutional principles over the last 100 years??? I absolutely refuse to accept that anyone truly believes growing wheat in your own garden to make your own bread is "interstate commerce" as the constitution intended that term and therefore was intended to be subject to federal regulation. Or that any water, any where, could someday find its way to or from a river, and that river may be navigable, and navigation effects commerce, some of which may be interstate, and even though water quality doesn't really affect navigability, that still gives the congress power to regulate water quality of all water, anywhere in the country, based on the justification of " interstate commerce". Or that emails are not "papers" in the spirit of the 4th amendment and therefore not subject to the same warrant requirements as postal mail.

For better or worse, I don't think anyone can seriously ague that the Supreme Court follows the constitutional principles and framework of a republic consisting of powerful independent states with a limited federal government restricted to a handful of specifically listed functions consisting primarily of foreign policy, war, money, and facilitating trade and resolving disputes between states. That leaves a huge disparity between what is "constitutional" in the sense of how the framers intended it to be interpreted and what is "constitutional" in the sense of how the Supreme Court actually interprets it.

>Or ... Socialism!
>
What kind? If you've ever had any form if insurance, you've participated in a form of socialism.

Well, two things. First, here is a huge difference between an activity voluntarily chosen and one coerced by the government. If citizens voluntarily chose to live in communistically run communes, who cares? If the government penalizes you for not "choosing" to live communistically then that is a completely different scenario.

Second, insurance isn't "socialist" in the way you are using the term. (Socialism technically refers to collective ownership of production or the means of production such as countries with government owned oil companies or hospitals. You appear to be using it in a common mistake to refer to any system that is redistributive in nature.) Insurance is nothing more than risk mitigation through the law of large numbers. We may know that statistically you and people like you have a 1 in 1000 chance of having your house destroyed by fire in any given year. However, Individually each person will suffer either a 0% or 100% loss. The law of large numbers tells us that the larger the pool of individuals the further we will get from the 0% / 100% individual loss ratio extremes and the close we will get to the 0.1% statistical loss ratio. When each insured pays 0.1% of the value of their house each year in premium, the other members aren't subsidizing their risk in a "socialist" manner. Each pays the full cost of their risk, but the pooling allows them to convert an unknown loss (will I lose nothing or everything?) to a smaller known loss (I know I'll lose 0.1%, but at least I won't risk losing 100%).

However, the subsidies provided under the Affordable Care Act add a redistributive ("socialist") component to an otherwise non-redistributionist system. Each individual doesn't pay the full cost of their risk. Some pay less than their full cost due to subsidies and others pay their full cost plus more in taxes to fund the subsidies for others.

The ACA I both compulsory and redistributive in ways that normal insurance is not.

Insurance is Socialist, because right now, employers can deduct the cost of coverage from their taxes, and employees do not have to count the thousands of dollars of fringe benefits received in the form of health insurance as income on their taxes. Every U.S. taxpayer pays for that largess, whether or not they personally get employer sponsored insurance, or have to pay the full freight, including taxes, for individual, private coverage. Totally socialist.

[CapnLoki]

Despite the risk of getting drug into this "debate", there were two things I just couldn't resist responding to:

OK, if you insist ...

True, and I realize saying the Supreme Court isn't the ultimate authority on constitutionality creates an impossible scenario, but does anyone really think the Court has been firmly committed to following constitutional principles over the last 100 years???

You're being short sighted - some of the worst decisions go back much further. Just read some the Taney court rulings (Think Dred Scott). Personally, I'm believe in the "living constitution" approach, otherwise you're forced to say thing like "bear arms only applies to flintlocks." I think the liberals are more honest in their usage, while the conservatives just make make up rationalizations to justify their quirky rulings.

...
For better or worse, I don't think anyone can seriously ague that the Supreme Court follows the constitutional principles and framework of a republic consisting of powerful independent states with a limited federal government restricted to a handful of specifically listed functions consisting primarily of foreign policy, war, money, and facilitating trade and resolving disputes between states.

That could be because most of the framers of the Constitution were Federalists who believed in a strong central government. The evidence is throughout the Constitution. Why is ratification left to state convention and not state legislators? Because the legislators knew they were ceding so much power. The People knew they were gaining, especially with the promised Bill of Rights. So they were trusted with ratification.

You left out a few parts of the Constitution, like the Federal court system serves as an appeal court for the states. And in many instances the Fed is there to protect the People from the states.

That leaves a huge disparity between what is "constitutional" in the sense of how the framers intended it to be interpreted and what is "constitutional" in the sense of how the Supreme Court actually interprets it.

No,I think a majority of the original framers would be happy with how its turned out. They would probably view the State's Rights rulings of the Taney Court as among the worst decisions.

...
However, the subsidies provided under the Affordable Care Act add a redistributive ("socialist") component to an otherwise non-redistributionist system.

Whoa! Are you serious??? The current system is highly "redistributionist." Employer provided plans are actually untaxed compensation, and therefore represent a subsidy equal to the marginal tax rate of the recipient. It is thus highly regressive, amounting to $6000 or more for high end health plans. Anyone who claims the ACA subsidy is welfare and executives "pay in full" for their healthcare is being disingenuous.

The ACA I both compulsory and redistributive in ways that normal insurance is not.

It is neither.

[123.Shawn T.W.]

DiverCTHunter said:

Compared to what?

Compared to the idiots who passed it, who never read it!

which part?

The part that it is a tax, when it really is a fine/punishment, forcing people to participate in something that should be an individuals decision. What right does the government have to decide that I should have medical coverage or not? What if I am just barely getting by now without buying ins, but will be required to either buy, or pay a FINE? - Just because the SC said it was OK, does not mean they are right!

Um, which group of founders are you referencing? I'm confused.

The ones who left the big government forced taxation behind, when the came looking for freedom.

You're free to commit an act of Civil Disobedience if you feel that strongly about it.

Thank you for you permission!

[zoocrewphoto]

HUH?

The ACA will help millions in this scenario, because, no matter their health or age, they can take their health insurance with them -- it's not tied to their employer. So they wont be tied to working a horrible job just so they can get affordable health coverage under a group plan, covering a pre-existing condition. They can find a better job that makes them happy, or even better, be entreprenurial and start their OWN business. Be their own boss, and do something they enjoy. I know a woman who took a job at Starbucks, not because she loves opening a coffee shop at 5 a.m. every day.... but because her husband's insurance wouldn't cover her and their son for under $800+ a month. So she works at Starbucks simply to get insurance, and a small paycheck. Under the ACA she could work where she wants, or stay home to raise her child.

Did this scenario state that the employees did not HAVE insurance because the employer dumped it?

Sure, it would be nice to keep your insurance plan regardless of what job you have, but you still have to PAY for it if it is not job related. And you still need a job. When a company quits offering insurance, they don't give the employees a raise. None of these poor people without insurance are suddenly going to have more money to pay for that insurance. As far as I have been able to see, the cheapest plan is going to be at least $1000 a year, and that is $1000 I do not have. So, if i lose my insurance, I will be screwed.

It is true that people would be more likely to quit if they have no benefits at their job. But with the job market like it is, they would be foolish to do so without having another job of at least equal pay before quitting. And that is tough right now.

I had intended my job to be part time so that I could have health insurance and stable hours when my business is slow. But business has been SO slow these past few years that it has turned into a hobby most of the year, and I am depending on my job as my sole means of income. It isn't great pay, but it is stable (I have high seniority), and I do have good health insurance (currently). My contract is currently expired, and every time our contract is negotiated, our health care plan gets adjusted. A couple times, it meant an improvement (added the HRA program, better coverage). But the last few times have been bad adjustments. Higher premiums (still very low, but used to be 0), more hoops to jump through (or we lose the HRA account and pay a higher deductible). ER deductible has gone up. Incentives that were optional are becoming required. And usually, they don't tell us about these things when we vote on the contract. They just come as a surprise when the annual event comes up to keep or change our current level. (HMO or PPO plan). I pay more to keep the PPO plan. This year, I have no hopes of a raise (usually, we are lucky to get 25 cents an hour raise. The most I ever got was 50 cents an hour, 6 years ago.). I am just praying we don't go down on health benefits. Or lose Sunday and Holiday pay. I work almost every holiday except Christmas. I only escape that one due to seniority.

[Goofproof]

Well you know how much an auto body shop pulls in? A sh-tload of money, that's how much. One of the best rackets in town to be in. The scratches and miniscule ding on my door are going to set my insurance company back +$2,500, and me another $500. Every thing, down to the last millimeter of work, is billed. Even removing and replacing door handles is billed out. And not a dime does the jerk owner spend to insure his workers!

... this new law will be a life saver and finally give them the ability to tell bosses like the one at that body shop that goodbye, they are going to go and find themselves a better job!

As someone of a very different political bent, I agree with the problem but not the solution. I don't think the answer is for the government to leave the workers at the mercy of powerful employers and then trying to micro regulate those employers and businesses into behaving the way they want them to. In my opinion, the better solution is to remove as many barriers to entry as possible. The best check on that body shop is the employees saying, "screw you, we pooled a little cash, rented a garage bay across town, and stole that customer. We're doing the job for $2250 + $250, saving them money, and still making more money after paying the rent by not giving you a cut. All the regulations, licenses, insurances, inspections, permits, employment law, payroll accounting, sexual harassment training rules, sales tax reporting requirements, etc that are intended to protect the customers and employees eventually end up leaving them at the mercy of giant corporations because the alternatives are impossible. How can he employees possibly do anything other than exchange one big powerful employer for another? It's not like the minimum wage gardener can just go buy a lawn mower and tell the boss what he can go do to himself.

I bought a lawn mower when I was 14 with money I earned, it was my first real jobs. Three years later I was a senior driving a 3 year old car paid for totally by me hard work. That's the way it used to be in the old U.S. A., before we became entitled by socialism. Jim

[MastrHiram]

The fact that the people who shoved this lousy piece of legislation down our throats made sure that they are exempt from it should be all anyone needs to know about how much of a disaster it is.

[NateS]

What right does the government have to decide that I should have medical coverage or not?

Where are you going with this kind of argument? Hmmm, let me help you:

What right does the government have to decide that you should have a drivers license or not?

What right does the government have to decide that you should have automobile insurance or not?

What right does the government have to decide that you should pay sales taxes or not?

What right does the government have to decide that you should pay income taxes or not?

What right does the government have to decide that you should wear seat belts or not?

What right does the government have to decide that you should have taxes deducted in advance from your paycheck or not?

What right does the government have to decide that you should have fluoride in your tap water or not?

What right does the government have to decide that you should have fire department protection or not?

What right does the government have to decide that you should have police protection or not?

There, do you feel better now?

Nate

[49er]

What right does the government have to decide that I should have medical coverage or not?

Where are you going with this kind of argument? Hmmm, let me help you:

What right does the government have to decide that you should have a drivers license or not?

What right does the government have to decide that you should have automobile insurance or not?

What right does the government have to decide that you should pay sales taxes or not?

What right does the government have to decide that you should pay income taxes or not?

What right does the government have to decide that you should wear seat belts or not?

What right does the government have to decide that you should have taxes deducted in advance from your paycheck or not?

What right does the government have to decide that you should have fluoride in your tap water or not?

What right does the government have to decide that you should have fire department protection or not?

What right does the government have to decide that you should have police protection or not?

There, do you feel better now?

Nate

I wish there was a "like" button because this one of the best responses Nate I have seen in the political threads. By the way, thankfully, the government decided I had the right to have fire protection because otherwise, the apartment building I live in would have burned down when a fire started in the basement and quickly spread three years ago.

49er

[CapnLoki]

A big difference between capitalists and socialists is their respective perceptions on reality.

And the big similarity is that neither have ever come close to creating a desirable society.

Socialists focus more on relative relationships between people or things. One example of this would be relative poverty. Relative poverty focuses on wealth inequality and generally is associated with the idea that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer". Maybe this is true, maybe it is not, but socialists tend to promote wealth redistribution as a way of decreasing relative inequality.

Always with the "wealth redistribution" mantra. Its the perpetual cry of the Republicans. Like would be so much better if rich people paid no taxes at all. After all, they're the only ones who do any real work, their wealth proves that.

On the other hand, capitalists, such as myself, see things in absolute terms.

And you brag about this? So sad. Life isn't all black and white, there's a whole world of color out there - its called "reality."

While there may or may not be increasing relative inequality, it is an unquestionable fact that the poor, the middle class, and the rich have all gotten richer over time (as well as having increasing standards of living). Obviously the poor are much better off and have a greater standard of living than they did 20 years ago.

Really? A lot of data says otherwise. Not a lot of the great wealth created recently has "trickled down," and many of the improvements in our lives were decried as "socialist" when implemented.

While socialism may make people relatively less unequal, all it can accomplish is make people equally poor. It does nothing to advance the standard of living of the lot of the ordinary man. Also, as Milton Friedman noted:

"The only way in which you can effectively redistribute wealth is by destroying the incentive to create wealth"

When Friedman said this he was talking in absolute terms, i.e. total redistribution. In the same talk he discussed the negative incentive of a 100% estate tax. He was also an advocate of a "Negative Income Tax" where those below a certain income get money back from the government, so you can hardly use him as an advocate for zero redistrabution.

I believe Liberty is the highest political end. And history has shown us that ultimately everyone is better off if we aim for liberty rather than equality.

No, we all sacrifice some of our liberty for the common good. Do we have the liberty to drink and drive? Capitalists are always talk about taking responsibility, but the essence of corporations is "limited liability."

NOTE: Leftists often blame recent relative inequality on capitalism. They don't often realize that the very people who are politically connected are often times the ones who make enormous fortunes and that this is not the fault of capitalism, but rather crony capitalism. Also, the value of the dollar has dropped dramatically since the creation of the federal reserve. This is no doubt that inflation is a mechanism by which the politically well connected can make loads of money by effectively stealing from everyone else. None of this is the fault of capitalism.

Perhaps some leftest believe this. Most of the "Left of the Tea Party" world blames excessive greed and corruption. The derivative manipulations that caused the recent meltdown could be hailed as the epitome of the Capitalistic Craft. But you're now saying that isn't the fault of "capitalism," its the fault of some "other" group of evil people, who perverted the pure system for their own evil purposes. So I suppose the "true capitalists" banded together to punish the evil doers? No?

The natural outgrowth of pure capitalism is the feudal system that has dominated much of the world for most of the last several thousand years. In recent centuries Europe and America has struck a balance between a mostly capitalistic economy and a strong social support system that some "absolutists" mistakenly call socialist. Its true that some countries provide more support then others, but the US is certainly among the least "socialist."

All viable societies have found a balance between providing for the common welfare, while having incentive for growth and innovation.

[NateS]

A big difference between capitalists and socialists is their respective perceptions on reality.

And the big similarity is that neither have ever come close to creating a desirable society.

Socialists focus more on relative relationships between people or things. One example of this would be relative poverty. Relative poverty focuses on wealth inequality and generally is associated with the idea that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer". Maybe this is true, maybe it is not, but socialists tend to promote wealth redistribution as a way of decreasing relative inequality.

Always with the "wealth redistribution" mantra. Its the perpetual cry of the Republicans. Like would be so much better if rich people paid no taxes at all. After all, they're the only ones who do any real work, their wealth proves that.

On the other hand, capitalists, such as myself, see things in absolute terms.

And you brag about this? So sad. Life isn't all black and white, there's a whole world of color out there - its called "reality."

While there may or may not be increasing relative inequality, it is an unquestionable fact that the poor, the middle class, and the rich have all gotten richer over time (as well as having increasing standards of living). Obviously the poor are much better off and have a greater standard of living than they did 20 years ago.

Really? A lot of data says otherwise. Not a lot of the great wealth created recently has "trickled down," and many of the improvements in our lives were decried as "socialist" when implemented.

While socialism may make people relatively less unequal, all it can accomplish is make people equally poor. It does nothing to advance the standard of living of the lot of the ordinary man. Also, as Milton Friedman noted:

"The only way in which you can effectively redistribute wealth is by destroying the incentive to create wealth"

When Friedman said this he was talking in absolute terms, i.e. total redistribution. In the same talk he discussed the negative incentive of a 100% estate tax. He was also an advocate of a "Negative Income Tax" where those below a certain income get money back from the government, so you can hardly use him as an advocate for zero redistrabution.

I believe Liberty is the highest political end. And history has shown us that ultimately everyone is better off if we aim for liberty rather than equality.

No, we all sacrifice some of our liberty for the common good. Do we have the liberty to drink and drive? Capitalists are always talk about taking responsibility, but the essence of corporations is "limited liability."

NOTE: Leftists often blame recent relative inequality on capitalism. They don't often realize that the very people who are politically connected are often times the ones who make enormous fortunes and that this is not the fault of capitalism, but rather crony capitalism. Also, the value of the dollar has dropped dramatically since the creation of the federal reserve. This is no doubt that inflation is a mechanism by which the politically well connected can make loads of money by effectively stealing from everyone else. None of this is the fault of capitalism.

Perhaps some leftest believe this. Most of the "Left of the Tea Party" world blames excessive greed and corruption. The derivative manipulations that caused the recent meltdown could be hailed as the epitome of the Capitalistic Craft. But you're now saying that isn't the fault of "capitalism," its the fault of some "other" group of evil people, who perverted the pure system for their own evil purposes. So I suppose the "true capitalists" banded together to punish the evil doers? No?

The natural outgrowth of pure capitalism is the feudal system that has dominated much of the world for most of the last several thousand years. In recent centuries Europe and America has struck a balance between a mostly capitalistic economy and a strong social support system that some "absolutists" mistakenly call socialist. Its true that some countries provide more support then others, but the US is certainly among the least "socialist."

All viable societies have found a balance between providing for the common welfare, while having incentive for growth and innovation.

WELL SAID! BRAVO!

Regards, Nate